Talk:Remington Model 788

Reliable source

We have a forum source http://www.snipercountry.com/HotTips/Remington788.htm being used in this article, but I don't think it really fits with WP:RS. Comments anyone? For example it mentions that the rifle has "forward lugs" while the article mentions "rear lugs". Arthurrh (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rear-lug picture

I believe someone has one of these rifles at home? If so can you take a picture of the rear-lugged bolt for this article? It's listed as a distinguishing feature and I think it'd make a nice addition to the article. Arthurrh (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    Your wish is granted, albeit 5 years later. Hardwarefreak (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Viewpoint

Asams10 you continue to edit out my statements. I left your theory alone as to why the 788 was discontinued in my last revision, and offered an alternative viewpoint. You haven't cited a source for why the weapon was discontinued yourself, so my reasons are just as valid as yours. Further, if CNC machinery was the death of the 788, why wasn't it the death of the 700? The 700 is an even older design, so I'm reluctant to trust your machinery theory. You should either provide a verifiable source supporting your theory of why the 788 was discontinued or quit editing out my equally valid alternate viewpoint. Keeping both possibilities on the page until one is disproven by a verifiable source is the right thing to do. It keeps the article objective and gives readers a glimpse of the internal politics of why a gun maker might discontinue a particular model.

Calling my equally valid viewpoint a "conspiracy" in the edit history is a personal attack; a thinly veiled attempt to call me a conspiracy theorist. It was rude and uncalled for.

Gunaficionado (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think in the case of two unsourced opinions, it would be best to put neither of them in the article. The method of wikipedia is not to post info until disproven, but rather the burden of proof lies on the editor who adds are restores material according to verifiability guideslines. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Safety issue? Bolt handle issue!

How many folks are reporting the safety issue? I'd like to see some deeper digging here. I've used one in .222 Rem for years- it is an early model. NEVER saw a safety get touchy, but have indeed seen the bolt handle break off! Twice. Next time it will get the TIG welding treatment rather than the brazing job they often get.

The second one we've had maybe only 15 years. Its a .308 my brother picked up used. No problems of any sort yet although I can see that the bolt handle will soon become an issue. If it was an issue in the .222 it will two or three times the issue in the .308. Now that we've found the "magic" load it loves I expect it to get a lot more use than it used to! Anyway, the bolt handle issue IS well documented. It should also be mentioned. Probably so should the phenomenal accuracy. The .222 will shoot circles around a friends 700 in .222. And the .308 is looking like a serious contender as well. Even with a failing scope (wandering lateral zero followed by unable to focus whatsoever) I was able to impress some remarkably accomplished shooters with much more recent experience. MOA easily. How much under is what I cannot wait to see! 69.225.36.13 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 69.225.36.13 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had my .308 since 1986 and fired a couple hundred rounds through it, and I'm at least the 2nd owner, maybe 5th, no idea how many hands it passed through before landing in mine. It's been in the field every Missouri whitetail season from '86 on. I take good care of my weapons, don't beat em around or abuse them, nor shoot hot loads. I've never had an issue with the safety nor bolt handle. Compared to a Ruger M77 the safety isn't nearly as tight, meaning it takes about 1/10th the effort to kick it over, and it makes far less noise. I prefer this. Apparently others see it differently.Hardwarefreak (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thorough cleanup, nearly complete rewrite

I had intended to simply add the picture of my bolt and accompanying information, but as I read the entire article it became clear it was badly in need of a thorough cleanup/rewrite. For starters 2 of the 4 http references were dead links. Of the other two, one was to a forum. The other linked to a web page containing one man's opinions, and the man's name is not even on the page itself, nor his credentials, if any, cited on the page. All of the text with these 4 references was completely subjective, or completely irrevelent. The only statement that made sense without verification of a sourse is that parts are rare. That's obvious given they've not been made for 30 years. But that information isn't relevant to the rifle itself, so I removed it as well. And WTF are "screw machines"? This is an antiquated term for a "lathe". ALL firearms production involves lathes, as this is how chambers are cut into barrels, receivers bored, etc. So this isn't uniqe to the 788. And on, and on...

So, I expanded on the aspects of the bolt/receiver that make the 788 unique and why. I also wholesale deleted all of the subjective and unverified junk that was hanging on at the bottom of the article. In its place I created a table of the rifle's production history, sourced from Remington's website. I used the reference twice as the quoted name at the top of the article is on the same page. I can't seem to figure out how to make it a single reference [1] instead of [1] and [3]. For now I'll leave that for someone with more edit-foo.

If someone feels the subjective edits that I removed really belong in this article, please discuss them before adding them back, and/or make sure you cite a real reference to back the claim. Notice how I went to extreme lengths to avoid talking about benchrest shooters and "cult following" to describe the accuracy of the 788, as that would be purely subjective without real sources to back it up. Instead I lay down the engineering basis for the rifle's accuracy without making any claims about how it actually shoots. That the reader can infer. There were ~565,000 of these rifles produced. I read every linked complaint about bolt handles falling off, and to a rifle, they didn't fall off, but were POUNDED off. All of the owners were loading hot rounds. They stuck in the chamber and they all tried to beat the handle out and broke it. 5/565,000? Loading rounds beyond SAAMI standards then breaking their guns trying to unjam the cartridge. If people don't break the rules they don't break off the bolt. Thus this is not Wikipedia quality information as abuse caused the breakage, and it's a fraction of a fraction of a percent of guns whose bolts get broken by nitwits. Regarding the safety issue and the claim that the guns are unsafe because it, THAT needs the number of a successful criminal or civil lawsuit as a reference. A claim like that is libelous, and puts Wikipedia at legal risk. It was absolutely stupid to put that here without the legal documentation proving it to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarefreak (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that removing the comment about 243s and 308s being most common is directly a result of the manufacturing table. The 243 was only made in 1968 and 1980, two years of the 15 of production. The right hand 308 was only produced in 1969. And although the left hand 308 was produced for 11 years, lefties are less than 5% of the population, thus the numbers of these rifles produced was low. The .222 Remington was produced in by far the greatest numbers as it was right hand and made for 15 years. It is this caliber that gave the 788 its reputation as a tack driver.Hardwarefreak (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)