Mossberg ATR or Stevens or...

[Macchina]

My brother is going to buy his first rifle in a few weeks. He really wants a 30-06, and I recommended the two rifles in the title. He wants synthetic stock and blued sporter weight barrel. He is going to be using this gun for Michigan whitetails at under 200 yards. If he is not going to change a thing on the gun, which gun would be best? He's looking for good quality and decent accuracy, he doesn't expect a tack driver. If there is another bolt action I am missing in this price range, tell me about it. Also, can you recommend a scope for under $100.
Thank you for your replies.

 

[oregonhunter]

I think he should look for a good ol' remington 700 in 30-06 (used) It would be a better gun and can be found in the same price renge, as far as an affordable scope I would go with a tasco.

 

[goalie]

If you do a search for threads started by me, I did a review of my ATR-100 in .270 a while ago. It is a great hunting tool, with an accurate barrel, stiffer stock than the Savage/Stevens, and a better trigger than the Stevens (but not a Savage accutrigger).

I would go with the Mossberg IF he is going to leave it alone and not mess around with anything. That said, it is easy to upgrade the Savage/Stevens down the line if you so desire.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Just yesterday, I looked at the Mossberg ATR and a Remington 700. Both had synthetic stocks and what I assume were factory 3x9-40 scopes. The Mossberg scope had an "M" on the side and the Remington had an "R" on the side -- with no other markings I could see. I assume they were cheap Chinese or Korean scopes. The Mossberg was around $300 and the Remington $389.

The Remington scope had a MUCH nicer field of view. The eye relief was better and the sight picture brighter.

That all being said...The Mossberg for $244 at Wal-Mart seems like a smokin' deal. Start with a cheapo Simmons scope or make the plunge and spend as much on the scope as the rifle. This actually makes a HECK of a lot of sense - you can just plain old see better through a $200+ scope - especially in heavy brush.

Goalie makes a good point about upgrades, but I'm guessing a person would move up to another rifle before truly upgrading either of these rifles.

Does it bother anyone else that there are no iron sight options on any of these rifles? I would own one of each by now if I didn't have to plunk another $200+ down on a scope just to shoot the thing.

 

[oregonhunter]

remington still makes iron sighted hunting rifles such as there adl series.

 

[rangerruck]

of the cheapo rifles, the stevens will have the best action, with the most accurate bbl. the mossberg isn't far behind, but will have a much better stock, really an innovative little design they put together there. their package deal for a mossy with a scope from wally worlld is double tough.

 

[rangerruck]

remmys will be mor emoney, but he is right, I don't buy ANY rifles that don't have sights. Remmy allways puts sights on their rifles.

 

[Macchina]

Thanks guys. I think I'm going to recommend the ATR. I think a nice stock is just as important to him as accuracy. I'll bring him out to a few gun stores around here to look at the used guns first, maybe we'll find a deal.

 

[foghornl]

I have a Mossberg ATR in .30-06. It will hold under 2"@100Yds with most commercial SP Hunting ammo. Shooting Buddy got under 0.7"@100Yds with Federal Gold medal Match ammo.

The Savage series with the "Accu-Trigger" is probably a bit more expensive, but if all you need is a basic no-frills turnbolt rifle, my vote goes to the Mossy.

 

[doubleg]

Why not a good used rifle. They are not in short supply and you can find really great deals.

 

[K.L.O.sako]

i know there not real popular but the remmy 710 is a cheap alternative and the one i got to shoot was a real accurate good handling rifle. my friend picked it up used with a bushnell 4x12 scope and three boxes of ammo for 200$. it's in .270(perfect for deer) and i think it's an early model because of the plastic reciever (newer ones have steel i think) but he's tickled with it, it hits where he points it and he can drag it around the woods, mud, and rocks without worrying about tearing it up (astetically i mean)

 

[adaman04]

I would recommend the Stevens 200 over the Remington 710 or the ATR hands down. Just a superior rifle IMHO. Good accuracy and a good price. If he is going to scope it, there's no need for irons. Too many people get hung up on that "Well if your scope breaks, you're out of luck." True, but I bought an ADL (BTW, they don't make the ADL anymore, it has been replaced by the SPS WITHOUT irons) and I removed the irons from it. 4 ugly holes in the barrel later, I wish they would have have kept the irons and used them as paperweights.

Look at Remington's website, sure not many iron sighted rifles on there.

 

[oregonhunter]

Adam.
I doubt he is going to buy a new remington, that is way out of his price range. That is why I suggested a used gun and plenty of them will have Iron sights.

 

[Colt46]

I've heard mixed reviews on the ATR

Never heard anything but great results from the new Stevens 200. Other than the Accutrigger it is the same rifle as Savage.