Sorry for the wall of text.
"Like many old geezers, I bemoan the loss, or lack, of standards in our modern world."
- I'd counter this opinion with my own in that the majority of the changes in the "quality" of consumer items in our society is decades long trial and error of finding out what the majority of customers want, need and will actually use vs what they dont. It doesnt help to make an over the top super high quality shock absorbing rubber butt pad if most shooters are wearing a heavy hunting jacket, nor cut, install and factory zero high end iron sights when 99% of customers install a scope anyways.
"Today, we are reaping the crop of sub-standard firearms previously sown."
- Not necessarily, the specific items and specifications that are measured to be the standard have changed. I.E. for an entry level or truck gun, looking like a million dollar rifle is nice (perfect wood, engraved reciever, etc.), but ultimately doesnt really matter for anyone with any experience.
"Most of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the writers and publishers of the specialty outdoors print magazines and their associated websites... Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies in their gun reviews."
- He's dead on here.
"Thus flimsy, injection molded synthetic stocks are praised as "lightweight" or "weather resistant" rather than criticized as the inferior bedding platforms that they actually are."
- Flimsy and inferior bedding has more to do with the design rather than the material. If you choose a poor example of a bad type of wood and make a stock out of it and poorly fit it to the barrel/reciever, it's going to suck too. If manufacturers actually invest the R&D into what a good synthetic material is and how to make a strong stock out of it with a good mounting base, it'll be every bit as good or better than a wood stock without being susceptible to atmospheric conditions, drying, rotting, splitting etc. And they can be much lighter. Injection molding is much MUCH faster and more consistent than even performing a rough cut of a wood stock.
"Free floating barrels, introduced simply to minimize the labor cost of precisely bedding a barreled action in a gun stock, are now praised as an asset by those who know nothing else. A perfect example of an economy shortcut becoming the new standard."
- No, not really. Granted, most hunting rifles arent going to be doing rapid fire. But even a well bedded wooden stock is going to be more susceptible to dimensional changes in poor or significantly different weather (and storage) conditions, age and even relatively uncontrollable material consistency than synthetic. That's going to change your POI from that comfortable sunny day some months/years back at the local club. Also, only having to mate the reciever mounting points in the stock to the reciever alone is much faster and more simple than having to bed the entire stock to the reciever/barrel. It just makes better sense.
"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*excepteconomy of manufacture?"
- The only issue I see with this is possible design short comings. If a well designed multi-piece bolt can last say 10,000rds (more than most hunters will ever shoot through such a rifle) and a single piece bolt lasts 20,000. Does it matter? Especially if buying 2 multi piece bolts is still cheaper than buying one single piece and I never shot enough rounds to wear it out in the first place? Its like with modern cars. Why would I pay more money for a Toyota that will last 200k miles if most other comparable manufacturers can provide a similar car that will give me more options for cheaper that will last 100-150k miles and I trade/sell mine before they reach 100k anyways?
"The use of plastic for trigger guards and the "bottom iron" is overlooked by the popular press, or actually praised as lightweight construction."
- It should be. It is much cheaper, lighter weight and again, a well designed synthetic part will be every bit as strong as it should need to be. I dont NEED the trigger guard/etc. on my hunting rifle to survive being run over by a dump truck or dropped from an airplane. Those are standards you should expect for military equipment.
"In fact, "lightweight" and "accuracy" are the buzzwords most frequently used to "spin" hunting rifle reviews in a paying advertiser's favor."
- As they should be. Those two factors are paramount to hunters. Especially the tradional ones that dont wagon train their ATVs to the camo couch under a tent. Compared to older guns, they are usually lighter weight and at least as accurate as older guns.
"Cheap substitute materials are usually lighter, but not stronger, than forged steel."
- Because not everything NEEDS to be made from forged steel. It just happened to be one of the materials we had a good amount of experience working with back then. Its like comparing older russian aircraft to modern western fighters. The rivets and sheet design is rugged as heck, but is heavy and isnt going to stand up to a direct hit from a modern missle any better than a new fighter made of composites and glues.
"A rifle's lines and finish are largely cosmetic, but why should we be condemned to hunt with ugly rifles? Matte finishes on barreled actions are sold as a benefit ("low glare"), but in reality they are simply faster and thus less expensive for the manufacturer to produce than a highly polished finish."
- You're not condemned. You just have to pay more for the "pretty" stuff. In a lot of ways the modern finishes tend to be tougher as well or atleast dont make your gut wrench when you scratch them hiking outdoors. But not always.
"Have you noticed how the checkered areas on many wood stocked rifles, the Tikka T3 for example, are divided into several small patches? That is done because it is easier (and therefore cheaper) to cut a small patch of checkering than a larger one. The shorter the individual checkering lines, the easier it is to keep them straight. Once again, manufacturing economy triumphs over aesthetics and function."
- Well..yeah. That type of work takes skill to do. Good skilled work takes time. Time raises costs. (Lord, I know this.)
"Then there is the heavily advertised Tikka 1" at 100 yards accuracy claim. Experienced hunters know that such a guarantee, even if true, is actually pretty meaningless, but beginners are impressed."
- Well, that kind of accuracy as available as it is today and for the price it is. Is impressive. It's not totally meaningless, but the necessesity is a bit overrated.
"The reality is that big game animals are large and hair-splitting accuracy is almost never required. A rifle that will consistently shoot into 2" at 100 yards (2 MOA) is accurate enough. A hunting rifle that willaverage*1.5 MOA groups with an occasional sub-1" group thrown in for good measure (and an occasional 2" group, too!) is a good one and the off the shelf Tikka rifles with which we have had experience met that standard."
- I agree, but again, the fact that most hunting rifles are capable of such accuracy at the price they are made today is impressive.
"To add insult to injury, the Tikka T3 is designed to be a cheap rifle to manufacture, but it is relatively expensive to purchase. (Ditto the disgraceful S&W I-Bolt!) These economy rifles retail for as much or more than a number of higher quality, better designed and better turned-out hunting rifles. Their success is a tribute to the ignorance of the modern American sportsman, intentionally fostered by the connivance of the outdoor media upon which they rely for information."
- I'm not big into hunting rifles, but during a brief look last year, I agree. I felt the Tikkas were a bit over priced. That said, I bet they're still much cheaper than they would have been back in time.
"In truth, T3's are (usually) safe, functional rifles and perfectly capable of killing game in the hands of an adequate shot. The same could be said about most economy hunting rifles, including the far less expensive Savage Edge, Stevens 200, Marlin XL7C and Remington 770."
- *scoff* The sheer ridiculousness of such low quality, cheap, standardless rifles that they truly are!
"I suspect that most satisfied T3 customers are not "gun nuts" and do not have decades of experience with better quality hunting rifles. A person who has never owned a fine rifle is much more likely to overlook an economy rifle's shortcomings than an experienced shooter and hunter."
- Whats wrong with that? These rifles are more than accurate and tough enough for these "inexperienced" (*cough*uncultured*cough*) hunters to go out and bag their game over and over for a price point ONLY a step or two above mosin nagant.
"The relative newcomer simply has inadequate personal experience upon which to base an informed opinion. It is the job of the outdoor media (gun writers), who presumably have such experience, to inform their readers."
- Oh, I see. They just didnt get your blessing.
"Why has the outdoor media so thoroughly failed in its duty to its readers? The answer is simple and again the T3 provides a good example: Beretta Corp. (who markets Tikka rifles) is a big bucks advertiser in the outdoor media, particularly print magazines. Money talks and gun reviews are consequently tailored to please the manufacturer/advertiser."
- I wont lie. They're out to make a buck. That said, they also know better than to turn their nose up and alienate a large group of people who bought an entry level gun thats more than capable of doing what they need instead of spending decades slowly losing touch with the steady advancement of material and production sciences and combining that with research into giving a customer what they need/want at a reasonable price point in an ever expanding highly competitive market.
"What about the writers' and editors' obligation to their readers, who pay their hard earned dollars to read those reviews? Obviously, the word "integrity" has been deleted from the publishers' spell checkers."
- This isnt a new problem limited to only the writers of gun blogs/mags.
"That thinly veiled threat, in a nutshell, is the problem. Most of the established outdoor media have become little more than shills for the major manufacturers. That "two way street" has, in reality, become a one way street and the prime directive of most of the shooting and outdoor media is never to offend a major advertiser. The favored publications, bought and paid for by their advertisers, are rewarded with inside information and the latest products for "exclusive" reviews, while any publication that dares criticize even a single offering from a major advertiser is shunned."
- Again. Welcome to the world of business and consumerism.
"The print publications, in particular, survive only because of paid advertising."
- AGAIN, there's nothing new about this!
Making money and quality control politics aside. What modern manufacturers have done is found a way to make brand new guns generally more accurate, consistent and cheaper so that the "average joe" can afford to go out and buy one and hunt for a much lower percentage of their paycheck than back in the day. When you look at it. Pretty much since the beginning of private firearms ownership, even brand new basic guns have been almost prohibitively expensive for the average person. Most folks hunted with obsolete or surplus rifles to get by up until around the 1950s. The modern equivalent is the 20-something who cant afford a new remington, so he either has to get a used 20yr old model or a surplus nagant, etc. Then materials, manufacturing and firearms technology slowly advanced over the decades and has allowed the average hunter access to a large number of perfectly serviceable options for a much cheaper price.
A very simple example of this is looking at an old ad for a Remington 700 in 1962 had the price at $150. Today, that would be a $1,181 rifle. For a BASIC 700! You can get a basic 700 for less than $400 at Academy today. And thats in a modern world where the manufacturer is expected or required to provide such things at health benefits, retirement plans, holidays, etc. to their employees. All of this doesnt mean that the high-quality guns dont exist either. You just have to pay more for the more expensive materials and processes. Its not that guns have gotten worse over time. Its just that we have found ways to make them more fiscally accessible and still be serviceable.
