Rem. 750
Does anyone have any experience with the 750, as compared to the 7400, or 742? Are they more reliable in feeding? >243 Win. cal in question. THX
0
-
I suspect it depends on if the rifle is properly cleaned and lubed. My dad has a 740 30-06 purchased new in 1956. It has performed well for nearly sixty years although for the last several it spends most of its time in the safe. It was kept clean, lubed and shot no bullets heavier than 180 grain. I read posts by others that call them jam-o-matics and so on- I wonder if the quality control allowed improperly manufactured rifles to leave the plant or if the problem was due to lack of maintenance. 0 -
Not sure if they got their act together with the 750, but the 740/742/7400/Four series were noted for early retirement. Yes, some of it was due to a lack of preventative maintenance, but it is a bad design to start with.
It seems that the bolt head, and carrier, were harder than the frame rails, that were integrally machined into the receiver. This wore out the unreplaceable frame rails faster than it did the replaceable bolt. Dirt, dust, and grime, seemed to accelerate this. It was OK if you were only going to shoot it 10-20 shots per year...quick sight in check, and a couple deer. They were never designed, or intended to be a high mileage self feeder like an AK-47, or AR-15.
Consequently, the 760/7600 series, pump action had these same problems, but not to that same extent.
So if they were kept clean, and properly lubed(not to much, or to little), they would run fine, until the bolt rails started to fail.
Best0 -
A buddy of mine bought a new 750 in 243. Kept it a month and got rid of it. Just as bad, if not worse than a 740/7400. I think the worse was the 742. Every so often you would hear of one that worked most of the time, but sometimes I think it was BS. A guy that didn't want to admit it was junk. Wouldn't own one on a bet. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments