Remington factory barrels

[lefthandaction]

Does any one know how good out of the box remington 700 barrels ( standard sporter weight ) are performing, last 5 or six years of mfg, and what kind of groups should one really expect from using good reloads?

 

[jasonf]

With decent bedding, a tuned trigger and a bit a load development effort, 0.5 MoA is quite achieveable from many (but not all) factory Remington barreled actions.

 

[Rustystud]

Some have been very good and others want grow straight tomato plants. They are not of the quality of a good after market barrel.

Nat Lambeth

 

[shortgrass]

With decent bedding, a tuned trigger and a bit a load development effort, 0.5 MoA is quite achieveable from factory Remington barreled actions.

It's a 'crap shoot'! Some shoot pretty well, some aren't worth the steel they're made of.

 

[jasonf]

With decent bedding, a tuned trigger and a bit a load development effort, 0.5 MoA is quite achieveable from factory Remington barreled actions.

It's a 'crap shoot'! Some shoot pretty well, some aren't worth the steel they're made of.

I typed my post quickly and realised I missed a word. I meant to say "many" factory Remington barreled actions can shoot well. Shortgrass is right. It is definitely a crap shoot, and even the good ones foul and take a lot more cleaning than a good custom barrel. Apologies.

 

[p-man]

Most of the Remington police or military 5r type barrels are decent - sporter barrels are a definite roll of the dice - I can not speak with experience with factory varmit barrels or target barrels - I 'm a hunter not a competitive shooter - that being said my personal observations:

1) Every Winchester (New Haven) I've owned has shot extremely well. Bores look more cleanly cut and chambered than my Remingtons. Have not looked at the new FN (Columbia,SC) barrels.
2) I've owned more Remingtons than anything else - love the actions but not happy with their barrels - very rough machine marks in the bore - especially laterally - sometimes sloppy rough chambering.
3) I've had two Howa's - 30-06 shot well; 6.5x55 did not - both barrels looked very good with the scope.
4) Savage, especially the new stuff I've shot are damned accurate right out the box. I don't currently own one but have shot others' Savage rifles and scoped their barrels - all looked very clean with no slop in the chambers.

I don't know what brand action you have but if you decide to try one of the above, my advice is to ensure you can return it after inspection if not satisfied - find someone who has a Hawkeye borescope witha 90 degree tip and take a look at the bore - anyone who has a borescope should be able to show you what "bad-OK-good-better-best" bores look like. It's pretty educational comparing mass-produced factory barrels with what the stand-alone barrel-makers turn out. Sometimes the worst part of a factory barrel is the beginning lands in the chamber area - some are pretty 'chewed up' looking even in new take-off barrel - if your gunsmith can set it back a bit and rechamber you may end up with a hunter-grade shooter. While you're at, it's a good idea to also re-crown the barrel.

Don't know whether this helps or not, but only you can judge if the trial and error of rebarreling with a factory take-off is less troublesome and less expensive than rebarreling with a custom barrel. Good luck.

 

[X Ring Accuracy]

Borescoping a barrel is only part of the equation. I have seen bore scoped barrels that look like a lunar surface shoot like a banshee. In my skewed opinion, if the factory gets a good square lock up on the receiver face/ barrel shoulder, they cut the chamber inline, and crown it square.....it will shoot. Like said, roll of the dice. I have many times taken a customers Rem rifle looking to save a few bucks, set the barrel back, trued the action, crowned it and it is a real 1/2 moa gun with a factory barrel. I always tell them we are bound by their barrel but it has always helped the final outcome. Their hammer forging process can be good, a bitch to cut, lol. More info than you were asking.