opinions on higher priced guns

[TScottO]

I read this forum but don't comment often. I'm more of a handgun nut. I have a Remington 700 bdl, Ruger 77, No. 1, and an A-bolt. Most of the brands of guns talked about are Remington, Winchester, Tikka and Ruger. I've been wanting to buy a new big bore rifle but I'm wanting to buy one of the other brands that aren't talked about as much. Such as Sako or Sauer or others of a little higher quality I'm not aware of. I'd like for you all to give me the advantages over the higher priced brands and what makes them better if they are better. Pros and cons. Is the quality better than american made guns or are they more expensive because of importing? Are they worth the extra cost?

Good luck and be safe,
Scott

[longwinters]

There are guns in all price ranges that will shoot MOA groups.  I tend to think that some rifles are better built than others even though they may shoot the same size groups. But does it make a real difference?  I really dont know. I have a $1000.00 Sako and a $550.00 Tikka.  Big difference in price and the Sako does have more $$ involved in the manufacturing etc.  But I could carry or shoot either one and be proud of what I am using.  My son has a Remington ,stainless lamintated,  that I could say the same for.  I think the more expensive rifles are just an itch that for some of us needs to be scratched.  If you have to drive a $40,000.00 pickup to feel good about your wheels then you probably will want to carry a high dollar rifle in there when you go hunting.  If you are happy with a 7 year old $10,000.00 truck then most any gun will do . . . as long as it does what you expect of it. So for a person, like me, of moderate income, The Sako was a goal that took several years to fulfill.  It was an itch that I just had to scratch.  I am not a philosopher, probably even spelled it wrong.  But an expensive rifle gives you one thing that a less expensive one will not. . . it gives you a more expensive rifle. :lol:

long

[Graybeard]

Wish one of my trucks was only 7 years old and worth $10K.  :eek:  But neither is and both together may not be.  :roll:

For a hunting rifle I'd rather have a Remington 700 with a laminated stock and SS metal than any of the fancy high dollar beauties. That's not to say if you spend $3500-10,000 on a custom rifle it won't shoot a wee bit better than my pair of R700 LSS Mtn. Rifles but I will say that in the field the difference will do you no good. Both shoot well under MOA with a variety of hand loads and factory ammo. What more do you need?

If nice wood and blued steel and a high price tag crank yore tractor I'd say go for it. But realize it ain't gonna do one thing any better than the rifles you now have.

GB

[crow_feather]

I THINK THE QUALITY OF YOUR RIFLE DEPENDS ON THE HUNTING THAT YOU DO.  MY DAD WOULD GO OUT OPENING MORNING, SHOOT HIS DEER WITH HIS REM 760 IN .270 CALIBER AND GO HOME.  THAT HUNTING NEEDS A REMINGTON, WINCHESTER, RUGER, OR BROWNING IN THE ACTION OF YOUR CHOICE AND OF A CALIBER THAT YOU CAN SHOOT ACCURATELY.

NOW IF YOU GO TO THE RANGE WITH YOUR 597-350 THUMBLICHER AT LEAST 10 TIMES TO TRY DIFFERENT LOADS EVEN THOUGH YOUR GOING TO SHOOT FACTORY ON THE HUNTING TRIP, GO TO HUNTING CAMP WITH THAT SAME THUMBLICHER SITTING IN THE RACK IN THE BACK WINDOW OF YOUR TRUCK, AND SPEND THE FIRST DAY AND NIGHT IN CAMP DISCUSSING THE QUALITIES OF YOUR THUMBLICHER WHICH IS STANDING IN A PROMINATE PLACE WHERE MOST PEOPLE HAVE TO STEP OVER IT, AND ON OPENING MORNING MISS YOUR BUCK WALKING BY BECAUSE YOU ARE TAKING PICTURES OF YOUR THUMBLICHER PERCHED ATOP A STUMP WITH THE MORNING SUN SHINING ON IT'S LUSTEROUS WOOD AND METAL - THEN YOU NEED A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE RIFLE THAN THOSE PREVIOUSLY LISTED.

[vmaxx]

I have experience with, Ruger, Winchester, Remington and Sako. All in .243 caliber. The most accurate-Sako shooting 1/4 to 1/2 inch groups at 100 yds with Reminton being second shooting at or just above 1/2 inch. The Ruger and the Winchester shooting 1/2 to 3/4 inch at 100 yd. Best craftmanship, Sako 3 lug lock up and 70 degree bolt throw, box magazine can be taken out or load from the top, smooth action all around great design. The Remington smooth bolt nice gun except for the cheap made extractor. I liked the older models with the machined riveted in type extractor, new ones apear to be a stamped out part. The Ruger is a good rugged gun but has just a bit of play in the bolt. The Winchester seems to have the biggest chamber and shot best with once fired brass. The Sako shot groups near 1/4 moa with new brass. It had nearly a match grade chamber, tolerances really close. The Sako was the only gun i didn't have to tweak to get a good degree of accuracy out of. I did reduce the trigger to two pounds though. The synthetic stock on the Winchester was spongey so I put it into a boyd's thumbhole. The synthetic stock on the Sako was rock solid - no give. Stock on the Ruger- heavy, laminated wood. The synthetic stock on the Reminton seemed good enough. Only thing on the Sako that I didn't take right to was the safety lever, seems slippery but that could just be me. Feed ramp was a little rough on the Remington, it scratched the cases a bit. Sako was the only rifle that shot good groups with new cases. The other did their best after cases had been fire once.
vmaxx

[tominboise]

Agree with Vmaxx - I have 3 Win M70's, one Marlin MR-7, One Tikka, One Sako.  The Tikka and Sako shoot great out of the box.  The marlin did as well, although not as elegant as the other two.  Of course, it cost 1/2 to 1/3 as much.  My last WIn M70 cost 2/3 the price of the Sako, and needed (and still needs) mucho work to make it run right (bedding, trigger, extractor).  In all fairness, the other two M70's don't have these issues, but one is a pre-64 that is extremely accurate (but has a lousy trigger), and the other is a "classic" stainless 7mm Rem Mag I bought used and that shoots great.  I did have to rebed that one this year, however.

Buying quality only hurts once.  It's eerily similar to buying optics - once you go high end, it's hard to go the other way, because, darn it, there IS a difference.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

I've had a Cooper---a Kimber---3 Weatherby's---a Winchester Super Grade etc........all my safe queens are gone and I'm down to ''down and dirty'' rifles.

2 Tikka T3's .223 & .243---Burris & Ziess
a Colt Light rifle 7mm Mag--Leupold
a Win Black Shadow .30-06---Zeiss

With another T3 coming if I could ever figure out what caliber I want next---probably a .338---but then again it wouldn't get used much---so maybe a .270 or .25-06.

All are accurate---didn't cost me that much---get used a lot instead of sitting in the safe------and I don't have to worry about getting them scratched or dirty.

Things I look for in a rifle now are tiny little groups and the ability to get the job done without me having to worry about it.

Been there---Done that

[Lawdog]

TScottO,

I have Weatherby rifles(more than my share but I collect them) and think they are just that little bit better.  The fit/finish is just a little nicer.  But for everyday hunting are they better?  Maybe in a persons mind but not in real life.  What do I grab when heading out the door for deer, usually my Ruger M77 V in .25-06.  If I think I may run into something a little bigger/tougher then I most likely will grab a .30-06 I customized for my father or I will grab that .300 Weatherby that I've been using since 1963.  Now if I'm traveling any distance for a hunt then I usually grab one of my Weatherby's, caliber depends on what I'm going after.  Reason for this is I have complete confidence in those Weatherby magnums.  I know they will do the job no matter what comes up.  Lawdog

[jhm]

Tscotto :  Over years I have been fortunate to own rifles in the 3500 to 5000 dollar range, and I cant think of any one of them that was able to outshoot any of the existing rifles I own at this time, HOWEVER thers is a different feel / fit / finish on a quality rifle I love them but being a businessman and a tightwad some say I have left the ranks of the no matter what it cost I will own it crowd, and have been in the bread and butter rifles the last 10 to 15 years, I have nothing against them or the person who owns them, if a man has the means without hurting his family and he finds that particular once in a lifetime rifle I say go for it, but be a little more careful who you loan it to as you will be worrying about it the whole time it is out of your sight, ( I have had vary good friends who came back with rifles and just insisted on keeping them as they fell in love with it and said name your price, and so I did ) bottom line we will buy the rifles that fit our income level, as your income increases in the years your taste for higher quality and price will go up as well.   JIM

[Lee D.]

Fine rifles/shotguns are just that.  They can't shoot any better than the less expensive.  If you want the fine gun get you won't be sorry.  I bought my Anschutz 20 years ago with the meister grade wood.  I never regret a penny I paid for it.  I expect to wear it out by the time I'm about 85 but if not I will let my son finish.  I have a ruger 10/22 that shoots about as accurately but is no where near the pleasure to me.  High dollar high power rifles are of no interest to me but I understand the desire and the pleasure you can get from one.  If the only reason you need one is to impress people that is okay to, the guy who made it will still thank you on the way to the bank and most people will get a good laugh at your expense, both of which are good for society.

[TScottO]

You all are correct. The rifles I have now will serve any purpose I have short of African game. If we always bought things that were practical it would be a boring life. Variety is the spice of life? I've always tried to buy the best I can afford. The rifles I own now don't see more use than for hunting purposes and frequent shooting two or three months prior to deer season. I'm a blue collar guy like the majority of you that has an expensive habit. What would seem to be an excellent quality rifle on my budget would be someone elses normal purchase. A lot of people here probably have more guns than they can shoot regularly. But buying guns even when we don’t need them is good for several reasons: It keeps the firearms industry and business and keeps us growing in our firearms culture and hobby to name a few.

When I do decide to purchase a little pricier rifle I want to buy what seems to be the better quality gun in that price range.

Talking about $40k trucks   I opted for a much less expensive truck so I can support my gun habit. lol One must have their priorities in line!

Thanks everyone for your replies. You're a good group of guys.

Good luck and be safe,
Scott

[Zachary]

The Sako shot groups near 1/4 moa with new brass. It had nearly a match grade chamber, tolerances really close. The Sako was the only gun i didn't have to tweak to get a good degree of accuracy out of. vmaxx

So very true.  I recently bought  a NIB Sako 75 Stainless Synthetic in 7mm-08.  It cycles Hornady ammo great, but Federal ammo required some forcing.  I took it to an authorized Sako dealer and they told me that the quality on the Sako is so high that, in this particular case, is wasn't a good thing because, in his opinion, the Federal brass was on the high side of tolerances, which caused the problem.

I haven't shot MY particular Sako yet, but I have shot several others and, if I can make a general statement, the Sakos outshoot all of the other factory gun manufacturers.  But even then it's not by too much.  Sakos are followed by Tikka, Remington, and Savage.  Yes, Savage - these guns can really shoot.

Now, is the Sako worth the extra $500 or so dollars?  Well, only you can answer that question.  While I have seen Savages shoot almost as well, and in some cases better, than a Sako, the Savages just feel sloppy to me.  While remington has gone down in quality over the years, I still think that it is better quality than Savage - no questions asked.  Tikka and Remington are about the same price.  I prefer the Tikkas over the Remingtons (at least the older WH S/S models).

Zachary