I have my flame suit on.

I have noticed that many of the high mileage posters on this forum denigrate new smaller companies that attempt to make a go of it.

Sure these folks have high standards and eventually make changes to things. I remember when I first came on here there was a constant Kimber Roulette diatribe that pretty much continued until two years ago when Kimber got their production elements under control and started producing accurate rifles every single time.

However, hearing that companies like Forbes Inc has gone bankrupt and seeing the vast displeasure and negative conjectures about Legacy Arms Works and Fierce Arms I believe that many here are too close minded.

Do you all just want to shoot Tikkas and Montanas? I am sure that many of you are happy with them but the constant degrading kills them before they get out of the door.

We have seen too often that if we make an establishment choice that often bean counters will get involved and make a lesser product.

I think that we are poorer for such negativity.

I remember when everybody was anti-Cooper and I still stood behind mine just because I knew that Wilson Arms had bought out Cooper. Some still believe that Dan is hiding in the shadows but I don't think that this is reality.

I see more people liking Mossberg Patriots and Browning X-bolts that look like throwup when their are some really good semi-custom/semi-production rifles out there.

Just my thoughts but I wonder if many disagree with me.

The Internet and magnifying affect of adverse posts does seem to have an impact. Plus, reports from one shooter aren't conclusive. You never know who's doing the shooting.

OTOH,when you see several similar reports of complaints, there's a trend. The biggest problem with a lot of these mid range semi-customs is that they mix some quality components together with crappy assembly,which is a real killer. Because you can build with the best stuff available but if it isn't assembled correctly,it won't shoot/work.It's the difference between great rifles and junk.

But the rifles are built to a price point below a full-on custom,which gets more TLC.

I always viewed these "mid priced" semi-customs skeptically because of this but that's just me. Seems they all have growing pains until they refine things and get their acts together.

Lots of savvy shooters out there. You can't sneak stuff past them.

"I think that we are poorer for such negativity."

"I see more people liking Mossberg Patriots and Browning X-bolts that look like throwup when their are some really good semi-custom/semi-production rifles out there."

Well, did you just make us a bit poorer with this negativity?

I happen to own two Browning X-Bolts and can find VERY little to criticize on them.

That said I do find it funny how vehemently some are when it comes to certain brands.

But, if you really want to see out of control negativity visit the Optics forum! There are some Euro lovers there that seem to hate Leupold more than Isis!

People googling for reviews about a new purchase might see some of the QC reported on these new rifles. It is out there but I still think the vast majority of rifle purchasers go in to the gun shop and pick what looks nice to them and fits their budget. That could be a RAR, Montana or Supergrade. I bet the rifles most hunters friends hunt with influence their decisions more then a couple negative reviews. If someone really has questions about a rifle they could examine it at the shop before purchasing.

Well I think you have to think for yourself. I read a lot of reviews on a lot of different products. You have to separate the opinions from the real story. You have to separate the negative comments into two catagories and ask yourself will that effect my use of the product or not? One thing that effects everyone about the same is customer service. Seems a lot of the very negative pile ons come from CS rather than complains about the product. These new companies rolling out rifles could aleviate the majority of their problems with more stringent QC. You dont have to be mechanical engineer to check out a rifle before its shipped. Anyone can see a barrel isnt sitting in stock straight. Anyone can work a safety and see it works smoothly and quitely. Having to send a rifle back for a problem like this will disapoint a customer a lot more than a week or two delay an getting a product that is right from the get go. The free market rewards those who get it right , it tolerates those who quickly get it right the secend try. Those that dont get weeded out. In my business your only as good as last deal. These guys who spent their life building a good reputation should be darn careful lending it out.

The consumer market is a tough place to enter into and survive. The great majority of start-ups never succeed. The consumer is the ultimate force who decides the winners and losers. In retrospect, many of the these companies have themselves to blame for various problems not identified and solved.

In my case experience trumps advertising hype and promises of new wonder rifles. I have been looking for that magic combination for over 50 years, and it just doesn't exist. Factory rifles of recent manufacture are better than ever, with some individual examples being far above or way below the median performance level. This is primarily due to CNC machining combined with other manufacturing techniques that hold closer tolerances. Still, some just fail to live up to expectations, and nobody knows why. Nobody knows why a barrel, made from the same lot of steel, on the same machines, with the same processing, will shoot lousy while those on either side of it in the production sequence will shoot accurately. It's a mystery.

The problem with small companies is that they have the tendency to go bankrupt. This can leave the customer out of luck for parts and service, especially when the custom rifle is assembled with a proprietary action. I have a couple of firearms residing in my safe that fall in this category. The advantage of a factory rifle is that parts are usually available, but there is no guaranty. If a rifle is built on a common action, such as a Remington 700 or Savage, then parts will usually be plentiful. I have a older Sako which parts are scarce should I need them, and Browning reproductions that are difficult to find parts for. I have handguns where the manufacturer went out of business with no parts available, making them useless should they break.

Then there is the commonality factor. So the hunter or shooter wants a new custom rifle, but very few custom or semi-custom hunting rifles will be any more accurate or dependable than a new quality factory rifle. Most custom rifles use the same type components common to all rifles, yet they are far more expensive and produce little if any advantage in accuracy or reliability. I read of a custom rifle that cost $5,000, but the article went on to show an accuracy of around an inch, not much of a recommendation when many factory rifles can duplicate or best that.

Next, we come to what can be built up today by a shooter capable of a DIY project using commonly available parts. For example, I assemble my own varmint rifles using new Savage, Remington, or Anderson AR-15 lowers. For barrels I purchase Pac-Nor, Shilen, Brux, Krieger, Hart or Criterion barrels, all pre-fits and ready to be installed with a barrel nut. Then I use either a pre-fit pillar bedded laminated stock, or a Bell and Carlson aluminum bedding chassis stock, or Magpul stock for the AR-15's. Everything comes out of a catalog, and cost runs between $1,750 and $2,200 retail. Even the Remington 783 can be rebarreled, or converted to a swap barrel rifle for the cost of a Criterion barrel, using the Savage barrel nut wrench and tools I already have.

So, there you have it. Some of us can be a bit critical, because we know that nothing much is truly new in the firearms game. We know that each little gain in accuracy costs a proportional amount of money. We also know that a newfangled cartridge is nothing to get too excited about, because usually there are many existing cartridges that will drive a given caliber and weight bullet at similar velocity. All that counts is bullet diameter, mass and velocity, no matter the name on the headstamp. Some of our attitude can be attributed to being closed minded, but mostly its due to knowing the limits on what is possible under the law of physics and the psychology of manufacturing.

For me, it comes down to this: a lot of these small start-ups jump into the business relying on the reputation and past accomplishments of others, don't deliver, and then blow off their disgruntled customers. There is no excuse, at any price point, let alone what these jokers are getting, for shipping a rifle that won't feed, extract, or eject properly, has obvious cosmetic flaws, or that won't deliver decent accuracy. For decades, manufacturers turned out solid, reliable firearms at fair prices that could be counted on to work properly through multiple lifetimes. Old Mausers, Winchesters, Sakos, Remingtons, and Savages continue to do what they were designed for after the people that made them and the original owners are long gone. Lots of current factory models will be doing the same thing years from now. Why then, can't these bozos, who are charging two or three times the price of a decent factory rifle, ostensibly for better quality and accuracy, get a proper product out the door? And why, when their product falls short, do they shuck and jive and stonewall instead of just fixing or replacing the offending item? If their business plan didn't take into consideration a few glitches early on, they're poor businessmen. If they continue to take peoples' money knowing their product is faulty or fail to address issues that are clearly their fault, they're thieves and deserve to lose their shirts.

No bashing, just a simple statement of basic ethics.

Is it wrong for us to want our Forbes and LAW rifles to perform as well or better than our Ruger American's?

Specifically speaking of accuracy, feeding, extraction and reliable ignition...

Is it wrong for us to want the Customer Service departments at Forbes and LAW to respond to our issues in a timely manor?

Nope and nope! Not at all!

With the cheaper rifles hitting the market, the more expensive start ups are going to have to get their shiit together before they start selling rifles.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Absolutely not. You should get what you pay for. My new Tikka lives up to the hype and seems to me to have value beyond it's cost. I put reliability and ease of use ahead of everything else. As far as aesthetics, the looks should not interfere with function.
I myself can make something pretty easier than I can make it accurate.

I just can'r spend more on a rifle that shoots less accurately.

My working rifles are Savage and Ruger Americans, my fancy rifles are Tikkas.

I love the feel of a Kimber Montana, and have owned quite a few.

But I'm an engineer by trade and schooling, and I need my rifle to be a good tool first, and maybe fancy-looking tool second.

Form follows function, and all that.

So you end your post with the same negativity you were beaching about.

Its not that I am intractably negative. Its just sad to see ideas that have so much potential go sideways and then under the water.

Remington had a great product with the Tis now they are gone.

I have one of the JOC Winchesters and think that this is a better direction than their budget rifle.

We have seen Walmart and everybody else bump the rifles that are different out and then increase prices.

I really like Kimbers that are made right but I feel that they are now the establishment.

I have two Noslers and I feel that they are great rifles.

This is because I have heard that T3s are going to be discontinued.

I do like brownings as well but the new "magic worm" camo pattern is bad as the blaze camo weatherby pattern or the Peptobismol Howa pattern.

Different strokes for different folks and I have thought about buying one of each of the ugly guns just to have close to the areas that robbers might frequent. One look at one of those three and the burglar is going to head for the hills.

Just my thoughts again.

I am glad that people are getting involved in this thread.

?Huh?

How can you have rifles close to areas robbers frequent? Unless they frequent your backyard.

Just buy a Remington 700 action and build what you want.

I think one thing we should take into account is the fact that spending $2000 on a rifle is not the same for everybody.

Can you imagine someone saving up money for a very long time, someone that cannot really afford this semi-custom and he then he finally gets this rifle and the thing shoots like crap and is assembled like crap.

If you look at it that way, we are saving this guy a huge disappointment by reporting poor quality products and poor service.

Yes I agree that the whole story should be told, including how the company deals with these type of issues. But if a company supplies bad products accompanied by bad service people have the right to know this.

Pieter

Amen...