Consider checking out a new Marlin at a store. They are good as a 90's production JM nowadays imho. The worst of the troubles are behind them.
Some Stats - Gross sales of Hunting Rifles and Shotguns - a snapshot
- Thread starter galamb
- Start date
Consider checking out a new Marlin at a store. They are good as a 90's production JM nowadays imho. The worst of the troubles are behind them.
- Location
- East ontario
LOL - if I had to bet the mortgage, after reading this, I would bet on a LeBaron location all day long
No i would day this is someone that works as Canadian tire
Completely agree with this.
As for Remington (which I'm a fan of), the only thing worth looking at today are the higher end models and some custom stuff built on 700 actions. As little as 9-10 years ago I remember handling some really good new 700's in stores. Can't stand the Remington budget stuff and SPS line. Even their older budget stuff like the 600/660 series and 788's were really good. Remington is blowing it now though. I still check out their higher end stuff because I like the overall design.
Hell, I'd take a Savage (not the Axis) over the SPS and 783.
Only non restricted. Only select brands. Chain. I'm betting CT as well. Either way the numbers are nice to see
I have expensive tastes but I still hunt with savage rifles and mossberg shotguns.
The axis price range gets more ppl buying guns and to me that's a good thing even though I feel life is to short to hunt with an ugly gun
I have expensive tastes but I still hunt with savage rifles and mossberg shotguns.
The axis price range gets more ppl buying guns and to me that's a good thing even though I feel life is to short to hunt with an ugly gun
I can't speak for anyone's beginnings.... but I can speak for mine.... my "big game / upland / waterfowl gun" was an 870 express circa 1992...... my "plinker / bunny gun" was a marlin model 60..... the Rem, in its 4th iteration is now my go to turkey gun and is still in the safe... (what i went through as a boy on a grocery packer's salary makes it special).....I sold the marlin regrettably..... but that happens.....
Both bought at CTC back in the day btw.....
^^^^ yes, I see it the same way.
I started out hunting in the 1970's with a "hand me down" model 740 that I got from my Dad. He bought it new in 1957 for $134 from a hardware store in Toronto (still had the receipt because the was "his first new rifle". In today's dollars that would peg the cost at $1140 (by one of those inflation calculators) and you know what? A 750 Rem, which is just an evolution of my 740 goes for somewhere between 1000 and 1100 bucks. So while gas, milk and the cost of rent has outpaced inflation, at least that model of rifle didn't. The cost of a "decent rifle" in 1957 is about the same cost as a "decent rifle" in today's market. In 57 most guys were hunting with surplus Enfields that could be mail ordered for under 20 bucks.
Now when I was feeding a couple of young kids that needed food, clothes etc etc and all I could afford to drive was a K-Car, I certainly couldn't drop (the equivalent of) 1000 bucks on new rifle or shotgun.
My choice was "buy budget" or "don't buy" - that was the ONLY choice I could make. So even when I could get an 870 for $250 I had to opt for an 80 dollar H&R single shot OR "do without" a shotgun.
And when I look at the Axis today (and I bought one even though most of my rifles cost a two to four times the price of an Axis) and I hear guys say "it's a throw away" - I could "throw away" three of them before I even equaled the cost of a single 700 SPS. So if money was still tight and my choice was between hunting deer with an Axis or waiting until the kids were done college to buy a 700, I'm still pretty sure I would opt for the Axis.
And no, I'm not saying it's not a budget rifle. It is. And yes, it's "built cheap", but you still can't convince me that from a "value for your dollar" that a 700 SPS is THREE TIMES the quality/fit/finish of an Axis or 783 or American - it just isn't.
And if Bob only needs a rifle to hunt with the boys for a week in November, where he will spend as much time shooting the crap and drinking beer as sitting on the deer stand, and he's still feeding the family and paying the rent and his only other option was to "just stay home", I would never criticize Bob for buying an Axis.
The shooting sports "needs Bob with his Axis" - because without it he would just be another "non-gun-owning" citizen. And I'm GLAD that I sell more of them then anything else. I "contributed" to the number of gun owners in Canada which I couldn't do if they were a 700 rifle and they were the cheapest on the shelf at that price.
I started out hunting in the 1970's with a "hand me down" model 740 that I got from my Dad. He bought it new in 1957 for $134 from a hardware store in Toronto (still had the receipt because the was "his first new rifle". In today's dollars that would peg the cost at $1140 (by one of those inflation calculators) and you know what? A 750 Rem, which is just an evolution of my 740 goes for somewhere between 1000 and 1100 bucks. So while gas, milk and the cost of rent has outpaced inflation, at least that model of rifle didn't. The cost of a "decent rifle" in 1957 is about the same cost as a "decent rifle" in today's market. In 57 most guys were hunting with surplus Enfields that could be mail ordered for under 20 bucks.
Now when I was feeding a couple of young kids that needed food, clothes etc etc and all I could afford to drive was a K-Car, I certainly couldn't drop (the equivalent of) 1000 bucks on new rifle or shotgun.
My choice was "buy budget" or "don't buy" - that was the ONLY choice I could make. So even when I could get an 870 for $250 I had to opt for an 80 dollar H&R single shot OR "do without" a shotgun.
And when I look at the Axis today (and I bought one even though most of my rifles cost a two to four times the price of an Axis) and I hear guys say "it's a throw away" - I could "throw away" three of them before I even equaled the cost of a single 700 SPS. So if money was still tight and my choice was between hunting deer with an Axis or waiting until the kids were done college to buy a 700, I'm still pretty sure I would opt for the Axis.
And no, I'm not saying it's not a budget rifle. It is. And yes, it's "built cheap", but you still can't convince me that from a "value for your dollar" that a 700 SPS is THREE TIMES the quality/fit/finish of an Axis or 783 or American - it just isn't.
And if Bob only needs a rifle to hunt with the boys for a week in November, where he will spend as much time shooting the crap and drinking beer as sitting on the deer stand, and he's still feeding the family and paying the rent and his only other option was to "just stay home", I would never criticize Bob for buying an Axis.
The shooting sports "needs Bob with his Axis" - because without it he would just be another "non-gun-owning" citizen. And I'm GLAD that I sell more of them then anything else. I "contributed" to the number of gun owners in Canada which I couldn't do if they were a 700 rifle and they were the cheapest on the shelf at that price.
^^^ Thats a great explanation Graham, theres certainly nothing wrong with using an entry level rifle if it suits your purpose and budget. Not everyone shoots a lot like some of the guys on this forum.
A lot of hunters only hunt that one week a year and may not even pull the trigger, so basically there is no wear on the gun at all other than carrying it around. One of the fellas I hunt with bought a new Remington pump in 74 with two boxes of cartridges, he has shot a few deer and five moose over the years, and just got into the second box of ammo. Any gun should be able to shoot a couple hundred rounds easily, and for some this is way more than a lifetime of hunting.
A lot of hunters only hunt that one week a year and may not even pull the trigger, so basically there is no wear on the gun at all other than carrying it around. One of the fellas I hunt with bought a new Remington pump in 74 with two boxes of cartridges, he has shot a few deer and five moose over the years, and just got into the second box of ammo. Any gun should be able to shoot a couple hundred rounds easily, and for some this is way more than a lifetime of hunting.
Interesting stats . Very surprised at the high sales levels for Henry as I never see anyone using a Henry at the range . The high sales levels for the Savage Axis seems pretty normal though as many firearm owners in Canada are hunters who use their firearms only during hunting season ; so they buy at a price point as they do not want to tie up a lot of cash for a firearm that sees limited use through much of the year....
- Location
- East ontario
Bow this is not s bash against hunters, having spend 14yrs in the gun viz and more then 25years shooting guns. This is what i see
over 80% of hunters shoot less then 100rounds a year per guy they own, with some guns being less then 50.
So i Dan understand why people buy cheaply made guns.
now days with modern manufacturing such as high quality injection modeling casting MIM and case hardening. It is opposable to make a cheap long lasting basic firearm. These are idea for people who mag only shoot 500-1000 Round of ammo in a life time.
Most big brands have seen this trend and this is why you have things like Mossberg 500, savage axis ruger American.
For serious outdoors men and women as well as target shooters and competitive shooters. Those cheap products just won't do.
over 80% of hunters shoot less then 100rounds a year per guy they own, with some guns being less then 50.
So i Dan understand why people buy cheaply made guns.
now days with modern manufacturing such as high quality injection modeling casting MIM and case hardening. It is opposable to make a cheap long lasting basic firearm. These are idea for people who mag only shoot 500-1000 Round of ammo in a life time.
Most big brands have seen this trend and this is why you have things like Mossberg 500, savage axis ruger American.
For serious outdoors men and women as well as target shooters and competitive shooters. Those cheap products just won't do.
Exactly, that 740 Rem I mentioned which is now (almost) 50 years old probably doesn't have 100 rounds through it. It didn't take 20 deer while I had it (and never saw range time - you took a couple of shots to see if it was "on", then went hunting - so in a "good year" it got fired three or four times. Then about 30 years ago it got relegated to Moose hunting only. Since then I would be exaggerating if I say it has seen 40 rounds in the past 30 years since we don't get a moose tag every year and certainly don't get a moose each time we do have a tag.
I have a box of premium rounds I bought for it in 1982 (the year the Swift A-Frame first showed up) and I still have six of those original 20 shells which I saved "just for moose" - besides that I think I have put half a box of something else down the spout - and that is since 1982.
And now the Axis has been around for what? 5 or 6 years?
In that time Remington has to recall the triggers on their 700's, Winchester has shotguns that fire when you cycle them etc etc. And everything that has had problems is a "superior" model, better built, costing more because of it, better QC etc if you believe the advertisements.
Unfortunately, better rifles (or perceived better) are priced more at "what the market will bear" than any true increased production costs - at least in a proportional manner. Most of the stuff is made on a machine now with little human involvement, so not significant labour differences (and notice how a shotgun assembled in Spain still price competes with one assembled in the US or Turkey) - the difference now is probably more "how many seconds and how tight the tolerance is set" on the CNC machine - which certainly should not triple the cost of the process. I can't imagine that the employee putting together the Rem 700 gets 2 and half times the pay he gets when putting together a 783 - or that the steel and the plastic between the two is about three times the cost.
I see entry guns a lot like cars. Do you need to drop 60K on a Lexus that is built in the same plant by the same guy that builds a 20K Corolla? Do we continually argue that a Corolla is just a throw away car so we should all buy a Lexus? When you only need it to get to work and bring the groceries home, it's hard to justify the extra 40K for no other reason then "everybody" is telling you one is junk and the other is "what you need".
I have a box of premium rounds I bought for it in 1982 (the year the Swift A-Frame first showed up) and I still have six of those original 20 shells which I saved "just for moose" - besides that I think I have put half a box of something else down the spout - and that is since 1982.
And now the Axis has been around for what? 5 or 6 years?
In that time Remington has to recall the triggers on their 700's, Winchester has shotguns that fire when you cycle them etc etc. And everything that has had problems is a "superior" model, better built, costing more because of it, better QC etc if you believe the advertisements.
Unfortunately, better rifles (or perceived better) are priced more at "what the market will bear" than any true increased production costs - at least in a proportional manner. Most of the stuff is made on a machine now with little human involvement, so not significant labour differences (and notice how a shotgun assembled in Spain still price competes with one assembled in the US or Turkey) - the difference now is probably more "how many seconds and how tight the tolerance is set" on the CNC machine - which certainly should not triple the cost of the process. I can't imagine that the employee putting together the Rem 700 gets 2 and half times the pay he gets when putting together a 783 - or that the steel and the plastic between the two is about three times the cost.
I see entry guns a lot like cars. Do you need to drop 60K on a Lexus that is built in the same plant by the same guy that builds a 20K Corolla? Do we continually argue that a Corolla is just a throw away car so we should all buy a Lexus? When you only need it to get to work and bring the groceries home, it's hard to justify the extra 40K for no other reason then "everybody" is telling you one is junk and the other is "what you need".
- Location
- West Quebec
Perhaps Henry's no BS warrenty and great value for the dollar is one reason.. my lever by Henry is very high quality and the price was not outrages
I'm sorry but your post represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives the cost of a firearm up. I worked in manufacturing and have some experience of this.
CNC machines are CNC machines - this is true. On a budget rifle, you will typically see laminate or composite stocks that have been machine made, machine sanded, finished in a polymer spray and installed.
The metal parts come right off the mill, go to a particulate blasting process, are assembled and installed.
These are truly mass-produced products with minimal human touch. The finishes are the cheapest available and the tolerances between metal and stock set are left at "functional". Headspace is often a less elegant jamb nut system (ala Savage) because this saves a LOT of money in fitment.
On the "upscale" guns, the cost driver has NOTHING TO DO wit the machining processes. The cost of a trained monkey feeding bar stock into a six axis is the same for anyone and the G code has long since been paid for. It is all in fit and finish.
Go pick up a blued Wingmaster or Remington 700 BDL and glimpse what a 800 grit finish looks like. There is no trace of machine marks, just a mirror finish you can shave in. The bluing is top notch and does not rust when glanced at sideways. There was no sandblasting process to obscure lathe and mill marks. These finishes are achieved with skilled trades people who earn over $20 an hour. People who spend all day with files and various grits of emery paper making that firearm look like its price tag.
Now look at the stocks. The high-end is almost universally stocked in walnut. The walnut fitment to the metal is typically much tighter than on the lower end guns. The stocks are machine inlet to about 95%, but that last 5% is done by more skilled trades people with chisels and a practised hand. These folks also make a lot of money.
If the stock is hand checkered, like some makers offer, at least $300 of the price is hidden there. More skilled labour.
Bottom line is that mass production over many units results in economy of scale. Mass production, in most industries, aims to minimize the labour element as it drives up unit cost. People shopping in the upper tier demand and expect the incremental quality that expensive hand finishes bring to what might be their primary firearm for the next 20+ years. That is what they are paying for.
I can agree with a lot of what you say particularly if we are talking about higher end firearms.
But your explanation does not explain why a Rem 700 BDL that DOES have a high gloss Walnut stock, exotic wood forend, very nice skip line checkering and a deep blued finish wholesales for a mere 100 bucks more than a 700 SPS with it's molded synthetic stock and matte blued metal.
So my point is, why is 700 SPS "expensive" in comparison - just because they have hung the "700" model on it?
While I can personally see 400 or 500 bucks more rifle when I lay a 700 BDL beside a 783, I just don't see it when you lay that 783 beside a 700 SPS.
So is the BDL "a bargain" for what you are getting (in comparison to the SPS) or is the SPS "over priced" because the market will bear that price for "anything 700"?
But your explanation does not explain why a Rem 700 BDL that DOES have a high gloss Walnut stock, exotic wood forend, very nice skip line checkering and a deep blued finish wholesales for a mere 100 bucks more than a 700 SPS with it's molded synthetic stock and matte blued metal.
So my point is, why is 700 SPS "expensive" in comparison - just because they have hung the "700" model on it?
While I can personally see 400 or 500 bucks more rifle when I lay a 700 BDL beside a 783, I just don't see it when you lay that 783 beside a 700 SPS.
So is the BDL "a bargain" for what you are getting (in comparison to the SPS) or is the SPS "over priced" because the market will bear that price for "anything 700"?
If I had to guess, I would say that Remington's strategy is to put more margin on the SPS than the BDL in order to try and stay profitable.
The SPS should , in my view, be considerably cheaper to produce than a BDL.
"SPS" Stands for "Special Purpose Synthetic" and were, at one point, marketed as a no-nonsense tactical/police variant. Some people attach value to that (not me).
Take a look at semi-auto rifles for comparables. Anything that looks tactical gets a price premium, whether more expensive to produce or not. The FNAR is a great example. It's cheaper to manufacture than a Browning BAR, but sells for more money because it looks very "medal or honour". Both rifles have the same action/operating mechanism.
Last edited:
SPS is a total rip off imo. 783 is complete garbage imo. Look to a lower end Savage for that market (the stuff just above the Axis).
700 BDL and ADL are still good rifles. I wouldn't look at anything else from Remington and I'd STILL swap out the trigger. Not for the previous safely recall issues, because the X-Mark Pro sucks.
Agree with both Claven2's and galambs top couple posts.
700 BDL and ADL are still good rifles. I wouldn't look at anything else from Remington and I'd STILL swap out the trigger. Not for the previous safely recall issues, because the X-Mark Pro sucks.
Agree with both Claven2's and galambs top couple posts.
I bought a SPS stainless before xmas for 489.00 from a site sponsor...it functions as nice as my 1980's BDL's....I'll take a stainless over a blued barrel everyday of the week!
I've also recently bought both an Axis and 783.....I consider all my rifles as tools for a job.
Don't really care what the others have to say about these rifles, they work great for me.
I've also recently bought both an Axis and 783.....I consider all my rifles as tools for a job.
Don't really care what the others have to say about these rifles, they work great for me.
And this is where I think Savage has the advantage over Remington.
If you come in with 400 bucks you are looking at an Axis, American, Patriot or 783.
If you have 500 or 600 then I can show you a model 11/111, an XPR and even a A-Bolt III.
Add another hundred bucks an now we are getting into 11/111 heavy barrels, some model 25's the synthetic Vanguards, some Thompson Centers, Rugers with Redfield glass installed, but I still can't sell you a Rem.
Then as we hit/go a little over 800 bucks when I can start handing you a Model 10, a Walnut stocked Vanguard II and even a blued T3 you are now also at the point where you can pick up an SPS - not the stainless mind you.
So if you are a Rem fan and you don't want the 783 you better have close to a grand (with taxes in) to pick up their "next most economical model".
And I'm not arguing that say 850 bucks is a lot for a rifle. It just isn't. Yes, a lot of money to some but I don't take the attitude that "I can't afford it so it MUST BE OVERPRICED".
I own few different Vanguard II's.
My synthetic was just on 600 bucks when I bought it. I spent just under 800 for my Sporter and I "can see" that a decent walnut stock, with checkering and forend piece as being "worth almost 200 bucks more", more "premium" materials do cost money. Then my laminated stocked model was 900 bucks (in 2015 conversion dollars) which if bought at the same time as my sporter would have come in at/just under the sporter price.
I guess I'm saying that I just don't see the "asking price" in some of the offerings when, from handling them, they certainly weren't putting a lot of some "craftsman" time into the production compared to other offerings at the same price point.
It's that market in the 500 to 700 buck range - just a step up from "entry level" that has (currently) a huge void and that's where I believe more of those plastic stocked rifles should fall.
If you come in with 400 bucks you are looking at an Axis, American, Patriot or 783.
If you have 500 or 600 then I can show you a model 11/111, an XPR and even a A-Bolt III.
Add another hundred bucks an now we are getting into 11/111 heavy barrels, some model 25's the synthetic Vanguards, some Thompson Centers, Rugers with Redfield glass installed, but I still can't sell you a Rem.
Then as we hit/go a little over 800 bucks when I can start handing you a Model 10, a Walnut stocked Vanguard II and even a blued T3 you are now also at the point where you can pick up an SPS - not the stainless mind you.
So if you are a Rem fan and you don't want the 783 you better have close to a grand (with taxes in) to pick up their "next most economical model".
And I'm not arguing that say 850 bucks is a lot for a rifle. It just isn't. Yes, a lot of money to some but I don't take the attitude that "I can't afford it so it MUST BE OVERPRICED".
I own few different Vanguard II's.
My synthetic was just on 600 bucks when I bought it. I spent just under 800 for my Sporter and I "can see" that a decent walnut stock, with checkering and forend piece as being "worth almost 200 bucks more", more "premium" materials do cost money. Then my laminated stocked model was 900 bucks (in 2015 conversion dollars) which if bought at the same time as my sporter would have come in at/just under the sporter price.
I guess I'm saying that I just don't see the "asking price" in some of the offerings when, from handling them, they certainly weren't putting a lot of some "craftsman" time into the production compared to other offerings at the same price point.
It's that market in the 500 to 700 buck range - just a step up from "entry level" that has (currently) a huge void and that's where I believe more of those plastic stocked rifles should fall.
I agree with you Graham..... But, at the same time, it's all relative..... in all firearms under $1000 there seems to be a "bit better" solution that is just another $150-200....
My personal opinion is that the Ruger American or Vanguard would be the lowest end rifle I would consider.... just too many design flaws and poor fit and finish on the others.... and I will give the nod to the Vanguard between the two....
There are two sides to any coin and if all you can afford is an Axxis, then buy an Axxis if not having a rifle is keeping you out of the woods or off the bench....
If I could rewind time I wouldn't have bought the cheap stuff I had for the most part because I have lost my shirt on resale value upgrading.... I now buy exclusively Ruger M77 because they are my choice of rifle and would rather save and wait then get something cheaper in the meantime, but that is easier said when you have a few rifles and all of your "need" bases covered.....
My personal opinion is that the Ruger American or Vanguard would be the lowest end rifle I would consider.... just too many design flaws and poor fit and finish on the others.... and I will give the nod to the Vanguard between the two....
There are two sides to any coin and if all you can afford is an Axxis, then buy an Axxis if not having a rifle is keeping you out of the woods or off the bench....
If I could rewind time I wouldn't have bought the cheap stuff I had for the most part because I have lost my shirt on resale value upgrading.... I now buy exclusively Ruger M77 because they are my choice of rifle and would rather save and wait then get something cheaper in the meantime, but that is easier said when you have a few rifles and all of your "need" bases covered.....
