Rilfes: American or Foreign?

[Zachary]

America, Europe, Japan, et. al.

Let's talk about the above as they relate to:

1.  Quality
2.  Performance
3.  Value

To me, it seems that the prices of USA rifles are going up, while I don't see a similar increase in quality.  

Let me give you an example.  The stocks on the original Browning A-Bolt I (not the newer A-Bolt II) were seemingly true synthetic fibered stocks.  I remember deciding between the Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker and the Remington 700 BDL SS and the stock on the Remington, like today, was cheap and flimsy, while the stock on the Browning was MUCH better - much sturdier, etc.  Today, the stocks on the Brownings are not the same stocks - now they are the cheap flimsy plastic stocks.

Still, I have removed the recoil pads and have noted that the plastic stocks on both the Winchester and Remington are cheap, but at least the plastic stocks on the Winchester is about twice as thick as the Remington.  Some people (perhaps including me) will tell you that the Remingtons are still shooters despite the cheap plastic flimsy stocks, but man I hate them.  When you hit them against something, they are noisy and vibrate like heck.  I don't know much about the new Browning stocks, but given that Browning and Winchester are owned by the same company, I think that they use the same plastic stocks.

American makers have some new designs like the Accu-trigger, but I think that it is somewhat of an excuse to make a true good trigger.  Ruger triggers are also not that great either, and we are somewhat forced to get aftermarket triggers.  Why can't we just make much better triggers like the ones Tikka makes - which to me is as close as a factory can get to being a "jewel trigger."

Speaking of Tikka let's take a look at Tikka.  I think the factory stocks on the Tikkas are better than most, although perhaps not as good as the Sako synthetic stocks.  And working the bolt action on a Tikka is as smooth as silk - even better than a Sako or Weatherby.  Weatherby has good quality and very good stocks when talking about their high end products like the accumark because it is an HS stock, but even their plastic stocks on the Vanguards are kinda cheap.

I know that the cost of living is always going up, but I hate to pay more and get less.  To me, I think the best deal going is the Tikka, although I also am a Remington fan too.

If we can put a man on the moon, then why can't we build a better gun at a better price?

So, overall, what has the best quality, value, and performance today? American? European? or other Foreign?

Zachary

[Wolfe]

I'd have to agree that the tikka is the best value on the market today even with their ever rising prices. I was recently shopping for a rifle for my dad and I kept coming back to the tikka and that's finally what I bought him.

[Graybeard]

There is nothing American about Winchester or Browning. Both companies are owned by the French government and the guns are made over seas at least for the most part. All Brownings are and I suspect all Winchesters are but haven't looked into that lately. The company named Winchester only makes ammunition these days. They sold the rights to the use of the Winchester name as it relates to guns to US Repeating Arms.

Any molded plastic stock can be called cheap. Generally they are price wise. Laid up stocks are the expensive ones. Plastic stocks are cold and noisy and there is no getting around it.

That's why I use laminated wood stocks. They are warm to the touch and quiet and at least 95% to 99% as stable as plastic. Unless you're looking for a fly weight gun I see only advantages to laminated wood and only disadvantages to plastic.

Prices are going up on everything. So what's new. Does your firm still bill at the same hourly rate as ten years ago? Quality? I keep hearing this is on the way down and I just plain do not agree. The guns of today are the best we've ever seen. It's not at all unusual to buy a bone stock sporter weight rifle today that outshoots even varmint rifles of 20-30 years ago. If you rate quality by high polish and bluing with walnut it's out there if you want to pay for it. To me that has nothing to do with quality. I want my hunting guns made of SS and with laminated stocks. I want them to shoot accurately and to work every time. They do.

[Zachary]

Your question about quality is a fair one.  I do not, however, think of fancy wood and super polish to be equated into the definition of quality.  You know me, I'm a stainless/synthetic/laminate kinda guy just like you. :wink:

I can say this though, when I think of quality I think of fit and finish with higher grade components.  Trigger guards and floor plates used to be (I think) made out of higher grade metals, but now people are saying that manufacturers are using "pot metal."  I'm not quite sure what that means, or to which guns they are attributed, but it doesn't sound like higher grade metals are used, or at least not as extensively.  This is a particular sore spot in my eyes on the Tikka - where they use plastic for crying out loud - on the trigger guard, bolt shroud, floor plate, and magazine.

Still, I think that the overall fit and finish of the European rifles is higher than the US rifles,  except perhaps the higher priced semi-custom rifles like Weatherby Mark V, etc.  The European rifles are indeed more expensive than the US rifles, so then the issue of value is a subjective one.

I certainly know that prices on everything are going up - no one can dispute or even dismiss that, but many people firmly believe that the prices rise much higher than the quality.

I happen to be one of those people that really likes my Remingtons - old and new, and this isn't surprising given that most of my collection of rifles are Remingtons, but I really think that the quality (at least fit and finish) is better than the Remington, although Remington uses more metal while the Tikka uses more plastic.

You are correct about Browning and Winchester being owned by the French, and also that Winchester is really not the maker of the guns but rather Repeating Arms (Winchester just does the ammo).  I mention Winchester in this post as a "manufacturer" simply because, although techincally incorrect, most people understand Winchester and not US Repeating Arms.

In another post, I read (if I remember correctly) that, at least in your area, the Remingtons were less expensive than the Savages.  Wow, I would die and turn over in my grave if I had to pay more money on a Savage before buying a Remington.  I just hate the way the bolt-action works on the Savage - to me it is just junk.  And fit and finish is not great either.  Still, they generally are shooters and that's their only saving grace.

I know in some other post you mentioned that you have owned about 200 or so Remingtons - that's a heck of a lot of guns.  So when you say that you believe that the newer Remingtons are the same, if not better,  than the older ones, then you have a lot of experience to substantiate it.  I own only about 7 or 8 Remington rifles, and, for the most part, they seem to be about the same, but with a couple of my rifles it seems that the fit and finish is not as good.  Specifically, turning the bolt on some of my Remington rifles is hard, while on others it requires much less effort.  Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that this is a quality issue, but people have told me that this is indeed a quality issue because some of the lugs on the bolt have noticeably more contact than others.  On my Tikkas, on the other hand, they all seem to require the same very little effort to turn the bolt.

Again, I'm not a gunsmith and perhaps I'm wrong, but I have been told that such issues relate to quality.  Come to think of it, rather than just talking about quality, perhaps it is important to understand a person's working definition about what quality means to them before asking them to give a general conclusion about it.

Zachary

[Dave in WV]

IMHO the best factory injection molded stock was the original Ruger synthetic stock. Ugly as sin but very solid and functional. The recoil pads are too hard to work well but the stock is user friendly. I just can't seem to replace mine on my .243 because it works so well. If you like controlled round feed CZ is probably the way to go on imports.

[beemanbeme]

Ah yes, one of my favorite questions.  As posted, does your company still bill at 1980 rates?  Do you complain when they put an extra 10% in your pay envelope?  Do you think the folks at REM?WIN/RUG feel any different?  
If you extrapolate a 1950 dollar to a 2005 dollar, you will see that a factory made rifle is quite a bargain.  Ask yourself the question, if Remington were to hand lap the barrels, hand fit the barrel to stock, tune the trigger, square the bolts, lap the lugs and the other things that we do to make the rifle perform its best and CHARGE YOU say $1000-$1200 for it, would you pay it?  Or would you scream to high heavens?  Would the great masses that are box a year shooters that are the bedrock support of the gun industrys pay that?  
Unfortunately, the custom smiths and the "one at a time built under a hollow stump by elves" action makers have screamed long and loud about the failing quality of factory guns. (if that's where I made my money, I would too)  And quite a few of the misguided buyers have bought into that. Its a snob thing. Like the hunters that will post "if my hunting rifle won't shoot .5 groups, I get rid of it." (obivously, there is a fellow that buys and sells a lot of guns)
 I have Remington rifles spanning almost 50 years and some things have changed.  Some good and some I didn't like but overall the Remington quality has been pretty constant.  Everyone had to be tweaked in some manner or other to do its best but if I were to buy the best effort of the best gunsmith in the USA, I'd still have to "do something" to it to make it mine.

[Graybeard]

I think things are different today but in more cases than not different really does mean better. Take the older rifles from the 30s, 40s and 50s made by Remington and Winchester since they were the big names then and are now. Barrel quality in those days wasn't nearly what it is today. No way with factory ammo would you have ever seen MOA, heck 2 MOA was more luck than providence. Careful hand loading some times got you MOA but not so often. Bedding was at least some times better but again not always. Rifles still got out with bedding problems.

Metal polish was higher over all. Today we have more matte finish which to me is far superior to bright high polish anyway for a hunting gun. No doubt in those days of lower labor rates it was easier to pay someone to do a bit more detail finish work and polishing. Does that really add to quality? I guess not by my definition. But then we each have different things we look for.

On the subject of "pot metal" which at least long ago had a meaning. Zinc was a major element of it. Not sure all of the components but it's what cap guns were made of. It's never been used by any major maker I'm aware of. Aluminum is used. So what's wrong with that? We pay big bucks to get out handguns made of it. Sorry I don't see the problem there. In older times many guns had a stamped steel trigger guard held on by a couple of wood screws or was stuck into a hole on one end and held by a wood screw into the stock on the other end. Is that higher quality than today's aluminum units? Not to me.

Smoothness of action. That's a hard one to nail down really. A lot of it depends more on the way an action is designed than how it's made. No action like the Remington 700 which has two primarly contact points (the lugs) is likely to be as smooth as one designed with a carrier piece to hold it in alignment. So it feels less smooth in operation. Especially so until well used or fitted by the owner. It's not a quality issue to me but a design issue. It functions fine and causes no problems. If you want it smoothed up it only takes a few minutes of your time.

Today's tolerances are held much closer on CNC machines than ever could have been on the older machines. True a lot of hand polishing and fitting was done to try to make up for it but fact is that just mean they were a bit less interchangeable than today. Where it counts I think the guns of today are actually better and of higher quality and are really a bargain compared to guns of old. If you compare the cost not in terms of dollars but in terms of how long does the average person have to work to buy one you'll see prices aren't really up.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[Zachary]

[quote="beemanbeme"As posted, does your company still bill at 1980 rates?  [/quote]

Oh boy, between you and GB (and that's just so far) the "lawyer's rate" example wasn't one to be left out.

Guys, guys, of course everything is going up: cars, gold, milk, gas, meat, health insurance, etc.   However, at least with cars, you are getting new technology and better quality.  20 years ago a Ford or Chevy, or any other car for that matter, sucked up a lot of gas, took turns like a hippo, and had to change the tires about every 30,000 miles.  Today, cars have more horsepower (yet better fuel economy), handle much better, and tires go well over 50,000 miles without needing to be replaced.  So have cars gone up in price?  Yes, of course.  But has the quality also gone up?  Yes, they have.  AND they are also safer too with air bags and ABS brakes and 4 wheel disc brakes to stop better.

Now, you said something very interesting....you said that over 20 years or so, the quality of the Remington's have been "constant."  Whereas a car 20 years ago cost,  say, $15,000 and now that same car costs $30,000, do you think that the quality of the car companies has been constant?  :wink:

Zachary

[Zachary]

GB, you inserted your post just a tad bit before I got the chance to enter mine.  You make a good point about the MOA and the tighter tolerances, which essentially responds to my car example.  I guess the question is whether the quality has increased proportionately in the gun business like it has in the car business.

Keep in mind that the post isn't exactly about Remingtons, but generally rather American or Foreign rifles have better quality and whether they are a better value.  So far, there really hasn't been much discussion on it yet.

Also keep in mind that if I buy American, I buy Remingtons (so I'm waiving the white flag here guys ), and when I buy Foreign, I generally buy Tikkas.  Yes, I own Brownings, Sakos, Winchesters, and soon Kimber.  Right now, depsite some of the plastic on the Tikkas, I think that the Tikka is the best value, and that, of course, is just me.  I'm sure others will say Remington (which to me is a close second) while others for sure will say Savage, and others will say CZ, etc.

The easy question to ask is price.  Everyone knows which gun is less or more expensive.  But the difficult question is value as it relates to price versus quality versus design features versus personal feel.  That has to be a subjective determination.

Zachary

[Ramrod]

Just want you all to know the Model 70 Winchester is alive and well, and still being produced in New Haven, Conn. Don't know about the other models though.

As far as fit and finish go, the Europeans have it all over the American guns. There is still something true about "old world craftsmenship". The extra handfitting and polishing might not make a gun shoot better, but then again, some folks demand more from their guns than just accuracy.
Then again, some guys prefer a glamorous woman who can't cook.

American corporate culture is all about the bottom line. You have to get your product out at the lowest possible cost. If the guns don't sell it's the marketing guys fault. The beancounters rule. Many of the workers could care less about the things they make, they have little incentive to do better.

[hunt127588]

IMHO the best factory injection molded stock was the original Ruger synthetic stock. Ugly as sin but very solid and functional. The recoil pads are too hard to work well but the stock is user friendly. I just can't seem to replace mine on my .243 because it works so well. If you like controlled round feed CZ is probably the way to go on imports.

I second the CZs. I used to think they were some off brand a while back. I then started reading posts on rimfirecentral.com about how accuurate they were and thought I had to try one for myself. I was going to buy a Browning take down .22 but bought the CZ instead. I liked it so much that I bought a CZ 550. Many people in the U.S. don't know about them but from what I hear, they are big in Europe and Australia.

[Mac11700]

I've looked at a boatload of rifles this past 2 weeks...trying to see just what was available...and in many many different calibers...I've held Winchesters,Brownings,Savages,Rugers,Tika's,Weatherby's, Howa's,CZ's,Dakaota's,Sako's, and a few others...all had various stocks...laminated ones,synthetics.cheap pallet wood,fake wood,and beautiful figured walnuts...and as far as my taste run...most of the synthetics seemed really...for lack of a better way of discribing them..."cheap"...there were quite a few that felt really good in my hands...synthetic and walnut...but for the most part...they really didn't do anything for me.

There were some notable exceptions...namely those of the Weatherby's...as far as synthetics go...these felt better than any of the rest...I really don't care for any stock that has raised bumps on them...I'm more a traditional checkering type guy...but...as to Winchesters/Brownings...raised bumps and their Dura Touch stocks...."YUCK"...I didn't care for them at all...all of the  Remingtons seemed cold and hollow...but...they balanced nicely...even the Sendaro's did with those heavy barrels...

As to how the wood stocked guns fared...I did like the Brownings...and I did like the Laminated stocks on the Coyote Winchester too...but Savages...and the rest they can keep...The CZ's I held...looked crappy...stain unevenly applied...overruns on the checkering(bad) and wood to metal gaps everywhere...I'm hoping this isn't typical...eventually I would like to try one in 375...but that's down the road a spell...

The Remington Classics I held...all were finished nicely...and were ok...but I was hoping for something a little better on the wood...and metal finish...the blueing wasn't up to Remingtons normal top notch finish...at least one the ones I've seen and held...they have always been very good in this department...


So basicly...is the foreign guns anybetter than those produced here?...That would depend on how much you were going to spend...but for a off the rack bolt rifle...in the $600-$800 range.. IMHO....it's going to be very hard for any American company to do better than the Brownings or Weatherby's. Ruger has about the nicest stocks I've seen for an American made gun....it beat the Featherweight Winchesters hands down...Hopefully my gun dealers will get in some of the new Sporters from Savage and Weatherby so I can compare them...from what I've heard...they are supposed to be really nice...


Now as far as the way the actions feel...the Tikas...and Sakos...have a extreamly nice feel to them...as well as the Weatherby's and Brownings...the Savages...well...they don't...and on 8 different Wichesters I tried...they are not on par with the Winchesters I've owned in the past...I was really surprised by this...all of them needed smoothing out-----alot...strange really...the Rugers were slick as snot...so...it would be a toss up on a few...all of the CZ's were gritty and had alot of slop in them...more than the Savages...

Does all of this matter to anyone else...probably not...but to me...it does...just thought I would pass it on to you-all...


Mac

[beemanbeme]

To compare the advances in automobiles and the lack of advances in rifles does not compute.  Exactly what can you do to a mauser clone to 'improve" it?  As posted, you can improve in tolerances and material but you still end up with a turn bolt rifle.  And by improvements in materials, I mean where they count.  The steel that the barrel is made of, the gas venting system, and such.  That the floor plate and trigger guard is aluminum is of little moment to me.  (don't some high dollar shotgun makers use aluminum recievers to cut weight?)
I'll admit that a good bit of the price increases are for law suit insurance (here in WV, being able to sue a deep pockets company FOR ANY REASON is thought to be akin to winning the lottery) But, if we're gonna assign blame, forget the lawyers (altho they are not on my short list of role models), think about the pilled-up, smoked-up, drunk, hung-over POS union worker that shows up on monday wondering "what is the least I can do and stay on the payroll?"  Point out one union contract in the say last 40 years that hasn't been based on less work for more money.  
As far as what I buy, I worked hard for my money and spend it whichever way will bring me the best quality at the least cost.  Like for instance, I drive a Toyota truck.  I feel I've spent my time in Hell, buying "american" and trying to keep it on the road.

[jvs]

think about the pilled-up, smoked-up, drunk, hung-over POS union worker that shows up on monday wondering "what is the least I can do and stay on the payroll?"  Point out one union contract in the say last 40 years that hasn't been based on less work for more money.

I'm sorry you look at Union Members like that.  

Do me a favor, the next time you see the Shuttle land safely think of me because that is my steel on the Landing Gear.  A high quality steel proudly made by Union Members.

Then, when you see a M1A1 Abrahms Tank running around the Deserts of Iraq or any other 105mm, 120mm or 155mm Artillery piece, think again about the High Quality Steel used in the Barrels......Also proudly cast, machined, rifled and painted by a Union Member.

and on, and on, and on.

You really need to look into outsourcing before you make unsubstantiated statements.  Where do you think some of that stuff comes from?  China?

Maybe I was a POS Union Member but I wasn't ignorant.

[Dave in WV]

half_inch_group, well said. I'll add if a company treats it's employees right a union is not an option considered.

[beemanbeme]

Sorry guys, my statement about unions stands on its merit.  I have worked around and despite unions for 40 years.  At one time, unions were needed to improve work conditions and safety.  Now most of the "basic needs" of union contracts are a laugh.  That is, they would be a laugh except they are giving it to the American public where the sun don't shine.  
I could spend the better part of a day or two, regaling you with stories of how unions and union members have screwed the American public.  But I doubt that you want to hear that.  I doubt that you want to hear how the unions did their best to screw up the American space program.  Would you like to hear about vital supplies for our armed forces that were NOT loaded on supply ships in WW2 because the unions were on a "slow down"?  Since they supposedly couldn't strike.  And then there's the railroads..............
When you have a bunch of unions types hanging in the break room, they don't brag about how they improved production, they don't brag about how they earned their money.  They brag about how little they have done and how they have screwed the company.  As if their shop steward was the one that signed their paychecks.  And the same POS's are the first to scream when their jobs are sent overseas.
At one time, "made in America" meant something.  Now it pretty much means,the shoddiest piece of crap at the highest price.  You folks sitting in the break room bragging about how little you do, when they send your job to a place that has workers that want to work, remember this:  You did it to yourself.  
Oh, and before any of you unions types tell me to love it or leave it, I have fought and bled for America.  I love America.  Perhaps much more than you do.  I have held a tax paying job since I was 16.  I have never had to rely on a union to keep my job.  I feel I have earned the right to call a piece of crap a piece of crap.  
Obviously, you have touched a nerve.

[Zachary]

Okay, let me step in and put on my moderator hat for a sec.  Union issues are very touchy and you guys can discuss them in your PMs, but let's stick to the topic.

Thanks,
Zachary

[victorcharlie]

Union or Non Union, the american worker is the most productive in the world.

The real problem is that american management is about the sorriest in the world........this is a jobless recovery because they have one guy doing 3 guys jobs, 70 hours a week........weekends and nights with almost no time off........

I love hunting with my American made rifle, with my american (leupold) scope, and american ammo........

You guys better wake up!

[Handwerk]

Good post. I too am mostly a remy/tikka guy. After buying my first tikka I got a remington bdl/ss 300um. It was an ok gun but after working the tikka bolt it was a struggle to do the remy's. I sold it and bought another tikka. I still have a rem.adl wood 7mm-mag built in 1983. It hardly has more rounds through it then my first tikka but the bolt slides almost as smoothly as the tikka. Is that a quality issue? I don't think for the most part your standard rifles are overpriced. I would certainly spend an extra $100 to get a great gun over a ok gun. I've had great service from remington, no problems there. To me a gun is a big investment and I study long before I buy. If you want quality you usaully pay for it. Like most things.

[Zachary]

I still have a rem.adl wood 7mm-mag built in 1983. It hardly has more rounds through it then my first tikka but the bolt slides almost as smoothly as the tikka. Is that a quality issue?

I am SOOO glad to hear you say that.  Why?  Well, my father has a Remington BDL in .30-06 with a Weaver 4x scope on it.  I don't know how old the gun is, but I do know (or at least think) that my father bought it used sometime before 1985.  The thing is that the action on my father's older Remington is just as good, if not better, than the Tikka.  In fact, the action is so great, and the gun shoots sooo well, that I thought that someone had the gun customized.  So I am shocked to hear your experience with your 1983 gun because perhaps my dad's is around that time period.  

None of today's wood stocked BDLs have an action that is as smooth as my dad's older BDL.  If my dad's gun was customized, then that explains it.  However, if it was not, then why is it that newer Remington BDLs don't have such an awesomely smooth action?  Was your ADL all factory or did you have the bolt action customized?

Zachary

[longwinters]

Just for grins, :-) . what popular rifle brands are made in the USA and which ones are made outside the USA?


Obviously Sako, Tikka, Sauer are foreign.

Long

[Gregory]

Just for grins, :-) . what popular rifle brands are made in the USA and which ones are made outside the USA?


Obviously Sako, Tikka, Sauer are foreign.

Long

My Browning A-bolt was made in Japan.

[Zachary]

Mine too - the original A-Bolt I that is.  Although I know that the new Brownings are owned by a French company, I don't know where they are actually made.

Perhaps GB knows?

Zachary

[Paul Barnard]

I'm gonna speak to the original post here.

I think I can summarize it like this.  U.S. vs Foreign for Performance, Value, and Quality.

There is a general mindset that US quality lags behind most of the stuff originating over seas.  Quality is subjective and certainly lies in the eyes of the beholder.  

For the sake of argument, let's take Browning and Ruger as samples of Foreign and USA products.  I'm in the market for a deer rifle.  I have chosen 30-06 as my caliber.  I am hard on equipment so I am going to look at stainless synthetic varieties.  The Ruger M77 and the Browning A-bolt are my finalists.

PERFORMANCE: Let's operate on the premise that the Browning is a 1 MOA rifle and the Ruger is a 1.5 MOA rifle.  I settled on this because most folks contend the Browning is more accurate.  The Browning's triggger is a little crisper and lighter.  When I operate the bolt, it has a smoother feel.  So in general the Browning PERFORMS a little better.

QUALITY:  Most people equate quality with "fit and finish".  I'm not sure I know what fit and finish is.  Let's say for arguments sake the Browning is free from tooling marks,  all metal to plastic is flawless, and it has the appearance and feel of a fine firearm.  The Ruger is nice, but not as nice as the Browning.  So in general the Browning is of slightly better QUALITY.

VALUE:  The Ruger is about $500 at both my local shops the Browning is $650.  The Ruger has integral bases and comes with rings.  I have to spend an additional 50 bucks on the Browning to put rings and bases on it.  Right up front the Browning is $200 more expensive.  If we can agree on 300 yards as the max range for the 30-06 for most deer hunters with most deer guns, then both these guns can do what they were designed to do (put a bullet into the vitals of a deer) with room to spare.  I think we can all agree that both guns will outlast the average deer hunter.  With the 200 bucks I saved on the Ruger, I can buy a Luepold VX1 3x9x40 and be ready hunt.  From a VALUE standpoint, the Ruger is a clear winner.

OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS:  If I buy the Ruger, I am putting money in my neighbors pocket.  Since he is my friend and hunting and fishing buddy, I have a vested interest in his job security.  I am contributing to the economy of a country who's gun freedoms are greater than any other country.  If I buy a Browning, I am putting money in the pocket of someone I don't know.  I am contributing to the economy of a country who's gun freedoms are almost non-existant.  

I have seen people roundly trounced on forums for embracing patriotic principals.  I unapologetically go made in the USA when I can, and in the instance of this comparison, I don't see how Browning can sell a deer rifle (even if they were priced the same as the Ruger.)

We could get into thousands of side by side comparisons like this and in some cases, the foreign competition would seem to be a much better deal.  I own a couple Savages, so I can't say I don't buy foreign.  I look at USA made products first.  If I did a Savage bolt action rimfire vs Ruger bolt action rimfire, I could make strong case for the Savage.

As far as not seeing quality improvements in firearms, I think we have arrived at the point where quality is so good that improvements are almost immeasurable.  As quality and price are intertwined, the fact that gun prices have lagged behind inflation while accuracy has incrementally improved, suggest quality has in fact improved.

As an aside, don't think unions have a monopoly on the idea of doing as little as possible.  The majority of people I know from all areas of employment seem satisfied to do as little as posible to draw a pay check.

[Zachary]

Paul, good post. :grin:

I especially like your detailed comments about all three aspects: quality, performance, and value.  This is exactly the comparative type of post I was looking for.

Specifically, in your comparison of the Browning and Ruger, you believe that the Browning has better quality and performance, but that the Ruger is a better value because it is $150 less + $50 for the rings for a total of $200 less.  

Value is a very subjective thing.  For some people, they might say that paying $200 for extra quality and better accuracy is nothing.  Others might say that the .5" better accuracy and not as good trigger is not worth an extra $200.  

However, one point that I have noticed, which you too have noticed, is that the triggers on the Brownings are better than the Rugers.  I don't own any Rugers, so I can't speak for personal experience, but many have told me that they get aftermarket triggers for their Rugers, or at least get trigger jobs.  For those people that do this, then they could pay anywhere from $35 to $50 for a trigger job, to well over $150 depending on the type of aftermarket trigger like timney or even jewel.  As such, the cost of the guns, with equal triggers, is really the same, yet the Rugers still don't have the quality and performance of the Brownings.  

I also certainly agree with you about buying products in the USA, however I agree that this is helpful pretty much only in the short term.  Why?  Well, if American people buy foreign products (assuming only because they are better and thus not for vanity purposes), then American manufacturers will feel the effect of competition and make their products better so that Americans can buy their products in the long term.  On the contrary, if Americans only buy American made guns, then there is no competition to make the American manufacturers improve their product.

I buy both - American and Foreign.  :wink:

Zachary

[jvs]

I own a couple Savages, so I can't say I don't buy foreign.  I look at USA made products first.  If I did a Savage bolt action rimfire vs Ruger bolt action rimfire, I could make strong case for the Savage.

I wasn't aware that Savage was foreign made.  I always thought they were assembled in Mass.

[Mauser]

I'm not a gunsmith nor do I consider myself any kind of expert on the metalurgy or build quality of guns but I've owned many different makes of bolt action rifles (both domestic and foreign) and for the life of me I can't see all that much difference.  As you spend more money both types get nicer.

I had a Tikka whitetail Hunter and while it was a decent rifle, I wouldn't say it was better than the Rugers, Remingtons, or Winchesters I've owned.  It had a plastic magazine which kind of bothered me.

I'm not adverse at all to buying foreign made anything.  However if I can get basically the same thing at basically the same price, I'll buy American and do my part to keep the jobs here.  I would agree that Americans have no obligation to buy inferior American products  I've just haven't been convinced that the American and foreign guns aren't basically the same thing.

[Handwerk]

Zachary, my 1983 remy adl is totally stock. I still use it every year to hunt deer here in Minnesota. I too buy both american and foreign. As someone with three young kids I have to get the most for my money and often that means something made overseas. If money was no object I would buy all american if the quality was there. I still like remy's but to think I have to drop atleast $50 just to get the trigger close to the tikka's keeps me from buying one lately.

[MGMorden]

I own a couple Savages, so I can't say I don't buy foreign.  I look at USA made products first.  If I did a Savage bolt action rimfire vs Ruger bolt action rimfire, I could make strong case for the Savage.

I wasn't aware that Savage was foreign made.  I always thought they were assembled in Mass.

AFAIK they are made in America.  Until the mention here I've never heard anyone suggest Savage was foreign made.

[Paul Barnard]

Savage rimfires are made in Canada.  The 22 LR and 17 HMR I have are frighteningly accurate and are an exceptional value.

While I don't have blind allegiances to American companies, I will buy American when it is a suitable alternative.  And yes the competition certainly helps to raise the quality bar.

Paul