http://www.chuckhawks.com/critical_look.htm
I came across this recently and thought it was pretty interesting. Thoughts?
I came across this recently and thought it was pretty interesting. Thoughts?
Chuck Hawks on Sub-Standard Modern Rifles
- Thread starter Paul7
- Start date
- Status
jaysouth
Member
In 1967, I used some combat pay to buy a Model 70 Winchester in .30-06. The absolute gold standard in hunting rifles at that time.
Over the years, I realized that the rifle was not an accurate one. 3-4 inches at 100 yards with a Weaver K-4 scope.
I began to reload, there was some improvement.
I bought a Balvar 8 scope, the gold standard of hunting scopes at the time. Groups did not shrink enough to justify the expense.
Later, the action was pilar bedded and the recoil lug glassed in. the barrel channel was enlarged to free float the barrel. I later bought a sythetic stock that was fully bedded. Still 2-3 inches.
On the advice of a gunsmith, I had the action 'trued'. Now I was at groups of 1-2 inches with carefully loaded ammo.
Last year, my brother bought a Ruger American Rifle in .308. He put a Tasco scope on it. With Walmart ammo, it shoots sub MOA. Total investment, less than $400.
It outshoots my Winchester that has over $1,500 in it.
Old is not always best, new is not always bad.
Over the years, I realized that the rifle was not an accurate one. 3-4 inches at 100 yards with a Weaver K-4 scope.
I began to reload, there was some improvement.
I bought a Balvar 8 scope, the gold standard of hunting scopes at the time. Groups did not shrink enough to justify the expense.
Later, the action was pilar bedded and the recoil lug glassed in. the barrel channel was enlarged to free float the barrel. I later bought a sythetic stock that was fully bedded. Still 2-3 inches.
On the advice of a gunsmith, I had the action 'trued'. Now I was at groups of 1-2 inches with carefully loaded ammo.
Last year, my brother bought a Ruger American Rifle in .308. He put a Tasco scope on it. With Walmart ammo, it shoots sub MOA. Total investment, less than $400.
It outshoots my Winchester that has over $1,500 in it.
Old is not always best, new is not always bad.
I've read a bit of Chuck Hawks stuff and strongly disagree with most of it. If you define "quality" as shiny metal and wood, all steel construction, and hand fitting he has a point. But the truth is that a 2 MOA rifle was common in the 60's and a 1 MOA rifle was a rare rifle.
Today's flimsy injection molded stocks and mass produced rifles are outshooting the old stuff by a wide margin and factored for inflation are selling at a fraction of the costs.
I also have several rifles with over $1,000 invested. I do like them, they do look better, but they don't shoot as well as my $400 Ruger American.
That $400 in 1960's money would be about $50.
Maybe we should re-define quality.
Today's flimsy injection molded stocks and mass produced rifles are outshooting the old stuff by a wide margin and factored for inflation are selling at a fraction of the costs.
I also have several rifles with over $1,000 invested. I do like them, they do look better, but they don't shoot as well as my $400 Ruger American.
That $400 in 1960's money would be about $50.
Maybe we should re-define quality.
primalmu
Member
The article doesn't mention the fact that if we were to return to producing "high quality" rifles their price would be by and large prohibitively expensive for many people. Many people, such as myself, value functionality over aesthetics -- if I can get a rifle that is more accurate for less money, sign me up! I'll deal with the flimsy stock, or I'll upgrade it and still be ahead.
jaysouth
Member
My winchester M-70 may wind up being a family heirloom someday, and my brother's Ruger American may self destruct or fall apart before he has grandsons old enough to own a gun.
However, I know that the Ruger will sustain more shooting than most owners will ever put them to.
However, I know that the Ruger will sustain more shooting than most owners will ever put them to.
bikemutt
Member
Interesting take. I see this happening more and more. It's tough to please everyone so the manufacturers are equipping certain products with low value parts that most will replace anyway. As long as the guts aren't compromised, I'm fine not paying a premium for parts I'll replace.
I generally like Chuck Hawks, but I couldn't take that article too seriously.
If he wants everything done top quality, with no cost efficiency measures taken by manufacturers, then we'd be looking at very sharp increases in prices.
In the same article he states that the T3 offers a 1 inch guaranty, but that it's a silly thing because no hunter needs that much accuracy.
If manufacturers are making accurate rifles, at a low cost to the consumer...I'm all for it.
He can go out and buy a super nice rifle made just the way he wants it from any number of custom gun manufacturers...and he'll see how much those features cost.
I get the point he makes about the relationship between gun writers and manufacturers...but I trust gun writers as much as I trust politicians...so it's not something I didn't already know.
If he wants everything done top quality, with no cost efficiency measures taken by manufacturers, then we'd be looking at very sharp increases in prices.
In the same article he states that the T3 offers a 1 inch guaranty, but that it's a silly thing because no hunter needs that much accuracy.
If manufacturers are making accurate rifles, at a low cost to the consumer...I'm all for it.
He can go out and buy a super nice rifle made just the way he wants it from any number of custom gun manufacturers...and he'll see how much those features cost.
I get the point he makes about the relationship between gun writers and manufacturers...but I trust gun writers as much as I trust politicians...so it's not something I didn't already know.
ljnowell
Member
I find that I agree with little in the Chuck hawks website. I truthfully don't think there is nearly as much wisdom there as some believe.
Chuck Hawks says the T3 1" guarantee is somewhat meaningless, he's had some that didn't shoot that well and had had others tell him the same thing. A gunsmith on another forum said he's had three T3s in the last few years where the bolt handle literally broke off. Tikka's responsa was they could buy a new rifle at full price. Chuck isn't particularly beating on the T3, he says it is representative of many modern cheap guns. I prefer shopping around and buying used quality. I recently bought a used Sako Finnbear in .30-'06 for under $800, they truly don't make them like that anymore, at least in that price range. Based on the last decade, I wouldn't be surprised if it is worth more in ten years. There is lots of quality old stuff out there that has been shot very little, very few are ever going to wear out their hunting rifle. The wood stocks aren't just a matter of aesthetics for old-timers, many believe it to be the best rifle stock material from a functionality standpoint.
I agree with Chuck also when he says for the average hunter shooting under 300 yards, you aren't going to miss any game animals if you can shoot 2 MOA. IMHO most hunters should be more concerned with shot placement than shaving another half inch off their group.
Last edited:
I agree that shot placement is king, but if given the choice of a more accurate rifle, or a slightly less accurate rifle for the same price...I'll take the more accurate gun every time.
There will be enough factors working against me in the field when I pull the trigger...wind, cold, hunger, conditioning, excitement...I'm not going to start sacrificing accuracy just so I can say "well all you really need is 2 MOA".
If the wind takes a 1/2 MOA from you, your lungs take 1 MOA from you, your hasty field shooting position takes 1 MOA from you, and then you gave up another 1 MOA because you thought a 1 MOA guaranty was silly...then you might be looking at a swing of 3.5 MOA at 300 yards...and that's starting to push the envelope. If i get that 1 MOA back from using a more accurate rifle, I'm down to 2.5 MOA.
I'm making those numbers up for the sake of the example, you can substitute any numbers you'd like. When shooting from a bench or a solid rest with no wind, no elevated heart rate, no rain, no snow, no cold hands and fingers, and no excitement...sure...you're highly likely to not need more than 2 MOA at 100 to 300 yards...but many times those conditions don't exist in the field, so I'll take the extra accuracy if it's available for the same price...assuming reliability is there.
They would not get another dime from me on that one. That's 100% unacceptable.
TruthTellers
member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 1,075
I've read a fair number of things from Chuck Hawks, a lot good, some not. I thought when I clicked on the link that I was going to be reading about how so many new guns today being sold to customers are getting sent back with quality issues, not about the quality of materials or mechanical design of the rifles.
Sure, I like having a trigger guard that's not molded into the stock because if that guard breaks, i'ma be pissed trying to fix it. That's something that rarely happens tho, so I really don't worry about it. All I care about is how well the gun shoots and how comfortable it is to shoot. If it's got a synth stock and little or no checkering, but it shoots MOA, then I'm not going to complain.
Returning to pure aesthetics to say a rifle is "quality" is asinine because that's going to increase cost. If it wasn't for these economy priced rifles, how many less shooters would we have contributing to these companies, local ranges, and the NRA? The larger the shooting community gets, the better for all of us because more people turn pro-2A.
Of course, Chuck's main focus with this article was attacking the printed gun media that's basically funded by the manufacturers. We already know how incestuous the print media is, so why he's attacking it and promoting a paid internet membership idk.
Oh, wait, doesn't he receive money from those subscriptions? Hmm...
To me, if a company is going to sell these rifles for $300-500, then what's more important than cutting costs or a rifles looks is they need to be in advertised working order; no more multiple trips to the manufacturer because of bad QC, and they need to be safe. If Chuck wants to go back to the days of the 700 unintentionally blowing people's heads off because the bolt was lightly tapped or the safety was engaged, but had great checkering and nicely polished metal pieces then he needs to stop writing and ride off into the sunset.
'nuff said.
Sure, I like having a trigger guard that's not molded into the stock because if that guard breaks, i'ma be pissed trying to fix it. That's something that rarely happens tho, so I really don't worry about it. All I care about is how well the gun shoots and how comfortable it is to shoot. If it's got a synth stock and little or no checkering, but it shoots MOA, then I'm not going to complain.
Returning to pure aesthetics to say a rifle is "quality" is asinine because that's going to increase cost. If it wasn't for these economy priced rifles, how many less shooters would we have contributing to these companies, local ranges, and the NRA? The larger the shooting community gets, the better for all of us because more people turn pro-2A.
Of course, Chuck's main focus with this article was attacking the printed gun media that's basically funded by the manufacturers. We already know how incestuous the print media is, so why he's attacking it and promoting a paid internet membership idk.
Oh, wait, doesn't he receive money from those subscriptions? Hmm...
To me, if a company is going to sell these rifles for $300-500, then what's more important than cutting costs or a rifles looks is they need to be in advertised working order; no more multiple trips to the manufacturer because of bad QC, and they need to be safe. If Chuck wants to go back to the days of the 700 unintentionally blowing people's heads off because the bolt was lightly tapped or the safety was engaged, but had great checkering and nicely polished metal pieces then he needs to stop writing and ride off into the sunset.
'nuff said.
We need to be practice shooting more from a field position, not the bench.
More fuel for the fire:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/practical_accuracy.htm
Last edited:
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
Trying to figure out how in the world you'd do that during normal use. I'd like to read the thread if you have a link. The only mention I saw of a broken Tikka bolt during a quick Google search is some poor soul that ran his rifle over with a truck...
greyling22
Member
I would be willing to pay an additional $30 bucks for a better plastic stock. I know that if they spent $35 bucks on a making a stock instead of $3.50 we could have a much less flimsy, and better feeling, stock.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
I don't care for the new model rifles that are turned out today. I'm not saying I'm all about blued steel and walnut but I'll wade through a sea of old Rem 700's and Tang Safety Ruger 77's getting one that shoots before I'd buy one of their new offerings.
Market share and labor rate, profit through volume.....
OTOH, machine tools are better equipped/built to provide closer tolerances. However, the cutter heads, bits, etc, must be checked and changed regularly. .003 out of spec can produce a significant effect downrange. Chatter in a chamber creates nightmare threads on forums.
I've actually seen Savage rifles with crowns that were poorly squared on new 17HMR rifles. Visible to the eye.
I had a T3 in 22-250, never could get it to shoot better than an inch, inch and a half. I doubt I'll ever have another. And the recoil lug.... poor design. I'd opt for a Tikka M595 or M695 if I were shopping.
Aftermarket stocks are pretty strong in the marketplace. The $250ish new HS stocks have creeped up to $350ish. I'm sure due to the crap stocks now offered on many rifles. Even those crap stocks can be bedded though, or at least stiffened with some marine tex or devcon.
Winchester, in the New Haven days had synthetic stocks as they do now. The older "cheap" solid black stocks were fairly decent; the new "cheap" stocks are not.
I think Howa/Legacy may be onto something in selling barreled actions......
OTOH, machine tools are better equipped/built to provide closer tolerances. However, the cutter heads, bits, etc, must be checked and changed regularly. .003 out of spec can produce a significant effect downrange. Chatter in a chamber creates nightmare threads on forums.
I've actually seen Savage rifles with crowns that were poorly squared on new 17HMR rifles. Visible to the eye.
I had a T3 in 22-250, never could get it to shoot better than an inch, inch and a half. I doubt I'll ever have another. And the recoil lug.... poor design. I'd opt for a Tikka M595 or M695 if I were shopping.
Aftermarket stocks are pretty strong in the marketplace. The $250ish new HS stocks have creeped up to $350ish. I'm sure due to the crap stocks now offered on many rifles. Even those crap stocks can be bedded though, or at least stiffened with some marine tex or devcon.
Winchester, in the New Haven days had synthetic stocks as they do now. The older "cheap" solid black stocks were fairly decent; the new "cheap" stocks are not.
I think Howa/Legacy may be onto something in selling barreled actions......
Elkins45
Member
You lost me at "Chuck Hawks."
This isn't the one I mentioned above, but a broken Tikka bolt with pictures:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498856
I'm with you there.
Unless you're hiking 15 miles a day (How many hunters do that?) I don't get the mania for today's lightweight rifles with short barrels. It is easier to shoot a heavier rifle well, you don't see any lightweight rifles shooting competition. A guy I know DOES hike 10+ miles a day while hunting and still chooses to carry a heavier rifle due to the inherent shooting advantage. In years past our troops carried 8-9 lb. rifles all day, with a lot of other gear, and they were smaller back then.
lysanderxiii
Member
He's just now noticing this?
It's been slowly happening since the 1960s, maybe even earlier.
It's been slowly happening since the 1960s, maybe even earlier.
On the bottom of the essay it gives a 2006 date.
RainDodger
Member
Who is Chuck Hawks anyway? I've seen his "thoughts" for years but otherwise I've never heard of the guy. He talks about other stuff besides guns too... I figure he's just another guy with an opinion, and I don't agree with a lot of them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
