First Precision Rifle

[10mm]

Tl;Dr 7 rem mag.


I'm just here to add my +1 to Bergara and the 7mm rem mag crowd. Been a believer for many years. There is a newer better engineered cartridge you should research if you're truly interested in the 7mm. It's called 7mm prc. I'm not super certain on the specifics, but it's designed to be a long range extremely accurate shooter that mimics or inproves the 7 rem mag family. There's also .280, 280 Ackley Improved and a whole host of wildcats if you aren't opposed to reloading.
IMHO the best out of the box option to balance cost, performance, rifle selection, ammo availability, etc. is 7 rem mag though.

 

[two70]

The Tikka is about $300 more than the $500 he paid for the Ruger. That's an increase of 60%. I would hope the Tikka would be much better than the Ruger in a lot of aspects for an additional 60%.

I'm not sure why you're laser focused in on this. But the fact that I think is lost on you is that some people simply don't have the extra $300, or don't want to spend it on a "better" piece of equipment. So they compromise. The Ruger shoots well. I don't own one, but I've seen reviews on it. It may not cycle as well as a Tikka. It may not have as nice of a stock as a Tikka. But those are the things you compromise on when your budget is where your budget is.

For example, I bought an Arken scope for my entry into long distance shooting. And I spent about $350 on it. You could make the argument that I could've gotten a much better scope for $200 or $300 more. No ****?? Maybe I should have bought a Nightforce for $2,000 or more. I mean, why not spend that much to get a "better" piece of equipment...

Anyone that can't find a Tikka for under $750 isn't looking very hard. Considering a Tikka does everything a bolt action rifle is supposed to do at least sufficiently and most things very well while the American barely cycles under good conditions, has a flimsy stock but shoots well, I'd say either the American is a ripoff at $500 or the Tikka is a steal at several hundred more. The Tikka is a rifle that can be passed down to the grandkids someday and theirs after that. The American is a rifle that will be sold off cheaply by most serious riflemen as soon as practicable.

The concept of value seems to be one that is lost on a lot of people in the rush to buy something cheap. I understand a tight budget but I also understand that paying a low price for something that doesn't work very well isn't much of a bargain. There's an expression "penny wise and pound foolish" that would seem to apply but I'm not even sure it would even be penny wise in this case. The silly part is that those on a tight budget can buy better budget rifles or much better used rifles for less than $500. Cabela's Currently has several models of the Savage Axis and Mossberg Patriot for $399.99. New Howas, Vanguards, or XPRs can be found for the same price as the American with a little effort. The same with used Remingtons or Savages. Not to mention that several of these are available in scoped packages for less than $800. If it is really about a tight budget why are they choosing to pay more for the Ruger?

The tradeoff on the Arken scope is not function, durability or quality related, it is weight and a lack of awareness/marketing. It is easy to live with a heavy scope that works well for a good price. If that same Arken scope had turrets that would hardly turn or turned far too freely, had low quality glass that didn't transmit light very well, adjustments that didn't track properly, or was not very durable, would it still be a good value? To be clear and bring it back to rifles, I'm not advocating for a Nightforce, I'm advocating for the Arken(Tikka) or at least a low end Vortex(Axis, Patriot, Howa, etc.) over a Barska (American).

 

[Purdue1991]

Anyone that can't find a Tikka for under $750 isn't looking very hard. Considering a Tikka does everything a bolt action rifle is supposed to do at least sufficiently and most things very well while the American barely cycles under good conditions, has a flimsy stock but shoots well, I'd say either the American is a ripoff at $500 or the Tikka is a steal at several hundred more. The Tikka is a rifle that can be passed down to the grandkids someday and theirs after that. The American is a rifle that will be sold off cheaply by most serious riflemen as soon as practicable.

The concept of value seems to be one that is lost on a lot of people in the rush to buy something cheap. I understand a tight budget but I also understand that paying a low price for something that doesn't work very well isn't much of a bargain. There's an expression "penny wise and pound foolish" that would seem to apply but I'm not even sure it would even be penny wise in this case. The silly part is that those on a tight budget can buy better budget rifles or much better used rifles for less than $500. Cabela's Currently has several models of the Savage Axis and Mossberg Patriot for $399.99. New Howas, Vanguards, or XPRs can be found for the same price as the American with a little effort. The same with used Remingtons or Savages. Not to mention that several of these are available in scoped packages for less than $800. If it is really about a tight budget why are they choosing to pay more for the Ruger?

The tradeoff on the Arken scope is not function, durability or quality related, it is weight and a lack of awareness/marketing. It is easy to live with a heavy scope that works well for a good price. If that same Arken scope had turrets that would hardly turn or turned far too freely, had low quality glass that didn't transmit light very well, adjustments that didn't track properly, or was not very durable, would it still be a good value? To be clear and bring it back to rifles, I'm not advocating for a Nightforce, I'm advocating for the Arken(Tikka) or at least a low end Vortex(Axis, Patriot, Howa, etc.) over a Barska (American).

I can buy a Ruger American in 6.5 Creedmoor for $430 today from Academy Sports. It's still a $300 price difference to step up to the Tikka. Or almost 70% more.

Whether the Axis II or the Mossberg is better is probably more opinion or preference than fact. I've had an Axis, and though it shot well, it was pretty cheaply made. The stock was flimsy and it didn't cycle all that well.

For casual hunting, the Ruger and Axis would be fine. Would I take them on a $10,000 elk hunt? No. Would I be afraid of using either for whitetail hunting in Indiana? No. Would I be afraid of using them for long range coyote hunting? No.

Personally, I prefer the Savage 10/110. For the money, you're not going to find a better option with more aftermarket support and ability to customize.

 

[two70]

For casual hunting, the Ruger and Axis would be fine. Would I take them on a $10,000 elk hunt? No. Would I be afraid of using either for whitetail hunting in Indiana?

This line of thinking is exactly what I have a major problem with and why I have issues with the Ruger American. There should be nothing "casual" about taking an animal's life. The very least a hunter can do is to invest a little effort into not having bottom of the barrel equipment, whether that hunt is for whitetails in the backyard or other game halfway across the country. Sure, one can get away with it most of the time but when that equipment eventually fails, it'll be the animal that pays the price, not the hunter.

 

[Creedmoor]

I can buy a Ruger American in 6.5 Creedmoor for $430 today from Academy Sports. It's still a $300 price difference to step up to the Tikka. Or almost 70% more.

Whether the Axis II or the Mossberg is better is probably more opinion or preference than fact. I've had an Axis, and though it shot well, it was pretty cheaply made. The stock was flimsy and it didn't cycle all that well.

For casual hunting, the Ruger and Axis would be fine. Would I take them on a $10,000 elk hunt? No. Would I be afraid of using either for whitetail hunting in Indiana? No. Would I be afraid of using them for long range coyote hunting? No.

Personally, I prefer the Savage 10/110. For the money, you're not going to find a better option with more aftermarket support and ability to customize.

These and others were bought for under a $100.00 a piece during a blowout sale. Deals are out in the world, you gotta root sometimes to find them.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Tl;Dr 7 rem mag.


I'm just here to add my +1 to Bergara and the 7mm rem mag crowd. Been a believer for many years. There is a newer better engineered cartridge you should research if you're truly interested in the 7mm. It's called 7mm prc. I'm not super certain on the specifics, but it's designed to be a long range extremely accurate shooter that mimics or inproves the 7 rem mag family. There's also .280, 280 Ackley Improved and a whole host of wildcats if you aren't opposed to reloading.
IMHO the best out of the box option to balance cost, performance, rifle selection, ammo availability, etc. is 7 rem mag though.

I got into 7mm from one of the guys at my LGS. Was looking for a precision rifle that had a bit more power than .308 or 6.5 CM from a hunting/homeland defense/SHTF point of view, and he steered me to research 7mm Rem Mag. It's now probably one of my favorite rounds, up there with .308. I love it because it's fast, powerful, and very accurate. Even though these don't give a full picture, many ballistic charts from manufacturers show their 7mm Rem Mag loads being flatter shooting than even 6.5 CM.

I personally love the Barnes 139gr LR Vor-tx. It's a solid copper ballistic tip that comes out a ported 24" barrel at around 3,100 FPS.

 

[teddy12b]

This line of thinking is exactly what I have a major problem with and why I have issues with the Ruger American. There should be nothing "casual" about taking an animal's life. The very least a hunter can do is to invest a little effort into not having bottom of the barrel equipment, whether that hunt is for whitetails in the backyard or other game halfway across the country. Sure, one can get away with it most of the time but when that equipment eventually fails, it'll be the animal that pays the price, not the hunter.

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think you've got the concept of "performance" and actual "cost" intertwined and it's not always that way. For example, I shoot deer in my backyard with my custom competition rifle. It's a known distance range out to 300 yards. I can make the same shot at the same distance with my buddies Ruger American. Just because it is less expensive, but still performs well doesn't make it a bad choice for a hunt. If it cost 3 times as much and barely held a 3" group at 100 yards I don't think you'd want anyone to chose that piece of gear for a long shot on a deer in indiana or an elk out west. I don't see any ethical dilemma about taking game with equipment that's at an entry level price point. I'd rather see a guy out there with an old worn cheap rifle that knows how to use it than a rich guy and his son showing up to a hunt with all new top of the line gear and watch them cut tags off new gear the night before a hunt (which I've seen, and neither got a deer).

I think it's easy to get cost/quality/experience/effort intertwined, but reality is I've seen high dollar guys with the best gear that have no business thinking about taking an animals life and I've seen true hunters and woodsmen on a budget like my buddy who know how to use their equipment and use it within its reasonable limits.

 

[two70]

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think you've got the concept of "performance" and actual "cost" intertwined and it's not always that way. For example, I shoot deer in my backyard with my custom competition rifle. It's a known distance range out to 300 yards. I can make the same shot at the same distance with my buddies Ruger American. Just because it is less expensive, but still performs well doesn't make it a bad choice for a hunt. If it cost 3 times as much and barely held a 3" group at 100 yards I don't think you'd want anyone to chose that piece of gear for a long shot on a deer in indiana or an elk out west. I don't see any ethical dilemma about taking game with equipment that's at an entry level price point. I'd rather see a guy out there with an old worn cheap rifle that knows how to use it than a rich guy and his son showing up to a hunt with all new top of the line gear and watch them cut tags off new gear the night before a hunt (which I've seen, and neither got a deer).

I think it's easy to get cost/quality/experience/effort intertwined, but reality is I've seen high dollar guys with the best gear that have no business thinking about taking an animals life and I've seen true hunters and woodsmen on a budget like my buddy who know how to use their equipment and use it within its reasonable limits.

No worries, I'm not at all offended. Fair enough, I could see where you might think that and to some extent I am focusing on performance, just not the way you think. I couldn't possibly care less about how small a group a rifle shoots from the bench or the cost of the rifle. Group size is great to brag, and often lie about, on the internet but has very little bearing on hunting. What I care about is a rifle that shoots the first shot, with hunting bullets, reasonably close to my point of aim, has a stock that won't flex in awkward positions or beat me up unnecessarily, and cycles reliably under less than ideal situations. That is the performance that I'm concerned with.

I hunt in the real world where even the best shooter flubs a shot occasionally, unforeseen things can happen, and Murphy rear's his ugly head from time to time. That being the case, I want to be prepared and have equipment that allows me to cycle and fire a follow up shot immediately if need be. I don't want to be jacking with a rifle where the bolt is binding up because the action sucks, I'm dealing with an adrenaline dump and conditions are less than ideal. Nor do I want to worry about the stock flexing due to shooting from a weird position and causing a misfeed due to the magazine no longer being aligned properly. Again, most of the time a person may get away with it, but then again some time when it matters most, they may not.

I'd much rather see someone hunt with a 3 MOA rifle that cycles well than a .5 MOA rifle that doesn't. In my opinion, a person with an old, sporterized mil-surp rifle that knows his limitations is miles ahead of the guy who buys a Ruger American fires a box or two of ammo from the bench and thinks he's ready to shoot deer at 300 yards or more in the field. There are plenty of fine old rifles, some of them very cheaply priced, that have taken lots of game despite struggling to group much better than 2 MOA with even handloaded pet loads.

To me the rich hunters with the fancy toys are just as guilty of being too casual when it comes to hunting as the ones toting cheaper guns. Although I too have encountered a few of the rich guy types, even some outside of Texas, experience tells me that the cheaper guy is far more prevalent. Experience also tells me that many a Ruger American guy is probably going to buy the cheapest ammo they can easily find, regardless of suitability for hunting, and if they shoot more than a box of it prior to deer season, then they are likely in rather lonely club. Chances are pretty good he's also going to think that since his rifle shoots small groups from a bench at a 100 yards and that he can hit steel at a 1000 yards, he's good to go on game in the field to 300 and beyond. Chances are even better that he's not going to practice cycling his rifle or work on cycling it immediately instead of admiring his shot. To be extra clear, it is not the cheapness of the rifle that bothers me, it is the casualness of the approach.

 

[Creedmoor]

No worries, I'm not at all offended. Fair enough, I could see where you might think that and to some extent I am focusing on performance, just not the way you think. I couldn't possibly care less about how small a group a rifle shoots from the bench or the cost of the rifle. Group size is great to brag, and often lie about, on the internet but has very little bearing on hunting. What I care about is a rifle that shoots the first shot, with hunting bullets, reasonably close to my point of aim, has a stock that won't flex in awkward positions or beat me up unnecessarily, and cycles reliably under less than ideal situations. That is the performance that I'm concerned with.

I hunt in the real world where even the best shooter flubs a shot occasionally, unforeseen things can happen, and Murphy rear's his ugly head from time to time. That being the case, I want to be prepared and have equipment that allows me to cycle and fire a follow up shot immediately if need be. I don't want to be jacking with a rifle where the bolt is binding up because the action sucks, I'm dealing with an adrenaline dump and conditions are less than ideal. Nor do I want to worry about the stock flexing due to shooting from a weird position and causing a misfeed due to the magazine no longer being aligned properly. Again, most of the time a person may get away with it, but then again some time when it matters most, they may not.

I'd much rather see someone hunt with a 3 MOA rifle that cycles well than a .5 MOA rifle that doesn't. In my opinion, a person with an old, sporterized mil-surp rifle that knows his limitations is miles ahead of the guy who buys a Ruger American fires a box or two of ammo from the bench and thinks he's ready to shoot deer at 300 yards or more in the field. There are plenty of fine old rifles, some of them very cheaply priced, that have taken lots of game despite struggling to group much better than 2 MOA with even handloaded pet loads.

To me the rich hunters with the fancy toys are just as guilty of being too casual when it comes to hunting as the ones toting cheaper guns. Although I too have encountered a few of the rich guy types, even some outside of Texas, experience tells me that the cheaper guy is far more prevalent. Experience also tells me that many a Ruger American guy is probably going to buy the cheapest ammo they can easily find, regardless of suitability for hunting, and if they shoot more than a box of it prior to deer season, then they are likely in rather lonely club. Chances are pretty good he's also going to think that since his rifle shoots small groups from a bench at a 100 yards and that he can hit steel at a 1000 yards, he's good to go on game in the field to 300 and beyond. Chances are even better that he's not going to practice cycling his rifle or work on cycling it immediately instead of admiring his shot. To be extra clear, it is not the cheapness of the rifle that bothers me, it is the casualness of the approach.

If you really are worried about having a bolt action issue. Buy a controlled round feed Mod 70 Winchester.

 

[two70]

If you really are worried about having a bolt action issue. Buy a controlled round feed Mod 70 Winchester.

The controlled round feed thing is mostly myth with a little bit of truth at least with modern rifles but it is hard to beat the smoothness of a Model 70, especially a well used one. They almost cycle themselves or seem to at least.

 

[teddy12b]

If you really are worried about having a bolt action issue. Buy a controlled round feed Mod 70 Winchester.

I kinda giggled when I read this because my hunting rifle is a Win 70 featherweight in 30-06 that's been bedded and looks lights out.

I get being bothered by the casual approach to taking an animals life. When I saw the father and son hunters in Wisconsin cutting tags off their new gear the night before opening day I was disappointed. They just didn't have any good role models or anyone who taught them better. The kid especially since he was trying some new fancy ammo for the caliber of his rifle because it was the latest and greatest thing, but then was puzzled why he missed a deer. He and I had a long talk about having to make sure the gun was sighted in with whatever ammo you're using and it was all news to him.

This buddy of mine plans to use Winchester hunting rounds for deer and Hornady eld match for long range. Most folks don't understand the difference between the two different types of ammo there and I'd agree that gets frustrating when they don't know what they're asking of their equipment.

 

[DadSmith]

Sako 85 Long Range 338 Lapua Magnum. Very accurate rifles. They are no longer made but you might be able to fine one around if you look hard.

Definitely set up to reload for the 338 Lapua.

 

[Purdue1991]

This line of thinking is exactly what I have a major problem with and why I have issues with the Ruger American. There should be nothing "casual" about taking an animal's life. The very least a hunter can do is to invest a little effort into not having bottom of the barrel equipment, whether that hunt is for whitetails in the backyard or other game halfway across the country. Sure, one can get away with it most of the time but when that equipment eventually fails, it'll be the animal that pays the price, not the hunter.

I call sitting in a deer stand taking a shot of 100 to 200 yards casual hunting compared to big game hunting. Casual hunting doesn't mean taking unethical shots. Look, there's a difference in performance that's required to shoot an elk at 500 or 600 yards when the hunt costs thousands of dollars versus sitting in a deer stand in Indiana shooting at 100 to 250 yards.

Secondly, how is using a Ruger American any different than hunting with a Ruger #1, or any other single shot, when it comes to cycling with a follow up shot? Also sounds like you'd be against muzzleloading hunting as well.

Thirdly, you're judging and getting bent out of shape over someone who felt comfortable buying a Ruger American for what they want to do. I'd rather see someone hunting with their grandpa's beat up 12 gauge single shot than not hunt at all, or overpay for something they don't need and may not have the money for. I've seen buddies with all of their fancy equipment (Ravin crossbows, Tikka rifles, the best clothing) not able to close the deal because they're not very good hunters. They look great doing it but they can't scout, aren't patient enough, and simply don't know what they're doing. Equipment doesn't make you a good or ethical hunter...

 

[Purdue1991]

I kinda giggled when I read this because my hunting rifle is a Win 70 featherweight in 30-06 that's been bedded and looks lights out.

I get being bothered by the casual approach to taking an animals life. When I saw the father and son hunters in Wisconsin cutting tags off their new gear the night before opening day I was disappointed. They just didn't have any good role models or anyone who taught them better. The kid especially since he was trying some new fancy ammo for the caliber of his rifle because it was the latest and greatest thing, but then was puzzled why he missed a deer. He and I had a long talk about having to make sure the gun was sighted in with whatever ammo you're using and it was all news to him.

This buddy of mine plans to use Winchester hunting rounds for deer and Hornady eld match for long range. Most folks don't understand the difference between the two different types of ammo there and I'd agree that gets frustrating when they don't know what they're asking of their equipment.

Fancy equipment doesn't make you a good hunter. Knowing what you're doing and spending the time being prepared in all aspects makes you a good hunter...

 

[two70]

I call sitting in a deer stand taking a shot of 100 to 200 yards casual hunting compared to big game hunting. Casual hunting doesn't mean taking unethical shots. Look, there's a difference in performance that's required to shoot an elk at 500 or 600 yards when the hunt costs thousands of dollars versus sitting in a deer stand in Indiana shooting at 100 to 250 yards.

Secondly, how is using a Ruger American any different than hunting with a Ruger #1, or any other single shot, when it comes to cycling with a follow up shot? Also sounds like you'd be against muzzleloading hunting as well.

Thirdly, you're judging and getting bent out of shape over someone who felt comfortable buying a Ruger American for what they want to do. I'd rather see someone hunting with their grandpa's beat up 12 gauge single shot than not hunt at all, or overpay for something they don't need and may not have the money for. I've seen buddies with all of their fancy equipment (Ravin crossbows, Tikka rifles, the best clothing) not able to close the deal because they're not very good hunters. They look great doing it but they can't scout, aren't patient enough, and simply don't know what they're doing. Equipment doesn't make you a good or ethical hunter...

It is kind of ironic that you mention not taking unethical shots and then casually talk about shooting elk at 500 or 600 yards. One is not required to shoot elk at 500-600 yards, one could, as an alternative, use hunting skills to get closer. Maybe it's just me but I don't take any hunting casually, not when I invest the time, effort and money into it that I do.

With a single shot, most know a follow up shot is going to be slower and prepare for it. Some even practice until they can reload quickly and smoothly. The surprise of a repeating rifle not repeating tends to slow most down, especially the unpracticed. Then there is the time it takes to solve the problem once the initial surprise is overcome. On the contrary, the smartest thing a hunter on a budget could do is invest in a muzzleloader and double the length of their season.

The only one getting close to bent out of shape here is you. Why? Simply because I said that there are better hunting rifles available than the Ruger American? Or was it because I suggested that it takes more than shooting good groups to make a good rifle. Either way, you seem to to be conflating shooting with hunting. Instead of focusing on the the pursuit of an animal and getting close enough to make a quick and clean kill regardless of weapon choice or cost, you seem to be primarily concerned with either shooting an animal as far away as possible or shooting it as soon as possible regardless of how far away it is.

 

[keeph8n]

Well I see I’ve come back to this thread being way in left field

 

[Purdue1991]

It is kind of ironic that you mention not taking unethical shots and then casually talk about shooting elk at 500 or 600 yards. One is not required to shoot elk at 500-600 yards, one could, as an alternative, use hunting skills to get closer. Maybe it's just me but I don't take any hunting casually, not when I invest the time, effort and money into it that I do.

With a single shot, most know a follow up shot is going to be slower and prepare for it. Some even practice until they can reload quickly and smoothly. The surprise of a repeating rifle not repeating tends to slow most down, especially the unpracticed. Then there is the time it takes to solve the problem once the initial surprise is overcome. On the contrary, the smartest thing a hunter on a budget could do is invest in a muzzleloader and double the length of their season.

The only one getting close to bent out of shape here is you. Why? Simply because I said that there are better hunting rifles available than the Ruger American? Or was it because I suggested that it takes more than shooting good groups to make a good rifle. Either way, you seem to to be conflating shooting with hunting. Instead of focusing on the the pursuit of an animal and getting close enough to make a quick and clean kill regardless of weapon choice or cost, you seem to be primarily concerned with either shooting an animal as far away as possible or shooting it as soon as possible regardless of how far away it is.

LMAO. Yes, I purposely take as long of a shot as possible just for the fun of it. Good grief, you're all over the place...

 

[LokhXIV]

If I hunt from the deck on my house with a Tikka but put a Barska on it and prioritize shots over 400 yards, which way are we leaning on the casual scale? Or does it just kind of balance out at that point?

 

[Purdue1991]

If I hunt from the deck on my house with a Tikka but put a Barska on it and prioritize shots over 400 yards, which way are we leaning on the casual scale? Or does it just kind of balance out at that point?

It's only casual if you put one round in the chamber, none in the magazine, and don't have your scope sighted in...

 

[LokhXIV]

To the original topic though between 300 WM and 338 LM I'd go 300WM. Personally though I would probably choose 300 PRC. Especially if you're planning to hand load. 300 PRC is the next caliber I'm planning to add to my collection. While it isn't exactly cheap to shoot, it's pretty reasonable considering what you're getting. I don't think the recoil on them is all that bad either. And it's hard to argue with the ballistics.

Whatever you end up going with, let us know what you settled on. Then give us an update later on about how you like it.