I like guns. No, really. I know y’all find that shocking, this being a hunting forum and all that. AR’s, Bolt actions, everything from .22’s to “Stuff I can only Dream About”. I have 28 various tools in the "shed" and I still have room to grow.

Variety may be the spice of life but…I can’t help but think that there is value in having a standardized Tool. When I think of my collection of rifles I come to the conclusion that not one is set up the same and that there is little similarity between them. Going from a Remington Model 7 to a Marlin 336 is a huge difference: Trigger pulls, stock fit, scope distance from eye, back up iron’s – it’s all different.

I do indeed love the variety, but for hunting purposes is there not some degree of efficiency to be gained having rifles all set up the same? (let’s ignore the potential for grabbing the wrong ammo for the moment…/sigh.)

Let’s take 4 rifles in my Safe:

#1: Remington M7MS in .257 Bob. Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x36.
#2: Ruger #1 in 7mm Mauser. Leupold FX III 6x42.
#3: Marlin 336 LTD in .35 Remington. Burris Fullfield 1.5-5 scope.
#4: Remington 673 in .350 RMag. Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5x38

On the other hand, would it not make more sense to have three (or four) identically set up rifles? Let’s say we just change the stock color and that’s it. (I’m gonna use Minox for a scope for no real reason other than I’m hung up on them for today. Remington, only cuz it’s common and I know it’s terminology.)

#1: Remington 700 in 25-06 w/ Minox 2-10 scope
#2. Remington 700 in 30-06 w/ Minox 2-10 scope
#3. Remington 700 in 35 Whelen w/ Minox 2-10 scope

Same trigger, same scope, same eye relief, same stock fit, same…well, everything. Boring? Perhaps a tad.

But would one not have a more consistent form, more consistent performance over a hunting life’s long haul with a consistent battery of tools to choose from?

If you could, WOULD you want to have a degree of improved performance at the “cost” of a standardized selection of rifles?

(PS: And NONE of this is to say that you wouldn’t own other rifles. Just that your hunting “tools” would be consistent for a more consistent personal performance as a whole.)

I have been thinking of doing the same thing based on Ruger 77 MKII rifles. Being familiar with all The rifles in your hunting battery should be an advantage.

Robert,

Variety is the spice of life but I guess that I did seek some standardization. I have three bolt action rifles.

Kimber 257R Select
Ruger 77RSI in 308
Ruger Hawkeye in 338 Federal

They all have control feed, 3 position safeties and built on short actions. I like those features. I also love the 70 Featherweights that have the same features.

I actually set up the 257 and the 338 with the same 2.5x8 Zeiss because I wanted standardization.

What you will end up with is what I have--- sets of particular rifles in multiple chamberings.
4 ruger 77's
5 rem 700's
4 winchester 70's
and many others.
Its a sickness I tell ya!

I agree completely. I'm in the process of doing the same thing, only going with Ruger. Currently, I've got a 25-06 and a 375 Ruger, and I'm looking for the right 300 Win Mag to round it out. That should provide the right rifle for just about anything, with just a little overlap to allow a backup if needed. All other rifles (except for the AR15 coyote shooter) won't be used for serious work. That way, they all fit the same, feel the same, and have the same safety. All good in my book.

On the other hand, I have a couple dozen handguns and use several of them for concealed carry. Each is as natural and second nature to shoot. I don't need to "think about" how it functions.

Different rifles in different calibers for different uses. The AK, or lever gun is different than the Scoped Rem. 700 Police because they're used for different sorts of shooting.

Besides which, most of the guns I own are those which "become available" for one reason or another: sales, gun shows, swaps, gifts, etc. A lot of my interest in firearms revolves around the mechanics of the receiver and design innovation.

Standardization in my rifles is something I've been doing for years - all along from the beginning. At first it was just Mauser'98 sporters, then I saw the many similarities and accepted the slight differences in other rifles, and brought some of them into the herd.

This evolved to where now I have several Mausers, one Husqvarna 1640, three Winchester 70s, several CZ 550s, and several Ruger 77 MKIIs. The things they have in common are three-position safeties which locks the bolt down when in safe position, control round feed, hinged floorplate, good triggers. I held off buying CZs until I figured out that the safety could be converted to three position. I have one push feed Winchester, but it has the three position safety.

I don't count some variation in stock style, since some have classic style and others have monte carlo. I don't have any thumb-hole stocks. I don't count whether the stock is wood or synthetic - it's not a standardization factor.

I have one CZ 527 in 7.62x39, which has the backward two-position safety, which I have little trouble adjusting to, but it nevertheless annoys me. But I shoot it a lot, and it has many redeming qualities starting with accuracy, and the action is made/designed inherently accurate, unlike some, such as the Ruger 77 in 22 Hornet, 44 mag or mini-30 POS.

Oh yea, I have one Sako L57 which has two position safety, but it does lock the bolt down when on safe, and I think it's fair to make an exception for a Sako.

So, my standardization has resulted in completely excluding Remingtons, because of the lack of three-position safety, and CRF, the bolt isn't locked down by the safety, and there are several other things I don't care for with the 700, and I don't care how accurate it is, and I don't care how pretty the wood is, in my eyes they are all a POS. The basic reason is because Remington chose and continues to choose to take shortcuts. For example, they could choose to put a three position safety on their action, much like some of the clones do, or like some of the aftermarket safeties. They could choose to use a Sako style extractor. Heck, the old Winchester push feed action had a much better extractor IMO compared the the 700. Remington could choose to be innovative and do a controlled round - push feed, like Winchester did. But they steadfastly choose not to do any of that, primarily because of the profit margins, which has little to do with a better product. It's all about cutting corners, and production costs and marketing, so they can compete. They can surely count me out of their market. If production of the 700 ceased yesterday, I would say good riddance today. I dislike them so much that it really bothers me when someone suggest starting young shooters with one, because they will learn at an early age to overlook the shortcommings. Heck I would rather a kid start with a Savage over a Remington, and I don't think much of a Savage either, but I do think they are better than a Remington.

Howa makes the Vanguard, which IMO is way - way better choice than a Remington, for at least three reasons - it utilizes a three position safety that locks the bolt down, the recoil lug is intgral with the receiver, and the extractor is better.

Anyway, that's the way it is for me.

KB

I have always believed in that. Regardless of whether you are shooting varmints or BG, the whistles and bells are in the same place. My varmint rifles triggers are set a # lower than my BG rifles but other than that, they're the same model. In the field or at the bench, I'm not wondering "let's see, do I push forward or back, is it a two or a three, is the bolt locked or not, is it in the middle or on the side????"

Whatever way you go you still need to shoot each one.Even if they are from the same maker they might have quirks,but a good idea.

I have 5 Sako rifles that get about 95% of the use. I have others for dangerous game and some others that followed me home but those 5 Sakos and a 375 bolt and a 450 double would do anything I need.

That's why the vast majority of my rifles are Sakos from .17 Rem to 416 Rem and just about everything in between. They all feel and function the same.

quote:

would it not make more sense to have three (or four) identically set up rifles?

That would be so boring

This is an interesting concept and I have pursued it to an extent. I have four rifles I use use for hunting game. All are model 70s although only one is a Winchester. There is a Winchester pre-64 (24" factory bbl, customized factory stock, Leupold 2 1/2 - 8) in 270; a custom Mauser (laminated classic stock, Shilen #1 22" bbl, Dakota M-70 safety, Leupold 2 1/2 - 8) also in 270; a Dakota 76 (Alpine model, english classic stock, 22" #2 bbl, Leupold 2 1/2 - 8) in 243; and a custom Springfield 1903 (laminated classic stock, #4 22" bbl, Precision Metalworking M-70 safety, Leupold 1 1/2 - 5) in 35 Whelen Improved. While they are not anywhere near identical, they are similar enough in "feel" and function that there is no hesitation or feeling of change in using one or another of them.

I have done that with several of my big bore rifles, .375H&H up to the 505 Gibbs. All CZ's for two reasons. They fit me well, and I like the set trigger. I also appreciate the "working man's" price tags.

Rich

My primary hunting rifles are all Ruger 77 tang safety models, 22-250, 257, 30/06 (RLS and RS) and 35 Whelen. Bought the first one in '72. Had a 416 T as well, but foolishly sold it(shows how stupid I am). All are sighted in 2 inches high at 100, and are close at 200 and about 9 low at 300, give or take a little at three. I play around with other rifles, but for hunting, I see great value in using the same rifle, even though it's in different calibers, for hunting. My shotguns, combination and my double also have tang safeties. Only two exceptions for long arms, my hammer drilling and my old 94.

Might be stuck in a rut, might seem boring, but I don't need to introduce too many variables when I hunt(see the note above about stupid). For me it's a KISS thing.
Bfly

For true standardization, I have taken a different approach. I have consolidated many of my "low end" guns into one Blaser R-93 Professional with a 6.5x55 and 9.3x62 barrels, and I can add barrels as the urge strikes me (I am in the market for a 223 barrel now).

This "system" may not be for everyone, but it works for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Sullivan:
For true standardization, I have taken a different approach. I have consolidated many of my "low end" guns into one Blaser R-93 Professional with a 6.5x55 and 9.3x62 barrels, and I can add barrels as the urge strikes me (I am in the market for a 223 barrel now).

This "system" may not be for everyone, but it works for me.

I can honestly say that I have very seriously been considering this exact concept of late.

I'm even more in favor of setting up an action with the stock you want, or several stocks to fit the situations, then a switch barrel set up, with the appropriate scopes of your choice.

The key is to have an action, trigger and stock the way you want... and just have barrels for your favorite calibers.

Example, I have a Win Model 70 Featherweight, that I have chambered in a 6.5 x 55. Actually I'd like that rifle with a 6mm Rem Barrel, a 6.5 x 57 barrel, a 7 x 57 barrel and a 257 Roberts barrel just when the urge strikes me.

I also have a Savage Action that I am getting set up the way I want. Right now it has a 22.250 factory take off heavy barrel on it, and a 7/08 after market heavy barrel; on the list to add is a 260 Rem barrel, an a 243 barrel. and maybe a 338 Federal barrel later on.

I do want to upgrade the stock, add a Picatinny Rail to it. So far both barrels for it are sweet shooters! It started life as Savage single shot action only.

But that is the kind of standardization I am interested in.

Super standardized from beaver to bear Tikka t3 308w.

Also 12/6,5*55 for mixed hunting and 22wmr for smallgame.

I have picked the wrong rifle go to the range and have the right ammo but the wrong rifle. I've done that a couple of times.

I'd like to "standardize" on all Pre-64 M70 Winchesters"!!!

This type of standardization simply deprives one of flexibilty. Just as golf requires different bats for different situations, I perfer my guns be matched to different situations.

My quail shooting shotguns and my 336 are great for snap shooting in deep cover. My skeet guns and "normal" hunting rifles are nice for longer shots. My trap guns and long range game and varmint rifles are stocked and balanced much the same. I try to use the right tool for the job at hand, not handicapping myself with virtually the same tool for all jobs.

Just as simply changing the heads of hammers while retaining the same handles doesn't help them - or you - do better work, neither does it do much good for our shotguns OR rifles.

i think you'll find that years ago it was fairly common for someone who could afford it to have a set of matched rifles built with all the same physicals in different chamberings. that's when guns were truely thought of as tools for a job. it only made sence that they all fit the same and feel as close to the same as possible. it's also when they were a bit more affordable and it wasn't so exclusive to have a gun built. it was allot more common to see just a decent standard hunting rifle built....the old german and english shops lived on that for many years after the wars, many of them building 5-6 guns at a time, of progressive powers, for the same person. now we look at those as major collectors. back then they were just good standard hunting guns made by a small shop. i think allot of guys now-a-days would still do it if it were more affordable, but even a couple decently matched hunting rifles can be way over most guys' pockets, so they decide on chamberings and grab what is close and a good deal when they have the money, hence the idea of a matched battery has slid off the table to all but those with money to spare. i'm not saying the smiths get way too much these days, it's just like everything else in today's economy, you have to pay expotentially more for anything that is just a little better than what is considered standard.
i would think that if a guy had the talent, a "hobby" smith that could do the wood and the lighter metal work, could have a "real" smith barrel up a set of the same actions and the guy could end up with a really nice set of matched rifles if he kept the parts purchases resonably standard and did everything he could himself. every time he wanted a new gun, get the same action/barrel/stock/parts.stay away from the m.70 style safeties(as nice as they are, they are costly) and all the high dollar exclusive goo-gaas and just build decent hunting guns, the set might be worth more as whole than the same number of mismatched factory guns from several different makers bought when the price was right.
some might consider it boring to have several rifles all the same, but i think it would be the cat's meow. especially if built with good mausers in the style of the classic rigbys or similar.

I believe standardization is like marriage. It has it's positives and negatives. Ive been married for a couple decades now--as far as my rifles go, I will try lot's of crazy unstandardized sh@# --just 'cause it's fun !!!

Variety is the spice of life..especially in rifles!

I like guns also but when they look alike It gets hard To always get the right rifle Unless
I read the caliber on the barrel. I have been doing just that IT saves alot Trips to the range
I have alot of Remington Rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by merlinron:
stay away from the m.70 style safeties(as nice as they are, they are costly)

i think it would be the cat's meow, especially if built with good mausers in the style of the classic rigbys or similar.

What's a classic style Mauser without a three position safety? A Remingotn 798?

quote:

Originally posted by jro45:

I have alot of Remington Rifles.

The last time I was at the range with a guy who was shooting a Remington, he blew a hole in the roof over the benches.

KB

kabluey, a classic style mauser with a two pos. wisner type safety and 100 bucks in your pocket for the next gun. all my guns have them and they are just fine, look fine too. seven guns, +/-700 bucks...almost another gun's worth of necessary, reasonable parts,... that's what.
and don't say that by the time you pay a smith to put a wisner type in, the cost is about the same, cause it's not, i've seen it take just as long and longer to get a 3 pos. installed and timed as it does to install a whole wisner type. then there's always the cost of the safety kit or pre-istalled shroud itself.

isn't this like Socialsim for Firearms? This is an area where we celebrate diversity!

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by merlinron:
kabluey, a classic style mauser with a two pos. wisner type safety and 100 bucks in your pocket for the next gun. all my guns have them and they are just fine, look fine too. seven guns, +/-700 bucks...almost another gun's worth of necessary, reasonable parts,... that's what.
and don't say that by the time you pay a smith to put a wisner type in, the cost is about the same, cause it's not, i've seen it take just as long and longer to get a 3 pos. installed and timed as it does to install a whole wisner type. then there's always the cost of the safety kit or pre-istalled shroud itself.

Agreed. Those two pos Wisner safties look good to me too. They are a heck of an upgrade from the side safety. A gunsmith friend speaks highly of them too, and another good aspect is that it puts those great military shrouds to good use. It's just that I haven't sprung for one yet, but might. I was just messing with you a little - fishing for a response - to see what you would say.

Best Regards,
KB

igot a bro-in-law that all he ever does is fishing, all he ever talks about is fishing.... i come to really hate fishing........

I got a bro-in-law too, and he never talks about fishing or hunting or guns or other fun stuff, so I come to really like fishing, hunting, guns and other fun stuff.

And I don't hang out with my bro-in-law much. Maybe you should go fishing with yours since you hang out with him anyway.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Sullivan:
For true standardization, I have taken a different approach. I have consolidated many of my "low end" guns into one Blaser R-93 Professional with a 6.5x55 and 9.3x62 barrels, and I can add barrels as the urge strikes me (I am in the market for a 223 barrel now).

This "system" may not be for everyone, but it works for me.

I can honestly say that I have very seriously been considering this exact concept of late.

I have gone this way after having less and less time to practise with my different rifles. So I bought a Blaser R93 and started with a 6,5x55 barrel (looking for a 9,3x62 now). I just have to admit that doing all of my shooting and hunting with the "same" rifle will help me shoot better, especially in the more demanding situations.

Just found this thread now and would liek to add to it.

While it may be a bit boring, I think this approach makes sense and definitely has merit.

The great hunter Peter Flack has a battery of rifles all built on a CZ ZKK action married to a Walther barrel. All of his rifles have same length of pull and of course the safety and triggers are identical.

I have been thinking of following this route myself.

I like pairs of identical weapons.

2 9,3x62 Mausers
2 identical 308 Wins
2 AKs
2 10/22s
2 Rem 870 12 ga.
2 BHPs

done.

I am sorta set up like you want but have a 7ms in 308 for my middle gen. Mosy years my 4 using rifles are:

1. John Lewis 257.. m700 action, #2 Lilja barrel 3 grove bbl Brown Precision stock, German 3x9 Zeiss scope.

2. M700KS 30'06 3.5x10 Zeiss scope.

3. M7MS,308 German Zeiss 4x scope

4.m700KS 35 Whelen 1.75x6 Leupold scope.

I Would simply add a M700 custom in 257 or 25'06 to your mix & be happy.

I'd agree with that sentiment for the primary hunting rigs. That is why my three primary hunting guns are an FN mauser in 30-06, a Ruger Md 77MKII in 270wsm and a Ruger Hawkeye in 35 Whelen. All three wear a Boyds JRS, all three have Timney triggers set at 3 lb's, the 270WSM and 06 have Leupold VXII 3x9x40 and the Whelen has a Zeiss 1.8x5.5x38. The only real difference is the safety on the FN.

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Sullivan:
For true standardization, I have taken a different approach. I have consolidated many of my "low end" guns into one Blaser R-93 Professional with a 6.5x55 and 9.3x62 barrels, and I can add barrels as the urge strikes me (I am in the market for a 223 barrel now).

This "system" may not be for everyone, but it works for me.

I can honestly say that I have very seriously been considering this exact concept of late.

________________________________________________

Me too, except in Mauser M-03!

I have been thinking of standardizing but custom rifles run into too much money that can be used for other things.

I was looking at rugers or CZ for the following

458 Lott
416 Rigby
375 H & H
300 Win mag (maybe by gunwerks)

Of course you need to have a few other rifles for varmints or just 22 for plinking.

As I slide toward retirement in about 4 years, I plan to travel to hunt and plan to standardize my battery. To that end, I've bought 2 almost identical Blaser R93 Professionals which break down easily for travel and maintain zero when reassembled.

The only difference is that the first has a standard barrel channel and the second has a wide barrel channel for heavier contour barrels. I will eventually have the first rifle's barrel channel opened up to match.

I have 7 barrels from .22LR to .375 H&H for them. I will be selling off my other rifles over time. I've got a case for travel that will hold both stocks and 3 barrels with scopes attached. So whether I'm shooting prairy dogs with a .22-250 or hunting elk with a .338 WM, I have the same stock fit and trigger.