Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles $5545 Jarret rifle-editor's choice@ 1.3 MOA

No kidding. Using their, Jarret, ammo 1.3 MOA. For this "privilage" you pay $5545. Check out Outdoor Life's Gear Tests, June-July. No thanks, I'll stuble, and muddle, along with my Pac-Nor barreled, "Big Stick" specials. E

Makes my sub MOA box stock SIG 970 that much more loved, and at > 1/10 the price!<P>------------------<BR>Lest not we forget, America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. Learn the difference, spread your knowledge, help end the lie. Fear a government that fears your guns.

One thing to remember about Jarret rifles is that he provides a handload with all his rifles that is the most accurate load for that particular rifle. This test was run with factory ammo. I'd be willing to bet cash money that the handload was a lot more accurate than the factory loads that were tested. With that said, the rifle is still too expensive for what you get. <P>I've got an old Rem 700 in 7mm Mag that will shoot 3/4 groups all day long. I think I paid $205 for it new years ago.<P>Mac

Anyone see the new Guns & Ammo? A Savage outshot guns that cost much more. The H&R Handi-Rifle held its own too. Gotta like that.

No Mac. This was with Jarret loaded and supplied ammo. E

I've only shot one Jarrett, a .280AI, it would shoot under .5" @ 100. But, that was about 10 years ago and $2500 cheaper.

Seems like a rifle that costs over 5K would be guaranteed to shoot factory ammo in 3 shots 1/2 moa.<BR>Celt

Gosh guys, I was out shooting today with a 338 Ultra I threw together on a M700. Used a old Shilen barrel that was chambered for 340 Wea. Stuck it in an old used H-S Precision stock. Got 0.6 to 0.7 MOA at 100 yards, the recoil was pushing me around a bit. Will be out next week trying for better groups. Oh yea, was shooting Remington Factory Loads, 250 gr Swift A-Frame bullets. Guess what, this gun cost a whole bunch less than $5545.

G'day,Was the Jarret test another example of a Hyundai driver trying to steer a Ferrari?<P>Regards from down under ,Charlie.

Oi, Charlie. I was wondering the same thing. I reckon I wouldn't put too much faith in one person's experience. Suppose the same guy tested the Savage and couldn't get it to group...would that mean the Savage is worthless as well?<BR>I have read a few articles about Kenny Jarret, and wonder what his reaction to this test was. <BR>Not that I'm that great a shot, but have a few buddies that can't shoot their loads and rifles as well as I have, for them. <BR>One neighbor bitched about his M70 7mm Rem. mag for months. I cleaned it thoroughly, including the bolt, lightened the trigger, had him give me his best loads and proceeded to put 10 of them into less than 3/4" at 100 yards. The next day he shot it with the rest of the ammo and still couldn't do better than an inch and a quarter. <BR>His wife (who generally outshoots and outhunts him) agreed with my assessment...operator error.

I got a chuckle out of this one to. I have always wondered how much you could charge for a custom rifle based on a Remington action... I thought Chandler had taken the cake until I read the Gear tests for this $5545 1.3 M.O.A Jarrett. I will note, however, that I have the greatest respect for Kenny Jarrett. Kind of reminds me of the late Dale Earnhardt, it never failed to amaze me how a man could sign a worn out tire and sell it for $350. And generlly sell it to someone who did'nt make much more than that in a week. He had my vote. Jarrett has the same Midas touch. Keep nailing them Kenny...LOL. Best, Matt. <BR>

Nin-com-poopery, pure unadulterated nin-com-poopery. Or numbskullery at the very least. <P>Anyone who is fool enough to spend over five grand on a rifle, when an off the shelf Savage will cook its gizard in the accuacy department deserves what he gets. <P>Perhaps the bragging rights or maybe the "fondle factor" (those custom jobbers definitely do have a high fondle factor) are worth the price paid. <P>Wizard

Actually Matt, it wasn't Earnhardt that charged anyone $350 to sign the tire or any other piece of junk...he (and most other NASCAR idjuts) would sign anything you wanted to stand in line with for 3 hours, for nothing. It's the secondary market that demands big bux for signed crap, 'specially now that he's dead. Not that he didn't savvy the collector market or how to turn a dollar from his name. He done pretty well for hisself, for a hick mechanic from NC.<BR>Custom shootin' irons are fine for them what has the money and the inclination. I could never see the point in spending all that money for something that is only fractionally more accurate than an off the shelf Rem, Win, Ruger or Savage. I can generally make a silk purse out of such sow's ears, for far less than Kenny Jarret wants for his rifles...but then I don't have a Jarret to brag on, just an accurate rifle.<BR>Would you spend an extra 20 grand for a Corvette just 'cause it'll do an extra tenth of a second over a stock V8 sedan? Lots of folks will just 'cause it's a vette.<BR>

dubepa,<BR> I would'nt know who was profitting from Earnhardt's collectibles, however, as most of this stuff was licensed I would imagine that he collected some small part of it. Still admired the man for his contributions to the hunting and shooting communities. Also admired him for his ability to sell more junk to more people than anyone else I can think of. Kenny Jarrett does something similar(not that he sells junk). He sells IMAGE as much as anything else(IMHO). <P> An no, I would'nt compare buying a Jarrett rifle to buying a Corvette. When you buy a Corvette you get something different than when you buy an Impala. There are a hundred other riflesmiths in the country that can build a rifle as good or better than Kenny Jarrett. Or rather they can build a rifle as good or better than whomever builds rifles for Kenny Jarrett. However, he has a brilliant marketing campaign to go with his rifles. Was started, or so I'm told, from being generous with his rifles to the gunrag writers. However he did it, I admire it. <P> We should'nt, however, confuse price with quality or performance. I think it would be more appropriate to compare a Jarrett rifle with a custom rifle by Clay Spencer or Dave Tooley. And there are probabely a hundred lesser known smiths that could put out similar quality work. They don't, however, have Kenny Jarretts reputation or name recognition. At least they don't to the average shooter. <P> Another poster made a comment a few days ago about some overly expensive rifle, scope, etc.. He said the folks who bought them reminded him of the Weatherby buyer of the 50's. They did'nt know alot about rifles, however, they figured they had bought the most expensive rifle available and therefore it must be the best. Interesting I thought. <P> I have no problem with buying a "name" rifle, however, I would'nt want to make the steak and hamburger comparison that we so often see. If Jarrett make a Corvette at $5535, I wonder what David Miller's M70 Marksman is at $9950? It must be better because it's twice as expensive. Better yet we should look at a Holland and Holland Best Grade Magazine Rifle. I'll bet we could spend $25,000 if we tried(and it would'nt be too hard). And we know that a rifle that costs five times as much as a Jarrett must be far superior. Look at Saeeds site and the groups turned in by his Best Grade .244 H&H Magnum. Not that theres anything wrong with a Jarrett, Miller, or Holland and Holland. Depends on what you want. Some folks want the "best". Whatever that is for them. <P> I tried it with varmint scopes. I ASSUMED that the 6-24x50 Swarovski was the best Varmint scope in the world because it was the most expensive. Then tried two Schmidt and Benders in search of teutonic perfection. I was expecting both to be superior to my Nightforce becuase they were substantially more expensive. Did'nt necessarily work out that way.<P>Best, Matt. <P>Btw, I should note that I don't think that a rifles ability to group should be wholely and solely the measure of its worth. I've seen Savage .22-250s and .223s that would group 3/8" or less consistantly. They were, and are, extremely accurte. That does'nt,however, mean I want one. On the other hand, My grandfathers pre-war M70 .375 H&H does'nt group well by bench standards, however, it has a great deal more worth, aside from sentimental, as a period Brown Bear rifle. Accurate enough for the job at hand. Different strokes for different folks.<p>[This message has been edited by Matt in Virginia (edited June 21, 2001).]

I just can't get over people who don't understand why someone would own a David Miller or Kenny Jarrett rifle when their out-of-the-box Savage or Handi Rifle will shoot just as good a group. Of course custom rifles are accurate as a rule, but they also tend to be utterly dependable and are a joy to own. There is something special in a gun made just for you (or by you) that a cheaper price can't give you. Sure, you can paint a picture of an old lady in a rocking chair and it will fulfill all the requirements of a painting, including being cheaper and a more efficient use of paint than the Mona Lisa, but it sure isn't the same. To paraphrase a frequent poster, "Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun". If I had to hunt with a Handi-Rifle, I'd take up bow hunting.

I understand the desire of some folks to own a custom, one-of-a-kind rifle, Old Dog, it's why I said it's fine for someone with the money and the inclination...I have neither.<BR>Not that my opinion means squat. I hunt with very few "off the shelf" rifles anymore. <BR>I do most of my deer hunting with two M98s and an old US Remington sporter. The only difference is none of them cost an arm and a leg because I did much of the work myself. What gives one more pleasure...spending thousands for a custom, or taking game with an accurate rifle he's helped to build?<BR>Not trying to pizz anyone off, but I encounter folks all the time that have paid a fortune for rifles they can't even shoot, but think they're on top of the world 'cuz they paid more than someone else did.

My rifles have been restocked by myself, my father, or have family sentiment, or they get sold.<P>Don't usually do anything but find a very accurate rifle and then restock it. But the time spent in winter, when hunting just is not as much fun as it used to be, pays big dividends when handling a good looking rifle I built myself. <P>The cost is not even part of the equation. Gave up on using plain wood a long time ago when I realized that the time spent turning it into a stock was much greater than the cost of the blank.<P>If building my own was not an option, I suppose I would have to pay someone to do it for me. But that is likely just bias from hunting with what I have. <P>Don't think a Jarret would be what I would look for though.<P>Old Dog<BR>Thanks for noticing.<BR>art<BR><P>------------------<BR>Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun.