Rifles > Bolt-Action

The Remington 783

Remington’s newest bolt-action is an affordable, straight-shooting rifle.


For the most part, I'm a Remington 700 kind of guy. I don't buy into the notion that a control round feed rifle is better, or more reliable, than a push feed rifle. I also like my firearms made in America. My first center-fire rifle was a Remington 700. That was almost 35 years ago and, if I remember correctly, it cost about $400. It was a $400 rifle that would knock the white off a golf ball at 100 yards every time.

Remington's newest bolt-action rifle is the Model 783. The "7" in the model designation comes from the 700 line of rifles, the "8" is kind of a throwback to the affordable but reliable model 788, which was discontinued 20 years ago, and the "3" is for the three in 2013. The suggested retail price is $451, but you can expect street prices to be closer to $400.

Anytime a firearms manufacturer offers a bargain-priced rifle with claims that it will perform like a higher-priced model, shooters are skeptical. I'm no different. I've heard the same sales pitch numerous times, and there's always a catch or some sort of gimmick to the greatness. The 783 was no different; I needed proof.

In September 2012, I had an opportunity to be the first non-Remington guy to see and shoot the 783. Two Remington employees were preparing for a New Mexico Elk hunt with the 783, and we got together in a big West Virginia cow pasture to see how well this new rifle worked. We set up steel targets from 100 to 500 yards, and after zeroing four 783s we proceeded to burn through about a case of 7 mm Rem. Mag. ammunition.

The first thing I noticed was how easy the rifles were to sight in. I've sighted in enough rifles to know those that are not consistently capable of shooting sub two-inch, five-shot groups at 100 yards can become a nightmare. We did not have that problem. We zeroed four rifles with only one box of ammunition.

After that I got behind one of the 783s and fired six shots using the same point of aim. The first shot struck a bit high and I'll blame that one on first shot unfamiliarity. The next five printed a nice 1-inch group with Remington Premier ammunition loaded with Swift A-Frames bullets. For what it's worth, I've never had a lot of luck getting Swift bullets to print sub-inch groups in any rifle.

Next we backed off to 500 yards and proceeded to whack steel. It was no trouble to clean the course with the 783 from the bench. We even moved out among the cow patties and shot just as well from various field positions. I must add that we were aided by excellent Leupold CDS riflescopes. Equipped with ballistic correction dials for the ammunition we were using, all we had to do was dial in the range, hold dead on and pull the trigger. It was almost too easy. The 783 shot great and there were no mechanical issues encountered.

So, the 783 delivers on performance; as far as I'm concerned it functioned and shot every bit as well as my first model 700. But, what exactly is the Remington model 783?

According to John Fink, senior product manager for rifles with The Freedom Group, the model 783 was designed with accuracy, durability and reliability as key elements. It is intended to fill the gap between the Remington Model 770 and Model 700 SPS, and it is being built in America's largest rifle manufacturing facility located in Mayfield, Ky.

The 783 has a proprietary cylindrical receiver with a minimally sized ejection port. Both features add to the rigidity of the action. All 783s, regardless of caliber are fitted with either a 22- or 24-inch magnum contour barrel, which is attached via a barrel nut system similar to that used on Savage rifles and the Marlin X7 series of bolt-actions. Two Model 700 front scope bases can be used for scope mounting, but integral scope mounts will be available from Remington. Another nice feature is the bolt, which has dual, opposing locking lugs, a 90-degree throw and a sliding plate-style extractor that is more similar to a Sako or M16 extractor than the one used on the Remington 700.

The stock is synthetic and has an ergonomic appeal with both the trigger guard, and front and rear sling swivel studs molded in. It is attached to the barreled action with two screws that pass through pillars to ensure a free-floated barrel. And, to diminish felt recoil, a Remington SuperCell recoil pad is a standard feature.

The 783 also has a new consumer adjustable trigger, which leaves the factory set at 3.5 pounds. This trigger, which Remington calls the CrossFire Trigger System, is similar in appearance to the Savage AccuTrigger and the Marlin Pro-Fire Trigger; it has a center lever that locks the trigger until it is fully depressed. It is indeed a very nice trigger, and broke and felt, dare I say, as clean as a Timney trigger.

A detachable box magazine is also standard. The magazine fits flush with the bottom of the stock and the magazine release, which is recessed, is located at the front of the magazine well. The magazine was easy to load and cartridges fed into the chamber just as smoothly.

Initially, the model 783 will be available in three long-action cartridges: .270 Win., 30-06 Sprg. and 7 mm Rem. Mag., and one short-action cartridge: .308 Win. According to Fink, by mid 2013, additional long- and short-action chamberings will be available, as will rifles with stocks sized for shooters with smaller statures.

Anyway you look at it, the model 783 is big news. No, it's not a Remington 700, but as a friend of mine likes to say, "Few things are." But the 783 is a bolt-action rifle that shoots like a model 700 and costs as much as a 700 did 20 years ago. That's something special in today's economy. Actually, that's something special in any economy. It looks like Remington has pulled a rabbit out of the hat with the 783.

View the Remington 783 Photo Gallery

Share |



Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours

Your Name

Your Email

Your Comment

72 Responses to The Remington 783

Jeremy Fletcher wrote:
August 24, 2014

I have a 783 .270. After i shoot it and bolt the next bullet wont go in barrel. any suggestions

brooklyn hall wrote:
July 17, 2014

I bought a 783 cambered in .308 I love it the bolt is smooth the only thing is the sling studs I don't like em

ken R wrote:
May 18, 2014

i own a 700 sps 300 wsm bipod nikon scope mounted love the gun .Well went to the sport shop friday and there she was a rem mod 783 in a 7mm mag i shouldred it and went home with it 397.00 i was amazed how it shouldered it felt just like my 700 sps also own a 788 6mm it is a amazing rifle also the 783 at 100 yrds will go toe to toe with my 700 sps 300 wsm

Bob R wrote:
March 18, 2014

Like my 700s, This rifle? It is going to serve some people well. Is it any worse than any other inexpensive gun? Probably not. But you Savage guys are a pip. Savages like any other gun either shoot well or like crap. I had a 223 in a 12FV. 3/16' group with hand loads and I had a 11 American Classic in 308 win that was one of the two most inaccurate rifles that I've ever owned and I've owned a lot. The other worst? A Rem 700 Classic in 8mm Mauser. No matter what was put through these two guns they would group even after extensive handloading. They are all the greatest when they shoot and they all such when they don't. Honestly, I'd save some extra cash and buy a SPS or a Vanguard. Yeh the second one is a Jap gun but they're our friends and at least it ain't a Chinese gun.

James wrote:
January 24, 2014

All in all, every military that ever fought, has proved. If you put the right guy behind the trigger. In most cases, the shooter is going to drop something. I own a 783 in 30-06 because when it came out, I got it for under $300. I am quite happy with it. I zeroed it in, with the 5th shot. At 100 yards. My group was all touching. I found it to be a pleasant rifle. I was trained in the Army as a small arms expert, I taught 50 cal and down. So I have training and experience enough to say, it's a good gun

Wht89712 wrote:
January 04, 2014

I'm about tired of this 'Savage Wannabe' junk. If you have not held fired or worked with this rifle at all, keep your mouth shut. I own a Model 783 chambered in 7mm Rem. Mag. with a Nikon 4.5-14x40 and I'd go out from 100-500 yards and out shoot your rifles all day. Like I said you have no room to talk a rifle down on how it looks, looks do not determine anything on a rifle. If you've shot and handled it you wouldn't say anything down about it. This rifle I believe will have a legacy like the 700 did.

Riley wrote:
November 25, 2013

I was looking at a remington 30-06 model 783 what do you guys think about it? i want to know what the ups and downs of the gun are befor i purchase it

AlaskanEskimo wrote:
November 18, 2013

For an All-Weather rifle, I would always recommend a Ruger M77 Mark II of any caliber. My Favorite rifle is a Ruger M77 Mark II .270 Winchester with the Hogue Full-Bed stock. At 300 feet, I can shoot the dead center of the target all day long. Also, my rifle does not have a rust on it, and the weather here is always humid, windy, cold, and rainy/snowy. It still looks like brand new, and it never misses, no excuses.

jake wrote:
November 14, 2013

My dad and I have always been diehard remington men. He bought a used 700 bdl in 30-06 at the local gun shop for$225. Dad, my uncle, and myself shoot Against each other almost every weekend. My uncle shooting a savage 110 and I shooting a 783 now. My dad was the raining champ with consistent sub 3/4 inch groups at 100 and 1 inch groups at 200. My 783 shoots 1/2 inch groups at 100 and right jnder 1 inch at 200 My uncle can't even come close to haning with the remingtons.

t. goode wrote:
October 24, 2013

thanks mr. bloomberg and others for taking up for savage. i too as said before i own rem. to and others with big names and as i said i'm buying a 783 but savage is hard to beat i own 7 savages and shot fed. power shok ammo in all and shot cuttig hole for hole. took many white tails one shot one kill. im t. goode from wv. im not knocking rem. in no way i own several of them too. all im saying savage might be cheap but they shoot great for me. but you must try different ammo in your guns fed. works best for me . and soon as i get my 783 i will try all ammo. u guys who trash savage try fed. ammo im not trashing no company or rifle. i hope 783 works for me like i said before it might be the guy behind the gun not the gun . if you think bad of a gun you tend to shoot bad try all ammo and make every shot count hold it same rest cheek same. just like u shot a bow. some times u have to shoot different broadheads. same with rile good luck too u all and u too rem. i'll let u no what ammo is best for my 783 but savage is great cheap is not always bad u savage haters try fed. power shok. think bad shoot bad remember that. rem. i will let u no i'm thinking posiive. good luck rem. t. goode wv.

783owner wrote:
September 17, 2013

Yes you can fit a bipod on the frnt stud. I have a Harris BRMS on mine and it snugs down great. Just an added fyi. I love my fun. But you get what you pay for. I honestly dont have enough experience to sit here and claim it does anything another gun cant or anything like that. But it does the job, is a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, and hit paper at 100yds without being properly sighted in with a Nikon 4-12X40 on it. So i love it. But to each their own. 'Dont knock it till you try it'!

Manchuman wrote:
August 29, 2013

Question for those of you who have bought a Remington 783. The stock has an integrated front sling stud. Can you install a bipod that clamps onto a sling stud on the stud on the 783 stock? It looks shallow and wanted to ensure it could clamp on with a tight, sound installation of a bipod before I make the purchase. Thanks

RangerAJ wrote:
August 05, 2013

Bought a Remington 783 on August 4th, 2013. Got home from sporting goods store to take a better and unpressured look at the new .270. The plastic stock is warped, meaning the right side near the end of the 'stock' has a wide gap between it and the metal barrel while the left side of the stock is hard against the barrel. Hardly a free floating barrel when the plastic stock is jammed hard against the barrel on the left side. Will try to slowly push the stock into its proper position or return the rifle for one with a more ridged stock. Thanks muchly for the many great observations posted here that helped me buy the Remington 783.

John wrote:
August 04, 2013

Many have mentioned the looks of the rifle and they compare it to rifles costing several times more. Remington and other mfgrs are producing cost effective rifles at a certain price point because not all of us can afford a Kimber or other high dollar guns. Hunting and firearms use is rapidly becoming a sport for the very wealthy. Take Missouri for example ,in the past few years leased hunting has all but taken over the Northern half of the state. Entry level rifles such as the 783 are needed for those who are starting to hunt and do not inherit something better. Is the 783 the best looking rifle in the rack? Probably not, but used in the correct manner and with a little care it will be as accurate and harvest as much game as rifles costing much more. If you want a Rolls Royce, buy one. but a Chevrolet will get you where you are going also. It won't look as good or impress as many, but you will still get there. I think the 783 does what it should, a value for the dollar spent.

John wrote:
August 04, 2013

I don't agree with all the comments on the 'look' of the 783. Looks don't kill the game. If a company didn't look at their competitors and see what works and what doesn't they would be foolish. Of course, the cost of production is always considered. A molded plastic stock is more cost effective than walnut,doesn't look as good, but it does't effect the accuracy. I own Savages,Brownings,and others and I think the 783 is a good addition,a rifle I can hit what I shoot at and not have to worry about cosmetic damage that might occur in the field.

t g from wv. wrote:
July 30, 2013

i own a few remingtons but ill put my savages against any gun out there. was at range two guys there had 1,200 to 2,ooo dollar guns i was shooting hole for hole at 100yds. when they ask what rifle i was shooting told them savage they put theres up went home mad. it's not the price that count,s. you practice try loads. just like turkey guns its what shoots best in your gun. for me its savage an federal. turkey mossberg rem. nitro. but savage is the best in rifle for me. you try whats for you its not the name its what combins for you. but try savage an fed. power-shok ammo.

Justin Timmerman wrote:
July 09, 2013

I found this review because I just saw a 783 for sale at Walmart and wanted to read some reviews of the rifle. I'm not real sure we're everyone gets off saying that the 700 is super over price the 700 ADL was 397 with the 783 right next to it for 385. Granted I don't like the composit stocks but if 700 was superior to the 783 why not just buy the 700.

M. Callihan wrote:
July 06, 2013

Just One Word: Weatherby Vanguard Series 2

E Drap wrote:
June 26, 2013

I'm a Remington 700 believer after my pops put that weapon in my hand 20 years ago. I bought my boy the 770, and he has been nothing more than an irritation because he has hit everything he aimed at, and now things he's a sniper. Lol

Brian Baughman wrote:
June 18, 2013

I have a 710 in 30-06 with a $130 Weaver 3X9 scope. That cheap rifle can shoot 1.5 inch groups at 200 yards with factory Fedarals with the Barnes 165 gr triple shocks. I can't even count the number of higher priced rifles I've out-shot at the range with this gun. It's not the gun its the quality of the optics and the ammo plus the person pulling the trigger. Funny, not one deer even complained about being dropped in its tracks with my 710, not even the 260 lb doe I dropped in her tracks at 280 yards with this gun.

tom from wv. 4 13/ 2013 3;36 PM wrote:
May 13, 2013


Brad Traylor wrote:
April 07, 2013

FYI. The 710 is not garbage. The action is a little loose but if you find the rifles recipe it shoots 3/4' at 100 yds. I found mine and am in 3' at 450 in 30-06. It's all about your first shot. Get the right bullet for your gun and it's cake from there.

Frank Oneover wrote:
March 28, 2013

Why is Remington making a model 783? Didn't the 770 or 710 turn out to well? pure thought in engenering

john schroeder wrote:
March 03, 2013

Owne a ruger 77with a 3+9+40mm Nikon can shoot holes in a quater at 200yards!will give the rem-783a try.will get back to you.some guys can do it with yay about anything.will get back to you.

john schroeder wrote:
March 03, 2013

Owne a ruger 77with a 3+9+40mm Nikon can shoot holes in a quater at 200yards!will give the rem-783a try.will get back to you.some guys can do it with yay about anything.will get back to you.

Pete Hallock wrote:
February 22, 2013

Notice the Sako Sliding Plate type extractor. Many Remington 700 fans have customized their rifles to this superior type of extractor. Remington apparently is listening, decades later. And it is OK to copy, it improves the breed. Pete Hallock, NRA Life Member(Endowment) Santa Maria, California

Spencer wrote:
February 22, 2013

For all you shooters out there that remember the 788 Remington, know very well how well an economy rifle can shoot. I bought one the first year they were manufactured for $78 chambered the 22-250. It's never had a factory round through it. It also never shot anything over 1" 5-shot groups with 70 gr. Speers which weren't the best bullet for accuracy in that 788.. All other loads were under 3/4" including starting loads. It consistently shot 1/2" 5-shot groups at 100 yards. My best loads averaged 3/8 inch. I have no doubts the 783 will at least equal my 788. I got much more than I paid for.

Eric wrote:
February 20, 2013

I find it interesting that shooters complain about "cheap" rifles while they buy cheap rifles. And they buy cheap imports. Then they wonder why companies put barrelled actions in cheap stocks. Other than the use of a barrel nut, I don't think this is anything like a Savage. And the barrel nut was used by the Marlin X7. The Acutrigger is mechanically different than the 783 trigger. It blocks the sear while the 783 trigger blocks the trigger. Besides the trigger safety nested next to the trigger, they are nothing alike. I see it all of the time around here. One guy says, "They stole the Savage." and the rest start saying it. Its like we'd rather repeat what others say instead of learning for ourselves. BTW, a lot of companies make good rifles. But YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. And in my opinion, the 700 action is the best in it's class on the market. Bar none.

JB wrote:
January 29, 2013

I don't own a 783 but I would like to. They are made in the same factory as the Marlin X7 which I own two of. Both heavy barrel versions with Boyds laminate stocks and Redfield Revenge 6-18x scopes; one in 308 and one in 223. I never dreamed a $300 gun made in my home state would shoot they way they do. The two stage triggers are great! As far as I am concerned the Freedom Group has a good thing going with their brands and I thank them for keeping the manufacturing here in the states.

gilman wrote:
January 26, 2013

Simply a sad testimony to what Remington has become under the Freedom Group ownership, a cheap appearing rifle lacking in any of the production standards that once made a Remington worth owning.

Glen Rounds wrote:
January 22, 2013

Of all the "Budget Price" rifles on the market, The Weatherby Vanguard Series 2 is the only one that doesn't scream "cheap". I think Ruger has a winner in their "American Rifle" but the LOP is tooo long for me. I hate to break it to the Savage guys (and I've owned Savage rifles), but based on the reviews and test reports I've read... Savage has issues of their own. Savage's "Accu-trigger" unless fixed, suffers from "side-lock-out" and some of their detachable magazines will only go in the gun via a arguement. The Remington 783 appears to be a huge improvement over their 710 and 770 models, which are junk IMO. Now the 700 SPS models are a good rifle for the money. I have a discontinued Remington Model 700BDLSS LH in .30-06 w/a 24" barrel that will shoot sub-1MOA at 100yds with certain loads. Every rifle manufacturer produces their share of duds as well as stellar performers. By the way, which bolt-action type of the ones discussed here has seen the most use by the United States military... The Remington 700. But in the end it's your money... BUY THE ONE THAT BEST SUITS YOUR TASTE!

Rick Dennis wrote:
January 21, 2013

I've been a Remington fan my entire life. Guaranteed; 'If Remington makes it, it will shoot' As a well known deer hunter once told me, Buy yourself a $409 dollar rifle and put the best scope on it you can afford. If you cant see em you can't shoot em. If you can see em you can kill em with a Remington. Enough said and still made in the U.S.A.

Chuck wrote:
January 21, 2013

Ok first off all the Savage guys actioning like Savage never makes a dud or crap shooting rifle are very mistaken. Yes I own and shoot Savage rifles. I also own and shoot TC's Winchester and Remington. It is about an affordable rifle for folks on a budget. If this is what folks can afford and as long as THEY shoot them well who cares what it looks like. Expensive glass on a cheap rifle with a shooter that lacks the ability to shoot MOA will never shoot MOA. For you Savage guys I replaced my last 2 Weather Warriors one in 7-08 wouldn't shoot for crap if you wanted a five shot group you better shoot it once a day for 5 days. The other was a 7 Mag bolt head came off on the 5th round with factory Hornady 154 SST's Savage blamed Hornady they blamed Savage and eventually both blamed me. Long story short I have 2 Rem 700's an SPS Varmint in 7-08 and an XCRII in 7 Mag.

fred wrote:
January 19, 2013

complan complain. i read all the comments before adding mine. you,all sound like a bunch of prima-donnas. grow up.we all like what we like.if you dont like something dont buy it.

DHConner wrote:
January 15, 2013

Rob Horst is correct. The American Rifleman did testing on the Savage 110 and though they didn't say it, those who know the numbers can tell the Savage outshoots anything but a much-worked on from anybody else. I do believe my Savage .308 heavy barrel will leave this thing panting for air when the race is over. For the money Winchester and Remington ask for their standard rifles--the 70 and 700 out to shoot far better than they do. The only thing I'm certain of is this: the Weatherby Vanguard .300 W'by I bought came with a 100 yard test target that had 2 overlapping and 1 a little high and right for a solid 1" group. For $400 and change.? Whaddaa ya want, anyway?

matt wrote:
January 10, 2013

good rule of thumb, whatever you spend on the rifle double it in your scope.

joe bobb wrote:
January 10, 2013

the idea behind an "expensive" scope on an economy rifle is to see what the rifle can do. I keep a 24X $600 scope just for such testing on any rifle I purchase.

Cowboy T wrote:
January 08, 2013

It'll be interesting to see what type of mechanism this new Remington trigger is. Also, a $220 Redfield Revolution might've been a better pairing for this sort of budget rifle than a $450 Leupold CDS. As for aesthetics, hey folks, pretty is as pretty shoots. If a rifle looks "graceful", then terrific. I just want it to be able to reliably put venison on the table, at a reasonably affordable price.

Brian wrote:
January 08, 2013

I've always wondered why a rifle thats been around for decades still costs as much as it does. I'm positive the R&D has been paid for, the molds, machinery, etc have been paid for, everything is paid for so drop the price. I got an ADL for 250 used, and could never think of paying full price for a 700

bph9 wrote:
January 08, 2013

Does it have a dangerous 2 position safety or a much safer 3 postion safety?

bhp9 wrote:
January 08, 2013

junk plastic trigger guard junk injection molded stock junk dull bluing junk hammer fudged barrel

bhp9 wrote:
January 08, 2013

The small ejection port will get you killed as it will be impossible to throw in another round quickly when that big bear comes to kill you

SJ wrote:
January 07, 2013

The Rem 700 cult lives on, and not altogether without reason I suppose. But the two 788's I've been shooting consistently beat any 700 I've ever seen which lack a a bull barrel and most with. The one thing this promises is to be potentially more rugged- although these two 788's (.222 Rem & .308) have survived quite well for a very long time now. Must have been embarrassing for Remington when their budget rifle outperformed their upscale rifles! Hopefully this one will too.

Sam G wrote:
January 07, 2013

Sounds just about identical to the Ruger American.

Ian H. wrote:
January 06, 2013

My lunch tasted better going down than up.... If Remington wanted to copy Salvage in anything, why wasn't it the availability of a Remington 700 stand-alone action? or in particular, a single shot action??

Rob Horst wrote:
January 05, 2013

My Savage 110 I bought in 1969 still out shoots my Remington 700 I bought in 1985 both are 30-06 both have Leupold VX 3 scopes

RoyB wrote:
January 05, 2013

Lately these companies are falling all over themselves to build the fugliest rifles you can buy. I thought the Ruger American was an eyesore. This bad boy makes the Ruger look acceptable. Molded "Dragoon" trigger guard! That "R" on the bolt handle! What did they do with the rest of the forend? And if it is like any other Remington built in the last twenty years, it will be a 3" / 3 Shot / 100yd rifle. No way near the accuracy of a Savage, CZ or Icon.....UGH!

JBB wrote:
January 05, 2013

" . . .lack any pretense of style and class." There is a social register for rifles? Rifles themselves have become black tie items? Deer care how stylish the rifle that kills them are? The Benellis have their own table at the gun shows, pointing at the Remingtons and Rugers and saying, " Well, you know they are just not our kind."

Barry wrote:
January 05, 2013

That looks like a copy of the X-Bolt to me, except for the trigger.

Ross wrote:
January 04, 2013

If it shoot good as a 700 it be worth buying I bought the 770 it was a 243 it shoots real good kill 9 pointer at 60 yards with no rest and it's a 300$ gun the bolt does not slide good but if the 783 feels as good as a 700 I will buy it

blahblah wrote:
January 04, 2013

its not close to the 770, the 770 reciever is completely designed differently it has 3 notchs where the bolt fits into the reciever we call it the mickey mouse, the 783 has the 2 slots like most rifles, the 770 has the barrel nut in the stock and not mounted to the reciever/barrel of the gun, the 783 has it attached between the reciever and barrel nut.

Robert T. wrote:
January 04, 2013

I've been a savage guy since i started shooting many years ago. I've got to say this is the most pathetic excuse for a clone ive seen yet! This goes to show you buy a savage or if you've got the coin build custom.

shootist wrote:
January 04, 2013

Wow, another wannabe Savage, how original, lol.

Eric Blomberg wrote:
January 04, 2013

Remington's trying to get back market share that is has given up to Savage and Ruger. It will probably be a decent shooter like the Ruger American. I don't even put any of Remington's or Ruger's offerings into the same accuracy class as Savage. Savage hands down produces the most accurate off the shelf rifles today. That's coming from someone that owns them all

Herman Nickolson wrote:
January 03, 2013

Can you get it in left hand

John D Hasty wrote:
January 03, 2013

Looks like a piece of junk to me. There are a lot of guns that shoot quite well, but lack any pretense of style and class. This is just another example of the type of disposable assembly of metal and plastic that passes for a quality these days.

G.Greenwood wrote:
January 03, 2013

This model pretty musch looks like, the Ruger American and Savage Axis. I would rather spend the money and get the model 700..

R duncan wrote:
January 03, 2013

Unless there's some patent issue, hopefully they've made the barrel & nut threads the same as a large shank Savage for instant aftermarket barrel availability.

Glenn wrote:
January 03, 2013

If Remington took the 770 off the market they would have no trouble selling these Savage wanna-bes. Sad that it took Savage,Ruger,Tikka and even T/C to see the positives in the Rem 788 and make those style rifles while "Big Green" burdened the public with the 710/770 and 798. Notice the 783 is 2 lug and 90 degree and not 70 degrees like the others. I grew up shooting dad's 725 BDL,but I have a hard time even recommending ADLs and SPS for value rifles,the current BDL/CDL are bloated over-priced sows;I would much rather invest in a CZ 550 or Ruger M77 than waste money on a block of ebony or ugly plastic stock.I started buying Browning A-Bolts,I get sub-MOA all day from a handsome rifle that I can hand down to my son when I'm not in the field anymore

Dan Brown wrote:
January 03, 2013

I have been a Remington 700 fan for many years. I owned a Winchester for 3/4 of a year and actually bagged a nice buck with it. But the Model 700 IMHO is the best shooting "average man" rifle going. I have 2, a 30-06 and a 25-06 and love them both. Nothing better.

Ian wrote:
January 03, 2013

I've been a Rem. guy for a lot of years, but the Savage Int. Trophy Hunter is top dog right now in quality,accuracy and price!!

jmo82 wrote:
January 03, 2013

kinda looks like a 770 action with a barrel nut and an adjustable trigger....just what the doctor ordered.

M Johnson wrote:
January 03, 2013

This review coulda been rewritten to instead say 'afraid of the market share loss due to the Savage Axis and Ruger American, Remington also slapped together its own new budget rifle, this time in hopes that it won't be the miserable piece of garbage that the 710 was'

James wrote:
January 03, 2013

Not exactly objective journalism. Actually it's bad. So many reviews in specialty interest publications have become PR arms for manufacturers and do nothing more than support confirmational bias. At least you admit it.

cgc67 wrote:
January 03, 2013

Why is Remington now trying to copy other brands of guns rather than being cutting edge? This is not what Remington was built on. Savage has beaten Remington at their own game............so sad

Baddogzz wrote:
January 03, 2013

Why not just make the 700 affordable ?

SavageGuy wrote:
January 03, 2013

Make that five companies

SavageGuy wrote:
January 03, 2013

Imagine that......they built a wannabe Savage. That is three companies that have copied them over the last two years.

Ryan wrote:
January 02, 2013

I would hardly call a Leo CDS scope "top shelf". A scope should be at LEAST half of your cost in a new gun package. Putting a $450 scope on a $450 gun should be (and is) commonplace. Glad to see something promising coming from Remington!

Mr VJP wrote:
January 02, 2013

A push feed is not nearly as reliable as a controlled round feed. Don't compromise. Want American made? Get a KIMBER!

james bolin wrote:
January 02, 2013

I am a long time remington man of 30 years and it's nice to hear they have come out with something affordable yet close to the old trusty 700. I am an automatic guy now but my first deer and elk were brought down by the old bolt action

Brian wrote:
January 02, 2013

Optics like you employed are great, but why pair a "bargain" rifle with a "top shelf" scope. Not the typical pairing I would imagine the "average" shooter would use. Just my two cents.