difference between expensive rifles and price point rifles

[Mobuck]

The recent thread about the 'rough action' of a Ruger American reminded me of a discussion with my older Son about 'price point' rifles vs higher priced rifles. I'm referring to $400-600 vs $1200-2000(random figures not aimed at any specific brand or model). Following up on our discussion, we stopped at a gunshop with a wide variety of rifles where he pointed out his observations.
1: external overall fit and finish is always noticeable and obviously a factor for some folks but the quality of external finish is important in the long term usefulness of the rifle
2: smoothness of function is even more noticeable and possibly a bigger factor when it comes to functionality-the higher priced rifles' actions were universally smoother out of the box
3: appearance is a personal thing but a 'nice look' seems preferential to a 2x4 with potmetal/plastic parts glommed together by monkeys with hammers and pipe wrenches
4: now the real challenge--barrel/bore quality and performance. It seems that this can't be determined w/o test fire and/or borescope but expensive isn't always better(proven fact)
I'm a Remington 700/HOWA/Savage sort of guy and I've never owned an 'expensive' rifle although I own several that perform well above their price point. The moral of the story: Don't expect more than you pay for on the first three points but you may be surprised by the fourth.

 

[Morty358]

A prime example I have always laughed about is purchasing a Weatherby rifle with their 1” guarantee (with their ammo). Now there are multiple brand rifles that are well above the 2k price that have similar guarantees. Despite all that money being spent a person can go purchase a Savage Combo package for less than $500 at many Wal Mart a store that will 99% of the time out shoot all the other rifles. It will typically shoot better than many full custom built rifles. Is a Savage pretty?? Not really, but has your deer or whatever you shoot with your rifle ever complained about that??

 

[Yaworski]

1: external overall fit and finish is always noticeable and obviously a factor for some folks but the quality of external finish is important in the long term usefulness of the rifle

Fit and finish is a factor in the price. Hand fitting cost money and a beautiful high gloss finish also takes time and time is money. However, I don't accept that the finish is important in the long term usefulness of a firearm.

I would even argue that less expensive finishes like parkerizing or ceracoat are superior to bluing.

 

[bedfordboy]

^^^ Totally agree, my 788 Remington’s and Savage Model 10 never disappoint me and consistently deliver those 1” groups. Would they win a beauty contest, probably not 1st place, but like the 3rd runner up they are good enough for me and they don’t drain your bank account like that 1st place winner would.

 

[hittman]

My bolt action was inherited. First bolt action I’d ever owned or fired. And holy cow it spoiled me.
A 1960s vintage Weatherby MK 2 Deluxe from when they were made in Germany.
No real “need” for a 340 Weatherby Magnum for “big game” around here but … super smooth firearm!

 

[the_leper_colony]

I'll mention it just for grins (it doesn't really change any of the points @Mobuck listed ;^), but a lot of guys who wanted a smooth bolt action used to buy surplus Krags. There weren't really a lot of them to start with (compared to Mausers, for example), and I think many are in collections now, but they reportedly made decent hunting rifles. The Lee-Enfields rival the Krags for smoothness (and have more than one locking lug ;^), but generally aren't considered pretty or capable of minute-of-angle groups, unless perhaps they were professionally "sporterized" - but one size never fits all, and what's 'perfect' for one person may not even show up on radar for somebody else...
:)

 

[Mauser9]

Excellent post Mobuck! Like to keep up with the latest offerings by reading the gun rags but more than satisfied with my older Remington 700 or Model Four. Sucker for high gloss blue and walnut but admit the synthetic stocks do have their place. Often the prices give me a laugh compared to what I paid back in the 70s or 80s but that was quite a while back I understand. My 700 cost me around $350 new back in 83-84 and seems more like a high end rifle compared to many of todays offerings.

 

[Joe Chartreuse]

Guess I got lucky with my American- truly smooth action right out of the box. That being said, the big buck firearms do look and feel the part. Of course, they would have to. Kinda tough to sell an ugly duckling no matter how well it functions, especially at top price.

 

[nrobe50]

Life is to short to hunt with an ugly rifle. Old model 70's and Coopers.

 

[Yaworski]

Mostly we buy high end products not because they do a better job but ownership makes us feel good also they are tokens in the game of "look how well I'm doing."

Hey, if you have the money and spending it won't keep you from feeding or housing your family, spend it on what you want.

If I had the money, I'd have a Korth revolver, a Pagani, and a T-28. Instead, I have a Dan Wesson, a 20 year old Volvo, and no plane at all.

 

[bigbillyboy]

The one budget model that really impressed me recently is the savage axis in 6.5 creedmoor. I bought one about 2 years ago on a super black Friday deal and man it's accurate . And yes the bolt was a little " gritty " out of the box , but that is breaking in real nice .

 

[Jeepnik]

Life is to short to hunt with an ugly rifle. Old model 70's and Coopers.

Except there aren't any left handed old model 70's. But Remington has had them for a very long time.

 

[Paul B]

If I was in the market for a new rifle, I wouldn't look at what's on dealers shelves but prowl the gun shows for a J C Higgins M50 in whatever cartridge they came in. (.270 or 30-06 only) They're based on the time proven Mauser action as made by FN. Barrels were made by High Standard and the bores were chrome lined. Stocks were made by Fajen IIRC, but some may have come from Bishop. Pure walnut. I've never seen one that didn't give decent accuracy and the few that didn't were easy to get right. They're great hunting rifles as is and can be used as the basis of a fine custom gun of one is inclined to go that way. In their day, they were the equal of the pre-64 M70 and frankly a heck of a lot better rifle IMHO. I've owned both. The M70s are gone and the M50s are still with me.
Paul B.

 

[gunzo]

Cheap might include recycled tupperware stocks & stamped parts, tool marks & zero hand fitting or polishing.

But at no price should it include unfinished machining, burrs etc. or the left over grit from the manufacturing process. Failure to deburr, basically finish & clean cost little, and otherwise shows only greed & noncaring, & I can't make excuses for that no matter how much I care for a brand.

YMMV

 

[Hertervillian]

As we bemoan the high price of nicely finished goods let’s not forget the craftsmen who are doing the work. First and foremost they must be paid. Your money isn’t wasted it’s keeping a family fed, etc.

 

[kmoore]

No matter what the company claims about accuracy, I have spent far too much time at the range during public sight in and helping other members that I have seen far too many that will not ever shoot to the rifle's true accuracy and many don't care.
I do and won't own any rifle for long that won't shoot to my standards with some help when needed.

 

[bhp9]

I know the post 64 Winchester took a lot of criticism but after modifications in 1968 they came up with an action that was actually smoother to operate than the much worshiped Pre-64 Winchester Rifles. I have owned several of both so this is not just hot air but from hands on experience.

I too mourn the passing of the high gloss blued rifles with their walnut stocks. Admittedly they required a lot of care before going out in bad weather with them. You can look at a modern made rifle today as just a utilitarian tool or if you take pride in ownership there are still older rifles out there that have pride of ownership the only problem is you will probably pay way more for a used quality older rifle than the bargain basement stuff you see at Walmart. All the modern made stuff goes bang providing they are not used under harsh conditions of dust, dirt, freezing rain, below freezing temperatures etc. The 98 Mauser rifle laughs at such harsh conditions, while a lot of the modern made rifles immediately fall backwards into a dead faint.

Yesterday I saw a sporterized Remington 1917 Enfield and the price at the gunshop was actually $1,200. These sportsized guns only a few years ago sold for as little as $200 or less. It goes to show you how little people value the modern made stuff when they pay that kind of price for a rifle made over 100 years ago. I might add I paid only $300 just a few short years ago for a Sears/FN 98 .270 rifle. Try and find one for that price today, you will probably pay $1,200 for one of those too.

In all these years I have yet to see a bolt action commercial sporting rifle as well made or as reliable as easy to field strip as the 98 Mauser rifle. True, it has slower locktime but that is what made it so reliable under harsh conditions and we are not speaking of a target rifle but of a hunting rifle so 1/4 minute groups are not even a consideration for a big game rifle. Its simply not needed and never has been needed. This is not to say I have not shot some 1/2" groups with 127 year old Mauser Rifles at 100 yards but it takes good follow through.

The 98 is also a controlled feed which means even if you short stroke the bolt in operating it that it will never jam up the gun like the majority of modern made rifles that have push feed actions and often extractors that are way less rugged compared to the non-rotating claw extractor of the 98 and the extractor was made of quality spring steel, not a modern made cheap brittle casting as found on modern rifles that try to mimic the original 98 rifle's non-rotating claw extractor.

The 98's action still has the best gas escape systems compared to a lot of modern made guns, some of which do not have any gas escape at all but just try to contain any escaping gases. Good luck with that design.

The 98's bolt is of superior strength and quality as the bolt handle is integral with the bolt body, not brazed on which falls off if even slightly bumped. I think you all know which manufacturer brazes on bolt handles even to this day. Hint, it still makes the most popular bolt action rifle ever made.

The breach of the 98 is "not" coned which means the cartridge case is fully supported at its rear end. Many modern made rifles have the coned breach leaving the cartridge case unsupported at its rear most end.

Although this book is somewhat outdated the book "The Bolt Action Rifle, A Design Analysis" written by Stuart Otteson, an Engineer, really is an eye opener comparing the then known bolt guns up until 1976.

And we have not even mentioned the semi-auto rifles which can date back to the year 1900. If your state permits it if I was to hunt the really big dangerous critters I think I would rather have a semi-auto in my hands than any bolt gun. I once saw Jim Shockey almost killed by a Mountain Lion and he was even attacked from behind. If he had missed on his first shot even Jim would have not had time to crank the bolt for another shot.

And by the way in my state we have had people killed by ubiquitous White Tailed Deer during the rut so again, how fast can you operate a bolt gun and still shoot accurately? I used to compete in NRA across the course matches and it takes a lot of practice to fire fast and hit what you are aiming at with a bolt gun as compared to a semi-auto and with the price of ammo these days selling for a King's Ransom how much practice can the ordinary working man afford these days. Answer: Very little.

Some few years ago I bought from a friend a 98 Mauser Guild Rifle for $200 with half octagon/half round barrel, stippled and also case color hardened receiver and it has double set triggers. There is no provision for mounting a scope and the rather smallish iron sights are a challenge for my old tired eyes but one day I put 3 cast lead bullets (sized to .321) out of it (its an 8x57"J" caliber) at 100 yards into a 1/2 inch group at 100 yards. It shoots the .318 jacketed bullets every bit as good. I might add for some unfathomable reason just a few short years ago you could buy these guns online for only a song and a dance. Not so today as even the 8x57JS rifles can cost a king's ransom.

There is an old axiom as true today as it was back in the day and it is "Make Mine Mauser"!!!!

 

[bhp9]

Cheap might include recycled tupperware stocks & stamped parts, tool marks & zero hand fitting or polishing.

But at no price should it include unfinished machining, burrs etc. or the left over grit from the manufacturing process. Failure to deburr, basically finish & clean cost little, and otherwise shows only greed & noncaring, & I can't make excuses for that no matter how much I care for a brand.

YMMV

I might add to your post a fellow at our shooting range showed us a brand new AR15 rifle that had so many sharp edges on it they would cut you. There is no excuse for that as how long does it take to knock off a sharp edge. I cannot tell you the brand for obvious reasons. But it would surprise you if you knew.

 

[bhp9]

If I was in the market for a new rifle, I wouldn't look at what's on dealers shelves but prowl the gun shows for a J C Higgins M50 in whatever cartridge they came in. (.270 or 30-06 only) They're based on the time proven Mauser action as made by FN. Barrels were made by High Standard and the bores were chrome lined. Stocks were made by Fajen IIRC, but some may have come from Bishop. Pure walnut. I've never seen one that didn't give decent accuracy and the few that didn't were easy to get right. They're great hunting rifles as is and can be used as the basis of a fine custom gun of one is inclined to go that way. In their day, they were the equal of the pre-64 M70 and frankly a heck of a lot better rifle IMHO. I've owned both. The M70s are gone and the M50s are still with me.
Paul B.

I agree with you. I picked up a Sears/FN Mauser in .270 deluxe version for only $300 about a decade ago and its accuracy is outstanding and the workmanship flawless. It also had real "hand checkering" on the stock not modern soft junk laser cut checkering.

 

[bhp9]

The recent thread about the 'rough action' of a Ruger American reminded me of a discussion with my older Son about 'price point' rifles vs higher priced rifles. I'm referring to $400-600 vs $1200-2000(random figures not aimed at any specific brand or model). Following up on our discussion, we stopped at a gunshop with a wide variety of rifles where he pointed out his observations.
1: external overall fit and finish is always noticeable and obviously a factor for some folks but the quality of external finish is important in the long term usefulness of the rifle
2: smoothness of function is even more noticeable and possibly a bigger factor when it comes to functionality-the higher priced rifles' actions were universally smoother out of the box
3: appearance is a personal thing but a 'nice look' seems preferential to a 2x4 with potmetal/plastic parts glommed together by monkeys with hammers and pipe wrenches
4: now the real challenge--barrel/bore quality and performance. It seems that this can't be determined w/o test fire and/or borescope but expensive isn't always better(proven fact)
I'm a Remington 700/HOWA/Savage sort of guy and I've never owned an 'expensive' rifle although I own several that perform well above their price point. The moral of the story: Don't expect more than you pay for on the first three points but you may be surprised by the fourth.

I suppose you and I and everyone else could talk about rifle barrels until the cows came home but making a generalization on average the custom made and installed barrel usually does give way better accuracy.

Case in point. In the past I have owned at least half a dozen 22-250 rifles that had factory barrels on them and they were light sporter barrels made for carrying not bench rest shooting. None of these rifles gave me really outstanding accuracy. I then picked up an ancient 1914 Mauser rifle complete with its slow lock time and I bought the gun so cheap I was able to have a Shilen barrel put on it. The accuracy was nothing short of amazing. The first 3 shots out of the barrel not even broken in yet put 3 shots into 1/2 inch at 100 yards and remember this is out of a light weight sporter barrel, not a heavy bench gun. I know some factory barrels will also do this but again, how many other factory barrels do not do this? None of my factory made barrels ever did on my rifles.

Its interesting to note that there "no such thing" as a perfectly straight rifle barrel. Factories seldom scrap out brand new crooked barrels but straighten them in a press. The result is that when they heat up they tend to bend back crooked again while hot resulting in the groups opening up. Custom made barrels that are not fairly straight are scrapped out and never sold which is one reason a custom barrel is much more expensive than a factory made barrel. The interior dimensions and smoothness are also held to tighter tolerances in the custom made barrel.

I might add I have in the past when using a good bore scope I have seen factory barrels so rough they looked like corn cobs and these were brand new guns. Contrast this to the mirror finish on a good custom made barrel. Now you know why some factory barrels pick up copper and carbon fouling so quickly. They may shoot great for a couple of rounds before the groups start to open up quite a bit. Even more disturbing is that back in the day at Springfield Armory (which never did put a truly first class lap on their barrels) found that it took on average 2,000 rounds before their barrels started to get peak accuracy. This shows you how critical the interior of the bore is to great accuracy and why a first class custom barrel often shoots much better than a factory barrel.

The real question is do you need that kind of accuracy? If its not paper competition then the answer is no. Even a woodchuck rifle can kill woodchucks if the range is not way out there at the other end of the planet,

 

[XUSNORDIE]

I have couple high dollar rigs, but not "out of the box". Custom rifles, but not fancy looking. Not sure why I bothered. The rifles I used the most are just as accurate, maybe a tad uglier, and a heck of a lot cheaper. I have no use or need for fancy high gloss wood. Varmint hunting can be expensive chasing a groundhog kill over 1000yds. Which is a rare opportunity on the farms I hunted so don't know why I even threw money at it. I have a Ruger American 204R that I changed the bolt handle and put on a B&C stock. It is a cheap and ugly rifle. I have a Savage 204R that is plain jane stock out of the box. Nothing special for optics on either of them. A low tier Vortex Viper and a Hawke 30SF. Both rifles shoot just as good as the customs, although not as far of course (204R vs 6.6CM). For my intended use the cheaper rifles with tweaks here and there are the way to go. I won't get rid of the custom rifles, but I don't see me using them anymore either. They will be passed down with the rest.

I'm (was) pretty harsh on my rifles, especially when I was big into predator hunting contests in extremely inclement winter conditions. I didn't worry too much about the less expensive rifles.....and if something happened, it was cheaper to have a less expensive rifle standing by as a back up.

Now... bench rest target rifles, only to be used in pleasant conditions and to be gawked at..... that's a different story..... ;)

 

[FLUndertaker]

I had a Sako Finn Bear Deluxe left handed in 7 RM, gorgeous rifle, gorgeous rifle and like a laser. Still sorry I sold it even though I have zero need for a belted magnum.

 

[Cofaler]

For me? The difference is about 30 years. I couldn't really see spending that sort of coin on nice stuff till I hit my 50s and had more 'discretionary income'...

 

[XUSNORDIE]

I had a Sako Finn Bear Deluxe left handed in 7 RM, gorgeous rifle, gorgeous rifle and like a laser. Still sorry I sold it even though I have zero need for a belted magnum.

The "glossiest" or I guess most "gorgeous" rifle I have is a bone stock 1972 Rem BDL in 7MM REM MAG......it's the only belted magnum I have, and like you have no real use for it. I've taken it out to the deer blind a couple times, but it is overkill for medium sized Maryland deer. I found myself carrying it differently trying to avoid scratching it as I made my way to the blind under moonlight. My usual and cheaper deer rifles show a lot of "memory marks" from hunts. Co-worker inherited it a few years ago and was selling at a deal I couldn't pass up....$200......it sits in the safe.

 

[Paul B]

I have a few "custom" rifles that I built myself and one that was professionally done by name gunsmiths.
The "Name" gunsmith rifle is a .280 Remington that I call my plains rifle. I gave it that name because it's just too damn heavy to carry in any rough country. )10 pounds) pretty as all get out with a nice piece of wood carved out and checkered by Sterling Davenport. Not real sure who did the metal work but it's definitely top dollar work. That rifle is very accurate runing MOA or slightly less with Remington factory 150 gr. Corelokts and sub-MOA with my handloads running 160 gr. Speer grand Slams.

One of the customs I built myself consists of an FN commercial Mauser action, a 24" Douglass barrel and sits in a McMillan stock. It has less than $500 in the making and will outshoot the professionally made custom on a 1909 Argentine Mauser.

Another I built has a 23" Douglass barrel, an FN commercial action and a European pre-war German style stock I carved out and checkered myself. Rifle is a clone of the Mauser model B. I think I have all of $550 in tht one. It too is sub-MOA.
Paul B.

 

[XUSNORDIE]

24" Douglass barrel and sits in a McMillan stock. It has less than $500 in the making

Both of those alone are typically well over $500 by themselves....that's an incredible deal you found on those items!

 

[hike]

In pistols, a regular Sig compared to a Legion version of the same model is quite different -- nicer looks and accessories, "Yes", But a smoother trigger, grippier grips, etc. make the difference. Usually, the cost of upgrading the regular Sig with all the upgrades of a Legion is more than the difference between the regular Sig's and the Legion's cost.
When I was young, I purchased the cheaper and upgraded it along the way. Now, I purchase the better/best and enjoy shooting it along the way. Buying quality in tools and guns, is cheaper in the long run for me.
Buy quality --> cry once and enjoy always!

 

[Paul B]

Both of those alone are typically well over $500 by themselves....that's an incredible deal you found on those items!

The gunsmith was a close friend and I did most of the work. He has since passed on to the Great gun shop in the sky.. I miss that old boy, not because of great deals but he was also a true friend.
Paul B.

 

[Mobuck]

Back when I still held my FFL, I had a good relationship with a competent gunsmith and access to all sorts of receivers(military and commercial). I had several actions re-barreled but the only one I had re-finished was the 280Rem I gave to my older Son. The others were simply intended to send bullets accurately w/o any real effort into appearance. Some still haven't even been fired as an accident in 1997 took most of the 'custom rifle' interest out of me. A couple have been used extensively as long range coyote thumpers or deer rifles but all are mothballed and virtually worthless in this age of 1 MOA $400 off the shelf rifles. :rolleyes:

 

[Mike J]

I would expect a more expensive rifle to be better, nicer in one way or another. I guess I'm cheap though. I bought a post-64 model 70 Ranger .30-06 new in 1989 for about $229.00 if I recall correctly. It is a push feed model 70 with the featherweight barrel profile in a plain birch stock. It is the only deer rifle I've used since. It is MOA with Remington core-lokts. I am seriously considering getting a Ruger American Gen 2 in 6.5 Creedmoor for my son. I haven't bought but after reading reviews & handling one I'm pretty sure it will do what I want it to. I just did a search on what the equivalent of the $229.00 I spent in '89 would be today & ironically enough it is roughly what the American Gen 2 rifles are selling for.