What constitutes a good bolt action rifle?

[Questor]

I need some examples of truly good bolt action rifles. I keep reading and hearing complaints about how this rifle or that rifle is a cheap piece of junk but nobody gives examples of good rifles. For example, a lot of people did not lament the passing of the Winchester model 70 because of the history of "cheapening the product". Then there's the Chuck Hawks Tikka review elsewhere on this forum.  I had a bad reaction to some aspects of the Remigton 700, but after checking into these features that I saw as junky, I found that there was no real problem associated with them. In use the gun turns out to be perfectly good in every way.

If they're so junky, then how come they work as well as they do? I've seen and handled Pre-64 model 70s and some custom Mausers and some other supposedly great rifles and liked them less than the newer guns. I've seen Dakota-actioned custom bolt guns and I think they are fabulous, but you really pay big bucks for such a gun.

[Brithunter]

The problem is that some like Vanilla and some like chocolate  same with rifles. I happen to like the CZ rifles although I am not so keen on the restyled and changed 550 American compared with the older Models 600,601 and 602. Mine is a ZKK 601 in .308  The Blaser R93 is a great rifle but again not all like it 

   Personally I would have a new Remington as a gift  I dislike them quite intensely and should that horrible thing happen I would sell it just as soon as possible. Oh I feel the same way about BMW's 

   Sorry I cannot really be much help on modern rifles as I really prefer the older ones. Like my BSA's and Parker-Hale's. Most of the modern production rifles are not of the same quality to my mind. The throw away society has crept in far too much in my opinion.

    In fact my newest rifle was made in 1999 but that is a bespoke built rifle which I brought second hand other than that 1996 comes next and although it's a funtional rifle it does not have the quality of the earlier rifles. This one is a Mauser Slide Bolt M96 in 6.5x55.

[jvs]

There was a time when Hardened steel was used in almost every part of a production rifle.  Now, you get plastic parts and wood that is other than the most durable, and marketed as a "hardwood stock".  I have said this before and I will say it again....  Years ago - a rifle came with a good wood stock, after they introduced the synthetic stocks, the synthetic stocks brought a premium.  Now, I believe that it will slowly go full circle, with most rifles coming in synthetic, with a good piece of Walnut bringing a premium.  I don't see much wrong with synthetic stocks, I just dont believe that they will be problem free in 50 years, as quality wood has proven to be. 

Making guns cheaper only means cheaper materials, therefore you get items that won't stand the test of time.  Premium parts are expensive to make, and heavy to use.  Therefore, lighter and cheaper are the rule.  There is truth in the rumor about the pre 64 Winchesters.  Rockwell of those receivers and other parts usually exceed those of today.  Some people state that todays steel is much superior to steel of years ago.  That is true, but the steel that is used today in rifles is not the same grade used years ago. 

Not long ago, I bought a Sporter.  A .30-06 Mark I A3-03, that was cut down and mounted on a Bishop stock.  My Sporter Receiver was manufactured back in the 1910's I believe, and when you hold it, you can tell that most rifles made today cant match this.  Although it was put together in the 1960's as a Sporter with a Military Match Barrel and is like new, the workmanship and materials are first rate.   I paid $300 for it.  Now if you can tell me where I can get a basically new .30-06, made with the materials and workmanship in that Mark I for $300, I'd change my mind about newer makes and models.  Granted that it is somebody elses dream of what perfection is, but when you hold it up to something new, it shines.

[safetysheriff]

if you want some examples of some truly great rifles go to www.6mmbr.com     take a look at those that are 'super-customs' and take a look at those that are built on standard Remington actions, even to include that crazy 'J - lock' that they put on the Model 700's!    you'll see that they'll discuss issues of both riflesmithing and handloading.......and you'll soon learn that today's gunsmiths put together some Excellent rifles, with Excellent materials.

for a factory rifle 'in the blue' i'd go with a Remington Model 700 or a Weatherby Vanguard.   for a factory rifle in stainless i'd go with the Vanguard because of its 710-grade stainless steel.   i have owned examples of both (blued) and think that....for tlhe most part......they are actually a better'value', costing less hours at work to own than their older counterparts.   

i used to have a Maastricht from 1898 -- i think it was -- with the Beaumont action (using the v-spring in the bolt handle!).   it was fitted together in a remarkable manner!   the metal-to-metal fit was UNBELIEVABLE!   some of you may know what i mean.......     but i'll take my rifles of today, all of them having been built since 1980 i would think, with their greatly-improved metallurgy and their synthetic stocks.    they just seem to be more functional with less weight involved for me to carry around.

to each his own, i guess.

ss' 

[jvs]

I have no qualms with the modern day inexpensive rifles put out by some of the manufacturers.  What I contend is that only time will tell if they have the power to stand rugged use.  I can almost envision a time, maybe 40 years down the road when all of those cheap, sloppy Savage bolts and Synthetic stocks start falling apart.  There might be a good reason why you don't get more than a One Year Warranty.

This would be at odds with the cheaper models of Savage from back in the 40's, 50's and 60's.  The Savage model 840 and 340 had a receiver that was double treated.  It was so hard that gunsmiths of the day cursed havig to drill them for scope mounts, because they constantly broke drill bits and taps trying to drill and tap them.  Even the Stevens model 325, with it's ugly spoon handle Mauser Bolt was much more superior to what Savage and Stevens puts out today, IMO. 

Cheaper is not always better for the end user.  Only for the bottom line of the manufacturer.  I also realize that if the manufacturers only made rifles out of prime parts, alot of people couldn't afford to buy one.  So there is a balance.  But in a throw away world, don't be surprised if those inexpensive rifles are also a throw away item in the future.

[jro45]

In my way of thinking, the action makes the rifle. Like the Rem 700 action. I canot find a better rifle and its all because of the 700 action. I own a couple of recent 700s like the RUM models 338 and 300. They are right on with acturacy. That my thoughts.

[tck]

Made in America,  Savage, Ruger, 1/2 of Remington....

[Coyote Hunter]

jvs –

You make the common error of confusing “quality” with what you want in a rifle. Rifles are built to specifications – the manner in which they meet or fail to meet those specifications determines their quality, not whether they meet your expectations or not.  A Subaru may not carry 9 passengers, tow 10,000 pounds, do 0-60mph in 4 seconds or provide the creature comforts of a true luxury car, but that does not mean it is not a quality car.  Nor does it cost what a vehicle that could do those things would cost.

My first and only Savage was a 110E in .22-250.  It had a “walnut finish” hardwood stock (probably birch, which is actually a fairly decent wood for stocks), a plastic trigger guard, a brazed on bolt handle, lots of unpolished metal and a low cost finish on the receiver and barrel.  It didn’t cost much when Dad purchased it.  I got it about 1,000 rounds later, but it would put 3 shots into a group you could cover with a dime.  Was it a “quality” rifle?

“Cheaper” materials does not always mean “inferior”. In my 25 years of shooting I have never had a problem with a synthetic trigger guard or an aluminum floor plate.  “More expensive” is sometimes just that – it does not necessarily mean higher quality, durability or suitability to a particular task.  Often "more expensive" means "lower production rates", "less automation in the production process" and/or "more aestheticaly pleasing".  Does a gold-plated trigger or gold inlay in the scroll work really add to the "quality" of a rifle"?  Is a deep blue finish really better than Parkerizing?  Is walnut really better "quality" than laminated or synthetic?  Is a rifle really useful if you can't afford it?

It is completely erroneous to state that “Making guns cheaper only means cheaper materials, therefore you get items that won't stand the test of time.”  Sometimes this is true, other times it is not.  Many operations that used to be performed by expensive skilled laborers are now performed by CNC machines – cheaper, faster, with fewer mistakes and greater consistency.

You voice a concern that synthetic stocks won’t “be problem free in 50 years, as quality wood has proven to be”.  I can’t tell you how many cracked and broken wooden stocks I have seen, some 50 years old, many much younger.  Wooden stocks also have a tendency to warp with changes in humidity and temperature, changing the Point Of Impact, a problem synthetic stocks do not have.  The “canoe paddle” synthetic stock on my Ruger .300 Win, while not as aesthetically pleasing as presentation grade walnut, is practically indestructible.  If that stock ever gets swapped the change will be purely for aesthetic reasons, not issues with quality or durability.

Rockwell is a measure of surface hardness, not to be confused with hoop strength or tensile strength or consistency in the steel. Many of the rifle actions built back in the “good old days” when you 03-A3 was manufactured went through the hardening process twice because a single trip proved to be insufficient and blow-ups occurred.  You say “the steel that is used today in rifles is not the same grade used years ago” and that is true – the modern steel alloys are stronger and the steels used by major manufacturers are produced under conditions that produce much higher consistency.

You paid $300 for a used custom sporter, and that’s great.  Don’t confuse that with the cost of a new rifle.  You can purchase a new rifle that is every bit as good – and better – than the one you purchased, but yes, it will cost more. 

My purchases made since year 2001 are listed below:

Ruger M77, blue/walnut, (used, mfg in 1989), .257 Roberts, $300
Ruger M77 MKII VT, stainless/laminate, (NIB in 2003), .22-250, $485
Ruger M77 MKII, blue/synthetic, (NIB in 2004), .300 Win Mag, $375
Remington M700 BDL, blue/walnut, (used, mfg in 1980s), .308 Win, $330
Marlin 336CS, blue/wanut, (used, mfg in 1989), .30-30, $225
Marlin 375, blue/walnut, (used, mfg in 1981), .375 Win, $250
Marlin 1895SS, blue/walnut, (used, mfg in 2000), .45-70, $250

I consider all of them quality rifles and with proper care they will outlast my grandkids, if I ever have any.

[Zachary]

A "good" BOA rifle.  Hmmmm.  There's a loaded question.

Fiirst off, we need to determine what "good" means.  Maybe a scale of 1 to 10 might help.

Then, once we have parameters within whcih to work, we still must understand that there is a diifference between personal vs. general. What may be "good" for me may not be "good" for you.  Specifically, some might consider a bolt action rifle to be good if it is light.  Others may conisder it to be good if it has a good stock fit.  For others it may mean that fit and fiinish is above par.  For others, it may mean that it has above average accuracy.  For others, it may be use of quality components. For some, it may be all of these factors.

In my opinion, Savage rifles are sub par with regards to fit and finish, but for some reason they are generally very good shooters - definately one of the more accurate rifles out there.  I personally like Tikkas.  These guns are very accurate, and their quality, in terms of fit and finish, is exceptional.  Work the bolt on a Tikka and then work it on a Savage - night and day.  However, some people complain  about the use of plastic on the Tikkas.

Well, take a look at brownining - of which I own a couple (the older A-Bolt I version in Stainless Stalker).  These guns are also very accurate, with very high quality in terms of fit and finish.  Also, the older stocks are MUCH better than the newer plastic junk that many manufacturers sell.  However, did  you know that the bolt shroud is not stainless steel?  Heck, I have been told that it is essentially pot metal.  Does that make it a "bad" bolt gun?  I don't know, you  tell me.  Would I prefer a SS shroud on the Browning?  Yes.  Would I prefer a similar shroud on the Tikka?  Yes.  But I don't think it makes it a bad gun.

I bought a new Kimber 8400 Montana in .300WSM about a year ago.  This gun costs around $1,000 (although I think that I bought mine for less).  Anyhow, the fit and finish on the gun was just out of this world.  Truthfully, I have never seen a semi-production rifle of such high quality in terms of fit and finish.  However, I did have one problem.  The bolt was messed up.  I can't remember the correct terminology, but, given that Kimbers are built on mauser-type actions, the outside sleve of the bolt was crooked, and this caused the bolt to kinda hesitate and sometimes stop while you were trying to pull it back.  Is this the quality that you would expect from a $1,000 gun?  Heck no.  On the flip side, I can say this, I returned the bolt back to Kimber and guess what?  They repaired  it and returned it to me within about a week or so!  Now how's that for customer service!  Yes, Kimber should have caught this defect before the gun was shipped, but at the very least at least their customer service took care of it in lighting speed.  Still, over all, and with the exception of the bolt, the fit and finish of the Kimber is just out of this world - don't even bother looking for a better built semi-production bolt action rifle.

Now let's talk about Sakos.  It is double the price of a Tikka, but is it double the value?  Well, if you consider that the Sako does not use plastic components like the Tikka does, then you could say yes.  Then again, some other people may say no.  So is the Sako a "good" bolt gun?  I  think so.  Is it better than a Tikka?  I think so.  Is it a better value than the Tikka?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  I really can't say.

Keep in mind that, if no production or semi-production gun out there satisfies your particular definition of "good," or if "good" isn't "good enough" for you, then you can always consider having a rifle custom built to your specifications.  Will it cost more than an off-the-rack gun?  Heck yea.  Will it be worth it?  Only you can answer that question.

Zachary

[marylandeer]

I don't have anything against any of the modern day production rifles. Some gun manufacturers do try to find ways to keep cost down but tell me, what companies don't try to keep cost down? The average Joe don't want to or have thousands of dollars sitting in the bank he can just drop on the best rifle out there. What matters to most is you get a product that will do what you need it to do for a reasonable cost. It must shoot good, look decent and not fall apart thats all nothing more unless you need more..... 
Remington- I have used a few Remington 700's and I really like them and have never had a bad one. Have I just been super lucky? I don't know but I doubt it. I also have an 1100 semi auto shotgun thats 25 years old and still running like a champ. Shot my first deer with this one. I don't like the model 710
Savage- I have used several Savage products and never had a problem with any of them. Not the best looking guns but I don't really care what they look like, they shoot and they last. I used a model 110 in .270 to take a LOT of deer. Great shooting gun. I do have one Savage model 10 in 7mm-08 that gave me a fit with accuracy but I think I have it taken care of now after a little stock work.
Marlin- I have had a few Marlin's and never one problem from them. I didn't like the 512 slugmaster I had due to the brutal recoil. I can't blame Marlin for me not enjoying recoil. It did shoot good.
Ruger I have never had one but My father and my brother both use them and love them. I would not hesitate to buy one if I needed a rifle.
Weatherby- Never had one, the upper end models are too much $ for me. The Vanguard looks good but I have always settled on a Savage or something else instead. I don't know why.
Winchester- I have had a few and never had any problems with any of them. Great guns if you ask me (so far).
Tikka- I bought one on a recomdation from Zachary and a lot of other folks on Graybeards and I have been very pleased with it. It's good looking, light weight, VERY accurate, easy to take care of, has a super smooth action and one of the best triggers I have ever pulled.
It all boils down to personal choice thats why there are so many different brands of firearms to choose from and so many different calibers to choose them in. This is America and we have a choice to buy whatever we want to buy. You don't have to spend a thousand dollars on a rifle if you don't have it or don't want to. All that matters is that YOU have to like it and be happy with it. NO ONE else has to. 

[jvs]

jvs –

It is completely erroneous to state that “Making guns cheaper only means cheaper materials, therefore you get items that won't stand the test of time.”  Sometimes this is true, other times it is not.  Many operations that used to be performed by expensive skilled laborers are now performed by CNC machines – cheaper, faster, with fewer mistakes and greater consistency.

You voice a concern that synthetic stocks won’t “be problem free in 50 years, as quality wood has proven to be”.  I can’t tell you how many cracked and broken wooden stocks I have seen, some 50 years old, many much younger.  Wooden stocks also have a tendency to warp with changes in humidity and temperature, changing the Point Of Impact, a problem synthetic stocks do not have.  The “canoe paddle” synthetic stock on my Ruger .300 Win, while not as aesthetically pleasing as presentation grade walnut, is practically indestructible.  If that stock ever gets swapped the change will be purely for aesthetic reasons, not issues with quality or durability.

Rockwell is a measure of surface hardness, not to be confused with hoop strength or tensile strength or consistency in the steel. Many of the rifle actions built back in the “good old days” when you 03-A3 was manufactured went through the hardening process twice because a single trip proved to be insufficient and blow-ups occurred. 

I understand your supporting the use of inferior parts instead of those from the 'good old days', only as support for affordable rifles.  You would have a hard time convincing me that a good old fashioned metal triggger guard is not better than a plastic one.   I must tell you that you will never make me believe that Plastic is better than metal or wood.  Nor will you get me to admit that todays quality is as good as those from years gone by.  I dont confuse Quality with what I want in a rifle, but I do have standards.  And very few of todays modern production rifles meet those standards.

You defend with great experitse the synthetic stock.  While you and I dont know if dry rot will be a problem in a few years.  For me the jury is still out on synthetic stocks. 

In the past I ran Rockwell tests as part as ISO 9000 on both tool steel and other grades of steel.  I know what hardness does to steel, I also know what overdoing it can lead to.  If you are alluding to the A3-03 problems with Receivers blowing up during the WWI days, the experts tracked the problem down to whether those receivers were hardened on Sunny or Cloudy Days.  Apparently, the Employees were  the best in the land when it came to Heat Treatment of Steel.  The recievers that were treated on sunny days were over treated and did lead to catastophic events, with receivers blowing up.  It seems that the Employees were treating by the way the steel glowed.  The made no allowance to brightness of the day when checking the color of the hot steel.  The receivers made on cloudy days were just fine, as were 95% of most of the A3-03's, with just a few bad ones at specific arsenals.

You should also know that I own 2 Subaru's and like em.

[Don Fischer]

Maybe the question should have been "what constitutes a fine bolt action rifle". I have had remingtons, winchesters, parker-hales, sakos, and god knows what else. I would never pay the cost of a pre 64 winchester. I forget a lot of rifles for one reason or another but I have one I'll never forget and I'd call it a fine rifle. It's an 03-A3 built by Paul Jaeger in 1945. The fit of everything is flawless. The checkering is hand cut even the steel butt plate has hand cut checkering. The fore end tip was hollowed out and is a perfect fit over an extension cut into the stock. You'd never guess it unless you saw it off, all looks like one piece. Took 60 yrs but it came loose and I re-glued it, that's how I know. The way it handles need to be felt to be believed and this is an 8# rifle. It shoot very very well, sub 1" when I do my job. Have had more accutate rifles, I have more accurate ones right now. I think my Mod 70 featherweight is as good looking but when you pick them both up and really look close, the 03-A3 blows it away. The 03-A3 is not a better rifle, but I look better holding and shooting it! It's a fine rifle!

This will kill you. Brand new it cost $500, in 1995 it was appraised at $7500, in 1998 I turned down $8500 for it.

[Coyote Hunter]

I understand your supporting the use of inferior parts instead of those from the 'good old days', only as support for affordable rifles.  You would have a hard time convincing me that a good old fashioned metal triggger guard is not better than a plastic one.   I must tell you that you will never make me believe that Plastic is better than metal or wood.  Nor will you get me to admit that todays quality is as good as those from years gone by.  I dont confuse Quality with what I want in a rifle, but I do have standards.  And very few of todays modern production rifles meet those standards.

You defend with great experitse the synthetic stock.  While you and I dont know if dry rot will be a problem in a few years.  For me the jury is still out on synthetic stocks. 

In the past I ran Rockwell tests as part as ISO 9000 on both tool steel and other grades of steel.  I know what hardness does to steel, I also know what overdoing it can lead to.  If you are eluding to the A3-03 problems with Receivers blowing up during the WWI days, the experts tracked the problem down to whether those receivers were hardened on Sunny or Cloudy Days.  Apparently, the Employees were  the best in the land when it came to Heat Treatment of Steel.  The recievers that were treated on sunny days were over treated and did lead to catastophic events, with receivers blowing up.  It seems that the Employees were treating by the way the steel glowed.  The made no allowance to brightness of the day when checking the color of the hot steel.  The receivers made on cloudy days were just fine, as were 95% of most of the A3-03's, with just a few bad ones at specific arsenals.

You should also know that I own 2 Subaru's and like em.

jvs –

My point was not that plastic is “better” than steel, as that is a rather subjective judgment based on a variety of factors, but rather that it is not necessarily inferior.  It all depends on what is wanted. If you want a rifle that shoots well and costs little, a plastic trigger guard is a reasonable place to cut costs, allowing relatively more to be spent on the parts that affect accuracy.  Note that the Savage rifles in fact have a reputation for affordability and excellent accuracy in spite of their plastic trigger guards.  In all honesty, I prefer metal trigger guards, but I have no problem with aluminum instead of steel.

It is the same with laminate and synthetic stocks – whether or not walnut or synthetic or laminate ore even steel is best is a judgment call based on what is desired.  I have a walnut stock that is only a few years old, far less than the 50 you mention, that looks great except for a small piece that is chipped off near the receiver.  What we know about wood is that it often cracks, splits or warps.  We know that laminates are more stable than monolithic wood and there are many examples of laminates that have withstood the test of time.  The same is true for fiberglass and other synthetics.  That is not to say that all laminates or synthetics are equal, any more than all walnut is equal.

As to whether “todays quality is as good as those from years gone by”, I have looked over many original condition Mausers, 03-A3’s and other rifles from “years gone by” and the quality of workmanship has often been disappointing.  Once I stupidly let a lovely Mauser made in Berlin in the late 30’s get away and am still kicking myself.  That Mauser had a sporter stock, excellent metal and the asking price was only $225.  I can honestly say, though, that is the only rifle from that era or earlier that has tempted me.  A good friend bought an 03-A3 several years back and had it customized into a beautiful .338-06.  By the time the trigger, barrel and stock were replaced, the bolt modified, and the metal polished and reblued, it was truly a work of art.  And far more expensive than any of my modern rifles.  By the way, the workmanship that made it a work of art was that of a modern gunsmith.  A silk purse from a sow’s ear, so to speak.

I do hope, though, that my friend’s 03-A3 wasn’t one of those made on a sunny day...

[Brithunter]

Ahem,

     Thought I better add this thought 

     Steel is not always the best material for things such as trigger guards and bolt knobs of course depending on the rifles intended use. The Old German Guild Gunsmiths used Horn for these parts for a very good reason. In extreme cold you cannot freeze your flesh to Horn nor the type of plastics used for these by some gun makers today 

     Whilst I still prefer steel for both items I do not hunt is such tempretures so the problem is moot  in my case at least.

      As for Fibre Glass well it does age and it does detetiorate  you only have to examine old cars with Fibre Glass bodies or Boats for that matter, why should gun stocks be any different? The trouble with synthetic stocks is that there is such a gulf in quality between the best and the run of the mill  A friend has a Wolf hand laid kevlar reinforced stock on his bench gun and it cost a small fortune and he had to ship the barreled action to them to fit it. Oh and it's not lighter than wood it's heavier. The cheaper injection moulded stocks well they are a world away in quality and often rigididity  .

[jvs]

I do hope, though, that my friend’s 03-A3 wasn’t one of those made on a sunny day... 

Again, there were very few A3-03 receivers that were deemed unfit.  But there were many serial numbers within the production run that could have been suspicious.  There were 3 cases of GI's being hurt or killed by exploding receivers due to overtreament, with at least one unfortunate individual taking a bolt to the eye.  The Government played it safe, as always, and made sure they had a handle on the problem and expanded the warning.  The real problem is that those suspected serial nuimbers were never taken out of service, and still survive today.   The problem serial numbers and the arsenals involved are available on the internet, along with the study which pinpointed the problem.  As I did my search prior to buying my Sporter to make sure the price was right, I saw some of those suspected serial numbers available on the Gun Auction Websites.

Wood has faults, just as any other material used in the production of guns.  My point is that the weather usually never gets cold enough that either a wood stock would crack or a plastic trigger guard would break.   These natural materials can take a little more misuse or abuse than Plastics. 

Mausers and A3-03's were meant to be Military pieces and used as such.  It is American to take something  and change it.  Hence the older military pieces becoming Sporters.   The original workmanship is such that putting something old on something new can come out just fine.

Trying to get back to original post...  The older Savages and Stevens, which were the bottom of the barrel when it came to materials and price, now exceed in quality most modern day production rifles.  IMO.  At least some maunfacturers still have minimum standards which exceed others.  You come to expect a certain amout of quality from some manufacturers, while others still insist on making it cheaper and cheaper, which may come back to bite them in the future.

My biggest concern about todays production rifles is: Button Rifling, Plastic Trigger Guards and Synthetic Stocks which may be too thin.  All of which only cheapen what may be a good rifle.  While I can't do much about Plastic Trigger Guards and Button Rifling, I usually only buy Walnut Stocks.  Then again, I am the type of person that when I needed a new roof, I picked a guy who would NOT use pneumatic Staples to apply the shingles.  It was all hammered nails.  So........what consitutes a good rifle or a good roof ?   I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder and the person paying the price.

Call me old fashioned and set on my ways.

[Coyote Hunter]

jvs –

Your information on the 03-A3’s is much more detailed than any I had had before and I thank you for providing it.  It does help make my case, however.  Modern manufacturing reduces waste and increases consistency by taking advantage of technology that was unavailable in earlier times.  Electronic monitoring and control is just one example, allowing furnace temperature to be more tightly controlled and the temperature of heated parts to be more accurately determined. Judging temperature by color, while entirely suitable for some purposes, is crude in comparison and inevitably leads to lower consistency.    Its kind of like measuring time by counting 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. or using an electronic timing device that measures to .01 seconds.  These days steel can be X-rayed to eliminate parts with internal faults and air gages that measure to 0.0001" assure a precision in finished barrels that was unobtainable in times gone by.  This technology is not used on every frearm, but it is available and is in use.

Wood does have its faults and it doesn’t necessarily require cold to bring them out.  The forestock on my Grandfather’s old Iver Johnson12 gauge (he had it when Grandma married him in 1921) is held together by glue and screws – it broke while sitting in the closet, probably due to humidity changes.  The butt stock on my Marlin 375 has a small piece missing where it joins the receiver – the result of a little too much pressure.  (I had replaced the original stock with a checkered stock from a 1895 .45-70 for aesthetic reasons – the old stock was in good shape but uncheckered.  The .45-70 stock came from a riew rifle that had been fitted with a synthetic.)  The new butt stock broke while sitting in the safe, within a couple months of my installing it.

While I like the looks of wood, I find myself gravitating toward synthetic stocks on new rifles.   Plastic trigger guards are not my first choice, but when I want an inexpensive but accurate shooter I’ll get a Savage or Stevens, and the plastic will not be a deterrent.  A lot of people seem to agree, as Savage sells a lot of these rifles.  for myself, Ruger works just fine and the aluminum floor plate and trigger guard are of no concern.

OK, you’re old fashioned and set in your ways.  We’re not really that much different. 

[lilabner]

It depends on what you mean by "good". If fine wood, a highly polished blue job and a hand honed action and trigger are in your definition, many older rifles are good compared to the new rifles. On the other hand, if accuracy is what interests you most, the new rifles with plastic parts will, as a group, outshoot those beautiful American production rifles of yesteryear. The proof of that is in the books of gun writers like Jack O'Connor. Jack considered a rifle that would shoot into an inch and a half an accurate rifle and one that could shoot inch size groups truly exceptional. Today, many of the new rifles will shoot groups of an inch or less, including some that cost under $400. If you want both quality build and fine accuracy, get a Sako.

[jvs]

  Modern manufacturing reduces waste and increases consistency by taking advantage of technology that was unavailable in earlier times.  Electronic monitoring and control is just one example, allowing furnace temperature to be more tightly controlled and the temperature of heated parts to be more accurately determined. Judging temperature by color, while entirely suitable for some purposes, is crude in comparison and inevitably leads to lower consistency.    Its kind of like measuring time by counting 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. or using an electronic timing device that measures to .01 seconds.  These days steel can be X-rayed to eliminate parts with internal faults and air gages that measure to 0.0001" assure a precision in finished barrels that was unobtainable in times gone by.  This tecnology is not used on every frearm, but it is available and is in use.

I never meant to infer that heat treating by color is the proper way to do it, but at one time it was the best way there was.  Obviously, modern treatment furnaces together with all of the sensors is by far superior.  But for its time, the A3-03 may have been the most modern firearm.   Did it have faults?  Absolutely.  But just because there were problems with the inception of the rifle, doesnt mean they were all bad.  Which leads me to the current topic.   Some people have problems with Remingtons, Winchesters, Savages, Rugers... whatever.  That doesnt necessarily mean that the whole production is full of faults.  The technology is out there to make a good rifle without sacrificing quality for the sake of the bottom line.  Considering the man hours involved that was necessary to make a good, quality rifle, todays cost is nothing compared to times past.  Your previous post considered the use of modern CNC machines, the Treatment Furnaces and Sensors are better.  I doubt that most rifle manufacturers make rifles to ISO standards for the general public, so having alot of those gadgets is just a formality.  The craftmen involved are at a minimum.  Most crafts are dying.  Today it doesnt take a Machinist to run a Lathe or a specialist to heat treat.  But the bottom line is always in need of adjustment because of Costs.  Which lately means constantly changing the recipe.   If it was me that was looking for something to shoot, I'd be looking at things made prior to the mid 60's or have one made from old military arms.

Sometime I think if my wife changed the recipe of my favorite meal as much as some gunmakers have changed the materials of their rifles, I would have traded her in long ago for a older model.

[sniperVLS]

All-Wood stocks? Whats that? 

I havent had one since the early 90s and that was on the 700 Mountain Rifle I no longer have. Everything is of the HS Prec. variety except for the VLS, I just prefer heavy barreled sticks and they all come with synthetic/laminate stocks.

The only wood stock I can see getting would come on the 700 CDL SF Limited. Hmmm, I blame you guys for putting that thought back in my mind. I'm running out of room in the safe!

[Coyote Hunter]

Brithunter –

As always, I enjoy reading your posts.

I agree fiberglass can age and deteriorate, especially if left exposed to the UV rays of the sun and the ravages of the elements.  Acid and alkali are particularly harmful to fiberglass.  In the case of boats, however, the wooden frame often deteriorates first, particularly in the transom area.  Most guns spend the better part of their life indoors and well protected, venturing out only on occasion.  A good paint job can help further protect the fiberglass but even without paint a good glass stock will last many, many years.

There is indeed a wide difference in the quality of the various types of synthetic gun stocks and I agree on your assessment of most injection-molded stocks, although they have their place.  Nevertheless, the best synthetic stocks are very good. 

While no synthetic will ever look as nice as presentation grade walnut, there are times when the synthetic is a better choice.  When I chose a shotgun I purchased a Remington 870 with a synthetic stock even though I really like the Browning BPS my buddy has and that I shoot very well. When we duck and goose hunt the weather is often wet and the ground is often muddy and I just couldn’t see treating a walnut-stocked BPS that way.  My Ruger M77 MKII in .300 Win Mag has the “canoe paddle” stock and was chosen for exactly that reason – all my other big game rifles had walnut stocks and I wanted something that would be impervious to the rain and snow we often encounter when hunting elk.

[Sigma]

Brit,

Just a comment on the Blaser R93. Blaser R93 a good rifle? I would not shoot one, and I'm German.

The Blaser R93 is not a Bolt Action.

From Blaser: "The rifle does not have a lug-type bolt locking system, and the bolt does not rotate to lock. Instead, an entire ring of thin spring-like fingers with knuckles surround the bolt about a half-inch behind the boltface. These fingers are wedged outward when the bolt is shoved home, and the internal wedge is driven back on contact with the cartridge case in the chamber."

This design is easily comprimised in the event of overpressure in the chamber during which the entire assembly launches rearward in the shooter's face. 

Norwegian Jan Sorlie and and German Joachim Huf are two persons who would probably never shoot one again. They got the entire action in the face...and they're not the only ones.

[Brithunter]

Hi Sigma,

     Yes I understand abotut Blasers Collet locking system and I also understand that some have had problems with them especially in Africa. However not knowing the exact circumstances in which both those gentlemen had accidents with the Blaser R93 it would be improper to speculate. One thing does come to mind regarding this it reminds me of the Ross Mk111 or M-10 saga.

      Ahhh Coyote Hunter,

                Elk hunting  yes that is one thing I would love to try  but for now it must remain a dream  . I even picked up a 30-06 rifle last year just in case  I was looking into Elk Hunting at the time and then had the choice of these rifles:-

Parker-Hale (P-H) 1200 Super 7.92mm (8x57 mauser)
BSA Majestic Feather Weight .270 Win
BSA Monarch .270 Win
BSA CF2 7x57mm
BSA Model E .303 British (this is a sporterised by BSA circa 1950) P-14.
Husqvarna Model 46 9.3x57m

      Now speaking to outfitters most seemed to think that something like a 30-06 would be best even though using commercial European ammo like S&B 196 Grn SPCE which is claimed to give a velocity of 2650Fps which puts it firmly in the same areana. So I started looking at 30-06 rifles. Yes I would have considered a .300 WM if I had come across one having once had a Ruger No1B chambered for that cartridge  . Well in my  local gunshop he had this P-H 1100 deluxe in 30-06 which had a 3-9x42 Tasco titan scope fitted. The price I thought was a little high so I did a little digging and found out that Tasco really rate their Titan scope and it's darned pricey  Well I was trading a shotgun and came away with the rifle plus a cheque. I am still working up loads for the 30-06  .

    You never know things might just one day improve so I can make the trip  Hmm that reminds me I must get onto the DNR about the hunter certificate, seems my trianing here will let me get it without doing the course and test  .

[Questor]

I was curious about the Blaser and was really surprised to see how many are for sale by private parties. Wonder what that's all about? In handguns it usually means that the customer is not satisfied and wants to get rid of the gun.

[dukkillr]

I would add that "good" to me also has something to do with style.  For instance I've been given a custom mauser and a sporterized springfield that each have unique histories and are quality guns.  If I were given a savage or stevens or some other cheap gun it wouldn't be the same.  I guess what i'm saying is that *TO ME* cheap things don't make good heirlooms or pass down guns.  I'll keep my nicer model 12s for my kids but i don't bat an eye when i ding up my cheap 870. 

A bic will light a fire as well as a zippo, but i wouldn't be as proud to own or pass on the bic.

[Brithunter]

Part of the problem recieved with the Blaser R93 is that it's straight pull action and historically they have not been accepted well by US shooters. Not even your own remington 6mm Navy was well taken to then of course there was the Ross despite the early ones actually being made in the US. Obendorf mauser in 1996 launched the M96 slide bolt which rather daftly was designed with teh US market in mind and was not exactly embraced by American shooters 

   I think that people like the quality of the Blaser R93 but then cannot (or will not) adapt to the straight bolt movement. You do not see many used ones for sale here in the UK. Those that buy them often buy barrels in other chamberings but seldom part with the rifles.