"The World's strongest bolt action"

[reynolds357]

The Mk V action was developed long after the 721. At the time of introduction, the 721 was indeed the world's strongest, based on the torture test I mentioned above.

Remington is making the claim Today. They are not saying "were." They are implying that they currently are.

 

[Paul B.]

"When Nosler came out with their 26 (264) Weatherby came out with the 6.5-300."

The 6.5-300 Wby was originally a wildcat round in the 70's used as a long range (1,000yd) target round. Nothing new. IIRC, barrel life was extremely short.
It was originally called the 6.5 Weatherby-Wright- Hoyer by the people who originated the cartridge. I saw the article in IIRC RIFLE or HANDLOADER Magazine.
Paul B.

 

[LineStretcher]

"When Nosler came out with their 26 (264) Weatherby came out with the 6.5-300."

The 6.5-300 Wby was originally a wildcat round in the 70's used as a long range (1,000yd) target round. Nothing new. IIRC, barrel life was extremely short.
It was originally called the 6.5 Weatherby-Wright- Hoyer by the people who originated the cartridge. I saw the article in IIRC RIFLE or HANDLOADER Magazine.
Paul B.

That is correct. Roy had worked on developing it but it never went to production. In 2016 it was re-introduced as an answer to the Nosler 26. It is currently touted as the fastest 6.5 available. In reality, it is just a marketing/current trend rifle. The .257 Weatherby is faster. I own both rifles in the Mark V Deluxe versions.

 

[jmr40]

There was time when many self educated gunsmiths working out of a shop in the backyard were experimenting with wildcat cartridges without any way of actually testing anything. Having an overly strong action to work with was a good idea.

For my purposes this is simply irrelevant.

 

[DPris]

Where's the Remington ad saying the 700 is the strongest?
Denis

 

[reynolds357]

Where's the Remington ad saying the 700 is the strongest?
Denis

Saw the ad on Bone Collectors TV show last week.

 

[DPris]

Thanks. Anywhere else?
Denis

 

[Art Eatman]

This is the sort of claim that I generally ignore. First off, the 700 does just fine with factory pressures and loading handbook maximum pressures.

After that, I'd have to do comparison of designs, one aspect being the cross-sectiional areas of the lugs, since they are subject to shear forces.

Then I'd have to know the metallurgy. The alloy; the heat treatment.

Absent that knowledge, you'll excuse me; time for a beer. Seems to me that this is just another deal about angels dancing on pinheads.

 

[reynolds357]

Thanks. Anywhere else?
Denis

One of the other shows also ran it. Don't remember which. The ad shows them shooting a new chassis 700 and talks about all the new engineers and new engineering going into the 700.

 

[LineStretcher]

This is the sort of claim that I generally ignore. First off, the 700 does just fine with factory pressures and loading handbook maximum pressures.

After that, I'd have to do comparison of designs, one aspect being the cross-sectiional areas of the lugs, since they are subject to shear forces.

Then I'd have to know the metallurgy. The alloy; the heat treatment.

Absent that knowledge, you'll excuse me; time for a beer. Seems to me that this is just another deal about angels dancing on pinheads.

Art, I'm with you.. It's marketing and you can basically say whatever you want until someone proves you wrong. When that happens, you quickly pull that campaign and flood the world with a new one.

 

[JRR]

A much more interesting discussion question would be. Which receiver is the safest?
I keep going back to the flanged bolt shroud or the three rings of steel. Two large bolt lugs or smaller more numerous.
On rare occasions, some careless individual might load a large 30 cal case to the top with bullseye. To make something totally idiot proof would add unacceptable weight and bulk.

 

[DPris]

That chassis 700 is kinda neat.
If I were ten years younger I think I'da kept the one I had here.

I'm looking for an ad so I can see or hear the exact wording on the strength claims.
I'm curious about what they'd base 'em on.

Denis

 

[reinert]

Here's a historical reference to the claim, in the paragraph right above the picture of Mike Walker:

www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/remington-timeline-1962-remington-model-700-bolt-action-rifles/248392

 

[LineStretcher]

A much more interesting discussion question would be. Which receiver is the safest?
I keep going back to the flanged bolt shroud or the three rings of steel. Two large bolt lugs or smaller more numerous.
On rare occasions, some careless individual might load a large 30 cal case to the top with bullseye. To make something totally idiot proof would add unacceptable weight and bulk.

When you have the opportunity, take a look at what Roy Weatherby did when he designed the 9 lug Mark V action. I would love to see a head to head test by both Weatherby and Remington since they both claim to have the strongest actions.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...saw a commercial..." Marketing departments say stuff like that all the time. Not enough people care to make 'em prove it.
"...the Enfield m1914 and 1917..." Don't recall if they were considered when the Arisaka was tested and found to be stronger than any Allied bolt action after W.W. II.
"...cartridge head separation..." Has nothing to do with the strength of the rifle.

 

[tdoyka]

i'll stay with the pinnacle of bolt actions, the 1898 mauser.

 

[Longshot4]

I remember years ago that the 1917 Remington endfield was very strong. I had one that was re barreled and sporterized by P.O. Ackley to a 257 Roberts. My gun smith had a hard time installing a scope mount do to how hard the action was.

 

[reynolds357]

I remember years ago that the 1917 Remington endfield was very strong. I had one that was re barreled and sporterized by P.O. Ackley to a 257 Roberts. My gun smith had a hard time installing a scope mount do to how hard the action was.

Hard does not necessarily mean strong. Hard quite often means brittle.

 

[Wyosmith]

^
^
^ This is true.
However the only 1917s that were super hard to a point of being britle as a rule are the Eddystones. And not all of them by a large margin either The Remingtons and the Winchesters were just fine, and yes, they are SUPER strong.
I don't know how the 1917s and 1914s compare to the CZs or the new Japanese Weatherby Mk5s but I can tell you that they are strong in the extreme.
I have seen a number of Remington 721s and 700s destroyed by idiotic hand loaded and by firing wrong ammo, as well as one that was fired with a barrel 1/2 full of ice. The receivers were set-back to a point they were un-salvageable, but in every case but one, all the shooters were unharmed. In the one case that there was bit of harm was the ice filled barrel where the man suffered some injury to his left hand.

In no case wound I say the fault laid with the action's design.

But to come full circle, I have to say the good 1917 and 1914 Enfields are indeed stronger then the M700. So is the CZ 602 and the CZ550. I am betting the Ruger 77 Mk2 is also. So is the Howa. So is the Weatherby Mk-5.

So no, the Rem 700 is NOT the worlds strongest bolt action. Not even in the top 3.

But it is about 50% stronger then it needs to be for any shooter but the most careless, and those that need a stronger action should not be allowed to have a pair of scissors--- let alone a rifle.

Once a rifle action is so strong that you can't blow it up (without liberal amounts of idiocy being added added) I think it's strong enough.

To make a point, I saw a Weatherby Mk5 about 6 years ago that was destroyed by a "hand load". It was a 7MM Weatherby Magnum.

A case full of IMR4198 instead of IMR4831 will do that for you nicely.

Nothing is foolproof because fools are too ingenious.

 

[DPris]

And sometimes too ingenious, too!
Denis