Modern hunting rifles versus older hunting rifles?

[CraigC]

'Character' notwithstanding, the combination of modern materials technology, computer-aided design with automated machining and chemistry improvements on the ammunition front together yield a firearm system that, on average is far superior to anything made 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago.

Sounds good. Not true but it sounds good. Lower grade rifles have better barrels today than they did 50yrs ago and on average, rifles 'may' be slightly more accurate but accuracy is FAR from the only important factor. "Far superior"? I don't think so. The finest firearms in the world have always been hand fitted and no amount of CNC machining will ever replace that.

The ones you like to look at and the ones you like to hunt with.

Personally, I like to hunt with rifles, shotguns and handguns that I also like to look at. Life is too short to spend all my limited time in the woods with an ugly, utilitarian "modern" rifle. You have the choice as to whether or not you worry about every little scratch and ding. Life is too short for that too.

 

[headoftheholler]

30 years ago this what you got when you bought a working mans shotgun (or rifle for that matter) A nice piece of walnut I just restored on a '74 Ithaca.

Today, we are told that we "need" a synthetic stock and matte bluing, but in reality its a cost saving scheme.
Funny that everyone mentions to buy a Win 70, Rem 700, Kimber, Ruger M77, ect when all are basically copies of the M98 action.
Back to the OP, search out some of the commercial mausers that came out in the 60's and 70's Parker hales, Flaigs, Interarms ect will all give you a 98 action and most of the time a great looking and performing rifle. Also a knock out performance wise is the Swedish mausers Kimber sporterizied years ago are a deadly accurate rifle, I own 2.

 

[Ky Larry]

Pink Bunny. I've owned several CZ 's over the years and still own 4 centerfire rifles and 5 rimfire rifles. I've found CZ's wood to be "variable." I have a CZ-550 Varmint in .308 that is plain as it gets. The stock has no figure. I also have a -550 in 6.5X55 Swede that has a Turkish walnut stock that would make Roy Weatherby turn green. The rest of my CZ rifles are somewhere in between. The folks on Rimfire Forum call it the CZ Wood Lottery. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[I6turbo]

I6turbo,
You got me really interested in the CZ 550. One thing though. I know that, yes, a synthetic stock is the better stock for bad weather. But...I just think that, compared to wood, it has no soul. I'd rather be extra careful, and take a hit in accuracy, and have a beautiful stock.

I saw several CZ 550's. Some had that stock, some had a plainer stock. I see no options for a finer graded stock. Were you able to ask for a better stock from wherever you got it, or was that stock a happy accident? It's beautiful.

Pinkbunny,
The wood on CZs varies from fairly plain to pretty nice. I'd rate my 550 FS at about a 6 on a 1 - 10 CZ scale. All of my CZs have been just luck-of-the-draw, a.k.a. the "wood lottery" with CZ bolt action rifles -- I haven't had an opportunity to do any hand selecting. CZ does supposedly have a fancy wood option, but I have never checked into how it works. If you find a dealer that has several guns in stock you might get them to pick through them for outstanding wood, particularly if you kick them an extra 50 bucks or so.

Here's some of what I got luck-of-the-draw. Keep in mind that all of these are photographed outdoors in natural light, not indoors where most wood is going to look crappy compared to how nice it looks outdoors in natural light.

 

[Ash]

You really think changes in ordnance steels used today versus 1990 make any difference - or if they even use different steels? What benefit in a rifle's receiver might one get? What difference in a barrel might one get? How is it a 70 year old Garand barrel manages any kind of accuracy, or a 110 year old Swede? Surely those cavemen who lacked both CNC machines and calculators could not have come up with anything capable of hitting anything more accurate than a 45 degree angle to the left or right of the shooter, right?

Saying that, I'll grant that accuracy is better on current rifles, but that does not imply that accuracy was not superb on older breeds.

Even so, I agree with Craigc, I hunt with my rifles and I find older ones are better-made, with finer finishes, open sights standard, deep bluing, and good walnut. They also shoot as good as they look.

 

[Sam1911]

You really think changes in ordnance steels used today versus 1990 make any difference - or if they even use different steels?

Of course. We use better, more fine-tuned alloys for almost everything these days from guns to cars. We are able to produce much finer purity of materials than previously. We are able to achieve much better precision in heat treating and tempering, and then can treat the surfaces of those materials with various processes and coatings to make noticeable differences in how they perform. I'm not sure why that would be controversial.

How is it a 70 year old Garand barrel manages any kind of accuracy, or a 110 year old Swede? Surely those cavemen who lacked both CNC machines and calculators could not have come up with anything capable of hitting anything more accurate than a 45 degree angle to the left or right of the shooter, right?

Why the absurd level of hyperbole? Of course there were accurate old guns. It isn't a very common, run-of-the-mill older rifle that could hang with one of the (even inexpensive) Sub-MOA-guaranteed rifles available today as mass-produced items, but some did exist and some makers routinely did a fine job -- though the "need" for bug-hole accuracy is largely a new phenomenon that most sportsmen of previous generations would not, or even could not, have utilized.

 

[Cee Zee]

Ever notice how the people who say the old rifles are better seem to own old rifles. The same is true of new rifles. Which came first, the attitude or the accuracy though?

I have some great old rifles and some great new rifles. You can get accuracy much cheaper these days. That's just true. If you don't believe that you need to shoot a Savage or a Sako or a CZ.

 

[Ash]

No, in this case you are wrong. I owned Savage 110 rifles, new very accurate rifles. I had a 110FP that was outstanding as well. And have owned Howa-based rifles. But there were trade offs. The finish on the rifles was matte and cheap, there were no iron sights, and the stocks were bland. Odd, of course, that that 110FP was so accurate...it was made in 1993. Surely that was merely an accident.

Sam, so what is superior about the receiver of a Remington 700 made in 1990 over one made today? There is nothing controversial about improvements, but the issue is whether the improvement exists at all. You compare hyper-accurate rifles today to hunting rifles of yore, yet compare hunting rifles today. Apples and apples. I have remained true to the statement that newer rifles are more accurate. I also dismiss that old rifles are, thus, deserving of nothing more than some scrap heap or are feeble and incapable of accuracy. Bug hole accuracy? I guess varmint rifles made in the 1990's were mere dreams? Heaven forbid varmint rifles made in the 1960's. Shooting a prairie dog at 200 yards was just something that could not be done before last year.

The Savage 110 has been known for accuracy for 40 years now - nothing new with that. But if the alloys have eclipsed designs from the past, how odd it is that the other specs did not change to the point that parts on older Savage 110's still fit current ones - except for changes involved with triggers which had nothing at all to do with alloys. Ditto for a Marlin 336 made 40 years ago. Ditto for all these designs.

Yet for hunting it matters little. Indeed, it doesn't make a difference at all.

 

[Sam1911]

Wait, are you talking about 1990 as being an OLD rifle? Geeez. I'm not the oldest guy in the room, by far, but that's just looney. Look, if that's your definition of an old school rifle, we really have nothing to discuss.

When guys get to talking about classic old hunting irons, they're talking about guns generally from the 20s, 30s, 50s, on up to the golden pre-'64 Winchesters. When men were men and guns were hand-fitted and finished, and the EPA and OSHA didn't have anything to say about bluing chemicals, and so on.

I also dismiss that old rifles are, thus, deserving of nothing more than some scrap heap or are feeble and incapable of accuracy. Bug hole accuracy? I guess varmint rifles made in the 1990's were mere dreams? Heaven forbid varmint rifles made in the 1960's. Shooting a prairie dog at 200 yards was just something that could not be done before last year.

Again with the looney hyperbole? Scrap heap? Groundhogs at 200 yds? 1990? What are you on about?

I'm not sure how to respond because I honestly am not sure where you're coming from or what point you're making.

There were plenty of guns made in all of the past decades that could shoot accurately, and a few of those could shoot extremely accurately -- almost up to today's definition of extreme accuracy. But many of them were real works of art, or at least quite beautiful, well-finished shooting-irons to be proud of.

And, again, I've already completely agreed with you that none of this matters to a hunter who's interest is taking game, not shooting tiny groups.

 

[Ash]

Look above. Previously it was stated that anything 20 years or older couldn't compare. That is absurd in my book.

 

[jim243]

...it was made in 1993. Surely that was merely an accident.

Sorry Sam, I agree with Ash. 1990 was 26 years ago (a quarter of a century ago) and many things have changed including the materials that made up rifles. Welcome to the 21st century,

I am a lot older than you are and with the exception of my SKS none of my rifles are older than 10 years old, if that old. (all 10 of them) I have had AR's in the 60's, Winchesters in the 70's, Remingtons from the 80's and Rugers made in the 90's and without any slight hesitation I can say that rifles made in the last 10 years are without a doubt, much better than anything else I have owned. All those older rifles have been sold off without any regrets and I do not miss them.

But that's just me. They are nice to look at, and have nice wood, but to me wood is not fuctional, steel and machining is, the rest is just eye candy. The use of rifles haven't changed in 500 years but how they are made has, many times.

I love good furniture, so don't get me wrong, but I love better preformace even more.
Jim

 

[Sam1911]

Look above. Previously it was stated that anything 20 years or older couldn't compare. That is absurd in my book.

Sorry Sam, I agree with Ash. 1990 was 26 years ago (a quarter of a century ago) and many things have changed including the materials that made up rifles. Welcome to the 21st century,

Wait, you agree with Ash by completely disagreeing with him?

I'M the one arguing that modern advances do make a difference...

But, personally, I only own one rifle made after the early/mid 1990s myself, and that one's a little Savage Cub .22 for the kids. The rest of the pile stretch from the '90s back to 1918.

The new move toward cheap precision is nifty, but I've never found a personal need that would require me to replace one of the older ones for a new tack-driver. I like working on loads and getting the most accuracy I can out of the rifles I have, but that's always been good enough for what I use them for -- whether that's a 1.5" group from a Marlin 336 or a .5" varmint .223, or CMP match accuracy out of a Garand. I really don't spend much time sitting at the bench shooting tiny groups and don't have hunting conditions anywhere remotely close that would require sub-MOA to take down a game animal at long range.

So...new rifles are built more precisely, cheaper. Older rifles tend to have had more hand-work applied and can have nicer looks (if you're into those looks) and more traditional materials (which please some people greatly).

 

[Ash]

jim, in the last 20 years, the only new rifle design in a bolt action is the Remington 710. Everything else that is new is a modification of Savage's locking system applied to two or more locking lugs. Metallurgy? The 710 has a mild-steel receiver. That's a real improvement.

All the others are based on previous designs. There has not been a quantum change in ordnance steels in 20 years. There just hasn't been. Some of what is seen is that point where companies retooled worn-out machinery, but that is irrelevant to the issue.

Changes in alloys in aerospace or other regions does not mean that the Savage 110 receiver now is fundamentally any different than what was made 30 years ago. And for argument's sake you are right (absurd that you might change an alloy into superium but leave it at the old dimensions, threading, etc.), receivers are magically better now - that has pathetically little to do with accuracy. Barrels, consistency in headspacing, precision in cutting bores, has less to do with steels used as it does with the tooling to cut/create the rifling or set the head space. Everybody uses the Savage barrel-locking method, which alone is already more than 60 years old (introduced in 1947 with the Stevens 325).

Again, glass trumps rifle every time. Take a 1960's Savage 110 - yeah, they made them back in the stone age of transistors, slide rules, and tube-tvs - put high quality glass on it with a good mount, and it will beat what ever ultra modern rifle - you mentioned Savage so, Savage it is though I'm scratching my head about what magic steel alloy Savage uses to replace what they used to use that makes it the bolt of Apollo - with average glass and it will perform better every time.

Of course, newer rifles are more accurate - stayin' pretty consistent on that one - but the accuracy advantage is not relevant for most hunting applications. Take your rifle, I'll take my Pedersen or, heaven forbid, my Western Field 730 store brand rifle, and we'll go hunting.

The man behind the trigger will have far more to do with accuracy than the rifle. And, if the rifle doesn't fit well, bench-rest accuracy will matter little compared to practical accuracy. And all things considered, at the end, you will not have more meat than me - important as this is the topic of hunting rifles.

 

[ball3006]

I have an 1893 Mosin Nagant that will shoot 3 inch groups with open sights all day long. The cartridge is almost identical in performance to the 3006. I have an 1891 Argentine Mauser that will do the same. Why spend big bucks on a rifle just because it is "new"......chris3

 

[Sam1911]

I have an 1893 Mosin Nagant that will shoot 3 inch groups with open sights all day long. The cartridge is almost identical in performance to the 3006. I have an 1891 Argentine Mauser that will do the same. Why spend big bucks on a rifle just because it is "new"......chris3

Because shooting tiny groups has become the gunny equivalent of having a car that can do 0-60 in 5 seconds. It's very cool. It isn't of much practical use to the vast majority of shooters, but it is one technical aspect they can easily understand and talk about that doesn't strictly rely on their own skill or hunting knowledge or subjective aspects like "beauty."

A few shooters shoot matches and need a precision edge to win. A few shooters plink varmints at very long range and need a precision edge in order to make hits. A slightly larger group (IMHO) buys a rifle just to play with loads and sit at a bench trying to shoot the tiniest groups he can just because ... well, because that's what he wants to do with his time. The journey is the destination, I guess.

Pretty much everyone else just gets a grin out of being able to say, "Yeah...it's sub-MOA," (Like..."Yeah, It's a Hemi!"), whether they understand what it is they're saying or not.

And the manufacturers have discovered that they can sell a lot of new rifles by guaranteeing they'll shoot "bragging rights" groups (or because they have "will shoot bragging rights groups" marketing) and instilling in shooters the idea that a gun that will only shoot to 1.5" or 2" or whatever at 100 yds. isn't worthy of owning.

So, like the guy (a client of mine actually) who drives 5 miles through traffic to work each day in a Mustang GT 500, a lot of hunters go sit in the woods waiting for that 100 yard shot at a whitetail with a 7mm Magnum guaranteed to put 5 shots into a nickel.

Hey, it's a free world!

 

[Cee Zee]

So...new rifles are built more precisely, cheaper. Older rifles tend to have had more hand-work applied and can have nicer looks (if you're into those looks) and more traditional materials (which please some people greatly).

And people forget that those rifles in the past seemed to be cheap compared to today but in reality they were way more expensive compared to today. The thing about comparing an old hunting rifle to a new hunting rifle mentioned here doesn't take into account that the price of the new hunting rifles are way less than the relative price of the old hunting rifles. All that hand crafted stuff costs money and the main reason companies like Savage have become the best US rifle company is they sell better quality for less money. Remington did the same thing in the 50's. Winchester did it in the 30's. They cut prices and kept accuracy at the same levels.

Still it's possible to get very, very accurate rifles today for a lot less money (relatively) than they would have cost in the golden age of rifles. That goes for hunting rifles especially. A person can buy a Savage Axis/Edge and have a fine hunting rifle for $300. That's about what it took to get a rifle that shot as well back in the 50's. Except $300 was a heck of a lot of money then.

Sure there were great firearms back then. There have been great firearms for a very long time. I wish some people here could shoot the 1925 German stalking rifle I'm keeping right now. That thing shoots as well as any rifle in my safe. But it was also very, very expensive when it was made.

And as for Savage building rifles in 1990 that were as accurate as they are now, well that just isn't true. I have a 1990 Savage 110 and a 2009 Savage 12. The 12 is several orders of magnitude more accurate. And it certainly isn't made of cheap materials either. Yes it has a synthetic stock but it's a H-S Precision stock and the rifle is made of stainless steel. Those things are never cheap.

That's not to say there were never any bargain rifles that shot well even back in the golden age. I also have a 1951 Stevens .22 that shoots as well as any of my modern .22's (Savage MkIIBTV, CZ 453, etc.). It was possible to get a good deal in the golden age but it was generally a gun that had a shortcoming designed into it. The Stevens rifle I have was a boys rifle although it's big enough for a man to shoot. And it had a cheap stock, it was a single shot (so less moving parts to make) and it lacked a scope mount.

So for the most part great accuracy is cheaper now but that is not universal either. If companies wanted to cut corners on those hand built rifles they could sell them cheap too. Beech or birch stocks were much cheaper than walnut for example. And a simple rifle can be built cheaper than a rifle with a feeding action. Still most of the time in the golden age you were paying for hand crafting and better materials. And again, a person could get accuracy way back when just like they can now. But it cost more. Sometimes it cost a lot more. The average hunting rifle today compared to the average hunting rifle from the old days is likely more accurate.

 

[T.R.]

The rifles from 1970's were well built and will last a lifetime with just minimal routine maintenance. Winchester model 670 was the econo-version of their fsmous model 70. This model 670 is a truly great rifle that often sells on the used market for about $375.

Mossberg built a line of affordable walnut stocked rifles during the 1970's that are genuine keepers.

I encourage you to seek a used rifle.

TR

 

[Ash]

Orders of magnitude?

 

[Crashola]

I own both new and old, and I love them both. But I will add that the new triggers on some rifles these days are pretty cool. I had a Savage with an Accutrigger and absolutely loved it right out of the box. Sadly, I was unhappy with the rifle for other reasons and got rid of it.

 

[mjw930]

Pretty much everyone else just gets a grin out of being able to say, "Yeah...it's sub-MOA," (Like..."Yeah, It's a Hemi!"), whether they understand what it is they're saying or not.

Hmm, I've got a sub 5 sec 0-60 truck ('12 Jeep SRT8) and a sub-MOA rifle (Savage), I guess I'm "That Guy"

 

[Smith357]

The older FN Commercial Mausers are among the finest versions of the Mauser and generally priced in the $800-$1200 depending on condition. Browning later adopted the FN Mauser as their premium Safari. Early 47 & 48 post war models used left over military receivers with the thumb notch for using stripper clips, by the early 50s those were used up and true commercial receivers began to be used and they also moved the three position safety off the rear of the bolt to a thumb position.


1947 FN Mauser in .30 US (.30-06) Notice the thumb notch in the receiver.



The 47 in the foreground with a 52 action in the back, notice position of the thumb safety on the 52

 

[palmrose2]

Now that I've begun tinkering with some rifles that don't belong to me, I've come to understand that many of the older ones are almost garbage. Having said that, I've so far always been able to improve the garbage ones. Sometimes remarkably easy.

Unless you can actually shoot a used rifle before buying it, it's a gamble. Even new ones are, but less so.

I swear that some of the triggers I've played with could have been replaced with a rubber band and not been worse.

 

[jbkebert]

Almost every new rifle I pick up the action feels like its full of sand. You pull them apart and that is close to what I usually find. For all of the advancements in fit and finish that I keep hearing about. The god like CNC fabrication and these great steels and metals. The amount of burrs and pitted parts inside the action are terrible.

I spent over 7 hours yesterday on a Marlin 1895 GS pre Remlin which are even worse. About the only rifles I have picked up off the shelf that feel good are made by Cooper and Dakota. Also many of the CZ rifles have been pretty good. It seems the companies that rely of had fit and finish will always be better IMHO.

 

[Cee Zee]

About the only rifles I have picked up off the shelf that feel good are made by Cooper and Dakota. Also many of the CZ rifles have been pretty good.

My CZ bolt would stick so bad that I had to practically ram it with all my strength to get it past the burrs when I first got that rifle. The smoothest action I've seen on a new rifle in years is on my Marlin XT-22TR. It works like an Enfield. I have a Marlin 925 that was really bad about burrs too. And so was my 2009 60SS.

But the thing about burrs is they can be knocked down, sanded down, ground down, whatever. My CZ is a great rifle now. So is my 60SS. The 925 works pretty well but it's not as accurate as it should be.

BTW the Cooper rifles I've handled didn't impress me all that much. Now Sakos are another story. But a smooth operation is not the be all and end all of firearms. Being able to hit what you shoot at is the most important thing to me. Yeah I have a truck that will do 0-60 in 7 seconds and it would do far better if I swapped chips in it. So maybe I'm "that guy" too. I just like accurate rifles these days. I like solid rifles too. IMO they all have their uses. If I'm going hunting I'll take a solid rifle with a smooth action. If I'm shooting long distance plinking or varminting I don't even think about how smooth the action is. To me that's the part that is like the fast cars. I don't expect to have to work the bolt the way the Brits did in the Mad Minute. I'm not that scared of squirrels.

 

[Boxhead]

The newest I hunt are probably 20 years old or so and I own a few like and have taken elk, moose, whitetail, blacktail, axis and mule deer, nilgai, black and grizzly near with same.

The majority are much older. The oldest likely this 1916 Erfurt Mauser 8x57 that we took along to Africa last summer.



A Walther Mauser Model B 7x57 went along too.



Last on the trip was a pre-64 M70 358 Win.





They all work if shot properly.