The author puts the new 700 Target/Tactical rifle through its paces at the Remington new products seminar. The T/T is the third Model 700 to get the triangular barrel. Note the longer bolt handle and adjustable comb.

By Jon R. Sundra

Gun barrels come in all kinds of configurations. There are long and short ones, bull barrels, sporter barrels, ultralight barrels, hexagonal and octagonal barrels, straight and spiral fluted barrels, half-round/half-octagonal barrels, quarter-ribbed, stepped, and ... well, you get the picture: There are a heckuva lot of ways to shape a gun barrel!

There are also any number of reasons why there are different weights, lengths and shapes, but they’re not always functional. Bull barrels, for example, are stiffer than tapered barrels, and shortening them to, say, 20 inches, makes them even stiffer. A short soda-straw barrel can pare more ounces from a rifle than any other single weight-saving measure. Long barrels — exceeding 24 inches — can add velocity where high intensity centerfire cartridges are concerned.

But then, for example, there are fluted, ribbed or semi-octagonal barrels, which are primarily for cosmetic considerations. They look sexy and lend a distinctive character to a rifle. That’s reason enough, to my way of thinking, but they, too, have some functional aspects. 

Remington's Model 700 XHR stands out from other 700s by its "tri-barrel." Note how the flats or facets start at the fore-end tip. On the heavier barrels of the VTR and Target/Tactical models, the facets begin much closer to the receiver.

Now there’s a new twist in barrels (no pun intended), and it comes from Remington in the form of triangular barrel. Actually, the "tri-barrel" as I choose to call it, debuted in 2008 on the 700 VTR (Varmint/Target Rifle). In that iteration, the gun sported a heavy-contour 22-inch barrel with a three-slit muzzle brake at 12 o’clock to counteract muzzle jump; a broad, ventilated fore-end on a green synthetic stock with black overmolded grip panels.

It’s a very distinctive rifle for sure. I know I was impressed enough with it the first time I saw it that I wanted to test one. The example sent to me was in .204 Ruger, and it shot dime-size groups with a couple of factory loads. Other calibers offered in the VTR are .223, .22-250 and .308 Win.

The XHR was the first Model 700 to be fitted with the new, externally adjustable X-Mark Pro trigger. By the end of this year, all 700s and Model Sevens will be so equipped.

Apparently, the VTR’s triangular barrel was well enough received that this year Remington has introduced two iterations of it: the 700 XHR (Xtreme Hunting Rifle) and the 700 Target/Tactical. The XHR can best be described as a big game sporter version of the VTR. It has a more slender 24-inch barrel (26 inches in magnum and Ultra Mag calibers) and no muzzle brake. The stock is Remington’s synthetic sporter configuration with Realtree All Purpose Hi Def camo, plus Hogue rubberized grip panels in black.

The Target/Tactical job is a no-nonsense gun with a Bell & Carlson tactical stock. Both the comb and the length of pull can be adjusted.

There’s an extra-long bolt knob provide faster, easier bolt manipulation, and an all-steel hinged floorplate.

The stout 26-inch triangular barrel (and the VTR’s shorter 22-inch barrel) is different from the XHR’s in that the flat facets that form the triangular portion start much closer to the chamber. In other words, the triangular section is much longer on these models than on the XHR. The flats on the VTR and TT start about 4.5 inches in front of the receiver ring. The XHR’s facets begin at the fore-end tip, so only about half of the barrel is triangular

But enough of my describing the differences between the various versions. Let’s cut to the chase here. The primary feature that sets these guns apart is, of course, their unique barrels, so the question must be asked: Is there any sort of benefit to a triangular barrel, or is it just a cosmetic thing. 

A new digital camo version of the 700 VTR has been added for 2009. Note the muzzle brake and the facets, which begin much closer to the receiver than the XHR's.

Triangular barrels must have been tried before, and by more than one enterprising gunsmith or manufacturer. If there had been any noticeable increase in group size, we would have been shooting triangular barrels a long time ago!

In describing the VTR in its 2008 catalog, Remington stated: "Its patent-pending triangular barrel contour is a product of years of rigorous R&D focused on reduced weight, enhanced barrel rigidity and rapid heat dissipation." Notice that there is no actual claim that the barrel is somehow lighter or more rigid than any other shape, or that it dissipates heat any faster than other barrels Nor is there a claim of superior accuracy.

When I first saw prototypes of the tri-barrel concept before the VTR was officially introduced, my first question was whether a triangular barrel was any stiffer than a round barrel of equal weight. We know that fluting a barrel does not stiffen it as is generally believed, but maybe milling three broad flats on a barrel does? We also know that fluting a barrel exposes more surface area for cooling purposes, but does a triangular barrel exposed any more surface area than a round one?

All these thoughts immediately came to mind, but the most prominent one had to do with vibrational characteristics of the barrel. We know that a gun barrel oscillates or whips like a rapidly shaken garden hose as a bullet accelerates up the bore. The thinner the barrel, the more severe the effect. That’s why bullets of different weight do not always string vertically on a target; a different load is just as likely to impact left or right of the previous one.

What this proves is that the whip of the barrel is such that at the moment the bullet exits, the attitude of the muzzle is not coaxial with the bore. If we had a laser beam running precisely down the center of the bore projecting to a target downrange, and a magic cartridge that shot absolutely flat with no drop whatsoever, our group centers would almost never be where the laser was.

This warthog was the first trophy to fall to the XHR on the first morning of the author's 10-day hunt in Tanzania.

Now it stands to reason that a round barrel can oscillate in any direction, i.e., 360 degrees from the actual center of the bore. But what about a triangular barrel? Does it not stand to reason that such a barrel would tend to move in only three directions perpendicular to the flats? But then again, directly opposite each flat or facet is one of the three points of the triangle where the barrel wall is thickest.

I guess the point of all of this is, if by its shape a barrel is restricted to oscillating in only three directions 120 degrees apart, would that in some way affect accuracy in a positive way? If there is any accuracy enhancement, it would be so slight that it would take 100 of the best benchrest shooters shooting triangular barrels for a year in competition to prove it one way or another.

I’ve now had the opportunity to shoot five examples of the tri-barrel guns at Remington’s new product seminar, at my own range and in Tanzania, where last October, I used an XHR on a combined Cape buffalo/plains game hunt. I’m not about to tell you I’ve been able to discern any difference in accuracy— and certainly not heat dissipation, rigidity or any other performance criteria. Sure, I’ve put a couple of hundred rounds through these guns, but in terms of statistical sampling, that amounts to virtually no testing at all. For a test to have any validity, hundreds of rounds would have to be fired in each of at least 10 identical barreled actions secured in a machine rest to remove the human element entirely. Highly sophisticated testing instruments would have to measure the amplitude of the barrel vibrations and heat dissipation of triangular barrels versus conventional configurations.

Other than the benchrest scenario cited above, it would be very costly in terms of both research time and dollars to reach any definitive results. If you did make that investment and it didn’t prove what you wanted it to, then what would you do?

Wanting to know if indeed Remington had done extensive testing of the tri-barrel, I asked the company’s director of press relations, Linda Powell, that very question. She directed me to one of their engineers, who told me they had conducted accuracy testing only; no heat dissipation or vibrational testing. Their conclusion was that the triangular barrel was at the very least as accurate as Remington’s round barrels, which in itself is saying something. My experience with the XHR on the range and in Africa certainly bore that out.

The topi is a fairly large antelope that can weigh as much as 300 pounds. This one fell to a Remington 150-grain AccuTip load in 7mm Rem Mag.

The gun I used in Tanzania was chambered in 7mm Rem Magnum and was equipped with the new X-Mark Pro Adjustable trigger, which is new for 2009. The X-Mark Pro was introduced last year, and it was a genuine improvement over what historically had always been a very good trigger. Customer feedback, however, indicated that, improved though it was, it was set a mite too stiff. It didn’t take Remington long to respond with the adjustable version, which has an adjustment range of 2.5 to 4.5 pounds.

My test rifle was set at 3 pounds on the nose, which is what the factory spec is. It was crisp and smooth enough that it actually felt lighter, so I left it as is. By the end of this year, all Remington Model 700 and Model Sevens will be equipped with the owner-adjustable X-Mark Pro trigger.

For sights, I chose one of my all-time favorites, Leupold’s 6x42. I know, I’m old fashioned to opt for a fixed-power scope in the age of the variable. I have lots of reasons, but there’s not enough space for me to go into them here.

Using Leupold’s standard medium-high rings, the 42mm objective just cleared the barrel by less than 1/16 inch. It was the perfect marriage.

Since there were no really big antelope on my license, I chose Remington’s 150-grain AccuTip load, which produced MOA accuracy when I zeroed the gun prior to leaving for Africa. It shot just as well there when I rechecked the zero prior to hunting.

My safari was conducted in the Kigosi concession in the northwest region of Tanzania. I’d hunted the Selous and the Masai Steppes in the past, but this was my first visit to that part of the country. Mine was primarily a Cape buffalo hunt, so the number of plains game species on my special license was limited to only three animals: warthog, topi and Bohor reedbuck. My PH was Jaco Oosthuizen, who heads up Game Trackers Africa (www.gametrackersafrica.com). Jaco was backing me up on the buffalo with a Chapue double rifle chambered in .470 Nitro. I was using a Model 700 C-Grade out of the Custom Shop in .416 Rem Mag. It had a blueprinted action, special iron sights and a beautifully figured walnut stock fitted with Remington’s highly efficient SuperCell recoil pad — you know, one of those mushy ones that really attenuates felt recoil.

The XHR’s performance in Africa can be summed up by saying, three shots, three critters. The warthog and reedbuck literally dropped in their tracks, and the topi ran for maybe 100 yards, which is typical for heart/lung-shot African antelope.

I wish I could tell you the triangular barrel is somehow better than a conventional round barrel, but I can’t. All I can say is what Remington’s engineers told me: "It performs at least as well as a conventional Model 700 barrel."

The rifle really turns heads and polarizes opinions. My XHR drew a lot of ooohs and ahhhs, not only at the shooting range, but also from the PHs to the trackers, skinners and general camp staff in Africa. Some were positive; others negative.

Me, I kinda like it, but then I like fluted barrels, laminated stocks, all-stainless guns and a lot of the other new trends that have changed the marketplace over the last 20 years or so.

Like anything that’s unusual and sets a product apart from the conventional, the XHR costs a premium, but it’s not much more than a standard camo-stocked Model 700. It carries an MSRP of $879 in standard calibers; $905 in magnums.

--Jon R. Sundra