Are modern rifles as good or better than old

[blackops]

35 Whelen, your rifle is impressive and I completely respect the art behind what you speak of. However, a top of the line modern bolt rifle these days will put 10 shots in 1" (good shooter, solid optics, and tailored load). I would say, yes, that is more accurate. Given, far more expensive, but the accuracy is superior.

Also, I didn't mention sentimental value. Sometimes that means more than accuracy, but if you want to compare modern has improved the standard.

 

[788Ham]

Yeah, you're all right to a lot of degrees here, but its hard to say anythings nicer looking than a then new made Savage 99 in .300, was pulled outta the box. Beats Winchester, JMHO !

 

[shiftyer1]

It seems to me that new rifles rust easier than old ones. And the woodwork on an older rifle is more appealing, although that may be because the stocks are broke in But like everything else...yes they are built better now. For me they just lack character.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Not sure what would make newer rifles rust any easier than an old one, about the only thing I can think of is that a high polish blue job is more resistant to rust due to the polished surface having less surface area than a rougher less polished surface.

 

[shiftyer1]

I don't know but I know that I oil my guns when I feel guity and think of it. I have an h&r shotgun from my grandfather thats been oiled almost never and stored the same as the others and it NEVER rusts. Also a 40 year old 30-30 winchester, they just don't seem to rust. It probably has to due with the metallurgy and old school bluing?

 

[tkopp]

Seems to me that if an old rifle was treated badly and was going to rust it would have done so by now. You're comparing the 60+ year survivors to anything new that crosses your path.

 

[35 Whelen]

However, a top of the line modern bolt rifle these days will put 10 shots in 1" (good shooter, solid optics, and tailored load). I would say, yes, that is more accurate.

Yes, that is more accurate. But keep in mind that the targets I showed were fired with rifles using sights, not scopes. And the first target shown that was fired with the K-31 was even fired with Swiss military surplus ammunition! All the loads fired from the 03A3 were cast bullet loads and again, sights...no scope. Can you imagine how these old warhouses would shoot if they had scopes on them?

I handloaded for, and shot top of the line modern bolt actions for 20+ years before I ever owned a milsurp. Some will put 10 shots in 1" @100. I owned for years a Ruger 77V 220 Swift that would shoot teeny tiny groups, but probably not 10 shots groups unless I would have fired really slow and kept the barrel cool.
I have on numerous occasions fired 3-shot groups from my Whelen with a 225 gr. TSX that went under 3/4", but I again, doubt seriously it'd do that for 10 shots unless I shot very, very slow.
I think the older (military) rifles were designed for sustained fire as oppossed to modern hunting rifles whose design attempts to balance accuracy and portability.
The question in the OP was "Are modern rifles as good or better than old". I think modern rifles can be better than old, but in many cases are not. And by the way, as many good milsurps as I own and have owned, I own far more modern bolt rifles.

35W