How important (or not) is it to have a Rem 700 action trued and(or?) blueprinted?

[NorthIdahoDude]

So, I have a Remington 700 that I got from a friend that I'm kind of sentimental about. The gun originally had a sewer pipe for a bore (rust, rust, more rust), and was about a 3.5 to 4 MOA shooter, which wasn't not shocking - it was more shocking that a bullet would go through the barrel and not get stuck in the rust!

So I swapped out the barrel for a Criterion Remage (30-06) from Northland. Since it's just a hunting gun and anything around 1 MOA was going to make me happy, I had the smith forgo doing any work on the action other than swapping the barrel and headspacing, and he seemed to agree with my thought that since I am not trying to build a 1/4 MOA bench gun, just a MOA-ish hunting rifle, that it should be fine to go that route.

Long story short - we made some very solid improvements over the 3.5 MOA sewer pipe, but I'm still struggling to get a load that'll come in under 1.75MOA consistently, and I'm wondering if the blame is more the barrel or if it's my bad for not having the action trued up/blueprinted/whatever you call it.

And before everyone asks, yes, the action is bedded into the stock, yes, the scope bases and rings are tight, yes the scope is one I've verified good on other rifles - so while it's possible I'm missing something minor, I don't think I'm missing anything major enough to make a 1MOA a 2MOA gun. Have tried AccuBond's (150, 165, and 180s), ELD-X's (178's), 168 SMK's, IMR and H 4350, N555 (the best of all the things I tried), N160, Hunter, Varget (with the 150s), and Staball 6.5 - so I'm feeling like I've covered the 'known good components' bit pretty good. And I load for several other rifles that shoot great, so I'm feeling like my loading process/techniques are reasonable.

Discuss and vote, please and thanks.

EDIT TO ADD: when I say "come in under 1.75 MOA" - I mean 10 rounds or more, if I was just knocking out 3 shot groups, this one shoots around 1 MOA 3 out of 5 times ish.

 

[WyoBC_99]

following because I have a sentimental Rem700 as well ...

 

[alexnelon]

Not making any assumptions, just covering bases, because there are a lot of human people who can't shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards regardless of the rifle.

Do you have experience shooting groups tighter than 1.75 moa with "heavy" recoiling cartridges?

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

Not making any assumptions, just covering bases, because there are a lot of human people who can't shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards regardless of the rifle.

Do you have experience shooting groups tighter than 1.75 moa with "heavy" recoiling cartridges?

Short answer - 100% yes.

Long answer - per the recoil calculator at kwk.us, my 7.25lb scope-and-all Tikka in 308 produced 12.5 FPS and 17.6lbs of recoil. My 8.8 lb scope and all 30-06 in this case produces 11.4 FPS and 17.7 ft-lbs - so nearly identical for all practical purposes. I drilled many sub-1/2 MOA 5 round groups with that 308 Tikka, and on several occasions, I drilled 30 round groups that came in around 0.9 inches.

My old Tikka in 270 WSM put out around 15 FPS and 25.5 ft-lbs (1.25 MOA), my 5.5lb scope-and-all Howa Super lite is 16 FPS and 22.5 FPS recoil, also shoots good (around 1.4 MOA over large samples, the first 3 from cold bore are touching 9 out of 10 times).

 

[wind gypsy]

Seems like a hard thing to answer conclusively? Lots of accurate 700s out there with zero truing/blueprinting and i assume a wide scale of how much an action could be improved. Some are probably pretty straight with good ignition.

Without a solid smith going through the action, who knows?

 

[casey36]

I dont know about a remage barrel, but in a std. rebarrel you might as well square and true the action. Lapping the lugs always gets done on my rifles also . I want to give the rifle every chance to shoot. If everything is true and square to the bore you have less stress, less run out, and a much better chance of the bullet entering and leaving the bore more constantly shot to shot.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

I dont know about a remage barrel, but in a std. rebarrel you might as well square and true the action. Lapping the lugs always gets done on my rifles also . I want to give the rifle every chance to shoot. If everything is true and square to the bore you have less stress, less run out, and a much better chance of the bullet entering and leaving the bore more constantly shot to shot.

I don't know if "might as well" is a phrase I would use with a +$200 and +a couple weeks (or more) wait for a project, but I'm also not opposed if it really makes that big a difference. It just seems implausible to me that it would be the difference between a 2MOA gun and a 3/4 MOA gun for example (but I obviously don't really know, or I wouldn't be asking the question here).

 

[alexnelon]

Since you know it's the gun, I personally would recrown the barrel first and then if it still doesn't shoot, go from there.

In general, the action is already square enough that it won't make a noticeable difference. I'd be stunned if doing that got your groups down by more than 1/8 inch. Definitely not 3/4 inch-plus.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

Since you know it's the gun, I personally would recrown the barrel first and then if it still doesn't shoot, go from there.

In general, the action is already square enough that it won't make a noticeable difference. I'd be stunned if doing that got your groups down by more than 1/8 inch. Definitely not 3/4 inch-plus.

That is more/less what my thoughts are on it, but I have those thoughts based on assumptions, not from things I've observed from experience.

 

[BBob]

How important (or not) is it to have a Rem 700 action trued and(or?) blueprinted?


A big part of answering that question depends on what era/series of Model 700 you are talking about.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

How important (or not) is it to have a Rem 700 action trued and(or?) blueprinted?


A big part of answering that question depends on what era/series of Model 700 you are talking about.

Early to mid 80's if I'm not mistaken. Definitely not Rem's best work in at least one observable way; the front/rear scope base screw holes are so far out of alignment with each other that I'm running Burris Signature rings with the inserts on them to avoid twisting my scope into a "U" (yes, there is some hyperbole in evidence in that statement, LOL).

 

[TaperPin]

My most accurate 700 wasn’t blueprinted or even faced off when rebarreled, but the face of the receiver was fairly flat and measuring from the receiver face to bolt face was close from side to side so the guy doing the work didn’t think anything was needed and it wasn’t. If blueprinting Remingtons made even 1/4 MOA difference, heck 1/8 MOA, every barrel maker in the country would highly suggest it.

Most gunsmiths seem to have stopped blueprinting Remingtons because it doesn’t gain much and better machined custom receivers are relatively inexpensive. Lapping bolt lugs slightly so it has at least some contact on both lugs is probably a good idea.

If you look into how many smiths are “blueprinting” it ranges from good techniques to not really doing much. Take the receiver threads for example. Properly set up in a lathe and single point cut the slightly oversize threads will be in line with how the receiver was dialed in. However, if the smith is using tap centered on a rod with the rod held in with bushings, there are tolerances at each point and on an alignment shaft or not, a tap will try to follow the old threads for better or worse. The tap is 10x faster, and time is money, so guess which one gets used.

Same for using a reamer to “straighten” the interior diameter - any reamer will follow the hole rather than straighten it much. It will be larger for sure.

Even alignment rods used to get a receiver dialed in for lathe work are not created equal. Some batches from respected sources have turned out to have a lot of runout and I find it disturbing how many guys couldn’t tell you what the runout is on their rods.

Every part of the process goes like that.

Now that I have a number of barrels for my primary receiver and treat it much like a switch barrel gun, the next couple Remingtons that I come across for their receivers I’ll swap a few barrels between the two to show to the nephew that it makes very little difference which receiver is used and an accurate barrel will be accurate whatever it’s screwed onto as long as the ignition system is well maintained. However, without a doubt gummed up firing pins and weak springs will affect accuracy. A new spring every 5-10 years and cleaning the inside of the bolt once a year is cheap insurance and only costs $20.

The evidence bolt blueprinting makes little difference comes from the third party replacement bolts that are talked up as stronger, more accurate, bla bla bla. Every couple years in a forum with competitive shooters (who constantly tinker with their rifles) I’ll ask if anyone has heard of a replacement bolt making a rifle more accurate, even 1/16 MOA, and I’ve never had a single person say yes. That’s dimensional accuracy of the lugs/face/body, most of the ignition system, firing pin diameter, and a more accurate interior of the bolt for firing pin alignment and better friction surfaces.

 

[BBob]

Early to mid 80's if I'm not mistaken. Definitely not Rem's best work in at least one observable way; the front/rear scope base screw holes are so far out of alignment with each other that I'm running Burris Signature rings with the inserts on them to avoid twisting my scope into a "U" (yes, there is some hyperbole in evidence in that statement, LOL).

Not the worst era but still could potentially use some work. Almost all 700's rear bridge have a low corner skewing things. Looks like you are aware of that. I have an early 80's 700 with only the receiver face trued (didn't take much) and shoots very respectable with a good barrel. Original lug contact was pretty good and was touched up with a small amount of lapping. It's had the fire control (fire pin, cocking piece, pin fall, pin protrusion, etc...) gone through as well.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

Not the worst era but still could potentially use some work. Almost all 700's rear bridge have a low corner skewing things. Looks like you are aware of that. I have an early 80's 700 with only the receiver face trued (didn't take much) and shoots very respectable with a good barrel. Original lug contact was pretty good and was touched up with a small amount of lapping. It's had the fire control (fire pin, cocking piece, pin fall, pin protrusion, etc...) gone through as well.

Yeah, both my 700 and my Rem 78 (basically also a 700) have the 'lower corner' thing going on (the 700 worse than the 78, ironically). To be fair though, my old flat-back Savage, my Interams Mauser Mark-X, my Howa, probably all the other rifles I've ever owned that weren't Tikka's had some degree of the same problem.