traveling so spend time thinking driving down America's Highways and ByWays....

Why is it that the campfire's darling rifle seems to be the Ruger American.....

( which I look at as the rifle version of a Tasco Scope)

Yet low cost optics that work just fine... ( such as a Tasco Scope ) are flamed, and good quality optics start out with Leupold scopes and go up from there....

Just think the two extreme is kind of Ironic.

I have two Ruger Americans... yeah they may be accurate, but are real cheaply made, and feel ever more cheaper than they look...and the accuracy is kind of useless unless you don't mind single shooting them, since their magazines come with a JamAmatic feature at no extra cost.....

Give me a Model 70 with a Tasco World Class on top over a Ruger American with a Leupold Rifleman or VX2 on top....

and others opinions are?........

( and lets try to answer the question vs respond with the usual campfire slams, question someone's intelligence etc... )

Same!

I dunno. I've got a savage with a nightforce NXS 8-32x56 on top of it. I did manage to kill a prairie dog at 880 yds with it, pretty is as pretty does.

Just my experience, but I don't think I have ever paid more for the scope than I did for the rifle it sits on.

And I seem to have a rule of thumb that I won't usually spend less than half as much on the scope as I did for the rifle.

A reliable watch once cost as much as a good men's suit.

More recently, a 17" B&W T.V. cost as much as a serviceable used car.

Later, minimally Serviceable scopes have become much cheaper relative to the rifles on which they are mounted.

Give me the M70 and the Leupold as the lowest end optic and even then I feel like I'm taking a chance with the variables, which I used to hold in high regard but have broken enough through shooting that I am something of a carping skeptic anymore.

Like Ross Seyfried once said I regard Leopold variables about like a three toed coyote circles a piece of "free" meat on the side of the road.



Neither the Ruger nor the Tasco rise to any level of conscious stream of thought.....despite their virtues. I would not take either if you paid me. Life is too short.

Bob, did you ever consider that perhaps you shoot too much?


But to the OP's point, yes I think it rather ironic at the least to put money atop something like a Ruger American. While the rifle has some very nice points, certainly the magazines and the stocks are not among them. While more and more rifles and ammo gets shot under conditions that hardly challenge them much at all, and rifle that gets put to use in any serious pursuit ought to have the bases covered better IMO. Give me a proven M77 or M70, or even a well-proven M700 if I'm headed out where the rifle is not one of those things I want to worry about.

Klick it has popped into my head now and then. I know i am very opinionated about a lot of shooting things, But I feel like I earned it...

I am somewhat more relaxed about it these days.

I'm in the middle. If I have $1k to spend it will be around $600.00 - $700.00 for the rifle and $300.00-$400.00 on the scope. Neither extreme appeals to me. A year ago I sold a gentleman a Weatherby Mark V and he purchased a Bushnell Legend to go with it. I absolutely did not mock him, until he left the store. Didn't want to lose my job.

Tasco may have once put out a good scope. But not anymore. I see many more people going cheap on a scope with a good rifle than going with a good scope and cheap on the rifle.

I don't care for economy rifles for a variety of reasons. I care even less for economy scopes. Everyone has their own preferences, I cannot stand the tiny ejection ports on economy rifles, even more so than the cheap feel. But there is a place for economy rifles. If that is all you can afford, then that is all you can afford. If a 783, RAR or Axis were all I could afford, I would be hunting with one, not staying at home feeling sorry for myself, because Economy rifles are NOT cheap in the accuracy department.

I don't consider Tikkas and Vanguards to be economy rifles either, as some do.

Frankly I never got the whole ultra expensive scope thing. People wax on about clarity , light gathering, image quality of this brand over the other. I can see it in a binocular more than a rifle scope as I look thru my binocular for a period of time and often for a higher level of fine detail. My use of a scope is quite different as in oh look there's a deer peek, squeeze , bang. I doubt I look through my scope more than a few seconds and I'm not really interested in seeing the veins in the leaf on the tree behind him. The qualities I find important in a scope are holding zero, magnification , size / weight suitability for my rifle and then to a lesser degree image quality, clarity, light gathering etc. these last three are last and a much less importance to me as we live in a time where one can pretty much take it for granted that even cheaper scopes provide adequate levels in these categories for hunting purposes. Heck even blister pack Tascos are adequate in these categories. For example I have two vari x ii scopes on my main hunting rifles that I bought used years ago.They zoom and hold their zero faithfully. I have never had a issue seeing deer during legal shooting hours and beyond, and they are fairly lightweight and proportioned to fit the rifles they are mounted on. What more do you need.

That's where I am. In all these years I've only 'worn' out 1 scope. It was a 1.5-4X BUT I put it on several different rifles including every hard kicking rifle I owned for a few years TILL it broke.

It really took a lot of recoil before it broke.


Jerry

If the rifle is accurate and reliable, and you are going to use it and depend on it to work, It should have a scope on it that you have confidence in.

I generally like rifles that start at about $700 and I like scopes that start at about $400.That seems to me to be the sweet spot for quality and price. I buy more expensive rifles and scopes but after that price point you pay a lot more for small gains.

I recently mounted a Schmidt & Bender PMII on a Ruger American .300 Blackout.

Yeah, I know, the scope was about 10x the cost of the rifle.

I have interest in testing bullets thru the sonic transition but need a sorta-fast twist. The Ruger twist is 1:7. I prefer working in mils while on the range.

Other options were in one piece mounts and the Ruger "Picatinny" rail slots don't match up. This scope is mounted in individual rings so moving one was easy.

It is not that I think the scope was "appropriate" for the rifle, just that I needed the proper tools.

That's all they really are, tools.

Most of us fall into that category, but what we need changes with age, and circumstances.

Having said that I have seen lousy optics and light management, lack of contrast, etc fail to show me deer I knew were there,that were somewhat obscured by cover,through older tech leupolds and yet the same deer became visible through a scope with "better" optics.

Year before last a Connecticut buck spotted with bins became hard to find through 2.5-8X Leopold down in a clearcut..eventually I found him and killed him but the whole situation gave me pause.

Even if scopes don't show much difference past a price point, the same does NOT apply to your eyes as they change....trust me on that one.

Some people hunt where light gets very dim and bucks and other game show very late. There is and can be a big difference comparing the optics on some scopes.

cdb,

Tasco has never "put out" a scope. Instead they've had them made by various factories. Some have been good, but some haven't.

Less expensive rifles nearly always shoot well enough to get the job done. On the rigors of a tough hunt, cheap scopes do not necessarily always do that.

I have always stayed in the mid range on scopes and rifles and I have never had either one quit me on tough hunts. I will not spend thousands on a rifle, nor a scope. I have become a real fan of the SWFA scopes.

The only scopes that have actually failed me (aside from factory defects out of the box) have been the cheap Simmons scopes and Chinese Tascos. I just don't trust the reliability of a cheap scope.

And yes, I do own a Ruger American that has had over 900 rounds through it. It shoots 1/2 moa with its SS 6x aboard.

One way to look at this is like an engineer and not an economist.

Engineer says: "It works or not".
Economist says: "Well, it works in practice but it's no good because it doesn't work in theory."

Does the item do the job it's intended to do regardless of cost? If so, it's good.

You mention your RAR jams, well, feeding is a primary function of a rifle so I'd say that rifle doesn't work no matter what the cost. FWIW, I have what was a jamamatic .22-250 RAR but simply getting a new magazine changed it to a reliable feeder.

Same with scopes, as bangeye notes you don't always need top of the line optical quality, just a reliable aiming tool. Now some situations require both - if your target is little varmints that blend into their background and you twist turrets to shoot at varying long ranges then you probably want to see as clearly as possible and also have dead reliable adjustments.

If a Savage or RAR shoots well enough but you need to absolutely see clearly, get a less expensive rifle and a more expensive scope. If you need top notch reliability in your rifle but don't need to see fleas at 600 yards, get a suitable rifle and a relatively inexpensive Leupold 2.5 scope.

My Ruger American is a range toy, I just use it to bang steel. As such it wears a Weaver fixed 6X scope which does the job I ask of it as well as the most expensive scope on the market.


Bottom line is - set your goal or your priorities - reliability, accuracy, optical quality, whatever - set the level of each you need, determine what equipment will meet that goal and buy accordingly no matter if the price is high or low.

Seafire,

I've owned several centerfire Ruger Americans since they appeared, and right now have three. Haven't had any problems with the magazines but may have been lucky. I do know that Ruger will replace any magazines if customers simply ask.

The early stocks were less than perfect because they weren't stiff enough, so often weren't really free-floated. But at least a couple of years ago Ruger started making them much stiffer, and all three of my present RAR's (a .223, .243 and 6.5 Creedmoor) have the stiffer stocks that were floated/bedded fine from the factory and have remained that way.

Contrary to common Campfire belief, shooters have apparently been bitching about "cheap" rifles as long as rifles have been mass-produced, and some of the formerly cheap rifles are now regarded as classics. I've owned plenty of classic cheap rifles and modern cheap rifles, with generally good results.

Have also owned and tested a bunch of far more expensive rifles that didn't work right for one reason or another, often because the maker had some ideas about "improving" on other, successful rifles. These have included some so-called custom rifles.

Have also had 17 brands of scopes (not individual scopes) fail from sheer shooting on rifles over the decades. Some of these were cheap, but others were really expensive. One of the scopes that's never failed retails for $200. Another brand where several have failed costs at least $800.

As a result of these experiences with both rifles and scopes, I'm doubtful about using price as a criteria for quality.

If you don't like Ruger Americans, why buy them?

Some very refreshing (and perhaps, amazing) posts so far. It is gratifying to see such sensible opinions expressed in such a civil manner. (Just hope that this doesn't somehow get transferred to the optics forum with the indecipherable rant that it will provoke.)

Got it. My understanding of your point was tacit and I could have worded it better. From what I gather Tasco used to market some decent scopes but today their stuff is mostly inferior. Is that correct?

As some may know, I generally do not follow the crowd. I look at my rifles as tools only, not something to stare at and admire their beauty, or chastise for the lack thereof. If they consistently work as designed, they get used. If not, they get fixed/sold.

Cost usually isn't the bottom line for me, as I've had S&B scopes that I hated, and Burris FF scopes that I liked. Makes no difference to me the brand on the tube, or rifle for that matter.

All that said, when deciding on a scope, I usually start at the mid priced stuff, and stay away from the $1500 stuff anymore because I see no benefit....been down that road and made a complete 360* circle, and back to mid priced stuff. I am doing that right now, deciding what to put on a couple of RAR's (30-06 and .243) that I bought for $179 each. I will probably try out the new Tract Toric/duplex reticle combo. Just going to guess that this combo will kill the crap out of whatever it's pointed at, numerous cull aoudad and mega hogs. If I'm wrong I'll let you know.

I'm always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to those Walmart deals.

At $179.00 you'd almost be hard pressed to mount a scope that cost less than the rifle. My scopes are in the $350.00 to $650.00 range. I also feel the same about diminishing returns after a certain price point.

I've just about decided to buy one of the LH RAR's in .243 since I've got a lot of .243 ammo and components already.

I'll more than likely put a Redfield Revolution 2x7 on it since I've had good luck with the two I own.

I can't really justify a more expensive scope for that rifle yet.

A cheap, ugly rifle can still function and be as accurate as an expensive rifle. A cheap scope, on the other hand, is just a POS waiting to fail at a critical moment.

You can skimp on rifles, but always spend as much as you can afford on glass.

I've always felt the same way but I've been disappointed lately because it seems more and more the more expensive scopes are using cheaper and cheaper parts and labor to maximize profit.

My contribution to this would be to say that we had a really bad experience with a Tasco scope. It fogged on us during a hunt, and then when we went to take the elevation cap off, the whole guts of the adjustment mechanism came out with it. I've never owned one since. I don't have high end optics, just good scopes that I know work. Not a Leupold in the bunch. Older Weavers work just fine for me.

As for the lower end rifles, I've never had a Ruger, so no dog in this fight. No matter how many guns I've bought, sold and traded, I always come back to what got me there. A Savage 99, and Dad's old Mauser. They just feel right. When there's a comfort level, there's a confidence level too, and I would trust either of these rifles with my life. There's a buttload of deer that didn't exactly like finding themselves in front of either one of them.

IF I had to choose.....

I'd rather take a $100.00 dollar saddle on a $50.00 horse.

I can break in any horse and get it to ride.

VX-2's are upper league and Trashco doesn't compare, and scopes go south more often than rifles.

If you can afford it, it's hard to go wrong with Nightforce or US Optics.

Not a personal attack at you BarryC, but I also see no need to put tactical scopes on my hunting guns, but that's just me. Guess I'm a simpleton.

I know about some good older Tascos, but to be honest haven't tried any in so long I don't know about the newer models.

I know a guy that is an editor for an outdoor magazine. They are sent rifles by sponsors for them to test. They received one very expensive rifle that would fire upon closing the bolt. I'll bet a RAR would not do that. Poor quality control happens no matter how expensive the scope, or the rifle.

As to the RAR, the magazine is the weak spot, for sure. I have three that all started to give me fits, with a full load. If you only put two in, they work fine. Ruger replaced them and the new ones have not failed yet, but have not been used much, either. It appears that they have put weak springs in them. Other than that, mine has been great for over 900 rounds.

I have been hunting, target shooting and handloading for my rifles since 1953. I got my first buck with my handload then.

There are 8 extra scopes in the cabinet including a Hensoldt and four Zeiss.

A Swarovski is on a pet. A Lyman was my first. A scope has never failed on me in use.

I can see the strategy in starting out with a good scope on a cheap rifle with the idea of upgrading the gun later. Some of the starter guns are cheaper than an Encore barrel, and pretty much all of them are cheaper than a re-barrel. VX-2s and FXs are kinda the bottom end of my optics choice these days and currently also the top. While apparently they do crap on occasion, they haven't crapped on me yet.

I would like to add a VX-6 to one of my rifles eventually.

You're very lucky. I've had a Nikon go "sproing" and several Leupold scopes go bad, mostly by losing their ability to track well. I've noted that the 3x9 Leupolds seem to be particularly bad about tracking properly. Up 4 clicks moves POI 2" up and 1" right, things like that.

Although I will admit to having screwed down rings farmer tight most of my life. Since I got a torque wrench and limit tightening ring screws to no more than about 25-26 inch pounds a lot of scope problems have gone away. But even mounted properly and stress free I still see "variable" tracking on some Leupold 3-9 variable scopes.

My fixed 6X Weaver, on the other hand, is dead nuts accurate. 4 clicks on either axis moves POI 1 inch at 100 yards exactly along that axis, all the time.

I would think that if you shoot at long range regularly and have a cheap rifle that will reliably group your shots into 1/2-3/4 MOA, why not put the best scope on it that you can afford--especially if it is chambered for a cartridge that generates significant amount of recoil with the loads that you use. I don't shoot a lot at long ranges and I can't warm up to cheap rifles. Most of my preferred scopes start with the mid-range Leupolds and their equivalents and go up from there. But, hey, it's not your money so why worry about it?

Yep! A while back I picked up a Sako Finnbear 270 in like new condition for $700. It looks to have less than a box of ammo fired through the rifle. I topped it with a Zeiss Conquest that was on sale for $299. I think I've got one hell of a lot of quality for just under $1000. 😎




Shod

I don't believe he shoots very much.

It probably brands me as a hopeless Luddite, but I'm a set-and-forget user. I don't expect hunting scopes to stand up to being run up and down the dial and don't need them to either. I'd get an SS for such work. The other well-known Leupold virtues are more important to me. I've had some others that were fine in most ways, but their eye-relief and eyebox shortcomings showed up in the woods.

I've seen some good things said about the current Weaver Ks, so if I were trying to save money, I might give one of them a shot.

Rifles come and go, esp the cheap ones. Try the rifles out then sell them. A good scope will get the best out of them.

Good scopes are not sold but go on to the next project.

The rifle can be no more capable than its sighting system allows it to be. I want a scope that adjust like it should, holds zero and returns to zero, no matter what it costs. Fortunately, there are some that will do that and not cost you your first born son. I have had some not inexpensive scopes fail me though.

John

John, thanks. Yours is an interesting question and it has received the anticipated wide variety of opinons/experiences. IMHE, the abilities among shooters vary as much as the replies. I might have answered differently 45 years ago but, at this point, my eyesight, etc. are probably as determinant as the equipment - maybe moreso.

There is some rather expensive stuff here and some that was seen as "cheap" when it was made quite a while ago - but no rifles that have been made cheaply more recently. Only one non-wood stock, and that happened for a good reason. Over a period of almost 60 years, only one scope has failed and, in that case, the entire windage adjustment setup simply fell apart.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge. If a rifle here functions as it should and shoots dead-nuts great with whatever scope is on it (and some are "cheap"), expert opinion, high-end brand, market value,etc. are not in mind.

Have a great trip.

Can't the positions of the two, rifle and sighting system, be reversed in that statement and it remain just as true?

Sure it can. But not uncommon nowadays to find relatively inexpensive rifles that shoot pretty well. A bunch of folks have found good accuracy from Savages, Ruger Americans etc.

Combine a scope that tracks as it should, returns to zero and holds zero with a reasonably good shooting rifle and you can do things that would have most mainstream hunters shake their heads in amazement.

Generally speaking, if you're starting with an inexpensive rifle that shoots well, you'll spend more on the optics than the rifle if you want the qualities I've listed above. SWFA is the obvious exception.

John

That happens mostly because the crosshairs aren't properly leveled.

I've often mused that, if Rugers were manufactured by the "Murray Z. Finkelstein Rifle Company," they wouldn't possess a fraction of the cachet they seem to enjoy.

I've got several Weaver classic K's and V's and can't tell much difference optically between them and my Leupold vx-1's. If anything the Weavers might be a tad better. The Leups eye relief is noticeably longer than the Weavers but the adjustments are better/more positive in the Weavers.

Yeah, lever-action Finklestein in 45 Rappaport

I have a Leupold Vari X III 2.5-8x on my Ruger American .243. It seems to be a good combination and shoots well. What's not to like?

In the universe of under $400 rifles, I liked the discontinued Marlin X guns in both their OEM configurations and with Savage 110 series replacement barrels installed on them. Most of my X guns have Bushnell 3200 and Simmons Whitetail Classic scopes mounted via B-Square rings and the Weaver-style bases that came on the rifles.

I don't care for the Remington 783s. They are ugly and, for me, they don't sell for enough less than 700 ADLs to offer any particular incentive to buy them.

I have 9 RAR-Predators and like them in their OEM configurations, but like them a little more when they're bedded in Boyds Heritage style laminated stocks. My RAR-Predators have Nikon and Sightron scopes mounted via Warne rings and the Weaver-style bases that came on the rifles.

My collection of "modern affordable" rifles includes the following:

Ruger American .22 Magnum standard model, 4-16x Kruger Optical K4.

Ruger American .223 Remington standard model, 2.5-10x Nikon Monarch 3.

Ruger American .243 Winchester All-Weather, 10x40 Bushnell Tactical.

Savage Axis with .22-250 factory and .250 Savage E.R. Shaw barrels,
3-9x Redfield Revolution.

Ruger American 6.5 Creedmoor Predator, 3-9x Burris Fullfield II 30mm.

Ruger American .300 Blackout Ranch, 4x Spartan Mk4 Nightvision.

T/C Venture Compact .308 Winchester, 6x38 Weaver K6.

Oh, and a Remington 722 .257 Roberts with 6x36 Leupold M8. The 722/721 was the rifle shooters complained about being "cheap" back in the day, but is now considered a classic. There's also a Marlin 81 with a Colorado-made 4x Redfield.

Worse scope i have seen was the Challenger line from Weaver,when they were trying to keep up with all of the import scopes back in the 80's.

best cheapest scope i have is one sold by K-Mart around the same time.
I have Weaver,Redfield,Simmons and Leopold and they each have their place.

just need to find a rifle for the 12x fixed leopold now.

I forgot some Nikon scopes back when they were first put on the market,got 12 for 125.00 ea.and wished i had bought more.

I bought a Ruger American Predator I 6.5 Creedmoor a while ago. The main reason I bought the rifle was that I had about 1,000 123 gr Scenars left over from another rifle. Seemed like a better alternative than selling the bullets.

Interesting thread. The last rifle I purchased was a bargain rifle that I got a great deal on. A Cabela's special Savage 10T tactical in .308 Win that cost me just $429 after rebate. I then did something unprecedented, at least for me. I spent almost double the price of the rifle for the scope, grabbing a Leupold Mark 4, 4.5-14x40 LR/T with mil-dot reticle on sale at the local Sportsman's Warehouse.
I try to go mid range on my scopes, favoring Leupold and Redfields. But also have gone bargain hunting on both quality (Zeiss Conquest 3-9x for $279 on sale) and price ( a pair of Intensity 6.5-20x44 scopes for $89 each on closeout. They work fine, btw) My favorite "cheap rig" is my Marlin XL7 in .270 Win, which wears a Nitrex 3-9x40. The rifle is a tack driver, light and easy to carry. I think I spent $239 for the rifle and $99 for the scope. It typically outshoots my Model 70 .270WSM with a Zeiss Conquest.
One of my buddies, who I respect greatly, said he would much rather have a $1000 scope on a $100 rifle than a $100 scope on a $1000 rifle, because you have to see the target in order to shoot it. He is a die hard Leupold fan. I'm n the futue, I will probably buy Leupolds, but I have no plans to replace any of my Vortex, Nikon, Burris, Nitrex, or even my Intensity scopes at this time.

My RAR .308 functions perfectly, the OP can replace a magazine real cheap, or whittle on it until it works.

If I were trying to limit myself to only a few rifles, I would only buy the more established models. But that is not the case, so I have some cheapies like Tikka and RAR and they both work smoothly, and are among my accurate "keeper" rifles.

I usually buy scopes because of the clarity and reticle choices. The way I decide which rifle to hunt depends on the reticle for the area.

I bought a Trijicon lighted green dot with plex reticle which costs nearly twice as much as my RAR, and I like the combo and will probably keep them paired this way for stuff like hogs.

I was going to post on this thread but saw this and now I don't need to, my sentiments exactly.

I was in my LGS, and had just installed a S&B on a M70 EW 300 WSM. There were two African pros on some kind of promotional tour and one guy yelled to the other "Look at this rifle...this guy got it "right"!"

Now the EW is not a "cheap" rifle but these guys were Mauser snobs from Africa...

Read what you want into that.... but both said Americans get it all backwards in that they hunt with expensive rifles but second rate optics and "cheap" scopes.

One said their big Kudu were mostly all killed at dark and to them the Zeiss, Swaro and S&B optics were what they liked to see clients carry. They said you don't need expensive rifles; put the money in great optics and reliable mechanics.

Hey I did't say it.....they did.

I have had inexpensive rifles that would outshoot rifles that were considered top of the line, and I've had inexpensive ones that were junk as far as I'm concerned. Same way with scopes. I have had very good results with an old Tasco World Class and a Simmons 44 Mag, and consider them to be very reliable glass. On the other hand, I've had some expensive scopes that did not live up to their billing. But, for the most part, you get what you pay for.....and that applies to everything. As to the old saying that you have to see it before you can shoot it, which implies that you need a more expensive scope than a rifle, if that rifle is not reliable and accurate, then the best scope in the world isn't going to help you.

He probably flashed his headlights at a drag ass in the left lane on the way to the range too.

I could not agree more!

Speaking of VX-1s (or Is, whatever), I've got a circa-2005 4-12 that's been mounted on 6 or 8 different rifles from .204 to .308 without issue. It's on my Howa .223 now and the last time I adjusted it, it moved as expected, which can't be said for the early "new" Redfield I had. I have a sneaking suspicion that friction adjustments may be more reliable than cheap clicks.

i've been saying that around here for years and im a big A hole for it.


dave

You won't get any grief from me, I'm sure there are some pretty scopes that function well too.
I just like scopes that can stand up to clicking and don't change POI when you fiddle with the magnification or parallax adjustments.

Not to me you aren't LOL!


You and jwp are a bad influence in a good way...

Well, color me impressed with the new 30-06 RAR's first trip to the range. Here are the particulars:

RAR 30-06, $179 special from Wally World
Tract Toric UHD 3-15x42 plex
Federal Power Shock 165 gr SP blue box
Federal Power Shock 180 gr SP blue box

I went through the process of mounting the new Toric, torqued the Warne's to 25", and applied dyna bore coat because I like the stuff. I let it cure overnight for a total of about 18 hours. This is the results of my bore sighting, "curing/centering" shots, and very minor adjustments. This was NOT a scope tracking test in any form or fashion.

Here's what it looks like mounted up.....

[img:left][/img]


After bore sighting at 25 yds firing 2 shots, I hung the target at 100yds, fired the first shot with the 165gr ammo and hit high (shot 1). Adjusted scope down what I was guessing the proper amount and fired shots 2,3. Adjusted right 6 clicks for shots 4,5,6. I then shot the right target with the 180gr ammo, firing shots 1,2,3,4 that hit just below the bull. Adjusted 10 clicks up and fired shots 5,6,7. Looks to be rather promising.

[img:left][/img]

I like clarity and definition in my scopes as much as anyone, but reliability is even more important...to me. Besides, there's nothing like a whiff of moisture in some form to reduce $800 worth of optical clarity by about $799.

Neither cheap rifles nor cheap scopes hold any appeal to me. Unless the cheap rifle is a M700 donor.

It's not that I'm rich; I'm certainly not. And my idea of a "nice" rifle is likely very different than many. I don't want or require deep bluing, perfect checkering, a stock hand-carved from a walnut tree that once shaded baby Jesus... or even CRF. I DO require a rigid, weatherproof stock, stainless steel, an exquisite trigger, and low-drama accuracy.

With scopes.... while I'm trying like heck not to get sucked into the tacticool world, it's a simple statement of fact that those are the guys who have pushed the state of the art forwards these last decades. My last two scope buys have been Nightforce and it's been a bit of a revelation to see what happens if you put scope-induced mechanical imprecisions to BED. It's removing a variable from a very critical part of the whole equation. That does not suck one bit.

I've got a build in progress right now. The rifle + stock + tooling needed to make it (reamer, etc) will top $2k. The cheapest scope in consideration for it is about $1k, the most expensive, around $2k. I need the mechanical stability in the scope to do what I want to do... I'll spend as much on the MOUNT for the scope as most rifle owners spend on a scope for a hunting rifle. Present company of loons excepted of course.

Looking at the question from another angle... Joe SixPack who goes to range once a year to check zero then buys a box of random shells and goes hunting can get a really nice scope, for his needs, at a very reasonable price these days... Rifle too.

You fought tooth and nail not to believe anything was better than leupy, glad to see that you moved forward.

Disregard - no longer applicable.

Bob,

A few comments on your post about the two African pros:

On my very first safari, the expensive Euro-scope on my .375 H&H went belly-up after not many shots, and not many days of bouncing around in a Land Cruiser. The PH commented that the two brands of scopes he'd seen fail more often than any others in Africa were a really cheap brand, previously mentioned in this thread, and a really expensive brand, one of the three mentioned by your pair of pros. (Luckily, I had a backup scope along, a much less expensive 4x that wasn't nearly as bright as the expensive European variable, but held together fine on the .375--and took my first kudu on the next-to-last day despite having to thread the bullet through over 200 yards of very shady jungle along the Limpopo River.)

I have seen a few of the three brands they mention on PH's rifles, but not very many. One was the 4x Zeiss on Kevin Thomas's .375 H&H. Kevin is the PH I got to know best, over two rather long safaris, and we still keep in touch though he retired a couple years ago and is now living in Great Britain, partly because one of his sons lives there.

I have also taken several other kudu here and there, but probably the first was taken in the dimmest light. One other was taken in late afternoon, with the sun almost but not quite down--which is why I could shoot accurately with iron sights. Bright glass is very helpful on occasion in Africa, especially when hunting baited leopards, but I have also tested a bunch of scopes optically and today there are a bunch of other brands of scope that are just as bright as the three he mentions--and some that are brighter than some of the models from those companies.

I tend to use scopes that have proven themselves both optically and mechanically over a period of time, and as noted earlier haven't always found either to be strictly related to price of brand name. But often I have to "field test" scopes that haven't been as well-proven, sometimes to my regret.

JGRaider, that was a very nicely done post showing what your good work, some inexpensive equipment and factory ammo can do. It should be helpful for a lot of folks who are not picky/loonies like some of us, and maybe for some who are. Thanks.

John I have broken Zeiss and Swarovski scopes, all variables and of course a pack of Leopold variables......

I found one on sale yesterday so decided to see if anything has changed in the decade since you and I both had problems with the Swaro AV 3-9. I leaped ahead and slapped a new Z3 3-9 on my 30/06 FW and wailed away a bit this afternoon.....Lets see if I can break it. I will keep us posted

Im sure we can only discuss this stuff in the most general of terms since no matter what we use, we will find someone with a bad experience with just about anything out there. The said the 4X Leopold is a tough grinder of a scope that will withstand a lot of shooting and abuse...ditto the 3X and the 6X.

I am becoming a little impressed with that Nightforce SHV......nice optics and the turrets seem reliable. Played with that this afternoon too.

I have grown fussier about optics; I still have my fixed powers of course but as I've aged the good glass has become somewhat more important. It does not always matter but sometimes it does!

The only brand of scope I have not managed to break are Nightforce and Schmidt-Bender but then I have no where near the round count with those that I do with Leopold. It sure did not take long to break the Zeiss and Swaro variables years back....under 100 rounds as I recall.

To me a reliable scope is one that lasts the life of the barrel.

Bob, maybe your two PH's opinions' were correct and representative of much more experience than I but I've had from Tasco's, in more lean years, all the way to the three continental alpha brands and many of them.

They've been on from 17 HMRs to the 222 to the 458 Lott. The scope taking the most recoil for the longest length of time was a Leupold Vari-X lll, 2.5-8x on a 340 Wby; that was for some twenty years without a hiccup (unless I dropped it on a shale hillside which I did).

My one, ONE, failure was a FIXED power scope, not a variable, and it wasn't a Tasco, Nikon, Leupold or any other than a $1k S&B...on a 350 Rem Mag..and after only about fifteen rounds.

I'm. It sure what that means, if anything, other than any one of 'em can break.

George anything can break. I guess we have to go with weighted averages.....


A 2.5-8X Leupold is the only variable scope that I have used to shoot out a barrel. But this was years back when Leupold was one of the only games in town if you wanted a tough scope.

I can't bring myself to buy the variables any more. At least the VX 3-ish series or whatever they call them today. Who can keep up with the models? Cripes....


Give me back the old M8 4X....

I've had one budget bolt rifle. A Marlin XL7 in 270 with a Tasco 4x. It outshot about everything else I ever owned. I used it for one full season of hunting.

I'd buy a good (neither cheap or high end) rifle and fit it with a Redfield scope. The Redfields, built by Leopold, are very good optically and rugged enough for virtually any sporting use. Sure, a $2,000 or more scope will be be better, but how much "quality" do you really need or can use? I object to paying good money just for bragging rights.

OK, so bring this one back again. Thanks, djs.

I'm right there. If I can't figure out how to hit something without monkeying with the knobs, then the sumbitch is too far away.

My $0.02 is that a quality rifle is a "lifetime purchase", though I understand that is the way some view scopes.

The difference IMO, is that scopes are getting better and better, while rifles are getting worse and worse. This is because technology is increasing while craftsmanship is decreasing.

I have three Weatherby Vanguards, an early S1, a late S1, and a recent S2. They show an evident decline in action smoothness, finish quality, and overall feel.

I typically spend about 50% on my scopes of what I do on my rifles.

I have a VX-II 3-9x50 on my oldest rifle, and a VX-1 2-7x33 on my other S1. Believe it or not, the the $200 VX-1 with the smaller objective and lower power range is both brighter and clearer than the older $500 scope.

If you look at cell phones, computers, and other things that are technology driven, they are both better and cheaper than they were in the past. If you look at furniture, cars, and other things that require craftsmanship, they are more expensive and more poorly constructed than the older models.

One of the reasons why the cheaper rifles are so popular is that they cater to market demands, while the higher quality ones are slow to change. Threaded barrels, better triggers, and modern calibers are what buyers want today.

I also understand those that use a rifle strictly as a tool, that gets abused and neglected day in and day out with little care or maintenance. I enjoy every minute of holding my walnut-stocked Weatherby in the woods, but it would probably be different if that rifle lived in a fishing boat.

I'd still rather buy an heirloom grade rifle with a less expensive but still reliable scope, and upgrade it down the line when I have the funds.

Well said and true.

Buy the best. Life is short

I guess that depends on how you define quality. As you define it, I'd agree but if you define it as accuracy vs. cost, I'd tend to disagree.

It seems to me that quality is getting worse too, but there is no denying that accuracy is improving.

If you are talking one of the classic Japan made World Class scopes, you are in business. They were well made and reliable. Anything else needed for 99.9% of big game hunting? Not every rifle needs a 50mm+ European objective on it.

Well, just to be the oddball, if I could go back and do it again with what I know now, I'd take one of the two Mauser 98's my father brought back from WWII, have a good gunsmith polish it up and turn it into a .30-06 with a nice piece of stable walnut cut to fit me perfectly, and put a peep sight on it.

Then I'd go out and kill the same game at the same ranges in the same terrain and never miss a beat.

And since "going back" would mean to the mid-late 60's, I'd pick up a really good 1950's vintage Winchester 94 .30-30 and put a peep sight on it as well, for those times when I didn't need or want to shoot a .30-06.




Doesn't mean I wouldn't also get many dozens of other rifles and scopes of all sizes 'cause, ya know, loonyism, but two sturdy, dependable rifles with sturdy sighting systems are all I'd really need...

I guess we are being conditioned to believe that the cheaper the rifle the better it will shoot; like higher quality and accuracy are somehow mutually exclusive objectives that somehow never overlap and we're supposed to be happy about it.

Buddy of mine had one of these cheapie in 223...it shot lights out until the trigger housing fell apart after 300-400 rounds.

He asked my advice,which was "Fix that POS, dump it,and don't ever buy another one".

While it can be disappointing sometimes to see how the higher dollar rifles will sometimes not shoot as well nor as easily as some of the cheap ones being built these days, I still much prefer the basic simple (reliable) construction of some of the more expensive rifles - like the Ruger 77 and Winchester 70 for example. It's really amazing how worthwhile a couple hundred dollars can be when applied to a M77 or M70 to 'clean things up a bit' or tweak and tune. Of course, one can spend more too, but often the law of diminishing returns kicks in quickly. I have more than one rifle which has sleds tracks on it with nary a glitch beyond some cosmetic defects. Obviously they were worth recovering, something I'm less confident about with some of the lowest priced stuff.

Let's not even get into the infamous Kimber Montana "I'm so reliable I need my own fix-it thread" rifle.

Remington 700's arent the cheap rifles anymore?

Remington ADL's still shoot, btw. They have fallen out of favor as an "out of the box" accurate rifle for some reason.

I shot two in 7 rem this week, neither cost over 400, both stacked 160gr accubond factory loads on top of each other.

Same story with most 700's I shoot.

I admit to making a few bolt and trigger mods on my personal 700's, to put my mind at ease. But I cant think of a singe factory rifle I wouldnt make at least a few tweaks on.

Ive tried savage, tikka and ruger american..I'll keep buying bargain Remingtons for my el'cheapo's

An ADL in 7rem, topped with a 10X SS is about the best bargain big game rig I can think of. JMO

My experience mirrors yours with the ADL 7mm Mags.

I have to agree with all of this post!

Rem 700's aren't the "cheap" rifles Im talking about......I can't recall any that did not shoot well. I will take a 1980's era MR in 270 or 280 over about any of these current cheapies.

Ditto a 7 Rem Mag.

I have one 700, a .270 ADL. It is very accurate with 130 grain Corelokts, the only ammunition I've ever shot through it. I don't consider it a cheap rifle and I also happen to like blind magazines. It's not a hardship to me to cycle the rounds through the rifle to unload it. Plus, if you point the rifle in a safe direction and keep your finger off the trigger nothing bad is going to happen.

The ADL's that Walmart, Cabela's, Academy, et al have made don't seem as nicely finished as the regular production ones were. I'd still rather have one of them than a RAR, Axis or 783. Nothing wrong with those rifles, I just prefer an ADL.

Some years ago at the Shot Show in Vegas, I stopped to rest, leaning up against one of the walls of Remington's booth. The had little cubicles inside for buyers to discuss purchasing with the reps in private. From my position, I could hear parts of the conversation inside about an order that Dick's Sporting Goods was making for 870 shotguns. They were discussing how to lower the cost by less finish on the stocks and bluing. So yes there is a difference between big box stores and your local gunshop in quality and price.

Have no jamming issues with the RAR .223 Compact we have.

Rifle was $379.00 at Wal Mart combo with a scope Remington had a $75.00 rebate.Put what I consider mid priced VX 3 3.5-10 on it and sold the Remington scope for $35.00 It shot so well I put it in a McMillan Hunter.

[img:center]http://[/img] [img:center]http://[/img] [img:center]http://[/img] [img:center]http://[/img]

JB in the spirit of always needing sources of good reliable scopes and since you seem to have the ear of the folks at Redfield/Leupold. Maybe you can convince them that a redfield fixed 4x and 6x line aka the old m8 line at a lower price point thanthe current FX Leupold line would be a good expansion to the redfield revolution lineup.

My friend bought a case of the Tasco WorldClass variables because he liked them so much.

He has them on all sorts of rifles, including a bunch of rifles he built with the gunsmith in town. Some really nice rifles!

I dont like spending more than 450 on a scope. But then again I dont like Accu-Triggers, plastic stocks, and 6.5 Creedmoors or .300 BLKs.



I got a kick out of that Mule Deer, bitching about guns for decades!

Probably right! Music, tastes in food, tattoos, piercings.....

Sure is nice to have something to bitch about!

In the spirit of the post ahead of my first, how about some more gloss finished scopes?

Jim Conrad,

Here's a quote from an article I wrote on "affordable rifles" three years ago for AMERICAN RIFLEMAN:

"In autumn Americans follow many old traditions, including hunting, eating turkey, and throwing sales across the country. During the fall of 2013 the following prices appeared before, during and after big game season in my part of Montana:

Mossberg ATR $289.99
Remington 783 $319.99
Ruger American $299.99
Savage Axis $299.99

"Do these rifles mean the end of civilization as we know it? Well, they don’t look like the rifles many hunters grew up shooting, but some historical perspective might be useful. In the 1958 issue of Gun Digest well-known writer Bob Wallack reviewed recent American factory rifles, and had this to say about the Remington 721 and 722, the long and short-action versions of the company’s post-war bolt action rifle: “The motto at Remington these days…is ‘all for production,’ so their rifles are designed for ease of manufacture and to sell at a certain price. Every part that can possibly be banged out on a punch press is banged out on a punch press, much to the sorrow of any real gun bug. Such methods do not affect the handling qualities or functioning of a rifle, certainly, but neither do they add up to a gun that a guy’d want to own with pride.” Though written over half a century ago, the spirit of Wallack’s comments would fit right in among many Internet posts.

"Mass manufacturing really began when practical steam engines were developed in the late 1700’s, about the time the United States was founded. In the 20th century electricity speeded up assembly lines considerably by giving machine tools individual motors, rather than relying on belts off an overhead, steam-driven shaft. As a result average Americans could afford not only functional firearms and sewing machines, but Model T Fords and Frigidaire refrigerators. Yet many of us still somehow believe any factory-made products made before right now were of much finer quality, the reason many shooters now call the 721 and 722 Remingtons “classics.”

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!

You sure hit the nail on the head there MD.

I've owned a bunch of cheap rifles old and new. Have had 4 savage 340's, 4 Winchester 94's, 6 Marlin 336's and a Remington 788. Currently own two 94's, a 336, a stevens 200 and a Ruger American and have shot a couple recent synthetic 700 ADL's and a Savage axis. Love my 94's and 336. Still use them frquently and have killed a big pile of deer and other game with them over the years. Like my stevens 200 pretty good now but not so much as it was issued. It's now glass/pillar bedded into a Boyd's laminate stock, has a rifle basix trigger and shoots extremely well. Haven't shot my new RAR yet. Not at all impressed intitially as the barrel was not even close to free floated out of the box. Full contact along the right side and a big gap on the left. Due, as best I can tell, to an internal bedding block casting that's a bit cockeyed and forces the action over to the right when the action screws are tightened. Because the forend of the stock is so thin along the top edge, you can't really remove much plastic along the sides without it being really noticeable and ugly so will need to solicit Ruger for a new stock or at least a new bedding block.. Beyond that, the action is rough as a cob and sounds like you're dragging a file along a cast iron fence when operated. The trigger has some annoying creep and breaks at 4 lbs. Not terribly impressed with it so far and it is in no way even remotely comparable to a Tikka in quality/precision of manufacture, despite the comparisons I've seen to that effect. The Savage axis is a pitiful excuse for a rifle as issued. Can shoot decent groups so long as you are aware of the stock flex and take it into account AND can manage to overcome the rediculous stock ergonomics that were obviously intended to work well if you're an orangutang. Try not to look at the damned thing though or you may go blind from the ugly. I almost always end up doing some performance enhancing and/or cosmetic work on damned near every rifle I've ever owned. These new economy wonder rifles are no exception and in the end, after the work is done, they don't perform any better than my old rifles. They're just uglier. In fact, that old Remington 788 .222 I had was still one of the most accurate rifles I ever owned. More accurate than any of the new economy rifles I've owned or shot/test fired. I'm still kicking myself for selling it.

You obviously haven't tried many Ruger American Rifles. There were problems initially with the stocks, though in several examples I didn't encounter any that couldn't bee free-floated with a couple minute's work with a round rasp. But maybe a couple of years ago they stiffened the stocks and pretty much solved the problem. I have three here right now that had the barrels centered in the forend and properly floated right out of the box. The actions can be very smooth, though some are smoother than others.

The triggers can be adjusted down to 2.5 to 3 pounds with the instructions (depending on the trigger) but it only takes a few more minutes to easily remove the mainspring and either replace or modify it for a lighter pull. How much creep depends on the individual trigger, but I'd say most are relatively creep-free. I know all this because I didn't judge every RAR on the basic of ONE rifle, but on several examples.

The only Savage Axis .22-250 here right now had a similar properly bedded, stiff stock right out of the box. Dunno how recently you tried one, but this one's at least three years old. It shoots most handloads well under an inch, and some around 1/2", holding it normally over bags off the bench. The barrel did foul some at first so I installed Dyna Bore-Coat, which solved the problem. All I've done to it is lighten the main trigger spring, as with the RAR's. Now it breaks cleanly at around 2.5 pounds. If you want to argue stock esthetics, then there are a bunch of "classic" rifles that had walnut stocks that also sucked.

Have also had very good results from more than one T/C Venture, which some would rate as a step up from the lowest priced "affordable" rifles. They run about $100 more than an RAR but less than a Tikka.

Dad won a 7mm Remington the next year in the same raffle I won the 300 Winchester.

He carries it around with him all the time. It is an econo rifle, 780 something I think.

Thats not a bad rifle. It serves a fine purpose for him. Keeps him from having to pack around the second year Model 70 that I had restored for him.

Win Win!

Not a bleeding thing wrong with an econo rifle, or liking them.

Also not a bleeding thing wrong with disliking them.

I have a 300 dollar bass guitar, and a 1400 dollar bass guitar. Sure, they are basically the same thing, but there is a mile of difference.

I once had a fellow in college tell me that I was "closed minded" for not liking Rap music. Sorry, I just dont like it.

That is interesting. I was just thinking about the TC and if they were still available.

I suppose it does not matter much. I am not the target demographic.

That demographic being people with disposable income.

Funny thing is, this is the second RAR I've had that had the barrel contacting the forearm along the right side. Both in the past two weeks. I sent the first one back because of it. The second one is the same way, so I decided to keep it and correct the problems. I've never been terribly impressed with Rugers quality control period. Have sent many back for various manufacturing defects back when I worked in the gun shop. Have corrected many more on my own guns and those of customers when I was doing general gunsmithing. As I said, I haven't even shot this RAR nor have I monkeyed with it much yet. I will correct the bedding issues and the trigger and smooth things up and see how she shoots. Sure ain't no fuggin wonder rifle yet or it woudn't need all this shyt done to it before I shoot it. I have a 16 year old Tikka that I still haven't done anything to except mount a scope and shoot. The friggin thing is smooth as oil on an ice cube, the trigger breaks like a glass rod right at 3 lbs and it averages in the .4's and .5's with loads it likes and under an inch with ones it don't.

Yeah, my experience with Tikkas is they're normally GTG right out of the box, even the trigger pull. But they cost close to twice as much as an RAR, and my last four RAR's have been good out of the box, except for one trigger that needed some adjusting.

Both Tikkas and Rugers have very nicely-done hammer-forged barrels, but the heavy barrels on Tikkas (and Sakos) are also lapped to very close tolerances, one reason the varmint/target models shoot so well.

These are the reasons I DONT put Tikka's in the 'dumpster' category with the . rar

You guys can be glad that I'm NO competition for rar. AFAIC they don't rate upper case classification.


Jerry

One Addition to my previous post.

That post is NOT an indictment of other Ruger rifles/handguns. I've had yrs. of dependable service from 77s, Super Blackhawks, & Super Redhawks.

My first Ruger 77 was a 243 W that I bought in Baton Rouge, La. in 1978. My long time friend STILL has it and hunts it.


Jerry

I see it every weekend, Some guy will walk by a mint Remington 700 for 300 bucks and pay 380 to 400 for a cheap a$$ junk Ruger American!!!!!Why?????

Having owned a few dozen Model 700’s but only two Ruger Americans, I’ll try to give a serious answer.

If the Model 700 is mint, it means they will most likely need to be bedded to achieve their full potential accuracy. They may or may not need the forend floated. If it was an older M700 the trigger could be made quite nice but it still had the FOSR possibility. And you still had to be careful when adjusting the old trigger, it needed a bounce test to make sure it wouldn’t fire when the bolt was closed. Never worked with a new X-Mark trigger so can’t say how well they can be adjusted. Now it could shoot great out of the box, I’ve had probably three that needed no tinkering whatsoever – except adjusting the trigger - to shoot great. One of those was a heavy barrel .223 varmint rifle which one should expect to shoot great out of the box. But if a M700 needs bedding and someone is not a good DIYer, that’s more money on top of the base price. If the customer needs customer service from Remington, his experience can be iffy at best. He might get to someone who knows what’s going on or might experience the equivalent of offshore computer support.

Both RAR’s I’ve owned (.243 and .22-250) shot as well as the best Model 700’s right out of the box. That means .7’s and .8’s easily and sub-half inch with their better loads. Both of them shot better than all the other Model 700’s until those M700’s had more dollars put into them – bedding, floating, whatever. Their triggers will go down to about 2 3/4 to 3 pounds with a twist of an allen key and are safe. For a few years now Ruger customer service hasn’t been what it used to be but it’s still pretty darn good. The .22-250 developed a feeding problem but a quick call to Ruger customer support produced a free magazine in the mail three days later, feeding problem resolved 100%.

I’ve had two Model 700 bolt handles just fall off – it does happen, half a dozen failures to eject due to brass shavings jamming the ejector, a bolt that came out due to a weak bolt stop spring, one would pop rounds out of the magazine and produce smokestack feeding jams, numerous little problems like that. To be fair, the RAR’s haven’t been around long enough to develop a real test to see where their weak points are. Apparently feeding problems are their biggest consumer complaint but also apparently that is easily solved by a new magazine as it was in my case.

Now despite saying all this, I like Model 700’s. Most of my big game hunting has been with a Model 700 and it worked fine. But I was giving my answer to the question of why walk past a Model 700 to pick up a RAR. Remember that a few decades ago someone would ask the question of why walk past a perfectly good Winchester to pick up a cheap ass Remington.

Remingtons used to have the reputation of the best “out of the box” accuracy in the business and the best factory barrels in the business, but they lost that 20-25 years ago. The RAR does take advantage of more economical manufacturing techniques, exactly like the Model 700 and 720 series rifles when they were born. And as has already been noted in the thread, back then the contemporary writers noted how the 720 series were “cheap”. But those same techniques also lend themselves to a functional, very accurate rifle that can compete in the market place.

The Model 700 is a decent rifle as is and makes a great donor – i.e. more bucks, the RAR is a great “pay once, take it out and shoot it as is” rifle.


But to be honest, after recent experiences I’d walk right by both of them and get a Tikka.

I like 700's too. All of this talk has reminded me of when I bought my Hill Country Rifles 7mmRM Harvester. They use a Rem 700 SPS action and barrel, then go to work with their truing, squaring, etc, etc, etc. I once called them asking why it was taking so much longer than anticipated. Their reply was that they had to go through 10 combinations of factory actions/barrels to come up with one they could work with that would wind up spec'ing the way they wanted, and promised.

It did shoot lights out though, but I chalk that up to HCR's expertise, not necessarily Remington.

Hands on tweaking trumps CNC machining? Who'd a thunk it?

No surprise though.

Like anything else, there's CNC machining and then there's CNC machining.

Sako/Tikka must have it figured out pretty well.

Looks like it.

I see RAR's now come in .300 Win Mag. It has me thinking..................

Just remember that if you get one, you'll need to put a Nightforce scope on it...

No, Schmidt & Bender, or maybe a Swarovski Z8....

I'm waiting for the .404 Jeff

So you guys are saying that old K 4 weaver I have been saving ain't gonna cut the mustard?

Rats.

Because they know the M700 needs a Timney trigger to be safe, and the bolt has a 90 degree lift and is not as smooth as the RAR action, and they prefer the 60 degree lift. Some also prefer the location and operation of the RAR safety. They may have already owned so many M700s that they have experienced an extractor issue. Or perhaps have heard of it and just don't want to spend the money on a Sako extractor.

More than likely it's because the guy just wants a brand new rifle instead of somebody else's half worn out problem. Because mint 700's are never $300.

I would take a Half worn out Remington 700 over a Ruger American any day. Brand new RARs are 379 at Academy. Brand new Remington 700s at Academy are 379...Just a few months ago they had 700s on sale for 330 with a 35 $ Rebate.

$150 gun.... $1000 piece of glass.... priceless amounts of fun....

I've had way more inexpensive glass fail than inexpensive rifles.



So what exactly makes the R700 superior? It can't be based on aesthetics because that 700 ADL at Academy isn't any prettier than the RAR and probably won't shoot as well.

I know we all have our predisposition to illogical bias, but good grief.

Well, many used 700's have very nice impressed checkering, and the older BDL's also have white-line spacers.

When it comes to cash outlay for a rifle, consider the ammo, time, and work you may have to put in to get them to shoot.

For me, a Tikka or Weatherby S2 are some of the best bargains out there, out the box. Had Rems and Rugers shoot, and others, but also done alot of work on 700s after purchase, that = ammo burned, time, and more range trips inc. gas.

Not all 700s are bad, but they are not always great out the box. I would be more confident a sporter config Tikka or S2 would give me MOA or better, out the box, than many others, and the fit, finish, etc. is always consistent and actions smooth. IME. Had a bolt handle fall off a 700, not common, but when they fail, you have a useless paperweight. That will not happen with a T3 or S2

Speaking of older world craftmanship, I look to old Sako's...

I don't tell a young man in his 20's or even teens who is interested in trying our sport that he needs to spend $2K to get started with a deer rifle. Pick the sub 600 rifle that fits and has a 1" guarantee and put a $300 Leupod or conquest in Talley one piece mounts and you are good for the next 25 years or so.

My model 77 7mm RM that I bought in 1977 for $179 has gone through 2 piece of crap scopes which one of which cost me a trophy mule deer, it shoots well under 1" after bedding, free floating the barrel and a trigger job.

My cousin bought a $500 S2 last year in 300 Weatherby, topped it with a Zeiss HD5 3-15 with the z800 reticle for double the price of the gun and in the first box of shells sighting in I was able to hit a 3" diameter branch at 490 yards with the first shot. That is one very accurate cheap rifle, with hand loads it groups well under 2" at 225 all day long...that is if you could handle the recoil all day. The S2 version also has a stock deign that provides noticeably less felt recoil than my original Vanguard in the same caliber.

I think we are in the golden age of affordable rifles but I really don't like the RAR in 30-06 I picked up a couple of years ago. It shoots fine but points and feels like a piece of crap. Even the creepy trigger rough finish Axis feels and shoots better for me. The TC, Howa models and Tikkas are the sweet spot as far as I'm concerned and i'd take them over comparable Remington models just based on function.

I don't like the Savage Axis. But I have to admit they're natural pointers.

It took maybe 15 minutes to lighten the trigger to a crisp 2 lbs, and add weight to the stock of my RAR 30-06. I'm still amazed how accurate it is, even with Federal blue box ammo.

I've been shooting Tikkas for over 16 years now. Only thing I've ever done to them is mount the scope and lighten the trigger with an allen wrench. They are amazingly accurate and simple to shoot.

moosemike,

While you consider Savage Axises natural pointers, Blackheart thinks their "ergnomics" suck. Which once again proves that humans come in different shapes, but few shooters apparently acknowledge the fact, instead judging all stocks on how they fit them personally.

specneeds,

Believe it or not, there are some scopes costing less than $300 that are just as tough and reliable. Note the word "some," but I have used them enough to know, and some other hunters have too.

I believe I've been safe in recommending FFII 3-9x40s to people.

I bought my circa 1949 Winchester 94 .30-30 in 1982. It had some dents and scratches and a bit of blue wear but I don't think it had been shot that much. Not sure how many rounds I've put through it in the 34 years since I bought it but I'd bet 4 thousand at least. It was my only centerfire rifle for several years back when my kids were little and it got used on everything from varmints to deer. Shortly after I bought it I had it drilled and tapped and installed a Williams 5D reciver sight in the rear and a Lyman ivory bead up front. I could average under 1.5" for 3 shot groups at 100 yards consistently with that setup back then and shot it enough that I could kill woodchucks at 150-200 yards with it consistently. My eyes aren't as good now as they were then and the bore isn't as good either but I can still put 3 in 2" pretty regular with it. I shot a bunch of chucks with it this summer and it still goes deer hunting with me every season. I reckon I got my moneys worth for the 95.00 I paid at the pawn shop back in 1982. I wonder how many Ruger Americans will be around, still shooting good and still being hunted by their owners in 67 years ?

And those tough bargain scopes would be? And are those only fixed scopes or do any variables make the cut? What I like about Leupold is the balance they strike on specs, particularly weight and eye relief, but not so much on price. Frankly, I'd just as soon Leupold do away with the Forever fix at no cost no matter what warranty and price their scopes better with a 5 year warranty and thereafter repair for a reasonable charge. I imagine I'm in the minority on that and should probably seek protective custody and a new identity for even suggesting such . As for cheaper, I have a Weaver V Classic 2.5-7 I like. Hasn't failed yet, but it hasn't seen many recoil cycles either. It's mounted on a Winchester 88 .308.

Gringo Loco,

See mathman's post!

Not to sound arrogant, but I would venture that I could safely say that I have owned more scopes and seen more scopes fail than the vast majority of hunters/shooters ever will. And seen more that simply would not track correctly. The list is quite long and includes many brands, at different price levels. For years I bought cheaper scopes just out of sheer curiosity, and trying to find a bargain. I still do this to some extent. That sickness may never be cured. Only stating this so some will understand that the amount of samples tested has been vast. I am not the type to buy 1-2 of something, and claim it to be the greatest or worst POS of all time, as many here routinely do.

I have come to trust only certain brands, and only certain models of certain brands. For hunting scopes and set-it-and-forget-it scopes, I use more Leupolds than any other. But only certain models. They do not always track as they should as far as being exactly 1/4 moa clicks, but once zeroed, they stay there and usually remain trouble free for years. I have only had 2-3 fail out of about 60+. As for cheaper hunting scopes, Weaver Classic has stood out in terms of toughness. Glass is also very good, no different than Bushnell Elite 4200 or Nikon Monarchs, just cheaper. Have abused more than several. Mostly low powered variables and low powered fixed. No AOs or anything over 3-9x38.

For precision work, in regards to Leupold, I only use their fixed Marks 4s. They have proven to track, and are tough as nails. A breed apart from their other scopes. As for variables, I trust NF NXS on precision rifles.

As for cheaper target scopes, I find fixed Weavers with micro trac to be an outstanding value. Nothing in their price range tracks better or is tougher IME. Ks, Ts, and KTs, all have never let me down. They just need fitted to the appropriate rifle. I would probably give the honorable mention here to SWFA SS fixed powers, simply based on that I haven't used as many. They seem to track well and be a solid value. But I have only used 2 models so far.

Now we come to the red-headed stepchild of scopes, IMO. Any cheaper scope with an AO. These scopes have and will fail more than any others. They will also lose zero far easier. Some have never made it to the range. Mount it up, put on boresighter, and watch POI shift as AO is turned. If one is lucky, it happens then, and not later. These scopes are also notorious for not having as much erector travel as stated. Or at least not as much "useful " erector travel. Meaning as you get near say 80% travel (or so) and you can watch things move diagonally on a collimator. The Weaver V-16 is the cheapest variable/AO I trust. And is better than many that cost more IMO.

By reading this, one may think I have a whole stable of Weavers here, but I don't. Only maybe 3-4 right now. 2 On dedicated target rifles. But have used dozens, and I don't feel guilty selling one to someone I know. They have earned it.

So that is pretty much it for me. Certain models of Leupold, NF, Weaver,and SWFA SS are about all I have come to really trust.

Yes, I still have other scopes not listed that I do use. Leupolds with various turrets and 2 Burris FF 3-9x40 LRS come to mind. But I have had 2 of the Leupold variables go down, and they do not track as well as the above said scopes. But for strictly hunting game, they work well. Same for the Burris. These 2 have been fine so far. Used one yesterday. But I broke 3 FFIIs inside of a month years ago, and pretty much quit buying Burris at that point. 2 Bushnells also in that same month.

I will also add, that some of the older Japanese made Bushnells were/are very good. It maybe took me a little longer than it should heve to figure that out, given the large sampling over the years. Some had great gloss finishes on them also. I wish I had held on to a few of them. Yes, I have broken a couple of them, but even more of the newer Bushnells, relatively speaking. And have puked far more older Redfields in comparison. In fairness, I can't recall using the older Bushnells on anything that kicked real hard. A 30-06 that ran 180s is about it.

An accurate rifle is really only as good as the scope you put on it. And much depends on that scope being repeatable and durable. And there are plenty of cheaper rifles that are capable of excellent accuracy. So no, I do not find anything wrong with putting an expensive scope on any rifle that is a proven shooter.

If I had to choose, I would take the American with a current Leupold over a current M70 with a current Tasco.

That being simply because I have more faith in the American than I do in the Tasco. Plus Tasco glass/image always looks yellow to me.

Now if it was a pre-64 M70 with an older Jap Tasco, that may make the decision a bit harder......

Very late to this topic, but if you can't see the target early or late, then what use is a "great" rifle.

To me a great rifle is an accurate enough one. Could be an HR topper/handi rifle for all I care, if it shoots well. Then I'll spend what I save on glass that allows me to see early and late and into the shadows.

Could really care less what a gun looks like its a tool, accuracy needed, vision for sure.

Heck if I could see well enough I"d hunt with irons but you can't see early and late, when many chances come. And you can't define sticks and limbs and twigs in the way.

Pretty simple in my way of thinking.

And yes I have had tascos, and NO they do not work early or late...

Thats why I prefer the cash spent on the optics, rather than the gun.

Good point.

I'd like to see a budget bolt rifle offered in .35 Whelen. I know it's not going to happen though. The late Marlin X7 would've been perfect. I would've topped one with a Leupold Rifleman which I don't think they make anymore but has worked well for me.

You guys must be blind as bats. I still hunt irons on my Win. 30-30's and mt T/C Hawken every season and I can and do still kill deer with them in dark hemlock forest early and late right to the limits of legal hunting hours. Granted you do need highly visible irons, which is why mine all wear fiber optics these days but I do think this "have to have great optics" shyt is just an excuse to not practice or even try irons by many hunters today. Also, for chrissakes the way many talk you'd think the only time you can kill deer is before sunrise or after sunset. Sheesh.

I assume that when someone says they cant see iron sights very well, they are telling the truth.

The good shooting, smooth operating cheap rifles like Tikka and RAR are gradually taking the appeal away from an expensive gunsmithed M700 with custom barrel, custom trigger, and stocks that don't shoot much if any better.

I tend to think most haven't tried many options and the majority just prefer scopes anyway. Lots of folks these days have never really used anything but scopes right from the get go.

This thread reminds me of an old steel-tube K-4 Weaver I had for many years.

It wasn't the brightest scope around, but I had it a long time, put it on several rifles and 12 gauge slug guns, and it never, ever shifted zero, fogged, or caused a minute's trouble over the years I owned it.

I'd still have it, but it, and the 10/22 it was on, at the time, got stolen.

Early on, I cracked the ocular lens, and even after 20+ years, it still never caused any issues at all. I finally sent it to El Paso and got the lens replaced. It came back, like new, and still never gave me any trouble at all.

I'm sure an alpha Euro scope would be brighter, but I never lost an animal I shot at, with this scope, either.
IIRC, I paid $69.95 for it, back around 1978.

I wish I had bought a truckload of the danged things. I bought a K-6 a year or two later, and had equally excellent luck with it, too. Maybe I should have bought TWO truckloads of them.

While I said what I said above about acceptable accuracy, i'll also note that as long as I"ve not been talked into a douglas barrel, my smithed 700s all shoot around .5 moa and under CONSISTENTLY, and at yardage, which is generally speaking, quite a bit, IMHO, better than factory rifles...

I hunt irons sometimes. I have a Lyman Deerstalker flintlock with a TC peep sight on it. I've touched the front sight with some white fingernail polish. Also have a 1950 Marlin 35 Rem sport carbine with a Redfield peep sight I use. However, at very first or last legal light in thick cover, range is limited vs a Scope, especially with overcast skies.

A white front sight helps alot with visibility when compared to black or a brass or silver bead. I've found the fluorsecent green fiber optic puts them all to shame at least for me.

There are ways to make irons stand out. They also lessen your overall max distance... I tend to keep my sights square and blackened so I can make precise shots.

Thats not needed or desired at dusk, but we pick our battles.

The bright front sight edges blurr so badly, that you can't define the front sight perfectly, hence the lessened accuracy. Yet at 25 yards we don't even really need sights actually...

Perhaps, but I killed two woodchucks one right after the other at 120 yards this summer with my 94 and it's green fiber optic front sight. Shot the first one and the other took off for it's hole but stopped right at the entrance to see what happened and I clobbered him too. I don't know how many times you need to shoot further than 120 yards in the woods where you live but around here it's pretty close to never.

Not all of us think the Winchester 94 was the end all be all of rifle design. And a bolt action .300 with irons only would be pretty lame.

Hunting deer in the woods around here with a bolt action .300 would be pretty lame. Tough to beat a 94 or if you prefer scopes, a 336 for deer in the woods. I've got scoped bolt actions in several chamberings {.223, .243, .308, .30-06} but they mostly stay home while the levers go hunting { I do still take the .223 out to do some "stunt shooting" sometimes}. My tags get filled every year.

There are precisely 7 trees where I live.

I can see the mountains to the south from my window, 30 miles or so away.

The boys ran open sights back in the day.

Come on now Jim. You just need to Quigley up.

Yeah, I've been out there. Pretty bare. Around here it's densely wooded. No need for a long reaching rifle.

Sounds like Nebraska, where the state tree is the telephone pole.

Haha! Yeah, its pretty bare out here, and I aint no Matthew Quigley!

We dont need a long range gun out here either, but it sure helps sometimes.


Off topic, it is kind of funny that my great grandfather ended up out here. We Conrads hail from Boone Township, Harrison County Indiana.

Where he homesteaded is pretty much the polar opposite of Laconia, Indiana.

I live, almost literally, right across the Ohio River from Laconia, and used to live in Elizabeth, just up the road. Yep, that area is pretty tight quarters, hardly any place at all for anything long range. I had to fight and scratch to get 300 yards for any kind of riflery at all.
I moved across the river, mostly, because it was closer to work, and because there was more opportunity to use the rifles I owned. Now, Indiana has legalized rifles for deer, and there are still a LOT of deer around Laconia.

Thats cool. I plan on heading down there some day to visit the ancient land of the Conrad.

Has to be lots of history down there, and it would be the kind of country that I have never seen before. My great, great grandmother was a Brandenburg. Her Uncle started the town of Brandenburg, Kentucky.

The Conrad's that shot all the Whitecaps were cousins. Thats an interesting story, The Whitecaps, if one is interested in Historical stuff.

When dad went to Armor Officer Basic he got to spend a lot of time down there, I would like to as well.

I believe you have been safe. I recommend it and the 2-7x35.

Here all this time I thought it was the goal post.

It's pretty hilly country, it's located in the Knobs area that surrounds Greater Louisville. Louisville sits in a basin, and those hills block a lot of bad weather from ever getting there.

That bad weather splits around those hills, and hits here, and about 30 miles north of Louisville. We got 25 inches of snow a couple winters ago, and Louisville got about 5". Laconia got less, but enough to make it hard to get around. Harrison County doesn't have much of a tax base.

I'm not rich but I do buy the best glass I can afford. My scopes may seem cheap to some but they are what they are.

Ain't that (both) the truth!! (not a question)



Jerry

I have an open sighted 336 .30-30 myself. I much prefer a scoped bolt gun even in the woods.

Why is that ? I've shot a ton of deer with both and can't see a damn bit of advantage to the bolt guns for deer in the woods. Put a good trigger on a 336 or 94 AE { work the sear/hammer notch depth and angles if neccesary} and scope it if so desired. Theyre're plenty accurate, flat shooting and powerful enough for any range you'll encounter in the woods. They carry better in the hand than any fat bolt gun, regardless of the weight {my 94 carries better than my 5 lb Marlin single shot bolt action 22} and with a full mag tube they balance better for offhand shooting than most lightweight bolt actions. What's not to like ? I DEFINITELY prefer to carry mine in the woods for deer over my Ruger 77 Hawkeye .30-06, my Tikka 595 .243 or my Weatherby Vanguard .308.. Those all usually stay home while my 336 or 94's are out slaying bucks.

Because no matter where I hunt the opportunity always exists for a longer shot. Whether it's a field, a pipeline, a logging road, or hillside to hillside at a ravine, I'm never in a guaranteed sub 150 yard situation.

I can understand that to a degree. I don't have that problem here as there are no fields or pipelines where I hunt. Even if there were it wouldn't bother me much. Back when I hunted farmland I killed a bunch of deer between 200 and 300 yards with my .30-30's and it worked fine every time. I even killed one at 314 long paces with my 94 and it's iron sights. One shot, one kilL. They can do alot more than most people think if the shooter is up to it.

I used to win bets hitting a rock at 400 yards with my old 1894 Winchester rifle circa 1902 that I used to kill my first deer, it is faster than a bolt gun without question but not the right tool for me anymore. I'll stick tho a scoped rifle and would probably go semi-auto before lever these days.

My Marlin .30-30 has a 16" barrel so I don't think I'll effectively reach out beyond 150. It still sees plenty of use.

I dont mean to suggest that old 30-30 was a 400 yard hunting rifle although it was easily good to 200 with that full length barrel. The losing bettors didn't realize I had shot that same rock dozens of times and knew right where to hold.

I killed an 8 point buck at 200 yards in 2004 with an iron sighted 30-30 Marlin with 20" barrel. I know you can stretch the round at least that far.

I think the Marlin X7 was the finest of these budget guns and I'm dumbfounded as to why it was discontinued. I had one in .270 and carried it for a full season. No complaints. They were good looking too.

I'm sure it's discontinued because Remington has the 710/770/783 and they seem to have Marlin just making lever actions when it comes to centerfires.

Try shooting at an animal that's in the shade while you are in the light. I've seen the results with irons on paper, it ain't pretty. A shot like that with a scope is no problem.

I've been killing all kinds of game with irons for 45 years. If you think I havent shot anything that was in the shade while I was in the light, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell. Right now, with my ageing eyesight I can still shoot 2" groups at 100 yards with my 94 and it's iron sights. I'd be comfortable to 200 yards on a deer in the open with it and based on shooting a bunch of them with it as recently as this summer, woodchucks are no problem to at least 125 yards.

I've taken our small whitetails out almost to 300 wiht a 16 inch contender in 30-30... its fine power wise.