How have hunting rifles changed as you've gotten older?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the early ‘60’s as a younger deer hunter, it was an old milsup (7mm Mauser) purchased from Woolworth with the only concern being absolutely sure that your ammo was expandable - little money, little concern for accuracy, just the youthful joy of hunting.
The thing I remember most vividly as a youngster hunter was hunting an entire season, first light to last light, and never laying eyes on even one deer - but I was in the woods and that is all that counted. Fast forward to today’s deer herd, we are walking in very tall cotton - deer everywhere!
 
For me it might well be a disposable income thing, but my hunting rifles have become more specialized VS general. Everything is geared towards the game and conditions, caliber, length/weight are determined by what and where. Basically from utilitarian to the golf club approach and still using just bolt guns.

I've also almost gotten completely away from wood and blued steal hunting guns. My hunting "ready rack" consists of synthetic and stainless, with a couple stainless and Cerakoted. I've got two wood stocked hunting rifles left, and one of them is getting the Cerakote treatment and a Manners stock this year. I'm also shedding weight when possible as for some reason after 30+ years of hunting I no longer enjoy lugging a 10+ plus rifle. 7-8+ pounds "all up" is the goal now. I've also come to realize that I can count the shots I've taken on game that were over 300 yds on both hands, it just doesn't happen that often where I hunt. So the big honking 30mm scopes with large objectives are reserved for tgt guns.

I've also come to love the AR15. Never thought I would after working with them for 23+ years, but I use a couple almost exclusively for varmint hunting now.
 
Most production rifles of today have lost their “style”. I would say that from the 1950’s on back, most of the more popular firearms generally have elegant curves, clean lines and beautifully figured wood giving the firearm “style”. Winchester and Marlin lever guns have a certain, style, that is, up until they started putting safeties on them. That’s got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard or seen. A safety on a hammer gun!? Really? I can think of one rifle off the top of my head that has retained its style in modern times and that’s the Remington 700. The rifles Christian Sharps produced have style, even the Borchardt models. An interesting fact that ties in with this thread is when the Sharps rifle company manufactured the Borchardt they weren’t very popular, mainly due to the absence of an exposed hammer on the rifle. Most hunters of the 1880’s believed that if a rifle didn’t have an exposed hammer it wasn’t a good hunting rifle. The Sharps Borchardt, which incorporated an internal striker instead of an exposed hammer, was a very modern design back then. In fact, the striker design speeds up lock time which in turn increases accuracy. The genius of Hugo Borchardt introduced a modern design to the long range hunting and target shooting crowd of the day but he also produced a rifle that has… Style.

In my opinion most modern hunting rifles just don’t have any style.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm not trying to win "style" points when hunting. But I guess I carry Glocks, so obviously there is something wrong with me.

What ever happened with function over form that the older generation spoke so highly about. The get it done attitude that didn't worry so much on how things look, but the end result.

I'm not against having nice things and stylish things, but on a hunting rifle? I don't consider it a prerequisite, nor even all that important.
 
This is another one of those "for older hunting duffs" threads - but anybody is welcome, of course, to chime in.

So the question is, how have hunting rifles changed since you have started hunting?

I became a serious hunter for the first time just after 1968, the bloodiest year of the Viet Nam War (thank you Veterans!). My FIRST rifle choice, not knowing anything about shooting was a Winchester Model 94 in .32 WS. It was a handy little gun with a small kick and a burr in the butt plate that kept ripping my cheap plastic jacket. I wised up and filed it off.

Back in the day:

1. A good hunting rifle could be bought for under $300 EASILY. My 94 for around $100...
2. Blued steel and good wood were the offerings for the time - pretty to shoot and look at, No plastics.
3. Few or none of the weirds calibers like the 6.5 Mongoose, or 7mm TV Channel, or any other of those high pressure over bores.
4. Fewer mountain rifles, floating rifles, or other "gimmick" guns were available.
5. No plastic butt plates.
6. No pink camo patterns.
7. THE cleaning agent of the day was Hoppes #9. (country girls used it for perfume where I lived)
8. We used stiff cleaning rods - no cables. (what is a "bore snake?"....)

Now don't get me wrong. Some of the newer stuff is great. Really great. I got a friend who bought a 6.5C package and he really loves it. Lightweight mountain rifles are the cat's meow. So, I am not slamming new stuff - juts reminiscing and having a little fun.

Feel free to add if you like.

I enlisted Marine Corp 1960 got out 1965 just after Starlite. This may get me kick off this site and I don't care. 1968 there was Draft and how you miss it ? In fact this is my last post here
 
I enlisted Marine Corp 1960 got out 1965 just after Starlite. This may get me kick off this site and I don't care. 1968 there was Draft and how you miss it ? In fact this is my last post here
O.....k?

This is another one of those "for older hunting duffs" threads - but anybody is welcome, of course, to chime in.

I do believe the OP meant anybody is welcome to chime in with comments germane to the subject. I don't think that post will get you kicked off the site, because it is so incoherent, the only possible meaning or implication in it that could possibly get you kicked off is that Hokkmike might be a draft dodger. If that is your statement, not very High Road of you.
 
Most of the changes that I have seen are just whats obvious. Synthetic stocks, stainless actions and barrels, fluted barrels, fluted bolts, ect. Many of them have a pistol grip and detachable magazines.

I have some of the above but I still love a nice wood stock and a deep rich blue job.
 
I'm 79, when I was young most of our rifles were military surplus. I bought a 1917 Eddystone Enfield from Cline's of Chicago for less than $25.00.
It came in the mail to the post office and was packed with cosmoline. Liked to never got it cleaned up. Of course we sporterized everything back then. Still have a sporter Eddystone in 3006 and a 94 Swedish Mauser with a George Herter stock, shoot them both.
When I was young the "real old timers" shot Winchesters, 30-30 or 32 Specials.
I still don't like plastic and Stainless Steel, still don't see a need for much else other than a 3006.
 
I enlisted Marine Corp 1960 got out 1965 just after Starlite. This may get me kick off this site and I don't care. 1968 there was Draft and how you miss it ? In fact this is my last post here

Just to let you know - my draft # was 3. I joined the USAF in the early 70's instead. I couldn't be drafted in 68 because I was still in HS. Thank you for your service....
 
There was no waiting period for rifles. I could look at the WantAds, see a rifle I liked, drive over to the person’s house, buy it, and it was mines. There was Shotgun News. Handguns were cheap like old police revolvers. You could buy drop in barrels for $50. Military surplus rifle prices were low. So was the ammo. I once bought a wooden crate of .303 British ammo but forgot the price.
 
Rifle ammo back then was not nearly as accurate as it is today. Also, rifles were not nearly as accurate. 1 MOA is common in many production rifles today. Scopes are much better than in past!
 
When I was young and wet behind the ears 30-06 was what I considered the quintessential hunting round, capable of taking down any game I might go after.

Now that I am older and much wiser I have decided that 30-06 is the perfect hunting round for any game that I might make its way into my cross hairs. I have friends that have gone for the magnums (7mm Rem Mag, 300 Win Mag, etc.) but I have yet to see any real life advantage to any of them.

The other thing that I have discovered is that lighter weight is more important than sub-MOA accuracy in a field rifle that I am going to carry around all day.
 
The thing I remember most vividly as a youngster hunter was hunting an entire season, first light to last light, and never laying eyes on even one deer - but I was in the woods and that is all that counted.
Absolutely!:)
Fast forward to today’s deer herd, we are walking in very tall cotton - deer everywhere!
I wish that was true here. As I said before, less than 1 in 3 Idaho deer hunters even get a deer nowadays. My wife and I are still getting out in the hills (with our grandsons) though, so I can't complain too awfully much.;)
 
I'll tell you what's changed! The damn animals have become a lot harder to kill... either that or the cartridges we're shooting today have gotten a lot weaker! We used to kill bear and elk with 30-30s and didn't seem to have any trouble doing it. The .35 Remington used to be like the "Hammer of Thor." Seems like now days you're under gunned if you aren't humpin' a 300 magnum after white tails. A 45-70-500 BLACK POWDER load will put a bullet completely through a Bison bull, from any angle, if no large bones are hit. If you don't believe that, Go argue with Clint smith and Mike Venturino. Both men have do it more than once.

My point is, this: That load only generates around 1300 Ft lbs of muzzle energy. You don't need a cannon with 3000+ Ft lbs of muzzle energy to down most game animals. At least, apparently, we didn't used to..
Rifle ammo back then was not nearly as accurate as it is today. Also, rifles were not nearly as accurate. 1 MOA is common in many production rifles today. Scopes are much better than in past!
Ill give you the scope part, but I can't agree with the ammo and rifle part. I have shot lots of sub minute groups with ammo that was 50+ years old and rifles that were a lot older than that. My Ross Mk III military can and has shot minute of angle out to three hundred yards with 303 ammo loaded God knows where, that was head stamped 1964. I've printed one holers with handloads. I would be foolish to say that rifles and ammo are no better today than they were fifty years ago, but I don't think it is a huge quantum leap.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you what's changed! The damn animals have become a lot harder to kill... either that or the cartridges we're shooting today have gotten a lot weaker! We used to kill bear and elk with 30-30s and didn't seem to have any trouble doing it. The .35 Remington used to be like the "Hammer of Thor." Seems like now days you're under gunned if you aren't humpin' a 300 magnum after white tails. A 45-70-500 BLACK POWDER load will put a bullet completely through a Bison bull, from any angle, if no large bones are hit. If you don't believe that, Go argue with Clint smith and Mike Venturino. Both men have do it more than once.

My point is, this: That load only generates around 1300 Ft lbs of muzzle energy. You don't need a cannon with 3000+ Ft lbs of muzzle energy to down most game animals. At least, apparently, we didn't used to..

I agree totally. Actually that 30.06 is way too much power for thin skinned game like deer. My brother even bought a Remington 700 in 7mm mag for deer. He should know better, heck, he’s way older than me! Lol! I seen a lot of hunters choosing the magnums for deer. Just don’t make no sense unless they’re shooting them a half mile away. I would love to have some data showing the numbers of deer that were killed in the early nineteenth and eighteenth centuries with nothing but a single shot front-stuffer.
 
I enlisted Marine Corp 1960 got out 1965 just after Starlite. This may get me kick off this site and I don't care. 1968 there was Draft and how you miss it ? In fact this is my last post here

This definitely wins the award for highest number of "Wait... What???" reactions on the forum this week.
 
Last edited:
I agree totally. Actually that 30.06 is way too much power for thin skinned game like deer. My brother even bought a Remington 700 in 7mm mag for deer. He should know better, heck, he’s way older than me! Lol! I seen a lot of hunters choosing the magnums for deer. Just don’t make no sense unless they’re shooting them a half mile away. I would love to have some data showing the numbers of deer that were killed in the early nineteenth and eighteenth centuries with nothing but a single shot front-stuffer.

I started out with an A303. Never a fan of magnums, then came across a 7mag that was too good of a deal to pass up. Lo and behold, ended up with a deer lease where my stand had typical shot of 300-450 yards. 17 deer taken and never seen a deer closer than 300 yards.
Moved out of state. Didn't shoot that Mag for 5 years, sold it to my buddy, who was retiring, moving to Utah and wanted and elk rifle.
I have .30-06, also, a .260, but MOST of my deer hunting is at 100 yards or less and is use a .223.

Wait.....wut?
 
My first elk rifle in 1990 at age 14 was a Civil War-era Spanish 1916 Short Rifle in 7x57mm, followed quickly by a 1891 production GEW88 in 8x57mm. In college, I moved into my No. 4 MKII Enfield in .303, but happened to be using my uncle's Remington 721 in .30-06 with 220 gr Power-Points when I got my first cow in 1996. I have used quite a variety since then. Nowadays, I use a 80's or early 90's Remington 700 in .338 Mag- blued finish and wood stock. A modern plastic special doesn't appeal to me very much.
 
Mine haven't changed any, I'm in my mid 60's. I still hunt with an old (1950's) 30.06 or equally old marlin 336 in 30-30. Getting harder to use the open sights on the marlin tho.
 
From firearms with soul like my 39A, Savage 23D, model 94 and my 1953 model 70, all forged/blue steel and walnut with fine machining and fit and finish to (my opinion) cold, soulless matte finished synthetic stocked cnc/mim parts with ugly furniture. That aside, from guns that required some degree of work to wring out the accuracy potential to guns that shoot unbelievably well with decent factory ammo. Now, lets set one up about optics, eh?
 
I can go back 55 years to my teen years. Most rifles were shiny blue with wood. In fact, my first 22 that I bought with my own money was a used bolt action, clip-fed Marlin , don't remember the model, that had a nice piece of fiddleback on it. Cost me the grand total of $27.50. It was one of the most accurate 22's that I have owned, and I have owned a Model 52B Winchester and several CZ's. Most of the big name companies had deep, shiny blue barrels and glossy stocks with many Weatherby imitations. It wasn't until the 70's, when Ruger came out with the Model 77, that I really found a gun that could compete with the looks of the Model 70 Winchester. I thought that it was a sin when the Remington Nylons came out.

Now the norm is a matte barrel and action and a composite stock. Many have a threaded barrel, aluminum floorplate, and no sights. I hate the look, but must confess that the only wood stocked rifle in my safe is my CZ455. The major gun manufacturers have done a great job of improving triggers (thank Savage) and bedding (thank Savage again) making it pretty easy to get a gun to shoot well. Even the economy models will shoot better than most of the older guns. Now if Ruger would make a Mini 14 that would shoot MOA, I would be happy man. I hear that there are a few out there, but none of mine would.
 
Mass produced rifles from good manufacturers like Ruger and Savage are of high quality in terms of accuracy at fairly modest prices. They typically have plastic butt ugly stocks (like the Ruger American, which I spray painted in a camo pattern) but in spite of the looks, they perform at a level of accuracy one would not have expected years ago with an off-the-shelf rifle from a box store. At least with the plastic furniture, things like swelling and cracking aren't as much of a concern, along with the normal wear and tear from toting a rifle through the woods, up ladder stands, etc. While they don't have the good looks or the "soul" of those older rifles, they do darn good at what they are meant to do.

You have pretty well described the Ruger American to me. A mass produced effective but soulless gun. I like your metaphor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top