Remington 770
 

OK - is it junk or not? I always thought of them as POSs but I was looking at some of the reviews on this rifle and I think I may have to change my perspective on them. Yes I know they aren't a 700 but the videos I've seen show them as being decent shooters for the price range. The Savage Axis may have a few notches up on them but all in all they don't seem as bad as I initially thought. The worse complaint I heard with them is the sticky bolt. But reviewers claim this smooths up after some use.
As for accuracy they likely won't win and competitions but for a truck gun or a beater gun I see its potential.

when you deal withj budget minded rifles you get less fit and finish and accuracy tends to be more pick of the litter
there not GREAT rifles, but they do work and most I have shot or seen shot, actually shot pretty well

my buddy bought one as a beater truck gun in 30-06 and its a 1 inch shooter, at 100 yards with the ammo it likes, NOT all ammo, just what he found it likes
just like most rifles tend to be
and this is where many folks bash rifles
they don;'t invest time in finding what it likes and just complain its NOT that accurate! and or give up!

IMO< its a OK rifle, its SAFE reliable and works
but its not the best feeling or looking rifle to MY eye's!

these days there are a TON of budget minded rifles out there , if you like it, grab one, odds are if nothing else you can sell it, deer season a coming, used rifles hold value now more than ever!

The only real knock on the 770 is that in its price category there are better options in my opinion. The Ruger American, savage axis, and others are all similarly priced but better rifles in my opinion.

A 770 for a truck or loaner rifle, or even a budget rifle to help someone get into the woods isn't a bad thing. But there are some better options out there.

RIGHT NOW there are lots of good used rifles pretty cheap. Blued and wood just isn't that popular so you can usually find older savages pretty cheap. I've seen marlins in the 350 range lately.


I've picked up savages and Stevens for under $200 in the past and they are a much better rifle than the 770. Not a knock on the 770, it's just there are better options out there. If you have or find a good deal on a 770 I wouldn't hesitate to 'pull the trigger' and play around with it some.
-Jake

I'm just toying with the idea. I am very impressed with my Savage Axis I picked up earlier this year in 350 Legend.

to be honest I have seen countless rem SPS 700, with combo packages from stores like cabela's/Bass Pro, DIcks, and so on, for cheaper prices than I have seen on the 770's
and IMO< there better rifles too!
a sa fact I picked up a SPS700 in 234 came with a hard case, a cabela's brand 4x12x40 mm scope, scope cap covers for just over 300 bucks BRAND NEW on sale!
and it shot extremely well with the first box of ammo I ran thru it

but again, with SO many budget rifles out there any more
I believe in handling as many as one can and see what FITS YOU the best, just cause something MIGHT BE< built better or different parts on it, doesn't mean its better for YOU!
many folks over look fit when buying a marketed item, and feeling they NEED it, or want it, based on reviews and , sadly, they don;'t fit the person all that well once they get it!

another thing is when your looking to add accessories, some rifles have more options in that end, from scope mounts to???(and I was NEVER a fan of the Ruger design scope mounts some of the Ruger rifles have?had) )
but this is why there are so many, to each there own on what they lie /dislike!

mrbb I guess I'm pretty lucky (other than being a southpaw) but just about every factory rifle feels good to me. Shotguns are a different story altogether but most rifles fit me good with a scope. The only exception to is are my Marlin 1895s. I have to raise the comb height for proper fit when using a scope.

this is maybe due to MOST makers build to ONE average persons size
so those larger or smaller are the one's that can fit issue's

I always used to see this in women and smaller kids or, very large/tall males

it also always made me wonder why so many rifle makers that would CLAIM to have a youth or woman's model l would never adjust for trigger length of pull,(from pistol grip to trigger, not OAL length of pull) just)
all they would ever do MOSTLY ALL< was cut some wood off the butt end of the stock, yet that never helps folks with smaller shorter arms and hands really
YES many adapted, but again, that isn;t having a gun that FITS you!
MOST of us older guys, I gather will ALL recall learning how to shoot a gun that DIDN"T fit them, be it a full sized 22, or even a shotgun,, if you watch this happen you will SEE folks wiggle and move about till they can GET sights on things,! its NOT nature pointing for them!
YES we can adapt and get better, but I again always wondered why so many are willing to over look GOOD fit, to buy what is popular!, I sold a LOT of guns over the yrs and see this countless times!
the WANT for something over powering the actual fit of things for them!and I seen some folks drop a BIG chunk of cash too
just like shotgun, and HANDGUNS<
when a GUN fits you JUST right, you will always shoot it better, than one that doesn't!
nature of the beast!

I have a 770, which started life as a 710 back in 2004 when I bought it. Got it in .30-06. Along the way my 710 got returned as part of the settlement agreement for a Remington class action lawsuit (think it was related to the trigger) and I got it back with a 770 receiver and stock because they couldn't just change the trigger. Only problem I've had with it was the original magazine came apart in the summer as I was experimenting with ammo at the range. I don't do a lot of deer hunting - I might get out 10 or 12 times a season - so I didn't need anything pricey.

While the action is not the smoothest by any means, it has always shot well. My original 710 liked Federal 150gr Sierra Game King boat tail soft points and would shoot about .75 MOA. The 770 likes basic Federal Powershok 150gr PSPs and will shoot about 1 MOA and several others than shoot close to that. Basically the rifle does everything I need. I doubt it will ever be called to shoot further than a couple hundred yards where I hunt.

I was talking with Mark Slidlinger he was Remington's VP of marketing at one time. We were talking in hunting camp about the direction of manufactures in the market. I told him a couple years ago that the industry was in a race to the bottom.
My point at the time was that manufactures are trying to produce the cheapest out the door guns ever. The days of producing a quality firearm were a thing of the past. The 710, 770,783, the Axis, The Ruger American, The ranch rifle, and the Winchester XPR. Winchester at the time came out with the Wildcat 22 rifle. I was honestly so disappointed that Winchester stepped into the 22 market again and did not have a quality bolt action 22 LR that was the reason we got on the topic of the race to the bottom.
We started to talk about the new companies that were producing very quality rimfire guns like Voodoo. and others.
I told him that the gun manufactures are losing sight of what a gun is supposed to be. When I was a kid Remington's, Winchesters, things of beauty and shot well. They were handed down to like minded family members and those guns are still in service, or could be today.
The problem is manufactures are just producing guns that will get a guy by. They are cheap enough that he can buy one try it and if he doesn't like it sell it and get something else. I fell into that in the late 70's and early 80's. I bought a Stevens 110E which by todays standards is a quality firearm with wood and was a great shooting gun. I also bought a Post 64 winchester featherweight XTR in 1984 that was at the time a BIG step down from the Pre 64. But in todays standards that rifle is a classic with beautiful features.
If a guy wants a quality firearm now days you have to look at manufactures that are not the big guys. Some are fantastic rifles and it was my opinion that those types of rifles were what was spelling the end of the big manufactures.

I hope that we don't look back at these plastic guns with their plastic magazines, plastic sights, and some with plastic receivers and think those were the good old days of rifle's.

Gun companies are like any other company - they are there to make money. There is money to made in marketing lower cost firearms to those who want a budget firearm (such as I did when I bought my Rem 710 in 2004) and there are those who wish to have the more pleasing (and expensive) aesthetics of wood and blued steel and slick actions. One one hand folks will argue a firearm is "just a tool", but on the other they promote that tool should be finely crafted. A tool is a hammer also. I don't need shiny metal and polished wood to drive nails, just as many don't need (or wish to pay for) certain features that add nothing to the functionality of the tool.

I can appreciate a fine firearm, but I'm going to weight those pricier features against what they offer me and what benefit they provide. I could go buy a nicer deer rifle in the $750+ range that would come with some nice wood and have a slick bolt operation, but it would not do the job any better than my plastic stock and not-so-smooth bolt other than look a lot nicer and get more admiration for aesthetics from anyone who wished to hold it. I'd rather spend my money on other things - to each his own.

On one end firearm companies are selling for the budget conscious, but on the other end they are just selling vanity - an overpriced firearm that looks good but does nothing or offers nothing to the average hunter but shiny bells and whistles - just like car companies with their gadgets and features. It's the "cup holder" situation - this year's model doesn't get you there any better than last year's, but there's two more cup holders!

I think that is the model that Rem molds the plastic stock with an eye for a sling and no stud.Those stocks are junk and I know of a case where one broke right off when walkin with the rifle shouldered.The Rifle fell right to the ground.He had to get a replacement stock which was a PITA.I won,t own a Rifle without a sling swivel stud.

there is a ton of company's that make replacement stocks for the 770 and there NOT hard at all to get or replace

and most are well under 200 bucks?
and almost ZERO rifles I know of come with a swivel sling mount on there stocks, and this includes some \super HIGH end rifles!
I agree there sure nice and saves things from coming loose, but I don;t think it really adds any strength to things!

everything and anything can break, from a flaw from when made to how cared for and handled and used/abused

but tyopiclaly stocks on rifles are pretty solid items that last a long time

over the yrs there have been flaws in some models(CZ safari model comes to mind, where the recoil lug would hit and break stock after a bunch of shots being fired and, then ther redesigned things to stop it)

but its not a very common flaw in most rifles

any how
here is some replacement stocks, as stated NOT hard to find or options t here is 3 pages of stocks to pick from, with little effort to find them!

https://1022racerifle.com/remington/770/stocks/

Could you tell us his response?

What you describe actually creates a problem for a gun manufacturer. A grandfather passes on his old pre-64 model 70 Winchester to a grandson and now the youngster has no need to buy a gun at all.

There's also other dynamics at work. Today, fewer youth are hunting, and they don't get introduced to guns through hunting. They get introduced to guns increasingly through video games and movies, and that's what they want to shoot. Hence, many are far more interested in AR style rifles and semi-auto pistols than they are in wood and steel bolt actions and Smith and Wesson model 10 revolvers. If they get Grandpa's model 70, it may less appeal to them than an AR-15., and they sell the Winchester to get the black rifle.

A gun that just gets a guy by is actually a boon for a gun manufacturer. It means the purchaser may or will eventually buy another gun. (This is what led to the idea of "planned obsolescence" in the 1960s).

And this is the truth about today's budget guns: Even a lowly plastic stock Axis, 783, American, or similar sometimes reported to get less than 1 MOA out of the box. 2 MOA is probably substandard. They often outperform yesterday's wood and steel beauties. A lot of new buyers just want a gun to hunt deer with, the less expensive budget rifle gets it done just fine.

Today's gun market for traditional hunting rifles is actually becoming glutted, and that's narrowing the profit margins. A small company that makes really high end guns can make a go of it, but large corporations do better with volume sales at a low price. The money for them probably lies more in selling an inexpensive bolt action, ARs, and semi-auto pistols--those wonder nines like the Glocks.

They're not pretty, but they're profitable. That's what increasing numbers of customers want and that's where the money lies. What a gun is supposed to be is dictated by the buyers in the market, and more of them are saying they want something besides fine wood and steel. They want something affordable and they want something cool like the gun in the video game. Fail to give them that, and a company's guns will not sell and that heads them towards bankruptcy.

The other problem is one we've faced before: the problem of production costs. They doomed classic guns like the pre-64 Winchesters and the Savage 99. They were costly to make and had to be priced too high for adequate sales and profitability. It's the same today with a plastic stock bolt action. That plastic keeps the costs down and the profitability up because so much of the buying is driven by the price tag, not the material that went into the stock .

and don't forget all the big gun company's have custom shops that will make you pretty much anything you want, so if you want a high end pretty wood blued rifle, even add some custom engraving, and OWN a hand me down prized possession of likes
they WILL make you one

problem is when folks inherent many prized guns, they DON"T actually HUNT with them, they save them for maybe special events/hunts or well, just keep as memories sake! and pass on to the next gen

and since were now in a generation or two of the mind set THROW AWAY everything and buy new again, always thinking NEW is better!
there isn;t a ton of families that still have traditions of handing down guns, just look at how few NEW hunters are getting into sport
and of the new SHOOTERS< most are younger generations that want GUNS of there ERA
plastic and guns they don't fear scratching up or even abusing at times

Old time hunters with family guns, seem to be a dying breed sadly
and most of them value there guns they have handed down FAR more than price tags will ever show!

it reminds me a lot of family land/ be it forested or farm land
for generations families, worked there lives, put heart and souls into the land , it means/meant the world to them
then they DIE< and well kids cannot sell it fast enough to get the $$ from it,a s they don;t want the hassle or work to keep it!

seen this with guns as well, kids get em in wills and come to shops asking for worth , as many rather the $$ over the gun period! times have changed!


they have NO value on sentimental things as so many generations before have IMO!
its a changing world and mind set on the majority , and the gun company's know this! and market what makes them money, ,
THEY again have the custom shop for the few that wish to have something special!
so fine guns are still there from the big players!

He basically agreed with me, especially when talking about the 22 market. If you look at the big name gun manufacture's most of them have went bankrupt, restructured, sold out. Like you said, There are smaller companies that are actually building better rifles than the big names. And they are asking way more money for the rifles.
I don't think that the passing down of guns is actually hurting them that much. If you look at the number of guns sold per year compared to the number of people, you can see pretty fast that there has to be some very large collections out there.
I don't see anyone that grew up with pre 64's buying these cheap guns, but maybe I am wrong. I have bought several fiberglass stocks for rifles that I wanted to be more weather proof. I have bought Stainless guns for their look and weather resistance.
I have never thought to buy a cheap gun to use, abuse, and get a new one in a year or two.
I really hope that the quality gun manufactures don't go away but I am afraid they might. And all that will be left is AR's and boat paddle guns.

What I'm really interested in is what he might have said about profitability. What are the ways that guns can be profitable for a manufacturer?

The traditional taste for guns that last a lifetime creates a bit of a boondoggle for manufacturers of traditional hunting weapons. The hunting market has been shrinking (at least pre-covid) and the average age of hunters is going up.

This scenario is probably going to become more frequent: A Grandpa passed on a pre-64 model 70, his post-64 Winchester 94, and a Savage 110 onto non-hunting grandkids. It means there will soon be three used guns for sale at the gun shop. The grandson traded them for ARs. A collector quickly snaps up the model 70, but the other two may sit there at least till deer season. The gun buyers who did come in were in their twenties and thirties and barely glanced at the "old timer" guns. Instead, they head right for the AR rack. They might go for something labeled "creedmoor".

You could also look at it like this - this is the male equivalent of getting fine china and stainless place settings when getting married decades ago. My wife and I had our first tiff over my lack of interest in selecting a china pattern. We have some nice china, crystal stemware and stainless place setting. That china, stainless and crystal stemware is pretty to look at, costs much more than stuff will get the job done just as easily and few young people care to spend money on china that can be passed down to future generations. None of our three children are interested in the stuff and it's not worth much on resale sites.

Times change. Tastes change. Firearms owners have different priorities these days and don't appear to be willing to pay for beauty just for the sake of beauty. Some of it is also vanity, I think. A Rolex doesn't tell time any better than a $5 cheapo at Walmart or an Iphone. It's primary duty is to set someone apart from others. If I remember correctly, it's call positional goods in economics. Same with many luxury brands of cars. Nothing wrong with it, but one is often paying more for aesthetics and not function.

When most basic rifles will - from my reading - shoot well less than 2" MOA and will get the job done for the vast majority of hunters, then it doesn't make sense to try to sell folks on sentimental ideas and nostalgia.