What would be the better Rifle?


PDA






txman321
May 28, 2009, 10:40 AM
I currently have a mossberg atr 100 and I was looking at a remington 700 Sps and I really like the way the remington fits me and the way the action is.

is the remington 700 the better gun? Would it be worth it to upgrade

this is for hunting intended purposes, trying to get my deer rig set up for this year.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would be the better Rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fumbler
May 28, 2009, 11:08 AM
If you like the way it fits you then that by itself is worth upgrading.

"Better" depends on how you define it.
The Rem 700 has better fit and finish and has huge aftermarket support.
Both are probably equivalent in accuracy, at least if deer are your target.
Don't buy the hype about every 700 shooting MOA. I've never seen a sporter weight 700 shoot 1MOA with factory loads.

So, if you like it then get it. If it fits you better and you feel more comfortable with it then you will shoot it better.

txman321
May 28, 2009, 11:10 AM
Hmm I may have to upgrade to it its pretty tempting, I havent had any problems with the atr but I always heard good things about the remington and it seems to fit better. Im looking at getting one in either .270 or .30-06.

Fumbler
May 28, 2009, 11:17 AM
Since you haven't bought the 700 yet, why don't you take a look at the Tikka T3?

I have one and it fits me better than every other bolt gun I've handled. I'm 5'-8" and 170 lbs.
The T3 has even better machining quality than the 700 and, more accurate, and with a scope it weighs the same as a 700 without scope (if weight matters to you).

It's just MHO, but 700s are overrated.

In the grand scheme of things all those rifles will kill a deer. Dead is dead right? Just get what makes you feel good :)

txman321
May 28, 2009, 11:31 AM
what is the price range on a t3? Im looking to spend around 500-650ish if possible

Uncle Mike
May 28, 2009, 11:49 AM
Fumbler summed it up pretty well.

Remingtons aint all that, especially the newer ones. 1000 screaming customers can't be all wrong. (I feel the sights on my back now) :neener:

You can step into a Tikka for the cash your wanting to spend, if you run across a T-3 that costs more than $600 run the other way. :what:

If it is that your just wanting a new rifle, well you have the disease... no problem! :D

All the rifles mentioned will shoot accurately enough to swack deer ect..

Have you checked out a Savage or Browning?

txman321
May 28, 2009, 11:52 AM
i probably just want a new gun lol, i bet my atr will do fine for deer but Im itchin for a new rifle:) I want something of a lil bit higher quality

eye5600
May 28, 2009, 12:27 PM
IMHO, the thing that makes your decision hard is that although the ATR is among the least expensive rifles, it's nonetheless pretty damn good. The general level of quality for bolt rifles these days is very high in terms of function although some folks who should know claim that standards for fit and finish have declined.

Uncle Mike
May 28, 2009, 12:47 PM
Do you want accuracy or good looks.... I bet you want them both, huh.. :D

Built for speed and altitude.... as high and fast as your budget will let you go...

Savage 114/14... Pretty, Accurate(the most so of the bunch)

Tikka T-3... Pretty(if you don't mind the euro trash look), Accurate

Browning A-Bolt... Pretty, Accurate(cost more than you want to spend?)oh yea, it's a jap built firearm also... IF your into buying American.

Weatherby Vanguard... Some say they are pretty, if you get the sub-MOA then they will be accurate.(probably more than you want to spend) and the jap thing again.

Disclaimer: All the above remarks are purely opinion and don't hold any merit.
Most opinions are like sphincters... everone has one... most of em' stink.:neener:

All accuracy statements are MOD(minute of deer) nothing more! :D

Art Eatman
May 28, 2009, 04:40 PM
A proper fit means good "shootability" and you'll do better at hitting your intended target. To me, the fit is more important than the looks or, in some cases, the price.

flipajig
May 28, 2009, 09:57 PM
Im shooting a TC pro hunter and love it. Right now it has a 30-06 barrel on it. This way when im looking for another rifle I just have to buy the barrel at half the cost of a new rifle.

MTMilitiaman
May 28, 2009, 10:49 PM
Hmm, I've never seen a sporter M700 not shoot MOA with at least one factory load.

Fumbler
May 29, 2009, 01:30 AM
I'd like to see a sporter weight 700 do MOA. Like I said, I've never seen it. I know tons of good ole boys around here who say their 700s will do it but they never back it up at the range or show me targets to prove it.
Of course these guys simply bought their rifles because of the 700's reputation, not because they know anything about rifles. They're deer hunters who think if they buy the first box of premium hunting ammo they see then they'll be good to go. They're not exactly the shooting fanatics that most of us on the high road are.
None of them have actually tested multiple factory loads to see which was more accurate, so I could very well be wrong. But still, I've probably seen 20 or more sporter weight 700s at the range over the years and you'd think if they were all that then I'd see at least a couple of decent groups.

Come to think of it, not one of my friends who I would consider to be knowledgeable in guns owns a 700...

I'm not saying they're bad rifles. I'm not saying they don't shoot well. I'm just saying I've never personally witnessed one that could hang with a Tikka, Browning, or even a Savage in the accuracy department.

People should buy whatever rifle they fancy for the simple fact that it evokes some good feeling in them.
I just don't like it when they justify the purchase of a 700 with a blanket statement that they are accurate when there are many other models that are at least as accurate. It's akin to saying "I bought this Honda Accord because it's fast." Well yes, it is fast, but 80% of the other cars on the road are at least as fast as an Accord.

That's all my opinion based on my personal experience of course ;)

MTMilitiaman
May 29, 2009, 02:59 AM
My family has been shooting the M700 since the early 70s. My dad and my uncle both have M700ADLs in .30-06 they bought around that time. My first hunting rifle was an ADL Synthetic in .270 Win. I replaced it with a BDL in 7mm Rem Mag. My brother hunts with an ADL Synthetic in .300 Win. Usually at least one weight of Remington Core-Lokts will group 3 rounds from the bench right around 1 MOA. And without fail, all will easily do it with handloads. The average for all of these rifles with all loads tested, if I had to guess, couldn't be much over 1.5 MOA. My dad still has that old ADL. The rifling is showing signs of wear, but the rifle will still do around an inch with his 180 gr Speer handloads. He hasn't shot factory loads in it since he started handloading.

Remingtons have their problems. For example, my BDL fails to eject when the bolt is worked fast. But accuracy isn't one of them.

And while I'll admit I've never shot one, the couple T3s I' handled have come across as cheap and flimsy, and more comparable in quality to Remington's throw away M710 than the M700. That would be just a casual observation, however.

I've always been intrigued by the Brownings. Another uncle of mine had an Abolt in 7mm Rem Mag that he traded for a BAR in .338. The BAR has a BOSS and I've seen him shrink his groups from around 2 MOA to about half that tuning it in. That was with plan ol 225 gr Win Super-Xs.

I am looking to replace my Remington, but when I do so it will most likely be with a custom Montana M1999, rather than any factory rifle.

Big_E
May 29, 2009, 03:23 AM
I picked the Rem. 700 SPS .30-06 asmy 18th b-day present. I will admit I didn't know a whole lot about guns at the time. I tried the tikka t3, and I really liked the bolt. However, I went with Remington cause its American and I knew they were popular. I also went with the tupperware because I thought the black was cool.

I would not buy this gun again. I love shooting it, but the features are not there for the price. I did not know about cheap synthetic stocks then, and I did not realize bull barrels were an upgrade accuracy wise. I will still probably keep the gun for hunting purposes. But I am disappointed that I did not know as much as I do now, back then.

With my knowledge, I would go pick up a Savage. Accutrigger, and accustock (I got my rifle about 2 months before these were released.) Still American made and growing aftermarket. Except I would pick wood for the hunting rifle instead of synthetic.

**Actually, I did have my eye on the T3 Super Varmint for awhile. Tikka's were high on my consideration list and the bolts are the best I have tried. I don't know how bad carrying around a bull barrel in the field would be though.

rangerruck
May 29, 2009, 04:36 AM
if for strictly hunting, I would stick with the atr. if doing some paperpunching as well, you can do a lot with a remmy.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
May 29, 2009, 09:07 AM
My experiences are VERY similar to Fumbler's---Remington's ain't all that--and I've been saying that on this board for years.

snakeman
May 29, 2009, 09:12 AM
every model 700 i have shot ( which is quite a few) has shot 1 moa with one factory loading or another. I would make the upgrade. Just get a new 2009 one so you can reap the rewards of remington's action and trigger upgrades

benzy2
May 29, 2009, 12:02 PM
Honestly from a hunting point of view I don't think you are gaining anything switching to the 700. If you were starting from scratch it wouldn't be a terrible choice but already having the ATR you aren't gaining much of anything. I certainly understand the bug for another rifle. I don't think I would buy a caliber close to the ATR. Instead I would go with something like a .223 or .243 and consider some smaller game or range time. It allows for more shooting options than two .30-06's does(or whatever your ATR is chambered in).

Maverick223
May 29, 2009, 01:27 PM
I have seen several sporting profile 700s shoot about 1 MOA, but 1 MOA isn't what it used to be. Just about any half-way decent bolt gun will shoot MOA, with a good marksman behind the trigger, and decent cartridges in the chamber. I still maintain that the 700 is not a great buy. I would just as soon have the Mossberg (not really but i'd sell the 700). Find what fits you best and has the features that you want, if that is the 700 so be it.

3pairs12
May 29, 2009, 01:35 PM
Honestly from a hunting point of view I don't think you are gaining anything switching to the 700. If you were starting from scratch it wouldn't be a terrible choice but already having the ATR you aren't gaining much of anything. I certainly understand the bug for another rifle. I don't think I would buy a caliber close to the ATR. Instead I would go with something like a .223 or .243 and consider some smaller game or range time. It allows for more shooting options than two .30-06's does(or whatever your ATR is chambered in).
That pretty much sums it up. I have had both sold the ATR in .308 recently. It shot fine great little deer rifle. The 700 appeals to me more and I can shoot it a little better. Every now and then I like to punch paper and it seemed the 700 held tighter groups for me. The other side is none of my 700s were all weather and I would have trusted the ATR in any condition nature had in store. All Terrian Rifle (ATR).

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 29, 2009, 01:42 PM
Honestly from a hunting point of view I don't think you are gaining anything switching to the 700. If you were starting from scratch it wouldn't be a terrible choice but already having the ATR you aren't gaining much of anything.

Yep, +2.

Yes, it IS an upgrade (see Mossberg bolt-launch-into-orbital-bone catastrophic failure reports, among other reasons), but not enough of an upgrade to make it worth your while. Unless you are changing to a better caliber or a nice wood stock.

Uncle Mike
May 29, 2009, 02:16 PM
hmmmm, there is a LOT of talk concerning FIT.
You mean to tell me that as long as the 'stock' fits me like a glove, the rest of the rifle can be a skunk of the first order and I should buy it? :neener:

oh, I see... the action, barrel, accuracy ect. has too be top o' quality also.

I quess that since most, if not all of todays bolt guns will shoot into that magical, mystical realm of MOA then focusing on stock fit may be the best thing to do.

I think that most people would be hard pressed to be able to 'outshoot' any of todays bolt rifles. :D

I am sick n' tired of all of this Remington bashing..... just because Remington quality has plummeted and their price has ridiculously increased is by no means a reason to pommel. hehehe

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful!:neener:

Many of us have multiple deer rifles, this in itself is not a bad thing, so your quest to buy another is just.

Go to your local shooters emporium and fondel, stroke, massage.... man, it's getting warm in here... all the different models. :rolleyes:

The right one will follow you home!:D

txman321
May 29, 2009, 02:27 PM
i have heard about the bolt issue on the mossberg atr and I havent seen any recent reports about that so im really not to concerned about that as much . My main issue with the atr is im worried my bolt will fail to feed when i really need it in a hunting situation sometimes at the range my bullet doesnt feed properly and i have to redo the whole process, Perhaps im not setting it into the mag well properly?

Other then that I really like the ATR Its accurate enough for hunting I believe. I can consistently every time hit a small metal gong at 200 yards and I got my groupings under an inch and a half to 2 inches at 100 yards just by screwing around. Is that consistent enough for deer/hog?

here is my Current setup

Mossberg Atr 100 .270 Winchester
Leupold Riflemen 3x9x40 scope
Rock mount bipod
butler creek scope caps

sound decent or is an upgrade needed?

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 02:40 PM
As Rick Nelson said, "You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself". Since you "really like the way the remington fits ... and the way the action is", then you might as well go ahead and buy one.

However, since you've asked for opinions I will provide mine, which is worth what you paid for it. ;)

I don't think you are gaining anything switching to the 700. If you were starting from scratch it wouldn't be a terrible choice but already having the ATR you aren't gaining much of anything. Yes, I agree.

Sounds like the Mossberg already does what you need it to do (including fitting you reasonably well), and that you simply want a higher quality rifle. Fair enough. However, the 700 SPS is itself built and sold as an "affordable" rifle, and offers no particular advantages over what you already have.

If you want to upgrade your equipment, I'd suggest saving up until you can afford something genuinely better (e.g. Browning, Sako, Weatherby Mk V ... there are plenty of options). Alternatively, if you're willing to buy secondhand (and why not?), you can already afford something better than a new 700 SPS.

sound decent or is an upgrade needed?What you have is fine. And yes, 2 MOA accuracy is quite adequate for deer and hog hunting.

If you are keen on spending some money to improve what you have, rather than a new rifle I would replace the Butler Creek caps with Leupold Aluminas (http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/mounting-systems-and-accessories/alumina-accessories/alumina-flip-back-lens-covers/). And if you like a bipod, a genuine Harris is better than a Stoney Creek imitation. Again, these upgrades are certainly not necessary, just some things that you can think about if you're determined to make improvements to your gear.

Uncle Mike
May 29, 2009, 02:46 PM
The Vanguards are descent enough. If you get one of the Sub-MOA vanguards.

Remember that the vanguards are built in japan, IF you are one that prefers to buy American.
So are the Browning A and X-Bolt rifles.

They(vanguards) tend to be a fairly good looking rifle also.

For the same cash... you should be able to get a fine Savage! :D

As a reminder, the rifle you have now will probably keep up with most, not all, but most of the other models out there.

Savage 114/14, 116/16
Tikka T-3
Browning A-Bolt, X-Bolt
Weatherby Sub-moa Vanguard
Remington SPS

All the above mentioned rifles are close in price, with the Savage 114/14 and the sub-moa vanguard being a bit more expensive

txman321
May 29, 2009, 02:46 PM
im feeling a little bit better about the rifle I got then, I may save up for something very nice around $800-$900 dollar rifle. I Am more of a hunter so I dont buy any tactical rifles or anything and Im only 19 so I can only afford so much so i just want my stuff to beable to perform when i need it to

txman321
May 29, 2009, 02:50 PM
about those savages, I have been looking at them My friend has one in 7mm rem mag its pretty nice Almost identical to my ATR because mine has the adjustable lightning mossberg trigger.

I have seen the savages in a wood stock. Would a .243 savage in a wood stock be decent? Since I already have a .270 I need something for coyote/fox the .270 seems a bit overkill on those

Uncle Mike
May 29, 2009, 02:50 PM
Great idea.

Nothing like saving up and getting what you REALLY want- :D

benzy2
May 29, 2009, 02:50 PM
Deer will be no problem with a rifle shooting 1.5-2" groups. Hogs either. That is plenty accurate for a hunting rifle. So many people want dime sized groups and that's fun but the difference between .5" groups and 1.5" groups at 100 yards on a deer isn't going to matter much at all.

The 700 action has potential but out of the box, especially on their budget lines, isn't anything particularly special. It will probably shoot better than your 100 but not much. Having more isn't a bad thing but there isn't much upgrade from the ATR to the base 700 sporter rifles, especially when it comes to hunting deer.

I think saving for something of better quality is a good idea.

Coyote will be no issue for a .243. You may be still a little overpowered but I really like the .243. Loaded with light bullets it makes a great varmint round and with the right heavy hunting bullets and decent placement it makes a good deer rifle as well. You get both small and medium game with the .243. I like Savage as well. They all seem to shoot well. I would also look at CZ. Amazing triggers that will corrupt you for life.

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 03:00 PM
Well great. I think you're making a wise decision.

I don't want to harp on buying secondhan, but if you are willing to go that route you'll find that $800-$900 will buy you a high quality rifle in excellent condition.

In the meantime, don't worry about people sneering at your rifle ... it is perfectly adequate. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to 'one-up' you, which says everything about them and nothing about your choice.

Personally I'm not a big fan of Savage rifles but many people really like them.

I prefer a wood stock to a synthetic but you will need to make your own judgment about that.

txman321
May 29, 2009, 03:03 PM
i think thats what im going to do is save like $150-200 a check, ill be there in no time

Uncle Mike
May 29, 2009, 03:03 PM
txman321. Savage makes a darn good rifle, and this comes from a guy that hunted with and shot compitition with nothing but Remingtons.

People say... well there are soooo many aftermarket parts for the 700, oooohh baby.

I don't want to have to rebuild a rifle that I bought for a hunting gun, or informal compitition/target gun for that fact, just to get it to shoot as well as another brand I could buy that will preform right out of the box!


You could get a Savage 14 in .243, or save some cash and get the 10 or 11.

ArmedBear
May 29, 2009, 03:10 PM
The Vanguards are descent enough. If you get one of the Sub-MOA vanguards.

My walnut Vanguard Sporter shoots my handloads sub-MOA, no problem. No mods, I didn't bed it, nothing.

That said, I've warmed up to the Savages. Their basic synthetic stocks are awfully flimsy, though.

700 isn't worth looking at, to me. Lacks a locking bolt for hunting, costs too much for what it is. The fact that it's a popular competition rifle speaks only of its action, just like the 10/22 (which I think is a POS as it comes from the box).

txman321
May 29, 2009, 03:48 PM
about my scope that i have on it right now, do you guys think it will work?

Leupold rifleman, it cost me $200 dollars and im still unsure about it, I havent taken it to the range yet since i bought it so i may be unsure over nothing but the nikon prostaff was another one i was looking at and it was cheaper

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 06:42 PM
Since you haven't used the scope yet, my advice is stop worrying and start shooting!

I don't want to have to rebuild a rifle that I bought for a hunting gun, or informal compitition/target gun for that fact, just to get it to shoot as well as another brand I could buy that will preform right out of the box!I agree.

Your post reminds me of this comment (http://www.outdoorsdirectory.com/akforum/akshooting/47668.htm) on the Alaska Shooting Forum:I once met a fella in Springfield who asked me why I pay so much for a Sako when a Remington is only so much. He said if you get a Remington and have the stock bedded and the trigger adjusted and the barrel recrowned it will shoot as good as a Sako. I said I would rather shoot my rifle, not just use it keep my gunsmith happy.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would be the better Rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!