While there is some truth to what he says, and a lot of fiction in my own eyes. Personally, I LOVE the checkering pattern on a Tikka T3. And I chose a Steyr SBS Pro Hunter (another "cheaply made" gun by his standards) over the Tikka because I liked the action better. I think the checkering on the tikka looks very good. Further, to state, unequivocally, that 2" at 100 yards "is good enough" for any hunting rifle. That is an utterly ridiculous statement. Yes injection molded stocks are cheap, ugly and not a good bedding platform. All true. but then he complains that you cannot feed a round directly into a chamber with a newer cheaper made rifle. FALSE!! Try feeding a round into the chamber directly with a pre 64 model 70. You can't without some variety of modification. Old mausers, nope. My Steyr, Savage, 700, XL7, or even the old Husqvarna (Closer to the quality action he says he likes I suppose, but same price range recently, or cheaper than many of the modern cheaply made rifles) can all be fed directly into the chamber, close the bolt and pull the trigger. No need to put the round securely in the mag. Every gun I mentioned will consistently shoot sub MOA 5 shot groups at 100 yards with the loads I have worked up. Find me a really pretty 1960s era model 700 or pre 64 model 70 in factory form that will shoot sub MOA. They are not there. His assertion that 2MOA is good enough is plain stupid and says that it is time for Chuck HAwks to retire. Yes technology has made it cheaper and easier to make a very good quality rifle CHEAP. You may not still get high gloss finished stocks, and I wish they would, but you can get most of the rifles mentioned as examples in higher end form with very noce wood stocks, and there are guys out there that can put whatever type of finish you desire for a reasonable cost. Usually at or around 100.00 if all you want is the finish replaced, add more for other details. But why should we want a "quality made" rifle that weighs 2lbs more than it has too. Weight is a huge factor in a hunting rifle, especially one that you will carry into the mountains. I four piece bolt that lasts 100 years and has replaceable parts that require no machining for repair is in my opinion a better option than a solid bolt that will last the same hundred years but will require repair at some point as well, but that repair will be more difficult and costly than the repair on the 4 piece bolt. Most problems with either start with abuse and or high pressure loads. (Mauser actions do not require repair, I know this, there is nothing literally to break, even firing pins are nearly indestructable) So in short, While some of what he writes on other subjects is DEAD ON, his opinions on modern (post 1970) rifles is reminiscent of the 70 year old who hates computers because they didn't need them in their heyday. My dad who refuses to learn to even LOK AT text messages on a cell phone but brought the first affordable cell phones to our area as one of the first dealers in this area. Or people who just cannot otherwise let go of the past. Times have changed and technology has allowed us to make high quality products that are affordable, and more capable than the expensive products of the past. It is the case with everything we have, from computers to rifles to cars and cell phones. It is the way the world works. when you refuse to follow along even when something is proven better then your opinion becomes irrelevant. And that is a bad way to go in his profession.
).
