Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles What should Rifle makers be offering - ?

Well given we're starting to see a trend with rifle makers moving overseas - just like they did with cars - what is the formula that would make them more viable.

One easy read is the higher quality rifles that are still being made by increasing groups of custom gun makers - charlie is a good example of that!

Maybe Remington should do what Dodge did and hire a few of these legendary custom guy's then give them full oversight of a custom shop.

- That's create a whole new generation of custom gun maker stock for the US, and at the same time would create a whole new level of custom grade rifles sponsored by a gun maker.

Spot

If the current rifle makers do not cater to the youngest shooters they will effectly run the whole hunting/ shooting sport right into the ground. The sooner they realize this the more viable they will continue to be.
Essentially they are running out of customers..........

Something for less than $1000 that would offer choices in light weight, sporter and varmint barrels, with good triggers, some sort of 3 position safety, and a 60 degree bolt lift would be nice. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Maybe a choice between wood and black synthetic as well as camo syhthetic stocks.

To heck with all the new chamberings...what we need are better quality/more consistent rifles that are affordable to the average hunter/shooter. This has been a big pet peeve of mine for a very long time. There are very few of these new chamberings that will do something new, different, better or meaningfull over what we have had for the past 40 years.

BigBullet

Sako should make a lightweight with a lighter barrel contour instead off lopping 3" off of their regular one and putting it in a tupperware stock with that attrocious bottom metal.

Kimber should make a long action 84m, that 8400 is okay for a belted mag, but too big for '06 based cases IMHO. The stock is too beefy. The CDL and Mountain Rifle handle better in the standard LA configuration.

I'll second the better quality vote, even if it does run 1k. By the time you buy an off the rack rifle, have it bedded, trigger job (or after market like a Timney), and possibly trued, you're getting close to a grand anyway. I know a lot of you can do the bedding and trigger work yourselves for a lot less, but I'm talking about those who can't.

They also need to stop pushing Ferraris (mega magnums) to a market that would be better served by Fords and Chevys (standards) and chamber more models in the old faithful cartridges we all know and love. I can't count how many frustrated posts I've read concerning "Why doesn't Remchester chamber X model in Y cartridge?"

Just my $.02, YMMV.

Shaun

I would like the manufacturers to keep components on the shelf so that we could special order rifles in odd combinations. That way I could order a left handed stainless steel 1x9" twist, 26" varmint weight, 22.250 in a laminated stock.

A well made Winchester model 70. I would love to see a new Featherweight with a small cheekpiece. Also, I think that the new Winchester synthetics should have a quality stock, like a Mcmillan. I would gladly pay a little more fore American made quality!

I think Winchester could have sold more rifles like this.
When you think about it they have about 20 varieties of M70, but their dealers probably only want to handle a few so they put in orders for 2 or 3 varieties in the calibers they anticipate their customers will want.
If they would have just had a department to handle special orders and put it together the way you want it like a "what a burger."

Part of the problem lies with marketing departments here who are just order takers and not in touch with customers, and the other part lies with the European ownership.

Beretta and FN take orders in January for the whole year, and they try to force a $1,000,000 minimum. That means production is planned for the whole year on the guess of middlemen, because few dealers are big enough to order what they want at one time, and no one can adjust to market conditions.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, they DID do that. It was called their Custom Shop. Remington does it as well. You pay handsomely for something non-standard from the big two, because it costs a lot of money to make one-off products compared to assembly line stuff.

Persoanlly, I'd like to see a stainless Remington Model 7 with a laminate stock shaped like the 700 Mountain rifle. I hate the stubby schnabel they put on the Model 7's.

I'd also like to see a stainless 700, with a standard contour barrel, in a laminate shaped like the CDL stock.

Laminate stocked stainless Remingtons are about the best deals going in factory rifles, IMO (save the Ti).

More left handed everything. There should be a law if they sell it in a right hand version then they should offer it in leftie. And yes, I am serious

You can't be serious? Why would a company want to invest in the design, tooling, and production to produce a product that 87 to 90% of their target market would have no use for? All PC BS aside, that would be assenine. The percentage of lefties that even use left handed rifles would have to be less than even the population figures would suggest since so many lefties grew up shooting right handed guns.

One of the biggest custom shops in the country told me that they only build about 2% of their rifles in left handed versions. They are producing their own action, and said "hell no, we won't make a left handed version". Not enough business potential to justify it.



Yeah, because getting the government involved always makes things better, cheap, and more available. Brilliant synopsis.

Special request chamberings. This shouldn't be too tough to pull off and I'd pay an additional $50-$75 for a special request chamber. Wouldn't mind an A-Bolt in .257Bob. Or how 'bout a CZ 550 in .338-06

I'll bet if they just ran some stats based on RCBS die sales, they could easily figure out the 10-20 most popular (but not readily available) cartridges, buy the reamers and they would pay for themselves real quick.

Ummm . . . . .

That would be a Savage.

BMT

It would be nice if they would have available the guns they lsit in their catalogs. Quite often I call to find out availability from a dealer and am told, "they only make one or two runs per year"....... If its offered, then have it in stock.

BMT,
The Savages with the new triggers are good, but don't they have a 90 degree bolt lift and a two postion safety keeping them from being perfect?

Cas,
I knew about the custom shops at Rem and Win but they were overpriced and also for someone who wanted select grades of wood or engraving etc.
As far as I know we wouldn't have been able to call the Win custom shop and order a plain vanilla Sporter III CRF except with a Coyote barrel and pay an extra oh say $250 over the normal retail.

What I hear on this thread is that a lot of people want a custom gun for a production gun price. The companies build what the majority of the users want, not what a fringe faction of users want.

Snowwofl, That has to be the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time!!! Let's force a company to make something that doesn't sell because you want one. If left habded guns were profitable everyone would be making them, the fact is that there is a VERY SMALL market for them. Whats next a law that says a rifle must be offered with sights because someone wants sights on there gun?

Addressing the 'higher quality' issue ... Unfortunately, "we" seem to be the "few" that care to take our rifles "fit, finish, and accuracy" to a higher level ... "We" make up a small percentage of the firearm owning community that "requires" this higher level. If the big firearm mfg's decided to make their standard issue firearms what "we" currently consider to be "custom level firearms", the price would go up enough to probably deter sales, thus causing them to lose more money in the long run.

Yes, the big mfg's want to make a quality product, but they also want to make money ... and the "system" as it is now, seems to work for them ... They make the base rifle, and let those that want to "upgrade" do so by using the custom shops, and/or smaller businesses that make higher grade bbls, actions, etc. do that work. In a way, it's good for everyone as it is ... People that want a rifle that is "good enough" to hunt or shoot with can get it at a reasonable price, and those of us that want the "higher grade" and are willing to pay for it, do so ...

Now, like someone else said already, I'd like to see the big mfg's have all componants readily available to be mixed and matched, as well as can be done using the standard parts they have ... ie: If you wanted a Remington Sendero in .30-06, then they should be able to take a varmint/sendero contour bbl, chamber it for .30-06 (since they do already make a varminter in .308cal), screw it into a standard long action, and put it in the VS stock ... No extra "special" work like truing the action or other accuracy enhancements ... and it should only cost the little bit extra for joe-blow worker to pull an unchambered varmint contour bbl off the shelf and run the .30-06 reamer thru it ... they'd still have to go thru the same motions to headpspace it as per usual ... and all the other blah blah blah it takes to assemble the rifle ...

CAS,

I believe 10% of the population is left handed, add another 20% of the population that is left-eyed dominant right handed. That's roughly 30% of population that should be using left hand rifles. But it isn't that way, I suspect because none of the left-eyed dominant right handers will switch to shooting from their left side. Plus I'd hazard a guess that probably less than half of those left handed people shot left hand rifles, making due shooting right handed rifles. Thus the low demand. So the numbers are a little misleading, there are many "lefties" than realized.

Leo

Stats show betweeen 10 and 13% of the populations is left handed.

If simply sigting a rifle was the only criteria for the proper use and function, then I might buy your argument. The fact is that it does take some dexterity to properly operate a rifle, regardless of action type. Attempting to operate that rifle with your non-dominant hand is a compromise in every sense of the word.

Why would a right hand dominant, left eye dominant shooter (like me) want to handicap themselves with a rifle that does not allow them to use it to the best of their ability?

Besides, something like 20% of the mentally retarded population and 28% of the severely mentally retarded population is left handed. Given the tendency for lefties to be more likely to have a mental handicap, liability concerns would preclude companies from offering too many left handed rifles. (Tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek!)