Remington 40XB

[Calfed]

Originally Posted by Mals9

I am astounded that members here can have a 52B or 40X in their safe for years without ever shooting them. I do not have that much will power.

Mals

I'm a terminal procrastinator

[dave tengdin]

If they bought a whole bunch of them when CMP had them they might have shot them all looking for the best of the bunch.

[Calfed]

I've heard a theory that the beat up ones were shot the most because they shot the best.

[smag]

Thats not his theory. That's how it worked if you shot in high school. Every kid knew which rifle would outshoot all the others. So, it got worked and fought over.

The beat up, well used ones without question were the shooters. I bought 5 or 6 Rem 40x RF's at one time. Some in pristine shape, some wrecked. I cast soft lead laps for them all and got lead out of the barrels. The trashed beat up ones all had tighter chokes at muzzle. One so much it earned the name "Tightboy", beat all to heck. Still will run with these new PAS rifles.

Smag~

[Calfed]

Thanks, smag!


Were the Remington 40X's preferred over the Winchester 52's?

[Normanclature]

I shot on a high school rifle team using a Remington 513 T for 1 year and a Winchester 52C for 3 years. Then shot on an ROTC rifle team with a Remington 40XB for 4 years.

I liked the 52C the best because of the smooth action, the stock fit, the Redfield Olympic rear and International front sights. The 40XB had Redfield Olympic front and rear sights. Accuracy was about the same on both the 52C and 40XB.

[smag]

52's are nice. Some shot real well and the standard barrel 40x could really shoot as well. I think the 52 is a nicer rifle but they are real close in as far as accuracy.

Think they 40XB were a little heavy to have all that barrel hanging on that short portion of the threads in receiver. Prolly why the 40x standards shot better and they are certainly easier to shoot in prone.

They were both good for their time. They wont hold a candle to these new prone 22 lr rifles. They run about what?, $30k for one that'll keep you on the line in International Comp?

[Calfed]

Originally Posted by Normanclature

I shot on a high school rifle team using a Remington 513 T for 1 year and a Winchester 52C for 3 years. Then shot on an ROTC rifle team with a Remington 40XB for 4 years.

I liked the 52C the best because of the smooth action, the stock fit, the Redfield Olympic rear and International front sights. The 40XB had Redfield Olympic front and rear sights. Accuracy was about the same on both the 52C and 40XB.

Originally Posted by smag

52's are nice. Some shot real well and the standard barrel 40x could really shoot as well. I think the 52 is a nicer rifle but they are real close in as far as accuracy.

Think they 40XB were a little heavy to have all that barrel hanging on that short portion of the threads in receiver. Prolly why the 40x standards shot better and they are certainly easier to shoot in prone.

They were both good for their time. They wont hold a candle to these new prone 22 lr rifles. They run about what?, $30k for one that'll keep you on the line in International Comp?

Thanks, Nomenclature and smag.

I'm shooting in a weekly smallbore match and have been shooting my 52B, 52C, 40XB and BSA Martini MK V. All of them seem to shoot well with good ammo.

[dave tengdin]

I got several 52-D's and one 52-C when CMP had them. The 52-D's outshoot the 52-C. They all outshoot the Rem 40X's by just a little bit, but I like the trigger better. I have to say I only notice the difference in prone though. I don't shoot the other positions well enough to notice a difference. I built a new stock with an adjustable and hooked BP and comb for it to make it more useable in the other positions. For our (weekly) 4-P league that puts me competitive with the guys shooting the Annies (equipment wise), but the "nut behind the butt" is still the weak point. I just couldn't justify a $4000 expense for a higher performance gun. Not when I only shoot mid 570's now

[Calfed]

Originally Posted by dave tengdin

I got several 52-D's and one 52-C when CMP had them. The 52-D's outshoot the 52-C. They all outshoot the Rem 40X's by just a little bit, but I like the trigger better. I have to say I only notice the difference in prone though. I don't shoot the other positions well enough to notice a difference. I built a new stock with an adjustable and hooked BP and comb for it to make it more useable in the other positions. For our (weekly) 4-P league that puts me competitive with the guys shooting the Annies (equipment wise), but the "nut behind the butt" is still the weak point. I just couldn't justify a $4000 expense for a higher performance gun. Not when I only shoot mid 570's now

I'm with you. I can't see investing a huge sum of money into a new gun when all of my guns shoot better than I do.