What's the attraction to cheap rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.
The cheapest new rifle I have bought was a Marlin model 60 for $70 at Kmart decades ago.

Why? I wanted a loaner gun that I wouldn’t mind showing signs of use. All these years later, it’s still does the same job a really expensive one would do and I have never worried about it being damaged.

I would ask the inverse, why pay a lot for a firearm that doesn’t offer any advantage over a less expensive one?
 
Most "cheap" guns arnt poorly made, they are poorly finished.....and who ever designs the stocks has a taste for abstract art it seem....
Look at the Tikkas, they are a cheap design, but they arnt cheaply finished, and you pay for it. The 700s and Savages were similarly designed to be lower cost to produce.

Ive had most of the cheap guns now, and theres a couple designs i dont want to work with (savage Axis being the first to pop into my head), and a few i wouldnt recommend (rem 710/770 series), but for the most part they all go bang when you tell em too, hit what you point at, and clean up real nicely.

I let anyone who asks shoot my guns.
Nearly everyone brave enough to asks wants to shoot the Ridgeline once or twice, and most shoot a few shots out of the Christensen barreled 700.
Usually the .375 gets passed around some.....
The only gun that i never get to use my self is my 6.5 American in a boyds stock.
It looks cool, works as smoothly as my 1800 dollar christensen, and is easier to shoot.
Triggers stoned and the spring swapped. Bolts polished. Ive added a Boyds prov stock with AI mag kit and Gama vg6 brake.

Whole shebang cost something like 750 dollars and an hour of elbow grease, so at my 23 bucks an hour....lets call it 775 +/-
What gun can I buy with a laminate target stock, 2lb trigger, VG6 muzzle brake, nice full length aluminum picatinny scope rail, AICS mags, one finger bolt operation, and sub, sub moa accuracy......all for less than 800 bucks?
And why arnt ALL of my guns Ruger Americans ?

Well cause that would be boring.
Im willing to find the money to buy nicer things to a point. My Christensen for instance, and eventually im (almost) positive ill order a Cooper 52 Western Classic with embellishments, because i want them.
And Im mostly buying features and feel, not accuracy.
If i was only interested in accuracy, id buy 5 identical Axis or Americans and sell all but the most accurate at a 25-50% loss. Im positive id have a gun that shoots fantastically, still only cost a grand, and shoots the ammo I WANT it to, not just what it likes best.

To be fair most of us CHOOSE to hunt, fish, shoot etc. We also CHOOSE the gear we use.
Our means, interests, approach and our priorities are different. That affects the choices we make.
Im a gun Nerd, Tinkerfreak, and like wierd stuff, but nothing i do with my firearms is super critical. I buy what I think ill enjoy to use and work on....that shows in my spending and purchases
...and sometimes im horribly wrong and someone else gets free stuff, even if its actually really GOOD stuff because id rather see it used than not.
 
download (11).jpeg
(Mossberg Patriot pictured)

I like inexpensive yet quality rifles with walnut stocks because dings and scratches won't be viewed as damage but as added character.
Also, inexpensive rifles make fun project guns. It would be interesting to chamber a Ruger American Rifle for .30 WCF.
 
I've owned some beautiful and expensive(to me)rifles in my time,especially when I was younger and single.I used to love the pretty wood and the mirror polished blueing.As I've changed as I've grown older,so has my taste in rifles.I have one of those "cheap" Remington 788's,and it's one of the nicest and prettiest rifles I own.I worked over an H-S Precision stock to fit the 788 and installed a Timney trigger,and that makes it beautiful to me because it's functionally of a very high quality.It'll flat outshoot any other 22-250 I've ever owned,including to B78 Brownings that were great eye candy,but neither one shot remarkably well.
I think some of the lower cost rifles out there today are incredibly good guns at a very good price,and for the most part,they shoot and work well.There are also some cheap rifles,shotguns and handguns out there that aren't worth carrying home.What was the Remington el cheapo bolt gun?The 710 or 770 or something like that.I worked on a couple of those for people,and I know of two of them that wouldn't keep 3 shots on an 8X11 in piece of paper.The actions were so rough and full of tool marks that you had to keep inward pressure on the bolt handle to get the bolt to slide.
That is a cheap gun.Some of the other brands are almost as bad,but Remington wins the title of the worst.I have some rifles that I've been able to put together without spending much money at all on them and they are real hummers.I have a 25-06 M700 that I bought the donor gun for the action at the staggering price of $20 and a 12 pack of beer.
But for the most part,and you can call me a snob,but I would rather buy a good quality rifle used than a new clunker that won't go bang half the time.I have several very nice,functional rifles.I have no room in the safe for a gun that's not up to my standards.I also use Snap-On tools almost exclusively to do the job that puts food on the table.And,sorry,but I'll have little to do with imported guns,tools or women.Thank God China doesn't make guns that show up here very often.We would be overrun with junk.
 
IME, $$$ and fun are loosely correlated when it comes to rifles. I just bought a $400 Kel Tec Sub 2K that's been a lot of fun. Same with a couple $100 milsurps from back in the day, my $107 Mossberg Plinkster is one of my favorite 22s, etc.

Would a $2000 MP5 clone be fun-er than a Keltec? Probably. But the difference is at least 2 years of saving up gun money, and not buying 4 or 5 other guns I want instead. That's a lot of expectations to put on one piece.

As far as hunting rifles, I use a Remington 700 in 270 and Savage 110 in 243 that were both handed down, and with any luck I'll hand them down again. Both still work great.
 
I think years ago it was the cheap influx and easy availability of Mosins, AK's and other war surplus arms and ammo. Guys wanna shoot. Some for accuracy, some for distance, some to just hear the bang. The really cheap guns and ammo appealed over the years to the third group.
 
I think ALOT depends on what someone expects out of a rifle, how often they'll use it, and simply how much they can spend.

As an example, my father-in-law recently bought himself a 243 Savage Axis for Christmas. He makes decent money and probably could have afforded more, but he really didn't NEED more. He's basically going to toss a scope on it, zero it, and take it out a couple times a year to shoot coyote. He didn't need a $700 rifle for that. Also, only spending $299 on the rifle catches him less grief from my mother-in-law. :D

Being real, outside of firearms enthusiasts most "cheap" rifles (which generally are more "inexpensive" than "cheap" these days) will do everything the Average Joe (or Jill) asks them to do as a hunting or occasional range rifle. They don't need sub-MOA accuracy (though occasionally you might get a cheap rifle capable of that), a buttery smooth bolt, a match grade trigger, or a premium quality stock to shoot a buck (or paper or steel for that matter) a couple times a year.

I personally have not spent more than $400 (initial purchase price at least) on any rifle aside from my AR. I have a Savage 10 FCP, Weatherby Vanguard, Savage Mark II FV, and a Savage Axis. The first two probably don't fall into most peoples definition of cheap, but cost-wise the were relatively. The latter two probably do I guess. The Axis cost me $4 after rebate, so it was basically free. Even if I didn't like it (which I do) I still could have made some money off it if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
To me, most of the fun that comes from using any device comes from the process of learning how to get the best out of that device.
Learning its quirks, its limitations, where it works with or against you,
It is at least as challenging to get passable results from a mediocre device as it is to excel with an excellent device.
I like challenges... .
 
The "ladder" as my #2 son sees it:
The Remington 770 was cheap.
The Remington 783 was inexpensive.
The Remington 788 was inexpensive.
The Remington 700 ADL was the standard.
The Remington 700 BDL was the upper end of the standard.
The Weatherby Mark V is expensive.

I think it pretty much sums it up for the average guy. For those of us that frequent THR, the scale is a mite different and depends on our level of enthusiasm and the depth of our pockets.
My old Remington 788 ws inexpensive at $112 new in 1982. I still hunt with it on occasion and intend to turn it into a project this winter.
#2 son's 783 was inexpensive ($183 on-line auction and included a bottom end scope that cost less than $70) and when put in a Boyd's At One stock, shoots MOA on demand and suits him perfectly.

A couple years ago, a fellow brought a Remington 770 to the Silhouette Club's annual sight-in service for zeroing. That was a CHEAP rifle. (I wouldn't take one if it was given to me.) The 770 appeared to be one of those that a guy would buy for a one-time use his first time hunting and would toss it away at the end of the season. If he liked hunting, then would buy something decent for future seasons. If not, then he was out a minimum of expense. The 770 is definitely not a long term acquisition asset. A terrible product for a "quality" firearms maker to actually produce and sell.

JMHO, of course.
 
I don't see anything wrong with buying the least expensive firearms as long as they are accepted for what they are. The most important aspect of a rifle other than accuracy is the trigger and many of the cheap triggers can't be adjusted to perform better than when they come out of the box. People can sit down at the bench and get the things squeezed of but when it comes to making an accurate hunting shot the triggers leave something to be desired. I have a gunsmith friend who says people bring cheap rifles to him all the time wanting the triggers worked on and he explains to them what they have. Poper mentioned in Post #62 one of the rifles that was discussed.
 
Last edited:
They are cheap and they shoot straight. If price wasn't a concern most rifles wouldn't even be produced and everyone would drive Ferraris. I agree they have little or no "character" and I would be more interested browsing the used rack, but they serve a purpose.
 
Daniel Craig wrote: "I forgot to mention, I mainly use the gun for hunting and I mainly hunt for food. Why would I hunt for food if the cost of doing so was so much more expensive than buying it?"

Because there are several self-satisfying things about hunting that give us pleasure... outwitting, overpowering another creature... obtaining meat like our forefathers, like cavemen and all the "hunter-gatherers" who came before us. Yes, our hunted/killed meat can be and is often more expensive than buying it...but we have the satisfaction of equaling or one-upping our forefathers or the mighty plains-hunters in the old west.

Why would I buy a $2,000 rifle to kill $40 worth of meat? Because I CAN! Because It's in our DNA. Because it makes us feel like we've conquered nature. It really doesn't matter to anyone but ourselves, does it?
 
Last edited:
South Prairie Jim, you must hate my $29 Savage Axis II:

Axis 2.jpg
Shoots like this:

Axis handload zero.jpg

50 yards. I've shot better grouping guns, but this is more than accurate enough for my uses, though I plan on putting it in a Boyd's stock, and topping it with better glass. The Bushnell 3-9 it came with works, obviously, but between the stock and better scope I hope to tighten it up an bit, and for $29 for the gun, I will be able to afford to.
 
Yes, I distinguish between cheaply made and inexpensive. I have often read that Savage rifles are usually inexpensive but accurate, Bill Ruger pioneered investment casting and other modern manufacturing techniques to bring down production costs and consumer prices.
 
I think back to being a young guy with a family it was hard to come up with money for guns. While I have bought some cheap guns, because bargains used to appeal to me, mostly I have bought guns that I think are good guns.
 
How about those rifles that when you pick them up for a trial ' you just know E Gads it's a poj
the previously mentions 710/770 have been the only guns Ive used I REALLY wanted to bend around a tree......and 95% of the time they STILL did what is needed of a hunting rifle, and often turn in really good accuracy.

If they cost 100 bucks they would have probably been a great option for folks on a very limited budget or to keep in the back of the safe for when someone you dont trust with a good gun comes by to borrow stuff.
Since you can get a noticely better Axis, or American for about the same moolahz they arnt worth the headache.
 
I have certainly bought my share of "cheap crap", looking back I suppose I was always raising kids and of course they come first so trying to make do etc. Therefore it's easy to become a minimalist if that's the right term.
My target rifles are a collection of parts some new some used but quality stuff. So why not new ? I guess maybe Im just a cheap sob.
 
Everyman's rifle, the one Orwell wrote about...

"Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top