Remington 725
I have a M725 in 30.06 that I bought about 10 years ago. I have never fired it as it sits in a safe full time. I got it out Sunday for an oiling and discovered how touchy the trigger is. Slam the bolt and it is gone! I didn?t know there was a problem with triggers this far back. Should I have a gunsmith try and adjust it, or just replace it. Truthfully I don?t think I will ever use this rifle.
0
-
I bought a Rem 725 last week. The gun is maybe 90-95%. The previous owner removed the paint from the hinged floor plate. Does anyone what would Rem would have used? 0 -
right in front of the trigger is a small button push it up and the bolt will slide out. Just like a Rem 700/721/722 0 -
I believe the 725 is a different design than the 700, 722 and 721. 0 -
47studebaker: Different design in that it has a safety that resembles the 1917 "Enfield". But the bolt releases just like the 721, 722, 700 as has been said. (I just checked mine!) 0 -
Just wondering, WHY they brought out a model with the 1917 safety, after establishing the 721-722 with simpler parts.
Did they find a lot of left over 1917/30S/720 parts in the warehouse they wanted to use up?
Did they think it would enhance the top of the line 725 rifle and distinguish it from the 721-722?
I have never heard even speculation on the subject, much less documented fact.
Such pictures as I could find show the 721 safety to work off the trigger group like a 700 while the 1917 is mounted on the receiver and apparently locks bolt and striker.
I don't think the 721 or 722 has a whole lot in common with the 1903 and 1903A3 that Remington produced in WW II on the old Rock Island Arsenal tooling. The construction is much simpler with a fabricated bolt and even more stamped parts than on the A3. Plus the real or advertised advantage of the "three rings of steel" breeching.
While the 725 safety looks like the one on the 1917/Rem. 30/720, it's a trigger block safety with a tab that locks the bolt closed while the 1917 safety actually retracted the striker. There is no commonality of safety parts; 1917 vs 725. I don't know why Remington decided to go that way with the 725--maybe some exectutive liked the look!
Ah-HA. So it likely was just a styling exercise. I might have fallen for it, assuming some connection with the 720.0 -
721's and 722's have the old 1917/model 30. Both mine do anyways. The safety was changed on the model 700
To clarify, I should say "safety lever". As Ambrose noted the safety mechanics are very different between the rifles. Sorry folks, serious brain fart. My Rem 721 and 722 have bent piece of stamped metal whose top is ribbed {stamped} for a safety lever. thinking of a different rifle I had.
FWIW, I walked by the old Eddystone Armory when I was in Philly going to Airbus school for U.S. Airways. No place to even get close to what is left of it. At least that's what I was told it was.0 -
Thanks for the help folks. Hawk Carse has a real good question; I have wondered about that myself. Another thing I have thought about through the years involved the 03A3 Springfield. During WWII the Eddystone Arsenal, which was owned by Remington, built about one million 03A3s. Therefore, after they war, why didn't they build a sporting rifle based on that action? I'm sure they had plenty of parts left over. The 700, 721 and 722 actions are not that much different from that 03A3. 0 -
The 725 as well as the 700 are "dolled up" versions of the 722/721. While the 725 safety looks like the one on the 1917/Rem. 30/720, it's a trigger block safety with a tab that locks the bolt closed while the 1917 safety actually retracted the striker. There is no commonality of safety parts; 1917 vs 725. I don't know why Remington decided to go that way with the 725--maybe some exectutive liked the look!
The safeties on the 722, 721, and 700 are very much like each other in that they block the sear and lock the bolt closed. In later versions of the 700, the bolt lock was elimated. Also, on the 700, the thumb piece was modified to improve appearance.
The Remington 721/722 series came about in an effort to make a solid accurate rifle that could be manufactured economically. The 1903/1903-A3 was a "war baby" made when producing war material rapidly was more important than cost. After the war, Remington needed a rifle that could be made and sold cheaply. The 721/722 fit the bill and is still with us in the 700/Seven.
Another factor may have figured into Remingtons plans for the 1903A3: I believe the Government may have taken possession of the left over parts when contracts were canceled. If so, they wouldn't have been able to make rifles from left-over parts as they did with the Model 30 after WWI. Also, the tooling, gauges, and machinery was on loan from the Government. My FIL worked for a company that made U-joints and splined shafts for vehicles during WWII and he was put in charge of inventorying and packing the parts on hand when contracts were canceled--his company did not own them and were not allowed to keep/sell/use them. I don't know if that was a wide spread policy or not.
Also, while I'm not sure of this, I believe the Eddystone facility was disbanded after WWI.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments