What to buy question. Vanguard, A Bolt, M77???

[Maverick223]

I dont like the A-bolt because its hard to find a Gun Smith that will re-barrel one. About half the time they break the action trying to get the old barrel off.

Never heard of this (then again I've never had to re-bbl one either); does the X-bolt have the same problem?

I dont really like ruger actions because of the trigger problems they have and ruger has been know to put crap barrel on there rifles.

Their new barrels might not always drive tacks, but they are much improved compared to the older models...the new triggers (non-adjustable) leaves a bit to be desired.

 

[coug]

Mavrick the X-Bolt does not have that problem they come off like they are supposed to. If I were to buy a browning it would be the X-Bolt.

 

[Maverick223]

Good to know; I still like the A-Bolt better (as similar as they are, it just seems to fit me better).

 

[Geno]

I'll preface with saying, excuse me if I appear to ramble. Just the way I compare items. Okay, going back to the OP's comments:

...a hunting rifle that's lighter than what I've got (Remington 700 sps in .308 with a bull barrel).

You are comparing apples and oranges, but asking for the apple have offer-up a nice citrus flavor. There are two heavy-barreled SPSs: the Tactical and the Varmint. The Tactical has a short-action, as does the Varmint. The .300 Win Mag, in any rifle, will be on a long-action, and by default, will be heavier in its base compenents. Too, consider the barrel length. The Tactical has a 20" barrel, the Varmint a 24". Your .300 Win Mag will need a 24" barrel to achieve maximun results. So, now you have stepped-up from short-acton to long-action, and to a caliber that nessitates a barrel 4" longer than your current caliber. I went to Remington's website and to Weatherby's and checked weights. The following are the listed weights:

M700 Tactical SPS .308 Win: 7.5 Lbs.
M700 Varmint SPS .308 Win: 8.5 Lbs
Vanguard Synthetic .300 Win Mag: 7.5 Lbs

If I had to chose a single rifle of those listed, I would say go with the Vanguard. It comes with a 0.99" accuracy gaurantee for 3 shots. I think it is a mistake to overlook the Winchester M70 Super Shaddow. That said, they are both excellent rifles.

The weight of the rifles is but one very small consideration. When I finish adding a scope, rings, base(s), bi-pod, sling, ammo, etc, I'm already well over 12 to 13 pounds. Accessories add weight to a rifle the same as they add $$$$$ to the cost of shooting package. Heck, my Remington M700 Police in .308 Win weighs 19 pounds. I use it for varmint and deer. I think there are other areas that you can focus on to reduce your total hunting load, as well as purchase proper gear to distribute the weight so it is not so burdansome.

In closing, Vanguard.

Geno

 

[Zor]

Thanks again for all the replies/information/opinions.

Geno, my 700 has a 25" barrel and it comes in at just over 11 lbs. "all up" although I'm not sure what sub-model it is since it doesn't fit the above description of a varminter or tactical. I'm just after something a little bit lighter and more balanced. A standing shot with that heavy front end is not a pleasure, nor is it fast for me. And I'll be the first to admit that I should (and would like to) shoot more often than I get a chance to. The other thing is that I'd just like to buy another rifle. I'm keeping my 700, it's great at the range, just not to carry for 12 miles a day.

That being said, I've made my mind up on the Model 70 fwt in 300wsm. Like someone said if it was good enough for Hathcock, it's good enough for me. Also, I found a deal on one. I went with it over the Weatherby because the barreled action for the Vanguard is made overseas and I can't afford a Mk V right now. I went with it over the Kimber because I like the Fwt stock better, and in a side by side comparison, the Model 70 felt better in my hands and against my shoulder.

So thanks again for all the advice guys, and now I'll pose another question...

Optics???

-Zor

 

[Maverick223]

Like someone said if it was good enough for Hathcock, it's good enough for me.

I said that, but it was actually with respect to the much maligned USRAC push-feed models of yesteryear. That said, the new ones are fantastic, in many ways better than the Pre-64s or USRAC models.

Now as for optics...what kind of budget do you have in mind? Personally prefer something like a 4-12x for a skinny-mag. like the .300WM or 7mmRM...but given the right budget you can get something with an outstanding magnification range and retain good glass (the Minox ZA-5 in 3-15x50mmSF is about as good as I know of, and surprisingly lightweight, but it isn't notably cheap). There are plenty of other (less costly) choices, but knowing your budget will be a great start.

 

[Skylerbone]

Definitely need budget on that one along with a magnification range. Do you have a particular reticle preference? Mounts+rings+scope=budget.

Good choice on the rifle though there were many good options suggested.

 

[Zor]

Rings and bases are on the rifle (Leupold w/1" rings). I'm thinking I want to stick to a 40mm scope to keep a low profile, and I saved a ton on the rifle which leaves a little extra for optics.

Zor

 

[Skylerbone]

Then I'll second the Minox suggestion and recommend the Open Box special here: http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/minox.pl?page=66020. Great to deal with on several transactions. That link is to the Z5 3-15x42 for under $400 and that's SCHOTT glass.

 

[Zor]

I'd really like to stay on the underside of 450$ for the scope. I'll look at that minox.

I like the BDC reticle. I also like the mil dot reticle (or maybe just the idea of it since don't know the math that goes along with it). However, I've never gotten in depth into optics. Everything I own has a simple duplex reticle. What are the BDC reticles based on as far as there spacing?

I'm definitely interested in opinions and experience on this one.

 

[Zor]

I read a fairly poor review of the minox za5 on opticstalk.com that was backed up by several others with similar issues. Anybody on here have experiences good or bad with this scope? It seems to be comparable to the Zeiss Conquest and the Leupold VX3.

 

[Maverick223]

I have a buddy with a Minox ZA-5 3-15x50SF and can say with confidence that I like it better than any Leupold. Personally I like Zeiss Conquests a bit better, and my Kahles Helia beats the tar out of it (but costs a great deal more too), but the Conquest is only slightly better and the Minox has a 5x erector and better features/magnification for the money. I think it is one of the best buys...particularly for someone that wants a reasonably high level of magnification.

That said, I would shy away from the 3-15x42mm as it does not come with a focus (either side or objective) which limits practicality to about 10-12x IME. OTOH the 1.5-8x32mm, 2-10x40mm, and 3-15x50SF are outstanding.

 

[Skylerbone]

Most BDC reticles are based on...wait for it...nothing. Sure they add stadia lines and claim to compensate for bullet drop but there's a problem with that, how do they compensate for all the other factors? Shooting .223 or .338 Lapua? Same lines and spacing. You could shoot your particular load and record the yardages but those will only be good at the magnification you recorded at unless the scope is a first focal plane model.

First rule of optics: you can never over spend and while your budget is decent many people budget between 150 and 200% of the rifle's price.

 

[juk]

Go find the Nikon BDC program. I believe it is on their website. I have found that it is VERY close to actual results on target out to 350, which is as far as my range is. They didn't have that program when I bought my scope, so I did it the hard way. I set up targets all the way to the berm and used the same load. I just fiddled with the scope until I had it figured out.

What I like about the Nikon program is that you can choose your load and scope power you intend to use. It takes the guesswork out of it. Just be sure to confirm everything at the range before you go take a 400 yard shot on an animal.

One other thing, the program will only work with a Nikon BDC scope. That's not all bad though. The Monarch is a heck of a scope!

 

[Skylerbone]

I've used numerous programs and they work fine including one for a Hawke 4-16x. The problem in the field was the need to change magnification and do so without having a huge chart taped to my stock.

In the end I opted for a FFP that was built around specific bullet B.C. and velocity. Small niche but it works great.

If you're looking for a good compromise and are willing to expand the budget a bit a Leupold VX-3 CDS might work for you. One of my father's .300 Win. Mags wears one and it (elevation cap) is tailored to load data provided by him. Quickly spun up 325 yds and dropped a moose. The new FireDot series adds illumination without adding much to the price.

Lots of choices, get out and look through a few, preferably in natural low light conditions. Most stores will accommodate if you ask.

 

[Zor]

I found this fairly comprehensive review.

http://www.opticstalk.com/hawke-frontier-sf-416x42-leupold-vx3-4514x40_topic17250.html

And moderator, feel free to edit this if posting a link to another forum is a no no.

 

[Zor]

Anybody use a Vortex Viper scope? I've come to the realization that an entirely US made scope is out of the question. Thoughts?

Zor

 

[Maverick223]

The Viper is an excellent scope for the money. IMO it's not quite on par with Zeiss/Minox, but it isn't bad either...I'd say it compares favorably to the Nikon Monarch, Leupold VX-3, and Bushnell Elite 4200 series. In short: it's a great value from a company that has a reputation of taking very good care of their customers.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

That being said, I've made my mind up on the Model 70 fwt in 300wsm.

There's certainly not a darn thing wrong with a Winchester Model 70. A fine rifle that will last longer than you. Good choice.

If I had a $450 budget and needed a scope I'd go with this one. That's just me.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/nikon-monarch-25-10x42-riflescopes.html

 

[Maverick223]

Not trying to push anything on anyone, but I have that same scope, with a gloss finish (which has been discontinued as best as I can tell), for sale in the BS&T forum. See my Sig. Line for details. It's been a good one, but I just wanted a bit more magnification and smaller reticle on my varmint rifle. If nobody decides to pick it up, I'll probably save it for a M-70 Ftwt. in .30-06Spd. that I plan to invest in down the line.

 

[Zor]

Anyone else have experience with a Minox ZA5? I'm leaning towards it and the vortex. I'm going to go look through scopes this afternoon.

 

[Maverick223]

As noted above, I have experience with both. I'd rate the Minox amongst the best available for sub-1k (almost on par with the excellent Zeiss Conquest), and the Viper compares favorably to the Monarch, VX-3, Sightron S-II, and Elite 4200, and has CS as good (Sightron & Leupold), or better (Nikon & Bushnell), than any of the above. On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being very poor quality, and 10 being the absolute best you can buy), I'd rate the Minox as a 9, and the Viper a strong 7.

 

[Zor]

I'm stuck on what size objective lens to go with. Is the change in size worth the low light improvement?My only experience is with 40mm. Is a larger objective lens a nuisance while carrying through thick woods/brush?

 

[Maverick223]

Is a larger objective lens a nuisance while carrying through thick woods/brush?

Somewhat, but the bigger issue is the cheekweld with a high-mounted optic. I don't find that the difference in light gathering is terrific, particularly if you have to pay a premium for the additional size (which could be used for better quality glass, that generally gathers light better than inferior glass with a larger objective). When you get up to and beyond 14x or so, an objective greater than 40mm or so has some worthwhile attributes, but with lesser magnification, I prefer smaller. None of my optics with magnification levels of 12x or less have an objective greater than 44mm, and I have at least one with a magnification level of 24x with a 42mm objective (and it works just fine because it has good glass).

 

[Zor]

I talked to some old guys who hunt where I do and they suggested going with Einstein. "Keep things as simple as possible and not any simpler." So I opted for the Minox ZA5 2-10x40. No parallax issues and since I don't hunt varmint nor do I plan on many 400+ yard shots it should suit my needs. Its fairly light weight to which suits my original plans to keep things light.