Author Topic: ATR 100 vs Stevens for Whitetail Deer (Read 2550 times)

hogana · « **on:** February 25, 2006, 05:09:14 AM »

I am looking for a budget priced rifle for deer hunting. I am leaning toward the Stevens in a 270 or 30-06. The Mossberg ATR is priced right, but I am worried about their ability to keep producing it and parts support into the future. That being said if the Mossberg is the better gun I will purchase it (are these available at locations other than Wal-Mart for a competitive price?) I have also considered the Remmington pump action rifles for this purpose, from my experience the first shot is typically the only shot you will get when deer hunting. The Remingtons are also considerably more expensive.

I may also look for a used gun.

I am also considering the scope for this deer gun. The $125 nikon prostaff, and the bushnell banner are in my price range.

As you can tell I am on a budget. I could wait and spend more, but keep in mind this will be a woods gun subject to scratches and rope hauls up into tree stands. I don't care what the gun looks like. I do care how it shoots.

I do not care about the resale value. The gun will either be in my estate sale after a life time of use or I will give it away when I get too old to hunt. Figure 30 to 40 years of use.

I have shotgun hunted deer for about 5 years. I am no expert on the subject. I use a 20 gauge Ultra Slug Hunter for deer. That gun is perfect for me, low recoil, and it fits me well (the deer look just as dead as if they were shot by a 12 gauge). I am aware that they also make single shot rifles, but for this purchase I am thinking that a bolt gun is the ticket.

Is there a difference between the savage guns w/o accutrigger and the Stevens guns? What about the difference in stocks (asside from the uglyness are they both equally functional?)

Any scope, gun brand, or caliber advice is appreciated.

poncaguy · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2006, 05:51:56 AM »

I'm very happy with my 2 Stevens, have a Pro Staff 4x and several Banner scopes, all very good scopes for the $$$$$..............

doorgunner · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2006, 06:38:45 AM »

I have owned both the Savage 110 and the Mossberg ATR in 30-06. Both were very good shooters. I could work on the Mossberg trigger. Never had any experience working on Savage triggers, but others on this board have with much success.

I think that the Stevens seems to have a much nicer looking stock, and I do like the pillar bedding. The metal finish on the Stevens is a little more appealing to me. That's about the only thing that I can think of that seperates these two guns. Both are accurate, both are inexpensive, and both are enabling hunters to get into the woods, who would otherwise not be able to afford to. While I don't hunt with these types of guns, I salute the companies who make them.

I think that your on-track selecting the Nikon Prostaff as a scope too.

If you decide on the mossberg, be sure to degrease the scope base holes, and re-torque the base screws. The one that I acquired appeared to be screwed in very loosely. Most people don't check stuff like that on these budget grade rifles.

hogana · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2006, 11:23:13 AM »

I saw a Savage 270 w/o accutrigger at a gun show today. Package gun w/ the cheaper scope for $265. I do not need the cheap scope.

A new Savage package gun is $350 in my area and the new Stevens is $280. I thought the gun show gun was too expensive for a used gun.

I will go look at the ATR before I make my purchase.

Looks like the most economical ammo is for the 30-06 so I am leaning toward that caliber.

greenjeans · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2006, 11:24:58 AM »

I don't have a Stevens, but do have a Mossberg ATR in .270 caliber. I am very pleased with the accuracy. It will do a little over an inch for three shots if I do my part. Lightweight and very simple. The trigger is about on par with a Savage 110 I had, which I understand is basically the Stevens. I would buy another. I'm certainly not knocking the Stevens, just don't seem to hear much from anyone who actually owns or has shot the ATR. I hate to hear people knock a gun they have never even shot. Looks aren't everything.

kudzu · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2006, 03:11:28 PM »

Don't care what it looks like UMMM - Stevens.

As most seasons r out now, hold out and u can find the stevens 200 in the 30-06 or 270 in the $200 range.

Norseman112 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2006, 04:48:12 PM »

We have a Stevens and an ATR at my house. Either one will work fine.

John

hogana · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2006, 12:34:37 PM »

Thanks for the help.

I can't find the Stevens for less than $280. It is $299 at MC sports and they have to order it. It is $280 at Gander in stock. It is $290 from a local gun shop and they have to order it. I guess all things being = I would go w/ the gun shop. Is anyone finding better prices on these?

Caliber Recoil etc.

Any caliber opinions out there? I will use the gun for deer only. I will not hunt anything else with it. It looks to me like the 30 06 and 270 ballistics are remarkably similar. I have shot gun hunted up until now. First I used a 12 gauge 870, but I gave that up due to the recoil. Now I hunt with a 20 gauge single shot and 1900 fps slugs. The recoil on that is just fine. I am 6 foot 220 pounds. I want a gun I can comfortably sight in that will kill deer, but not cause me to develope a flinch. The 270 is popular here in Wisconsin (if you win a gun at a raffle or game dinner it is likely to be a 270). A large deer (the kind I never see) here is maybe 200 pounds. I have been told by most folks that 243 is too small for deer. I want cheap ammo for the gun. It looks like the most economical ammo is for the 30 06.

I will mostly woods hunt from a stand. Most shots will be within 100 yards, but I would like the option to take longer shots if the opportunity arises.

Norseman112 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2006, 04:49:38 PM »

I am from Wisconsin to

, you may want to look at the 25-06, myself and others use it with sucess. I use a 120gr speer sp bullet.

John

hogana · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2006, 06:30:40 PM »

What do you pay for a box of those shells?

One of the first things I did when I started looking at guns is spend some time in the ammo isle at Gander. I think the 30 06 shells were the cheapest. 25 06 was in the running until I saw that the ammo was nearly 2X what it was for the 30 06. I guess cost is not really a factor if the gun does the job well. It is not going to take a box of 20 bullets to kill a deer and if the scope holds its 0 I am not likely to blaze through boxes and boxes of ammo.

I have a friend w/ a 30 06. I better go shoot that before I go to purchase a gun. I have been told the recoil on the 30 06 is between that of my 20 gauge and my 12 gauge. Is that about right?

I hunt Waupaca Co. and Shawano Co. Shawano is rifle and Waupaca is shot gun.

jvs · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2006, 09:31:37 PM »

Mossberg - Stevens - Savage ... They are all the same company. If it was me, and if I'd be looking for a Rifle that would last a lifetime, I'd be going with a Remington or some other 'middle of the road' rifle with a wood stock. Not that I think that the others may not make it through a lifetime of service, but I know for a fact that a Remington or other mid-priced rifles would. The lower end of anything is a basic model that is not exactly built to last.

Sometimes it's better to spend a little more in the beginning to side step possible problems down the road.

hogana · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2006, 02:35:29 AM »

I am a timex guy, not a rolex guy. It looked to me like the Stevens was the timex guy's gun, accurate, inexpensive, and not prone to mechanical failure.

I perfer a synthetic stock. From what I have read they lower the production cost with no impact on accuracy. I could care less what the gun looks like. I want it to hunt with.

If on the other hand the Stevens is subject to mechanical failure, lack of accuracy, or other annoying problems then I would surely spend another $150 to avoid a poorly made product. The last thing I want to do is save money on the front end only to spend it and more over the life of the gun on repairs.

On this web site there are a lot of mixed reviews of Remingtons. Many folks complain about quality control and lousy customer service. That being said I have 3 Remingtons, 2 870s and one bolt action 22. I have no complaints about those guns, but none of them are deer rifles. None of them were manufactured in the last 5 years either. 1950's 870, 1970s 22, and 2000 870.

What is the scoop on used guns? Should I be searching in that market? My guess is that a deer rifle lasts a couple of human lifetimes if it is not abused or target shot a lot.

jvs · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2006, 04:26:56 AM »

I actually prefer older/used guns to what is being spit out at todays factories, with few exceptions. A used rifle with a scope will not cost you anywhere near what a new inexpensive rifle and scope will cost.

I never meant to infer that Mossbergs or Stevens weren't accurate. I am sure they are. But I think the jury is still out as to how long todays inexpensive rifles will last. Todays 'cheap' rifles are made to different specs and with different materials than the 'cheap' rifles of 30 or 40 years ago.

If a ATR or a Stevens is all you can afford, then by all means stay within your budget. But if it means that you'd have to wait until next year to afford a scope for a better rifle, then get something better and use sights til next year.

One thing I won't argue about : It's your money.

Norseman112 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2006, 04:48:58 AM »

Hogana,

I am a reloader so I can't tell you what a box of ammo cost. I wouldn't think it would be that bad though.

John

hogana · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2006, 08:19:37 AM »

I will watch the paper and check out the independent gun shops for used rifles.

I appreciate the advice. I did not mean to be flip w/ my last post. I was seeking your opinion and I appreciate that you would share it.

Thanks

greenjeans · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:19:34 PM »

Hogana, Will try to post a group I shot today with my ATR in .270 I put a Bushnell Banner 3 x 9 x 50 on the rifle yesterday to replace a smaller scope. This was shot with Winchester 130 grain Power Points, about $13. a box at Wal-Mart. True, it's not beautiful, but looks like it will be a keeper. The two shots touching are #1 and #3 with the left one being #2. I don't have a Stevens, but do have a Savage. Don't think you can go wrong with either. This is my second Bushnell Banner. Good glass for the $$$.

smokey262 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2006, 01:45:03 PM »

Hello from a fellow cheesehead

Either the Stevens or the Mossy would be fine what you want to do, and will certainly last the rest of your life. Just clean and oil them once in a while and good to go. Note that the ATR is also available in 243 and 308. Look at the Walmart website. 308 is just as cheap for factory loads as 30-06, and milsurp is even cheaper.

Some guys say buy a used (major brand) instead for the same money. The ATR is $244 at Wally. The Stevens is $278. I NEVER see used Winchester 70's or Remington 700's for this cheap.

Are the ATR and 200 examples of classic gunmaking? Of course not. But you won't get sick when they get scratched up either.

Also written here was - - Mossberg - Stevens - Savage ... They are all the same company - Not true at all. Savage and Stevens are, not Mossberg.

BTW, I have 2 Stevens. A 243 and a 7mm-08. I want more, and I want a ATR in 308 too. For this cheap you can't beat em'

I also have a Bushnell Sportview, Banner, Trophy, and Legend. All are ok. The Legend is a very nice scope with fullt multi-coated optics and was $100 brand new on ebay. The Banner and Trophy are almost too close to tell apart. Both are fine for the money. The sportview is on a crappy 22, so that does not count.

Good Luck. Don't worry what other people think of your equipment. Buy what you can afford, and learn how to use it well.

Smokey262

jvs · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2006, 08:07:01 PM »

smokey262,

I suppose that if I showed you proof that Mossberg, Savage and Stevens are indeed the same company you would believe it. I don't usually make statements that I can not back up. Although it is not general knowledge that Mossberg bought Savage back in 1995, this subject has come up here at GBO more than once. And while I will readily admit that you won't find a used Remington or Winchester for $244 or $278, when you add the cost of rings, scope, sling mounts and a sling to those prices, you can indeed find used Remington and Winchester models for sale around $400, possibly a little more, for which you would be getting a superior rifle. IMO.

As far as Mossberg, Savage & Stevens... If you have proof that Mossberg-Savage are no longer Siamese Twins, I will admit I am wrong. Here goes, one more time:

CHALLENGER INTERNATIONAL, LTD. SIGNS LETTER OF INTENT TO SELL SAVAGE ARMS UNIT; SECURES FINANCING TO COMPLETE ACQUISITION OF INTELECT, INC.

HAMILTON, Bermuda, June 1,1995 HREF

Challenger International, Ltd. (Nasdaq: CSTIF; TSE: CTT) announced that it has signed a Letter of Intent to sell its firearms and related businesses, Savage Arms, Lakefield Arms and Passive Bullet Traps, to Mossberg Corporation of North Haven, Connecticut for $35 million in cash plus additional consideration to be determined at closing.

In connection with the sale transaction, Mossberg Corporation is
also providing Challenger with $9 million to fund Challenger's
remaining obligations to complete its acquisition of 100% of
Intelect, Inc., based in Dallas, Texas. The $9 million will be
repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of Savage at closing or over
a two year period in the event the sale does not close. This
financing arrangement allows Challenger to avoid the fees, warrants
or other such costs and contingencies customarily associated with
placement of external long-term subordinated debt.

For 1994, Savage net sales reached $25,871,000 and income from operations had risen to $5,073,000 under the leadership of Savage CEO Ron Coburn, compared to sales to $13,285,000 in 1990 with an operating loss of $2,523,000. Mr. Coburn is designated to be appointed President and Chief Operating Officer of the combined Savage and Mossberg operations.

doorgunner · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2006, 08:39:42 PM »

Quote from: jvs

smokey262,

I suppose that if I showed you proof that Mossberg, Savage and Stevens are indeed the same company you would believe it. I don't usually make statements that I can not back up. Although it is not general knowledge that Mossberg bought Savage back in 1995, this subject has come up here at GBO more than once. And while I will readily admit that you won't find a used Remington or Winchester for $244 or $278, when you add the cost of rings, scope, sling mounts and a sling to those prices, you can indeed find used Remington and Winchester models for sale around $400, possibly a little more, for which you would be getting a superior rifle. IMO.

As far as Mossberg, Savage & Stevens... If you have proof that Mossberg-Savage are no longer Siamese Twins, I will admit I am wrong. Here goes, one more time:

CHALLENGER INTERNATIONAL, LTD. SIGNS LETTER OF INTENT TO SELL SAVAGE ARMS UNIT; SECURES FINANCING TO COMPLETE ACQUISITION OF INTELECT, INC.

HAMILTON, Bermuda, June 1,1995 HREF

Challenger International, Ltd. (Nasdaq: CSTIF; TSE: CTT) announced that it has signed a Letter of Intent to sell its firearms and related businesses, Savage Arms, Lakefield Arms and Passive Bullet Traps, to Mossberg Corporation of North Haven, Connecticut for $35 million in cash plus additional consideration to be determined at closing.

In connection with the sale transaction, Mossberg Corporation is
also providing Challenger with $9 million to fund Challenger's
remaining obligations to complete its acquisition of 100% of
Intelect, Inc., based in Dallas, Texas. The $9 million will be
repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of Savage at closing or over
a two year period in the event the sale does not close. This
financing arrangement allows Challenger to avoid the fees, warrants
or other such costs and contingencies customarily associated with
placement of external long-term subordinated debt.

For 1994, Savage net sales reached $25,871,000 and income from operations had risen to $5,073,000 under the leadership of Savage CEO Ron Coburn, compared to sales to $13,285,000 in 1990 with an operating loss of $2,523,000. Mr. Coburn is designated to be appointed President and Chief Operating Officer of the combined Savage and Mossberg operations.

Whoa, now that blows me away. I guess I've been living under a rock, because I would have never guessed that these two companies were actually one in the same. Thanks for the information.

kiwi98j · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2006, 02:03:56 AM »

Intereting information but jvs neglected to add to the information he provided so you would know the "rest of the story" in that Ron Coburn and a group of investors namely Nautic Partner raised the necessary capital to purchase the assets and trade names and took the company private as Savage Sports Corporation after Challenger's letter of intent and before the sale to Mossberg could be finalized.

If you search his forum for "Nautic Partnes" you will find this thread.

http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=336408&sid=4a1e117d13a3e26bc908ac021fe5bd45

jvs · « **Reply #20 on:** March 05, 2006, 06:05:42 AM »

kiwi98j,

You are assuming that I had knowledge of Nautic LLC and intentionally witheld it. Never Ass-U-Me.

So, checking on the Nautic website ( http://www.nauticpartners.com/industry/ind_man.html ) as you insisted, I found nothing pertaining to Savage, except Nautic exited anything to do with them.

That doesn't mean that Mossberg isn't in the equation somewhere. The ATR and Stevens are brothers. Unless you can post that Mossberg, Savage & Stevens are not arms of the same Octapus, the data I found on the web is more than enough to prove that they are.

lilabner · « **Reply #21 on:** March 05, 2006, 06:38:20 AM »

If you can get your hands on the October, 2005 issue of the American Rifleman, I believe your question will be conclusively answered. That issue contains field tests of the Mossberg and the Stevens. The Stevens came out ahead by a pretty wide margin IMO.

hogana · « **Reply #22 on:** March 05, 2006, 10:03:18 AM »

I bought a clearence priced laminated stock blued Reminton ADL .270 for $350.

There was a savage package gun w/ accutriger in clearance for only $300, but it was in a caliber I was not familure with and I don't need a cheap scope. I looked at the Mossberg too. While I was looking an older fellow came by and said that he thought the Remington was the best deal. $80-$100 over a life time of use wont matter in the end. I guess in the end the laminated wood, the fact that the gun came with sights, and the fact that it is just a really nice looking gun won me over. So scratch the I don't care what it looks like comments above.

I bought 130 grain bullets from remington and winchester.

Now I have to save and shop for the scope.

Thanks for the advice.

Norseman112 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 05, 2006, 10:35:25 AM »

I wish you good luck with your new rifle. Keep us posted on what scope you put on it and how she shoots.

John

jvs · « **Reply #24 on:** March 05, 2006, 10:47:59 AM »

hogana,

I think when all is said and done, you will not regret buying the Remington. Considering what you got for a few bucks more, you seem to come out ahead of the game. IMO.

If you have to wait a year to afford a scope for the Remington, you can still count on the fact that this is a lifetime rifle.

hogana · « **Reply #25 on:** March 05, 2006, 11:05:48 AM »

I sure hope it is a lifetime rifle. I paid cash for it and it looked like a lot of money when it was on the table.

I am thinking about a Nikon 2-7 power scope. It is advertised as a shot gun scope. My thinking is that most shots will be <100 yards and feild of view and finding the animal in the scope are key rather than bigger magnification. So will this set up work?

What about rings bases etc. Is mounting the scope a DIY deal? I am handy, but I don't want to wreck a $125 scope. Any help here?

What does parallax mean? Is that the distance to the target when the scope is dead on, where if you sighted through the scope and the bore you would be looking at the same spot?

Thanks again for all the help.

mjbgalt · « **Reply #26 on:** March 05, 2006, 01:13:55 PM »

i would take the rifle with me to the gunshop you buy the scope from and have them do it. if you buy the scope they should mount it for free.

-Matt

bluebayou · « **Reply #27 on:** March 05, 2006, 02:03:19 PM »

Dude, I think that you did the right thing buying that ADL. He gave you good advice on buying a good gun and saving up for a scope "next year". Plus you have iron sights where the others don't. In my limited experience every scope will crap out sooner or later.

Nothing wrong with shotgun scopes. They are normally set for a shorter parallax but as you noted, most of your shots will be short.

This is what the Mueller guy said:

Parallax only effects a shot if your eye position is not centered in the scope. There is no direct answer to the question because it depends on how far off the center of the view you are. In most cases you would never experience maximum parallax error because you more than likely wont be at the extreme out edge of the view shooting.

The biggest problem with a scope thats set parallax free at a closer distance is how blury it will be at longer distances. For example, I set the parallax on a scope for a friend who's shooting crossbow at 30yds and now the view is extremely blurry past 100yds...

If the scope is set parallax free at 75yds, its more than likely designed for intermediate closer range shots. If your going to do alot of shooting at 300yds, I would go with a scope set parallax free at 100yds, that way you have the best of both worlds for both close and longer range shooting. Obviously your not trying to shoot one hole groups or you wouldnt be using a 2-7.... I personally favor a 2-7 for 50-300yd big game hunting...

Slamfire · « **Reply #28 on:** March 06, 2006, 01:02:06 AM »

Ownership does not mean that the rifles are clones. :-D Winchester and Browning have the same ownership, but there is a bit of difference in the rifles, EXCEPT the reproduction Brownings.

nasem · « **Reply #29 on:** March 06, 2006, 11:17:31 AM »

ok you want a budget rifle ? you can't go wrong with the ATR in 30-06.... I bought one for my dad from walmart....

Here is what you do, you go to a walmart that has one on display, ask the sporting goods manager if he/she can give you a 10% discount on it "becuase its a display model"..... 90% of the time they say "yes".... so your going to pay about $225 for a brand new ATR in 30-06. (and with no discount its $244)

The ATR I shoot usually groups under 1/2" @ 100 yards with remington 180 gr softs...........and you said something about cheap ammo right ? well thats no problem, You can invest an additional $25 and get a .308 converter so you can shoot .308 ammo in your 30-06...........