Quality of current bolt action rifles???

[bchannell]

If you ask this question, you'll get responses all over the spectrum, so here goes.
I've found most to be pretty decent lately, much better than in the past 10 years. I rate Remington last and Tikka/Cz first. Here's a rundown of the order of top quality.
1)CZ
2)Tikka/Sako
3)Ruger/Browning
4)5)Winchester/Remington
5)Savage
6)Howa/Vanguard

I've tried to be fair and honest. I'd like to know what others feel about their picks. To let you know where I stand, I'm a Ruger fan, big time. I also own Remingtons, Winchesters, CZs, Savages.

[Graybeard]

Since this is all just opinion anyway I'd sure differ greatly with that opinion. I base mine on ownership of 200-300 bolt action centerfire rifles. On what basis you you base your assessment?

[tscott]

Mark V ?

[Yukon Jack]

The big manufacturers just make too many firearms per year for any blanket statement on quality by any single person our limited exposure, imo.  Quality means different things to different people also.

One thing I would recommend is giving each of them a chance to make things right if you get a sour apple.  Even with six sigma principles applied, any of these manufacturers make more than enough guns for a few that don't meet spec to slip by.  How they deal with the customer and make it right for the customer when that does happen is a good measure of the quality of care of that particular company.

More likely than not, no matter which of those companies you buy a rifle from, you will probably get a fine, accurate, and serviceable rifle.

[TC Shooter]

A lot of Remington bashing. I have owned 3 in the last 10 years. All were the heavy barrel varmint style - VS (.308) , VLS (.223) and 700P (.308).
All were/are exceptional shooters. I don't know what kind of quality problems other shooter here are talking about?

A lot of my shooting friends own the same type of 700s and they are pleased as well. I have shot some of thier 700s and the accuracy was very good to exceptional.

[longwinters]

Yukon makes a good point.  What exactly does "quality" mean?  If it means consistent MOA accuracy out of the box lots of good rifles won't make it.  Is it quality of materials . . . barrel, bolt, stock etc...  Is it clean and concise checkering on the wood stock? Is it cost related, or is it just the name brand that sells the most and has the biggest following?

Quality to me is nice wood. Clean sharp checkering. A crisp trigger.  A bolt that feels smooth and seems to have something to it rather than so light it feels cheap.  Quality is a rifle that out of the box, or with a little ammo tweeking, shoots 1.5" or better at 100yds.  It should not need anything done by a gunsmith whatsoever.  And finally, the barrel should center in the forend and not be off to one side.   I suppose there could be more qualifications for me but I can't think of them now.

Long

[Yukon Jack]

longwinters is correct.  Quality can mean a number of different things.  Even the design of the action or stock are considered to some when speaking about "Quality".  I suspect most people are talking about "Value" or the most bang for the buck when they discuss quality.  But I guarantee you, a person that only buys custom made rifles has a different idea of what quality is than someone that buys one rifle for their entire lifetime.  AND, neither is wrong.  Just depends on what the customer's target perception of quality is.

There was mention of Remington bashing.  Some people have had great experiences with Remington (or insert any major rifle manufacturer here), and some have had terrible experiences with the same.  I guarantee you the exact same complaints have been experienced by shooters with Winchester, Ruger, Savage, Howa, Sako, Tikka, Weatherby, Dakota, et al.  You pay your money and you take your chances.

I'll still stand by my comment that, with any of the manufacturers listed above, at the very minimum, 99 out of 100 customers have received a fine, accurate, and serviceable rifle.

[Lawdog]

I’ll reserve my comments to the rifles I HAVE owned.  All mass produced, no custom rifles.  Choices are based on customer service, performance and quality since 1980.

1.]  Weatherby

2.]  Ruger

3.]  Sako

4.]  Winchester

5.]  Savage

Then at the very end of the list and way below Savage is Remington.  Small groups and tight lines to all.  Lawdog
 

[Redhawk1]

I would have to list them in order of the one's currently I own.

Sako
Tikka
Savage

I no longer own any Winchester, Remington or Weatherby bolt action rifles. I am switching a lot of my shooting to the Encore rifle.

[tripod]

After owning many guns from many makers I have experience to draw from. unfortunately I've found many lemons looking for cherries. I never buy used guns hoping to keep things in my favor. I have received two defective/poorly made/designed Remington that were dangerous problems known to the manufacture. One winchester that was replaced as defective. One Ithaca that was bought back by the factory as defective liability. One mossberg as defective. And this week returned a CZ as defective. It can't be just me. Right now Tikka is at the top of my list for Quality, bang for the buck, and performance. Sauer has been flawless for me. Browning has been good to me. Can't complain about Weatherby, just won't brag about them. All this has made me an educated buyer even though I still got bit this week on the CZ. But you don't get to test drive new guns. Dollars or custom don't always make the dif either. Just looked at a beautiful Kimber rifle turkish walnut. Problem was you could stick a quarter between the barrel and end of the stock on one side and couldn't get anything in the other side. To me it's some what like cars, each manufacture makes certain categories a little better.

[jvs]

Since all modern firearms are mass produced in the quickest amount of time to hold costs down, it comes to the quality of the parts along with  quality control while in the process, just like anything else in this world.

There isn't much difference between any of them since collusion surely comes into the picture when it comes to certain parts and practices.  Some are prettier, some are tighter and some are cheaper.   If I were you, I'd be more concerned with cheapening of the parts with plastic and the cheapening of the process with button rifling.

Plus, no firearm is any better then the person sitting behind the recoil pad.

I see old men at the range every year who are from the WWII generation.  They don't use nor have they ever used scopes and most of them use the same old gun.  Last week one old man shot his Winchester 94 with a peep and totally outshot some younger guy with a $1,500 Sako outfit.   Quality doesn't necessarily come with a high price tag.  


If you are in search of perfection, you'll never find it.  It doesn't exist.  If you are in search of knowledge, then you have a ways to go until you realize it that 97% of the time it isn't the gun, it's the shooter, and that another 150 fps or another $500 doesn't really make a difference.

[Graybeard]

My, my, half_inch_group, there was a LOT of wisdwom wrapped up in that short treatise. Things most just will never accept however. In this day and age of the super duper magnum shooter folks just gotta have more fps no matter the cost.

It really is just a matter of what one is seeking in rifles. I buy mostly Remingtons because they embody what I seek. Winchester and Ruger really are out for the safety. I insist it be where the Tremington safety is and operate as it does. Why? Because that's what I've grown up with and it is as natural to me as eating. I have to "think" about it with any other type and don't want to have to do that when it comes time to shoot. I want it to happen without thought.

I'm not finicky about triggers. I want one that is crisp and doesn't go much if any over 4 pounds. A bit less is better but too much less is just as bad for me as too much.

Savages to my eye are butt ugly so are not considered. Same with CZ European style but their American type are nice looking to me. But I won't have a set trigger and I believe that's all they make. I also don't like the magazine to drop below the lines of the stock as most do on CZs. I don't like their high rings that put scope too high for my tastes.

Since I don't do magnums and heavy recoil I don't need a lot of rifle weight. Most of the Sakos are a bit heavy for my taste. Nice but heavy. Don't care for plastic in them like Tikkas have.

So for the most part I find that the rifles that have the qualities I look for come with names like Remington, Browning and Weatherby. I don't really care for plastic stocks. I like laminated wood and stainless metal. The Remington LSS Mtn. Rifle is just about the perfect example of what I want in a rifle. If they wood was the gray rather than brown laminate they would be perfect. I'm so far liking my Weatherby Vanguard but need to get a laminated stock to replace the plastic.

I expect a rifle to quickly and easily shoot decent groups. For me with a big game rifle that means it must stand under 1.5" pretty much always with a variety of ammo and under 1.25" is better. Under an inch is gravy. BUt not required.

Those things to me are what add up to quality in a rifle for me.

[Buckfever]

I have had most brands and recently purchased a Tikka Whitetail Hunter 308, Tikka  T-3 6.5-55 and a Savage 93-17HMR bolt.  All these guns are made well and group great.  So did the 4-Remingtons and 1- Ruger.  
I think guns sometimes take a bad rap for Ammo the gun doesn't like, a stock doesn't fit the shooter or they are not very good shots!!  The owner needs to spend multiple trips to a Range, or a shooting set-up that has a bench and some bags.

Most guns, not all, group great if you feed them what they like and you spend the time shooting to learn the gun.  By the way these hunting magazines create unrealistic expectations as to grouping size.  My dad use to say he would group around 2" at 100yds, a deer's heart is 5".  Therefore when asked about his gun and sighting in he would say the gun was sighted in it was up to him for the gun couldn't be blamed!

Buckfever

[jvs]

Savages to my eye are butt ugly so are not considered. Same with CZ European style but their American type are nice looking to me. But I won't have a set trigger and I believe that's all they make. I also don't like the magazine to drop below the lines of the stock as most do on CZs. I don't like their high rings that put scope too high for my tastes.

Nobody said you had to buy a 110 to try one out.  Savage makes some rifles that may not win a beauty contest but they are deadly accurate.  You may be denying yourself a pleasant experience by not trying one.

Talk about butt ugly and a 34/40 Krag comes to mind.  Ugly, easy to load, dependable and a real shooter when it comes down to it.

Take Pick-up Trucks for example, some people like Ford, some like Dodge and others like Chevy.  Just like some people like Tikka, Remington, Winchester or Ruger.  It all comes down to personal taste in what you're looking for in a firearm.  For me, it's "A" to "B", no matter what the subject is.

I feel comfortable with just about any make in my hands.  I may have to make small adjustments to use them but anything off the rack is fine with me.   Only once did I own a rifle I just couldn't stand to hold and shoot.  I sold it to my brother-in law and he loves it.  There's a lid for every pot.

While I don't consider price to be a factor most of the time, I don't think it's necessary to spend huge amounts for a firearm to go hunting, but then, I don't go out for a half day and goof off  in the afternoon because it started raining or snowing on my pretty gun.  Not the way I learned about guns and hunting in the hills of Pennsylvania.  

I own rifles from a broad spectrum of makers.  All of them shoot.  Not one of them is 'top of the line' when it comes to price.  Neither are my scopes.  They aren't the cheapest but they aren't the best by far.

[RaySendero]

Y'all need to quit bashing Remingtons.  My M700 has a good trigger, barrel centered well in forearm, bolt & safety are smooth PLUS it shoots dime size groups at 100 yards with most ammo!

[bchannell]

I would base my opinion on 30+ years of reloading, shooting and hunting, and having owned a fair size gun shop in the '80s and early '90s. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to how many firearms went through my hands in the gun shop years, not to mention, I was an inveterate trader and dabbled in guns long before making it "official". I still trade and sell a little today.
I agree it's highly subjective, but at least part of it is based on what customers brought back and complained about most. I can tell you what guns more gun shops around here stocked over the years and what guns they had to return the most, and it pretty much jives with my experience. I still work part time for a gun shop and their opinions reflect mine, and so do their experiences.

[bchannell]

Also, I'm curious graybeard, why you don't like set triggers. Why not just use it unset. I can tell you one thing, CZ's unset trigger is far better than most factory triggers and some aftermarket triggers. I'm not wild about the length from the grip of the stock to the trigger when set, it's mighty long, but it's hard not to like such a sweet trigger. The 527 is the only CZ with a magazine that sticks below the stock, and it's only chambered in .22 calibers and 7.62x39. The 550 which is chambered in big game calibers, doesn't have a protruding magazine. They are a beautiful gun, but I like others better.