I was at the local Gander Mountain today looking for some bullets and had the opportunity to examine rifles from the big three (Rem, USRAC, and Ruger).

I looked at them from the points of view of fit, finish, and smoothness of operation.

To cut to the chase, here's how I would rank them:

1) Ruger, 2) Remington, 3) (a distant third) Winchester

Winchesters exhibited the WORST fit and finish of all three. I looked at all of the rifles on the rack, mostly Sporter LTs and Featherweights (both blued and stainless) and a few Coyotes. The finish used by USRAC these days is so dark it almost completely obscures ANY grain the wood may have. They do not look ANYWHERE near the color you see in the catalog. Awful, simply awful stock finish. The floorplates were the next nasty issue. Aside from being poorly cast, their fit to the trigger guard and stock was pathetic, with wide, uneven gaps. Bolt operation was inconsistent from rifle to rifle. One FWT had a really weird purple shade of blueing on the cocking piece, that was completely mismatched to the rest of the metal.

In the Remingtons, I examined a bunch of 700 CDLs, as the BDLs are horrid with their shiny Monte Carlo stock and white line spacers. Plueeeeeeeze, Remington, just take the iron sights from the BDL and install them on the CDL, then KILL that ugly ass rifle. Anyway, the CDLs had a very nice matte stock finish that was a nice blonde stain to it. The metal work is all matte blued and quite attractive. Nice, (fake) ebony forearm cap, and a great recoil pad. Bottom metal was nicely anodized to match the matte blue, but still your typical pot metal crap. No bolt handles came loose during this examniation. . Bolt lift effort was better than on Winchesters. Fairly light going up, but more resistance than I like locking down.

Rugers were the surprise here. Best stock finish and inletting of all three, by far. Ruger stocks have a very nice reddish stain to them. Very attractive. Best bottom metal (machined steel as far as I could tell) in both in fit and finish of all three makes. Bolt lift effort was very consistent and pleasing on every rifle (stainless or Cro-Moly) that I tried. Bluing and stainless metal finish were nearly perfect. There was one CZ 550 American Safari nearby and the worst Ruger was better finished than it.

I guess I had never stopped to compare all three side by side, and I have to admit I was shocked at how bad Winchesters were and how good Rugers were.

I know who's making my next moderately priced, American made bolt action rifle.

HP,

Other than a very old Ruger semi-auto .22 pistol (which I love) I don’t own any Rugers...but I have always thought they made great looking firearms. Bill Ruger was a design and marketing genius.

From what Matt Williams has posted on here a few times about Winchester it’s plain to see where a whole bunch of the illegal aliens (can you still say that?) are working when they get here!

Most people want a cheap rifle. Most gun makers are more than pleased to oblige. Not defending Winchester or Remington, but once you get past the shinny on the Ruger, I bet you find a few things on it you don't like also.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Most people want a cheap rifle. Most gun makers are more than pleased to oblige. Not defending Winchester or Remington, but once you get past the shinny on the Ruger, I bet you find a few things on it you don't like also.

Terry

Like what? It's trigger? Part of the purchase budget includes a Timney.

As long as it feeds properly (meaning it doesn't jam and the extractor picks up a case correctly), and it shoots 1 1/2 MOA or better with selected loads, it's good to go in my book.

Not everyone needs, or can afford, a custom rifle.

Actually, I buy custom rifles, just not for hunting.

Possibly the feeding. The two M77's I've owned wouldn't group better than 4" at 100yds. IMO Ruger's are more prone to bolt binding than the other two also. I'm not saying you won't get a good rifle if you buy a Ruger. I just don't think any better than the other two, that's all.

Don't blame you on the custom rifle thing. I went looking around Friday. I'm not really in the market, but those Kimbers look very tempting to me. Good looking and light. Not for looks, but the Tika's have alway's appealed to me too. Of coarse If I wanted to drop a little cash, the Sako would be a great choice.

Terry

I had a Sako 75, and it was a superb rifle. My longest shot on game was made with it. Super slick action, excellent double column detachable magazine and an outstanding trigger. A little on the heavy side.

I put sideways force when operating the bolts on all the rifles today. The Rugers were a lot less prone to binding than my CZ 550, and as smooth as my pre-64 Model 70. I kid you not.

Like I said, I was impressed. Even if they don't group, some bore firelapping and action bedding are cheap and easy to do.

quote:

Bill Ruger was a design and marketing genius.

Yeah and if only they could get them to shoot as good as they look.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the accuracy of my Ruger M77 MkII 6.5X55 was exceptional, the trigger horrible, the safety position useless, the bolt rough, and the whole rifle vibrated like a tuning fork when the firing pin released. It was not a unit I could live with. That being said, if you can get past all those non-shooting issues, it appeared to be a strong, accurate piece.

I don't buy Remington, so I have no comment on them.

My Winchester M70 (last year's) is a transitional model between the older three-action-screw setup and the odd production choice HP Shooter described. It is among the hundred or so that got the Williams bottom metal before the new bottom metal arrived. Needless to say, it's superior to anythiing else USRAC makes. The stock, however, shows the same lack of attention HP Shooter describes. While it isn't particularly dark, the barrel's off center in the channel, and the rubber butt pad only approximately fits. It does shoot well, however.

Forty-one years after Winchester imploded by trying to sell something other than the "pre-64" Model 70, I wonder if they're having to learn the lesson all over again. Along with shooting, they have to sell a minimal level of aesthetics...

Jaywalker

Of the current factory rifles, I like Weatherby the best. They're well-made, well-finished, and they shoot.

Ruger's great if you luck onto one that'll shoot. Buy a dog and you might have a long and winding road ahead..........

You can buy older, mint Remington 700s built between 1962 and 1987 (the glory years) at gunstores in the used gun rack or at gunshows, pay less that current retail for same, and have a much better rifle than anyhting Remington's building today. So the reasons to buy the current 700 are few to none in my book.

The current Model 70 isn't any different than the Model 700. I don't like the current ones. The Pre-64s are best, and the post-64 push-feed is a very good rifle that is consistently accurate and reliable. I like the earlier "Classics" as well: The receivers on these are generally very well-made, but I see them as a doner rifle to be purchased for the action for custom projects.

Older, used rifles are the best way to get the most out of your money and to achieve a good rifle.............

AD

If just “owning†a rifle was the goal, then this forum probably wouldn’t exist.

I think many times we all have a tendency to speak of “out of the box†factory rifles as if that was the final rifle that we will end up with... and we start comparing them to “built†rifles.

I doubt that many people using this forum buy a factory rifle and never make any modifications to it to “customize†it to their personal tastes or needs.

When I voice my personal preference for a certain brand/type of action I am not talking about the complete rifles made by that particular factory. All modern factory rifles (the big guys) are mass produced by companies run by accountants and liability lawyers, not firearms designers or people who enjoy shooting and hunting. About the only exception I can think of is Ronnie Barrett.

People like Mike Walker, Bill Ruger, and yes...even Mr. Mauser, would probably be either fired, retired, or pushed aside into obscurity, by the people running these large corporations today.

Rick, I pretty-much agree.

Once in a while, the out-of-box factory miracle rifle comes along that does everything right from the first press of the trigger onward, but those rifles are rare. I've had some pre-64 Model 70s and Remington 700s that were marvels right off the shelf, but those came few and far between.

Everyone wants cheap perfection, but common sense should indicate that it's pretty hard to achieve the same level of performance right out of the box on even close to a consistent basis with a stock, mass-produced non-riflemaker-assembled factory rifle as opposed to a rifle made by a man who is trained, uses the best componenets, and carefully takes his time putting it together.

In the real world, the "Great Motherhood Theory" cannot rule...........

AD

I am not an expert in any way but I do like guns and hunting and I have shot more than a few guns after moving to the USA. I used to be a good customer at Gander Mountain in Appleton, WI (where my guns still are with a friend while I wait for my Illinois FOID before I could bring them to Chicago) and almost every new Remington that I saw in the past year and a half had unever gaps between the metal and the stocks. I had used Remington rimfire ammunition many years ago in India and it was superb, much better price for price than the expensive Eley hunting ammunition that was otherwise available there. When I bought a Mauser rifle here and bought 8mm ammunition from Remington, I wrote about it on AR. Every round inside the sealed box had dings, scratches and dents on it and about a third were green in some places with verdigris. For someone who doesn't handload, I switched to Federal and have been perfectly happy because my rifles likes their ammunition best.

It is sad what has happened to Remington - I wish sincerely that they would take some care and start making great guns and ammunition again. My best wishes to them, though I shall not give them my very minimal business until there is a clear improvement in their quality.

Best wishes,

Alan,

I will defer to others that are more knowledgeable on Mauser’s than I...but I have been told that a large number of Mauser’s made toward the end of the war by “slave labor†can be less than desirable actions to use for a rifle. If this is true, I don’t believe that it takes away one bit from the overall good design and manufacture of Mauser actions or the rifle as a whole.

As you pointed out, when buying a “poke†it’s often hard to tell ahead of time if you will find a pig or a jewel in there!

I never thought much of the Rugers until a year ago or so. Have stayed away form them except for the 10/22. After a bit of fixing Winchesters, CZs and a few Remingtons I realized that the Rugers I have owned have never had any major issue. Sure the triggers are a bit rough but that is easily fixable and is still useable as is. I can't say that about any other brand I have.
Some reason Ruger gets a bad rap but if I needed a gun that I wasn't going to touch and it had to work from the box, I would buy a Ruger no doubt about it.

Hello the campfire:
First, Rick, how is your son. You and he are in my thoughts and prayers often.
Now, I have not bought a "new" out of the box rifle (or shot gun or pistol) in a long damn time, but I often look at them in the various gun stores that I frequent. I must say that I have noticed a great differance in the quality of firearms sold in differant stores. In two of my favorites, Mark's Outdoors and Simmons Sporting Goods here in the Birmingham, Alabama area, I have found very few " bad " new firearms. At Wally World and Academy I often see badly put together rifles and shotgums. I have a theory that the upper scale gun shops tend to get the cream of the crop, although that really does not make sense if the boxes are all seaed and go out on a first come first serve basis.
It may be that the better stores examine the product before they put it on the shelf to keep this exact thing from happening. Neither Mark nor John at Mark's would put out a gun they were ashamed to sell. This holds from the least expensive .22 rimfires to the "Best Guns". Wally World does not have anyone who knows which end the bullet comes out.
I also often buy my previously owned firearms from them. They examine each one, tell me the good bad and ugly about each and will fix it if it breaks. Recently John gave me a set of Tally scope rings, so I could get out to the range, on the house.
More than the product itself, the service is what I look for. I may pay a little more, but in the end it is worth it.
Judge Sharpe

This is a subject on which HPShooter & I are in agreement right down the line. If you add in Rick's comments, I think you have it pretty well all covered.

The one thing I will add is that I have not found Rugers to be inaccurate, and I've still got a BUNCH of them...almost all bought used.

I do find though, that they sometimes take a lot more work and experimentation to find the loads they will really perform best with. Still and all, that really means a lot more fun...it's all shooting and handloading, sometimes with hunting thrown in. What else could a gun afficianado realistically want?

Hey, Judge!

Thank you, as always, for asking about my son...he’s doing much better with this “war†stuff than his old dad is!

It gets pretty nail-biting some times when you watch the news, so I don’t do that all that often anymore.

I talked to him two days ago, but because of the area he operates in the cell phone reception is really bad, and hard to make a connection, due to the jamming gear they military uses to hinder the use of cell phone detonators on IED’s.

I will, once again, pass along your very kind words and thoughts to him as he and his guys really like hearing that stuff from the people back home.

Thanks again!

I recently bought a LNIB 700ADL short action. It happens to be a 204 Ruger. It was priced right and I was looking for a donor rifle for the action and came accross this one. I'm really glad I was only iterested in the action. Without getting into the details, this rifle had to have been put together on a Monday or Friday. I'm not even impressed.

Joe Cool
You have to talk to the gentleman that has a closet full of Rugers that all shoot well under 1/2in. at 200 yds. All he does is float the barrels and off you go.

I think one of the biggest problems that U.S. gunmakers have are their employee's.When you have to be diverse in the workplace to reflect the countries ethnic make-up,you end up with employee's that just plain suck.Rather then getting rid of these marginal employee's the company excepts them,so they dont have to hire and train new replacemants.

I stopped buying S&W because they kept having recalls in the 80's.The only way I will buy a U.S. manufactured firearm these days is having one built by a gunsmith.

What happened to S&W around 1980 was shameful. I worked on many new guns that would not function.Most had one or two major problems and a number of minor ones.I stil wouldn't by a S&W today because of that experience.Hiring and promoting unqualified because of PC nonsense destroyed the company .Of course when they became british owned that added more problems !

Just saw in another thread a post by (I think) mike378 where he mentioned the "current production" M70s have the Bolt Handle "pressed onto" a Splined Shaft. Anybody know anything about that?

quote:

Originally posted by baboon:
I think one of the biggest problems that U.S. gunmakers have are their employee's.When you have to be diverse in the workplace to reflect the countries ethnic make-up,you end up with employee's that just plain suck.Rather then getting rid of these marginal employee's the company excepts them,so they dont have to hire and train new replacemants.

I stopped buying S&W because they kept having recalls in the 80's.The only way I will buy a U.S. manufactured firearm these days is having one built by a gunsmith.

I don't think it's the employee's at all. I think it's the bean counters in the front office. The parts are run on cnc machines and the employee's are assembly line workers, not rifle smiths, not parts fitters.

They are set up this way to build the rifle as cheap as possible. It's kind of hard for me to find fault in a man that's never been trained in the first place. But, when you really get down to the root of the problem, it's people that will buy this stuff is where the true blame should be laid. If people refused to buy crap, nobody would build it.

I'm as guilty as anyone. Most want a "collection" of rifles in a lot of different calibers for different purpossess instead of a couple of nice high quality guns. I'm learning though, I'm learning.

Terry

Unfortunately, the “apprentice†system in modern crafts has all but disappeared...or is doing so rapidly. Modern corporations that own firearms companies could give a rats ass if that factory was making rifles or ping pong balls, as long as they are turning a decent profit.

Look in the older gun books that show pictures of the assembly areas in any of the gun factories. Most of the workers were pretty old guys.

There is also the reality of the marketplace, whether we like it or not. If you talked to someone at any of the firearms factories I’m sure you would hear something like: “Yeah, we could do that, and how many rifle’s do you think we would sell at the price we would have to charge for that extra work?â€

The guy sweeping the floors at a major firearms factory probably makes more money (adjusted for the times) than a journeyman assembler did 50 years ago.