s5traut
Active Member
This thread may get controlversial, people will probably get offended and mass flaming will ensue. That being said, I do want an honest discussion despite my admitted bias.
I have a sensible approach to my purchases (usually) and try to spend my money effectively--I buy quality optics and firearms that are accurate, reliable and have a ready supply of spare/aftermarket parts. I don't skimp, but neither do I pay extra for name-brand stuff unless their perfomance justifies the expense; more often not, that isn't the case.
That being said, I am surprised at how many people fall for gimmicky aftermarket stuff that costs 3+ times as much, yet yields only a fractional benefit. So much of this "tactical" junk I see makes me laugh. I understand building a 'cool' gun is part of the appeal, but alot of these customized guns look like they just walked off the set of "Sniper IV" and onto some suburban gun range or p-dog field. It's surprising how much money people will spend to make their gun look "tactical".
I just ordered a new Savage Weather warrior in .243 a week ago, primarily for hunting dear/varmint/wolves and probably some range shooting for fun. I was perusing the forum and before I knew it, I was considering upgrades before I even shot the gun.
After more research and rational thinking, I realized this:
1) I have a gun that will shoot 1/2 MOA out of the box, replacement/aftermarket parts are readily available and Savage has outstanding customer service. Ammunition for .243 is accurate, flat shooting, easy to reload with a good supply of brass and factory loads as well.
2) The trigger is crisp, breaks clean and I have little to worry about in the way of accidental discharges.
3) The barrel is very accurate, and any "upgrade" would be of marginal benefit (unless I wanted a longer or heavier barrel)
4) Many people/gunmakers already use the Savage action on custom guns, the floating bolt head seems to be quite innovative and effective, and magazines are easy to come by and they feed reliably
5) The Accustock seems to be the only thing I'd even consider upgrading, simply because I think fiberglass is more durable. However, I would expect any increase in accuracy to be minimal over to a glass-bedded Accustock
And Savage is not the only case, there are alot of other people with the same results with Tikka ( I can vouch for them), Rem, Weatherby, Browning etc without spending over ~$1K. I simply don't understand why people feel the need to buy a perfectly good gun, and then go dump an extra couple grand to squeze out a 1/8-1/4 MOA they are probably not capable of capitalizing on anyway.
I think my first "range-queen" build will be a 260 Rem based off a Savage action and trigger with a more substantial fiberglass stock, likely McMillan. I would be curious to see how that would match up to some of these $5000k+ guns.
Am I missing something here? IMO, if it wasn't for marketing and "keeping up with the Jones", 95% of shooters here would have 95% of their current shooting success for 1/2 the cost. Although I do believe everyone is perfectly free to spend their money however they like, I think that we all would save a little money without having the latest and greatest (or trendiest)
I have a sensible approach to my purchases (usually) and try to spend my money effectively--I buy quality optics and firearms that are accurate, reliable and have a ready supply of spare/aftermarket parts. I don't skimp, but neither do I pay extra for name-brand stuff unless their perfomance justifies the expense; more often not, that isn't the case.
That being said, I am surprised at how many people fall for gimmicky aftermarket stuff that costs 3+ times as much, yet yields only a fractional benefit. So much of this "tactical" junk I see makes me laugh. I understand building a 'cool' gun is part of the appeal, but alot of these customized guns look like they just walked off the set of "Sniper IV" and onto some suburban gun range or p-dog field. It's surprising how much money people will spend to make their gun look "tactical".
I just ordered a new Savage Weather warrior in .243 a week ago, primarily for hunting dear/varmint/wolves and probably some range shooting for fun. I was perusing the forum and before I knew it, I was considering upgrades before I even shot the gun.
After more research and rational thinking, I realized this:
1) I have a gun that will shoot 1/2 MOA out of the box, replacement/aftermarket parts are readily available and Savage has outstanding customer service. Ammunition for .243 is accurate, flat shooting, easy to reload with a good supply of brass and factory loads as well.
2) The trigger is crisp, breaks clean and I have little to worry about in the way of accidental discharges.
3) The barrel is very accurate, and any "upgrade" would be of marginal benefit (unless I wanted a longer or heavier barrel)
4) Many people/gunmakers already use the Savage action on custom guns, the floating bolt head seems to be quite innovative and effective, and magazines are easy to come by and they feed reliably
5) The Accustock seems to be the only thing I'd even consider upgrading, simply because I think fiberglass is more durable. However, I would expect any increase in accuracy to be minimal over to a glass-bedded Accustock
And Savage is not the only case, there are alot of other people with the same results with Tikka ( I can vouch for them), Rem, Weatherby, Browning etc without spending over ~$1K. I simply don't understand why people feel the need to buy a perfectly good gun, and then go dump an extra couple grand to squeze out a 1/8-1/4 MOA they are probably not capable of capitalizing on anyway.
I think my first "range-queen" build will be a 260 Rem based off a Savage action and trigger with a more substantial fiberglass stock, likely McMillan. I would be curious to see how that would match up to some of these $5000k+ guns.
Am I missing something here? IMO, if it wasn't for marketing and "keeping up with the Jones", 95% of shooters here would have 95% of their current shooting success for 1/2 the cost. Although I do believe everyone is perfectly free to spend their money however they like, I think that we all would save a little money without having the latest and greatest (or trendiest)
Last edited: