I'm wanting to buy a new .30-06 (non-custom) and am looking at these:

- Rem 700 BDL
- Win M70 Classic
- Ruger M77 II

Which of these are the most likely to turn out a good product, now? (I think QC has slipped a good bit at Rem and Win, but what about Ruger?)

Also, is 22" a bit short for .30-06? Wouldn't a 24" barrel be more optimum/efficient?

Also, what about the Ruger Express .30-06?

Thanks for any help,
Dave

Ruger Mk II best buy for the money. Spend the extra dollors for a good trigger and a bedding job if it needs it. You well have one very nice rifle that well out last you if taken care of.

I second the vote for a Ruger Mark II over a new M70 or M700. The Rugers action just feels bettr to me. I own several and they have all proven to be accurate. I have also never experienced and problems with feeding. They all worked as CRF actions from the time I opened the box. I wish I could say the same of my Model 70 classics. I had to send one back because it would not feed properly.

[ 12-07-2003, 16:41: Message edited by: Iron Buck ]

Go with the Ruger. Better resale value, better aesthetics, and the best bang for the buck. Comes with the scope mounts too.

swede

Get a CZ if you want a longer barrel and a smaller price tag.

Get the Win! Ruger, resale value, are you kidding?

Better yet, find a nice used Winchester Pre-64 in std wt. or fwt., that is the best of the lot and wil retain its value, in fact increase in value whereas a new factory rifle will depreciate over 50% the minute you write a check for it.....Pre-64 30-06s are plentiful.

Find a JC Higgins 30-06 for $250.

A M70 30-06 Featherweight with a 22" barrel will weigh only seven pounds! That's a lot of power in a reasonable sized rifle. If you can find and afford a decent pre-64 Featherweight then buy it. That's about as good as your going to get. One with a recoil pad would be even better as then you will not have to compete with a collector.

I never liked the weight or long 24" barrels on the standard grade M70's. These rifles go about eight pounds. You might as well carry a 300 magnum if that's what you have.

The JC Higgins M50's and 51's weigh more. I would estimate a whole half pound more than a Featherweight although they have a 22" barrel. The FN action Higgins has a trigger that's attached to the stock, at safety that's on the wrong side also. However if you can find one at a dealer for $250 then grab it. The only one for sale here in CT was/is at Cubeta's for $399!

I would just go out and pick up a new M70 with a stock that I liked. However if you see a nice pre 64 Featherweight in any caliber at all for $600 then buy it.

M70 Ftwt. then the Ruger.

Maybe you guys can explain something to me.
Back in the mid 19th century the average rifle weighed 10 pounds or heavier. The people carrying those rifles were a good bit smaller then the average fellow of today. If the fellow carrying that rifle didn't have a horse, he walked. Sometimes, walking all the way across this continent or Africa, carrying that rifle.
Now days we have seven pound rifles, the people are larger and it's a rare occasion that the hunter carries his rifle more then five or six miles after getting out of his SUV or ATV.
Yet I hear people talking about carrying that seven pound rifle like they just toted a M-60 and five hundred rounds.
Yes, I have plastic stocked rifles, but the weight saved was put into the heavier barrel or scope. All of my rifles, with scope still weigh about the same ten pounds as our forefather's rifles.
The rifle does become a burden if I carry it in my hands the whole time, but then that's why they made slings.
Jim

In order of quality (workmanship and reliability) these are my picks for a .30-06, with typical prices.

Mannlicher-Schoenauer ($900)
Oberndorf Mauser ($1800)
Fabrique Nationale (early) ($500)
Ruger MK II Express ($1000)
CZ 550 Luxus ($500)

The Ruger and CZ have safeties that I am not fond of, but the Ruger Express is excellent quality and the CZ has a self-locking extractor, so they get included.

The model 70 is a knock-off of the Springfield, and the original is much better quality with a little tweaking.

The model 700 is a rifled pipe with some poorly designed parts affixed to it. They shoot OK, but not worth the money. Resale value is the same as a rifled pipe with some poorly designed parts affixed to it.

Of the three you listed I would definately go for the Ruger. However I would strongly consider the Browning A bolt, they generally seem to be better finished and more accurate right out of the box.

I don't even own an A-bolt, strange as it may seem, but hunted with a friend this weekend who has a very accurate 270 and also know several other people that have very accurate stock A-bolts.

I like the used Winchester idea myself. Bought one and liked it so much I now have two.

Next is the FN. They are a quality rifle, and IMHO, second to none; then all of the others.

Tikka Whitetail Hunter ot T3 if budget is tight, Sako 75 if it isn't.

Mannlicher-Schonauer. Oberndorf Mauser. What a crock.

I think the Ruger Express in .30-06 is discontinued, isn't it? Are they still available through distributors? (Still in stock?)

Dave

[ 12-08-2003, 10:47: Message edited by: Dave_T ]

Gentlemen,

If I was purchasing a new rifle, it would be a Ruger hands-down over a new Winchester or Remington. If I was browsing the gun shows and I found a high quality used Winchester, I'd certaily consider that.

I believe the Ruger express rifles have been discontinued, but every once in a while, you see one at a gun shop. I want a 7mm Rem Mag to go along with my Ruger RSM .416 Rigby

I would go with a Winchester. Although a lot of good other suggestions are good ones, ,,,,,,

Any person who claims to be a rifleman, and does not own a Winchester Model 70 in 30/06, just isn't a pure rifleman in my book.

The Model 70 in 30/06 are just a tradition. I am partial to a Winchester, as I like their aestetic etc, and the claw feed, but what I like the most is how them and a 30/06 just go together. Just like a Model 94 and the 30/30 case. I think a Marlin is a lot better rifle, so I own both.

We traditionalist are a smaller and smaller crowd each year, but just like a 67 Corvette is no where near as sophisticated as a 2003 ZR 1, give me a 1967 Corvette with the 427 TriPower any day over a 2003 Vette. The 67 has class the 2003 will never have in my lifetime., or a 64 Mustang compared to a 2004 Mustang.

For the extra $100.00 over the Ruger, it is a cheap investment. There are plenty of used 30/06s in any manufacturer out there, if you are budget conscience.

WINCHESTER. I don't think I could bring myself to buy a NEW Remington. I emphasize NEW because I own 2 old 721's, and I love them. For a new gun, go with the Winchester. I had a MK II '06 a few years ago, but didn't like its lines or the rough action. Regards, Wyo

WYOCOWBOYSHOOTER:

What was "rough" about your Ruger Mark II action? I specifically like the feel of the action on my Mark IIs over my M70 Classics and M700s. They are smoother and with MUCH less "play" in the bolt. The complete opposite of rough.

Iron Buck, Maybe I had a lemon Ruger. There was a lot of "play" in the bolt when in the rearward poistion, more than any Winchester or Remington that I have ever handled. Also, I didn't care for the way the bolt felt and sounded when worked. To me, it was rough and unfinished. But, like I said, maybe the one I had was a bad one. My dad has an older Ruger in .338 and I love it. It is much smoother. FWIW, Wyo

For the 3 you listed the:

Win Model 70 Class in Stainless Steel with the black stock....and a BOSS would be excellent. Very popular in Alaska.