The Quality of American Firearms...

[FairChase]

My father, from the time he was 12 years old until he passed, did all of his hunting with just two rifles. A Winchester 94 in 30-30, and a Winchester M70 in 300 win mag. He hit everything he shot at... He never experienced a failure to feed, eject, or any other kind. His experience, I think, is not all that unique in America, nor unique across the other manufacturers, Ruger, Remington, etc...

... Why should the average American hunter, pay $2-$5k for a supposedly vastly superior rifle, when, say for example, a Marlin XL7 in 30-06 available for about $250 can shoot a cloverleaf at 100 yards and fill the freezer just as well?

Peace

First, I hear many stories of someone's gran' pappy that had a XYZ rifle in ABC caliber and it shoots so good he could the part the hair on a squirrel sitting in a tree in the next county. I always ask them when the rifle was made and their reply is something like "back in the 1960's". I'm not doubting you story, I'm merely pointing out that these rifles were made when quality mattered more... IMHO.

Second, a part of your answer is in your question; "... a supposedly vastly superior rifle..." If a buyer has not been honestly convinced it is indeed a superior rifle, they won't consider it, let alone buy one. Taking the time to convince someone of the best rifle for that person does not happen often. Most retailers reinforce brand loyalty rather than take the time to find the best fit; "You want a XYZ rifle, I got one for you! Caliber? Got it... Next!"

Would I try to sell a Steyr to everyone? No. Why? Not a good fit. Do I think a Steyr, Sako, Merkel or other premium rifle are worth the cost? Most of the time. But ask yourself, if they are only as good as other rifles, why are they more expensive? And if they are so much more expensive than others for no good reason, how does that company stay in business? If you say because the buyers are snobs or misinformed, I'll assume you can't come up with a real answer.

The Marlin you mentioned or a Savage for that matter, would be a good fit for someone like a Missouri hunter that has a whitetail rifle season of 10-12 days and they only hunt at that time from a box blind on Uncle Buford's farm and hunt nothing else.

But, to answer you question more directly... I don't think an average hunter should buy a premium gun. Most can't afford it, don't need it and/or can't appreciate it. How many guys would you expect to see at a deer lease carrying a Kreighoff double gun? My expectations for answers to the questions I asked here in a forum that has hunters that have been to Africa and elsewhere around the world was different than what I would expect from "average hunters".

 

[FairChase]

Back to the original question:

"Why do so many Americans prefer to buy the standard American made hunting rifle (my brother calls them "RemChesterby's") when there are clearly better made rifles available? e.g., Steyr, CZ and a number of smaller American manufacturers like Montana Rifle Co.? (Yes, they had issues early on...)"

If Steyr wanted to sell more guns to Americans, it would really be pretty simple.

Find out what keeps Americans from choosing your product now, and address those concerns either through education or product/service upgrades/changes.

Perhaps they don't really want to sell more here?

Great point and that's kinda why I asked... why aren't they selling more? BTW, the US of A is Steyr's largest market for non-military sales. The lack of Steyr products in the US of A currently is because they are in the middle of a huge military contract and most resources have been diverted to that effort.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Just went through the entire thread and I'm shocked! There's not one mention of my first rifle brand, a J.C. Higgins. It was a .22 semi auto I had back in high school that functioned with the cheapest stuff I could buy, short, long or long rifle! Unfortunately I had to sell it to pay rent but it was a hell of a well made rimfire. Whacked a lot of squirrels and pest birds with it. As to the OPs question, I think it's a matter of how much a rifle is used. Most U.S. hunters are seasonal rifleman and other priorities come in to play when budgeting money for a firearm. While they are fine firearms, the Steyr, like an Anschutz isn't as well known and the premium price point just doesn't work for a country raised on the familiarity of Remingtons and Winchesters.

 

[Spooksar]

I just retread the whole thread here's what I learnt buy Styer. And your argument for not buying are not valid.

 

[tarbe]

And just for the record, I suspect the sales could go way up with just the education/selling part. The Steyr guns are good...most Americans have just never been exposed.

 

[Lomadelray]

FairChase said---"My expectations for answers to the questions I asked here in a forum that has hunters that have been to Africa and elsewhere around the world was different than what I would expect from "average hunters".

Perhaps then I misunderstood what you meant by:

Why do so many Americans prefer to buy the standard American made hunting rifle

"so many Americans" seemed to imply a populist connotation, hence my "average hunter" response.

If what you meant was "why do so many "elite" or "well traveled" American hunters prefer to buy the standard American rifle?" Then I think my response would still be the same:

1.Availability
2.Price
3.Results

If an American hunter who grew up "average' hunting North American game species with great success never experienced a failure with their American rifle, why would they switch brands when their means afforded the opportunity to hunt elsewhere?

Steyr makes a beautiful precision rifle, as do many other manufacturers, but what really is the effective difference between cheap mass produced rifles and high end mass produced rifles? It can be exceptionally difficult if not impossible to quantify, that is why people tell anecdotes or oral histories about a given rifle's performance.

To wit, evidence that people give for a preference for high end rifles tend to run to "it just feels better", "it fits better", " you can feel the quality", All of that may be true, they may even be more accurate, but game can be just as effectively killed with a rifle that costs about a fifth of the price.

By the way my Pappy's M70 was a push feed he bought in 1977. If he never had a failure and could hit what he was shooting at then the effective difference between a Steyr that never had a failure and hits what it is shooting at is effectively zero.

Peace

 

[FairChase]

"so many Americans" seemed to imply a populist connotation, hence my "average hunter" response..."
Peace

I never stated nor implied any socio-economic "connotation", populist or otherwise.

 

[Lomadelray]

I never stated nor implied any socio-economic "connotation", populist or otherwise.

No problem man, really sorry I misread you.

 

[shuter]

#1) As amazing as they are, why are Steyr Mannlicher rifles not more popular in the US?

Pray tell what is "amazing" about them? I ask not to be provocative, but out of genuine curiosity. I own a very nice Sako 75 Synthetic in .338 and a beautiful Anschutz .22 LR match rifle, so I'm not opposed to Euro firearms. But when we compare a Model 70/700/77 to a Steyr Pro Hunter (all in the same price range), we find that the Steyr has a plastic trigger guard and magazine, and that the bolt freezes/binds when cold or dirty (according to a very experienced PH who's apparently seen it happen more than once). What's "amazing" about any of that...other than the fact that a guy would actually pay nearly $700 for a rifle with those kinds of issues, and that the manufacturer doesn't see fit to correct them? There's nothing "clearly better made" about that as far as I can tell.

You basically began this thread by asking why us rubes would want to by Winchester, Remington, or Weatherby (after all, your brother calls them Remchesterbys, or some such thing), when we could own a Steyr - or even a CZ. You asked for "input" and then dismissed out of hand most of the responses you received. After patiently reading the thread, I would argue that none of your rationale is even remotely compelling. I would also point out that, especially on this forum, a rifle that has a plastic magazine and trigger guard, and whose bolt binds in freezing and/or dirty conditions, isn't likely to be very well received (regardless of the fact that "special" lubes and judicious cleaning might take care of the bolt issues). I do wish you the best of luck with your Steyrs, however; and I certainly hope you never experience such issues, especially if the game in front of you has the potential to bite or scratch.

 

[FairChase]

Pray tell what is "amazing" about them? I ask not to be provocative, but out of genuine curiosity. I own a very nice Sako 75 Synthetic in .338 and a beautiful Anschutz .22 LR match rifle, so I'm not opposed to Euro firearms. But when we compare a Model 70/700/77 to a Steyr Pro Hunter (all in the same price range), we find that the Steyr has a plastic trigger guard and magazine, and that the bolt freezes/binds when cold or dirty (according to a very experienced PH who's apparently seen it happen more than once). What's "amazing" about any of that...other than the fact that a guy would actually pay nearly $700 for a rifle with those kinds of issues, and that the manufacturer doesn't see fit to correct them? There's nothing "clearly better made" about that as far as I can tell.

You basically began this thread by asking why us rubes would want to by Winchester, Remington, or Weatherby (after all, your brother calls them Remchesterbys, or some such thing), when we could own a Steyr - or even a CZ. You asked for "input" and then dismissed out of hand most of the responses you received. After patiently reading the thread, I would argue that none of your rationale is even remotely compelling. I would also point out that, especially on this forum, a rifle that has a plastic magazine and trigger guard, and whose bolt binds in freezing and/or dirty conditions, isn't likely to be very well received (regardless of the fact that "special" lubes and judicious cleaning might take care of the bolt issues). I do wish you the best of luck with your Steyrs, however; and I certainly hope you never experience such issues, especially if the game in front of you has the potential to bite or scratch.

"Pray tell what is "amazing" about them?" Take a few minutes and read the comments. But in short, straight out of the box with practically any brand ammo, they shoot amazingly accurate. Most of the credit goes to the barrel which they make themselves. Dirty little secret in firearms manufacturers; most don't make the majority of their parts especially barrels, they just assemble. The best example, AR manufacturers.

As to the "bolt freeze" issue you picked up in the thread, anecdotal. Besides, I never said they were flawless. I can give you hundreds of anecdotal comments about the "Remchesterbys" and their issues which extend beyond bolt freeze; accidental misfire (Remington 700, Browning X-Bolt), etc.

As for the term "Remchesterby", its just the way my brother refers to the mainstream American rifles. BTW, he does not own a Steyr. He shoots and swears by his Winchester Model 70 in .308 Win. and also has a couple of newer Savage rifles; .243 Win. and 22-250 Rem. I believe.

In regards to the "plastic" parts, they are actually a polymer similar to what is used in another Austrian firearm, the Glock. PLEASE don't start a Glock vs. the world conversation here! From an aesthetic point of view, I don't care for it, but no functional issues have made them make a change.

Dismissed out of hand? Hardly... This is a discussion (comment, rebuttal, comment, etc.) and I made an attempt to respond to the questions and comments posted. #1) As amazing as they are, why are Steyr Mannlicher rifles not more popular in the US? That was my question, others replied with a comment or question, I gave a rebuttal... simple as that. Rubes? You said it, not me...

 

[lcq]

For the same money, I am still with Winchester. Mine has been through heavy brush, driving rain, and the heat of Africa in December and still performed like a nice day at the range when needed. I am knocking the Steyr as I haven't ever held one let alone fired it, but after looking at the website in this thread I see a similar action to the new lower price point rifles even the American companies such as Ruger, Remington, and Winchester are putting out. They all appear to have a tubular type action and no claw extractor. I think it very tough to beat the positive control of a Mauser style action for dangerous game. The Model 70 uses classic looks, Mauser action, an awesome trigger, and is damn accurate. Until I get a double, that Winchester goes with me as my main rifle. Hell, AFTER I get a double the Model 70 will be along just in case! Hard rifle to beat!

There is nothing wrong with a tubular action. They are incredibly strong and easy to make accurate. I do agree the claw extractor is very nice but it adds to the price

 

[Panielsen]

There is nothing wrong with a tubular action. They are incredibly strong and easy to make accurate. I do agree the claw extractor is very nice but it adds to the price

@lcq I am not knocking them as they are good rifles. I just prefer a Mauser action for DG hunting due to reasons I stated. The tubular actions are cheaper to produce is all I was getting at meaning you could purchase a Ruger American for example far cheaper than that of a Styer with the same basic action etc. I just wanted to clarify that I am not against tubular magazines as a whole, just for DG I prefer Mauser style.

 

[Spooksar]

FairChase you seem to think that Styer is the only rifle to buy. That's fine buy a Styer, other people can buy what they want. There are a lot of good rifles out there that do the job that's ask of them and people are happy with them. You question was why aren't they more popular in North America and you have received many valid answers. And yes I own 1 Styer rifle but I'll take my Coopers, Winchesters, Remington's, Savages and Weatherbys over it to hunt any day. Styers are nice but they just aren't my cup of tea.

 

[FairChase]

No problem man, really sorry I misread you.

Lomadelray, Sorry for the rather short and trenchant response to your last post. I had intended to address your reply in more detail, but had an "issue" dropped in my lap that needed my immediate attention so I just sent what I had entered. I should have waited...

So... if you are in for a dissertation...

You comment "If an American hunter who grew up "average' hunting North American game species with great success never experienced a failure with their American rifle, why would they switch brands when their means afforded the opportunity to hunt elsewhere?" is at the heart of what I have wanted to better understand!

What makes hunters stick to what they have, even if that product has gone south; perceived or otherwise? What makes others change to a more expensive, "advanced", prestigious brand when what they have been using is fundamentally equivalent? Is it really about the amount of $$ one will spend for a particular endeavor?

A colleague's marketing study I read recently discussed an interesting phenomena that happened as a consequence to the economic bust of 2008. I won't bore you with too many of the details, but in a nutshell it showed that when a person's income changed, it created a dynamic that changed many aspects of their lives; i.e., a re-distribution/concentration of discretionary spending in response to the new ratio of a fixed budgetary/non-discretionary obligation caused by the negative downturn in the economy (see, I told you it was like a dissertation).

In English... it was observed across a number of categories that people had to make changes due to the economic downturn. In response, Americans started to look at purchases in big-ticket items in a way similar to what has been seen more traditionally in Europe and Japan; more conservative. An example, automobiles. Up until about 2008, many Americans would lease rather than buy autos because they wanted the payments to fit their monthly income and have a new vehicle every 3 years. An example of a change that might be observed because of the economy was that people went from leasing a Chevrolet every 3-4 years and instead purchased a Lexus! Note: most European and Japanese auto manufacturers don't make style changes but every 2-4 years as opposed to US, every year.

In an economic downturn, one might expect these same people to either use the buy-out option of their lease or extend it so the payment stayed the same or dropped. But not buy a new, more expensive vehicle! Why did this happen?

When the data across a broad range of categories was taken into account, they found people were concentrating their interests, therefore their purchases, to a more narrow scope. For example, prior to the crap economy, a regular guy was involved in 5 recreational activities, lets say hunting, fishing, golf, tennis and team roping. After the crash, it seems he can only commit time and $$ for two of these activities. Understandable, right? Sell the horse and trailer, drop the country club membership... three gone. I'm now just a hunter & fisherman.

So, what was observed and what helps explain him buying a Lexus instead of leasing a Chevrolet was the redistribution of available funds. Before he had five things to keep up with, now two. So he had more $$ to spread around. What he then realized was that he could upgrade the things he kept since he would be dedicating more time to these two activities and still save $$. Or in the case of an auto, if he was going to purchase an automobile and keep it for 8-10 years, he was going to buy one that #1) would last that long and remain efficient and #2) he would not become bored with it. He was willing to commit to longer terms if it gave him better outcome.

Bringing this all waaaayyy back around to guns and your point; in many categories, the rise in products purchased with perceived quality &/or cost across many categories went way up! Mid-level items went down and cheap increased. When the firearms market was taken into account, while adjusting for the "Great Obama Inspired Gun Run of 2009-13", no noticeable change. Why? Did hunters also narrow their scope of interest and instead of "upgrading" their rifle, instead chose to use the re-apportioned $$ to take that African DG hunt?

And yes, I expect those opposed to the premise of my thread to say "I grew up with these rifles and I know they're better!"... My reply, were you hunting then with a better quality of rifle than what is being offered today under the same brand name? Times have changed...

As I said, Lomadelray, you were spot on! Now, take two aspirin and your headache should subside in a few hours...

 

[shuter]

As regards accuracy, I'm sure Steyrs are accurate rifles; however I recently bought a $379 Ruger American in .556, and the first 5 shots at 100 yards formed a .68" group with factory remanufactured ammunition. As to the rest, I offer the following:

I certainly agree with you about the polymer mags and mag well. I spoke to Steyr's owner, Ernst Reichmayer, about it at the SHOT Show a couple years ago and his response was not exactly what I wanted to hear.

Apparently their polymers aren't "Glock quality", by your own admission.

The same was said about the SBS safety. I had a local machine shop make me a replacement safety switch made of aluminum. Something one should not have to do for a rifle that costs as much as they do.

A safety issue is a pretty important one...

The bolt being affected by grit can be a problem, but I have been able to quickly resolve it in the field by removing the bolt and using a small spray can of Liquid Wrench Silicon Spray to dislodge and remove the grit.

The bolt thing is merely "anecdotal"...even when you admit to it being "a problem"?

With this, I'm finished. By the way, your tone - rather than your words - said "rubes". I have a feeling you had a hard time making and keeping friends in school...

 

[FairChase]

That model of Steyr, the pro hunter, is very ugly compared to the M70 in the same price range. Although it is probably a very functional rifle like all the others in that price range, the stock form is not as pleasing to the eye as an M70 or Tikka in the same price range. Not as bad as the ugliest rifle ever made (the Steyr Scout), but pretty close. The really good looking Steyr guns are more than double the cost of the pro hunter. Just my opinion, but probably a pretty universal opinion as the low volume of sales would indicate.

The Steyr Classic II that I saw was a very handsome gun, just too damn pricey for what it was.

I'll be the first to admit, the synthetic stock Steyr rifles are, pardon my French, butt ugly! Nonetheless, they are ergonomic, durable and while not as aesthetically appealing, are quite functional. In appearance, I prefer my Steyr Classic Stutzen (Full Stock).

God bless Jeff Cooper, may he rest in peace and Semper Fi, but the Steyr Scout is the poster child of butt ugly rifles...

 

[Hogpatrol]

Just a comment on the marketing study mentioned in fair chase's latest post. When it comes to hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, skiing, boating, etc., demographics are going to be more of a factor than prices. The majority of baby boomers are aging and living on fixed incomes, high paying blue and white collar jobs associated with manufacturing are gone and there isn't enough interest or disposable income by the young to pick up the slack. Once the boomers are gone, Africa and other continental guided hunting will return to what they once were, a past time for the more prosperous. The same goes for higher end firearms. With this in mind, there should be some very good values in all types of guided hunts as less demand forces competition and lower prices. If anyone doubts this, I suggest they research hunting license sales. They have been decreasing, some places quite dramatically, in all but a few U.S. states.

 

[FairChase]

As regards accuracy, I'm sure Steyrs are accurate rifles; however I recently bought a $379 Ruger American in .556, and the first 5 shots at 100 yards formed a .68" group with factory remanufactured ammunition. As to the rest, I offer the following:

Apparently their polymers aren't "Glock quality", by your own admission.

A safety issue is a pretty important one...

The bolt thing is merely "anecdotal"...even when you admit to it being "a problem"?

With this, I'm finished. By the way, your tone - rather than your words - said "rubes". I have a feeling you had a hard time making and keeping friends in school...

No need to insulting, stutter...

My comment about "not hearing what I wanted to hear" concerned the expectation one still would have in purchasing a more expensive classic rifle; seeing less polymer. I did not mention or admit to any quality difference between polymers. Steyr has repeatedly replied that there have not been any part failures reported to them. Like many other companies, they are using newer materials and manufacturing processes in order to continue offering a product at a competitive price without sacrificing quality. I guess they feel if its good enough for the firearms in their military contracts, its good enough for hunters. Unless of course, you buy one of their Luxus models...

As for the aluminum replacement, it was for aesthetics, not part failure. I had it anodized blue because it just looks better.

The gritty bolt? This issue is certainly not limited to Steyr only. It could and does happened to many bolts. I was explaining a simple way to resolve the issue while in the field. While hunting in difficult back country environments, problems like this are bound to happen. I was pleased with how easy it was to remove the bolt of my Steyr, clean it and replace it.

 

[FairChase]

Just a comment on the marketing study mentioned in fair chase's latest post. When it comes to hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, skiing, boating, etc., demographics are going to be more of a factor than prices. The majority of baby boomers are aging and living on fixed incomes, high paying blue and white collar jobs associated with manufacturing are gone and there isn't enough interest or disposable income by the young to pick up the slack. Once the boomers are gone, Africa and other continental guided hunting will return to what they once were, a past time for the more prosperous. The same goes for higher end firearms. With this in mind, there should be some very good values in all types of guided hunts as less demand forces competition and lower prices. If anyone doubts this, I suggest they research hunting license sales. They have been decreasing, some places quite dramatically, in all but a few U.S. states.

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!! Excellent observation, Sir...

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Adding on to the economic argument, I would second that impact. A number of years ago, it was big dollars to think about having a big screen high definition tv. But as electronics always do, the prices came down and most people with reasonable incomes can buy an awfully nice tv in comparison to what was available 10-15 years ago.

With the economy as it is and has been for the last 10 years, everyone is looking for the deal. There's nothing wrong with that and a very natural reaction to how things are. But, it can go too far in my opinion. There are just some things in my opinion where absolute cheapest will turn out to often not be that way and in fact will cost you more than if you had put up a few extra bucks to begin with. I call it the WalMart mentality.

Speaking of WalMart.....I have heard it said though I really don't have the proof, that many of the manufacturers who produced goods sold through WalMart have two levels of quality for their products. One which would be considered normal or good quality, and then the WalMart level which is lower. The lower quality version however is cheaper and makes it such that the manufacturer can make money selling the product to WalMart's demand for cheaper prices. I really would not discount this idea, WalMart commands a lower price and gets it more so than likely any retailer out there.

A friend of mine who is a hardcore devoted Remington owner swears this is the case with WalMart and Remington. There's no real proof, but my friend is a very intelligent fellow and he makes that statement after looking over several Remingtons at WalMart.

Now to support that theory, I do have one direct experience data point. A friend of mine called me a few years ago to discuss buying a rifle for his son. He calls me as I'm the one he knows with the most experience with bolt action rifles. Doesn't make me an expert, I just have more experience than anyone else he knows. He's wanting to go as cheap as possible. No problem, I tell him as I mentioned in this thread, go out and buy the boy a Tikka. He asks how much, I tell him they're going for like $525 plus tax. He tells me he can get a Remington at WalMart in the same caliber for like $475. Not sure of the exact prices, but I do remember the difference was roughly $50 or less.

I highly discourage him from buying the Remington. Besides all the positive experiences I've had with Tikkas, I also let him know that buying a rifle from WalMart has some questions about it. So what does he do? He buys the damn rifle from WalMart.

Fine, I offer to build up some rounds for the boy but ask him to buy a box of factory rounds to do initial sight in. We go to the range and the boy fires off the first factory round. Boy opens the bolt and no brass, failure to eject on the first what should be a safely loaded round. Use a rod to get the brass out, put in a second factory round and the same result. Use the rod again. I'm even in a bit of disbelief at this, so I have him put in one of my handloads which was loaded below max. Touches it off, again failure to extract. Long story short, gunsmith confirms the extractor won't work.

I gently prod my buddy that he should've bought the Tikka. No problem Phil, it's covered under warranty. I ask him if the shipping of the rifle back to Remington is covered? This is about the time that he realizes he's going to have about as much into this Remington as he would've if he bought the Tikka.

Do I expect all Remington's to have this problem if bought at WalMart? No, but I do believe they may very well expect to have some returns, but in the end that cost does not overcome the profit they make. In the end the bean counters will just look at the numbers and only the numbers.

If you buy at the absolute lowest cost, you run in my opinion a higher likelihood of having a problem. If you buy at the higher end, you will have a lower likelihood of having a problem. But neither are guaranteed. I've read of numerous incidences of very expensive custom rifles that were good for nothing but to look at, functionality was horrible.

But which situation do you feel more of dummy? Putting in a modest sum of money for a rifle and having a problem, or putting in a kings fortune and having a problem?

I'm back to the same conclusion. You can have a fine perfectly functioning rifle that shoots accurately for much less than a high end European rifle or custom. In fact from a functioning perspective, the more modestly priced rifle may in fact be better as even higher priced rifles sometimes have quality issues.