You can buy the Steven and Mossberg for less, but it doesn't come with the extra's.... Stevens 200's that I've seen locally are selling for $279. Bases and rings will be $20 or so for Weaver's. Add the $50 scope that comes on the Remington, and you are looking at $350, about the same as a 710 (which is only $325 at Wal-Mart). The Mossberg synthetic comes in at a bit less, using Wal-Mart's price. When you add in having a smith to mount the bases and rings, set up the scope, and boresight it, you're looking at another $50, which is more than the 710 would cost with the extra services done at the factory. I admit that some stores will mount the scope and such for free, but not everyone has access to those stores. Also, if someone is looking for a cheap gun, and they aren't familiar with tinkering with rifles, they will need to have the scope work done by a smith. So the 710 still comes in for less, with the extra $50, they can get a couple boxes of ammo, burn one at the range, and use the other box for the next 5 years for hunting. Instead of dropping the gun off to the smith and waiting, they can leave the store and go sight in the gun, and be ready to shoot.
Everyone needs to remember, some people don't want to dicker with decisions. They want the gun ready to go. They are going to shoot it 5 times a year, one shot to make sure it's still on target, and 4 more to tag out. At that rate, any gun will last forever. Is there a better rifle for this purpose at any price? I don't really think there is.
I'll admit that the Stevens and Mossberg offer more quality for the money. I think that the synthetic stocks on both of those suck, and I'd replace them before I used the gun. I like the feel and handling of the 710 better, and other than the trigger guard (I've never seen a broken one, but who knows?), it's a heck of a lot stiffer and more durable than the Stevens and Mossberg.
I find it very funny that the features that everyone gripes about on the 710 are some of the same features on the Tikka T3, which is very popular and a "high quality" rifle . They both have a polymer shroud, a cheaply designed detachable mag, the recoil lug design is almost the same, the actions are all one length, etc. I've had 3 T3's, and sold them all. The synthetic stocks suck. The raised gripping surface (I refuse to call is checkering) on the pistol grip and forearm of a .223 I had wore off the stock after a day of riding in a rubber cushioned rack on a quad. $50 for an cheap injection molded mag is crazy, and so is the prices of rings. All three that I had were accurate, but not anymore so than the 710's I've shot. As for adjustable triggers, the Remington is as good as the Tikka anyday, when they are both properly tuned.
I didn't mean to ramble on..... I just don't understand why the 710 is considered a big piece of crap. It seems to sell pretty good for a crappy gun, and even on the internet, I see a lot more used guns of other models than I do the 710. I've never seen a 710 on the used rack at any gunshop in my area. Not a single one. I know probably 20 people who have them, some for a primary gun, some for an extra, and they don't have a negative word about the gun.
It isn't pretty, it's not a gun for the pride of ownership, it not an expensive bragging gun, but it shoots straight, it shoots everytime, and it will do anything a $1000 gun will do.
