Remington 700 and L1A1 (FN FAL Variant)

Question
Dear GCH,

Greetings sir!  I had a bunch of questions regarding the Remington 700 (.308) and the L1A1 (FN FAL variant) I was wondering if I could get your insightful opinions on.

(1) Is it true that the Remington 700 has a problem with shooting by itself without pulling the trigger?  I saw some articles on this on the internet saying there had been many accidental shootings because of it.  I contacted a gun smith who said this was likely due to people adjusting the "trigger" away from what the manufacturer had set it at.

(2) Do you know what scope most police departments use with the Remington 700 in order to make it the best sniper rifle possible i.e. to squeeze the most distance/accuracy out of it by technological means?

(3) Will the Remington 700 (in .308) fire a further range and provide greater accuracy than the FN FAL (L1A1) .308 with a scope on it?


(4) If you had to pick a home defense weapon, both for inside your home, and to cover your outside perimeter out to a distance of about 700 meters, which would you pick, the Remington 700 (.308) with Police sniper scope, or the L1A1 (FN FAL) (.308) also with the best scope available?

Thank you again for you in depth analysis.

Sincerely,
Michael

Answer
Michael,

First, let me say that I think that the best home defense gun for most home-owners who live on some property is a Remington 870 shotgun.  This is a formidable weapon from contact to across-the-room distances with buckshot, and beyond that, it is very quick to change the ammunition type to a slug for shots out to 100 yards.  Beyond that distance (e.g. the 700 meters you mentioned) you will probably have a very difficult time convincing a jury that you were in immediate and eminent danger, and therefore justified in shooting at someone at that distance.

If you're wed to the idea of a rifle, my choice for your application would be a variant of the AR15.  Some of these are suitably accurate for defense (some magnificently accurate), suitably short for close quarters conflicts, and will shoot out to 300 yards effectively.

But to answer your questions in order:

1)  Remington 700's that were manufactured in the late 60's ?early 70's (you'd have to check with Remington or someone who keeps up with manufacture of that rifle) had a three-position safety ?on, off, and a position to lock the bolt down.  In order to unlock the bolt, you had to take the safety off, and there were problems with discharges.  I suspect that in a lot of these cases, the triggers also were monkeyed with.  The 揻ix?for an old rifle is to have a gunsmith grind off the bolt locking lug, so that the safety is now only a two position safety (like the modern variants).  A rifle used for practical purposes should have a trigger of not less than 3 lbs in my opinion ?lighter than that is for bench rest competition only.  The bottom line is that if the 700 had a perennial problem with this, Remington wouldn't manufacture the rifle anymore, as it would be too great a liability for them.  Modern 700's are perfectly safe, as long as you have the trigger adjusted by a competent gunsmith who knows the checks to do on it to ensure it is safe afterwards.

2)  There is no one model scope that most departments use, but the manufacture that most use is Leupold.  This is due to ruggedness and value-for-money.  There are better scopes, i.e. more optically clear, better light gathering, that cost a LOT more.  Any high-end scope will work (Nikon, Kahles, Zies), and work well, but for value for money,the Leupold scopes are hard to beat.  I prefer 3-9  power with the smaller objective lense (the larger objective costs a lot more and doesn't give you much in return ?maybe 10 more minutes at dawn and ten more minutes at dusk).  Scopes, by the way, don't do anything for the accuracy of the rifle.  They help you see better, and many people can shoot better if they can see better, but I've see plenty of shooters for whom the best scope in the world would be no more beneficial to them than iron sights.

3)  The range is found in the cartridge, not in the gun.  As far as accuracy goes, guns are individuals, but the bottom line is that the FAL is a military gun, not spec'd for wowing accuracy.  Generally speaking, bolt action guns are capable of greater accuracy than gas operated autos or semis.  But the FAL is capable of "practical accuracy" (i.e. it can hit a man-sized target at distance).

4)  Part of the reason why the U.S. military has gone to, and stayed with the .223 is because of the realization that confrontations were not taking place over long distances.  They are either in thick jungle or in cities, and big gun required for the big cartridge was a liability in such a situation.  For inside the house, I would not want a 700 or an FAL, as they are both too long and too heavy to wield in a confined conflict.  If the conflict was that close, I'd want an action other than a bolt (too slow).  On the other hand, if the fight was coming from 700 yards away (I can't imagine it in a civilian application), accuracy is more important than speed, and I would opt for the 700.