700 vs 722
- Thread starter eclubine
- Start date
Jeepdude1987
New member
If you want to use it and abuse it hunting and such then the 700.
If you want to look at it and hang it on the wall I still might go with the 700. But, the 722 was discontinued in like '62 according to the Remington sight so I've seen maybe one or two that I recall.
If you know where one is available it could be a collector's dream. I don't collect guns so I'm not sure if the 722 is collection fodder.
If you want to look at it and hang it on the wall I still might go with the 700. But, the 722 was discontinued in like '62 according to the Remington sight so I've seen maybe one or two that I recall.
If you know where one is available it could be a collector's dream. I don't collect guns so I'm not sure if the 722 is collection fodder.
AWS
Custom Accessory Maker & Retired PM Staff
One problem with the 722's there are no extactors availible if you break one, you either have to replace the bolt or hava sako or AR extactor installed. With a little fitting the 722's will fit in a short action 700 stock. I just put a take off LVSF 22-250 barrel on my old 300 Savage 722 and dropped it into a 700 ADL stock. I have $350 total into the rifle and it shoots well.
AWS
AWS
Jeepdude1987
New member
I would guess that means you can probably attach a peep sight.
firstcoueswas80
New member
I have no experience with a 722, but I do own a 721 and I absoutely love that gun. I would be a bum walking the streets with that on my back before I sold it.
Ackman
New member
Originally Posted By: eclubineIf you were to choose between a Remington 700 or a 722, which one would you pick? Does one have better quality than the other or more accurate? What would be the pros and cons of each model? thanks
The 722 is just the early version of a 700. The stock and metal are very crude in comparison. A 722 action is the same except for a clunky straight bolt handle, the trigger has a two piece sear and the safety lever is different and won't fit a 700 stock without modifying it (the stock). The extractor is also different...... nearly impossible to replace if it ever breaks, but in fairness that'll probably never happen anyway. I've had several 722's and still have a couple. You can make a 722 into a 700 by filing a safety relief into the tang and installing a 700 trigger, which will allow you to use an unmodified 700 stock without doing any grinding.
There's the old thing about how they used to make 'em better......some say the 722 quality is better, I don't buy that for a second. Those actions aren't any more likely to be precise than later models. And chambers, the older ones are no better.......this last 722 I got is a .222....the bore is in good condition and the throat is so deep I can barely find the lands with a 50gr bullet. The best thing about 722's is they usually cost a lot less. If what you're looking at is substantially cheaper, I'd buy that one. But the 700 is a nicer rifle and if it's priced about the same or even more, that's what I'd get.
The 722 is just the early version of a 700. The stock and metal are very crude in comparison. A 722 action is the same except for a clunky straight bolt handle, the trigger has a two piece sear and the safety lever is different and won't fit a 700 stock without modifying it (the stock). The extractor is also different...... nearly impossible to replace if it ever breaks, but in fairness that'll probably never happen anyway. I've had several 722's and still have a couple. You can make a 722 into a 700 by filing a safety relief into the tang and installing a 700 trigger, which will allow you to use an unmodified 700 stock without doing any grinding.
There's the old thing about how they used to make 'em better......some say the 722 quality is better, I don't buy that for a second. Those actions aren't any more likely to be precise than later models. And chambers, the older ones are no better.......this last 722 I got is a .222....the bore is in good condition and the throat is so deep I can barely find the lands with a 50gr bullet. The best thing about 722's is they usually cost a lot less. If what you're looking at is substantially cheaper, I'd buy that one. But the 700 is a nicer rifle and if it's priced about the same or even more, that's what I'd get.
Originally Posted By: rednekLots of the parts from a 722 and 721 are still intechangeable with 700 parts. Beyond that I doubt there is any real difference. Only one I can think of off hand is I believe the 721/722 receiver is drilled and tapped for a receiver sight.
All my older 700 have the left side of the receiver drilled and tap for a "Williams/Lyman" type sight..
All my older 700 have the left side of the receiver drilled and tap for a "Williams/Lyman" type sight..
DeathPenalty
New member
To allow enough metal for the dovetail to be cut for it...
Sgt_Mike
Well-known member
Yes it is a OLD thread, but rather than start a new one and have everyone repeat what has been said I thought it best to zombie this one a bit.
The 700 vs the 721/722 actually a good topic.
Which one is stronger? Better built? More accurate?
The answer is subjective, they are on par IMO. Personally I think it's a wash. I've owned and operated all three differing models, which I do prefer? The older 721/722 only because they predate the 700. Couple that with the fact they had a shorter run time (1948-1962). The 700 from 1962 to present.
Otherwise I view them pretty much equal when looking for a new donor action or rifle. Some will tout the Townsend Wheeling's testing of the 721/722 for strength at Springfield Armory. But it's not a fair comparison as the 700 wasn't available then, and the Armory was pretty much shutdown by the 700's introduction.
Bolt bodies, the 721/722 will accept the 700 bolt body, but not vice versa. Thanks to the left bolt lug cutout in the 700 series. Could the 721/722 bolt body be modified? yes but by the time one pays a machinist the 700 bolt body is way less in cost even though I cringe at the price many demand for them.
Both was machined (drilled and tapped) for receiver sights, except the later productions of the 700. (some reason post 1984 comes to mind but not sure the exact date in the 1980's, Although the exception is the M24 SWS series).
Magazines are different, the 721/722 I have are attached via a screw to the bottom of the action, latter 700's did not use the same method.
The 721/722 has a stripper clip cut out vs the latter models of the 700. Which when scoped is useless but still has that capability if one simply uses iron sights.
Extractor is another issue in the interchangeability, which can be fixed in either model with a M16 style or Sako extractor installed when parts are just not available.
Scope bases and mounts are identical the 721 correlates to the 700 Long action, The 722 to the 700 short action.
When restocking say a 721 or 722 action to a 700 stock yes some refitting in the rear tang is involved as the shape is different. The 700 has a trigger safety cutout vs the 722/721 sitting to the outside. The triggers don't interchange (unless the safety is removed or a 700 style trigger without safety is used). Lest we forget the Bolt handle when stocking the 721/722 uses a straight design vs the 700's swept design. The solution is either bend the handle OR simply refit a 700 handle to match the stock. The other method glue in wood and recut the bolt handle cut out. Which works whether it's a 721/722 stock to a 700 or vice versa. The other issue is the 700 ADL/ BDL stocks in the magazine cut out. The 721/722 did not use a blind magazine. So many simply Tig the blind mag assembly to the 721/722 action for the ADL series of stocks. To get the bottom metal to work with the BDL requires a bit of work.
( the 721/722 "usually" has one more pass through action screw in front of the trigger guard than the 700 in latter production)
Cost? hmm sometimes the 721/722 series does actually cost more when looking. Sometimes it's reversed, factory caliber is the factor I've seen. It's usually the 722 that most times demands the higher price point (.222, .257 Roberts, and 300 Savage chambering). The 721 in the normal bolt face of .473 usually will be less than a used 700 Long action, which if your intent is to do a wildcat, or simply spent less for say a .270 or 30-06 maybe a viable option. Which most detest the long action for some reason, which keeps the price at bay for the 721.
So Gentlemen what have I simply forgotten to include in the conversation?
Regards
Mike
The 700 vs the 721/722 actually a good topic.
Which one is stronger? Better built? More accurate?
The answer is subjective, they are on par IMO. Personally I think it's a wash. I've owned and operated all three differing models, which I do prefer? The older 721/722 only because they predate the 700. Couple that with the fact they had a shorter run time (1948-1962). The 700 from 1962 to present.
Otherwise I view them pretty much equal when looking for a new donor action or rifle. Some will tout the Townsend Wheeling's testing of the 721/722 for strength at Springfield Armory. But it's not a fair comparison as the 700 wasn't available then, and the Armory was pretty much shutdown by the 700's introduction.
Bolt bodies, the 721/722 will accept the 700 bolt body, but not vice versa. Thanks to the left bolt lug cutout in the 700 series. Could the 721/722 bolt body be modified? yes but by the time one pays a machinist the 700 bolt body is way less in cost even though I cringe at the price many demand for them.
Both was machined (drilled and tapped) for receiver sights, except the later productions of the 700. (some reason post 1984 comes to mind but not sure the exact date in the 1980's, Although the exception is the M24 SWS series).
Magazines are different, the 721/722 I have are attached via a screw to the bottom of the action, latter 700's did not use the same method.
The 721/722 has a stripper clip cut out vs the latter models of the 700. Which when scoped is useless but still has that capability if one simply uses iron sights.
Extractor is another issue in the interchangeability, which can be fixed in either model with a M16 style or Sako extractor installed when parts are just not available.
Scope bases and mounts are identical the 721 correlates to the 700 Long action, The 722 to the 700 short action.
When restocking say a 721 or 722 action to a 700 stock yes some refitting in the rear tang is involved as the shape is different. The 700 has a trigger safety cutout vs the 722/721 sitting to the outside. The triggers don't interchange (unless the safety is removed or a 700 style trigger without safety is used). Lest we forget the Bolt handle when stocking the 721/722 uses a straight design vs the 700's swept design. The solution is either bend the handle OR simply refit a 700 handle to match the stock. The other method glue in wood and recut the bolt handle cut out. Which works whether it's a 721/722 stock to a 700 or vice versa. The other issue is the 700 ADL/ BDL stocks in the magazine cut out. The 721/722 did not use a blind magazine. So many simply Tig the blind mag assembly to the 721/722 action for the ADL series of stocks. To get the bottom metal to work with the BDL requires a bit of work.
( the 721/722 "usually" has one more pass through action screw in front of the trigger guard than the 700 in latter production)
Cost? hmm sometimes the 721/722 series does actually cost more when looking. Sometimes it's reversed, factory caliber is the factor I've seen. It's usually the 722 that most times demands the higher price point (.222, .257 Roberts, and 300 Savage chambering). The 721 in the normal bolt face of .473 usually will be less than a used 700 Long action, which if your intent is to do a wildcat, or simply spent less for say a .270 or 30-06 maybe a viable option. Which most detest the long action for some reason, which keeps the price at bay for the 721.
So Gentlemen what have I simply forgotten to include in the conversation?
Regards
Mike
Sgt_Mike
Well-known member
Oh yeah the 721/722 was designed to be a "utilitarian" design vs the sleeker more refined later 700. In order to possibly unseat the Win 70 from it's throne (i might even add rightful). By simply offering a less initial out lay for simple "hunting" rifle at first, which shifted to the desired beauty of the Win 70 hence the refined 700. On Remington's approach it was basically two pronged to compete against Winchester fine offering.
WyoBull
Active member
I have all three models in different calibers.
My 721 is a 270 Win and was my first big game hunting rifle. I had it completely re-blued and refinished the stock, It is accurate but has been a safe queen for quite a number of years.
My 722 is a 222 Rem and is the second one I have had. The one I have now has a beautifully checkered stock that is original and I cannot remember what Remington called that model but it is all original from the factory and a beautiful rifle. The first one I had was much more utilitarian and plain jane but both of them are extremely accurate and I love 222 Rem in the 722,
My three 700's are a 17 Rem in 700 BDL and is a beautiful and very accurate rifle. It is an older BDL from back when IMHO Remington still made high quality rifles. I also have a 700 VSSF (Varmint Synthetic Stainless Fluted) in 220 Swift that is from the early 90's and it is a big time favorite of mine and shoots extremely well. My last 700 is a 7mm RUM SS (Synthetic Stainless) from the early 2000's and it is also a real shooter.
I have always been a Remington 700 fan on the older production models but I have to admit, one of my favorite riles I shoot today is a Tikka T3X Super Lite in 243 Win that I picked up about 4 years ago. It is very accurate, very light to carry and the bolt is butter smooth.
My 721 is a 270 Win and was my first big game hunting rifle. I had it completely re-blued and refinished the stock, It is accurate but has been a safe queen for quite a number of years.
My 722 is a 222 Rem and is the second one I have had. The one I have now has a beautifully checkered stock that is original and I cannot remember what Remington called that model but it is all original from the factory and a beautiful rifle. The first one I had was much more utilitarian and plain jane but both of them are extremely accurate and I love 222 Rem in the 722,
My three 700's are a 17 Rem in 700 BDL and is a beautiful and very accurate rifle. It is an older BDL from back when IMHO Remington still made high quality rifles. I also have a 700 VSSF (Varmint Synthetic Stainless Fluted) in 220 Swift that is from the early 90's and it is a big time favorite of mine and shoots extremely well. My last 700 is a 7mm RUM SS (Synthetic Stainless) from the early 2000's and it is also a real shooter.
I have always been a Remington 700 fan on the older production models but I have to admit, one of my favorite riles I shoot today is a Tikka T3X Super Lite in 243 Win that I picked up about 4 years ago. It is very accurate, very light to carry and the bolt is butter smooth.
Sgt_Mike
Well-known member
Good catch I did leave out that model, not on purpose.
Same here. I haven't tried a Tikka, even though I'm sure the quality is there, just haven't bought one to try. Keep finding Remington's that interest me .. LOL.
Utahcaller
Well-known member
The older Remington’s are definitely good rifles. The new ones not so much. I have a 722 in .244 Remington. Great rifle. Made in about 1955. Also have a 700 in 22-250 Ackley made in 1978. Again great rifle. Also have a 660 in 6mm Remington and a 600 in .222 Remington. Both really nice rifles. And lastly a nice 700 Classic in .350 Remington Mag. They made great rifles back in the day.