Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,007
My objective here is the challenge of getting this precision out of as cheap a rifle and scope as possible. And I completely understand all preaching about how you get what you pay for. I am trying to see if I can get what I didn't pay for.
Don’t overthink this. You get what you pay for with the lowest priced rifles on the market - and frankly, you’ll get more than pay for when it comes to accuracy. As I mentioned above, you can pay a lot more and not actually get any greater accuracy (precision).
I am sensing a serious trend towards Savage as a rifle source.
Don’t overthink this either.
This conversation is a race to the bottom, and Savage purposefully prices their products to own that position. They aren’t objectively the best or smallest shooting of the $400 rifles, they just happen to be the cheapest of the sub-MOA rifles, so their base model is priced at $400 while the competition is priced at $450.
There certainly was a time when a guy could buy a cheap Savage or Savage built Stevens rifle and have a rifle which DID shoot smaller than the typical Ruger M77, Win 70, or Rem 700, but those days are long gone. Everyone is building every model to a sub-MOA standard, so again, we’re not talking about the best cheap rifle, it’s really a conversation of the cheapest rifle, because they are all good.
And to your relatively unanswered question earlier - I’m not terribly convinced buying a used rifle of an older era would actually give you better odds of achieving sub-MOA accuracy, and quite likely could reduce your potential for precision. Sure, if you can find a Ruger American which is a few years old and only has 50-100 rounds through it, and can get it for $300 instead of $450, great, but I wouldn’t go looking for a Rem 700 from 1987 priced at $400 and expect it to shoot better than a $400 new Savage Axis.