A short gripe about rifle cosmetics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Art:
Those West German Mark Vs are so beautiful! I wish Weatherby would bring back the 9-lug variant of the Mark V in .30-06. :(

DRYHUMOR:
That M70 XRT .30-06 is one of the best looking M70s I ever seen. Love the stock and the iron sights. That hooded front sight is awesome! I may be weird, but I like the push-feed M70s about as much as I do the controlled-round feed. They're tough rifles, accurate, reliable.

aka108:
I can't disagree that parkerized steel and wood is a beautiful combination, especially the old mil-specs, M98, M1903, etc.

Geno
 
I'll take an ugly shooter over a pretty safe queen every time.
While I appreciate nice wood and good bluing the shooting is what it is about for me. I have to say I am happy seeing the work of art & I don't need to own it. That is why I appreciate people that display or share the beauty of what they own. Same way with cars.
 
Geno said:
Take a look at the Winchester M70 Featherweight in say .30-06 Sprg. Take it and have a set of aftermarket sights added, say some of those manufactured by Williams Gunsight. It is possible that due to the Featherweight barrel, that you will have to opt for a banded front sight. I do know that I have seen some old-school Featherweights with iron sights, and they were quite attractive. I don't know for sure about the front sight, banded or drilled and tapped, because I am not a gunsmith. However, if you want an attractive, well-balanced, bolt-action, in .30-06 Sprg, that comes up naturally to the shoulder, and just feels good in the hands, you will have to look long, far and spend a lot more cash to beat a Featherweight. JMHO.

Geno
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this approach. I would, however, encourage the OP to seek a surplus, good-condition 03A3 for 500-700 dollars. Absolutely meets the KISS mentality, balances well, comes with an excellent pair of irons, and I'd argue it's a better rifle than anything the OP will buy commercially (under the criteria mentioned in the OP) for an all-around rifle.

Also, if you don't think they are easy on the eyes...I don't know what to tell you.
 
Hey all,

Wow, thanks for all the input! I do appreaciate it.

I do wish to clarify a few things:

For those who brought up the difference between utilitarian tools and works of art, I do get that, believe me! In fact, that's part of the reason I like my Mosin as much as I do- it may be wood and steel, but still very utilitarian, and I don't worry about stock dings... ;)

As for the polymer/wood etc. debate, that wasn't really what I was getting at. It's not a question of wood v. plastic- I have seen some excellent polymer stocks that I would pick up it a heartbeat; for that matter, I've had the privilege to shoot a few. Namely, a National-Match AR-15 rifle with OD furniture, and a Remington 700 with a heavyweight polymer stock that was owned by the local SWAT sniper. Both of these were excellent examples of polymer furniture that suited the intended use of the weapon in question. Both were high quality, lacked any 'cheap' feel, and added to the quality and appearance of the weapon.

What I have an issue with is profile and contour- especially in forearms. Some of these stocks appear huge, feel huge, and fit poorly in the hand. I think it would feel like trying to get one's hand around a large, greased watermelon- you can't get enough purchase to effectively grip the surface. What I want is a slim stock- one that just fills the hand, but does not overwhelm it. In fact, one of the best examples I handled recently was a spoterized Gew. 98 that had been given a nice treatment (not a bubba job at all) of stock reshaping and barrel shortening. It had slim, efficient lines all the way back to the butt, and it fit and balanced well in the hand. If I had had $300 dollars, I would have bought the gun on the spot, cheap scope (which I would have replaced with quality irons) and cost of 8mm Mauser be d*mned. I've seen wood stocks on new production factory rifles that I would rather burn as firewood than consider for this so, again, it is not a wood v. polymer issue.

So, in short, yes this rifle concept was conceived as a utilitarian tool. I don't mind polymer- for this application, in fact, I welcome it. I simply want a rifle that has a clean, plain stock that carries and points well, and can take the abuse that a tool will suffer.

Upland- I'd gladly get an 03A3 as you suggested, IF: I had money, and could find an 03A3 for that price locally.

To others who suggested an M70 featerweight- if I could find one that I could afford, you all have no idea how quickly I would jump on it. In fact, it is the lines of that rifle that I appreciate- clean and simple. No extraneous bumps, frills, angles or excess material. I also despise what I refer to as the 'fishbelly-' stocks with an excessive 'vertical profile.'

Ugaary- that is gun porn of the highest order. Don't tempt me so! :what:

Anyway, I hope I've clarified myself a tad. Again, this is not a 'material' debate, but one of contours, fit and profile. To a certain extent, it is about not only a certain amount of cosmetic excess (a prime example are some of the new Remington and Benelli shotguns which, through extensive use of contours and angles, appear to be attempting to look 'futuristic' and 'space age.' In reality, it ends up looking like rubbish, and the excess gets in the way). Maybe this helps with my point? Or maybe I'm just confusing you all.

Anyway, please keep chatting, and keep up the pics! Gun porn for everyone. :)

-Chris
 
DRYHUMOR:
That M70 XTR .30-06 is one of the best looking M70s I ever seen. Love the stock and the iron sights. That hooded front sight is awesome! I may be weird, but I like the push-feed M70s about as much as I do the controlled-round feed. They're tough rifles, accurate, reliable.
Click to expand...

Thanks Geno. I got it as a barreled action recently. Then I found a good looking stock that just looked "right" for it. This winter will be load development time for it.

The .260 in the previous post was a standard BDL in 30-06, iron sighted as well. I bought it used, basically new, just for the action. It took two us with a vice, action wrench, and a pipe wrench to get the old barrel off.

It's a shooter. That plain wood stock is an Accurate Innovations stock with a full aluminum bed in it. It shoots 1/2 MOA with 120, 123, and 130 gr pills.

Other rifles that look good and well proportioned are the Model 7s, and the M70 Compacts. I have both. They are pretty much to me, some of the most natural pointing and balanced rifles I've held.

theriflespeaks1863

If you can't find what you want, you can always build, combine, modify, to your needs. The only original rifle, as from the factory, is the Tikka I posted.

The M70 will remain iron sighted, as it is. It just looks right the way it is...

Even my Model 7, that I really, really liked with the iron sights; is about to become a 6.5X47 Lapua, without irons.

Lots of possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Most rifles today are made to function not form. Polymer is more durable, has less problems with weather, and won't make you mad when you find a scratch. For me function is a pretty thing. I also love my Mosins, they are built like tanks. Rifles today may not be pretty to some but the ergonomics are wonderful. Rifles are like pickup trucks or power drills. When you're using them you don't really care how they look. My beat up Dodge ain't the prettiest girl at the ball but with her diesel she can really pull some weight. To me rifles are tools first and art second.
 
Holy cow:eek:

There is quite a few nice lookin wood stocked rifles here.

Thanks all for sharing the eye candy.

Synthetic stocks are butt fugly in comparison, and just don't have "the looks and feel of wood and steel".

Mine sport synthetics, as I use them to much, and am too hung up over the beauty of a fine chunk of lumber to ever want to take um to the field via on foot, truck, ATV, or horseback. ( It's a thing I just cant come to terms with......but there it is.)

If your an A-10 fan, look at Ruger's GSR. A " brick dump house" lookin bolt action rifle if there ever was one. (That's gotta be the fugly "est" wood stock I have seen, but just as the A10 is.......it is so ugly in fact that it has a beauty all it's own)

A wood stocked CZ, or older SAKO more resemble the F22/F14 looks in comparison.

By all means ladies and gentlemen. Please continue on with more pics.
 
There's an older Sako Finnbear on GB right now. Peep sight and front hooded. Not slim by any means, but definitely a utilitarian rifle with character.

Sako had it going on back then. Pistol grips sweep just right, forearm is more flat bottomed for stability, barrels are just a hair toward the heavy side.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like my stocks like this:

37389_102954739755650_6054041_n.jpg


This is the most beautiful rifle I have ever owned. Shot to 3/8" out of the box too. However, I got stupid and needed something in the same caliber but handier (more functional) in tight cover so I replaced it with this:

1382359_625498420834610_2145692363_n.jpg

In the end, it was a good call. The Howa was too good a gun for the .223, and the AR shoots just as tight (that was a 500yd kill). I use it for eastern 'yotes as well as these varmints so it's handling helps.

But I do miss the pretty lady!

37389_102973916420399_7243342_n.jpg

Another 500yd kill.
 
They are still out there for sure. A lot of what we think of as beauty in a rifle is nostalgia for the rifles our heroes and family used (sometimes they are the same person too). The old military rifles and their spawn were built with function in mind, but defined what many find right.
IMG_0095_zps66951e1d.gif
IMG_0096_zps96d26c8a.gif
 
theriflespeaks1863 said:
Hey all,

Wow, thanks for all the input! I do appreaciate it.

I do wish to clarify a few things:

For those who brought up the difference between utilitarian tools and works of art, I do get that, believe me! In fact, that's part of the reason I like my Mosin as much as I do- it may be wood and steel, but still very utilitarian, and I don't worry about stock dings... ;)

As for the polymer/wood etc. debate, that wasn't really what I was getting at. It's not a question of wood v. plastic- I have seen some excellent polymer stocks that I would pick up it a heartbeat; for that matter, I've had the privilege to shoot a few. Namely, a National-Match AR-15 rifle with OD furniture, and a Remington 700 with a heavyweight polymer stock that was owned by the local SWAT sniper. Both of these were excellent examples of polymer furniture that suited the intended use of the weapon in question. Both were high quality, lacked any 'cheap' feel, and added to the quality and appearance of the weapon.

What I have an issue with is profile and contour- especially in forearms. Some of these stocks appear huge, feel huge, and fit poorly in the hand. I think it would feel like trying to get one's hand around a large, greased watermelon- you can't get enough purchase to effectively grip the surface. What I want is a slim stock- one that just fills the hand, but does not overwhelm it. In fact, one of the best examples I handled recently was a spoterized Gew. 98 that had been given a nice treatment (not a bubba job at all) of stock reshaping and barrel shortening. It had slim, efficient lines all the way back to the butt, and it fit and balanced well in the hand. If I had had $300 dollars, I would have bought the gun on the spot, cheap scope (which I would have replaced with quality irons) and cost of 8mm Mauser be d*mned. I've seen wood stocks on new production factory rifles that I would rather burn as firewood than consider for this so, again, it is not a wood v. polymer issue.

So, in short, yes this rifle concept was conceived as a utilitarian tool. I don't mind polymer- for this application, in fact, I welcome it. I simply want a rifle that has a clean, plain stock that carries and points well, and can take the abuse that a tool will suffer.

Upland- I'd gladly get an 03A3 as you suggested, IF: I had money, and could find an 03A3 for that price locally.

To others who suggested an M70 featerweight- if I could find one that I could afford, you all have no idea how quickly I would jump on it. In fact, it is the lines of that rifle that I appreciate- clean and simple. No extraneous bumps, frills, angles or excess material. I also despise what I refer to as the 'fishbelly-' stocks with an excessive 'vertical profile.'

Ugaary- that is gun porn of the highest order. Don't tempt me so! :what:

Anyway, I hope I've clarified myself a tad. Again, this is not a 'material' debate, but one of contours, fit and profile. To a certain extent, it is about not only a certain amount of cosmetic excess (a prime example are some of the new Remington and Benelli shotguns which, through extensive use of contours and angles, appear to be attempting to look 'futuristic' and 'space age.' In reality, it ends up looking like rubbish, and the excess gets in the way). Maybe this helps with my point? Or maybe I'm just confusing you all.

Anyway, please keep chatting, and keep up the pics! Gun porn for everyone. :)

-Chris
Click to expand...
What kind of budget are you looking at? Also, Forgive me if I missed it in your postings, but are you restricting yourself to bolt-action only? If you're open to multiple action types, I think any of the multiple pump action or lever action rifles out there would suit your purposes well. Specifically, any Winchester 94 since it definitely meets your criteria of slim, aesthetically pleasing, a capable cartridge, and can still be found under $400. I also think Remington pump-action rifles in particular may serve the niche you are looking for--wood, good looking wood and blued steel, and many capable calibers.

Back to bolt actions--I routinely see very well sporterized military surplus rifles for $400 and less that will more than meet your needs and can be very well balanced and carry well in the field.

I think these are good options for well balanced, easy carrying, hard hitting, aesthetically pleasing rifles for under $400.
 
"What I have an issue with is profile and contour- especially in forearms. Some of these stocks appear huge, feel huge, and fit poorly in the hand"
The type of foregrip described is a "benchrest" style meant to be rested on sandbags. I've seen it marketed as a beavertail forearm by Remington and others. That it doesn't handle as well as a light upland rig is symptomatic only of the decline in demand for upland game hunter rigs. Many places these days won't even let you stalk anymore, because of the density of guys in the woods, so you're stuck in a stand all day with the rifle probably laid on a rest when it's used.

Most public rifle ranges don't allow anything but seated or benched shooting, and the vast majority of folks (myself included) get precious little opportunity to try anything "interesting" off hand while punching paper. It's much more awkward to hold out a full length full caliber rifle while seated than when standing, hence the more common forearm resting. A broad forearm is more stable on bags than a narrow cylindrical one. And new shooters doling out the extra "foolish noob" money for their first gun tend to stick to bench shooting since it's easier to get small groups that way. I know I did, at first :eek:

When "lacking aesthetics" was brought up, I assumed we'd be talking about stuff like the T/C Dimension; great concept, but what the hell were they thinking by adding so many little eye-catching design features? Looks like a Klingon Battle Axe or something at this point.

TC_dimension_header2.jpg
I need earplugs to look at that rifle, let alone the ad type-face :D

Pretty guns are nice, but don't usually show wear very nicely. These days, I prefer "pretty" guns with wood stocks to be in worn condition so I'm not so concerned about shooting them, and my "modern" guns to have clean lines, so the overall look is unoffensive, and smooth facets so wear is concentrated on the corners, which allows the gun to look new, longer.

I'm not an advocate of gun abuse or stupid "torture tests." I don't see guns as "mere tools" requiring no aesthetic sensitivities whatsoever (even grease-monkeys think certain wrenches are ugly and won't buy them :rolleyes:). But they are tools, intended for use, and I think an awful lot of "ugly" guns finished in modern paint and coatings, made of ageless materials like plastics, will look a hell of a lot better in 50yrs than their wooden contemporaries (even the nice ones) if the they both see any kind of use in that time*. Old Brownings weren't built on Basswood stocks for the same reason most guns aren't stocked in wood at all anymore. Plastics and composites can do an awful lot wood can't, but besides looks, the opposite doesn't really hold.

*A 50 year old gun that's mint in box and always will be isn't a "gun" but a curio like a china doll :neener:. If looks in a gun case are the only issue, there are really cool looking Airsoft copies of exceedingly rare and expensive guns that will meet the task of impressing casual visitors. :evil:

TCB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
  • Poll
Remington Rifle Barrel Thickness and Effects on Accuracy
Replies
4
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
N
  • Locked
If you were to make a new bolt-action battle rifle...
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
USSR
U
K
  • Locked
Mauser K98K
Replies
10
Views
1K
kentucky_smith
K
A
  • Locked
A Question About Sniper Rifles
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
bruzer
B
N
  • Locked
Looking for a rifle.
Replies
12
Views
883
dubbleA
D
Back
Top