Author Topic: Remington - Ruger - Winchester (Read 2224 times)

Huk · « **on:** April 05, 2004, 03:13:05 PM »

If you had a choice of only these three brands, which one would you choose?
You can say why if you'd like.

Thanks
Huk

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2004, 03:57:20 PM »

Ruger.

Why?

[list=1]

Once piece bolt
Integral scope mounts (best/strongest system available, IMHO)
Three-position safety
Mauser-style claw extractor and ejection
Controlled Round Feed
Accuracy
Looks

[list=1]

Trigger. Not horrible, not great, but easy to rework or replace.
Not free-floated. Not a problem for many folks but not my preference. Very easy to fix.

Zachary · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2004, 06:54:07 PM »

I personally don't like rugers. I own over 20 bolt action rifles, and none of them are rugers (but I do have one ruger in a .22LF

)

Remington and Winchester are about the same, but my preference for the two goes to Remington. Quality control is an issue with both, however.

My strongest preference is for Tikka - solid, well-built rifles, accurate as heck, and have a silky smooth bolt.

If cost can be in the $1000 range, then I'd get, and have gotten, a Sako.

Zachary

Dave in WV · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2004, 02:24:18 AM »

Ruger. You get the most for the money. I have a Winchester M70 and I like it but would have less money in it even after replacing the trigger on a Ruger. My son has a Ruger stainless in .280 and the trigger is fine on it. It must be one that got past the lawyers.

I'd buy a Savage before most Remingtons.

BIGBOREFAN · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2004, 02:37:43 AM »

I'll second everything Coyote Hunter said. Ruger makes a great rifle.

BBF

Lawdog · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2004, 10:45:10 AM »

Put me down for Ruger too. Basically for all the reasons stated by Coyote Hunter and for the following;

1.] Better Quality Control

2.] Much Better Customer Service Department

Both of the above are VERY important if you end up having a problem with your purchase. Ruger hears and understands you. Winchester is a little hard of hearing and Remington flat out needs hearing aids. Lawdog

bigjeepman · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2004, 10:58:37 AM »

Put me on the side of the Ruger guys. My most accurate rifle is a Ruger in .243. I have a Winchester Model 70 in .300wsm but I feel the Ruger is a better built rifle.

I agree with everything positive said about the Rugers but Lawdog's 2 points about QC and customer service are the most important to me.

slappy375 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2004, 12:42:27 PM »

You can find something to like about all of them,Ive owned ruger and remington but not winchester.Take your pick it all depends what you like.I'll stick to my my Remingtons.

Wolfe · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2004, 02:56:47 PM »

All I can draw on is my experience. My recent experience with ruger left me extremely disappointed and $100 in the hole. Very disappointed with the fit and finish, the trigger, the stock finish and accuracy due to the stock finish. It is my opinion that if you like buying a rifle then putting more money into to it to make it a reliable accurate shooter then you can't go wrong with ruger.
BTW the ruger diehards over at the rugerforum have been complaining about rugers QC or lack there of as of late. Might be best to spend your gun dollars elsewhere for the time being. Go get a tikka or a remington if you don't like the Tikka.

smoky · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:10:38 AM »

There is a reason that custom gunmakers have and still do prefer remington actions. I think their out of the box accuracy and adjustability is great.

That said, I do not enjoy talking with anyone in their customer service department up there in NY. They act as though the world revolves around Remington Arms. They should take a lesson on customer service from companies like Sierra, Leupold, and Knight.

Smoky

Huk · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2004, 02:20:02 PM »

Well, seeing as how I started this thread I may as well put my 2 cents in.

I've been shooting and hunting for a long time and have had a lot of different rifles. I had a 100yd. range set up in my back yard and when hunting season got near, a lot of people would bring me their rifles to sight in (don't know why some hunters can't sight-in their own rifles), mount scopes and do minor gunsmithing.
I've owned Winchesters, Remingtons, Rugers and assorted others.
The post '64 winchesters were bad news at first but I guess they're OK now.
I had a bunch of Remingtons both good and bad.
Here's the bad ones.
Opening day,Rem. 308, went to unload and the extractor came out with the cartridge. (the great Rem. extractor).
On the range, Rem. 7 mag.,opened the bolt and it came all the way out and hit me in the cheek.( the great Rem. bolt stop).
Another time a hunter came roaring up to my house for help. Seems as though he closed the bolt on a cartridge and the bolt handle came off. ( the great Rem. bolt handle.)
Since those years all of my bolt action rifles are RUGERS.
I like the classic stock instead of monte carlos and cheek pieces.
The worlds best scope mounts.
They're accurate and reliable rifles.

These are only MY opinions and what works for me may not work for someone else.

Huk

Zachary · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2004, 03:05:18 PM »

I must say....I'm surprised that there are a lot of you that are Ruger Fans. I must also say that I don't own any Ruger bolt-actions, but I have handled quite a few and just never warmed up to them.

I used to be a Remington man...and to a degree, I still am - although I do have a concern about their downward slope in quality.

Enter Tikka - much better than Remington and Winchester. Sakos are also very fine rifles, but are quite expensive for the average joe.

There's nothing wrong being a Ruger bolt-action rifle fan, or a Remington fan, or a Tikka fan, or any other kind of fan for that matter. It's just that I find it soo darn surprising that people voice problems with their Remingtons because I own several Remingtons and none of them ever gave me any kind of problem whatsoever, and all of my Remingtons shoot sub MOA with factory ammo. In fact, virtually all of my rifles, Remington, Tikka, Browning, Sako, Winchester, etc., all seem to shoot MOA or better and I never had any problems with any of them.

As such, I often ask myself....am I just lucky?

Zachary

RaySendero · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2004, 04:23:23 PM »

I personnally like the Remingtons best but don't over look the CZs.

www.cz-usa.com

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2004, 04:32:21 PM »

Zachary,
You and I both must be lucky :grin: I have owned many many remingtons and the only problem I ever had was a loose butt plate, which I fixed myself. I have NEVER had to send one back to the factory for service. I am warming up to the rugers as well. Every winchester I have ever handled felt awkward and unbalanced to me, just never enjoyed shooting them. I do like Weatherbys very much including the vanguard (which I believe is the best bang for your buck right now).
I own a few old savages they are ok, action's are not real slick. The brother in-law has a few new savages, they feel good but the actions are not as slick as they are touted to be, at least not on any of the ones he has.
I am right now on the lookout for a tikka, since they are getting so much praise.

BTW,
To answer the original question, for me it would be
1. Remington
2. Ruger (very close second)
3. Winchester (only even considered because it is one of the options)

turfman · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2004, 02:26:01 AM »

Hi all.

I've always been partial to Winchesters; had some Remingtons over the years but i guess they didn't carry the nostolgia enough for me. Recently over the last couple of years though, I've found myself buying alot of Rugers. Mainly because they seem to be willing to take a chance on different calibers that most arms makers deem obselete, or if the bean counters don't think they will sell.

I like the way they look and feel. The trigger can be slicked up without to much fuss and you get rings to boot.

An example of their customer service goes like this:
I wanted to give my .264 westerner a break but wanted another .264. No one was chambering it at the time. I called Ruger and they said they had a special run on them a couple years ago but did'nt know if that distributor had sold all of them. " they checked for me" . And I got one...

I also agree with the guys above in saying not to overlook tikka and cz.

So I guess I'm a Ruger fan.

turfman

dave375hh · « **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2004, 03:41:05 AM »

1. Tikka
2. Remington
3. Winchester
4. Sako
5, Anything but a Ruger!
I've had 6 Ruger rifles and they were the most inaccurate rifles I've ever had. Also the factory won't do a thing about a rifle you tell them shoots lousy. They think a 2" rifle is just fine, I think it's BROKEN! I really like Ruger handguns, and I own several. But under no circumstances will I ever buy another Ruger long gun. :x

lilabner · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2004, 02:15:48 PM »

They may be ugly and they sure have a reputation for being cheap, but Savage seems to be building the most accurate American rifles right now. This is based on what I saw on our range during the sight in period last fall. I figured the Rem. 700 would be the best so it was a surprise to me. Maybe the Savage owners were the best shooters? Could be that. Last time I was in our local discount store, a Marine gunnery sargeant was there, home on leave. He bought a Savage.

hunter991 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2004, 03:11:55 PM »

I would look at savage too. I own a winchester m70 and it's a nice rifle. I have heard horror stories with people trying to deal with Remington although it's all hearsay since i don't own any remmington. But after some of the things i read i would try personally to stay away from them with all the other choices out there. IMO, don't rule out the model 70. It's a nice gun (the riflemans rifle). My 30.06 works well for me. I just purchased a savage 7mm08 and can't wait to shot it otherwise i would let you know about that rifle too.

hkg3k · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2004, 09:54:29 AM »

OK, my opinion. Of the 3 brands only, I would take the Winchester. Why? I have always had a warm spot for Winchester anything. M70's, Lever guns, M12 and M101 shotguns.

As for the M70, its safety design is by far the best, the trigger is relatively easy for the end user to safely adjust and of all the M70s I have owned, I've NEVER had a clunker in terms of function or accuracy. Great, solid good fitting rifles and worth the price tag. Winchester also has always been out there (with Remington) bringing new ctgs to the market. Some have been tremendous long term winners, some have not. Of the 3, my money walks 1st to Winchester's corner.

2nd Choice; Remington. Good solid rifle for the most part. Most I have owned, shot or seen were also accurate. My personal bias against Remington products (but not necessarily the 700) is that over the years they have come out with some really clunkly and ugly designs in hopes that one of these "built to the lowest possible scale" designs will be a hit. They never have been. The model 700 came to being as an exercise of reducing manufacturing costs and ironically, it was a hit while the post-64 M70 was lambasted for years. My own personal bias against the 700 is the fact that the bolt starts out as 2 pieces: bolt body and bolt handle. The handle is then either brazed or welded on, and infrequently that weld has failed, leaving a bolt handle in the hands of a bewildered shooter.

3rd Choice; Ruger. Just have never really like Ruger's stuff and especially never liked Bill Ruger's politics. The one Ruger design I do however enthusiastically endorse is the 10/22.......got to be the best, most rugged .22 semi EVER designed. My personal bias against Ruger products is the fact that EVERYTHING that goes into one of their guns that can be made from a casting, is a cast piece. Receivers, bolts, frames, etc. you name it, pretty much everything in any Ruger firearm is a cast piece except the bbl. While other manufacturers are utilizing a machined forging for a particular piece, Ruger will use a casting. Ever wonder why some Ruger firearm/parts designs look beefy? They have to, to net the same strength because of the way the part is produced. May not bother a lot of people, it does me and because of Bill senior's support for the 1994 AWB, my money goes elsewhere.

Just my opinion.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2004, 01:13:54 PM »

Quote from: hkg3k

...My personal bias against Ruger products is the fact that EVERYTHING that goes into one of their guns that can be made from a casting, is a cast piece. Receivers, bolts, frames, etc. you name it, pretty much everything in any Ruger firearm is a cast piece except the bbl. While other manufacturers are utilizing a machined forging for a particular piece, Ruger will use a casting. Ever wonder why some Ruger firearm/parts designs look beefy? They have to, to net the same strength because of the way the part is produced. May not bother a lot of people, it does me and because of Bill senior's support for the 1994 AWB, my money goes elsewhere.

Just my opinion.

I'll skip over Bill's politics except to say that he made one big mistake, which he regretted, he was an ardent supporter of individual firearm rights and showed his support with many, many $$$.

As to the castings, there are a couple of reasons for the castings, the most important being manufacturing cost. Why start with a solid block of steel and mill most of it away when you can start with a casting and mill relatively tiny amounts away?

The parts resulting from the castings are, ounce for ounce, stronger than the forged parts - the forging process introduces stress into the part and failure, when it occurs, is generally along the stress lines. This is not opinion but the result of independent testing.

The Ruger one-piece bolt is considerably stronger than those with welded-on or brazed-on bolt handles. When the handle is acting as a final safety device to keep the bolt from flying back into your head (if other parts fail, which they have been known to do), additional strength in this area is a good thing, IMHO.

As to looking "beefy", in the case of the M77 that is primarily due to the receiver having flat sides - something that I find more attractive than round receivers. What really matters to me is overall weight of the rifle, and my M77's are no heavier than similar models from the competition.

Lawdog · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2004, 11:43:37 AM »

Coyote Hunter,

BULLSEYE. Lawdog

hkg3k · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2004, 04:37:36 PM »

Quote

I'll skip over Bill's politics except to say that he made one big mistake, which he regretted, he was an ardent supporter of individual firearm rights and showed his support with many, many $$$.

As to the castings, there are a couple of reasons for the castings, the most important being manufacturing cost. Why start with a solid block of steel and mill most of it away when you can start with a casting and mill relatively tiny amounts away?

The parts resulting from the castings are, ounce for ounce, stronger than the forged parts - the forging process introduces stress into the part and failure, when it occurs, is generally along the stress lines. This is not opinion but the result of independent testing.

The Ruger one-piece bolt is considerably stronger than those with welded-on or brazed-on bolt handles. When the handle is acting as a final safety device to keep the bolt from flying back into your head (if other parts fail, which they have been known to do), additional strength in this area is a good thing, IMHO.

As to looking "beefy", in the case of the M77 that is primarily due to the receiver having flat sides - something that I find more attractive than round receivers. What really matters to me is overall weight of the rifle, and my M77's are no heavier than similar models from the competition.

Bill Ruger was a corporate CEO of a publicly traded company (Sturm Ruger) in the later years of his life, his priorities laid with increasing the share price and dividends of Sturm Ruger stock to his stock holders. His only support for the "firearms rights" was to the extent his corporation could sell RUGER firearms to a market. And yes he did give $$$ to NRA (lobby) and politicians on BOTH sides of the isle....just like most corporate ceos do. He DID NOT regret his support of the 1994 AWB, he unabashedly was of the opinion that NOBODY needs an AK47 (when they can have a mini 14) and NOBODY needs a 17rd Glock, when one of Ruger's P8x or P9x with 10rds is all anyone deserves. Bill Ruger was for Sturm Ruger's sales, not for 2nd Amendment Rights.

Yes, castings are used by manufacturers to reduce cost. Period. All domestic manufacturers are guilty to some extent, but the reason behind their use is economic, not to produce a superior part. Ruger uses castings for pretty much everything. Like I said, it may not both you, it bothers me. Machined forgings are classic gun making and my personal preference.

A cast part CAN be AS STRONG as a forged part, if technigues such as centrifugation are employed in the casting process and proper heat treating afterward. If a forging is properly heat treated, then no, a cast will not be stronger ounce per ounce.........which by itself is deceiving because castings are not as dense as forgings. You see, a forging IS much stronger per unit volume than a cast part. That's why cast parts of the same strength yield are beefier.

No problem with Ruger's 1 piece bolt. But to mention it in the context you do, seems to relay that most manufacturer's bolts are not 1 piece, when in fact, most are. No advantage there, except compared to Remington. And I do agree that a 1 piece bolt is stronger because of the additional margin the bolt handle provides.

You like a square block to a curved line? To each his own, but I think a stylist would call one "classic" and the other "unfinished."

Good shooting.

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #22 on:** April 20, 2004, 05:03:11 PM »

Quote from: Coyote Hunter

The parts resulting from the castings are, ounce for ounce, stronger than the forged parts

Thats funny, I would never dream of using cast piston's in my race car engine...or how about a cast crankshaft.. :-D :-D I guess those NHRA and NASCAR engine builders dont know as much as they think they do.. :roll:

Triple4 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 21, 2004, 02:04:28 AM »

First off there are more Cast pistons on the road right now then forged, secound cranks are cast and then ground.

I have been a Remington fan for most of my life and I have never had a moments problem with one and always got very good accuracy.

Winchester on the other hand is a joke (for me) I've owned two and could not get them to shoot worth a hoot ( and I know how to get rifles to shoot ) I'm sure they all arn't bad.

Ruger- up to a couple of months ago I was a Ruger Rifle virgin, then I was looking for another 308 hunting rifle and ran accross a ruger stainless M77 MK II laminated stock I took a chance and bought it.

Am I sorry.....No....it's is one fine shooting and functioning rifle the trigger was lets say,..sorry...it took some work but now it's around 3lbs I love the saftey, the rifle is a little heavier then a Remington Mountain rifle but it's packable.

Let me add that for most calibers the one rifle out there thats the best bang for your buck is a Weatherby Vanguard, I have one in a 300WBY Mag and it just surprizes me with accuracy and how it feels after the shoot, silky smooth even though the bolt feels a little sloppy, it has one of the tighter chambers I have found on a production gun. The only draw back is the trigger (lawyers are always with us) it is adjustable they say to 3lbs and creep is also adjustable. If I adjusted it to where I needed it
on trigger pull the saftey would not work. it took some work but I got what I wanted and a working saftey.

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #24 on:** April 21, 2004, 03:18:48 AM »

Triple4,
you will find no cast pistons or cranks in high stress applications. In production vehicles yes, because its the CHEAPEST way to go, however my honda civic does use a forged crankshaft :shock: In my race car for example I run forged piston's crank and rod's and would never even dream about using cast parts in a small block v8 that see's 10,000 rpm many times in one night... I have no doubt ruger makes a strong firearm, I just dont buy the claim that casting(investment or otherwise) is stronger than forging when using the exact same alloys...

Daniel · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2004, 05:30:34 AM »

Back to rifles. Regardless of how accurate it may or may not be, I wouldn't own a Remington because of the features it lacks: a strong claw or Sako style extractor, a safety that blocks the firing pin, a fixed ejector and a one piece bolt. These are things I have grown to prefer and I realize not everyone finds them necessary, but I do. If these things aren't important to others I've got no problem with that.

I guess my preference in mass produced rifles right now would be as follows:

1. Sako
2. Ruger/Winchester
3. Tikka
4. Browning
5. Remington

I've got no experience with Weatherby (Mk V or Vanguard) or Savage rifles, so I can't rank them.

oldelkhunter · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2004, 07:02:11 AM »

Here is my take on it for what its worth.

Remington

Positives:
   great out of the box accuracy
   diverse lineup of rifles
   Great Triggers
   Lightweight action
   Easiest of the three brands to work on and most Gunsmiths familiar with.
Nicest handling rifles on the market especially mtn rifle

Negatives:      Customer Service

Ruger

Positives:
Great out of the box accuracy especially the newer models
   Diverse lineup of rifles
   Strong Action
   Simple rugged trigger design
   Extremely strong ring system that is standard
   Great Customer Service Department

Negatives:
   Trigger should be adjusted/replaced by Gunsmith
Noisy safety

Winchester:

Positives:
   Simple rugged trigger design that can be adjusted perfectly
   Strong Action
   Diverse Lineup of Rifles
   Field Strippable bolt
    Best safety ever invented
Negatives:
   Customer Service
   Barrel Quality
   Overall Quality control
   Cast Extractor on their CRF models-Old Pre-64 was spring steel

As far as the casting issue concerning Rugers. I have discussed this at length with my best friend who is a ME with an advanced degree. This man because of the line of business he is in uses more exotic alloys on a daily basis then most people have ever seen or heard of. He prefers machined to investment cast because it is more aesthetically pleasing not because of any proven benefits one way or another. MRC is using castings for its actions that are done for them by Ruger and many other firearm companies use investment castings extensively. To equate something that is investment cast steel with a cast piston(aluminum) or a cast crankshaft(iron) is way off base, simply not the same animal.

Triple4 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2004, 02:06:57 AM »

I was at the range yesterday doing some load work with the Ruger 308 and my Remington 25-06 also the Weatherby Vanguard in 300WBY and my 04-04-04- 444 marlin was along with some 300gr speers, too make a long story short I was getting 11/2 to 13/4 groups at 200 yards with the ruger and the Remington 25-06, so this light weight 22" barreled ruger shot with my tried and true 26" barreled Remington, needless to say I was impressed. The 300WBY only got about 4" at 200 yards but I haven't got the 180gr load to were I need it yet, it's work in progress.

cowpoke · « **Reply #28 on:** April 25, 2004, 04:52:57 PM »

Interesting comments for all so far....

Here is my take on it.

All of their quality control (as well as most others) has gone down hill in recent years

Old Winchesters when they were still Winchester not USRA or whoever owns them now were really good. I am not too happy with the new ones... they seem like the Browing stepchild.

Remingtons OK their shortfalls have already been described.

Rugers 10/22 is about the most useful thing they make. I don't like (and have owned) thier model 77. New Winchesters are better, at least based on those I have owned and shot.

Browing A-bolt. probably very under rated by the majority of people. Mine is a stalker in blued steel and it prints some pretty clover leaf groups .

Tikka and Sako are some very nice shooters

Savage rifles with new trigger... another example of an underrated rifle for accuracy.

pc · « **Reply #29 on:** May 18, 2004, 02:37:36 AM »

I will take a cz any day over all that are mentioned IMHO.