Chuck Hawks on Sub-Standard Modern Rifles

I think he's basically got a point. The fact of the matter is that everyone's rifle is accurate enough these days. The basic expectation is that you can take your rifle, slap on a couple hundred dollar scope, put a factory hunting load in it, and shoot roughly an MOA off the bench. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. All well and good if an elk walks by your shooting bench the right week.

Of course, that all goes out the window when shooting from field positions. At that point, the difference is pretty much all the shooter. None of the differences in rifles in terms of benchrest accuracy are big enough to matter. What we SHOULD be evaluating in terms of accuracy is how easy it is to access the field accuracy potential of the gun. Were the ergonomics good to mount it quickly with a speed sling? Was the trigger helpful or harmful to accuracy? Did the stock lend itself to a good shooting position. If so, what optics configuration (ring height, etc.) was ideal?

For a lot of people, myself included, owning a well made gun still means something. The manufacturers that understand that will get my business.

One place I will disagree with him is on weight. If you're going to actually use your rifle, that means carrying it. Light weight is valuable. In some cases that may mean plastic (or other advanced materials) are the right solution.

ljnowell said:

I find that I agree with little in the Chuck hawks website. I truthfully don't think there is nearly as much wisdom there as some believe.

Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't but as soon as someone references Chuck Hawks I immediately assume they are rank beginners and are speaking from google expertise and not real firearms experience.

Because once you are experienced you realize his website is much more full of something other than wisdom

I like chuck. I agree with him.

Paul7 said:

Nice to know you're more experienced than Chuck.

Click to expand...

Well, he's probably got more posts. That makes him an expert, right

I judge rifles by their functionality -- how accurately does it shoot? How well does it feed? Is it rugged enough to take into the Rockies when it's snowing?

Now with those standards, the pre-'64 Winchester stands out:

1. Mine is an honest MOA gun with my handloads (but I wouldn't cry if it was only 1.5 MOA.)

2. It feeds and extracts all the time.

3. The open Winchester trigger has never frozen up on me -- I have had multi-lever enclosed triggers freeze up in misting, freezing conditions.

4. The 3-position safety means I can be confident climbing over and through deadfalls, and still load and unload without going hot.

Chuck is great at writing his opinion.

Paul7 said:

Nice to know you're more experienced than Chuck.

Click to expand...

Being experienced doesn't make you right. I know lots of old guys that have been shooting and reloading for fifty years that are wrong about lots of things we would consider common knowledge.

Chuck Hawks is a solid example of a guy that states opinion as fact.

Reading Chuck Hawks, to me, is like listening to a duck quacking.... just some more noise.

Most accurate rifle I've ever had was a cheap one... It was cheap. It was accurate. That is why I'm buying a Remington 783 on sale with rebate in .223 for a walk-about coyote rifle... if it gets dinged up, I don't care.

One thing his article doesn't mention is that while even if everything is true, there is a great need for the gun that is affordable and works, for the guy who wants to buy it, sight it in, and go hunting cheaply. May fire less than 10 rounds a year...

YMMV...

Paul7 said:

I agree, for the guy who can only afford a budget rifle their decision is made, it just isn't the same as a quality one.

Click to expand...

This is where you are betrayed by your assumptions: budget and quality are not mutually exclusive. Of course that depends on if you also mistakenly believe quality and expensive are synonyms.

Paul7 said:

We're all entitled to our opinion, why don't you point out where Chuck is wrong?

Click to expand...

OK, I'll play:

The receiver holds the bolt, which brings up a salient question: does anyone really believe that a cheap multi-piece, assembled bolt has any possible advantage over a one-piece forged steel bolt except economy of manufacture

Click to expand...

One of the factors widely said to contribute to the accuracy of the Savage platform is the self-aligning floating bolt head. He also knocks tubular receivers without an explanation as to why they are inferior.

Elkins45 said:

One of the factors widely said to contribute to the accuracy of the Savage platform is the self-aligning floating bolt head.

Click to expand...

In case you missed the memo, he's not arguing about accuracy. Accuracy (at least at the sub-MOA level) is not needed or particularly useful in a hunting rifle. So saying something is good because it's accurate shows you didn't understand his argument at all.

I read Chuck Hawks. There are more contributors to the site than Chuck Hawks. I read a lot of information. I watch guys on You Tube, I take all of the things I read as one persons opinion.

Are 6.5mm calibers the best for thin skinned game? They have great sectional density. I am considering before buying a new rifle.

There are many opinions on the internet, you need to use your brain and decide based on your own opinions and experince.

Todays rifles have never been so accurrate. Try them for yourself.

SwaneeSR said:

Todays rifles have never been so accurate.

Click to expand...

I agree. Now so what? How does a .75 MOA rifle put game in the freezer any better than a 1.5 MOA rifle?

It doesn't. I agree with several things on the Chuck Hawks site. One point is that you do not need the .300 winmag for short range while tails. I would love a 7mm-08 or a .260 Remington. I do not need a Sako Custom for $3000 to drop a deer at 70 yards.

Some of these non-handcrafted rifles shoot great. Regardless of the cheap checkering or composite stocks.

Paul7 said:

We're all entitled to our opinion, why don't you point out where Chuck is wrong?

Click to expand...

We could go read the articles and come up with many. A perfect example is his appraisal of the 45 colt case and high pressure loads. He has a poor grasp on the concept and professed his opinion as fact.

The Big D said:

In case you missed the memo, he's not arguing about accuracy. Accuracy (at least at the sub-MOA level) is not needed or particularly useful in a hunting rifle. So saying something is good because it's accurate shows you didn't understand his argument at all.

Click to expand...

So if accuracy doesn't matter what exactly makes an old rifle "better" at hunting over a modern one?

A modern rifle will

Have a better trigger

Be lighter

Be far far less weather sensitive

More corrosion resistant

Safer (if you consider a rem 700 a classic)

Easier to load unload and manage ammo with a detachable mag


So what exactly makes bluing and hand cut checkering superior for blasting thin skinned game on a rainy cold Saturday afternoon?

There are some cheap rifles out there.
Also some good inexpensive ones.
Have been bedding and free floating my rifles for 30 yrs.
Improves accuracy.
Reloading does too.
Chuck Hawks has to write a blog/article, doesn't mean he's being totally factual, objective or sensible.

If you're gun is repeatable and you employ it well within it and your limits, then that's good enough.

Critics of that can pound sand.

R.W.Dale said:

So if accuracy doesn't matter what exactly makes an old rifle "better" at hunting over a modern one?

Click to expand...

He's not arguing that an older rifle is better than a new one. I can't say I've read everything he's written by any means, but the rifle I remember him speaking most highly of is the Browning 1885 High Wall. Those are a modern(ish) rifle - made in various versions in the 90's and 00's.

He's arguing for the value of craftsmanship, and against corner cutting and the spineless gun press.

And they still make rifles like that

And just like then they cost a LOT of money and most people can't afford one

So what exactly makes bluing and hand cut checkering superior for blasting thin skinned game on a rainy cold Saturday afternoon?

Click to expand...

I think this is a valid point.

R.W.Dale said:

And they still make rifles like that

And just like then they cost a LOT of money and most people can't afford one

Click to expand...

I remember them being distinctly mid-priced. Minty used ones seem to go for about $1200 now. So maybe 50% more than the T3 he's poking at? In any case, we're not talking some $4000 custom no one will ever own.

Jeez, and my post got erased for calling an assault rifle a semi auto....