OT Differences in Bolt Actions by Savage Ruger Remington?

[Centennial]

What are the quality or differences of bolt actions compared between the various makers like the:
Ruger American or model 77;
Remington 700/other models;
Savage 110/other models;
Winchester model 70
Mossberg bolt action

[Treeman72]

This topic interests me as well. Just traded my 9422mag for a ruger 77 in 7mm magnum, as I got just access to some nice set up deer blind hunting this fall. Needed something for 200 yard, or further, and my 9422mag has seen little action the past couple years.

[TedH]

I have examples of each of those except the Mossberg. As far as a platform for a basic hunting rifle there isn't a lot of difference in any of them, if you are just going to buy one and go hunting. The Remington 700 action seems to be the preferred action for specialty rifles, such as Police Swat, Sniper work, etc. There are some differences in the way the safteys operate, which to me is just a matter of personal preference. Some have user adjustable triggers, most of the Ruger and Winchester models will not be. The Savage rifles use a lock ring to secure the barrel, making user barrel swaps much easier. Just depends on what you're wanting, and what you will be using it for.

[vancelw]

I'm sure there are many, many differences, but to me the main two are safety style (tang, lever, two or three position) and extraction.

Then the locking mechanism (number of lugs, front or rear of bolt) and bolt handle angle are pretty important (for scope clearance)

You might as well have asked what the differences to words in the dictionary are You're going to get a lot of biased opinions....

I prefer mauser claw extraction (controlled feed) and a three position tang safety (or release button to open bolt while on safe, like my X-bolt). I currently don't own a rifle set up that way, since Ruger MK II and Kimbers have side lever safeties. Been eyeballing some NIB old stock Ruger 77 (originals with tang safety) lately

[vancelw]

TedH beat me too it...I think the only Rugers with user-adjustable triggers are the ones with the L6 trigger. First thing I did to my All-weather .308 was have a gunsmith cut the trigger down from 20 lbs (not really, but felt like it) to 2.5 lbs. Great rifle now.

[Old Savage]

In my experience with a number of each, the Remington's are more consistently accurate out of the box. I guess I am not too trigger sensitive as one of my most accurate rifles is a Ruger 7x57 with an 8 1/2 lb. trigger but before I bedded it it was about the least accurate I had.

[TedH]

TedH beat me too it...I think the only Rugers with user-adjustable triggers are the ones with the L6 trigger. First thing I did to my All-weather .308 was have a gunsmith cut the trigger down from 20 lbs (not really, but felt like it) to 2.5 lbs. Great rifle now.

I had two stainless all weather Ruger rifles, a 338 and a 243. Both were good shooters, but I just couldn't keep the triggers like they were. Seemed like a mile of creep and about 10 lbs. I found a great article online about how to clean up the Ruger triggers, with drawings of angles and measurements. I closely followed his direction, and even installed a set screw to be able to adjust overtravel. Those ended up wonderful triggers that broke like a glass rod at 2 lbs with no descernible overtravel. I prefer the Remington type safety, but I like the Ruger's and Winchester's huge claw extractors. The controlled round feeding isn't much of an issue outside of a Dangerous Game rifle though, even then, some say it's not necessary.

[Centennial]

To help refine my question:
1). Accuracy

2). function, feed, extract, and eject reliability, any issues.

3). Prices. A Ruger American is 1/2 the price of a Ruger 77.
Similar price differences with other makers models.
What justifies the price extremes besides wood and finish?

A friend is looking to buy a rifle, is recoil sensitive due to a broken collar bone that didn't heal right. It would be used for big game. Could learn to shoot off the other shoulder too. Maybe 25-06, 7mm, or 270................

[jnyork]

I have owned 4 Rugers and could never get them to shoot worth a whoop, traded them off at gunshows. Still have my Remingtons.

If your friend is recoil sensitive, IMHO the .270 is too much gun. I have owned a Remington 721 since it was new and cant hardly stand to shoot it, kicks me over the moon.

[Old Savage]

Wow, are perceptions different. But, what big game? I have had a number of Rugers and all shot very well with some factory or handloads. Stock fit can make a big difference in recoil.

[Pete44ru]

TedH beat me too it...I think the only Rugers with user-adjustable triggers are the ones with the L6 trigger. First thing I did to my All-weather .308 was have a gunsmith cut the trigger down from 20 lbs (not really, but felt like it) to 2.5 lbs. Great rifle now.

FYI - Early, tang-safety Ruger M77's have an adjustable trigger - my preference (tang-safety) over the Win M70FW's & Rem 700's I've owned/shot/hunted.

It's purely subjective, but I've never cared for the looks of the Savage boltguns, even though they have tang safeties.

JMO, but I think the Savage's look like the barrelled actions aren't fully-inletted deep enough into their stocks - although the .223 Savage Axis, my son won @ game dinner raffle a year ago, has been pretty accurate.

Sometimes, though, it's about specific chambering that may/may not be available in every maker's mainline rifle - like the .250 Savage (chambered) tang safety Ruger M77 I recentlt glommed onto.

.

[AJMD429]

I prefer mauser claw extraction (controlled feed) and a three position tang safety (or release button to open bolt while on safe, like my X-bolt). I currently don't own a rifle set up that way, since Ruger MK II and Kimbers have side lever safeties. Been eyeballing some NIB old stock Ruger 77 (originals with tang safety) lately

Yep. My favorite setup is the Tang-safety Ruger 77's.

Overall, I like the Rugers where strength and smoothness are primary concerns, and Savages when triggers are a priority, but that's totally an individual bias; like others have said, they ALL work very well, and today's "off the shelf" bolt action guns are better in many ways than those of a generation ago (except, of course, 'fit and finish' may not be).

sensitive due to a broken collar bone that didn't heal right. It would be used for big game. Could learn to shoot off the other shoulder too. Maybe 25-06, 7mm, or 270................

Keep in mind that the weight affects recoil quite a bit, as does comb angle/drop. My Ruger 'Alaskan' in 375 Ruger kicks very little, due to the heavy Pachmayr stock, recoil pad, and stock design, yet it is ballistically identical to a 375 H&H.

[Hobie]

Price differences exist due to cost of manufacture and demand vs. supply. Not a lot to do with fit or finish given the examples you are using and modern manufacturing methods. Ruger cut a lot of cost on the Americans hence the relative inexpensiveness compared to the 77. Wood also costs more and more while certain of the synthetics are pretty darn cheap as well as inexpensive. The Savage Axis and Ruger American are commonly reported to be as accurate as anything else out there. However, in the end, you still pays your money and takes your chances.

[Centennial]

Are Savage Axis/model 110,the same action/gun? Are Ruger Americans/model 77, the same actions?

[6pt-sika]

As far as I'm concerned my perception of the three is this .

The first Ruger bolt actions with the tang safety's are okay and I have a owned a good many of them over the years . The 77 MK-II is so so although I did have a pair of the 77 MK-II VT's in 6mm PPC and 204 Ruger that were tack drivers . In the Hawkeye version I handled a couple in 338 Federal I liked but that was more then anything because I liked the cartridge .The Ruger All American or whatever it's called is of no intrest to me .

Remington's that are pre 1996 are what I mostly look for now . I have not had one of these I couldn't make shoot well . The old 788's , 721's , 722's and Model 7 were all as a general rule great shooters . The Remington product line after 2000 didn't really impress me .

As to Savage . They are about the ugliest looking out of the three . I have however had many of the Model 12LRP's in my hands that were 1/4 MOA rifles . All of them were chambered for the 6.5 Creedmoor I might add . The Long Range Hunter series of Savage rifles shoot very well from all the ones I have tried . Also played with a couple of the Hog Hunters that shot very nicely with wide open loads and sub sonic loads . The Savage bolt action rifled shotguns are tack drivers as well . The bolt action muzzle loaders for the most part do very nicely although I had issue with one of them .

Bottom line I do not like any of the inexpensive rifles put out by the three companies !
I've played with a couple Savavge Axis and they all needed an after market trigger to suit me . The Ruger All American or whatever it's called has not been in my hands but the pictures are enough to turn me away . The Remington less expensive models that aren't a 7 , 700 , 721 , 722 , 788 , 600 , 660 or 673 do not intrest me either .

I have pretty much turned totally to rebarreling nice old Remington 700's or Model 7's to whatever I care to fool with .

[6pt-sika]

Are Savage Axis/model 110,the same action/gun? Are Ruger Americans/model 77, the same actions?

NO and NO !

[piller]

I like the Remington action, but their triggers need to be worked with in order to have a tack driver. I have done the trigger work on one of my Remingtons, and on my Wife's. It does void any warranty, so take that and make sure you are OK with it. I have a Stevens (Savage) in 7mm-08 and it has a great trigger right from the factory. The kick is mild to me, accuracy is good (I am going to change to Weaver style bases because the Burris style wander on me), and it is smooth enough. Funny thing is, the 2 most accurate firearms in the house are PillHer's Remington 700 SPS and PillHer's Marlin 336C. Both are 1 ragged hole shooters when used with good ammo. My Marlin 336W is barely adequate, and I am not sure how to steal the 336C back from her. Remington triggers do seem to benefit from a good soaking in teflon spray that dries and leaves a film of teflon behind.

[6pt-sika]

I like the Remington action, but their triggers need to be worked with in order to have a tack driver. I have done the trigger work on one of my Remingtons, and on my Wife's. It does void any warranty, so take that and make sure you are OK with it. I have a Stevens (Savage) in 7mm-08 and it has a great trigger right from the factory. The kick is mild to me, accuracy is good (I am going to change to Weaver style bases because the Burris style wander on me), and it is smooth enough. Funny thing is, the 2 most accurate firearms in the house are PillHer's Remington 700 SPS and PillHer's Marlin 336C. Both are 1 ragged hole shooters when used with good ammo. My Marlin 336W is barely adequate, and I am not sure how to steal the 336C back from her. Remington triggers do seem to benefit from a good soaking in teflon spray that dries and leaves a film of teflon behind.

Generally the 700's I get are past any normal warrenty so the trigger issue is a moot point . I have several older guns that the triggers can be adjusted down to about 1/2 a pound and when I work up loads from the bench I like a trigger that light . I have my grandfathers old 722 222 trigger set at 12 ounces right now for shooting groundhogs and such .

The older ones as I said and you alluded to can be adjusted very well . The newer ones that are a PITA are best to be replaced with a RifleBasix trigger . Done several of those as well .

I happened upon a Shilen 700 trigger that was brand new a year or two ago . Guy pretty much gave me the thing . Anyway I could never get it to feel as good as an old adjusted Remington factory trigger . The Shilen seemed to always have just a touch of creep and it was difficult to get it much below one pound . For most folks that's all a non issue , but for me it was an issue !

[piller]

6Pt-Sika, I do like the older Remington triggers. I have set the trigger on my 700 ADL in .270 to 4 pounds, and my 700 ADL .30-06 to 3.5 pounds. They both shoot much better now than when they were new. The factory 8 1/2 pound trigger always caused me to pull off target. I did have to play with the three different screws a little to get them where I wanted them. After they were set to my liking, I sealed them in place with clear fingernail polish.

[horsesoldier03]

I have the Mossberg 100ATR in .308 that is in a wood stock. I think it is actually a synthetic wood, but it is at least SOLID and far better than the black synthetic version. The most frequent complaint that I have seen is regarding the bolt and the magazine follower. Personally, I think the BOLT issue is pretty much BS. I have several hundred rounds through mine and have never had any issue. I will state that there is a little to the magazine followers. It works, and I have never had a round miss feed because of it, but I have had to take a little extra effort when loading the bullets in the mag.

[Treeman72]

The 9422mag I traded was for a Ruger 77 markii Hawkeye in 7mm magnum. The original owner paid for a new crown, barrel bedding, and 3 lb trigger job. It is roughly 5 years old. Hope it proves to be worth it. It is my first long range rifle with no emotional attachment. Bambi...you might have met your maker at 300 yards

[6pt-sika]

I have the Mossberg 100ATR in .308 that is in a wood stock. I think it is actually a synthetic wood, but it is at least SOLID and far better than the black synthetic version. The most frequent complaint that I have seen is regarding the bolt and the magazine follower. Personally, I think the BOLT issue is pretty much BS. I have several hundred rounds through mine and have never had any issue. I will state that there is a little to the magazine followers. It works, and I have never had a round miss feed because of it, but I have had to take a little extra effort when loading the bullets in the mag.

've sold no less then 6 of the new Mossberg 100 ATR's . One fellow has bought three of them so far . This fellow is a pretty good shot out to 800 yards so I trust him when he tells me they shoot well !

[6pt-sika]

6Pt-Sika, I do like the older Remington triggers. I have set the trigger on my 700 ADL in .270 to 4 pounds, and my 700 ADL .30-06 to 3.5 pounds. They both shoot much better now than when they were new. The factory 8 1/2 pound trigger always caused me to pull off target. I did have to play with the three different screws a little to get them where I wanted them. After they were set to my liking, I sealed them in place with clear fingernail polish.

You know when i first started messing with Marlin levers in 2000 I thought the triggers were TERRIBLE (and they were) . But after awhile I got used to them and then bolt action triggers of 5 pounds that were creep free weren't so bad .

Now that I've gotten back to shooting bolt rifles again my trigger snobbery is coming back . As I like bolt action hunting rifles in the field to have a 2 1/2 pound or less creep free trigger . Groundhog guns to be a shade under a pound and target triggers to half a pound if possible .

[7.62 Precision]

Winchester 70

This is the oldest of these bolt actions and my personal favorite. That does not mean it is necessarily better than the others for your particular purposes.

In the original design it was quite a bit a Mauser variant, being an upgrade of the Model 54, and borrowing some of the best features from the Mauser and Springfield '03, and other military rifles. The bottom of the Model 70 receiver is flat, and while expensive to machine, has advantages in stability when the action is bedded, as the shape of the action prevents twisting when fired. From 1936 until 1964 the Model 70 used a Mauser-style controlled-round feed action. This is preferred by many dangerous game hunters. The safety is on the bolt and locks the firing pin. I like this type of safety a lot.

In 1964, in order to compete with the cheap-to-build Remington 700, Winchester made some design changes that were quite unpopular at the time. Not all of the changes made were bad, there were some improvements to the bolt, and the barrel no longer was bolted to the stock on some models. One unpopular change was a change to the push-feed bolt that was similar to what the Rem 700 offered, and was much cheaper to build. The fixed ejector gave way to a plunger ejector in the face of the bolt and the long Mauser-style claw extractor was replaced with a small spring-loaded extractor placed in one of the lugs. This type of action is generally popular with target shooters, snipers, or anyone who may want to single-load the rifle. It also allows the magazine to be filled and then one additional round hand-loaded into the chamber.

Winchester was late to build short-action Model 70s, chambering short-action cartridges in long-action rifles until the early '80s.

From 1992 until Winchester closed their US plant, likely the best Winchester 70s were built. Winchester returned to the controlled-round feed, offering controlled-round feed, push-feed, and the best of both worlds, a controlled-round push-feed, which was a controlled-round feed design that could be singly loaded like a push-feed action. The barrels were of outstanding quality and the modern steels were stronger than the pre-'64 rifles. Once the Winchester plant was closed, production of some of these models has continued in with FN.

The Marines used Model 70s as sniper rifles in WWII, and snipers in Vietnam ran commercially-procured Model 70s in the early days of the modern USMC sniper program. A lot of snipers at that time felt the Model 70 was a better rifle than the Rem 700. The FN Special Police rifle and Patrol Bolt Rifle are Model 70 variants.

Advantages to the Winchester Model 70:
Quality is outstanding.
Accuracy will tend to be very good.
Price will tend toward the higher end.
The rifles are very well built, among the nicest bolt-actions available.
The flat-bottom receiver makes for a very stable action when bedded properly.
The models with a fixed ejector allow the force of ejection to be controlled by the manipulation of the bolt.
The models with controlled-round feed or controlled-round-push-feed are a good choice for dangerous game hunting.
The models with a push-feed bolt are good for those who prefer the ability to single-load, like competitors or snipers.
The safety is a very good design, very safe, like a Mauser safety, yet easy to manipulate with the shooting hand. In the third position, it locks the bolt, preventing the action from getting knocked open when moving. (I know a sniper who lost his opportunity for a shot in a hostage situation when his Rem 700 bolt got bumped up just enough to prevent the rifle from firing when he needed to take that shot.)
The design of the trigger is very good. It is very simple and very robust, much like a Mauser trigger. The Model 70 is much less likely to have trigger issues than rifles with more complicated, delicate triggers. Triggers are usually very good and easily improved with a little work. They are easily adjusted.
The design of the bottom metal is generally good, with quality of construction dropping a bit in 1964 and improving again gradually.
Can be easily accurized.

Disadvantages to the Model 70:
The rifles are very well built, making them more expensive than some competitors.
The flat-bottom receiver makes a glass bedding job a little harder to do.
The models with controlled-round feed don't allow single loading.
The models with a push-feed bolt may be slightly less reliable than a controlled-round feed rifle.
There are not quite as many aftermarket parts and accessories available for the Model 70 as there are for the Rem 700. This is not really a problem for me because everything that is needed is available. Some people just like a lot of choices.

Remington Model 700

In 1962, Remington introduced the Model 700 to replace its earlier bolt-action rifles. Because of the established reputation of the Winchester Model 70, Remington knew it would be difficult to compete with the Winchester rifle based on quality, so they designed a rifle that was very cheap to mass-produce. The round receiver, push-feed bolt, sandwiched recoil lug, and other design features made the Remington 700 much cheaper to manufacture than the Model 70. As the US consumer transitioned after the depression and WWII to value cheap prices over quality products, this was a good strategy for Remington. A lot of hunters failed to see why they needed to spend more on a Winchester rifle when a less expensive Remington could meet their needs just as well.

The Remington 700 became a standard for building competition and sniping rifles. Because of the simplicity of the action, they are easy to work on, and the round receiver not only cut Remington's cost, but also reduced gunsmiths' frustration when glass bedding the actions.

The Remington 700 has always been a push-feed action. The safety locks the sear, not the firing pin or bolt, and it is much more complicated than the Winchester Model 70 trigger. The Remington 700 trigger and safety are built as a unit that can be pretty much removed intact from the rifle.

The Remington 700 is a strong rifle that is very popular for roles ranging from hunting to military sniping.

The current standard bolt-action sniper rifles for bot the Army and the Marine Corps are based on Remington 700 rifles, as well as sniper rifles in use by the Navy. It is by far the most common sniper rifle in use by law enforcement in the US.

Remington 700 advantages:
Quality has been very good, but I don't trust it to stay that way.
Accuracy will tend to be very good.
Price is good and they are cheap used everywhere.
Much less expensive to produce than other bolt-action rifles.
Round receiver makes bedding easier.
Good bottom-metal design.
Lots of aftermarket parts and accessories.
Can be easily accursed.
Safety is slightly more easily manipulated with the shooting hand than the Model 70 safety.

Remington 700 disadvantages:
Not available in a controled-round feed version
Round receiver makes bedding slightly less solid.
Trigger is a bit more complicated.
Safety is not quite as good as the Model 70 safety. It is just slightly less convenient than a tang safety, of shooters that grip with their thumbs over the wrist of the stock.

Savage 110 and variants

The Savage 110 began production in 1963 with the aim of providing affordable rifles that were still a good value. It was further redesigned to reduce costs in 1966 and again in 1998. The model name reflected the original price of just under $110.

The Savage rifles look a bit ungainly and are generally not finished is nicely as more expensive rifles. Investment casting in non-critical parts reduces costs as well as the design of the bolt. The bolt is made of several parts sort of stacked together. This makes it inexpensive to build, but also means that the head of the bolt is floating. The barrel is installed with a barrel nut, which makes installation and headspacing very quick and efficient, also reducing costs.

The result of the floating bolt head is that it aligns itself with the receiver lugs when the bolt is closed. All of the things that require gunsmithing to perfectly align in most bolt guns line themselves up in the Savage rifles. This leads to exceptional accuracy.

The barrels can be user-installed, so with a basic barrel nut wrench and headspace gauge, anyone can change the barrel in a Savage bolt-action. Caliber changes are further simplified by the fact that the bolt head can be easily switched out.

In 2003, Savage dropped the final piece into the accuracy puzzle when they introduced the Accutrigger. The excellent user-adjustable trigger allows shooters to take advantage of the accuracy potential of the rifles.

Because of the cost to accuracy ratio, Savage rifles have become very popular with law enforcement snipers. Accuracy potential and ease of changing barrels make them popular in competition, while hunters are delighted to find such an accurate rifle at an affordable price.

Savage bolt-action advantages:
Very competitive price.
Outstanding accuracy.
Solid quality.
Easy to change barrels.
Outstanding user-adjustable triggers.
Safety is conveniently located.

Savage bolt-action disadvantages:
Rougher finish than other rifles.
Action is not quite as smooth as others.
Not as pretty as more expensive rifles.

Ruger Model 77

The Ruger Model 77 was designed in 1968 as a modern Mauser rifle made affordable by using an investment cast receiver. In the original configuration, it did away with what some consider some of the best features of the Mauser, in that it used a plunger ejector instead of a fixed ejector, and it was not a controlled-round feed, though people assumed it was. It used a tang safety instead of a bolt safety.

It also uses an odd front recoil lug and action screw that is angled. Tis allows a stock to be fit less precisely and then the action screw draws the action back against the inletting, making the rifle less expensive to manufacture. It is also one reason you almost never see a Ruger 77 used for a precision rifle.

The Ruger 77 went through several revisions, with the addition of the Ruger integrated scope mounts, which use a proprietary ring, another reason these rifles are seldom used for precision rifle builds. Ruger also went to a true controlled-round feed in the Mk II, and a fixed ejector was added. Ruger dropped the original adjustable trigger.

The Ruger 77s are beefy rifles that clearly show their Mauser heritage. Investment casting means the receivers are a bit chunkier than a Mauser receiver. They are clearly stout rifles and those who really use them say they can take some abuse. I would not choose one for building a precision rifle, but for a rugged rifle for beating around in the bush, they are great. They make fine boat guns and are pretty affordable.

The Canadian government issued a folding-stock version in .30-06 to SAR Techs and aircrews and the RCMP purchase some Ruger 77s in .22-250 and a couple in .308 in the '80s.

Ruger 77 advantages:
Affordable Mauser-style rifle.
Sufficient accuracy for general hunting.
Stoutly built and heavy.
Mk II is controlled-round feed.
Built-in scope base.

Ruger 77 disadvantages:
Consistant accuracy can be hard to get.
Angled front action screw makes bedding less effective and torquing the action screws does not bring consistency.
Stoutly built and heavy.
Earlier rifles only look like a controlled-round feed.
Built-in scope base limits mount options.
Finish is not quite as nice as more expensive rifles.

I don't have a lot of experience with the Mossberg bolt-actions. I have never shot one. I was not overly impressed by handling them, and people I know who have them tend to be annoyed by things breaking that shouldn't.

I have even less experience with the Ruger American. I have not even held one yet.

For the most part, I don't much care for the budget rifles from the major manufacturers. The small amount you save is at great cost in quality and features. Often, they come bundled with substandard optics. One notable exception is the Tikka rifles. They are an affordable rifle with the soul of a Sako. When Sako builds the Tikka, they use Sako parts where it counts and cut costs where it doesn't hurt the rifle.

Remington 770
I will not shoot, nor let anyone in my family shoot, a Remington 770. They are absolutely junk. The barrel is not threaded into the receiver and there is no recoil lug as part of the action. Instead, there is a shallow slot in the bottom of the action and a little steel plate "recoil lug" sits loose in a slot in the stock. when the rifle is assembled, the little steel plate fits into the slot in the bottom of the action. While this could be sufficient, in every one I have disassembled, the plate only partially engages the slot, often sitting crooked and only just engaging the receiver slot on one side or the other, and not at all on the other side.

The stocks are really cheaply made, and there is no real rear tang - it is a piece of plastic that snaps onto the tubular receiver and is held to the stocky by a diminutive wood screw. The bolt is rough and floppy.

Remington 770 avantages:
Uhhhhm . . . it could inspire you to spend $50 more on a better rifle?

Remington 770 disavantages
Construction is scary.
It is so cheap, it makes cheap guns look like fine custom rifles.
UGLY.
Rough.
Comes with a scope I would have to replace.
Sometimes saving too much money means wasting it.

Stevens 200
This is a cheap Savage without the Accutrigger. It needs an aftermarket trigger, and then your cost is right there with a standard Savage.

Howa 1500
One rifle worth considering is the Howa 1500. Howa rifles are very well built and are nipping at Savage's heels when it comes to out-of-the-box accuracy. Price is very affordable. The actions are smooth and the rifles are well built. There are aftermarket parts and accessories available, and they are available in quite a wide range of calibers. The Weatherby Vanguard is a Howa clone currently, but used to be built by Howa. The Howa-built Vanguards were nicer.

The Japanese military sniper rifle is a Howa.

The Tikkas are a good choice as well - just a Sako in a less expensive stock with a less expensive magazine (still a great magazine though).

When it comes to cartridges for recoil, keep in mind that stock design and rifle weight have an effect as well, and a .243 can be murderous with the wrong stock.

If all else is equal, though, I would recommend something like a .260 Rem or a 6.5x55 for a very effective cartridge with very low recoil. If necessary, add a brake and a mercury tube or two in the stock.

[Mescalero]

I have a tradewinds .243, IE a Husqvarna, IE?
Recoil is brutal............... and it is a .243! Stock design is VERY important.

[firefuzz]

Very good write up 7.62, pretty much covered them all. I'm not quite the fan of the Model 70 you are, but I'll admit they're very good rifles. I've always leaned towards the Remington 700 series and am a large fan of the forgotten 788's. Never shot a 788 that wouldn't group under an inch with factory ammo.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Remington 770. My first thought when I got to take one apart was why did Remington put their name on this piece of junk? If they needed an economy model why not just bring back the 788?

I'm just getting into the Savage guns and I started with their economy model, the Axis. Although it uses the same type recoil lug you described on the 770, (so do some of the new Tikka models) it engages solidly and the three guns I own and have shot are quite accurate. Savage has just come out with the Axis II that includes the Accu-Trigger, the major problem with the original Axis models and I'm hoping I can upgrade mine.

Back in the 80's I was probably the biggest proponent of Ruger 77's you would have ever met. I had several and worked on dozens more that became very accurate rifles with a little tweaking. About the same time they changed the 77 to the piece of stuff Mk II Wild Bill sold out the American shooter with his stance on the original assault weapons bill (did you ever notice the Mini-14 was NOT of the listed weapons?) and I walked away from Ruger products....til last night.

A friend of mine has a very young friend that was born with achondroplasia, which for those like me who don't know what it is makes him one of the little people (a midget in unkind terms) who will always have a very short, 8.5" at age thirteen, LOP. This remarkable young man wants to go deer hunting more than anything else in life so I agreed to do the modifications to a rifle to enable him to do so. The young man has a Ruger Bearcat revolver that was just made for him so we picked the new Ruger American in .22-250 for the project.

Although I really like the Savage Axis, would like the Axis II better, this rifle impressed me a great deal for a economy model gun. Tang mounted safety like the old 77's, rotary mag like a 10/22, a trigger very similar to the Savage Accu-Trigger, 18" factory barrel, 70* bolt throw with a 3-lug bolt, 6# basic weight, and a very unique "V" block bedding system that I really like the looks of. We are going to shorten the stock today and hopefully get to sight in the rifle tomorrow and give it to him on Sunday. I see this same rifle re-barreled, with the same barrel contour, to a .250 Savage in my safe in the near future. Let you know how this all turns out soon I hope.

Rob

[Centennial]

7.62,
Thanks for writing all that down, very useful review and comparisons.

[7.62 Precision]

Oh, I meant to mention, I would own most of the mentioned rifles without hesitation - Model 70, Rem 700, Savage, Tikka, Howa.

As far as the Ruger 77 goes, If I want a Mauser action, I can find sporterized Mausers very cheap without even looking hard. Thats where I would start for a Mauser action. Nothing against the Ruger, just my preference, since a Mauser will tend to be a bit nicer and smoother. Of course, by the time I get a nice stock and stuff I might have payed as much as I would for a new Ruger 77, but I will have a rifle I like better.

Also, I am not at all against used firearms. A good firearm will last many generations if cared for properly. Before I purchased any manufacturers budget rifle, I would look for better used rifles. You can easily find a nice used Remington 700 for what you would pay for some of the junkier budget-line rifles.

In my opinion, a cheap budget rifle can be more expensive in the long run, and the expense is not always measured in dollars. The purchase of a rifle is a one-time expense. The use of that rifle incurs further and ongoing expenses. I will buy ammunition. I may pay to shot on a range. I may drive to ranges or fly out to hunt. In some places in the Lower 48, people pay to hunt on private land or leases. If I hunted with a guide I would have those expenses.

If my rifle does not shoot as well as I would like, I may expend a couple more rounds zeroing every year, maybe because the rifle isn't as accurate as it should be, maybe because of a poor trigger, maybe because of cheap bases and rings, maybe because of the junk scope that came bundled with it, maybe because the stock design prevents me from shooting well (one of the things the the manufactures tend to do with budget rifle is give them poor stock designs - they don't want to build a budget rifle that hurts the sales of their quality guns). Over time, the extra ammo will add up.

Maybe I will miss a shot on an expensive hunt, or when I really need meat.

Maybe I will want to improve the poor features of the rifle. I buy a new stock. I get an aftermarket trigger or pay a gunsmith to tune the trigger. I get a better optic, better mounts and rings. Now the rifle cost me more than a nicer rifle would have.

Maybe the sling swivel in the cheap plastic stock will break and the scope will get smashed - this is not uncommon with some of these stocks.

There are other costs that cannot be measured in dollars, like the look and feel of a nice rifle that you don't get with most budget-line rifles. No having to envy your friends' rifles has to be worth something.

When you consider that a rifle is something that you may use for a lifetime, that extra $150 that you would spend on a nicer rifle seems pretty insignificant. Say you spend $200 more on a quality rifle and use the rifle for 50 years. That equals a cost of $4 per year to have a nice rifle. Thatseems a pretty good investment to me.

Oh, and one of the things that drives me out of my mind is these guys who buy themselves $2,000 rifles, and buy Rem 770s for their wives of kids.

If your wife shoots, a firearm is like a diamond - spend more than you can afford. It is an investment in your relationship, and it WILL pay off.
Oh, and what she likes, may not be what you like. Who cares. Buy it for her.

Get your kids rifles that they can look at with pride and remember you by when you are gone.

[7.62 Precision]

Very good write up 7.62, pretty much covered them all. I'm not quite the fan of the Model 70 you are, but I'll admit they're very good rifles.

The Model 70 is a better rifle than the 700 for sure, if you take it feature by feature. It's funny, all of the things that Winchester did in 1964 that ignited the wrath of the gunrwiters and shooters alike were things that Remington has done with the 700 all along, and no one complains about them in the 700.

However, when you look at the rifle as a whole, you have to consider what makes the most sense for you. All of the features that look good on paper might not really make any difference for you.

Right now I need a short-action Winchester M70. I have a very expensive stock for that action that I am using for a project. I have been looking for a good deal on a Model 70 for two year now. I can find used short-actions at almost new prices. I can find long-actions at great prices. I can't find a short-action for a good price.

If the stock was for a Remington 700, I would have had a rifle in it a year and 11 months ago, and would be just as happy as I will be whenever I find a M70.

[m.wun]

If you're friend is stuck on a bigger cartridge just get a rifle that fits well, is a little heavier than most,
put a quality recoil pad on, maybe a muzzle break, even get a mercury tube installed in the butt.Properly
set up it should not hurt to fire it. A 7mm-08 set up this way would be a pussycat.

[7.62 Precision]

A 7mm-08 set up this way would be a pussycat.

While I prefer the 6.5s in the same bullet weights, a 7mm-08 can be loaded for very light recoil, or all the way up to reach just into the realm of the 7mm Mag. It is quite versatile, without much recoil even at the top end.

[Nath]

Interesting thread, this is my take.

Forget new Remmies. Old BDL's would be my choice now....if there was no other choice!

Love Winnie 70's, fit and feel, the triggers are good and simple to work on.

Tikka T3 shoot from the get go go, trigger too heavey...simple...swap the weight spring for a lighter one...adjust, go shoot.

Howa or a Vanguard, same gun. Excellent. I would take one over a Remington any day.

N

[JB]

"best" and "most accurate" are going to be mostly personal opinions. A couple things I'll toss in though. The Tikka isn't exactly a Sako with a different magazine. They're different actions as well. But the Tikka would be my pick of the "affordable" rifles. My favorite hunting rifle for the past several years has been a Tikka 595 in 308.

Also, the Howa and Vanguard are not the same rifle with different names stamped on them. The Vanguards are built by Howa, but the actions and bolt differ in several ways. The Weatherby fans will point out many ways how the Vanguard action is superior, but the Howa owners will argue it's 90% costmetic differences.

[7.62 Precision]

"best" and "most accurate" are going to be mostly personal opinions. A couple things I'll toss in though. The Tikka isn't exactly a Sako with a different magazine. They're different actions as well. But the Tikka would be my pick of the "affordable" rifles. My favorite hunting rifle for the past several years has been a Tikka 595 in 308.

Also, the Howa and Vanguard are not the same rifle with different names stamped on them. The Vanguards are built by Howa, but the actions and bolt differ in several ways. The Weatherby fans will point out many ways how the Vanguard action is superior, but the Howa owners will argue it's 90% costmetic differences.

Best will not only be based on personal opinions, but also on personal needs. After I was injured and we were struggling every day to find a way to eat, if I had not already had some guns, best for me might have been a $50 beat up Mosin Nagant so I could get a moose. Best for a benchrest shooter won't be the same as what is best for a guy to keep in his skiff in Southeast Alaska, which is not the ams as the guy hunting hogs in Teaxas or Cape buffalo in Africa.

People will say accuracy has nothing to do with personal opinions. The rifle is accurate or it is not.

This is not true. While any rifle has a certain mechanical accuracy potential, accuracy goes beyond the rifle itself and into the interaction between the rifle and the shooter.

If a rifle was built that had the mechanical ability to shoot .01 MOA groups, and it had a long, gritty, mushy 18 lb. trigger, most shooters probably could not shoot it under 1.5 MOA at best. Triggers, sights, optics, stock design, balance, weight, scope mounts, comb height, felt recoil, all of these things and more work together to affect how accurately a particular shooter can shoot a particular rifle.

You would not call a Winchester Model 71 a benchrest rifle, yet when I shoot mine, I just hit with it. I can hit targets effortlessly with an 1895 winchester that I would strain at with a different rifle. I shoot AR-15s more easily than AR-10s because for me the balance is just off on AR-10s. You can see this principle amplified in pistols and shotguns.

This is why I don't insist than anyone like what I like, or buy what I buy, when it comes to firearms.

The Tikka has differences, but retains the Sako quality and barrel. It is basically a Sako where it counts, while the Remington 770 for example, is an abomination that has little in common an any way with the Rem 700.

The Howa and the Vanguard were pretty much the same rifles at one time, where it counts, as Howa built them for Weatherby. Now Weatherby builds the Vanguard in the US and the Vanguard and Howa are very similar, but not the same as they are built by different manufacturers. To the disappointment of a lot of Weatherby fans, you can now pay extra for a Vanguard to be guaranteed the accuracy that they used to expect from a Howa-built Vanguard.

[Centennial]

This topic is a big help. I don't know much about bolt actions.

About the 1895 Winchester, IIRC, it was the only lever action to win Bisley England at 1000 yards. I think it was in the late 1890's a 30-40 (30 U.S), and a US Army Sargent shooting it.