Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
A Critical Look at the Failure of the Outdoor Media and Modern Hunting Rifles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cfvickers" data-source="post: 595319" data-attributes="member: 25488"><p>We can agree to disagree Win Mag. I like beauty, old school quality, and fine fit and finish. But a cheaply made rifle that holds up to a substantial amount of abuse can still be good quality. It is my opinion, knowing what goes into making rifles that shoot 1/2 to 3/4 MOA at 200 yards and beyond consistently, that many of the manufacturers have learned to make quality rifles with parts that are cheap to manufacture. The only exception is the barrel, they will get what they pay for. But even with barrels, technology has made making good barrels much cheaper than it was in the past. only have two rifles with plastic stocks, one is a svage accustock, and the aluminum bedding block makes the cheap looking stock decieving. I wish they would make an classic walnut accustock because yes it is ugly, or better put, plain. the other is my Steyr, it is cammo, and a little flimsy. But it does not touch the barrel and is quite sturdy and stiff in the area around the action.Floating barrels I see as necessity. Even in the older rifles I have dealt with, float the barrels and they shoot better unless they have a very thin barrel. Maybe it is a cheaper method, but it works regardless. I think floating is an idea that they either did not think of in years past, or they were not sure if the action would support the weight when the barrels were banged around in pickup trucks and the such. Good triggers are the biggest achievement in the more recent cheap rifles. They have come a LONG way. Savage actions used to seem grimy and rough to me, but mine is quite smooth in comparison to the ones I have used in the past. All that said, I also appreciate the quality of many of the older rifles, but it just doesn't take away from the usability of the newer ones. the manufacturers have just responded to what consumers asked for. Light weight inexpensive rifles that will shoot as well as custom rifles did 15+years ago. Some of them, such as my 111 Long Range Hunter, will shoot as well as some very nice custom rifles do today. But the price point of those is higher than that of the economy models. Bottom line, I know many here will disagree with me on this issue, and my first reply was a meant to be a direct rebuttal to the article. Where the older rifles fell short, the newer ones excel, and vice versa, where the older rifles excelled, the newer ones fall short. Because the general public is at the moment more interested in light weight, inexpensive, and potential accuracy that many seem to believe will make up for their lack of skill, these cheaper rifles continue to flood the marketplace. I believe that we have gotten to a point where there is a large gap in the market. Most who want a good shooting rifle that is pretty are willing to pay the price for a custom, or those such as Cooper, which I see as a semicustom. If a guy wants a good, functional, accurate hunting rifle, they don't care so much about fit and finish nearly as much as price which they believe generally should be 500.00 or less with scope attached, something has to give. So it is the pretty factor that suffers. From a marketing standpoint it makes perfect sense. There is a very small market for the higher end models of standard rifles because the public has come to realize that the only real difference is the stock and metal finish. The economy is another factor that is not taken into account in his article, while all of us may prefer a prettier rifle, we (as a whole) are more inclined to buy a no frills model that will accomplish the same task for less money. I am just happy that there ARE options out there for all of us. On the subject of the gun rags, I do agree that they write articles based purely on advertising hype, and it seems as though they often don't even test the products/rifles they write about. He is wrong on one statement, if he says he could not find a load to shoot under one inch at 100 yards with a tikka, he either got a dud that should have gone back to the factory, or he didn't try much in the way of loads. I have yet to find one that would not print consistent 3/4 inch 100 yard three shot groups. As long as we all enjoy the rifles we have, and feel like we got our money's worth from them then that is all that matters. I love all of mine, and I hope you love yours as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cfvickers, post: 595319, member: 25488"] We can agree to disagree Win Mag. I like beauty, old school quality, and fine fit and finish. But a cheaply made rifle that holds up to a substantial amount of abuse can still be good quality. It is my opinion, knowing what goes into making rifles that shoot 1/2 to 3/4 MOA at 200 yards and beyond consistently, that many of the manufacturers have learned to make quality rifles with parts that are cheap to manufacture. The only exception is the barrel, they will get what they pay for. But even with barrels, technology has made making good barrels much cheaper than it was in the past. only have two rifles with plastic stocks, one is a svage accustock, and the aluminum bedding block makes the cheap looking stock decieving. I wish they would make an classic walnut accustock because yes it is ugly, or better put, plain. the other is my Steyr, it is cammo, and a little flimsy. But it does not touch the barrel and is quite sturdy and stiff in the area around the action.Floating barrels I see as necessity. Even in the older rifles I have dealt with, float the barrels and they shoot better unless they have a very thin barrel. Maybe it is a cheaper method, but it works regardless. I think floating is an idea that they either did not think of in years past, or they were not sure if the action would support the weight when the barrels were banged around in pickup trucks and the such. Good triggers are the biggest achievement in the more recent cheap rifles. They have come a LONG way. Savage actions used to seem grimy and rough to me, but mine is quite smooth in comparison to the ones I have used in the past. All that said, I also appreciate the quality of many of the older rifles, but it just doesn't take away from the usability of the newer ones. the manufacturers have just responded to what consumers asked for. Light weight inexpensive rifles that will shoot as well as custom rifles did 15+years ago. Some of them, such as my 111 Long Range Hunter, will shoot as well as some very nice custom rifles do today. But the price point of those is higher than that of the economy models. Bottom line, I know many here will disagree with me on this issue, and my first reply was a meant to be a direct rebuttal to the article. Where the older rifles fell short, the newer ones excel, and vice versa, where the older rifles excelled, the newer ones fall short. Because the general public is at the moment more interested in light weight, inexpensive, and potential accuracy that many seem to believe will make up for their lack of skill, these cheaper rifles continue to flood the marketplace. I believe that we have gotten to a point where there is a large gap in the market. Most who want a good shooting rifle that is pretty are willing to pay the price for a custom, or those such as Cooper, which I see as a semicustom. If a guy wants a good, functional, accurate hunting rifle, they don't care so much about fit and finish nearly as much as price which they believe generally should be 500.00 or less with scope attached, something has to give. So it is the pretty factor that suffers. From a marketing standpoint it makes perfect sense. There is a very small market for the higher end models of standard rifles because the public has come to realize that the only real difference is the stock and metal finish. The economy is another factor that is not taken into account in his article, while all of us may prefer a prettier rifle, we (as a whole) are more inclined to buy a no frills model that will accomplish the same task for less money. I am just happy that there ARE options out there for all of us. On the subject of the gun rags, I do agree that they write articles based purely on advertising hype, and it seems as though they often don't even test the products/rifles they write about. He is wrong on one statement, if he says he could not find a load to shoot under one inch at 100 yards with a tikka, he either got a dud that should have gone back to the factory, or he didn't try much in the way of loads. I have yet to find one that would not print consistent 3/4 inch 100 yard three shot groups. As long as we all enjoy the rifles we have, and feel like we got our money's worth from them then that is all that matters. I love all of mine, and I hope you love yours as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
A Critical Look at the Failure of the Outdoor Media and Modern Hunting Rifles
Top