Ruger's success came from the fact that Bill Ruger understood both guns and the market and offers a product the average person can count on. He had to compete with Remington and Winchester in the rifle department and High Standard, Colt and S&W in the pistol department.
If results mean anything I'd say he has done a lot better than his competetors.

I think people who have a lot of problems W/ Ruger have lots of problems with EVERYTHING & ANYTHING

I currently own 3 Tang safety Rugers, and all three will shoot under 1" consistently. I just bought a MK-II in 223 after looking closely at the others. I actually wanted a Remington but the ones on the shelf were total junk. The Ruger trigger takes a bit of stoning and a new spring, but it's not bad now. The fit and finish was 10 times better than the several Remingtons I looked at.

I've got two 77s, both tang safetys. One in .25-06 and the other a 7 mag. Both shoot under an inch all day long with my worked-up loads, and the .25-06 shoots Win 120 gr Pos Exp Pt ammo into less than half-inch (3 shot groups). I bought the -06 originally in the early 70s (only paid $137 for it new) and the 7 mag was a used one which I paid $300 or so for. I had a Mk II LH in .270 that I couldn't get to shoot other than putting 4 in one spot with one somewhere else on the paper. So, I sold it. I also have a M70 FW in .22-250 that shoots under an inch, and my most recent acquisition is a Savage 110 (an old one) in .223. My first trip to the range today trying Sierra 53 gr HPs and Nosler 55 gr BTs was quite satisfactory. The Sierras were unimpressive but the BTs shot lights out--largest group of 4 I fired was .78 and smallest was .32" Not too shabby for a cheap, unbedded rifle, relatively low-powered scope, and heavy trigger. I don't have a Rem 700 right now because I haven't found the right one in 6mm or one to rebarrel to 6mm.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Ruger's success came from the fact that Bill Ruger understood both guns and the market and offers a product the average person can count on. He had to compete with Remington and Winchester in the rifle department and High Standard, Colt and S&W in the pistol department.
If results mean anything I'd say he has done a lot better than his competetors.

I agree.. The M-77 is a product of innovation dedication and brilliance. At its introduction it was the closest thing to a "modern Mauser" since the pre 64 M-70 and it makes an outstanding platform for a custom rifle.

I thinkwe need to separate the Ruger bolt action rifles from his other products. My bolt action is not as accurate as my other rifles, but looks and finish are just fine. My Ruger #1 is great (45-70). The single shots are just unique modern rifles. My Ruger single action 44mag and 45 Colt are just wonderful. No one else makes anything like it, in the price range. And THAT is Bill Ruger's genius.
Peter.

The really interesting thing about this thread is that Ruger has made some product that most people liked.And it seems a lot of positive comments were said.I think that says something unusual in that market.I'm also glad it isn't all positive-the input is from people who actually use them.

First of all I admit being a fun of Ruger products, at least in general terms.

Regarding the M77 MkII

1) True CRF
2) All stainless steel action and barrel (when desired)
3) Integral scope mounts
4) 3-pos safety, action mounted

plus, innovation, affordability and ruggedness

If you find a hunting rifle somewhere else with ALL the features together, please I'll interested in hearing.

Of course, some get close as the Brno CZ series, but no SS is available...otherwise I'd love those accurate hunting rifles!

quote:

Of course, some get close as the Brno CZ series, but no SS is available

I'll take the CZ anyday, it has one thing the Ruger doesn't...it isn't made out of pot metal.

Hammer forged barrels, instead of tomatoe stakes.

Really this comparision makes me choke. All I can say you can have all the Rugers, and I'll stick with the CZ's.

I think the bottom line of this thread is you either like Rugers, or you don't; with little middle ground. I know that no convincing will change my mind and I doubt your going to get Vapodog to change his thinking either. We have been bad burned in the past, repeatably and unless Ruger gives me a gun, so I can see they have worked out the screwup's not another dollar will go out of my pocket towards one. I don't see that happening, so they are on my Don't buy don't look list.

I actually was considering a #1, which really has no competition even close to Rugers price point, and I really am having to convince myself I am interested.

Past bad experiences go a loooooooooong way.

Yeah, those Ruger M77 MkII rifles are pure junk. Don't ever buy one or you'll surely regret it.




Ruger M77 Mk II in .30-06 Springfield.
English walnut stock; shadow line cheek piece; cross bolt; flat point checkering; tung oil finish (I don't know the exact mixture/formula that was used). Pachmayr Decelerator pad. Steel magazine floor plate. Dakota inletted pistol grip cap and rear sling stud. Ruger barrel band sling stud. Rifle Basix trigger. Pillar & glass bedded. Jewelled bolt and extractor. Bolt lugs lapped. Extractor tuned.

schromf,
I also own a CZ 550 American in 9.3x62 that I really like.

-Bob F.

Bfaucett,

I recognise the there is a ton of work done to your rifle, but what's original on that rifle? The action? We were talking about stock Rugers, but even with your embellishments your high end Ruger, which I am only comparing cause its so tricked out, doesn't compare to this:



High end to high end, which would I rather own? You don't need to ask.

And your rifle still has the ugly Ruger Not blued cause there so cheap bolt handle

Edit: The scope might be salvagable though Man this is almost to much fun, RUGER BAITING.

schromf,

The primary, standard components are the action and the barrel. A friend gave me the stock as a Christmas present. Another friend of mine, who is a gunsmith, did the work. I know that a Ruger is a little unusual as a choice for a custom rifle. I just happen to like Ruger bolt actions. To each his own. But, I think it turned out rather well.

I'm not concerned about Ruger baiting. There's really no need for anyone to get too excited or upset over all of this. This is just a hobby/interest for most of us and we should do what makes us happy. Different strokes for different folks! But, like I said above, I also really do like my CZ 550 in 9.3x62. It's a great rifle. So, we do agree on one thing, at least. I'm taking it to South Africa this coming August for a little plains game hunt.

-Bob F.

I think that Ruger looks great.

Another thing, I bet (like most rifles), if you pull the trigger, it goes bang, and if you do your job, it hits in the kill zone. Maybe not .00001 MOA, but it will kill game (Same as most rifles).

quote:

I'm not concerned about Ruger baiting. There's really no need for anyone to get too excited or upset over all of this.

Actually your rifle cleaned up pretty nice, I am not dogging your rifle. I am just the worlds toughest sell on Rugers. It must be remembered I didn't walk into a gunstore and pick up a Ruger and decide I didn't like them, my experiences were from owning several of them, and finally said NO MORE.

On the accuracy note I have heard Ruger has brought their barrel making back in house and they are much more consistant in quality now.

My son just bought a 77 RSI, ( he didn't listen to me either) I guess I am going to get to see how the new rifles are shooting and if this rifle works out I might temper my disdain. But if this one is another dog its pretty much terminal in my book.

Of all my bad Ruger experiences the absolute worst was a 77 in 300 Win Mag, and a canoe paddle stock. Oh that was a miserable rifle, inaccurate on its best day, 6-8" MOA on a bad day, kicked like hell, bad trigger, stock was miserable, didn't eject cases right, and their customer service was the pits. Actually that rifle was a major contributor (not the only though) to me disliking 300 Win Mags.

My problem is in the sloppy parts fit and rough interior finish. If they were to cast the interior dimensions undersized then broached up to dimension I might own one. They are made such that the bolt flops around in the action. The bolt rides on as cast surfaces. It grates my nerves and sensibilites. To me a rifle needs to have some workmanship and pride built into it. It needs to feel solid and precise. Ruger bolt guns are machines that throw bullets, made as cheaply as possible.

Since this is mainly about rifles, this my be off topic. But I noticed a rail about Ruger service being bad.

I've had this SBH for 30 years. It has fired many thousands of rounds. A couple years ago, I was testing some new bullets, with a new powder,(WC820), I cracked the barrel extension. I wrote Ruger a letter, they said to send it in. Well I finally got around to it in late April. I had saved the oroginal letter they sent back, included that in the package.





Their reply in the form of a bill arrived in about 2 weeks. It was for $136.00, to replace the barrel, polish & reblue and return shipping. I sent a check, which was cashed after a week, and the gun arrived 2 weeks ago. Along with a list of what was replaced; new barrel, ejector rod, ejector rod housing, cylinder base pin, cyl base pin catch and screw, cyl pawl, various un-named internal parts, and all new screws. Oh yeah and a new rear site. The blueing is flawless, all workmanship is great! Another thing, they left the trigger and hammer alone, I had honed it to around 2 pounds!

After dragging my heels for almost 2 years, the 1.5 month wait wasn't bad. I haven't shot it yet, but I'm sure it will still shoot as well as it did.

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:

quote:

Of course, some get close as the Brno CZ series, but no SS is available

I'll take the CZ anyday, it has one thing the Ruger doesn't...it isn't made out of pot metal.

Hammer forged barrels, instead of tomatoe stakes.

Really this comparision makes me choke. All I can say you can have all the Rugers, and I'll stick with the CZ's.

I think the bottom line of this thread is you either like Rugers, or you don't; with little middle ground. I know that no convincing will change my mind and I doubt your going to get Vapodog to change his thinking either. We have been bad burned in the past, repeatably and unless Ruger gives me a gun, so I can see they have worked out the screwup's not another dollar will go out of my pocket towards one. I don't see that happening, so they are on my Don't buy don't look list.

I actually was considering a #1, which really has no competition even close to Rugers price point, and I really am having to convince myself I am interested.

Past bad experiences go a loooooooooong way.

I'm in this camp as well....I have had two rugers now both stainless Synthetics in 30/06 & .222 I still have the 30/06 but it's on the outer, as they just don't shoot compared to my cz's. I find the cz's to be as rugged as the Rugers, I would happy to if cz just put a stainless barrel on, I would prefer a blued action mated with a stainless barrel.

Now I also have a rem 700 vssf 22/250 which I traded the Ruger .222 in. I hate that remington but it's safe for the minute becuse it shoots so good , what it lacks is the ruggedness and solid feel of my cz's which also shoot well. But for foxes it's fine. I don't hate Rugers......there just not for me.

I think if I owned Rugers from now on in it would be there safari magnums or there #1's both of which I think represent excellent value for money and are supurb looking rifles.

Actually what I have noticed on the Ruger bashing threads is there seems to be a lot more complaints regarding Rugers stainless bolt rifles. Are there blued rifles better than there stainless offerings in the accuracy department

You might be on to something there PC, all the ones I have been in contact with have been blue walnut guns and have been very accurate.
As for them being pot metal, that just shows a lack of understanding of the various "casting" processes. Investment casting can be done with some of the finest steels available today, and tolerances held to around .002". Try that with a broach, I have and it ain't fun!

If someone gave me a ruger I wouldn't refuse it, but there are other brands of rifles that I like more.

Rugers make my favorite double action revolvers though.

quote:

As for them being pot metal, that just shows a lack of understanding of the various "casting" processes.

Actually not, I understand the process pretty well, I am doing a high presion cast mold at work right now actually, for one of my products.

But it doesn't mean I want it in a gun. Your comment about broaching and holding real close tolerance is probably true. But who broaches anymore? Its all done on CNC mills and lathes now days. I would like to see a cast mold that is holding .002 tolerance, for any operation I want that close of tolerance its a secondary mill operation. Maybe some of the real small parts and MIM processes can get tolerances that small, but I seriously doubt the Pine Tree Foundry is casting with that tight of tolerances. Actually look:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/casting/Facilities-PTC.html

Pay attention to the mills listed in the finishing and tool room. They are there so they can cast oversize and mill to specification.

I am not going into this there is probably 50 old threads on this subject, and this would be just another:

I own 2 tang safety Ruger 77's and when my gunsmith said "you are lucky you got a shooter" about the 7 Rem Mag I was surprised. I thought that they fit me perfectly and functioned quite well and wasn't aware of any accuracy issues. The 7 mag occasionally produces dime sized groups but never less than excellent hunting accuracy.

But the Ruger was my 2nd choice - I went with it when the extractor didn't work in the very first box of factory ammo through a Remington 700 I had just purchased. Based on my limited experience (I was 18) I couldn't believe the Remington was such a piece of garbage and had such a good reputaion.

About 30 years later I bought another Remington - a Classic in 375 H&H and so far it is a lot of fun and not too many quality issues. But I will admit I miss that darn tang safety every time.

Apparently some of the Ruger bashers just haven't had the proper interval to give these rifles a 2nd chance.

I'd buy another Ruger in a heartbeat but haven't ruled out any brand of rifles in the future - I tend to think they are individuals and that any factory rifle can give you surprising results, bad or good.

I just bought a Ruger in 458 Lott and couldn't be happier with it. I am surprised at how accurate it is at 100 yards. It will get tested in TZ in July. CHEERS

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
My first M77 was a .243...the stock warped....I fixed it....and it warped again and I fixed it again...the third time I sold it.

My second M77 a 7MM Mag...the ammo in the magazine would not feed up to allow the bolt to catch the next round and feed to the chamber. It would feed rounds up only if I slammed the bolt back hard to jar the rounds up.....I complained to Ruger and they sent me a new box magazine.....It didn't do squat for me!!!


My third M77 was a .338 Mag and the bolt lock didn't work. The damn bolt opened on my while on the sling over my back.....and it was the fault of the rifle.....

Then the #1 SS varmint rifle.....it wouldn't group better than 3" at 100 yards and after returning it to Ruger several times they informed me that 1.5" at 50 yards is their standard of accuracy on a #1.

Now.....WOULD YOU BUY ANOTHER F^%$#*& RUGER AFTER THAT??

There's rock solid function/quality issues that cause this house to be void of Rugers, (except a couple SAA revolvers) Weatherbys and Savages.
Even worse is the FIE imports from Florida.....what a joke!!! Don't get me started on Charles Daly now!!!!

I've yet to buy a lemmon from Winchester, Remington, Sako, Howa, Marlin, or Mossberg.

At this time almost all of my centerfire rifles are Winchester M-70 and a few Mausers.

Yup, you covered just about everything i wanted to say. I'll give Ruger credit for their early rifles...they worked. I've never owned one purchased after 1990 that I didn't have to fix before using.
I wanted one of their varmint rifles in 6m/m, but bought the Remington VLS instead. It took less than 30 minutes to adjust the trigger, and after almost ten years, I haven't regretted it.

You know...you could start a thread like this one and pick whatever brand and model of rifle you wanted to and end up with just as many complaints, urban legends and horror stories.

Ruger has been making fine, usable, and affordable weapons for allot of years and if their products were as bad as some have claimed they would have gone out of business years ago. I guess all the game animals that have fallen over the years from a round coming out of a Ruger just died of fright thinking that it was a Mauser or a Pre-64 Winchester or......(you fill in the blank)

It is easy to quickly examine a rifle and if it doesn't meet your pre-conceived notions to dismiss it. Add to the fact that some gun-writer or other "authority" claimed something bad about it and we all can make piss poor judgements.
Although I have used a few Ruger No 1's and 22's I saw nothing that particularly interested me in the M-77 - although I knew those using them were satisfied. When Dave Scovill passed off the .338 M-77 that Bill Atkinson had rebarreled to .375 H&H I thought it might make a good loaner for my camp. After carrying it and firing it awhile I began to look at it a bit closer and the more I use it the more impressed I am. The action has slicked up, it feeds 100% and the bolt throw is shorter, smoother and faster than my M-70 375. In fact it is closer in bolt throw to a standard Mauser. Since it doesn't have the overly heavy barrel like Win. puts on their rifles it also is lighter and better balanced.
No rifle is perfect for all purposes but you can count me in the Ruger camp now.

quote:

You know...you could start a thread like this one and pick whatever brand and model of rifle you wanted to and end up with just as many complaints, urban legends and horror stories.

Don't agree

Weatherby wins that easily.

Mike

I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding of both Mr. Ruger and the guns he produced. I also think there are a few problems that need addressed at the factory, but they're fairly minor. Nonetheless, they should be fixed.
The 77, along with all the other Ruger guns is a design that is hell for strong and rugged. There is probably no more potential accuracy in a Remington 700 than a Ruger 77, or any other bolt rifle. It's the manufacturing that makes the difference. Ruger is putting some of the best factory barrels on their 77's right now that are available, only Savage can really claim a better barrel in my book. Some of the foreign made guns have good barrels too. If you have a Remington with a good barrel, which is iffy at best, you can bed it easily and it'll probably shoot well. The Ruger 77 falls into the same category, only you're a lot more likely to get a good barrel. If a 77 needs bedded, then it's harder to do, but the results are the same as a Remington.
The Ruger wasn't designed to be a benchrest rifle, it's a hunting tool, which just happens to shoot really well when properly made and tuned. That was Mr. Rugers plan from the beginning.
The biggest fault of the 77 and a lot of other Ruger firearms, is the finish work. The finishing of the investment castings is hit or miss, and a lot more miss than hit. Look at Ruger pistols, revolvers, and rifles and you'll see uneven polishing and grinding, straight lines are curved and all too often the ring mount cuts are uneven and the rings are finished even worse than the guns, making them hard on scopes. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the accuracy problems aren't just ring mis alignment problems. Ruger along with a lot of the other makers needs to put the extra time in finishing a great product and produce a gun we, and they, can be proud of. It's a shame to see such a fine rifle so poorly finished.
Search the gun shows and find a well fitted and finished Ruger 77 and hope for good dimensions and you'll have a fine rifle.

Altho it sounds that way in my earlier post, it was never my intent to universally pan Bill's guns, rather I wanted to show my frustration with their quality control, or lack thereof. I still own a 3 screw 357 and a 45, but the long guns are long gone. The last straw for me was a 7722 Hornet. Now there I'm sure we can all agree it is a gun not worth fixing.
In the early years his guns were tops. Remember how ugly the post '64 model 70s were, or the 670. For that matter Remington put a fence post on their 788. It's no wonder why Ruger captured shooters hearts: his guns beat anything even close in price.
I may no longer own any of his long guns, but I will never forget his technological contributions to the shooting world, and I won't forget the man behind it all.

I will never forget his contributions to the shooting world:

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:
I will never forget his contributions to the shooting world:

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

Yup...Bill Ruger stood up to the politicians and flipped them the birdie agasin and again when companies like Smith and Wesson was out Pandering to them. I'll give Ruger INC credit for being ferociously courageous in stand ing up to them and demanding his (their) rights.

May it never be said that Ruger let Americans down on the second amendment. Three cheers in this category!!!

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why anyone would care what brand or model of rifle someone else prefers to shoot?

Rick 0311

Because in general the calibre/rifle is a persons statement of their views as what they think is best.

You might choose a Ruger in 270 and I choose a Model 70 in 300 Winchester. Thus we have both expressed different "opinions" and as you know a difference of opinions leads to "discussion"

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why anyone would care what brand or model of rifle someone else prefers to shoot?

On that point I agree, I spend my $ on what I like, and you spend yours how you want to. An for all my general dislike for Rugers I admit to having a 77/22 that is pretty nice .22. These are pretty close to $500 nowdays, and I would buy something else currently if I was dropping hat kind of money. But I have have mine a long time ( 15 years or better) and while its not the most accurate 22 I have ever shoot, its in the top 10% if match rifles aren't inclused in the mix. Its always functioned 100%, and for the $150 bucks or so I paid for it I got more than got my moneys worth.

My gunsmith visited this thread cause we were talking about this, he knows me knows me well, and he thought convincing me of the merits of Ruger was humorous, he and I have been jacking our jaws on this subject a lot over the last 4-5 years, and he has made zero headway.

My smith actually sells and works on a fair amount of Rugers, think he told me last year he sold around 20 ea 77 internationals, and worked on a least that many for repairs ( not the same guns). He is reasonably knowledgable with them, and has mixed results with their customer service. It seems its a bitch to get Ruger to accept a firearm for repair, but once it gets to the shop they seem to do an excellent job of fixing and repairing, often to the extreme of repairing items you weren't expecting.

Seems almost like two different departments are involved, one good, one really bad.

But kind of like when I was in the army and the sergents said if you got em smoke em, if you got a Ruger shoot it, its not my place to critic your rifles, but in my safe I am just not interested.

Edit: by the way my next door nieghbor was at the factory for armours school not too long ago, he was totally unimpressed with the Mini-14 he was there to learn, and was glad the IHP dumped them not to long after. But he did get to see the 77 416 Ribgy and really had great things to say about these. My comment on that is these are not box stock stand 77's, these are really custom shop rifles, and if Ruger put that attention to detail in some of there other rifles I would like them a lot better.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike378:
Rick 0311

Because in general the calibre/rifle is a persons statement of their views as what they think is best.

You might choose a Ruger in 270 and I choose a Model 70 in 300 Winchester. Thus we have both expressed different "opinions" and as you know a difference of opinions leads to "discussion"

Mike

Mike,

I’m all for “discussion†but I am a bit confused over the “my dad is tougher than your dad†nonsense when it comes to brands and models of rifles.

If I shoot a Remington 700 in .308 and you shoot a Winchester 70 in .308 do you really think a deer or a target is going to know the difference?

The only Ruger weapon I own, or have ever owned, is a 45 year old .22 Auto Pistol. It’s a great little pistol and I have never had a bit of trouble with in the almost half a century that I have had it. The fact that I don’t own any Ruger rifles has nothing to do with me feeling that they are not well made. I also don’t own any Winchester or Sako rifles...but I believe that both companies make great products and I can certainly understand and appreciate why someone might prefer them over other brands.

It just seems like people are very quick to classify any rifle that they don’t happen to prefer as a “POSâ€...and I personally just think that’s pretty childish and foolish, discussion or no discussion.

Good, Bad, Better and Best are very subjective terms.

I purchased two 77MKII's and couldn't get any better than 4" groups out of either. Ya, I personally think a lot of the 77MKII's are P.O.S. If stating so on a thread like this one makes me "childish" in your eye's. Well, I guess I can deal with that.

Terry

THis thread started as: What's wrong with a Ruger?

In defense of the non Rugers fans, we are expressing our opinions of why we don't like Rugers, most the are in the anti camp have had repeated bad experiences with them. Most of this camp didn't jump to this conclusion either, it was after purchasing several rifles, we formed a negative opinion. If you didn't want to hear the bad you shouldn't have asked.

I will draw the line on calling other folks guns POS, unkind, unneccesary, and non productive. If anyone has interpetted my posts in this vien I appologise, that is not my point or purpose.

But I still don't like Rugers.

Rick 0311

I guess it still comes back to the rifle/calibre is a statement of opinion.

For example I am a fan of Wby rifles in their big calibres. That naturally draws flak from the CRF people. In my case I believe a vertical stack centre line feeding push feed is more reliable than a staggered feed CRF. So in an indirect way I am saying to the fans of the staggered feed CRF they have it wrong and don't know what they are talking about. The reverse also applies.

Thus we have the basis for a thread

Mike

One last thought I have on this subject is that" Whats wrong with_________________. Substitute your pet manufacturer. Most of the factory rifles being prodcued today fall into this category in my book. Winchester/Remington even Sako isn't exempt any more.

I have resolved myself to the fact that to get what I like in a rifle anymore it costs more. I don't see much in the under $1000 that floats my boat. CZ seems to be the only manufacturer thats still producing good value in this price range. The CZ's aren't perfect either, but my bitches with them are minor and just some clean up. The big bore guys I know have other issues, but in my experience they are are vaery good value.

I guess my biggest beef currently is I think the US manufacturers need to get more rifles in the upper end and out of their custom shop into the distribution networks. These all end up being special order and/or full price retail. WInchester makes a pretty decent rifle with a $2700 price point. Problem in my mind is these were being dumped by CDNN at $1200. If they would get this out on the street at $1500-1600 where I could find one I would take one home.

Bottom line Ruger isn't the only area I am unhappy with right now.

Edit: I have around 40 firearms currently and need has nothing to do with my gun purchases. I buy what I like and tend to be a picky A hole when I am buying anymore. If a firearm doesn't fit my bill exactly or isn't a gunsmithing project I usually pass. I also value NIB or close rifles a lot anymore. When I pick up an older or newer rifle that is 99% original, and is a sweet rifle and cartridge combo, I start expressing more interest.

After owning about 6 or so Rugers with three in my safe currently as I speak. I have absolutley no problems with them. Well priced, pretty well built and accurate enough for me or any of the game I have taken.


I don't get off on buying a $1500 gun and topping it off with a $1000 scope only to be afraid of scratching it when I climb over an obstacle in the field

Greg

quote:

Originally posted by albertacoyote:
I don't get off on buying a $1500 gun and topping it off with a $1000 scope only to be afraid of scratching it when I climb over an obstacle in the field

Greg

Fair statement, but I would rather have the higher end gun especially in the field. I have two customs I hunt with and hunt hard with. They have accumulated bumps and scratches over the years, they earned them honestly in my book and are entitled to them, justs adds charactor. My 7x57 is an old friend in my case, and I bring it back home, every season, repair any scratches or issues with the stock, the competly oil and service the rifle, then paste or gun wax them ( not the stock ). Currently the 7x57 has one noticable mark: a small scratch in the blueing. Other than that I took care of it, and it looks like it, so my value was in my pleasure over the years.

Different philosophy I suppose, I know my rifles isn't ever going to be a truck gun so to speak, but I have some higher end rifles I have hunted with over the years and I wouldn't have it any other way, everything else is just a compronise in my book. I was raised in a gun family, my first rifle was a pre 64 Winchester model 70 in 270 Win. That was my first rifle I wasn't even 10 when I got that rifle, but I grew up hunting with it and did for another 15 years or so. By then I was in my midde twenties and I knew what I like and disliked in rifles and have ever since.