I am a fan of the 243. I currently carry a 1968 model 70 along with me most days on the farm. Nice gun and still in great shape. As my son getting bigger, he now wants to be the one to get the 243 out to shoot at the groundhog or yote we see along the bean field or crossing the hayfield. Problem is, he is not as "coordinated" as I am. As I picture this, I see the model 70 leading a little more "rougher" life than I would prefer.
So, I decided to pick up a cheaper 243 to allow for life's bumps and bruises. Went to the LGS and he had 3 options on the shelf. A Ruger American, Savage Axis, and a Stevens 200. All blued, synthetic stocked. All priced within $20 of each other. All seem to be good rifles in one aspect or another.
To me, if I ranked them, I would go Stevens, Ruger and then Savage. Stevens stock was camo, but had no floor plate or magazine. Ruger stock felt better than the Savage.
I never had owned any of the three. So, for those of you with experience with one or more of these, give your opinion, good or bad.
I will end up with one of these next week, just don't know which one yet.
So, I decided to pick up a cheaper 243 to allow for life's bumps and bruises. Went to the LGS and he had 3 options on the shelf. A Ruger American, Savage Axis, and a Stevens 200. All blued, synthetic stocked. All priced within $20 of each other. All seem to be good rifles in one aspect or another.
To me, if I ranked them, I would go Stevens, Ruger and then Savage. Stevens stock was camo, but had no floor plate or magazine. Ruger stock felt better than the Savage.
I never had owned any of the three. So, for those of you with experience with one or more of these, give your opinion, good or bad.
I will end up with one of these next week, just don't know which one yet.