Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles The rifle market sucks…

I'm the same way. Used, but not abused.

I didn't buy my Kimber Classic Select or Winchester 1885 to just look at. I bought them to use. I'm not going to throw them out on a creek bank to break in the bull barrel, or cow barrel (some will get that), but none are too good to not use.

exactly! Carried those things enough. Want something with pretty wood on it.

I don't get it. Manufacturer will put a radial brake on the rifle, cut to match the barrel contour, and then include a muzzle thread protector that looks like a big, honkin' wart.

I contacted the manufacturer, told 'em I'd pay extra for a thread protector cut to match the barrel contour. Nope they say, can't do it.

Ahh, actually it's "Nope they say, won't do it"...

I take every wood stocked rifle I own in the Woods. I hunt Laurel, rocky sidehills, rain, snow, and I'm always doing it with wood stocked rifles. Even rare and antique guns see the Woods with me

Howa and Weatherby do. Check out the new vanguards

I'm curious as to the number of rifles sold that are threaded from the factory versus the number of those same rifles that ever see a suppressor ever mounted on them. Think it would be 1%? Your average Joe Deerhunter isn't going through the paperwork and expense to buy a suppressor. To me, seems like a very very very small subset of the shooting population that would actually use the threads, yet, here they are, on everything.

Part of the problem is, as indicated by many posts within this thread, there are so many personal preferences that just can't cost effectively be addressed by manufacturers. Note, I don't say it's the only problem; but, that it is part of the problem. For the most part, we on this forum are rifle snobs. However, even as we are generally more informed than most, even we can't agree, most of the time. Just look at all of the genuine debates with respect to cartridge, barrel length, barrel contour, push feed vs crf, stainless vs blued, wood vs synthetic, which synthetic (?), overall weight, dbm/bdl/endlcosed mag box, ad infinitum. Heck, I would think a manufacturer or two might do well to sell only barreled actions and let we consumers choose our trigger and stock to fit our personal preferences. Who knows. The cost of production to meet all legitimate preferences is staggering.

I think the above is why the inexpensive rifle has become so popular. Add to that the fact that manufacturers are now more able than ever to bring very accurate rifles to the market in a cost-effective manner and many of our personal preferences are ignored. Heck, the most recent new rifle I bought was a Ruger American Predator 6MM Creedmoor. I actually wanted not a high-end but a higher-end rifle than that; but, I couldn't find one, new or used. Yes, I know if I was patient I would have found one. My thoughts were, after owning several RAPs that the chances were very high I was going to get a very accurate and very functional rifle. I was right. I was only out $450 and it was money well spent.

Like it or not, in my opinion, we on this forum are not the target market for rifle manufacturers. It is easy to argue that we should be; but, that is not the case, once again, in my opinion. It's like someone above mentioned; $700 is a lot of money for "most" hunters looking for a new rifle.

Having said all of that, I share the concerns of most in this thread.

Maybe mistaken but I thought I read (shortactionsmoker and others) say that there are a number of young people out there looking for a quality rifle. Seems to me that the firearm market is a lot like the electric vehicle market. Things we really don't want are getting shoved down our throat and you either buy it or there are few to no other options. TheBigSky just said it.... looking for a higher end rifle and they weren't out there.

Hasn't been but maybe 3 years, and every online gun source was blowing out Ruger Hawkeyes at fire sale prices. Who abandoned who? And why would Ruger produce 2 different quality level rifles and sell both for the price of the lesser unit?

I would like to question the consumerism part of this. Maybe you older generations can expand on.

Taking inflation into consideration, at what price point were the quality rifles sold for in days gone by compared to the low end priced rifles on the market today? For example, were the Pre-64 70s priced like today's $1500, $1000, or $500 rifles?

Were the older generations willing to spend more money on one or two "quality" do-it-all rifles for their battery compared to today where the consumers seem to treat rifles like golf clubs and have more in the safe to cover every situation?

Loonies are just that, so they don't count. I am referring to the average consumer.

And go look now at completed auctions on gunbroker with bids and see what a used Hawkeye sells for. $700 was cheapest, but $900-$1000+ is about average, throw some intersting cartridge in it and it is more.

I'm curious, and we will never know, why the blow-out 3 years ago? I was always scouring CDNN and it was usually synthetic stocked versions on the blowout sales. Was the blow-out because Ruger sold them cheap because they were discontinuing them? Which to your point, were they discontinued because they weren't selling? Or because they weren't selling in numbers compared to what they could sell a $300 RAR? Profits drive production for sure. Nobody is in business to make me happy, they're in business to make stockholders happy.

John is on to something here…..

That happened at a time when inventories were full everywhere. Ruger announced they were discontinuing the Hawkeye and a couple of distributors took advantage of the announcement to liquidate their inventory in hopes of paying other bills. We retailers jumped on it and bought everything we could from whoever we could. Our shelves were full too, but it allowed us to cost average our Hawkeye inventory and compete. (At least that’s what I did) We were in a bad position because a certain online only retailer was advertising all their Hawkeye’s for a little over $200 less than we had in ours originally.

Bottom line - Ruger abandoned us, retailers and consumers. The explanation I received from Ruger was that the American was outselling the Hawkeye and Ruger was losing money on every stainless/synthetic Hawkeye being produced. The cost of their raw material increased, stainless was harder on the tooling, the finishing of the Hawkeye itself was more expensive and time consuming, etc, etc, etc. if everyone remembers correctly, that’s when they discontinued the stainless Ruger American’s too.

Now to defend Ruger…..
Ruger was right. The American was outselling the Hawkeye. It was new to the market and arguably more accurate than the Hawkeye. We were selling Americans for less than half the price of a Hawkeye. I fully believe they were upside down on the Hawkeye cost wise. It had a ton of stainless parts that no doubt required addition cost to fit and finish. They also had tons of competition in the Hawkeye’s price range. They were also answering to a Board of Directors that didn’t care about anyone or anything other than a bottom line.

Now to give Ruger some hell….
The Hawkeye’s itself was the primary reason sales diminished from the Ruger 77 line. The gun was exactly the same mechanically to the 77MKII (except for the LC6? trigger), but that gray finish was hated by many. It looked cheap, it marked and scratched easily, it didn’t “match” anything in the industry, rust spots easily developed and it never appealed to consumers. Why they tried to paint the finish on rather than a light bead blast is beyond me! That change was one of the main reasons for the demise of the Hawkeye. Customers hated it and they gave their money to competitors.

Ruger could have easily maintained two rifle lines at separate price points as long as the higher price point rifle truly appeared to be a premium offering. That gray painted stainless wasn’t going to get it. The heavy laminate stocks don’t appeal to the majority of shoppers wanting a stainless hunting rifle either. They needed a premium stainless synthetic hunting rifle and still do.

The walnut stock with the wrap around checkering on the high polished blue Hawkeye was the best feeling stock they ever produced.

More on the post above….

I know people complained about the shiny finish on the stainless 77MKII’s as well. That was part of the reason the finish was changed on the Hawkeye. Rather than utilizing a finish similar to Remington, Sako, Winchester and everyone else in the industry, they decided it would be best to spray some unattractive gray paint on their stainless.

I wonder how the Hawkeye would have sold had they just lightly bead blasted the shiny finish? I’m betting it would have gone over phenomenally well and sales wouldn’t have immediately lagged. Might have even surged? It’s hard to quantify lost sales when something isn’t done right from the beginning.

I work tonight, and am about to lay down for a nap.

But as I head there, I'm grateful for the rifles that I have, from Winchester, Remington, Sako, and MRC.

Aint a one of them that's perfect.
Aint one that I wouldn't gladly do everything to the end of my days with either...

Agree completely. Good USA made shotguns went down the same path a long time ago. Now the most often question is “Does anyone know anything about the current Hashish 12 Gauge Semi Auto?” Not everywhere, but here for sure.

We lost the claim to being a good gun making country years ago.

Most here today want throw away firearms. Use them for a little time then buy something else. Americans for the most part don’t want “good guns”.

My 3 stainless Ruger Hawkeyes are installed in McM Hunter stocks so that they feel about as much alike as is reasonably possible.

I like rifles and cartridges, so I buy them when they interest me enough to pull out my wallet. I seldom buy new rifles, as most wholesalers don't want to sell to small non-stocking kitchen table dealers like me. Ten years ago most wholesalers weren't so particular, but time change and so have my buying habits.

Yes. That is Rugers best feeling stock. I'm glad I have one

A wood stocked rifle with nice deep bluing is nice to look at. But most just get locked in a safe and aren't hunted hard because it might rain or get scratched. I'll take a SS, carbon fiber, cerakoted rifle that I can leave outside in my SxS, beat it around for weeks at a time and do nothing to it besides shoot stuff with it.

Life is too damn short to hunt with an ugly gun.
Which is why, I barely look at the new guns when in a gun shop.
I have not been impressed with anything the gun companies have produced in a number of years.
For the same or less money for what they want for most of the run of the mill ugly crap, a guy can buy a classic quality rifle with 3-4 generations of use left in it.
Like a Belgium Browning Safari Grade, Winchester Model 70, or a vintage Remington 721, etc..........

I have no found a Remington Model 7 or a Tikka r3 light or compact. in .223 or .243Win. for a long time. Is it just Wisconsin, or is this all over the place.