Quality improvements in modern rifle receivers?

[His lordship.]

I had read an article several years ago that there was a custom rifle maker that had to start making their own receivers because the major makers had alignment defects.  They would not say the name, but at that time (early 2000's) I thought it was probably Remington, and or, Winchester.  However Ruger, Sako, and Browning were around too.  I also remember all the self help issues on having to "blueprint your action", "bed the action and barrel", etc.  Despite spending alot of money on a new gun, they became "kit guns".  A person had to invest time and money to get them to shoot right.   

Has the quality gone up on these major makers of bolt guns? 

Thanks.

[Retsof]

Chris,

I can't give you even a general opinion of the current crop of rifles out there. However, I can offer an answer about the one I do have, which is a Ruger 77 MK II. These rifles have integral scope mounts and, if the rifle is purchased new, also come with a set of rings. I bought it 4 years ago and right out of the box, after bore sighting it, it was accurate and on target after making 2 or 3 scope sight adjustments at the range. I did not (and in fact never have for any rifle I've owned) use a scope alignment tool. So, I can't really say anything about the receiver/mount alignment on my Ruger. I just know that it shot well then and still shoots well now with the same scope. Since I am by necessity primarily a short range deer hunter, that's good enough for me.

[john keyes]

Has the quality gone up on these major makers of bolt guns? 

no.
has it gone downhill?  I don't know. most of my guns shoot far better than me and my handcrafted ammo.  but I'll take the old stuff everytime.  of course the ultimate goal of the gun makers is to end up with a product that did not have to be touched by a single human hand.  the technology has improved some areas but I say as a whole of course the manufacturers are always looking for cheaper material, outsourced labor, and full automation.
I bought one of the last savage 99's out of the factory.  they stopped making them because there was a step in the process where a HUMAN had to hand fit a part.   

now as far as old goes, I do in fact think there was some real crap turned out during the late 70's and 80's so old is not better all of the time. 

[Swampman]

The tolerances in modern rifles are much tighter because they can be.  CNC machinery is awesome.  The Winchester machinery was worn out.  Winchester never really had a reputation for accuracy.  All that has changed since they were bought by FN.

[Skunk]

Winchester never really had a reputation for accuracy.

 

[His lordship.]

Retsof...you bring up an interesting point.  Ruger uses cast construction in their receivers, there is no way a machinist could mill the mounting holes wrong, as each part is the same as the earlier parts, etc., unless the machinery is worn/defective.

I have been looking at the newer bolt guns, and the Ruger Hawkeye had really good balance and feel, and the Mk. 2 was a bit heavier.  I was leaning toward the Ruger as I have a bunch of their other guns, and I have been happy with them.  But, I am still looking and have not checked out several others like the Mossberg, new Winchester 70, etc.

[Retsof]

Chris,

You should keep looking until you fine the one that's right for you. Besides, most of the fun is mulling over different rifles' pros & cons (until you go crazy, then it's time just to pick one). I do like Rugers, as I have several of them in addition to the 1 I mentioned: A 10/22 (everyone I know has got one of these); an old style Ruger 44 Mag semi auto carbine; and, a GP100. I like them all for different reasons. With this being said, the rifle that I was most impressed with was a Win 70 in 270 caliber (not a pre-64 nor 1 of the new models). I bought the rifle new about 20 years age. From the start, the bolt was silky smooth and I liked the way the bolt shroud/body was separated from the firng pin by simply pressing a button. Also, the balance was great. But I was younger and dumber in those days and sold it for more than I paid. If I ever get the urge (more correctly stated as the "money"), I will buy another one.

Good luck in your search.

[Coyote Hunter]

I had read an article several years ago that there was a custom rifle maker that had to start making their own receivers because the major makers had alignment defects. 

The fact of the matter is that EVERY rifle has alignment defects – the difference is in the magnitude thereof.

They would not say the name, but at that time (early 2000's) I thought it was probably Remington, and or, Winchester.  However Ruger, Sako, and Browning were around too.  I also remember all the self help issues on having to "blueprint your action", "bed the action and barrel", etc.  Despite spending alot of money on a new gun, they became "kit guns".  A person had to invest time and money to get them to shoot right.   

Has the quality gone up on these major makers of bolt guns? 

Thanks.

While I’ve never owned a Winchester, I have owned Savage, Ruger and Remington.  Of my two Remington rifles the one made in 1975 shoots much better than the one made in 2005 and better than the then new SPS I scoped and sighted in for a friend a couple years back.  Such a low sample number is not conclusive by any means.

The 110E Savage I had was made prior to the late ‘90’s when Dad gave it to me after having owned it for some years. IT was a sporter-weight .22-250 that could put 5 shots on paper at 100 that could be covered with a dime.

My 1982 Ruger M77 printed a 3-shot group under .27” and my 1989 M77 in .257 Roberts has printed 3 at .232” at 100.  My M77 MKII heavy barrel .22-250 had printed 4 at 0.50” at 200 yards.  My MKII .300 WM doesn’t shoot quite as well but it tends to put two of three into ine enlarged hole with the third opening the group to 0.5”.

The thing about using better equipment, such as modern CNC machinery, is that the end product is only as good as the equipment set-up and maintenance, product design and human operation allows it to be.  The human operators are still often the weak link in the chain.  A design with sloppy tolerances can be machined very precisely and will still have sloppy fit and poorly maintained equipment and/or worn tooling can cause a variety of problems.  In the end, however, it is the human factor that provides the supervision and is responsible for equipment setup and maintenance and replacement of worn tooling, the quality of the design and the responsibility for accepting or rejecting machined parts.

When companies start cutting costs the quality of the end product is often the first thing to suffer.  Modern CNC equipment provides firearms companies with the ability to turn out a much more uniform product, with reduced machine time.  Whether or not individual companies have the procedures and processes in place to capitalize on that capability is an entirely different question.

[JPShelton]

Winchester never really had a reputation for accuracy.  All that has changed since they were bought by FN.

I guess the folks that used Winchester M-70 target rifles at Camp Perry wasted their money, huh?

[JPShelton]

Has the quality gone up in bolt guns?  I suppose that depends on the metrics one applies to define quality.

I am biased, because I own one, but I am inclined to think that at least where Savage is concerned, the quality of their bolt guns has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY since Ron Coburn took over the company.

Until recently, a Savage 110 derrivative rifle is something that I would NEVER have "stooped so low" as to even think about buying.  I knew people who bought them back in the 70's and 80's and they seemed, to put it politely, very haphazardly assembled and finished, though they all shot reasonably well.

The rifle that I bought will never be considered gunmaking art like the Griffin and Howe that I once owned could claim to be.  It was designed to reduce hand-fitting operations to a minimum.  Yet unlike some of the 80's M-110's that I'd handled, the rifle I bought doesn't have an errant tool mark on it anywhere, or mold lines on the investment cast parts.  The bore appeared to be very, very smooth.  Metal was nice medium polish and practical on a hunting rifle, with bluing that seemed deeper than what I remember Savage M-110's of a couple of decades ago having.

It shoots sub M.O.A. with a host of loads.  Unlike just about every Ruger centerfire rifle I've had, the bore on my Savage doesn't copper foul badly.  The bolt travel is smooth and the rifle feeds reliably.  Mine is a stagger-feed, blind-mag model.  I would reckon that the newer center-feed versions would be just as reliable.

My Savage replaced a CZ 550 American Classic that was stolen.  I thought that the single set trigger on the CZ was "the $hitzit" until I tried the Accu-Trigger at the range.  I'm very impressed with the Accu-Trigger and see no need to change it.  I also like the three-position safety and really like the location of it.  Another thing I like is that there isn't a cocking piece beyond the rear of the bolt handle.  This makes the Savage look a little goofy to some, but if you've ever shot an M-1903 Springfield with a standard LOP stock, you can appreciate the advantage of having nothing behind the bolt handle root to smack you in the face when you cycle the action while trying to maintain sight picture.  Since mine is a .243 and thus a short action, the rear of the bolt stays nice and far from my face when I work the action.  I think that's beautiful.

The real beauty of the Savage bolt action is in the design.  It seems to me that there is a lot of engineering brilliance in it on a lot of levels and I tend to think that it was, perhaps, a little ahead of its time.  The only real drawback that I can see is that the initial bolt lift effort is a little high compared to other brands.

-JP

[Retsof]

JP,

+1 on the Savage, based on a sample of one.

My Son-in-Law has a Savage 270 winchester. I don't know if the scope mounting holes are lined up perfectly or not. All I know is that recently this rifle shot 6 of 7 different brands of factory ammo into tiny groups at 100 yards (3-shot groups since factory ammo can be expensive). The bolt works smoothly and the Accutrigger is in my opinion great. 

[Zachary]

I had read an article several years ago that there was a custom rifle maker that had to start making their own receivers because the major makers had alignment defects.  They would not say the name, but at that time (early 2000's) I thought it was probably Remington, and or, Winchester. 

I don't know about any article, but I do know that there was a gunsmith up north who told me that when Remington first introduced its 300 Ultra Mag rifles, there were some issues, but, as I sit here right now, I don't remember if it was alignment issues between the receiver and the barrel or other related issues.  In any event, I heard that Remington's following batch of rifles in that cartridge were resolved.

I myself have a Remington Stainless Synthetic in .300 Ultra Mag and also 7mm Ultra Mag.  I have not shot the 300 Ultra yet, but I did shoot the 7mm Ultra and it was quite accurate.  I do recall that the recoil was fierce...like a Cobra!

I own many brands of rifles - Remington, Winchester, Sako, Tikka, Browning, and Kimber.  All my rifles are very accurate with at least 1 type of factory hunting loads.

Zachary

[jro45]

I have the 458 Lott and that has more stuff on it then I could think of like set trigger, the magazine holds 6 rounds, the sights are for 100,200,300, different leaves and the stock is laminated. One sweet rifle.

[blackpowderbill]

I don't think any of the modern designs are appreciably better than a good Mauser 1898, just more economical to produce. If you want a lightweight rifle, the US m1903 was a good starting point. If you want to make a magnum, then start with a 1917 Enfield. These are all great actions, if they had any real failing by todays standards I believe it is cost. A Rem 700  or Savage bolt action is designed for low cost production. This is not bad either. At what it would cost to make the 1917 action (Rem mod 30) today, not many of us could afford that rifle. Most of us can however scrape up enought to get that new Savage if we really wanted it, I believe.

[Dave in WV]

Custom rifle builders true the actions and do a lot of fitting you don't find on mass produced firearms due to cost. Just how true a hunting rifle needs to be is a question for someone else. As long as my rifles shoot well enough and work reliably I don't worry about it. Some folks want a work of art and others a tool. Each to their own.

[blackpowderbill]

It's fun to sit at the range behind a stack of sandbags and print half inch groups but I do not believe it is a very practical excersize. If I can put my shots into 3 inches and at point of aim at 100 yards from an improvised hunting possition, I'm happy. That will put meat upon my table. Any of my beat up milsurps will do that much.

[MGMorden]

Retsof...you bring up an interesting point.  Ruger uses cast construction in their receivers, there is no way a machinist could mill the mounting holes wrong, as each part is the same as the earlier parts, etc., unless the machinery is worn/defective.

This may have already been addressed (I scaned the later posts but didn't see it), but from my understanding the Ruger receivers are rough cast, but still need the CNC mill to come over and clean up certain areas like actual mounting holes, rails, etc.  It's just that the basic shape of the receiver is already set out of the mold.  That's just what I've heard though.

[Coyote Hunter]

This may have already been addressed (I scaned the later posts but didn't see it), but from my understanding the Ruger receivers are rough cast, but still need the CNC mill to come over and clean up certain areas like actual mounting holes, rails, etc.  It's just that the basic shape of the receiver is already set out of the mold.  That's just what I've heard though.

The Ruger receivers are cast to very close tolerances.  One of the advantages of this process is that the time on the milling machines (a limited resource costing big $$$ per hour) is greatly reduced. 

[blackpowderbill]

If you look over a Ruger revolver, centerfire auto or centerfire rifle, you will note that many of the surfaces are "as cast". They are cast very close to final dimension and in the case of nonworking surfares that do no require fine polishing, they are often left as cast.
  This eliminates much of the time and money spent upon machining and polishing.