Budget vs expensive hunting guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A $1,500 Browning isn't going to put any more meat on the table then a $400 Ruger American, but if I had the money to just blow on something like that I would consider buying one simply for the fact that high dollar guns are never a bad investment.

With defense guns I don't care about price, resale value, or even the looks at all. I want the best tool for the job period. I'm writing this with a $200 pistol in my pocket.
 
The new $400 rifles like the Ruger American are capable of sub MOA. Heck, my old Savage 110 will shoot MOA as do my Remington M7 .308 (3/4 MOA) and my 60 year old Remington 722 in .257 Roberts (1/2 MOA). You don't need a $2000 set up to shoot MOA, just ask my old friend (haven't seen him in a while, probably gone now) who I beat in a bench competition with the club for first place. He owns nothing but Weatherbys and Klingunthers and his scopes are ALL Schmidt and Bender. My old 722 still wears its Bushnell.
 
MCgunner said:
The new $400 rifles like the Ruger American are capable of sub MOA. Heck, my old Savage 110 will shoot MOA as do my Remington M7 .308 (3/4 MOA) and my 60 year old Remington 722 in .257 Roberts (1/2 MOA). You don't need a $2000 set up to shoot MOA, just ask my old friend (haven't seen him in a while, probably gone now) who I beat in a bench competition with the club for first place. He owns nothing but Weatherbys and Klingunthers and his scopes are ALL Schmidt and Bender. My old 722 still wears its Bushnell.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that shooting Sub MOA doesnt matter at all if you can’t get on target.
To make shots at distances where you need sub MoA accuracy your going to have to drop some coin on a scope, as much or more as a Ruger American costs.
 
SamT1 said:
I’d argue that shooting Sub MOA doesnt matter at all if you can’t get on target.
To make shots at distances where you need sub MoA accuracy your going to have to drop some coin on a scope, as much or more as a Ruger American costs.
Click to expand...
Dissagree

My buddy's $450 Savage in 270 came with a cheap scope and will smoke a deer at 500 yards all day. It was sub MOA with Federal ammo right out of the case.

Times are changing. It absolutely blows me away how cheap you can get sub MOA accuracy today compared to even just 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago.
 
Bigmike79 said:
Dissagree

My buddy's $450 Savage in 270 came with a cheap scope and will smoke a deer at 500 yards all day. It was sub MOA with Federal ammo right out of the case.

Times are changing. It absolutely blows me away how cheap you can get sub MOA accuracy today compared to even just 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt the gun itself can. But if he is sighted in at 200 he would have to point the gun roughly 40” above where he wants to hit to kill it at 500.
You throw in Kentucky Windage margain of error for elevation and any wind, human error in field conditions, and the fact moa is now 5” and that doesn’t generally equal success. I’ve tried it many times on coyotes and my percentage is poor.
 
SamT1 said:
I have no doubt the gun itself can. But if he is sighted in at 200 he would have to point the gun roughly 40” above where he wants to hit to kill it at 500.
You throw in Kentucky Windage margain of error for elevation and any wind, human error in field conditions, and the fact moa is now 5” and that doesn’t generally equal success. I’ve tried it many times on coyotes and my percentage is poor.
Click to expand...

In all actuality, anything over 300 yards is irresponsible hunting anyways unless we're talking about pest control. I guess 500 is a stretch for hunting, but we we're banging a 12" gong at that distance like 10/10 with the thing right out of the case. I doubt it was MOA at 500 with hunting ammo and a garbage scope, but I bet it was under 10" which is still pretty insane for a cheap combo at 500 yards compared to what you got back in the 70's and 80's without paying big bucks.
 
Why is accuracy always the measuring stick? That is not what separates a $300 Ruger American from a $5000 Dakota.


tarosean said:
We are apparently talking about a less than a few hundred dollars. That is the separation between "snooty and Walmart".
Least that is what I take from this thread.
Click to expand...
Doesn't take much for people to judge each other, on either side. Actually, reverse snobbery is the only kind I ever really encounter.


Bigmike79 said:
Dissagree

My buddy's $450 Savage in 270 came with a cheap scope and will smoke a deer at 500 yards all day. It was sub MOA with Federal ammo right out of the case.

Times are changing. It absolutely blows me away how cheap you can get sub MOA accuracy today compared to even just 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, cheap is always "just as good". :confused:

IMHO, cheap rifles are a lot better than they used to be but cheap scopes are worse.
 
I started hunting with borrowed .22 single shot rifles, and on one occasion, a 12 gauge pump. After I got a grouse with the shotgun and got back to my sister's borrowed car, I laid the gun down and put the grouse in the trunk and backed out of the field, toward the road. Unfortunately, the shotgun was laying across behind the car and the first clue was when I heard it hit the bottom of the car as I backed over it. Fortunately, the only temporary damage was tire tracks on the barrel and across the buttstock. Cleaned it up and never borrowed it again.

Later, I bought my first rifle, a new Stevens semi-auto, and some here may have read about my rabbit kill with it, so won't go into that, but mention that the rifle was a killer and got lots of squirrels and dump rats!

Then I got a cheap Stevens 311 double-barrel that I couldn't hit anything with, so sold it. Then got a J.C. Higgins version of a High-Standard pump and that too was a great killer and novice skeet shooter's gun.

I traded guns often, owning not more than 3 at any time, but buying-selling-trading more than 20 while in high school. I was a trading fool and got lots of lousy guns before getting any nice ones.

Hang in there. As long as you can shoot reasonably well with a gun use it and learn, then get better ones as you can afford them.
 
CraigC said:
Oh yes, cheap is always "just as good". :confused:

IMHO, cheap rifles are a lot better than they used to be but cheap scopes are worse.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying cheap is just as good. My point is that an expensive top dollar rifle isn't necessary for general hunting purposes.
It turns out that the deer can't tell the difference.

As for cheap scopes being worse, I think you're out of your mind. You can buy a pretty decent scope for $100 these days if you know what to look for. Improved manufacturing methods, Cheap labor, and a far more competitive market have dramatically decreased the prices of optics. If you turned back the clock to 1978 and tried to buy a high quality scope for $24 (adjusted for inflation), you would have your choice of a handful of garbage scopes with the clarity of something you might find on a pellet gun at Walmart these days.

I have no problem with luxury items like Weatherby Rifles, Sports cars. or fine aged Scotch. I'm just pointing out that they're not needed to get the job done. That's why they're a luxury.
 
Nobody said they were necessary. For that matter, scopes aren't necessary either. They're not for the deer either. We don't do it because the deer know any different. We do it because the guy footing the bill and squeezing the trigger knows the difference.

Cheap scopes have gone from Japanese junk of 20yrs ago to Chinese crap. There are more "good" scopes in the $100-$200 range but the low end stuff is even lower.
 
The difference in a $400 gun with a $100 scope and a $800 gun a $600 scope and a $400 range finder is double the range you can expect to be on target. There’s definelty a justification to having nice stuff if your going to learn to use it correctly.
I’ll admit lots of guys don’t know how to use theirs. The most expensive gun I’ve ever shot was a $6000 chassis rifle with a $2000 scope. The guy who owned it did nothing more than shoot stuff at 200 yards. But I spent an hour with it, 40 rounds, and a ballistics table and fell in love. I can’t afford anything like that but there is sure value in it.
 
I keep my range to 400 yards or less and I want a no up hill or down hill and no wind for that 400 yard shot. I've hit one deer at 350 with my Savage 7 mag and one coyote at 370 with my Remington M7 .308. Those are my longest shots, every shot I've ever made on anything else was inside 200 yards.

NOW, I'm in thick woods and can only see about 100 yards from my blind in one direction. It's thick woods. So, a .30-30 would be enough gun. But, the little M7 works in that situation, too. :D Then, again, so does my CVA Wolf or my Hawken or whatever. :D
 
MCgunner said:
I keep my range to 400 yards or less and I want a no up hill or down hill and no wind for that 400 yard shot. I've hit one deer at 350 with my Savage 7 mag and one coyote at 370 with my Remington M7 .308. Those are my longest shots, every shot I've ever made on anything else was inside 200 yards.

NOW, I'm in thick woods and can only see about 100 yards from my blind in one direction. It's thick woods. So, a .30-30 would be enough gun. But, the little M7 works in that situation, too. :D Then, again, so does my CVA Wolf or my Hawken or whatever. :D
Click to expand...
I would never take a shot over 300 yards. Honestly, I've only shot a game animal past 100 yards once, and I've never shot anything that a 30-30 wouldn't be more than enough for including wild hogs and elk because of that. While I do use a 270 for deer and a 30-06 for elk, I've never needed the power that those rounds bring to the table. I use said round for the "just in case" scenarios, but I've always been able to get within a football field of all these animals without spooking them before putting a perfectly placed shot on them. They typically run for a few seconds and fall over dead.

i have no problem with hunters using ridiculously hot rounds to take bucks at 500 yards with very expensive set ups, but it's never been my thing.
 
Bigmike79 said:
I would never take a shot over 300 yards. Honestly, I've only shot a game animal past 100 yards once, and I've never shot anything that a 30-30 wouldn't be more than enough for including wild hogs and elk because of that. While I do use a 270 for deer and a 30-06 for elk, I've never needed the power that those rounds bring to the table. I use said round for the "just in case" scenarios, but I've always been able to get within a football field of all these animals without spooking them before putting a perfectly placed shot on them. They typically run for a few seconds and fall over dead.

i have no problem with hunters using ridiculously hot rounds to take bucks at 500 yards with very expensive set ups, but it's never been my thing.
Click to expand...


It all depends on the terrain whether you can get inside 300 or not. There's lots of rocks and not a lot of cover in parts of the Guadalupe Mountains and the deserts of west Texas. Gotta be REAL slow and low. :D It's a challenge, but that's what makes it fun.
 
MCgunner said:
It all depends on the terrain whether you can get inside 300 or not. There's lots of rocks and not a lot of cover in parts of the Guadalupe Mountains and the deserts of west Texas. Gotta be REAL slow and low. :D It's a challenge, but that's what makes it fun.
Click to expand...

I passed a 300 yard shot on a mule deer just because it would take half a day to get to him if I killed him.
 
ZeroJunk said:
I passed a 300 yard shot on a mule deer just because it would take half a day to get to him if I killed him.
Click to expand...
I live in a mountainous region with tons of under brush. That's why Ihave passed on many shots over the years too. I ain't dragging a 200 yards buck up a bank LOL
 
Doesn't take much for people to judge each other, on either side. Actually, reverse snobbery is the only kind I ever really encounter.
Click to expand...

At a 50:1 ratio to boot.
 
I am interested way more in function than looks. But i like looks too. Sometimes you have to pay more to get a better fitting and balanced shotgun, a more accurate rifle with the features you want. But I was poor in my younger years and made do with what I had and that was cheap. Sometimes I think i should have stuck with what I started with.
 
d2wing said:
I am interested way more in function than looks. But i like looks too. Sometimes you have to pay more to get a better fitting and balanced shotgun, a more accurate rifle with the features you want. But I was poor in my younger years and made do with what I had and that was cheap. Sometimes I think i should have stuck with what I started with.
Click to expand...

Quite true about fit. Cheaper lines of shotguns might not fit. With my Mossbergs, or any repeater really, you can shim the stock and MAKE it fit. Mossberg even makes shims for the purpose, though I got cheap and cut shims out of pop bottle plastic, :D Makes the gun it perfect. Now, I didn't have to shim my cheap Winchester 1400 Ranger gas gun. It's a bargain semi auto that works fantastic and fits fantastic right out of the box. I think, from what I've seen, I have a Browning/Winchester shoulder. :D

The way most O/U and SxS shotguns are inletted into the tang of a gun, shimming is not possible, so it's really important to find and try a shotgun for fit before the purchase. My Spartan (Baikal) had not enough drop at comb, common for me, and it has a little cast for a right hander and I shoot lefty. But, I was able to get it cast neutral and with a little more drop with a well placed shim because that gun is cheap and not well fitted, slop to work with when you loosen up the stock bolt. But, it's not perfect. I got to wanting a O/U and didn't want to spend the money a B gun demands, so I looked at a Franchi Instinct. It felt good, but it just didn't seem to be QUITE there for me, a lot better than my Spartan, but not quite there. It was a 1200 dollar gun, so I kept looking. 1200 might seem like a lot until you start looking at O/U doubles. B guns run a lot more. Then, a couple of years ago I found this CZ Redhead Deluxe. It fit WONDERFULLY! It really helps my scores on dove, too. I don't do clays, but I shoot well with it on birds. The clays shooters tend to be snobs about shotguns, but they put hundreds of thousands of rounds down range every year. I'm just a hunter. I don't need no stinkin' B gun. :D Yeah, the CZ is a Huglu, built in Turkey, but it's quite high quality, well fitted and finished and fits like it were a custom fit H&H or something. It even has some handsome Turkish walnut furniture. After one dove season, I LOVE that thing. :D It was only about $750. You can get into B guns (Browning, Beretta, Benelli in case you don't know) for a couple of grand. I'm quite happy with my CZ. It fits as if it were custom fitted, at least. :D And, it's quite easy on the eyes. That Spartan will hurt your eyes. LOL But, it does shoot well. It ain't up to the CZ, though. But, I'll keep it. I have uses for it even if I don't hunt with it much now. The CZ is my choice for dove hunting. I always take the Spartan for a back up just in case when I go to my buddy's for opening weekend.
 
MCgunner said:
So, yeah, at $1000 used,
Click to expand...

Like I said previously, the ancillary equipment generally costs far more than the gun itself...

My rangefinder costs as much as my main gun, my spotting scope costs more, my boots cost about half.. my tent half.. bag half, and I havent even gotten to the scope. etc. etc. etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bsparker
  • Locked
Crossbow Newbie
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MCgunner
M
BigN
  • Locked
Crossbow vs Gun Hunting
Replies
11
Views
903
Vlad357
V
A
  • Locked
How many different hunting guns?
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
5K
MacAR
MacAR
M
  • Locked
CANNIBALS in our midst
Replies
12
Views
1K
Freedomv
F
S
  • Locked
Hunting calibers
2
Replies
27
Views
971
M'bogo
M
Back
Top