Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Cheap Rifles and expensive scopes

So you guys are saying that old K 4 weaver I have been saving ain't gonna cut the mustard?

Rats.

Because they know the M700 needs a Timney trigger to be safe, and the bolt has a 90 degree lift and is not as smooth as the RAR action, and they prefer the 60 degree lift. Some also prefer the location and operation of the RAR safety. They may have already owned so many M700s that they have experienced an extractor issue. Or perhaps have heard of it and just don't want to spend the money on a Sako extractor.

More than likely it's because the guy just wants a brand new rifle instead of somebody else's half worn out problem. Because mint 700's are never $300.

I would take a Half worn out Remington 700 over a Ruger American any day. Brand new RARs are 379 at Academy. Brand new Remington 700s at Academy are 379...Just a few months ago they had 700s on sale for 330 with a 35 $ Rebate.

$150 gun.... $1000 piece of glass.... priceless amounts of fun....

I've had way more inexpensive glass fail than inexpensive rifles.



So what exactly makes the R700 superior? It can't be based on aesthetics because that 700 ADL at Academy isn't any prettier than the RAR and probably won't shoot as well.

I know we all have our predisposition to illogical bias, but good grief.

Well, many used 700's have very nice impressed checkering, and the older BDL's also have white-line spacers.

When it comes to cash outlay for a rifle, consider the ammo, time, and work you may have to put in to get them to shoot.

For me, a Tikka or Weatherby S2 are some of the best bargains out there, out the box. Had Rems and Rugers shoot, and others, but also done alot of work on 700s after purchase, that = ammo burned, time, and more range trips inc. gas.

Not all 700s are bad, but they are not always great out the box. I would be more confident a sporter config Tikka or S2 would give me MOA or better, out the box, than many others, and the fit, finish, etc. is always consistent and actions smooth. IME. Had a bolt handle fall off a 700, not common, but when they fail, you have a useless paperweight. That will not happen with a T3 or S2

Speaking of older world craftmanship, I look to old Sako's...

I don't tell a young man in his 20's or even teens who is interested in trying our sport that he needs to spend $2K to get started with a deer rifle. Pick the sub 600 rifle that fits and has a 1" guarantee and put a $300 Leupod or conquest in Talley one piece mounts and you are good for the next 25 years or so.

My model 77 7mm RM that I bought in 1977 for $179 has gone through 2 piece of crap scopes which one of which cost me a trophy mule deer, it shoots well under 1" after bedding, free floating the barrel and a trigger job.

My cousin bought a $500 S2 last year in 300 Weatherby, topped it with a Zeiss HD5 3-15 with the z800 reticle for double the price of the gun and in the first box of shells sighting in I was able to hit a 3" diameter branch at 490 yards with the first shot. That is one very accurate cheap rifle, with hand loads it groups well under 2" at 225 all day long...that is if you could handle the recoil all day. The S2 version also has a stock deign that provides noticeably less felt recoil than my original Vanguard in the same caliber.

I think we are in the golden age of affordable rifles but I really don't like the RAR in 30-06 I picked up a couple of years ago. It shoots fine but points and feels like a piece of crap. Even the creepy trigger rough finish Axis feels and shoots better for me. The TC, Howa models and Tikkas are the sweet spot as far as I'm concerned and i'd take them over comparable Remington models just based on function.

I don't like the Savage Axis. But I have to admit they're natural pointers.

It took maybe 15 minutes to lighten the trigger to a crisp 2 lbs, and add weight to the stock of my RAR 30-06. I'm still amazed how accurate it is, even with Federal blue box ammo.

I've been shooting Tikkas for over 16 years now. Only thing I've ever done to them is mount the scope and lighten the trigger with an allen wrench. They are amazingly accurate and simple to shoot.

moosemike,

While you consider Savage Axises natural pointers, Blackheart thinks their "ergnomics" suck. Which once again proves that humans come in different shapes, but few shooters apparently acknowledge the fact, instead judging all stocks on how they fit them personally.

specneeds,

Believe it or not, there are some scopes costing less than $300 that are just as tough and reliable. Note the word "some," but I have used them enough to know, and some other hunters have too.

I believe I've been safe in recommending FFII 3-9x40s to people.

I bought my circa 1949 Winchester 94 .30-30 in 1982. It had some dents and scratches and a bit of blue wear but I don't think it had been shot that much. Not sure how many rounds I've put through it in the 34 years since I bought it but I'd bet 4 thousand at least. It was my only centerfire rifle for several years back when my kids were little and it got used on everything from varmints to deer. Shortly after I bought it I had it drilled and tapped and installed a Williams 5D reciver sight in the rear and a Lyman ivory bead up front. I could average under 1.5" for 3 shot groups at 100 yards consistently with that setup back then and shot it enough that I could kill woodchucks at 150-200 yards with it consistently. My eyes aren't as good now as they were then and the bore isn't as good either but I can still put 3 in 2" pretty regular with it. I shot a bunch of chucks with it this summer and it still goes deer hunting with me every season. I reckon I got my moneys worth for the 95.00 I paid at the pawn shop back in 1982. I wonder how many Ruger Americans will be around, still shooting good and still being hunted by their owners in 67 years ?

And those tough bargain scopes would be? And are those only fixed scopes or do any variables make the cut? What I like about Leupold is the balance they strike on specs, particularly weight and eye relief, but not so much on price. Frankly, I'd just as soon Leupold do away with the Forever fix at no cost no matter what warranty and price their scopes better with a 5 year warranty and thereafter repair for a reasonable charge. I imagine I'm in the minority on that and should probably seek protective custody and a new identity for even suggesting such . As for cheaper, I have a Weaver V Classic 2.5-7 I like. Hasn't failed yet, but it hasn't seen many recoil cycles either. It's mounted on a Winchester 88 .308.

Gringo Loco,

See mathman's post!

Not to sound arrogant, but I would venture that I could safely say that I have owned more scopes and seen more scopes fail than the vast majority of hunters/shooters ever will. And seen more that simply would not track correctly. The list is quite long and includes many brands, at different price levels. For years I bought cheaper scopes just out of sheer curiosity, and trying to find a bargain. I still do this to some extent. That sickness may never be cured. Only stating this so some will understand that the amount of samples tested has been vast. I am not the type to buy 1-2 of something, and claim it to be the greatest or worst POS of all time, as many here routinely do.

I have come to trust only certain brands, and only certain models of certain brands. For hunting scopes and set-it-and-forget-it scopes, I use more Leupolds than any other. But only certain models. They do not always track as they should as far as being exactly 1/4 moa clicks, but once zeroed, they stay there and usually remain trouble free for years. I have only had 2-3 fail out of about 60+. As for cheaper hunting scopes, Weaver Classic has stood out in terms of toughness. Glass is also very good, no different than Bushnell Elite 4200 or Nikon Monarchs, just cheaper. Have abused more than several. Mostly low powered variables and low powered fixed. No AOs or anything over 3-9x38.

For precision work, in regards to Leupold, I only use their fixed Marks 4s. They have proven to track, and are tough as nails. A breed apart from their other scopes. As for variables, I trust NF NXS on precision rifles.

As for cheaper target scopes, I find fixed Weavers with micro trac to be an outstanding value. Nothing in their price range tracks better or is tougher IME. Ks, Ts, and KTs, all have never let me down. They just need fitted to the appropriate rifle. I would probably give the honorable mention here to SWFA SS fixed powers, simply based on that I haven't used as many. They seem to track well and be a solid value. But I have only used 2 models so far.

Now we come to the red-headed stepchild of scopes, IMO. Any cheaper scope with an AO. These scopes have and will fail more than any others. They will also lose zero far easier. Some have never made it to the range. Mount it up, put on boresighter, and watch POI shift as AO is turned. If one is lucky, it happens then, and not later. These scopes are also notorious for not having as much erector travel as stated. Or at least not as much "useful " erector travel. Meaning as you get near say 80% travel (or so) and you can watch things move diagonally on a collimator. The Weaver V-16 is the cheapest variable/AO I trust. And is better than many that cost more IMO.

By reading this, one may think I have a whole stable of Weavers here, but I don't. Only maybe 3-4 right now. 2 On dedicated target rifles. But have used dozens, and I don't feel guilty selling one to someone I know. They have earned it.

So that is pretty much it for me. Certain models of Leupold, NF, Weaver,and SWFA SS are about all I have come to really trust.

Yes, I still have other scopes not listed that I do use. Leupolds with various turrets and 2 Burris FF 3-9x40 LRS come to mind. But I have had 2 of the Leupold variables go down, and they do not track as well as the above said scopes. But for strictly hunting game, they work well. Same for the Burris. These 2 have been fine so far. Used one yesterday. But I broke 3 FFIIs inside of a month years ago, and pretty much quit buying Burris at that point. 2 Bushnells also in that same month.

I will also add, that some of the older Japanese made Bushnells were/are very good. It maybe took me a little longer than it should heve to figure that out, given the large sampling over the years. Some had great gloss finishes on them also. I wish I had held on to a few of them. Yes, I have broken a couple of them, but even more of the newer Bushnells, relatively speaking. And have puked far more older Redfields in comparison. In fairness, I can't recall using the older Bushnells on anything that kicked real hard. A 30-06 that ran 180s is about it.

An accurate rifle is really only as good as the scope you put on it. And much depends on that scope being repeatable and durable. And there are plenty of cheaper rifles that are capable of excellent accuracy. So no, I do not find anything wrong with putting an expensive scope on any rifle that is a proven shooter.

If I had to choose, I would take the American with a current Leupold over a current M70 with a current Tasco.

That being simply because I have more faith in the American than I do in the Tasco. Plus Tasco glass/image always looks yellow to me.

Now if it was a pre-64 M70 with an older Jap Tasco, that may make the decision a bit harder......

Very late to this topic, but if you can't see the target early or late, then what use is a "great" rifle.

To me a great rifle is an accurate enough one. Could be an HR topper/handi rifle for all I care, if it shoots well. Then I'll spend what I save on glass that allows me to see early and late and into the shadows.

Could really care less what a gun looks like its a tool, accuracy needed, vision for sure.

Heck if I could see well enough I"d hunt with irons but you can't see early and late, when many chances come. And you can't define sticks and limbs and twigs in the way.

Pretty simple in my way of thinking.

And yes I have had tascos, and NO they do not work early or late...

Thats why I prefer the cash spent on the optics, rather than the gun.

Good point.