Cheap Rifles and Hypocrisy

[Ragman]

1. I suspect the newer models have fixed the safety issue. I will certainly check it
2. I've read reports of 7-9 lb on early models but have heard new ones are around 4-6 lb I'm going to try to use as is but will resort to a slight shortening of the spring or replacement if it's required.
3. Good to hear. I had heard rumors the Kaspa was suspect.
4. Going to try to use the stock as is (It's the new improved design) however if I have issues with stringing I will certainly do some bedding and epoxy some carbon fiber arrow shafts in to stiffen the forend.

I certainly think the Ruger American + Vortex Crossfire II Combo might be a better gamble for someone that needs a budget rifle but this is more of an experiment and it's not like I don't have backups.

I mostly shoot culls these days so it's not likely to be critical if I miss out on a shot because of an equipment issue.

I certainly don’t think the Ruger American is a gamble. I love them.

 

[CD24]

Say what you will about cheap rifles of many varieties but it just doesn't take that much to kill a deer. I shot one a couple of years back with a traditions trapper pistol. 20 grains of powder and a 50 cal round ball killed it immediately. Mississippi counts smokeless powder guns during primitive weapon season as long as they are single shot, 35cal or greater, and have an exposed hammer. I have hunted with a ton of H&Rs, CVAs, etc. Junk guns. They were all tolerably accurate, light, and reasonably well balanced. The triggers all sucked, but they killed just as well as the nice rifles I own.

They aren't a pleasure to hunt with and there is absolutely no romance to it but I'll bet your savage will shoot pretty close to 1 MOA and will kill as well as any other 308 does. I probably wouldn't take it to combat, but the deer field isn't fallujah.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Maybe it’s the much tighter machining tolerances today with many of these lower end rifles that make them very acceptable hunting rifles? Until recently, I had two Remington 788s, which were the equivalent of the lower end rifles back in the day. Although they were very accurate, the triggers weren’t great and the actions weren’t nearly as “tight” as this Savage. The safety wasn’t the best designed either. Time will tell as I work through some loads and hunt with the Savage.

 

[Ridgewalker]

CoElkHunter, With the right bullet in your 25-06 put in the right spot, I wouldn’t hesitate to take the biggest bull elk in the woods! I just prefer the 30 calibers (I like it hurting on both ends of the gun! LOL!) But you will never find a better caliber for antelope!

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I don't know how the test ended on the cheap rifle, or if it is still ongoing, but I have an aversion to cheap simply because it has always failed me. The only thing more painful is something expensive that has also failed, but that happens less often.

 

[BeeMaa]

I don't know how the test ended on the cheap rifle, or if it is still ongoing, but I have an aversion to cheap simply because it has always failed me. The only thing more painful is something expensive that has also failed, but that happens less often.

I agree with you to a point...however I would say there is a difference between cheap, meaning cheaply built...and inexpensive but manufactured to a quality standard. IMO - Savage rifles fall squarely into the latter group.

 

[Ray B]

The goal is to build a strong, durable, accurate, reliable and user friendly gun that is pleasing to the eye. The technology and metallurgy of 1900 was such that with the increased pressures of nitro powders the amount of handwork needed to achieve the required strength and precision was extensive. Forging and heat treating the steel was needed to give the action sufficient strength. Skill levels needed by the gunsmiths was such that only true artisans attained the requisite skills and the quantity of these artisans was few. So the making of a quality gun required an investment of considerable time and skill.

In the hundred years much has happened in both metallurgy and machining. Different steels are available that have strength, durability and machining qualities without the need for forging and related processes. Additionally, machining that previously required the steady guidance of a skilled artisan can now be accomplished with a computer guiding the machine. As a result, the skilled labor portion of the cost of a gun has been greatly reduced.

Cheap guns are cheap because modern metals and computer driven machines have been used in their manufacture., thus eliminating much of the labor costs. In terms of use, these guns are every bit as good as the older hand built guns- they just lack the aesthetics, nostalgia and custom fit and features of the expensive guns.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

The goal is to build a strong, durable, accurate, reliable and user friendly gun that is pleasing to the eye. The technology and metallurgy of 1900 was such that with the increased pressures of nitro powders the amount of handwork needed to achieve the required strength and precision was extensive. Forging and heat treating the steel was needed to give the action sufficient strength. Skill levels needed by the gunsmiths was such that only true artisans attained the requisite skills and the quantity of these artisans was few. So the making of a quality gun required an investment of considerable time and skill.

In the hundred years much has happened in both metallurgy and machining. Different steels are available that have strength, durability and machining qualities without the need for forging and related processes. Additionally, machining that previously required the steady guidance of a skilled artisan can now be accomplished with a computer guiding the machine. As a result, the skilled labor portion of the cost of a gun has been greatly reduced.

Cheap guns are cheap because modern metals and computer driven machines have been used in their manufacture., thus eliminating much of the labor costs. In terms of use, these guns are every bit as good as the older hand built guns- they just lack the aesthetics, nostalgia and custom fit and features of the expensive guns.

Not far from my own song sheet Ray, but I would pitch the entry point well above the bottom grade. There is that sweet spot where quality through modern materials and machining is achieved with no compromise. The aim is to be as good as or at least very close to the very best grade hand made guns. Materials and machining are necessary to achieve this goal, but not sufficient. To achieve the acme requires excellent inherent design too. If you have it all you can command a firmer market price point, and it will be accepted. Compromise is at a price, price is a compromise.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I know this is an old thread, but I didn't feel like starting a new one. I just bought a new Savage 110 with the Apex scope (3x9x40 Vortex Crossfire 2) package in .25-06. I've never owned a Savage or .25-06 before, but have been interested in that cartridge since the '70s. I bought this for a dedicated pronghorn rifle. With the Apex package, the rifle comes with a 24" barrel versus the "Engage" (Bushnell) scope package with a 22" barrel. Go figure? Anyway, the rifle has a 14" LOP with all the stock inserts from the factory. Perfect for me and the rifle comes up to my shoulder nicely. With no lube on the rails yet, the bolt travel is surprisingly smooth. The Accutrigger is crisp with no creep. I was really surprised by the clarity of the Vortex scope. It has a "dead hold" BDC feature, so I'll have to figure that out. The magazine release is a little stiff right now. Anyway, this rifle might work well for me. Next Wed or Thu I'll be sighting it in at the range. That is all for now!

@CoElkHunter
It's about time you saw the light mate and got a fast 25.
Load it with a nice 100gn TTSX to 3,400fps or a 117grain SST to 3,100fps and go have fun on those deer. The 117grain sighted 2.5 inches high will be a couple of inches low at 300 and give you close to 330 yards before you need to worry about hold over. A backline hold should take you out to close to 400 yards.
Bob

 

[F. Vaccaro]

The goal is to build a strong, durable, accurate, reliable and user friendly gun that is pleasing to the eye. The technology and metallurgy of 1900 was such that with the increased pressures of nitro powders the amount of handwork needed to achieve the required strength and precision was extensive. Forging and heat treating the steel was needed to give the action sufficient strength. Skill levels needed by the gunsmiths was such that only true artisans attained the requisite skills and the quantity of these artisans was few. So the making of a quality gun required an investment of considerable time and skill.

In the hundred years much has happened in both metallurgy and machining. Different steels are available that have strength, durability and machining qualities without the need for forging and related processes. Additionally, machining that previously required the steady guidance of a skilled artisan can now be accomplished with a computer guiding the machine. As a result, the skilled labor portion of the cost of a gun has been greatly reduced.

Cheap guns are cheap because modern metals and computer driven machines have been used in their manufacture., thus eliminating much of the labor costs. In terms of use, these guns are every bit as good as the older hand built guns- they just lack the aesthetics, nostalgia and custom fit and features of the expensive guns.

Then you throw in that ugly plastic stock that rings like a church bell each time you bump it!!!!
But the darn thing shoots under 1” all day & you can’t scratch the stock with a horse shoe rasp!!!!! Still it shoots under an inch @ 100yds. Smile!!!

 

[CoElkHunter]

@CoElkHunter
It's about time you saw the light mate and got a fast 25.
Load it with a nice 100gn TTSX to 3,400fps or a 117grain SST to 3,100fps and go have fun on those deer. The 117grain sighted 2.5 inches high will be a couple of inches low at 300 and give you close to 330 yards before you need to worry about hold over. A backline hold should take you out to close to 400 yards.
Bob

Heading out tomorrow to the range with some factory 120gr Core Lokts to check this Savage out.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Heading out tomorrow to the range with some factory 120gr Core Lokts to check this Savage out.

@CoElkHunter
Reloader 22 and H4831SC work well in the 25-06 with the heavier bullet. I will call you and discuss using hodgon superformance to give it a bit more sting. The 100gn balistic tip is a great bullet as well.
Bob

 

[CoElkHunter]

@CoElkHunter
Reloader 22 and H4831SC work well in the 25-06 with the heavier bullet. I will call you and discuss using hodgon superformance to give it a bit more sting. The 100gn balistic tip is a great bullet as well.
Bob

Well, with this Vortex BDC ("dead hold") scope, you are supposed to sight it in dead center at 100 yards and then use the graduated bars below the center crosshair for 200-400 yards? I'm not liking the scope already! LOL I've never owned a scope with any "technology" before, so we'll see?

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Well, with this Vortex BDC ("dead hold") scope, you are supposed to sight it in dead center at 100 yards and then use the graduated bars below the center crosshair for 200-400 yards? I'm not liking the scope already! LOL I've never owned a scope with any "technology" before, so we'll see?

@CoElkHunter
I use the Meopta 3.5 to 10 x44 with the bdc. Great scope. You go to the Meopta website and put in either factory loads or hand loads plus the power you want the scope set on. Wooshka gives you all the drops to remember.

That is the settings for my 25 with a 100gn ttsx sighted 2 inches high at 100 yards.
Bob

 

[Goose Cracker]

Well, with this Vortex BDC ("dead hold") scope, you are supposed to sight it in dead center at 100 yards and then use the graduated bars below the center crosshair for 200-400 yards? I'm not liking the scope already! LOL I've never owned a scope with any "technology" before, so we'll see?

The Vortex BDC is the only "fussy" reticle I really like. It's pretty simple to use. Vortex formerly offered an excellent ballistics calculator which would work with your reticle but I don't think that's the case these days.

There's a similar reticle from Trijicon I like. I think it's called an "MOA Dot Crosshair."

But I prefer a simple duplex and a target turret.

 

[CoElkHunter]

The Vortex BDC is the only "fussy" reticle I really like. It's pretty simple to use. Vortex formerly offered an excellent ballistics calculator which would work with your reticle but I don't think that's the case these days.

There's a similar reticle from Trijicon I like. I think it's called an "MOA Dot Crosshair."

But I prefer a simple duplex and a target turret.

The other fly in the ointment with this Vortex scope, is the BDC feature only works on maximum power (9x)? So, if your at 6x, I guess you had better memorized the drop charts?

 

[akrifleman]

I use ballistic reticles exclusively, but they have quite a few challenges. To start with, scope alignment relative to bore, is super critical. With just a cross-hair reticle, even if they are canted, they are still accurate at the dialed point of impact. With a BDC, they must be perfectly aligned through full travel, or cant issues will show up, even if the rifle is held level. Secondly, you need a cant indicator or must practice with one to ensure that when your holding below the reticle, your not canting the rifle, throwing the shot left or right. This also means you have to have consistent cheek weld. Also, if they are second focal plane vs first focal plane, the adjustments are always incorrect outside of the specified power. Finally, for those reticles to be of any real use over MPBR, they really need wind corrections built in.

If used as they are designed, they are superb for making longer shots accurately. If not, they tend to cause the user to miss without realizing why.

 

[Ragman]

@CoElkHunter I have a Vortex on my 7mmRM and really like it. However I’m not smart enough or care enough to figure out those reticles. I never have it cranked up to full zoomies either. I just keep my shots under 300 yards and use the main reticle like I have all my life. Works for me.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I use ballistic reticles exclusively, but they have quite a few challenges. To start with, scope alignment relative to bore, is super critical. With just a cross-hair reticle, even if they are canted, they are still accurate at the dialed point of impact. With a BDC, they must be perfectly aligned through full travel, or cant issues will show up, even if the rifle is held level. Secondly, you need a cant indicator or must practice with one to ensure that when your holding below the reticle, your not canting the rifle, throwing the shot left or right. This also means you have to have consistent cheek weld. Also, if they are second focal plane vs first focal plane, the adjustments are always incorrect outside of the specified power. Finally, for those reticles to be of any real use over MPBR, they really need wind corrections built in.

If used as they are designed, they are superb for making longer shots accurately. If not, they tend to cause the user to miss without realizing why.

Seems really impractical for a general big game hunting scope. Who doesn’t “cant” their rifle sometimes when making a shot or hunts with the scope on maximum magnification?

 

[CoElkHunter]

@CoElkHunter I have a Vortex on my 7mmRM and really like it. However I’m not smart enough or care enough to figure out those reticles. I never have it cranked up to full zoomies either. I just keep my shots under 300 yards and use the main reticle like I have all my life. Works for me.

I’m realizing that now. Unless your hunting mountain goats, sheep or prairie dogs with the scope at maximum magnification on a fixed tripod or bench rest where the rifle won’t “cant”, the BDC feature is useless. I’m going to use the center reticle only and sight it in so it’s on target from 100-300 yards, like every other scope I’ve owned.