Ash
Member
Chuck's issue is that we have allowed ourselves to accept that the finish of a rifle is not important. It isn't as far as killing a deer or punching holes in paper. However, by reducing quality of fit and finish, we pay the same price for inferior workmanship and materials. As I said, store brand rifles 30 years ago, the cheapest rifles out there, have better materials, fitting, features, and finish than rifles today. Plastic stocks are an excuse to build a cheaper rifle. They really are. I would bet that my 1960's Savage not only looks better than a current Tikka, but will shoot just as well or better.
Of course, folks don't mind paying more for prettier cars and trucks. Vehicles are vastly more expensive, even when inflation is considered, than vehicles 30 years ago. Sure, there are computers and air bags, but fundamentally that is not enough to justify the additional cost.
My real question is, why attack Chuck for telling the truth? Sure, todays rifles shoot very well, in many cases better than 30 years ago. Yet, they are not as well made as they once were. No, they really aren't. They may be accurate, but they do use lots of very cheap components, things that a generation earlier would not have been tollerated.
Ash
Of course, folks don't mind paying more for prettier cars and trucks. Vehicles are vastly more expensive, even when inflation is considered, than vehicles 30 years ago. Sure, there are computers and air bags, but fundamentally that is not enough to justify the additional cost.
My real question is, why attack Chuck for telling the truth? Sure, todays rifles shoot very well, in many cases better than 30 years ago. Yet, they are not as well made as they once were. No, they really aren't. They may be accurate, but they do use lots of very cheap components, things that a generation earlier would not have been tollerated.
Ash