Should I be bummed?

[Jesse James]

I recently purchased a Remington 550-1. While reading some earlier threads in here, I ran across information concerning the differences in certain year spans. For example, I learned that my 1952 Remington 550-1 is different from the 550 without the "dash" before the 1. And obviously the Model 550 is the first generation of these neat rifles.

That being said, is my 550-1, inferior to the earlier models? You know, just like all the hype about Pre-64 Winchesters.

Or, am I mistaken? I just hope I have a good rifle and not one from the dreaded "oh, it was built in 1952? Gosh, those were the BAD years for Rem 550-1's"

[John Gyde]

All the 550s were good rifles. The "-1" was actually considered a slight improvement by some folks.

[Jesse James]

Thank you, Sir. I look forward to learning more about my 550-1.

[rsv1rem]

There really are no "bad" years associated with the model 550 (series) rifles. But there are pluses in the later model 550-1's, reliability and tighter tolerances for a couple.

In my considerable experience with the model (I have owned over 70 of them) I have found that the later year 550-1's (1965 thru 1970) are the best constructed, finished, and most accurate of the bunch. Goes against conventional thought where quality diminishes as tooling wears and company interest in the model subsides.

One downside - Remington did in the last two years of production resort to using beechwood instead of walnut for most of their 550-1 stocks.

Check out the "Williams" patents stamped on the barrel and do a google search. You own a unique rifle with a history. Construction is all steel with mostly milled parts, only the connector, carrier, and cartridge stop are stamped. No aluminum was ever used. Cared for properly, your rifle will last forever.