The Chuck Hawks OP article wasn't primarily about accuracy.
Exactly why Mr. Hawks said don't buy a rifle with cheap breakable parts if you don't have to.
Chuck Hawks on Sub-Standard Modern Rifles
- Thread starter Paul7
- Start date
- Status
The Chuck Hawks OP article wasn't primarily about accuracy.
Exactly why Mr. Hawks said don't buy a rifle with cheap breakable parts if you don't have to.
I don't think anyone is advocating hunting with a heavyweight barrel. This is from a Field & Stream article by David Petzel:
"Conventional wisdom has it that lighter-than-standard rifles are twitchy and harder to hold steady than standard-weight guns. Now that there are true featherweight models available in all price ranges, the question assumes more importance than ever. Do you trade accuracy for portability?
The Test
We used two Weatherby rifles, both in .308, one a Mark V *Ultra Lightweight that scaled 53⁄4 pounds without scope, and the other a Vanguard Series 2 RC that weighed 71⁄4 pounds, minus sights. They were equally accurate off a benchrest. Each shooter fired one group sitting and one kneeling at 200 yards and two groups offhand at 100 yards with each rifle. (All groups throughout comprised three shots.)
The Results
Light-rifle avg. group size: 8.26 inches
Standard-weight-rifle avg. group size: 6.69 inches
The Takeaway
The heavier rifle outshot the lighter one by roughly 25 percent. The wind not only pushed the bullets around at 200 yards, but gusts were frequently strong enough to move the rifle itself as we pulled the trigger, ruining many spreads. Shooting in a gale emphasized the stability of a heavier rifle.
TIP: Let me make this simple for you: In more than a half-century of hunting, I’ve carried rifles weighing from less than 5 pounds to more than 10. What I’ve learned is that 8 pounds with scope is a nice compromise."
ljnowell
Member
Cite? Cite what? You quoted my post when you argued with it. Go back and "cite" it yourself.
The Alaskan
member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 477
Ummm Right...I wasn't saying the article focused on accuracy, I was saying people's responses HERE were focusing on accuracy. I agree with the article for the most part.
cdb1
Member
I have been reading the articles at Guns and Shooting online for a number of years. My personal experience doesn't jibe with some of the articles but much of the time it does. I don't always agree with Chuck but I do think he has integrity and admire the fact that he speaks his mind. If he doesn't like something he says so. What is wrong with that? I don't read gun magazines anymore because they never review a firearm they don't like. It is okay to not agree. Have any of you started your own website to review firearms? What makes you think more people wouldn't disagree with you than with Chuck?
One item I haven't seen mentioned about light rifles is recoil. I've had three shoulder operations. For that reason I'll never own a Tikka. I purchase heavy rifles because nothing soaks up recoil better than weight. I think it is silly to argue about weight in rifles. Buy what works best for you. I've found that I can hold a heavier firearm steadier than a light firearm so even if I didn't have recoil issues I would not purchase lightweight rifles. I'm not going to denigrate anyone that uses light rifles though.
One item I haven't seen mentioned about light rifles is recoil. I've had three shoulder operations. For that reason I'll never own a Tikka. I purchase heavy rifles because nothing soaks up recoil better than weight. I think it is silly to argue about weight in rifles. Buy what works best for you. I've found that I can hold a heavier firearm steadier than a light firearm so even if I didn't have recoil issues I would not purchase lightweight rifles. I'm not going to denigrate anyone that uses light rifles though.
Elkins45
Member
I guess we just need to employ the Hawks to English translation dictionary so we are all on the same page.
Better = expensive
Quality = pretty
Cheap = affordable
Substandard = functional
Discriminating = elitist
Now it all makes sense.
Just as an FYI I read that article a few years ago. It was the piece that cemented my view that Hawks was just another old grumpa from the Jeff Cooper school of gunwriting. The Cooper/Hawks thought process goes like this: "Here is my opinion. Because it is what I think it is the only valid way to think. All other options are not valid because they are different than mine."
Better = expensive
Quality = pretty
Cheap = affordable
Substandard = functional
Discriminating = elitist
Now it all makes sense.
Just as an FYI I read that article a few years ago. It was the piece that cemented my view that Hawks was just another old grumpa from the Jeff Cooper school of gunwriting. The Cooper/Hawks thought process goes like this: "Here is my opinion. Because it is what I think it is the only valid way to think. All other options are not valid because they are different than mine."
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
I'm not sure which it is. In one hand he swears accuracy doesn't matter yet when confronted with a point where one rifle might shoot slightly better than another all Paul can focus on is accuracy.
On a 8" kill zone you simply aren't gonna miss as a result of the lighter rifle on game so again that "heavy is superior" argument is moot.
I absolutely choose portability over ultimate accuracy if a certain "good enough" threshold is met. One thing your "copy paste" experience misses is light rifles can also be small rifles that don't get pushed around by wind nearly as much. But that's part of a different misconception that a 308 class cartridge NEEDS a 24" barrel to be effective. You cut that tube down to 17" and don't have a bunch of steel hanging out in the breeze and it will shoot "good enough"
I also want to point out that not everyone engages in the dubiously legal practice of "spot and stalk from a pickup" around here that's called road hunting.
On a 8" kill zone you simply aren't gonna miss as a result of the lighter rifle on game so again that "heavy is superior" argument is moot.
I absolutely choose portability over ultimate accuracy if a certain "good enough" threshold is met. One thing your "copy paste" experience misses is light rifles can also be small rifles that don't get pushed around by wind nearly as much. But that's part of a different misconception that a 308 class cartridge NEEDS a 24" barrel to be effective. You cut that tube down to 17" and don't have a bunch of steel hanging out in the breeze and it will shoot "good enough"
I also want to point out that not everyone engages in the dubiously legal practice of "spot and stalk from a pickup" around here that's called road hunting.
Cite where I supposedly took you out of context.
R.W.Dale
Member
As to Chucks perception of "cheap breakable parts" in the 10 years since writing this opinion piece we have had several several new "substandard" rifle lines introduced. I don't recall seeing many posts about parts breakages.
That's yet another point that time has proven mr hawks wrong.
That's yet another point that time has proven mr hawks wrong.
My opinion way back when about lighter rifles was a side one to the OP, but IMHO a benefit to an older, heavier rifle.
How is it a lighter rifle won't get pushed around in the wind as much? IMHO a heavier rifle with a longer barrel is more stable. YMMV
You'll just lose velocity, and maybe some of your hearing.
LOL, you really have no clue. Maybe in Arkansas you hunt only from a blind or something (I do too when hog hunting in TX), but here in NM that won't cut it when hunting Antelope, Elk, and Barbary Sheep, all of which I've taken, with the help of a professional guide, by driving around and glassing the animal, then getting out and stalking them, with none of the shots being near a public road (a logging road or back country dirt road doesn't count as such). In what sense is that legally dubious? You need to back that up or be man enough to retract.
Last edited:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498856
I cited another instance on a different forum where a gunsmith said he has seen three T3s come in the past few years with a broken off bolt handle. Tikka told them they could buy a new rifle, at full price.
R.W.Dale
Member
Everything you have said up till now makes perfect sense.
My 17" 308 launches 150grain bullets north of 2700fps still. That's plenty of velocity for inside 300m. As to hearing ALL supersonic rifles damage your hearing.
Public lands here you have trees and atv's or trucks off designated trails are illegal. So if you wish to hunt in the ozark mountains you will walk/climb to find your quarry. You won't spot them from the cab of a king ranch f150 2miles away. I guarantee your love for heavy guns will be tarnished when you yourself and I are dragging a carcass 400yards uphill from a creek bed over rocks and through bushes.
R.W.Dale
Member
The t3 isn't even a major player anymore. One thread of Google expertise does not a trend make.
A brazed on bolt handle is actually a throwback manufacturing method. The Remington 700 is made the same way.
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/76213-Remington-700-bolt-broke
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188989
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
So where is that thread you keep mentioning?
The link you posted is one guy who snapped the back top end of his bolt off, and doesn't ever mention how it happened. If you look at his pictures the top of the broken part looks scored up, I would bet he dropped it on a rock , or ran it over our some such. Pictures of one bolt body breaking on one of tens of thousands of Tikka's sold is not indicative of anything, and the only rifle I know of with a real history of that kind of failure is the Rem 700.
As for Chuck Hawks, I came to the same conclusion a long time ago that many folks have already voiced on this thread. Mr. Hawks is a purveyor of opinions, presented as facts, many of which don't have the ring of logic or any extraordinary expertise. Also, that article has changed some since I originally read it around the time of its initial publication. The first Itteration was exclusively geared towards complaining about cheaper rifles, plastic stocks, and those darn kids who won't stay off of Mr. Hawks lawn. He expanded the scope of the article to include the parts about manufactures leaning on gun writers for good reviews later on.
Last edited:
I don't know, are you saying I made it up?
That is speculation. Would a bolt from a quality gun even break in such circumstances?
The same is true of many on this forum.
I'm not sure what you're saying on up til now.
Shorter barrels damage it more.
You're probably right, which is why I said earlier that was my personal view. Some who do walk a lot hunting still prefer a heavy rifle. BTW, I wouldn't try to tell you what is legal in Arkansas.
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
I'm saying you've leaned on that story about a gunsmith in another forum seeing a rash of broken Tikka bolts twice now and haven't bothered to toss us a link.
To quote your words from earlier in this thread "Cite?"
It's also speculation that it broke during normal use, and seems less likely given the nature of the fracture and scoring up of the parts. It depends on what the circumstances were what would happen to the bolt of a quality gun. None of my Winchesters have had a broken bolt... Then again, neither have my Tikkas
Precisely, I put old Chuck on exactly the same level as my fellow forum members. I conclude individually who I think is worth paying attention to, and who is not... Chuck Hawks falls largely into the latter category.
Onward Allusion
Member
You know what they say about opinions. Sure, there's some truth to what Chuck Hawks is saying, but there's also a lot of personal preference intermingled with his "wisdom". Read it with a grain of salt and do realize that it is coming from an older dog, and we also know that other saying about old dogs.
Elkins45
Member
When did the focus shift to Tikka bolt handles?
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Why does it always have to be an either or? I have no use for the new Stevens, Savage, Rem plastic guns just like I never cared for the older 670 Win back in the day.
I will however jump on any shootable 788 or ADL if the price is right.
I know there are many fans of the new cheap rifles here because the suggestions come out of the woodwork when the question is posed for "which rifle to buy?"
Nothing wrong with an entry level gun for a newb just wanting to get his feet wet nor the old timer who wants something a little less valued as a truck gun of some sort but if your an avid shooter with years of experience and all you own is a safe full of soul less guns with cheap scopes, hollow plastic stocks and crappy triggers I question your standards.
With regard to Hawks, I know nothing of him but I do know there are and always have been polarizing figures in the gun world, no matter if they are aging rockers, instructor gurus or barely literate cowboys there has always been plenty of flame even before the internet.
It's hilarious at times to watch these threads go off on the various tangents as the participants are wound ever tighter around the axel.
I will however jump on any shootable 788 or ADL if the price is right.
I know there are many fans of the new cheap rifles here because the suggestions come out of the woodwork when the question is posed for "which rifle to buy?"
Nothing wrong with an entry level gun for a newb just wanting to get his feet wet nor the old timer who wants something a little less valued as a truck gun of some sort but if your an avid shooter with years of experience and all you own is a safe full of soul less guns with cheap scopes, hollow plastic stocks and crappy triggers I question your standards.
With regard to Hawks, I know nothing of him but I do know there are and always have been polarizing figures in the gun world, no matter if they are aging rockers, instructor gurus or barely literate cowboys there has always been plenty of flame even before the internet.
It's hilarious at times to watch these threads go off on the various tangents as the participants are wound ever tighter around the axel.
Last edited:
stubbicatt
Member
I dunno. The idea of quality seems to change through the years. Used to be a rifle was a "rifle," now it is a "platform." Here lately I tend to gravitate to the old 1800s and early 1900s firearms, and the new plastic fantastic rifles don't appeal to me whatsoever.
Some of the modern rifles and actions are crazy fantastically accurate, and folks like 'em. They sell a whole lot, and eager folks grab them up.
I guess I am an atavistic throwback to a bygone era in riflery, and I don't apologize for it. Neither do I expect others to feel the way I do. A Pope Stevens schuetzen rifle in AAA wood with all of the acoutrements touches my soul, where a AR15 just falls flat to me. Folks like their pre 64 Model 70's, I prefer my Model 54.
To each his own.
Some of the modern rifles and actions are crazy fantastically accurate, and folks like 'em. They sell a whole lot, and eager folks grab them up.
I guess I am an atavistic throwback to a bygone era in riflery, and I don't apologize for it. Neither do I expect others to feel the way I do. A Pope Stevens schuetzen rifle in AAA wood with all of the acoutrements touches my soul, where a AR15 just falls flat to me. Folks like their pre 64 Model 70's, I prefer my Model 54.
To each his own.
It wouldn't do any good with you probably, I've already posted a Tikka owner with a broken bolt. Here's a Tikka plastic trigger guard breaking during a hunt:
"I was on a local deer hunt about 3-4 years ago when a guy dropped his T3 down into a small gully. The impact smashed the trigger guard and boogered up the trigger; he had to complete the hunt with a spare rifle. It was not a huge deal; he just hiked back to the camp to swap rifles and continued the hunt.
That impact/consequence was no doubt a fluke occurance, and I'm not sure that a sintered aluminum trigger guard would have fared any better. But it certainly taught me the wisdom of steel trigger guards and other such bits when on a once-in-a-lifetime hunt far from camp."
Another one:
"Real First Hand account here (happened to me in 2007):
Rifle: Tikka T3 chambered in 6.5x55mm
Scope: Leupold Rifleman with Leupold bases and Burris Zee Rings
Temperature was about -5 degrees celcius.
Just shot a nice 4x4 Whitetail out in Drayton Valley. The deer was in a full out run. Hit him in the spine just behind his shoulders (*DAMN*, running over quickly to put it down humanely), in my haste and excitement, went to extract the spent case and run another round into the chamber, but used a tad bit of force....
The bolt came out into my right hand, and gun in my left!?!? "WTH", I said.
Thought I may have inadvertently pushed the bolt stop/bolt release... Looked closer, and upon inspection, realized that I had completely sheared off the pin holding the bolt stop/bolt release and spring in place!
"Another:
"I had a tikka in 300wm . on more than one occasion after firing a round and lifting the bolt ; it locked in the up position somehow and would not go down. it had to be removed and put into a vise to turn it back. doing this broke the plastic bolt shroud."
Like the forum member here who thinks standard Western hunting methods are 'dubiously legal'.
Last edited:
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,266
I'm having a hard time understanding the argument that several have been making that accuracy isn't important in a hunting rifle. Maybe a rifle that can put 5 shots inside a dime at 100 yards is overkill for big game, but one that can't shoot consistently and repeatably is a less effective tool and leads to a lack of confidence at the "moment of truth".
Really, there are good budget rifles available now and there are lots of good used mid-range hunting rifles that also work. It's not like you can't have plenty of function in the $350 - $500 range.
The one thing I really don't like on most all new rifles - not just budget ones - is that so few of them have sights anymore. Other than that, I'm actually pretty happy with my budget .308. I bought it knowing it'll eventually be exposed to somewhat abusive conditions. I handled a Ruger 77 walnut / blued in .308 the same day and loved it - it was such a lovely rifle. I really wanted it. I still want it! But I only had money for one, and synthetic stocked pure function under $500 was a more practical choice.
I've even shot cheap steel cases Russian ammo through it - worked just fine, but it was corrosive. No matter - I caught it early and cleaned it up good. Bore is still shiney. But still, I'd have been wracked with guilt if I'd done that to that gorgeous model 77
The one thing I really don't like on most all new rifles - not just budget ones - is that so few of them have sights anymore. Other than that, I'm actually pretty happy with my budget .308. I bought it knowing it'll eventually be exposed to somewhat abusive conditions. I handled a Ruger 77 walnut / blued in .308 the same day and loved it - it was such a lovely rifle. I really wanted it. I still want it! But I only had money for one, and synthetic stocked pure function under $500 was a more practical choice.
I've even shot cheap steel cases Russian ammo through it - worked just fine, but it was corrosive. No matter - I caught it early and cleaned it up good. Bore is still shiney. But still, I'd have been wracked with guilt if I'd done that to that gorgeous model 77
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
