Pick a $1,000 30-06

[leverfan]

Okay folks, this is the sort of thing that's been done before, but I'd like a current tally.  If you had up to $1,000 to spend on a new bolt rifle in 30-06, which make and model would you choose?  Why?  The $1,000 is for the rifle alone, and it doesn't include the mount hardware, scope, or shooting sling.  Also, the rifle doesn't have to cost the full $1,000, but I'm looking for rifles that look a little better than some of the $375 Wally World specials.  Guns can be art, too, after all.  

Thanks to everyone that takes the time to reply!

[PA-Joe]

Savage 10 series 7mm08 about 350.00 and the best 600.00 scope I could find!

[huntsman]

I simply wouldn't spend that much on the rifle alone. Why? Unless you are in serious benchrest shooting competitions, there is no reason why a dozen or more brands of standard rifles in the $400 to $500 range won't do everything you need and then some. The one upgrade I might consider is a stainless/synthetic model rather than blued/wood, because in my experience the stainless/synthetic requires less pampering in wet weather conditions.

I think far too much is made about the high-dollar rifles with "super smooth actions" or other such nonsense. My trusty old Remington model 700 is just one example of many reasonably-priced rifles that will perform far better than my ability to shoot them, and I'm not a half-bad shooter. The action works great, it feels good in my hands, and I couldn't ask for any better practical accuracy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm convinced that a lot of the "fancy rifle" syndrome that sweeps the hunter population is simply machismo: "Look at me! I've got a brand-new dang-fangled gold-plated laser-precision-manufactured deer-mauler in ultra-super-extra-magnum caliber that can flatten a moose at 500 yards holding dead-on." Practical translation: "I've got a way more expensive toy than you do."

I would much rather sink the extra money I would save not buying frivolous extras on a high-dollar rifle into other aspects of the hunt that to me are far more important, like quality clothing, optics, etc. Just MHO, of course.

[Dave in WV]

You didn't say stainless or blued so I'll say Winchester M70 Super Grade or a Sako. You did say guns can be art so they would be my choices. For less money the Win. M70 featherweight is a great looking rifle with a medium to small sized scope.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Lets see-----Weatherby SBGM(local dealer has one priced right at $999) ----Sako------Browning White Gold Medallion.

Or just buy 2 Tikka T3's and be done with it----lol.

[Zachary]

 If you had up to $1,000 to spend on a new bolt rifle in 30-06, which make and model would you choose?  Why?  The $1,000 is for the rifle alone,

SAKO 75.

Zachary

[kc5rkg]

I guess it all depends on what you are using it for, but I dont see the need to spend $1000 on a rifle.  I bought a Winchester M70 "lightweight" 30-06, i think when they were being discontinued several years ago.  Anyway, I only paid $369 for the rifle.  I now have a Weaver Grandslam on it and can shoot sub inch groups at 100 yds.  But I only use mine for hunting.  If you are just looking to spend a grand I'd buy two rifles like Omaha said.

[eroyd]

$1000 just on a rifle ? A short time ago I was looking at a used Mannlicher. It was an older one, not one of the newer plasticky ones. What a slick piece of workmanship that was. It was about a G and probably worth it.

As for off the new rack? I'd go for a SAKO.

[longwinters]

Yep, Sako 75.
 :-)
long

[BruceP]

I would do the same thing that I am doing now with a 35 Whelen AI. I would buy a good used Remington 700 and have a gunsmith rebarrel and tune it up. I know that 1G does not get you far with some of the bigger names in rifles but you should be able to find a very capable smith to do the work for that price or a little less. Besides I'm buying a rifle not a name, and I have seen the kind of groups that some of my smith's rifles have produced. I'm not knocking the big name gunsmiths I just dont have that kind of cash.
BruceP

[BattleRifleG3]

I'm such an Engineering student that I have to go by the letter of your specifications and think of something no one else would.

If I had $1000 to use or lose and the rifle had to be bolt action and it had to be 30-06 and it had to be new, I would choose a mint specimen of either a 1903 Springfield or a 1917 Enfield.

If I could spend some on the rifle and some on smithing for the rifle, I would probably get a Remington 700, get a special stock (possibly AI) and have the receiver adapted to take BAR mags.

Or I could be difficult and get a 30-06 just because it had to be 30-06 and have it rebarreled in 308 :p

[Graybeard]

I would spend my money (heck I did already) on a Rem 700 LSS Mtn. Rifle. Mine wears a Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8x36 scope set in Leupold Dual Dove Tail Bases and rings. Entire package can be had for that $1000 I'd imagine.

I glass bedded the action on it and lightened the trigger to 3 pounds. Shoots most loads both reloads and factory under an inch for three shots at 100 yards. Doesn't string as it heats up but I just don't heat up my barrels. Wears them out prematurely and makes them harder to clean.

I have another in 7-08. Only thing I'd change on either of them is to have the laminated stock be the pepper gray rather than brown on brown if I could.

GB

[leverfan]

Thanks for all the replies, folks.  It's certainly been an interesting read.  To clarify my question, I'll say that I've owned, or currently have, several of the rifles that people suggested.  I'm looking for something heirloom quality, but not full custom, to pass on someday after I've had my fun with it.  My tastes run to walnut and blued steel, so I've learned how to take care of them in the extremely wet hunting seasons we have in western Washington.  Proper preparation with a little spar finish and wax can seal a gun up nicely against any foul weather.  I also don't look on cleaning guns as a chore, and I like the smell of Hoppe's, so swabbing a bore at the end of the day is no big deal, and I do it with "stainless" guns too.  

Savage and Remington stocks feel very club-like and unresponsive in my hands for off-hand shooting, so I'd have to tack some $$ on to the purchase price of one of those rifles just to have the factory stock changed to my liking, or replaced.  My eye falls too far to the right on a Browning stock, so ditto on the stock job, or at least a lace-on pad.  I found a 1938 Winchester Model 70 that fit very well, but $600 for a used rifle that needs to be reblued seems a little silly.  

Huntsman, I agree with parts of your rant about the magnum craze, but I don't know how it applies to the 30-06 :-) .  I also don't have anyone to show off to, since I only hunt with close family members, if I bring a partner at all.

As far as I can tell there's not a gunshop within 50 miles of here that stocks Sako, Tikka, CZ, etc., in any numbers, nor are they common enough at gunshows around here to "try one on".  Guns that feel like 2x4s in your hands might be fine off of bags at the bench, but they suck eggs in the field, ditto on guns with bad triggers.  I'm not going to buy anything sight unseen, but I might make the drive to Oregon and check out some of the Portland gunshows and gunshops to see if I can find some of the guns that folks have recommended.  One of the reasons that my handle is Leverfan is that I've been spoiled by the responsive handling of lever rifles in the field, and I can't see compromising on bolt guns anymore.  I've owned my share of beaters and cheap guns, so now I'm saving my pennies for "THE" gun.  Full custom is out, since I'll never have enough money to think that it's a good idea to go hunting with a rifle that costs more than my Jeep.

[Graybeard]

If ya really gotta have blued and walnut on your hunting rifle then take a look at the original style Mtn. Rifles from Remington. Mine had really nice walnut on it and the Mtn. Rifles have a totally different and far better feel to them (to me at least) than do the ADLs or BDLs of standard configuration.

You might also want to take a look at the latest offerings from Kimber given your tastes.

For me a "hunting" rifle should have SS metal and laminated stock. Hate plastic and want the feel of wood but want the stability of laminated.

GB

[longwinters]

Hey now!  You guys are breaking the rules.  Your only choice is for a new 30-06 rifle.  No scopes etc.....  Come on . . . you can do it.  If I handed you a 1000.00 and said you had to go with me and get a new 30-06 . . . what would you chose?

long

[leverfan]

GB-  I share your appreciation for Kimber rifles, and my next 260 Remington will probably be a Kimber 84.  

Long, thanks for the whip cracking!   I posted this same question on another board, and my favorite answer from that one was a Winchester 95 chambered for the 30-40 Krag.  I told the poster that was my favorite new bolt action 30-06, too! :-)   I'm just a little surprised that there aren't a few more people that look at rifles as art, too.  $1,000 would be cheap for some shotgun types, and there's plenty of guys sinking more than a grand into a custom pistol or a collection of Encore and Contender barrels that can't do anything that a single good 30-06 can't handle.  I know, because I'm one of them.

[crow_feather]

Lets see, Beretta Mato, in 30-06 - not a bolt gun but the new Benelli semi-auto in 30-06 - Winchester Coyote, they are accurate - I like the Remington Manlicher, but its not 30-06 -   Ruger had some Model 77 RSI's in 30-06 - and then there are the Wetherwatchacallits.

C F

[jim21]

All I can say is my Remington model 1917 in 30-06...

[The Sodbuster]

I would lean towards a nice Browning A-Bolt or Winchester model 70, mostly because I have Savages, Remington, and a Weatherby.  Don't have the any of the former.  Of course a Sako 75 would be awfully nice, and I think you can get a lefty model in .30-06.  $1,000 is about twice what I've spent on most of my rifles (except the Weatherby), but I got no problem spending that on a rifle if someone hands it to me with those instructions.

[jvs]

I simply wouldn't spend that much on the rifle alone. Why? Unless you are in serious benchrest shooting competitions, there is no reason why a dozen or more brands of standard rifles in the $400 to $500 range won't do everything you need and then some.

I saw one of those expensive Sako's at the range two years ago, right before deer season.  Before the owner shot it the first time he was bragging about how much he spent for a New set up - everything first class and expensive.  Claimed it was a $1500, which a certainly believe.

Well, after a few minutes of jaw-boning about his new rifle-he set up targets on the backstop at 25 yards, the first five shots weren't on standard size 100 yd target paper and when he did finally hit paper, he held 6 to 10 inch groups.   After more than 45 minutes of trying, he quit  because he ran out of ammo.

Only a few inportant things got to come together when you start doing your own work on a rifle.  But first you can't have a lemon that slipped through the QC Department, which is not guaranteed regardless of price.

I never did follow up on this guy or his new Sako but just because you spend big bucks on a whole new set up doesn't mean it shoots any better than a less expensive rifle.  And I dont mean for this post to be taking Sako down.

The one thing that got me to respond to this thread was the statement about benchrest rifles and their costs.  You couldn't touch a new benchrest Barrel for less than $1,000.  A new 6mm PPC Rifle decked out for national competition would cost no less than $2,000, with most coming in way over that price - which is a drop in the bucket compared to what else you have to be prepared to buy just to get into that particular past-time.  But this is for the diehard shooters who compete for bragging rights and placing 5 shots in one hole.

[Dogshooter]

Looks they are all over the place dancing around your original post. I now have three Limbers that are right arounf that 1K mark. Have nothing but kind words to say about any of them. I love a good walnut stock and nice grain and all three of my Kimbers are nice. They are basically a "Rifleman's Rifle" in that they are arefined pre-64 model 70. And if you walk as much as I do on a deer or elk hunt, you'll like 'em too.

[verhoositz]

At a $1000 for the rifle alone there are not as many choices out there as you might think. You've touched on the obvious ones with SAKO but believe it or not in an '06 you can get a CZ 550 American now in Premium grade - high grade walnut, extra polish blue and a jeweled bolt out of the CZ custom shop and I was priced one last month at $750 retail delivered Plus sales tax.
I really want to see a Kimber Long Action especially in a Classic Select Grade and passed on ordering that CZ for the moment until I can see a Kimber LA. I completely understand and agree with the addiction to blue steel and pretty wood. I think you can still get a Wby MkV in '06 but I am not a fan of the super high combed super glossy Weatherby styling from years past...but they shoot good. SAKO Deluxe Grades should be well over your price point, and the Standard grades I've seen lately are a little too plain Jane for me. Kimber, CZ, SAKO and maybe Weatherby MkV in that order.
Ron

[nasem]

I think this rifle here is sooooooooo sexy:
but you might not like it, its not blued steel
http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=001B&cat_id=035&type_id=021

[Coyote Hunter]

If I HAD to spend $1,000 on a rifle, I have no idea what I would get.

Always wanted a rifle with a real Mauser action, though, so I'd probably start there.

[Slamfire]

I think far too much is made about the high-dollar rifles with "super smooth actions" or other such nonsense. My trusty old Remington model 700 is just one example of many reasonably-priced rifles that will perform far better than my ability to shoot them, and I'm not a half-bad shooter. The action works great, it feels good in my hands, and I couldn't ask for any better practical accuracy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

More'n 40 years of use have slicked up the action and trigger on my old Savage 110L. I think it feels as glassy as the Krags, Mannlichers, and double heat treated Springfields. But then I don't own any of them so I might be whistlin' in the dark.
 :wink:

[fknipfer]

My choice would be a Mauser 66s in 30-06.  The only problem I can see with it is it probably would take five generations to wear it out.

fknipfer

[jakes10mm]

I know you said Bolt-Action, but I'd drop the money on a Ruger #1B in 30-06.  To me, the prettiest rifle out there.  I have #1's in 243 and 45-70, both are shooters for me.  There should be a few $$$ left, so send it to a good Ruger #1 smith and have him/her accurize it just to be 100% sure.  I may even go with the Stainless for more confidence when the weather gets nasty in the field. 

[Frank46]

Sako 75 because I have one in 30-06, Springfield 1903A3 sporter, 1917 enfield, and just to be onery a M1 Garand. I have all and all shoot well. Frank

[mantihunter]

If I had $1000.00 to spend on the rifle alone, I would look for a Pre '64 Model 70 in 30-06. Some think they're over priced, but to each his/her own. They just happen to be MY favorite rifles and I have been lucky to own several of them. Say what you want about synthetic/stainless/ultra mag/whiz bang whatever, but for me I'll always take blued steel and walnut and American made in standard calibers over the glitzy foreign stuff or latest super magnum. It's great having choices and the freedom to make them. God bless the U.S.A. and remember our troops.

[torpedoman]

M1