Remington Model Seven Custom Build...who has one?
- Thread starter redhaven
- Start date
Thinking about getting one in 260 or 7-08
But only have these two, the bottom one is one of my favorite walking varmint rifles
17 Fireball on a trued model 7 with a Pacnor barrel in a HS stock with a Jewel trigger
20 VarTarg
Trued Rem Mod 7
Rock Creek 24" 11 twist #3 contour SSM
Jewell trigger
Mcmillan Hunter stock
Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40 with VHR
But only have these two, the bottom one is one of my favorite walking varmint rifles
17 Fireball on a trued model 7 with a Pacnor barrel in a HS stock with a Jewel trigger
20 VarTarg
Trued Rem Mod 7
Rock Creek 24" 11 twist #3 contour SSM
Jewell trigger
Mcmillan Hunter stock
Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40 with VHR
Originally Posted By: Rich44Thinking about getting one in 260 or 7-08
But only have these two, the bottom one is one of my favorite walking varmint rifles
20 VarTarg
Trued Rem Mod 7
Rock Creek 24" 11 twist #3 contour SSM
Jewell trigger
Mcmillan Hunter stock
Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40 with VHR
The 20VarTarg is sweet. I like that stock.
But only have these two, the bottom one is one of my favorite walking varmint rifles
20 VarTarg
Trued Rem Mod 7
Rock Creek 24" 11 twist #3 contour SSM
Jewell trigger
Mcmillan Hunter stock
Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40 with VHR
The 20VarTarg is sweet. I like that stock.
Those that have built semi customs off of these Model sevens, did your gunsmith open up the rear action hole to 1/4-28 threads like the 700's?
I think it's fairly common for them to get opened up to the same as the 700's and even if it's a factory stock rifle and you wanted to go with the larger rear action screw, it shouldn't cost all that much.
I think it's fairly common for them to get opened up to the same as the 700's and even if it's a factory stock rifle and you wanted to go with the larger rear action screw, it shouldn't cost all that much.
HogThumper
Member
I'm building a Model Seven in 6.5 Grendel. My 1:8.5" barrel blank came in recently. I haven't found a stock, yet.
Originally Posted By: GCAre you guys retaining the factory rear action screw? I've had two of those break within the last year. The screw has sheared off leaving a portion stuck in the rear tang. Pissing me off pretty good!
Same as Dave mine are bedded with pillars and barely torqued
Same as Dave mine are bedded with pillars and barely torqued
GC
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: DAAOriginally Posted By: GCAre you guys retaining the factory rear action screw?
I always have. But I've always pillar bedded the stocks and never put much torque on the rear screw. I mean not much at all.
- DAA
That is a tiny frail little sucker. Remington should have their azz kicked for that.
I always have. But I've always pillar bedded the stocks and never put much torque on the rear screw. I mean not much at all.
- DAA
That is a tiny frail little sucker. Remington should have their azz kicked for that.
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: DAAOriginally Posted By: GCAre you guys retaining the factory rear action screw?
I always have. But I've always pillar bedded the stocks and never put much torque on the rear screw. I mean not much at all.
- DAA
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have 5 of the Model 7 rifles and I've never had a problem. Too much torqueing probably can break the rear screw, but doing so gains you absolutely nothing. So why do it?
The front screw is the screw that holds the action in place securely. The back screw is just an anchor for the back of the action, and it doesn't need to be torqued hard on any rifle action, whether the action is well bedded or not. Just securely snugged/tightened is all that is needed or required.
Glassing or pillar bedding an action is the answer to action creep in a stock. Over tightening the action stock screws is never an answer.
I always have. But I've always pillar bedded the stocks and never put much torque on the rear screw. I mean not much at all.
- DAA
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have 5 of the Model 7 rifles and I've never had a problem. Too much torqueing probably can break the rear screw, but doing so gains you absolutely nothing. So why do it?
The front screw is the screw that holds the action in place securely. The back screw is just an anchor for the back of the action, and it doesn't need to be torqued hard on any rifle action, whether the action is well bedded or not. Just securely snugged/tightened is all that is needed or required.
Glassing or pillar bedding an action is the answer to action creep in a stock. Over tightening the action stock screws is never an answer.
James Knight
New member
I've owned several semi customs. My smith always upgraded the rear action screw too. I liked the factory synthetic, pillar bedded and liked the Sporter contour barrels, either take-off ( one was a 220 Swift Mod 700 Classic barrel) another was a factory take-off 22-250. It's a sweetheart of an action. I also had Kepplinger set triggers added.
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: GCTorqued to factory specification. Some research suggest Remington had a run of bad action screws. Not gonna deal with that itty bitty screw again.
With all due respect, it sounds like you "bottomed" the screw out in the closed action area on the Model 7 action and you kept torquing. If the screw bottoms, its too long for the stock it's in and it needs to be shortened.
Using a manufacturer's recommended torque specification is not always the best bet. Sometimes the specs are there to overcome the negative effects of bad stocks. The old "Bolt it in tight and it won't dare move..." concept
I've never re-torqued a Remington rifle to how it came from the factory as it's not needed for good accuracy. As an example, maybe 15 years ago Remington brought out the very practical LVSF rifles and many new users were upset because the rifles shot very high at 100 yards, sometimes beyond the adjustment ability of the scope that they mounted. The barrels were touching the front end of the stock via two speed bumps. Easing off on the action screw torque solved the scope problems and actually improved accuracy in most of them. But the bad name calling, largely a result of over tightening the action screws, killed off a very practical and nice handling rifle that was not designed to have a free floating barrel. Some owners got rid of the speed bumps and gorilla-torqued the rifles back into the stocks and went on. Some it helped but not all of them benefited from the alterations. Also proof that free floating a barrel is not a cure-all for other issues.
With all due respect, it sounds like you "bottomed" the screw out in the closed action area on the Model 7 action and you kept torquing. If the screw bottoms, its too long for the stock it's in and it needs to be shortened.
Using a manufacturer's recommended torque specification is not always the best bet. Sometimes the specs are there to overcome the negative effects of bad stocks. The old "Bolt it in tight and it won't dare move..." concept
I've never re-torqued a Remington rifle to how it came from the factory as it's not needed for good accuracy. As an example, maybe 15 years ago Remington brought out the very practical LVSF rifles and many new users were upset because the rifles shot very high at 100 yards, sometimes beyond the adjustment ability of the scope that they mounted. The barrels were touching the front end of the stock via two speed bumps. Easing off on the action screw torque solved the scope problems and actually improved accuracy in most of them. But the bad name calling, largely a result of over tightening the action screws, killed off a very practical and nice handling rifle that was not designed to have a free floating barrel. Some owners got rid of the speed bumps and gorilla-torqued the rifles back into the stocks and went on. Some it helped but not all of them benefited from the alterations. Also proof that free floating a barrel is not a cure-all for other issues.
Originally Posted By: Winny Fan
As an example, maybe 15 years ago Remington brought out the very practical LVSF rifles and many new users were upset because the rifles shot very high at 100 yards, sometimes beyond the adjustment ability of the scope that they mounted.
I had an LVSF in .221 Fireball. It shot well, but as you said I took the stock off, adj the trigger and didn't torque back down too tight. I regret selling that rifle. Sold it to fund a custom CZ 527 .221 Fireball, and while it is a great rifle, I do miss the LVSF.
As an example, maybe 15 years ago Remington brought out the very practical LVSF rifles and many new users were upset because the rifles shot very high at 100 yards, sometimes beyond the adjustment ability of the scope that they mounted.
I had an LVSF in .221 Fireball. It shot well, but as you said I took the stock off, adj the trigger and didn't torque back down too tight. I regret selling that rifle. Sold it to fund a custom CZ 527 .221 Fireball, and while it is a great rifle, I do miss the LVSF.
Last edited:
