Well, it looks like American Rifleman got their hands on the new Remington bolt action rifle before anyone else. I’m only slightly miffed; we’re the #1 firearms-related news and reviews website on the internet after all. And AR’s rifle review left a little something something to be desired. (“The 783 is a bolt-action rifle that shoots like a model 700 and costs as much as a 700 did 20 years ago.”) But I would say that wouldn’t I? Anyway, the main takeaway: the Model 783′s a “budget” rifle. Clocking-in at around $451 MSRP Remington designed the bolt action rifle to “fill the gap between the Remington Model 770 and Model 700 SPS.” That’s code for putting it in direct competition with Ruger’s American Rifle and the like. More info when we take our first look at SHOT in about 12 days.
Still prefer a Winchester Mod 70 way over a Remington.
Well, crap! I was hoping for a 700 with a removable magazine. Maybe an M-24 in A2 config or an XM2010. What I don’t need is another cheap “almost good enough” rifle.
Charlie
PSSSSSST (Tika T3)
10X better than a garbage remington. Sure, you can buy a 700 and dump $1000 into making it good, but why not just buy an excellent $700 rifle to start out with, and use the money for some good glass?
Interesting! The T3 Tac looks like it might fill the bill. The removable mag and the Picatinny rail are the deal makers. Spec download .pdf says Tikka is owned by Sako.
I have a great deal of respect for the Finns, they make good stuff. I’m gonna check it out.
Thanks!
Charlie
Ugh.
I wanted something better than the 700, not this crap.
Yawn… oh look a gun built to fit a price point…
Up next, the exact same gun painted coyote brown and labeled ‘desert operator’ +$200 MSRP.
I can’t wait for the zombie edition.
Way to be ahead of the curve there Remington.
/sarcasm
Why are they using the font from Top Shot?
cause no one else is now
Pingback: New from Remington: Model 783 Bolt Action Rifle | I'm a Man! I'm 41!
Pfah.
I’m not terribly impressed. I guess my worries that my Rem 700 or Win 70 would be ‘obsolete’ we’re unfounded.
And I’m going to advise my buddy to buy that Tika T3 he’s had his eye on.
What happened to iron sights? Why does 3/4 of the rifles coming out these days have no iron sights? Why should I spend even more money on a budget rifle for a scope, along with extra ammo to sight the darn thing in?
I agree. Most of my hunting rifles have iron sights. They are there as backup. Many rifles I take on out of state hunts, and while I may have a spare scope back in camp or the cabin, I don’t have one in my backpack and I have had an occasion where a sling swivel broke and the rifle fell a long way to dash itself on some rocks. With quick-detach rings, I was able to remove the damaged scope and I was able to finish out the day hunting using the iron sights instead of heading back to camp.
Im sure this is a fancy 770, but I love 700s. I’ve owned or at least shot these others, vanguard, t3, model 70, ruger 77 and scout. I’ll stick with my much hated 700. Good quality glass and a handload it likes; if I do my part it will shoot an moa or less, doesn’t jam or stick, and goes boom everytime.
Cough..savage 110,cough……
If it was a Remington 700 receiver I might have considered it but I will continue to save up for a Stevens 200 that I can put in a nice stock and maybe rebarrel later.
I will stick to my Savages. If the Rem version of the Marlin 336C I bought recently is any indication of the fit and finish of the “new” Rem model, then I will stick to buying more Savages.
If I wanted a good budget rifle, I’ll just spend about $100 less for a Kar 98k.
Ok, I got to read more on this rifle… Wow did they ever want to a Savage Rifle. barrel nut, “accutrigger” (badly named Crossfire), and lines like an Axis though I think it would be an insult to Savage to call it one.
this new model 783 is not a budget rifle, its a the new way firearms are going to be made now days period, just like glock when they came on the scene with their poly frames every body said they would not last because everyone was use to all steel, but look at glock now covering 70% of the police and civilian market not to mention other gun makers following suit.
remington,savage, and ruger all have understood that chopping down tree making wood stock guns is over in large volume as with all that heavy metal where it does not have to be anymore.
Anyone check out the specs on-line and think, “this can’t be right?”
The barrel lengths for the 270, 30-06, and 308 are all 22 inches, but the overall lengths seem kooky. The short action 308 is 42 and 1/2″, pretty reasonable, but the .30-06 is 44 and 1/2″ while the 7mm Mag, with a barrel length of 24″ is only 42 and 1/2 as well. The 270, again with a 22 inch barrel, catalogues at 41 and 5/8″ overall, the shortest of all. I think these are screwed up. The 270 and 30-06 should be 42 and 1/2″, the 7mm Mag, 44 and 1/2″, and the 308 is 41 and 5/8″. That would make sense.
Anyhow, what a win for Savage. The barrel nut used to be the ugly duckling no one wanted and here Remington is adopting it for one of their rifles.
Assuming it comes in as a model somewhere below the 700 SPS, are we to assume the disposable/throwaway stock of the SPS will not be improved upon. That would only be an “innovation” for the accountants. If a rifle begs to be fixed before the first shot is fired, it’s no bargain. I have no problem with a re-design as long as it’s safe, dead accurate and stone cold reliable and the manufacturer can replicate those attributes on 95% of all units sold. Considering modern manufacturing and new materials and the fact that Remington is the Jonny Come Lately at attempting to produce hi performing rifles with inexpensive materials, if somebody were to ask me, “For $450, which do you want, accuracy or reliability?”, my answer would be… both. If the past is any indication of the future, I would have my doubts that Big Green can pull it off since at double the price, they haven’t delivered on those attributes with any consistently. Good luck Mr. Fink (and I mean that). This will be your legacy.
I’ve heard nothing but good things about this, even as a “designed for a budget” rifle. I’ll wait till I handle it and hopefully shoot it to judge. Of course, my long shots are 150 yards at the ranch and I’ve made a max shot of 250 or so yards. So I’m not looking for something with MOA accuracy at 300+ yards like some.
Had a chance to handle this new Remington at a local shop this week. All I can say is that Remington has deteriorated to the point where I don’t see myself ever buying another until there is an overall change of ownership and production standards.
I’m buying one. I have no problem with any company that utilizes the best technology of other companies to enhance their own line of guns. The 700 series was just a remake of the Mauser technology.
I like the enhancements over the 700, more rigid receiver, bottom loading mag drop (huge plus), flat bolt tip for larger diameter scopes, shoots as accurate as the 700 out of the box and saves me a thousand dollars over the 700 I was looking at. For $365.00 and great accuracy out of the box, I can afford alot of ammo and a nice scope. This thing looks like it is built like a tank and take some punishment and is still 7 pounds. I like it! Great job Big R!
We are going to need an accurate , dependable rifle like this that everyone can afford in the near future. Be prepared and stay awake!