The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Rem. 710 vs. Savage 111FCXP vs. Stevens 200 vs. Mossbegr 100ATR

Davis · January 21, 2007, 08:52 AM

The problem is that the 710 costs more than the Stevens and the Mossberg, and the same as the Savage. It is very clearly the lowest quality in construction (stock, bolt, receiver). It is made cheaply, as cheap as one can make a rifle. It is designed to be thrown away as there are very few repairable parts in the 710. More importantly, it is something akin to Picasso drawing an X on a piece of paper and selling it for $10,000. Remington drew an x on a piece of paper and expect everyone to pay more money for it than the competition. The Mossberg, Savage, and Stevens rifles are superior designs. . Consider that the receiver is soft steel, the barrel is pressed in (not even pinned into place), the action relies on plastic for smoothness, which serves more to make it spongy than smooth. The plastic bolt cap is, well, plastic. It costs considerably less to produce the 710 than the other rifles. The mark up on the 710 is gigantic compared to the Stevens or Mossberg.

The 710 is a dead end rifle. Once you get it, that's it. The only improvement that can be made is a better scope. On the Savage and Stevens, you can upgrade the stock, change the caliber, improve the trigger, customize as much as you wish. The options are almost infinitely broader. With the Mossberg, you can at least change out the caliber and perhaps the trigger. If you get a 710 and realize the stock really is cheaply made, you're out of luck as there isn't a thing you can do about it except get another rifle. If you buy the Stevens and discover the stock is a crappy as the 710's stock, what luck, you can replace it with a huge variety of stocks out there.

The 710 is a serviceable rifle that will shoot with reasonable accuracy and will give a reasonable service life. Enjoy yours. However, for the money you spent, you could have gotten a better rifle. That is the real point. For the money, compared to the Stevens and Mossberg, the Remington is the most expensive but the poorest quality. The name stamped on the rifle is a bit too expensive. And, if you have to have Remington on the rifle, then eat Ramen noodles for a week, spend an extra $60 and get a 700, which is a great rifle.

Davis

January 21, 2007, 08:52 AM	#20
Davis Junior member Join Date: January 8, 2002 Posts: 675	The problem is that the 710 costs more than the Stevens and the Mossberg, and the same as the Savage. It is very clearly the lowest quality in construction (stock, bolt, receiver). It is made cheaply, as cheap as one can make a rifle. It is designed to be thrown away as there are very few repairable parts in the 710. More importantly, it is something akin to Picasso drawing an X on a piece of paper and selling it for $10,000. Remington drew an x on a piece of paper and expect everyone to pay more money for it than the competition. The Mossberg, Savage, and Stevens rifles are superior designs. . Consider that the receiver is soft steel, the barrel is pressed in (not even pinned into place), the action relies on plastic for smoothness, which serves more to make it spongy than smooth. The plastic bolt cap is, well, plastic. It costs considerably less to produce the 710 than the other rifles. The mark up on the 710 is gigantic compared to the Stevens or Mossberg. The 710 is a dead end rifle. Once you get it, that's it. The only improvement that can be made is a better scope. On the Savage and Stevens, you can upgrade the stock, change the caliber, improve the trigger, customize as much as you wish. The options are almost infinitely broader. With the Mossberg, you can at least change out the caliber and perhaps the trigger. If you get a 710 and realize the stock really is cheaply made, you're out of luck as there isn't a thing you can do about it except get another rifle. If you buy the Stevens and discover the stock is a crappy as the 710's stock, what luck, you can replace it with a huge variety of stocks out there. The 710 is a serviceable rifle that will shoot with reasonable accuracy and will give a reasonable service life. Enjoy yours. However, for the money you spent, you could have gotten a better rifle. That is the real point. For the money, compared to the Stevens and Mossberg, the Remington is the most expensive but the poorest quality. The name stamped on the rifle is a bit too expensive. And, if you have to have Remington on the rifle, then eat Ramen noodles for a week, spend an extra $60 and get a 700, which is a great rifle. Davis