I own both models and I have to say the 770 doesn't get quite enough credit. It's in an entirely different class than the 700 and the two shouldn't be compared. I've always thought that's what killed it. If I was gonna buy a rifle that I knew would pass from kid to kid I would consider the 770 for sure. I've improved mine quite a bit though and maybe that's why I don't hate it so much. For less than 40 bucks I glass-bedded it and smoothed out the bolt, its raceways, and polished the trigger sear. I enjoy pretending I'm a gunsmith and it all turned out good for a low price, so in my mind it was worth it. For a pressed barrel it's accuracy is actually pretty good. It won't come close to the performance of a 700, especially a custom blueprinted, trued, bedded 700, but it was never meant to. I'm struggling to find the sense in the lawyer/accountant comment. The 770 has to carry more liability for them, it's more poorly made and not near as strong. I would bet the profit margins are about the same as the 700, and the amount of 770's sold is a tiny fraction of the 700's. I do not love my 770 in any way, but it is alright and for the ridiculously low price it would make an ok beginner rifle.
