Classic or modern

T

TD25

Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Location
SW Ontario
Yes, another first rifle thread...

First big game rifle, looking at a 270 Win (not really looking at any other calibre). The real question for me is to get a classic blued and walnut stock rifle (Model 70), somewhat of a old timey piece for the kids or grandkids of the future. Or do I get a stainless Tikka and call it a day because they flat out shoot, wont rust, and dont really have to worry about babying the gun.

I know its personal preference but I cant make a decision. I keep looking at a few rifles on the EE and cant choose. Since its my first rifle, I wont be parting with it and will hopefully be passing it on. Hunting conditions will be classic Ontario rifle season weather for all potential big game draws. Realistic shots will be under 200 yards at most.

The only difference in the two rifles im concerned about is barrel length, one is 20" , the other 22". Im not worried about velocity loss, more about muzzle flash and noise.

Help!!
 
Sounds like you've got a good handle on the pros and cons of each, so it really is down to preference. If you have the patience, guys here (and elsewhere) will talk your ear off for hours on additional differences that you haven't thought of. The biggest of which (for me) is the weight difference - For most people lighter is better for carrying, and heavier is better for shooting.

But you should really handle each side by side - Or shoot them side by side if possible! They feel remarkably different, and you won't know just how important that is to you until you get your hands on them.
 
TD25 said:
.... Since its my first rifle, I wont be parting with it ...
Click to expand...

And don't get hung up on this - After 30-some years of hunting and I don't know how many rifles, I haven't come across a "never sell" hunting rifle. Maybe the next one I try...
 
I like and own only “Classic” rifles, wood stock and blue steel!! Never had rust issues but I do care for my guns w/o babying them, they are all users! But really it is only a matter of preferences!
 
Being born into a hunting family in the early 1970s, I grew up seeing mostly walnut and deep bluing. Optics were mounted on some rifles but the iron sights were still present. As a teen, the clean barrels and either laminate or synthetic stocks were becoming more prevelent. I love the look and feel of the walnut and blued rifles but appreciate the benefits of the stainless, titanium, light weight synthetics, carbon, and high magnification on optics. I own both styles and my rifle choice depends on the type and terrain for the hunt. Stainless/Synthetics for the mountains and long hikes across the prairies, walnut and blued for the blind or close range in the parkland and boreal.

Either style of rifle can be an excellent shooter or become your main rifle. Pick the one that feels right when you shoulder it or set your mind to buying both.
 
alpining said:
And don't get hung up on this - After 30-some years of hunting and I don't know how many rifles, I haven't come across a "never sell" hunting rifle. Maybe the next one I try...
Click to expand...

^ +1

I vowed not to sell my first, a Browning BLR. I took my first two head of big game (Moose & Deer) in consecutive years using it. I was happy and confident in it.

Yet as Camp/Terrain dynamics changed, I needed to change my setup accordingly. Been up and down the Cal chart, Blued, Matte, Stainless, Wood and Synthetic. I've sold or traded some that I really shouldn't have, no doubt will do it again, but each served their purpose accordingly. I'm not even sure of which irriteration I'm currently on, but it is what I need at the moment.

Your Cal choice of .270 will serve you well here in Ont. covering all three big game species.

Deciding on a Blued/Wood, Stainless/Laminate or a Stainless Synthetic setup comes down to what handles well and whats aesthetically pleasing to you.
 
Classic look. Walnut and blued metal. With iron sites even if you use a scope

Or

stainless with synthetic no iron sites and a scope.

I dont like the half breeds or laminate stocks
 
TD25 said:
Is the 20" a major issue inside 200 yards? Im leaning towards wood and blued which is the 20". Tikkas are frequent enough i wouldnt feel bad passing on one right now.
Click to expand...

it was built 20 inches for a reason - the trade off would be about 100 fps less velocity but a much better rifle to point shoot and carry. 20 inches for the win
 
TD25 said:
Is the 20" a major issue inside 200 yards? Im leaning towards wood and blued which is the 20". Tikkas are frequent enough i wouldnt feel bad passing on one right now.
Click to expand...

There isn't an animal out there that's going to notice 50fps less bullet velocity on impact.

OP, you've been lurking on this site since 2015 and have a feedback score.

How is it you've never purchased a rifle?

If you're a handgunner, you know that ergonomics is a major factor.

I have several rifles to choose from to hunt/shoot.

My go to hunting rifle is a stock, off the shelf, SS, Tikka T3, 6.5x55. It fits me like it was custom made for me and shoots better than I am capable of holding.

I also have a couple of Model 70 Winchester rifles.

A 338-06, 30-06 and a 22-250.

It would be hard for me to say which rifle fits or shoots better.

All of them shoot very well.

The Tikka is lighter and handier than the Model 70s, which are wood stocked.

They all fit me well, because I made sure the stocks had a length of pull that was tolerable with both light and heavy clothing.

I love the look and heft of the wood stocks and like the look of the Model 70 system overall.

The Tikka is just as attractive albeit more modern looking.

Go to your local gun shop and check out both. Whichever appeals to you, eyes and hands on, go for it.

You might even be able to get a better deal at your local LGS, from what I've seen in online prices, many of which are just online auctions.
 
I have classic, older, and modern. I like them all, but if a fire broke out in my house and I can take only two, it would be my IZH '54 Tula SKS and my 1950 7x57 Brno 21H (and if there's room to swing one over my shoulder, my 2014 Brno Effect in 308). The rest can be replaced.
 
The performance of the .270 cartridge from a 20" barrel or a 22" barrel is close enough that there is no practical difference in the bush. But I would not own a .270 with a 20" barrel. I hunted with a buddy who had one, and the muzzle blast was horrific! Very very loud and obnoxious. He had used 22" barrel .270 previously and the difference was very noticeable. After he used that thing for one season he sold it and went back to a rifle with a normal length barrel. Your hearing and that of your kids with be better if you stay away from the noisy short barrels ( and muzzle brakes too). And check the handling of rifles with short barrels. Most are muzzle light, and difficult to shoot well offhand or in unsupported positions. Balance matters more than " handiness" to me, but some would disagree.
 
TD25 said:
Is the 20" a major issue inside 200 yards? ....
Click to expand...

Ballistically, it's insignificant for most.

Blast and noise will be greater, though, which matters to some. You should get one and try it out. If you don't like shooting / carrying it, you can always find the longer / lighter synthetic option easily enough at a later time.

You're not going to theorize your way into the perfect rifle for you - You need practical context. If you can't try before you buy, you're just going to have to buy before you try.
 
Go both ways if you’re unsure. Get a stainless synthetic M70. I’ve had two blued/walnut offerings, a supergrade and an Alaskan. They are awesome guns. They have awesome triggers, actions and accuracy. You can’t go wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom