Modern hunting rifles versus older hunting rifles?

[cal30_sniper]

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.

Is that so? Your 1990 Savage shoots 10" groups and your 2009 Savage shoots 0.1" groups? That's the only possible scenario I can think of where one rifle could be multiple orders of magnitude more accurate than another...

I've got both sides of the equation. I have a Savage 110 in .30-06 and a Savage 11 in .308. They are both very accurate, 5 shot MOA groups even with factory ammo. They also sit in the gun safe.

I hunt with a Chilean Mauser 95 in 7x57 that was sporterized back in the 50s. It will shoot 2" 5 shot groups with older Winchester 7x57 factory ammo, 1.5" 5 shot groups with Prvi Partizan 7x57 factory ammo, and 1.25" 5 shot groups with my own H4350 and 139grn Hornady reloads. The action is FAR smoother, the balance is much better, and the fit, finish, and appearance truly is orders of magnitude better than either of my "super-accurate" Savage rifles. Can you think of any possible hunting situation where a 0.25MOA accuracy difference is going to matter? I can't. That rifle was made in 1897, and still wears an original barrel...

I also recommend the Husqvarna FN 98 rifles for someone just getting into the hunting scene that wants a piece of quality artwork that will still perform with ANY hunting rifle built today. If you watch carefully, you can pick one up for less than $400. From pre-WWII up until the late 50s, they were made on Belgian FN actions. From the early-50's up, they came factory drilled and tapped, built on commercial solid side wall receivers with no thumb cut. I've got one in .270 Win, made in '52. If I ever need more punch than a 7x57 or a 6.5x55 on a hunting trip, this will be the one I grab. Again, the finish is far superior, the action is far smoother, and the balance is much better than anything you will find on the modern market for less than $1k. Once I finished cleaning the 60 years of copper fouling out of the bore, this rifle will shoot 1" 3 shot groups until your shoulder falls off. Do you really need anything more than that, especially for something that costs LESS than a new Savage or Remchester?

The truth is, many of the modern rifle manufacturers are just getting to the point with modern manufacturing that they can rival the quality results achieved by many fine arms makers (and the entire Swedish, Swiss, and Finnish military armaments industry) 100 years ago. The question is, will anybody be collecting matte-blued synthetic stock Remchesters and Savages 100 years from now? I'm betting not.

Then again, my daily driver is a 1986 3/4 ton Suburban. Maybe I just like things with a bit of character that are built to last.

 

[dak0ta]

Hey, with your Husqvarna, what size bases and rings are you using? Can you still use the safety?

 

[cal30_sniper]

I had weaver bases and medium height weaver rings. I am currently using Leupold 2-piece mounts with Leupold Low Rings. The safety functions with either set up. It will not swing all the way up to vertical, nor will it swing over to lock the bolt, but it swings up about 60 degrees, which is well beyond the point necessary to disengage the firing pin.

I'll most likely be going to an FN commercial low swing or Wisner type side swing safety. Just haven't had the time to get it done yet, I'm still busy working to get my 1909 Peruvian sporter together.

 

[StrawHat]

Another thing to consider in the debate between old and new is the ammuntion. Back in the 50 and 60s, common factory ammunition was not nearly as precise as what is being produced today. Yes, some of the "Target" grade ammo was superb but the common cartridges were so-so. Today, the components are much more precisely made than back then. Bullets that are considered seconds today will still be better made than the common bullets of then. This is one of the reasons th rifle makers can make the 1 MOA claim. It took having bullet makers tighten up there machinery and spec to produce better ammunition. Same with the brass makers and powders. Handloaders have forced the ammunition companies to step up their game.

 

[ridgerunner1965]

i have quite a few bolt rifles.prob none less than 20 yrs old.new guns just dont trip my trigger.never have.if yu like them thats fine i understand.my newest bolt gun is a browning a bolt 223. very nice rifle.no idea how old it is but i was with the guy that purcahsed it at least 15 years ago at a gun show, dont remember if it was new then or not.very nice peice of technology.

what confuses me is that my 1916 carl gustave swede mauser in 6.5x55 shoots as well or better than any other rifle i have.i had the barrel cut to 24 in and the bolt forged and turned down and drilled and tapped for a scope.then a stock off ebay. ive got almost 400 bucks in it.so even tho its kind of a expensive rifle yud have to mark me down in the old rifle collum.

when i took it to the smith that did the work i wanted him to turn the step out of the milatary barrel.he said OH NO! DONT DO THAT! i asked him why and he said he didnt know why but them orig barrels shot good the way they were. glad i listened to him.

 

[Zeke/PA]

The Winchester Model 70's of old are STILL great rifles and capable of very good accuracy.
I own two Pre-War versions that still shoot MOA with reloads.
The pre -64 stuff can be had reasonably priced and usually in decent condition.
I had real good luck with the newer Savage offerings of late especially a recently purchased Savage Edge in .30-'06,

 

[ball3006]

Realistically, how many folks can shoot well enough to equal the manufacturer's claims? I used to be able and on a good eye day, can. I have a Rem 700 in 3006 that will do a little over an inch with M2 ball. I have a Mosin Nagant M39 with a scout scope that will shoot under one inch with out of the box Privi ammo. I don't hunt any longer so supreme accuracy is not that important but consistancy of my shooting is.

The only modern rifle out there that will float my boat is a Blazer, or what ever name it is now. It has a trigger to die for and can be switched to other calibers......chris3

 

[Casefull]

I will take accurate, lightweight, resistance to rust over sort of accurate, heavy, and bluing always wearing off and rusting. Modern rifles are so much more practical. BTW I have both.

 

[Ash]

Some folks prefer a nice, modern, light, accurate quartz watch. Fine by me.

I like my Poljot.

Of course, heavy is an odd statement as my hunting rifles are all light. And, as old as they are (30-50 years old), none of them have a spot of rust on them.

My 870 Express, though, with a matte finish, would rust if you looked at it the wrong way.

 

[headoftheholler]

i have quite a few bolt rifles.prob none less than 20 yrs old.new guns just dont trip my trigger.never have.if yu like them thats fine i understand.my newest bolt gun is a browning a bolt 223. very nice rifle.no idea how old it is but i was with the guy that purcahsed it at least 15 years ago at a gun show, dont remember if it was new then or not.very nice peice of technology.

what confuses me is that my 1916 carl gustave swede mauser in 6.5x55 shoots as well or better than any other rifle i have.i had the barrel cut to 24 in and the bolt forged and turned down and drilled and tapped for a scope.then a stock off ebay. ive got almost 400 bucks in it.so even tho its kind of a expensive rifle yud have to mark me down in the old rifle collum.

when i took it to the smith that did the work i wanted him to turn the step out of the milatary barrel.he said OH NO! DONT DO THAT! i asked him why and he said he didnt know why but them orig barrels shot good the way they were. glad i listened to him.

I own 3 Swedish mausers that are sporterized, one is a carbine with 16" barrel, a Kimber conversion and a 21" in a Fajen stock, all 3 (even the 16" one) are more accurate than anything I have shot in the last 10 years (modern production) and to boot are all close to or over 100 years old.

 

[cal30_sniper]

I own 3 Swedish mausers that are sporterized, one is a carbine with 16" barrel, a Kimber conversion and a 21" in a Fajen stock, all 3 (even the 16" one) are more accurate than anything I have shot in the last 10 years (modern production) and to boot are all close to or over 100 years old.

Same here, a 16" sporter carbine with a Williams peep, a 20" sporter w/ a Fajen stock wearing a Weaver V9, and a factory M96. The M96 is the least accurate of the bunch, probably because it is one of the early ones with the inverted V/V-notch sights, and I just can't shoot well enough with that sight picture. The other two are MOA or less.

I will take accurate, lightweight, resistance to rust over sort of accurate, heavy, and bluing always wearing off and rusting. Modern rifles are so much more practical. BTW I have both.

1. If your rifles are rusting, you need to review your cleaning habits. Perhaps you're one of those owners I would like to slap sometimes when I'm trying to clean up a new purchase that appears to have never had the finish wiped or the bore punched after shooting. Surprisingly, the worst one I ever bought was a few years old Savage 110 that had its "resistant to rust" finish covered with small and medium patches of... rust. On the other hand, my Swedes and Chileans still wear their original bluing from 100+ years ago. I'd say if anything, finish quality and durability has gone down in recent times.

2. Out of curiosity, where does your lightweight vs. heavyweight comparison come from? That's almost completely dependent on barrel length and contour, stock material, and optics chosen. The action type itself usually only has a small impact on the overall weight, especially if you are talking only bolt rifles. The only one of those that's significantly changed in the last 50 years is optics and stock material. Optics have gotten much heavier, and stocks have gotten slightly lighter due to the introduction of synthetics. Synthetics aren't really any lighter than the lightweight type woods used in a lot of older rifles. Strangely enough, my beech stocked Husky that I posted above is the lightest scoped rifle that I own, even lighter than my Savage 11F wearing a Weaver K2.5.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Realistically, how many folks can shoot well enough to equal the manufacturer's claims? I used to be able and on a good eye day, can. I have a Rem 700 in 3006 that will do a little over an inch with M2 ball. I have a Mosin Nagant M39 with a scout scope that will shoot under one inch with out of the box Privi ammo. I don't hunt any longer so supreme accuracy is not that important but consistancy of my shooting is.

The only modern rifle out there that will float my boat is a Blazer, or what ever name it is now. It has a trigger to die for and can be switched to other calibers......chris3

Very true!
I've lent family members rifles complete with a trip to the range prior to a hunting trip.
Most CAN'T HIT SQUAT!

 

[Cee Zee]

Is that so? Your 1990 Savage shoots 10" groups and your 2009 Savage shoots 0.1" groups? That's the only possible scenario I can think of where one rifle could be multiple orders of magnitude more accurate than another...

You need to check your math friend. And almost everyone who uses that phrase uses it as hyperbole and not literally. But my 12 certainly shoots an order of magnitude better than my 110. You bet. .2" groups times 10 equals 2 inches. That's just about exactly right.

As for the other junk you posted why are you directing that at me? Why are people so incapable of reading what was actually written? I plainly said a lot of older rifles shoot very accurate. I believe I said I have one in my safe made in 1925 that would shoot as well as anything made today. I never slammed old rifles despite what you seem to think. If you bothered to read what I said you would know that.

How about you check out post #41 where I said:

"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."

So why are you giving me this lecture on the value of older guns? But it is still cheaper to buy an accurate rifle than it was back then when the best rifles were hand made or largely hand made. I have a rifle that cost me right at $300 that has shot groups that were super tight and it's shot a lot of them like that. It may not shoot every group perfectly but it's a rimfire rifle which means I have to use factory made ammo in it. That keeps anyone from ever shooting completely consistent. I'd tell you the group size but you have to prove you can deal with the facts first. If you think there aren't super accurate rifles around now and for a lot less money than they cost when those 100 year old rifles of yours were made then you missed the bus friend.

I guess I'll never understand why people get on these boards acting so chippy and looking for an argument. If they can't find something to argue about they just make something up. Is it really that much fun? I never saw the enjoyment myself. You totally missed what I said yet you slam me for what you "think" I said. Good grief.

Until you get off your high horse and actually read my posts I will just ignore you.

 

[cal30_sniper]

Holy smokes, there came the flame from left field... I actually agreed with most of what you had to say. I think its an oversimplification, and as stated by someone else earlier, I believe a lot more of it has to do with better quality ammo than inherently accurate newer guns, but the fact remains that machining processes have improved a lot and it is a lot cheaper to build an accurate, and ugly, rifle these days. I'd also say you've got a lot better guarantee of lifelong quality and durability buying a well-made, proven accurate, classic rifle than some new Remchester off the shelf. However, all that was my personal input into the thread. The only part directed at you was the part concerning your gross misuse of a very simple mathematical concept...

You need to check your math friend. And almost everyone who uses that phrase uses it as hyperbole and not literally. But my 12 certainly shoots an order of magnitude better than my 110. You bet. .2" groups times 10 equals 2 inches. That's just about exactly right.

No sir, it is you who needs a math check. You stated that your new Savage was "several orders of magnitude" more accurate than your older Savage. Several, implying more than two, and orders of magnitude, implying multiples of ten. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by changing it to 2 orders of magnitude. The difference between a rifle that shoots 0.1" groups and one that shoots 10" groups is exactly two orders of magnitude. The difference between a rifle that shoots 0.2" (as you claim) and 2" is exactly one order of magnitude, not several.

Also bear in mind that your Savage 110 is a lightweight barreled hunting rifle, and your Savage 12 is a heavy-barreled precision rifle built for varminting. A whole different price range, and a whole different market. I would hope for your sake that you got a rifle that was at least somewhat more accurate. Heck, that's not even mentioning that if it's really a 110, it's also a long action, and probably chambered in something with much more punch than that 12. You're comparing apples to oranges, and your math was grossly in error. If there's any difference between a new Savage 110 and a Savage 110 built in the 90s, most shooters and zero deer are going to see it. The only thing you'll notice is the bigger whole in your wallet.

Nobody's out to get you, I just found your odd use of math quite comical.

 

[JustsayMo]

There is no question that modern firearms have a good many advantages but my absolute favorite rifle to go into the woods scouting and small game hunting with is a 108 year old Marlin 1894 in 32-20.



I have no idea how many owners its had, what they shot with it or where its been. That is part of the mystique. The wear and the scars just add to the character. I'm hoping to add a good many chapters to its life story and hope the next owner enjoys it as much as I do (did).

 

[Cee Zee]

I have a rifle almost identical to that in my safe JustSayMo. It is a fine rifle for it's time period but of course it's not as accurate as most bolt action rifles. That's just a function of what lever action guns are like though. There are plenty of reasons to like them.

cal30_sniper - Do you know how many people actually know what an "order of magnitude" is and, more important, how many do you think actually care? Hyperbole friend. It's a common thing. If I had said it was a "million times better" would you have hijacked this thread into that discussion too? I think I'll follow you around here on the board and nitpick everything you say and we'll see how long it takes for you to say something that isn't exactly correct. Well actually I'm here to talk firearms, not obscure math references. And yes it is obscure to most people here.

You slammed my view on whether my new Savage shot much better than my old Savage then start to preach to me about how old guns are accurate too even though I said as much. I don't get why you think you had to tell me to think what I already thought. If you have a point to make don't make me the guy who needs the explanation. I promise you I can find all sorts of mistakes in your posts. Everyone makes them. This isn't a senior year writing class. Most people are lucky to get close to spelling the words correct. I don't care what you think of my analogies. The point is valid. My new Savage shoots far better than my old one. And new 110's shoot better than old 110's too despite what you think.

Just to illustrate my point you said you think "it" is an oversimplification. What is "it"? Your grammar is "grossly in error." You certainly never made it clear what you meant by "it". It's never correct English to use a pronoun without first clearly establishing what that pronoun refers to. And boy you certainly didn't do that. You see how easy it is to nitpick. And unlike my hyperbole, your bad grammar resulted in me not having a clue what you're actually trying to say. You don't say what "it" means. You don't even give a hint what "it" means. This isn't English class. This isn't math class either and I guarantee I can find many, many errors in your posts. But then I'm not a nit picker like some people. I didn't come here to hijack threads into useless tangents. I didn't come here to get my jollies pretending I'm smarter than everyone else either. I doubt very much you are smarter than everyone else BTW.

 

[cal30_sniper]

Cee Zee,

Slow your roll man. I did not intend to insult your intelligence, nor did I set out to give you a private lecture on the accuracy of older rifles. I devoted exactly one line of my post to poke fun at what I saw was a comical and gross misuse of a rather simple and common mathematical term.

"Is that so? Your 1990 Savage shoots 10" groups and your 2009 Savage shoots 0.1" groups? That's the only possible scenario I can think of where one rifle could be multiple orders of magnitude more accurate than another..."

That is literally all I directed towards you. The rest was my general commentary on the OT. If you had read my last post, you would have seen that. Don't go off all trigger happy, I'm allowed to input to this thread also, even if it's to reiterate what's already been said. Of course I had an opinion to input into this thread, vintage hunting rifles and sporters are just about my favorite thing out there to collect and shoot.

The only thing more accurate about a newer Savage is the Accu-trigger. Other than that, they're built on the same machinery, using the same metallurgy, and the same techniques as were used back in the 90s.

They still pale in comparison of fit, finish, craftsmanship (and in many cases, design) to the fine rifles made from 1890-1960 which even though they cost much more to produce back then, are actually cheaper to buy than a new rifle today (as a general rule of thumb). That's why I choose not to hunt with my Savages when I have a rack full of vintage Mausers and Winchesters to choose from. Sounds like you choose to do the same, good on you. The only argument I have is with people who claim that modern rifles are light years ahead of their vintage counterparts, because really, I don't think they are.

 

[Bay sailor]

I shoot a 1972 Sako Finnbear on 30-06 and it is as smooth and accurate as one can imagine. Newer Sakos have 3 extractor lugs versus 2 in mine but I never had an extraction problem. Plan to use it for Elk in 2014 couldn't draw a WY tag for 2013 darn it!

 

[WVRJ]

Older rifles can be accurate and enjoyable to shoot.I have a Remington 722 in 300 Savage that is a joy to shoot.Modern manufacturing techniques have made accurate rifles easier to produce,and have made super accurate rifles possible for a reasonable cost.I had a custom 280 done back in 81,and it is still one of the best shooting rifles in my safe.But it wasn't cheap and it was state of the art back then.But it's nothing special by today's standards as far as quality rifles go.It is heavier than some of the more up to date guns available today,but it is extremely accurate.Think of any other machine that is over 30 years old and still able to hold its own against anything produced today.

 

[Ash]

Kinda grumpy, eh?

It's cool you think metallurgy has changed since 1990 in rifle barrels. Others might disagree - or perhaps know better. In any case, to each his own. I am glad, of course, that your 12 with a heavy barrel is more accurate than your 110 hunting rifle with long action regardless of the definition of the words "orders of magnitude."

 

[cal30_sniper]

Just for kicks, here's a little something from the range today.

This is one of those 104 year old rifles, with a 60 year old barrel and a 50 year old scope that just won't shoot with those new Savages...

One group slipped out to 1.13". The guy next to me was firing a 300 Win Mag (almost brand new Savage, shooting ~2-2.5" groups), and he shot right before my trigger broke. I pulled a shot slightly low and left when that happend.

Peruvian Mauser 1909
7x57 Ackley Improved
Weaver V9 Scope

I've got $375 in it, including the scope and mounts.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

This one works for me:

 

[ColtPythonElite]

And can shoot like this:

 

[tahoe2]

old vs. new

I have owned a Savage 110 in 270 win, a Rem 700 in 30-06 and 270 win, also I have shot Weatherby Vanguards in 7-08 and 7mm Rem mag, and all of them would shoot moa.

However what I own today is;

3-98 mausers in 8x57 mauser, a Yugo 24/47, a Yugo M48a, and a German 98k , they were made in the 30's, and 40's, the 24/47 has a scope and shoots 1"-2" at 100 yards consistently and 3"-4" at 200 depending on the load ( my handloads), that is my hunting rifle.

and 2-93 Spanish mausers in 7x57 mauser, 1-long rifle and 1-carbine, and they shoot 2"-4" at 100, I haven't shot them farther as they are iron sights.

These guns are somewhat primitive compared to modern rifles, but are 100% reliable, controlled round feed rifles and will kill anything I am willing to shoot out to 350-400 yards and probably much farther, cept I'm not that good a shot.

I don't load them hotter than the original loadings for those calibers and they perform well, and they are accurate enough for my needs.

To me, there is just something special about those old guns, I even have a 1951 Savage model 99 in 300 Savage that still shoots 1-1/2 at 100, unless you're a competition shooter you don't need anything more accurate than that.

I do have a couple from the 80's, but they just don't have the same charisma to em!!

just my two cents.

 

[Cee Zee]

cal30_sniper if I mis-read your post then I'm sorry. It seemed to me that you were continuing your disdain for my hyperbole by criticizing my affinity for new rifles too. Now that I read your post again I can see where maybe you didn't mean that. It's hard to tell where one point is ended and another started on a board like this. Just starting a new paragraph doesn't convey that you aren't continuing to speak to the person you were speaking to. I think that was the root of the problem and if that's the case I apologize for misreading your post. But please try to make it clear that you aren't continuing to talk to someone after you address them and then move on. It would help prevent such problems from cropping up in the future.

BTW I do like old rifles. Some of them are exceptionally accurate. I do think it's easier and cheaper to find an exceptionally accurate rifle now though. Even the cheapest entry level rifles are capable of shooting tight groups. Some of them are well made and some of them aren't. But the high price rifles are certainly well made. I think there is evidence that factory rifles are more accurate now. I think Savage has made great leaps in what they sell as a factory rifle. Many of their advancements have come in the last 10-15 years. Sometimes those advancements don't shot up on all their rifles but things like the AccuTrigger have made all their rifles more accurate. That alone accounts for a great deal of extra accuracy now compared to just 20 years ago. I actually think that Savage rifles from 20 years ago are about as accurate as many modern rifles but there are Savage rifles that have made huge strides in accuracy. You said my 12 was a specialty rifle. That might be so but the price of that specialty rifle is much, much lower than an equivalent specialty rifle from just 20 years ago. But the fact that any factory rifle has those advances shows that modern rifles are moving forward with their ability to shoot well. I've shot many rifles in my time on this earth. I tend to focus on Savage but they are not the only ones making great rifles now. I just think they're the only ones doing it for the price they charge and that is an advancement IMO. And the things they do to make their rifles more accurate can be applied to any rifle whether it's a hunter or a varmint rifle. Companies will generally hold back certain features from their entry level guns so they can charge more for their higher level guns. But that doesn't mean even rifles like the Axis / Edge aren't very accurate. They are. Sure they're not as well made as a hand crafted rifle but they cost far, far less than those hand made rifles. The thing is that accuracy on that level wasn't available for entry level rifles or even top level rifles for many companies in the past. We tend to look at the success stories and ignore the stuff that didn't cut the mustard in the old days. There were a lot of junk rifles in the old days. I've seen more than a few of those. H&R made some real junk. Hesse Arms was even worse. People tend to forget about that stuff. Even some well known rifle companies made some real dogs. Let's talk about Remington and the 710. They weren't the first company to sell a cheap version of a good rifle trying to cash in on the name. I wouldn't take one if you gave it to me. I've had people try to trade them to me along with a 770 and $200 cash for a S&W 629. I laughed. I've seen similar junk guns all my life. Let's talk about Carcano rifles. I was never a fan of those. I could name a bunch of bad rifles from the golden era. If we're going to compare the junk of today to the best of yesterday I just don't think that's fair.

BTW I have a early 1950's Stevens rifle along with a very early Marlin 336 and that German stalking rifle. That rifle is a real peach and will shoot with any rifle ever made. It's amazingly accurate. But it was a hand made rifle, custom designed by a man and his family factory. There were lots of similar rifles but they were all hand made. That means "very" expensive. I can buy very expensive rifles today too. I know of some that have shot what must have been inconceivable not that long ago. The record is over a mile and a half for a confirmed kill on a p'dog. That was with a .338 Lapua, a hunting rifle. Since that's a new cartridge I don't believe it could have been an old rifle.