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

Picked up couple Stevens 200's a few years back. You know , the cheap Savage.

I also happened on a 'relative' deal on a Swarovski 3-10 at about the same time so, because I wanted to test the scope I put it on the Stevens (223) and shot it. Bear in mind the intent was to put the Swarovski on one of my 'better' rifles. It's still there , cost me right on 3X as much for the scope as rifle.

It's still on the Stevens. Moral of the story....? Guess I don't have any morals:)

Hard to argue.

I have a love/hate relationship with such guns.

Owing to my champagne tastes and Boones Farm budget, I dont have as many rifles as some. I love the blued/walnut of the custom rifles I see, those without a barrel mounted sling stud of course. I just cant afford them. I find myself firmly in the middle.

I hate that my local gun shops are loaded with affordable rifles, but love the fact that people still buy them.

You see, my whole farm/ranch is open to hunting. And I see a lot of young people out hunting with affordable rifles. Lots of times from out of state, in vehicles old enough to qualify for permanent tags.
That tickles the hell out of me. That and opening day being on a Saturday.

I may seem like an young fart stuck in my ways, and I suppose that I am. I like what I like and wish the things that appeal to me did not cost so much.

And if I am honest, the rifles of yesterday are probably rougher than what is being produced today. Maybe they were just more highly polished. I guess a mass produced widget seems to be of a higher quality if it is shiny.

Thanks for the reply.

That bolt handle came off a 721/722?

I guess silver solder and safeties never bothered me too much.

My 721 and most other 721/722 bolt knobs are a sphere. That looks like a 700.. By the way my bolt is still in one piece after 65 years. It's on it's 2nd 270 barrel and I'm worried the medocre extractor is starting to wear out.

Cheap rifle, good scope beats expensive rifle cheap (or inferior scope) any time! My experience as a Range master showed me that most "rifle problems" were actually scope and mount problems.

When I see Barska or NCStar on a guy's scope it's a good bet he'll spend the difference between it and something decent on ammo while trying to sight in.

I forgot that in addition to my one Marlin XL7 I also briefly had a Mossberg ATR. I had several Savages in .243,.25-06,.308, and .300 Win Mag. I sometimes forget those Savages were budget guns since three of the four wore wood stocks and they were all well made guns.

I won a Savage .300 winmag in a raffle several years ago.

There is such a lip where the two halves of the stock join that it leaves a scratch on my cheek when I shoot it.

It is pre accu trigger, which I like, but the stock is no good.

It would be a pretty good rifle with a nice wood stock.

I suppose I should buy a nice laminate and quit bitching!

Thank you!

When I first started hunting the cheapest "budget" CF rifles were the Win 94, Marlin 336, Remington 788 and Savage 340. I remember you could buy a 94 for 99.00 at Jamesway and a 336C was 114.95. As I recall a Savage 340 would run you about 125.00 and a 788 about 145.00 at that time. All had real Walnut stocks and a decent polish on their blued steel and none had any plastic, aluminum or mystery metal parts. They all seemed like a better deal and more gun for your money than the sandblasted, plastic and potmetal junk at the low end of the spectrum today. Folks weren't so concerned with scopes or as allergic to iron sights back then as they are now either, so all of yesteryears rifles came with iron sights and many of us used them to kill game.

If my inflation calculator is correct, that would make a 145 dollar rifle back in the day worth about 1000 dollars today.

Scopes are even worse. Comparatively they are cheaper and better today.

I'm not sure on that. As I recall minimum wage was about 2.50 an hour when my brother and I were in high school {mid 70's} and the 94 and 336 were selling for 99.00 and 115.00 at Jamesway. If that is correct, a new 94 would have required my brother, who worked as a stock boy at Jamesway for near minimum wage at the time, to work 40 hours to cover the cost of a new 94. Today min. wage is 7.25 so 40 hours would get you 290.00. About enough to cover a Savage axis with no scope and no iron sights. Seems to me a high school kid looking to buy his first deer rifle had to work about as long for a 94 or 336 back then as he would to buy an axis today.

Minimum wage isn't necessarily tied to inflation. But then inflation depends on whats items are included.

The government site used to calculate increases for Social Security payments suggests about a 450% rate since 1975, so a $99 Model 94 would be a little under $450 now.

I paid $179 for my first Remington 700, an ADL, in 1974, which would be around $800 in today's money. Cabela's has ADL's for sale right now for $409.99, and unlike mine they include a mounted 3-9x scope and sling-swivel studs. Of course, the Cabela's ADL's have injection-molded stocks, not genuine shiny-finished walnut with fancy impressed "checkering," thickly covered with urethane, like mine did.

Don't the ADL's of today also have that nice "gravel blasted" finish on the barreled action ? And aren't the scopes they come with those nondescript "Remington" scopes that are damn near worthless ? No thanks, I'd much rather have the 70's version or a 70's 336C. Somebody's inflation calculations are a little off anyway, at least as far as Remington 700's go because Wal-mart has BDL's complete with cut checkered walnut stock, black forend tip and polished blued steel for 779.00.

I believe that in the original manuscript, it was pointed out that David used a scope that cost 35 shekels while his sling was an economy model costing only about 5 shekels. (It is also worth nothing that it was generally accepted that he went for the aerodynamically-superior, but more costly, stream-rounded stone rather than opting for the common, everyday, side-of-the-road rock, rightfully realizing that the cost of the premium projectile was neglibible when compared to the cost of the hunt.)
(Further note: It was also fairly well accepted at the time that he chose the heavy, .44 finger-width stone over the lighter, despicable 9mm finger-width stone. The result speaks for itself.)

Yeah, the scopes aren't much good, and if you prefer shiny blue then that's what you should use.

But I have also found today's "cheap" rifles shoot much more accurately with less work than 1970's 700's. Most also come with actual recoil pads rather than cheap plastic buttplates and, as noted, with sling-swivel studs already installed. To get that first 700 ADL shooting well and field-ready cost both time and money. (700 BDL's of that era did include studs, and even a nice leather sling, but they still had impressed checkering and needed to be bedded. They also cost the equivalent of around $1000 in today's dollars.)

My own rifles include a wide range of several kinds, including some walnut-stocked customs that are getting close to a century old. But also own a few of today's inexpensive rifles and have not only found them very accurate but pretty reliable. Have not only shot many myself, quite a bit, but seen them used by others for intensive prairie dog hunting, plus long-range target shooting with far more powerful rounds, both for days at a time. The magazines are sometimes the weak point, but even then the problems were cured by switching to another magazine. In fact, I've seen far more feeding (and other) malfunctions with some of today's "custom" rifles than most affordable rifles.

The big difference is that I've actually tried enough of the new affordable rifles as the old affordable rifles to have sufficient experience for a fair comparison. Many shooters don't bother with actually trying stuff they're already sure will suck.

I haven't seen a budget rifle in the past 10 years that wasn't accurate. Even the Remington 710 .270 I sighted in for a friend was very accurate. I haven't shot a 770 or 783 yet.

I've seen a couple that didn't shoot better than average, but both of those have been improved since then.

I just punched in the cost of a Mod. 70 from 1960 into an inflation calculator.

Yes, 3.00 wheat was much, much better in the 70's than 3.00 wheat today!



I do sorta like urethane though!