I feel that manufacturers could float all barrels. how difficult can that be. Ruger #1 have always had complaints of inconsistant accuracy which can be corrected easily. why should we have to by a cheap kit? and so on....

rifle designs...how about a 30-06 in a 26" barrel (what is up with the short barrels and carbines only?)

yes custom rifles can be built to each persons specs but custom rifles cost big bucks because they are one of a kind. however they include things that most people would like in their rifles.

I just think it is time manufacturers get off the "new cartridge" kick and get into the "better rifle" kick.

[This message has been edited by Gatogordo (edited 04-26-2002).]

Now having said that, I agree with the general consensis here that most hunters get the accuracy they need from 'run of the mill' massed produced rifles and those that want better, get it by customizing a factory unit or building a better one from scratch.

1. No more "compromise" combs, designed for iron sights or scopes. No high-intensity bolt rifle (with the possible exception of some big bore DG rifles) is fired with iron sights today. Everyone uses a scope, so why make the comb too low for proper eye alignment.

2. Longer barrels. Some manufacurers have begun to offer longer barrels, but most are stuck on 22-for-standards and 24-for-magnums. A barrel can be cut back by the owner cheaply and easily if he needs a shorter tube, but it's damned hard to go the other way for those of use who want less muzzle blast and more velocity.

3. Less bulk in stocks. Most factory pistol grips and forearms are unnecessarily bulky. It can't cost less to make them trimmer.

4. Adjustable l.o.p. A manufacturer could easily offer a ready-to-mount thicker or thinner pad so that people who need a longer or shorter pull could easily acheive it without altering the stock.

Well, that's most of my wish list; thanks for letting me vent.

When I look back at all of the fine rifles I grew up with as a young boy - pre-64 Model 70s, Browning High-Powers, German-built Weatherby Mark Vs, pre-1972 Sakos, Model 700 Remington's that were carefully built, etc. - it's pretty obvious that quality has truly declined over the course of the last generation.

The reason for the decline? The consumer simply won't pay the required price to obtain off-the-shelf rifles built to high standards of design, materials, execution, performance, and over-all quality. The average shooter talks a good game, but when it comes time to lay out the money for a finely-built rifle, the average buyer looks for the nearest exit. The manufacturers know this, and they armed with marketing studies to prove it. Everything is built to sell at a certain price level, and is earmarked for a specific consumer group who will pay a ballpark price for the product in question, but little more.

I quit worrying about this stuff quite some time ago. If I buy a rifle, I buy one of the few remaining new rifles that is still built to a high standard of excellence (Anschutz, for example), a quality-built used rifle (Belgian-made Browning Safari, say), or else I have custom rifles built by guys who know how to build to a high standard (D'Arcy Echols, for example).

I can only control what I'm willing to buy. I take great satisfaction in the fact that quality used rifles in excellent or even new condition are available by the score - all I have to do is take the time to find a few of them, which isn't all that hard to do. I can also take a basically sound rifle with an unaltered action, then send it to a top custom riflemaker for an even better solution to the dilema of quality. If you're resourceful, you don't have to depend on the current offerings if they do not meet your expectations.

AD

[This message has been edited by allen day (edited 04-26-2002).]

Just take a look at the thread page for this forum. Fully two-thirds are not about hunting, they're about hunting products. We spend three times more time talking about products than hunting.

For example, a few months ago I posted what I thought was a really good question on climbing stands at HA. It involved hunting strategy.

Question-When leaving a climbing stand on a tree do you leave it sitting on the ground, and not worry about a buck noticing it, cover it with branches, or put it up as high as you can reach to get any scent it might have off the ground. Or do you simply pack it in every hunt with the added cost of noise and time to set it up every morning.

Now this is a question that deals with how much credit to give a mature buck for smarts and I think is a legitimate hunting strategy question; for after all one might set up a stand dozens of times in a season. Not one bowhunter responded.

Toy talk is fun, no doubt, but I'd love to have some biologists log on, or spend more time talking about hunting tips and strategies (personal ones not the ones that get re-hashed in the fall issues of hunting magazines every year).

Now that I've vented, my buddy's looking at a Sendero .338 Win. for his first elk hunt this fall. What are some thoughts on this, and equivalents from other mfgs?

1. No more push feeds. Build mausers instead of Savages or Rem 700's.

2. No more safeties on lever actions.

3. Longer barrels.

4. No short action bolt guns except for .222.

OK, I am just getting started.

;-)

I fully agree about that DAMN CROSS BOLT SAFETY!!!

I won�t buy one with that gadget. I can live with the slide safety on the tang ( but I lke tang sights on levers ).

If I want a rifle that shoots out of the box: Steyr, CZ, Blaser, Sauer, have not tried Sako ( scope mount troubleprone? ) or Tikka.

If I want a rifle ( LA ) with excellent workmanship it will mostly come from Japan ( Win & Browning 92, 86, 71 ).

Perhaps if sales drop some managers will wake up.

Hermann

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
...I suspect that the average hunter comprises at least 80% of their market, they see no real need to make the product cost say 50% more for a small slice of the market that is being served by other smaller scale operations that charge for their handwork.

---

Good point.
I think if all the major arms makers upgraded their quality today, and never made another gun at current standards, then all who wanted a gun would still buy one, not just the smaller 20% who desires this upgrade.
If it were all that was available, then Joe Average would buy one, if he wanted a gun. Would he know it was a better product? Not sure. Would he care? He don't care too much now, so I doubt it. After all, only, say 20% cares enough to tinker with them anyway.
I imagine cost may go up a bit, but I doubt it would go up far beyound most wallets.
The mere fact the the guns would be selling would make for tity profits. Hense, costs won't be too much higher.
And, I'm sure, some who like to tinker with guns, still will, regardless of their quality. Some just gotta go it one more step further. Like me, sometimes. ~~~Suluuq

--Ever consider jumping out of a tree and knifing something? No, I'm half-serious, really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by elmo:
I totally agree with Stonecreek On the Gun Fit Issue. I'm 6'4" and weigh 275lbs. I believe my pal, Rusty Gunn said in another thread, he was about 1 foot shorter and about half that in weight. But the boys in the suits think we should have the same length of pull. Hogwash!!!

---

Length of pull is much too long for me, and I have to cut an inch or more off the stocks to make them fit right. ~~~Suluuq