Let's discuss long guns

[FlYFiShErMaN]

I can appreciate the new tool's of the trade such as the AR's and AK's, sporting rifle's with the synthetic stocks's and such and do own em, but a blued steel and wanut stocked rifle with a fine leather sling on it just does something for your soul!

I agree 100% and owned many of the blued steel and walnut stocked long guns from circa 1900 through 1950s. I did not own anything newer than that, but I sold every long/smooth bore I owned. That $$ has been applied to my handgun collection. I can get more of them in my safe

 

[Kanewpadle]

Obviously you haven't taken a good look at CZ rifles.

But I know what you mean. Friend of mine has a Colt Sauer rifle that's just awsome. He won't sell it to me the son of a gun.

 

[BOB THE PALINDROME]

Well, I do have a Ruger 10/22 rigged out with black stock and EoTec sight but my next "newest" rifle is an M1 Garand, then a Remington 1917, and an 1898 Kraig. Yep, I appreciate real wood.

P.S. I did save the walnut stock for the 10/22.

 

[gregintenn]

You are preaching to the choir with me! My ol man sees it your way too, and still builds rifles the way a rifle should look. Here are a couple of 257 Roberts he built for each of my children.

 

[Skeeziks]

Those are beautiful, greggintenn.
The .257 Roberts is one of the sweetest shootin' rounds there is.

 

[GatorFarmer]

Wood is affected by moisture and temperature. Blued steel meanwhile tends to rust more quickly.

A stainless rifle ought not be shiny. If it is, paint it or get it treated, but most are useful as they come.

Machine labor tends to cost more today than hand labor, at least in developed nations. People also forget to factor in the cost of inflation.

Bespoke rifles are still readily available today, both in modern guise and in black powder. Prices start about a grand or two and up. Probably not far from what the price of a nice Remington from 1960 would be if inflation and other factors are taken into account.

A blue collar working man's rifle like a Mossberg 800 would be nicely fit out in ye olden days. But for the guy actually using it, and not just wanting something to look pretty, it would tend to rust and the wood would warp. All that for a 3 MOA rifle. Spend the same money today on the latest synthetic wonder and you get a rifle that might not be as smooth, but is probably more accurate and more durable.

 

[BlackSky]

I just bought a brand spanking new Browning X Bolt Hunter in .30-06 and it fits all the criteria the OP mentioned as qualities of old. Awesome blueing, action smooth as a baby's butt dipped in butter, gorgeous walnut stock with fine checkering. Incredible rifle.

 

[mr.magnum]

my best looking rifle is my cz 527 prestige chambered in .223. for the longest, i contemplated selling it. i am a pistol guy and don't often shoot rifles. last weekend my little brother came home and we had the best time shooting targets with it. my respect for it is great now and i would never part with it. and big old dave is right. even a pistol guy knows to respect the savage 99.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

A stainless rifle in a synthetic stock makes sense in a very damp or humid climate. But in long guns as in handguns I am a Steel and Walnut man.

 

[oldman45]

Again, long guns spend more time in the cabinet being viewed than in the field being used.

A viewer will appreciate the looks of a beautiful gun than one in camo or plain.

As to the accuracy of the newer guns, I do not buy that. I have a Browning A-Bolt in .270 that I can place a shot in a two inch target every time at 200 yards. I have a Sako 7mm mag that I can virtually stack the bullets at 200 yards.

I have to say that I paid more than $1,000 for each of these guns over 15 yrs ago and then put another $500 in a scope for each.

A person can buy accuracy in a good gun but few are willing to do so or even justify the added expense. I do not need a gun that shoots a 1 inch group at 200 yards but I feel buying quality is well worth the added money and I can write the cost off my income tax.

 

[BarbC]

How do you write the cost off on your income tax?

 

[oldman45]

How do you write the cost off on your income tax?

One of my areas of expertise is in firearms. I testify in more than a few firearm cases each year. In order to know more about firearms, I have to study them, shoot them and learn them inside out. Each time I buy a gun, I do so for study. Often times, the firearms maker will give me a gun like the one that is in litigation.

Anything I buy that aids my work, be it a vehicle, computer, gun or other item is a tax write off. I earn money working and travel over the country doing court room work. Since it is a long time legal business with substantial annual earnings, the deductions are allowed.

 

[feralmerril]

oldman45, thats interesting and more power to you. But is there a mechanism to tax you if you ever sell the gun after the trial? Just wondering.

 

[BarbC]

I am obviously in the wrong business.

 

[oldman45]

oldman45, thats interesting and more power to you. But is there a mechanism to tax you if you ever sell the gun after the trial? Just wondering.

Anything the business bought is subject to being taxed for any money it brings IF sold. Depreciation is allowed and used. My vehicles are depreciated over a three year period. When I could justify owning an airplane all the time, it was depreciated over 10 years. If something has little or no value, it is just tossed away.

But if I were to sell any gun, the next time I needed one like that, I would just have to buy another. From a business standpoint, a person cannot have too many guns.

A friend of mine is an attorney that only handles cases involving injury or death from firearms. It got to the point where he had to become a FFL holder in order to get the guns he wanted shipped directly to him. I cannot justify becoming a dealer.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Unless you're going the Sako route, or something top level like that, most rifles these days are unappealing IMO.

A purpose built midrange rifle is acceptable, synthetic stock of quality, bead blasted stainless and a good overall finish is OK.

Many or most of the entry level rifles I see look like old tin press tab toys to me. Rough, in need of upgrade, marginally accurate, some whiz-bang super-duper eye catching gotta have feature that doesn't make up for the deficiencies.

My first rifle is a Ruger M77 I bought in the mid 80's with lamo stock. Boy that was heavy and I sent it to Buzztail in Oregon for accurizing, lapping, hard chrome and I put it in a Lee Six stock. Purpose built, beat the crap out of it, shoots straight.

Next rifle was a used Remington 700 I found that was customized with a 6.5-06 SS Hart competition barrel. Buzztail got it and did the same things with it and put it in a MacMillan stock. Nice piece.

I fell into two Colt Sauer's. A .300Wby and a .243. Holy smokes! IMO, these are the finest rifles I have ever seen! Custom everything from the factory. Rear locking lugs, Colt deep royal bluing, the wood... oh, is that nice! I don't hunt with them as I have other rifles to abuse. Happy to own them and take them to the range every so often.

Of late I found two really nice rifles for next to nothing. One is a sporterized Eddystone 1917 ( June 1918 mfg.) in a fantastic stock. Whoever did this was a professional, no question about it. Friggin thing is heavy as a block, so it won't find itself in the field unless a miracle occurs, but it's real nice, shoots straight and a pleasure to own. Had a Leupold 4x on it. Real old scope, but still crisp and clear.

The other is a 1972 Browning 06, a "salt stock" rifle. Had a minor amount of patina, almost not enough to call it rust, at the stock line. This is an FN made browning with control feed and eject. I saw the identical rifle in a nicer stock with better bluing and it was labeled a Parker Hale. Same rifle exactly.

Cleaned up nice, oxpho'd the steel where needed, refinished the stock - tiger burl walnut - and inletted the forearm so I could slip a dollar bill all the way to the action. This is an accurate rifle! Came with a cheap scope.

Both those rifles were purchased for @ $200 each.

So, IMO, unless you want to move to a top tier rifle and the associated costs, look for old and used.

 

[Texas Star]

Winchester is again building fine rifles in the FN plant in S. Carolina.

I'm very fond of my M-70 Fwt. Classic in .270, made in the early 90's. My son and his father-in-law have a couple of those in .30/06 that are outstanding. Really nice wood, and worthy of the Zeiss scope that the son has on his. Mine has a genuine Redfield scope with a Euro reticle that has thick crosshair, save for the top one. It is very quick to get on target. The sling is leather, too, not nylon!

I think that if I buy another rifle, it'll be another M-70 or a CZ or Sako. Haven't seen the Kimbers or Dakotas, but they are so expensive, that I'll need to sell some books to buy one. Better go work on writing one now. I spend too much time on forums...But there are worse vices!

T-Star
P.S. How is the action smoothness on new CZ's? I haven't seen one in person. They used to be a little rough at first. I guess that Break-Free and elbow grease would wear one in, and they are otherwise nice. I do plan to get one of the M-452 American .22's. Should be a fine small game rifle.

 

[Texas Star]

Oh: I picked up a Howa 7mm-08 with synthetic stock in trade for a binocular. It shoots well, and is more of an all-weather rifle than my walnut-stocked M-70. But it doesn't have the "soul" of the Winchester.

I need to upgrade the scope, probably to a Nikon 4X. The previous owner had a "bargain" scope on it.

Wish that I could find factory ammo with Nosler bullets, but they're really not needed for most of what I'd hunt. Remington ammo with 140 grain bullets is the easiest to find, and should do fine on whitetails. My DIL bopped a nice buck with this rifle at 80 yards. It hit the ground so fast that it probably never knew what hit it.

What I really need is a .416. I could spread the word that I had it, and elephants would steer clear of the flowerbeds. Not that elephants or Cape buffalo have been a problem, but you never know. All sorts of "exotic" animals show up in the US, right?

 

[Sprefix]

I'm stuck on blue and wood myself. I certainly see the advantages of the stainless/synthetics, but they don't have any "soul". JMO..........here are a few "old school" blue and wood guns...1886 Browning (45-70),Mod '06 20" carbine in 22LR,1949 M-70 (30 Gov't 06), and a few other assorted smokepoles..........Sprefix

 

[oldman45]

I'm stuck on blue and wood myself. I certainly see the advantages of the stainless/synthetics, but they don't have any "soul". JMO..........here are a few "old school" blue and wood guns...1886 Browning (45-70),Mod '06 20" carbine in 22LR,1949 M-70 (30 Gov't 06), and a few other assorted smokepoles..........Sprefix

Now those are real guns with eye appeal.

I wonder how many on here likes the newer Remington 742 with the plastic stocks than the real wood of the older models. A person can call stocks synthetic, composite or what ever they want but they are still plastic. You cannot smooth out scratches, you cannot polish them and you cannot make them as nice as real wood.