Author Topic: quality common mans hunting rifle??? (Read 5572 times)

Swampman · « **Reply #60 on:** November 03, 2009, 12:42:25 PM »

The pre-64 Winchesters aren't usually very accurate. The new FN Winchesters are sub-MOA rifles.

gunnut69 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 04, 2009, 06:11:03 AM »

Well Now swampy... The pre64 M70 isn't very accurate... that's an interesting statement. The pre64 was the darling of most of the riflemen of the era and are still quite good shooters.. Most will shoot netter than the shooter but more importantly they are not likely to loose value. The remingtons will loose value at the first shot. If the money is available a pre64 is always the best choice for a hunting rifle.. They aren't water proof but worked well for many years.. they may not be target accurate but neither are we and that level of accuracy is not needed but in the end they will be a good investment and will as they always have do the job.. Also I noticed the statement that mausers always need a new barrel for best accuracy, and that may be true, of ANY rifle thats fired a heck of a lot of rounds.. The mauser 98 is an extremely well engineered action and properly bedded and with a good barrel will shoot with the best and way better than minute of deer. I will give you this swampy.. if remington gave points for die hard fans you would have to be the winner(or at least in the top 5).. I love remingtons but know their weaknesses.. The triggers are weak. While adjustable they use a part not under spring load that can and has stuck. This can and has led to AD's. They use a very stiff and concentric tubular receiver and that aids accuracy but the seperate washer used as a recoil lug requires special handling to be accurately placed,.,. not well placed can cause acccuracy problems. The extractors are weak. They usually function OK but compared to the non rotating mauser or pre64 M70 they're not even in the same league.. I've seen M700 extractors fail in the field..only mauser style extractor failures were associated with alterations made by well intentioned people.. (the M98 is way better than the pre64 M70).. There is no practical difference in modern made hunting rifle.. Most target rifles are based on the m700 becuase of it's availability and the tubular design. It lends itself to easy work in the lathe.. Also the extractor is irrelavent in the target field.. and many are changed to use an M16 or sako design..

Brithunter · « **Reply #62 on:** November 04, 2009, 07:01:29 AM »

Hey swampman you had better check the Remingtons lineage

as it's actually based on the Mauser 98

you see the US rifle Model of 1917 is actually a modified British Pattern 14 which was a modified pattern 13 which was based on the Mauser by the Royal manufactory at Enfield Lock after the marksmanship shown by the Boers of South Africa in the 2nd Boer awr of 1897-1902 and the Boers used M93 and M95 Mausers the M98 still being in development back then

.

Remington used the British machinery installed to fullfil the Pattern 14 contract after WW1 to make the sporting rifles model 30 etc.

I'll also bet that Col Townsend Whelan is turning in his grave to hear you rant on and saying that the Winchester Model 70 was inaccurate

. Hmmm I suggest you get a copy of Whelan's book "The Hunting Rifle- from Wolfe Publishing and read it as it seems your education is woefully lacking

as your on these forums I am assuming that you CAN READ!

Rifle

hunt-m-up · « **Reply #63 on:** November 04, 2009, 07:08:19 AM »

Guys...he wipes with green and yellow toilet paper with big R's on it, it's not going to sink in with the Swampman.

mannyrock · « **Reply #64 on:** November 05, 2009, 08:01:54 AM »

I have never seen a pre-64 model 70 Winchester, in VG condition, in a deer caliber, that would not shoot factory ammo into 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards, either as is, or with a small amount of adjustment. This is way more than accurate for hunting deer and other large game.

Finn Aagard's favorite hunting rifle, that he shot more big game with than any other rifle, was an early 1950s FN commercial mauser, with a stepped down military barrel, in .30-06. He bragged that it would only group 2 inches from a bench on a good day. He was more interested in hunting than the science of getting small groups.

Regards,

Mannyrock

Swampman · « **Reply #65 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:01:13 AM »

I don't consider 1.5" groups much to talk about. I'm looking at 3/4" groups as barely worth mentioning. The rest of the comments are simply not true. The Sako extractor mod is dangerous and unnecessary.

wtroger · « **Reply #66 on:** November 05, 2009, 11:08:49 AM »

Oh well I'll just pour more Kerosene on this fire.
Out of the box pure stock best bang for the Buck Savage / Stevens 1x 11x series can be bought for $300.00 on up.

gunnut69 · « **Reply #67 on:** November 06, 2009, 06:31:03 AM »

I've worked on guns for 40 years or so.. and on most kinds. Each has weak points but the M98 is by far the best designed. The M70 is very poor at handling pierced primers or any release of high pressure gasses. The Remington does really well here if the extractor is left original, break the seal at the breach and there is nearly nothing to stop gas migration to the rear.. Their triggers contain an extra component called a 'trigger connector' I believe and is not tensioned. The least grime or rust or other debris can and has kept it from repositioning. The can lead to an AD, not good. A replacement trigger has been installed in the line in the last few years.. It is of poor quality. Savage had problems too. Their triggers (until the accutrigger) were only partially adjustable and were pretty crude, with the return spring also repositioning the sear.. Also their looks left much to be desired. Ruger also has faults but they have gone the other way.. The M77 tang safety was a really finer rifle and converting it to controlled round feed would have made it great.. The MKII has no adjustment on the trigger(the boss for the adjustment screws were cast in place but not finished) and the safety's are sometimes atrocious.. The MKII's safety mimicks the striker locking safety of the M70 but doesn't work that way, it's just a trigger block..
Brithunnter- The M700 series rifles are not decendants of the P14. That was the 1917 US service rifle which became the M30 and M725.. The design was Britich but the tooling was remington and when the US was readying for war it had Remington adapt the P14 to the 30-06 and the 1917 was born. After the war the tool was used to produce the M30 and M725 rifles. The tubular receiver of the M700 was introduced with the M721(long action)-M722(short action) rifles. The trigger while it appears different than todays M700 is basically identical. Bottom metal, stock options have changed but parts will interchange pretty freely. I built a 721 into a 270 and added bottom metal from a M700 DBM. It's a perfect marriage..
Almost all rifles have faults even the M98 but as far as hunting rifles go the M98 is likely the high water mark. It has been said it gives up some accuracy because of the pressure on the cartridge rim by it's extractor. I would bet that few if any could prove that.. It's been said its striker fall is slow and perhaps so, but I've never noticed.. I submit the difference between the shooters skill and most rifles capabilities is where the reall disparity lies. They're all good. At this point I've over 200 rifles of all ilks and love them all. All are interesting and functional.. Have great day. I've vented. sorry! Jerry

Brithunter · « **Reply #68 on:** November 06, 2009, 08:04:44 AM »

Ahhhh cheers for correcting my error

I am not familar with Remington's more modern numbers and where they came in.

However the P-14 tooling WAS shipped over from Enfield Lock problem is they sent no inspectors so parts from the Eddystone plant might fit a Remington marked rifle or Winchester one but it's by luck not manufacture. Whilst the other Enfields are totally interchanagble. The inspectors would have shown that this had to be done and made sure that it was done it would have simplified the armourers job in the field one reason why the P-14 was not more fully adopted and downgraded to reserve use.

Not knocking any of the US manufactures it's just that they were not used to working to the pattern guage system that the British had perfected over the centuries.

Swampman · « **Reply #69 on:** November 06, 2009, 09:33:56 AM »

The English patten system was widely circumvented by British contractors. Brown Bess muskets came in all sizes. England has never had much of a reputation when it comes making mechanical things.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #70 on:** November 06, 2009, 12:46:04 PM »

Quote from: Brithunter on November 06, 2009, 08:04:44 AM

Ahh cheers for correcting my error I am not familar with the Remington more modern numbers and where they came in.

However the P-14 tooling WAS shipped over from Enfield Lock problem is they sent no inspectors so parts from the Eddystone palnt might fit a Remington marked rifle or Winchester one but it's by luck not manufacture. Whilst the other Enfields are totally interchanagble. The inspectors woudl have shown that this had to be done and made sure that it was done it would have simplified the armourers job in the field one reason why the P-14 was not more fully adopted and downgraded to reserve use.

Not knocking any of the US manufactures it's just that they were not used to working to the pattern guage system that the British had perfected over the centuries.

Are you sure the P-14/ P-17 were English Designs? I understood they were a US design that was fitted to take the 303 brit round and enfield stripper clips. The action is longer than needed for 303 Brit. and sold to the British to aument the British arsinals and US made Savage Enfields. As well as augment the Springfield 1903's. The P-14 was a favorite to make into one of the belted short mags in the 50's and 60's like the 338 Win Mag, 264 Win Mag and 458 Win Mag. Yes the first Winchester Mags 338, 264, and 458 were originally called Short Mags.
Later the P-14 / 17 was made into the Remington Model 30 rifles both reworked military and new rifles made.

gunnut69 · « **Reply #71 on:** November 06, 2009, 05:54:55 PM »

As to where the tooling came from I am unsure.. Just seemed I remembered the main makers of the 1917 where expanded when the US gov forced a remake of the British designed P14. By the way there is NO P17, The P14(Pattern 14) was a British designation for a rifle designed at Enfield to chamber a .276 inch cartridge that was similar to the 280 Rem but the fortunes of war aurgued against changing the battle rifle caliber in mid stream as it were.. The US's entry into the war and a woeful lack of weapons dictated the alteration of the P14 into the 1917 Enfield. Remington them opened a second manufactory at Eddystone and Winchester built tooling to get into the production fray also.. The US's lack of weapons even led us to use the French Chauchau.. and miserable light machine gun built by a plumbing maker.. Wifes grand father was a solder in the first great war and he was a Chauchau gunner.. He told me once that the best day he had was when he thru it away..and was reassigned. I have worked with the various american built enfields many times and never noticed a desparity in parts fit. There are differences between the P14 and 1917 versions but nothing unusual.. The P14 was a British design as testified to by its cock on closing design.. An abomination to most American shooters though the No4 and No1 the Brits used for many years were trully great battle rifles. Neither were ever considered great shakes to built fancy sporters.. though some were. As to British technolodgy.. The P51 Mustang, likely the premiere fight of WWII would have been a true DUD without that wonderful RollsRoyce Merlin.. and the 1st 2 nations with jet fighter aircraft were Germany and Great Britain.. The Brits were only just behind the Germans.. They unfortunately allowed the Russians access to the techknowledgy and the result was a nasty surprise in the skies over Korea,,the MiG15.. The brits techknowledgy is just fine they have gotten into the socialist thing a bit deep for my taste and have paid a high price.. The American built enfields are fine actions for heavy calibers or long magnum rounds. I bought 9 a few months ago and they are wanting to be serious heavies asap.. Just haven't the time just now..

Brithunter · « **Reply #72 on:** November 07, 2009, 03:59:01 AM »

Hmmm let me see the P-14 was a modification of the P-13 which was the one designed from scratch to take the high velocity .276 Enfield cartridge. It was called the Pattern 13 as this was 1913 and was quickly changed to suit the 303 MkV11 cartridge with the onset of war in 1914 and so became the Pattern 14 rifle however the firms of BSA, London Small arms and the Enfield manufactory at Enfield Lock were still mainly tooled up for the SMLE so this was carried on with but the requirement for more rifles meant that Remington and Winchester were asked to make the Pattern 14 under contract. The tooling at Enfield lock was taken down and shipped to America where it was copied to equipe the other two plants as Remington adopted the new Railway engine works at Eddystone to fullfil this huge order.

By 1917 the contract was finished and the US was just entering into the war and found itself in the same position of being short of rifles and the amounts of 03 Springfields on hand did not meet the demand and Springfield armoury could not match the production demand either so the commercial makers Winchester and Remington were approached and the idea was put forwards by them to adapt the P-14 enfield to use the std 30-06 US cartidge and this was done and the rifle adopted as the US Rifle of 1917. In fact the US used and had more Model 1917 rifles than 03 Springfields and after the war an idea to fully adopt the superior Model 1917

was put forwards however the old "not designed here" syndrome popped up and the Springfield was kept but with some "Enfield" ideas incorporated like the far superior battle peep sights. Strange considering that the Springfield 03 was actually based on the Mauser so much so that the US paid Mauser royalties on his design!

Swampmans uneducated comments don't deserve a proeper answer. However for those more educated the Pattern system and Pattern Room was set up to standardise the production of military arms for the British forces with the adoption of the .577" rifled musket. Before this time the weapons were produced under the jobbing scheme and the jobber owned his tools the government owned nothing but the finished product which was proof tested at the Tower of London. I believe it was Sir Joseph Whitworth who advised the building of the state Manufactory at Enfield Lock and he supplied soem of his machines to fit it out. othrs came from the US such as some stock machining equipment however this was sometime later than the introduction of the Pattern Room.

Oh one slight correction the jet engines invention is attributed to "Sir" Frank Whittle but sadly due to finance and production constraints the Germans got their Jets into the air before Britian did

As for the P-51 well it would be a close run thing between the Tempest or Typhoon and the P-51. Both the Tempest and Typoon seem to be forgotten in the hype for the Spitfire here in the UK yet they were actually faster and fast enough to catch the V1's and the ME262's

.

Swampman · « **Reply #73 on:** November 07, 2009, 04:03:57 AM »

The british are known to be the best at everything

Do some research grrrrrrrrrr!

fox fire · « **Reply #74 on:** November 07, 2009, 06:15:18 AM »

IS THIS A GREAT WEB SITE OR WHAT! you guys are genius, wish I could absorb and retain information like that, always interesting here, more entertaining than television by far, and ya never know the direction a subject mite go.

Brithunter · « **Reply #75 on:** November 07, 2009, 07:43:23 AM »

your welcome fox fire

. It's easy when you have an avid interest in these things. My primary interest was at one time Enfields however I am more interested in the British Stalking/Sporting rifles nowadays. I would love to have a P-13 in .276 Enfield and yes some did survive. I also belong to a reaseach association and they dug deeply into the development of the P-13 and produced several reports on the subject.

Ths calibre .276" was of particular interest to the British shooters it seems. I suspect it was due to the performance of the 7mm Mauser against the British Army in South Africa then of course came along the .280 Ross and in 1913 it won the majority of the major competition at the Imperial Meeting at Bisley camp.

tangob5 · « **Reply #76 on:** November 08, 2009, 07:26:04 AM »

WOW! There seems to be a lot of Remington loyality here. I used to like them and also used to like Ruger's. Remington (which owns Marlin and TC) gets a thumbs down now because they are owned by the same holding company that gave us the Chrysler bankrupcy, Cerberus Capital Management. Cerberus Capital Management, also own Bushmaster and DPMS. Not sure if accountants know how to build rifles and believe me they will make decisions based on bottom line within those companies. Ruger's are so lawyer friendly their firearms leave a lot to be desired. Basically we all have different tastes and brand loyalities. I like CZ, Browning, Tikka and Sako. Out of the box "I" think they are some of the best shooters and and have great factory triggers. Swampman, send your CZ back as your problem is not typical. Also standard velocity 22 LR will out shoot on paper any high velocity 22LR. Just ask the benchrest people.
I own or have owned a firearm built by just about every major manufacturer and basically they all do what they are intended for. The only question is do you like it not someone else.

Swampman · « **Reply #77 on:** November 08, 2009, 08:56:10 AM »

I don't want to pay to send it back. I'll trade it off at the gun show. Everytime I buy something other than a Remington I regret it.

gunnut69 · « **Reply #78 on:** November 08, 2009, 12:11:55 PM »

Brithunter!! Most folks this side of the Atlantic haven't heard of the Tempest or typhoon nut they like the marvelous Spitfire shile fine aircraft didn't have the rnage to escourt the bombers to Berlin and were limited in scope.. The P51 originally used an Allison Engine but truly became remarkable for distance and altitude performance when the Merlins were usitlized.. The p13 is nearly unknown here, I've not heard the term even used before.. But the 1917 and P14 Enfields were and are great rifles.. The springfields are a bit trimmer and less ungainly than the Enfields.. I believe there were even some No4's produced By Savage and accepted into US inventory..sso I suppose in a way we did 'use' the No.4 in WWII. Of course the rifles were surplused and given to the Brits as 'Lend lease' surplus 'machine tools'?? Roosevelt reaally wanted the US in the war and some of the shenanigans he pulled would like have justified some of the attachs of the German U-Boats. One other thing.. I try to not be the fan of ANY maker as they have all made turkeys..Witness the wonderful and glorious M710. A plastic receiver with the trigger housing molded as part of the housing.. The barrel pressed into the front and GLUED in place. A good friend owns the local gunshop and ordered one of the first he could get. It was promptly returned and he refused to order more..it was likely the cheesiest rifle BigGreen ever foisted on the public.. It didn't last long.. All makers have their mistakes. to denie that is to be foolish.

Greenbug · « **Reply #79 on:** November 16, 2009, 04:02:44 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on October 31, 2009, 12:57:07 AM

Quote from: fox fire on October 30, 2009, 08:08:55 PM
The ideal gun will be reliable, have stood the test of time and good after market following, a purty good rifle out of the box, adjust the trigger,a little fine tune'n and its good to go.

The Remington 700 will meet your requirements except you won't need to do anything but put a scope on it. The X-Mark Pro triggers are great right out of the box and Remingtons are known for their out of the box accuracy. You can buy a new Model 700ADL with scope already mounted for about $450.00.

I've been looking for a new ADL. can you post or pm me the info where i can get a new ADL for that price. i would gladly pay $550 for a nib. thanks.

anweis · « **Reply #80 on:** November 16, 2009, 09:24:13 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on November 01, 2009, 03:17:52 AM

the Bushnell Banner 1.5X4.5X32 is one of my favorites

Yikes!

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #81 on:** November 17, 2009, 04:53:03 PM »

I'm genuinely stunned that Swamp brought up the Brown Bess as an example of British machining quality.....

mannyrock · « **Reply #82 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:59:07 PM »

The British are known for the making best of everything? Check out their dental work! Even they are appalled by it.

Mannyrock

Swampman · « **Reply #83 on:** November 18, 2009, 01:08:16 PM »

Quote from: kevinsmith5 on November 17, 2009, 04:53:03 PM

I'm genuinely stunned that Swamp brought up the Brown Bess as an example of British machining quality.....

I brought it up as an example of their inability to follow patterns. They simply can't.

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #84 on:** November 21, 2009, 03:39:10 AM »

Swamp, that was 300 years ago. Nobody even made patterns, they made descriptions. Colonial arms at that time all came with their own bullet molds since none of them were the same caliber. Tools back then were incapable of cutting identical bores one after another. You may want to spend a day at the gun smiths in Colonial Williamsburg one day. A very cool place where they still hand make flint locks with old style tools (the finished product costs a fortune, trust me I asked about a curly maple rifled 54).

Bingo · « **Reply #85 on:** November 21, 2009, 12:04:25 PM »

I own several Remingtons and Love them. On the ones I own the trigers are fully adjustable and to me that is important. A good gun with a bad triger is not accurate. If you want to tighten your groups, fix the triger first.
As for calibre, If you are looking at only one gun, I would get a Rem. model 7 in 260 Rem. or 6.5 Swed. if it's available. 6.5 has the best bullet coefficent of any bullet on the market. It has a wide range of weights and it has a very mild recoil.
In the model 7 you get a light weight easy to carry gun. If you combine that with the 260 or 6.5 you now have a gun that can kill a deer at 500 yrds. assuming you are practiced enough to take a shot like that.
Just do yourself a favor, Do Not Skimp on the scope. Don't buy anything less that a Leupold VXII. There are a lot of other good scope out there and some are better than the VXII. Just don't get anything less.
Good luck and have fun druling over all the posabilities.

preventec47 · « **Reply #86 on:** November 22, 2009, 08:38:28 AM »

Dont be silly. Get out your yellow pages and call all the local pawn shops
and ask what kind of nice bolt action hunting rifles they have.
The go visit a few of them to select your rifle. Only crazy folks with
more money than they need buy new rifles.
Last year I bought a Rem 700 in 7mm rem mag with nikon scope and
fifty dollar leather sling for $185. It helps to be in an urban area
with high unemployment. Guns are first things sold by guys in
financial trouble. There are so many these days in the pawn shops
they dont bring hardly nothing and neither will you have to pay much.
Dont forget to bargain and talk about the other "deals" available

mannyrock · « **Reply #87 on:** November 22, 2009, 12:17:44 PM »

Man, I have to totally agree. I am dumbfounded that people run out and pay $800 for a new rifle, when most of the time they can get the exact model in used, near excellent condition, for just about half. Most of the used bolt rifles that you find in that condition have probably had only 5 boxes of shells put through them.

And, when it comes to Marlin lever action carbines, in one of the standard calibers of .30-30 or .35 Remington, it is absolutely insane to buy a new one. The cheesey
checkering and crummy wood on most of the new ones make me sick. Find a beautiful used one at a large gun show, and negotiate it down to $325 or $350. There are LOTS of these out there.

Mannyrock

Skunk · « **Reply #88 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:00:16 PM »

Preventec47 and Manny,

I hear and agree with what you guys are saying, but I only wish that "good" used rifles had those price tags in my area. I live in a small rural area with folks who love their guns and who are always on the look out for a good used one. It's definitely a sellers market where I live. That Rem 700 in 7mm rem mag with Nikon scope and fifty dollar leather sling for $185 that Prevent bought would have went for $500-$600 big ones (given it was in really good condition) where I live, even at the local pawn shops. Manny, I still haven't got to any big gun shows yet, but I will eventually.

fox fire · « **Reply #89 on:** November 25, 2009, 06:55:51 AM »

I'm suprised this thread turned debate is still go'n.