Anyone else think economy rifles degrade brand?
- Thread starter shorttrac
- Start date
- Status
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I like the idea of having entry level rifles available.
It makes it easier for new shooters to get into the game, and it makes it easier for fellows like me to experiment with new catridges and the like.
Nowadays, if a fellow wants to own a .243, just because he wants to give it a try, he can have an Axis package for $350; and even if he hates how it performs on the bow-legged-spotted-night-gobblers in his area, that fellow knows he can flip the thing for maybe a $25 - $50 loss, so why not experiment?
In the grand old days when rifle/scope packages cost 4-5 times that much, guys were doing a lot less experimenting, shooting, and finding what works for them.
I honestly think that cost was something that contributed to some fellows vehemently defending whatever rifle/catridge combination they had in the old days - they couldn't afford to switch up, and so they had to convince everyone (including themselves) that they owned the best darn thing. If they could have flipped what they had (and slightly disliked) for an hour's wages to try other things, I think there would have been fewer fanatical fans of one cartridge or another, and more happy shooters.
Not that I think entry level rifles are the be-all and end-all, but they give shooters more options.
And lots of entry-level rifle owners still buy more expensive rifles later on. I likely would not dump $1200 on a new rifle chambered in a cartridge that I had not "test-driven" in either a used or entry level rifle beforehand, for example.
As long as manufacturers keep on making their regular line of rifles, I'm perfectly fine with entry level rifles.
It makes it easier for new shooters to get into the game, and it makes it easier for fellows like me to experiment with new catridges and the like.
Nowadays, if a fellow wants to own a .243, just because he wants to give it a try, he can have an Axis package for $350; and even if he hates how it performs on the bow-legged-spotted-night-gobblers in his area, that fellow knows he can flip the thing for maybe a $25 - $50 loss, so why not experiment?
In the grand old days when rifle/scope packages cost 4-5 times that much, guys were doing a lot less experimenting, shooting, and finding what works for them.
I honestly think that cost was something that contributed to some fellows vehemently defending whatever rifle/catridge combination they had in the old days - they couldn't afford to switch up, and so they had to convince everyone (including themselves) that they owned the best darn thing. If they could have flipped what they had (and slightly disliked) for an hour's wages to try other things, I think there would have been fewer fanatical fans of one cartridge or another, and more happy shooters.
Not that I think entry level rifles are the be-all and end-all, but they give shooters more options.
And lots of entry-level rifle owners still buy more expensive rifles later on. I likely would not dump $1200 on a new rifle chambered in a cartridge that I had not "test-driven" in either a used or entry level rifle beforehand, for example.
As long as manufacturers keep on making their regular line of rifles, I'm perfectly fine with entry level rifles.
Last edited:
I agree with both the original post and those who maintain that it doesn't matter for bush shots. I pay money for the right tools for activities that I do a lot of and that I enjoy. My rifles, consequently are no longer entry levels and the extra "fondle" money is worth it for me. Still, on many hunts, there are coupe of guys with a old 111 packages (pre-axis cheap Savage models) and they do great. These are guys that never felt the need to pay any more. They got one rifle, got the feel.of the heavy trigger and now use it for everything and they are just as deadly with them.
Given the fact that nearly all the companies are doing it (heck, even Vangaurd could be considered an economy model when put bedside a Mark V) it's obviously a financial necessity. If it keeps the companies going so they can turn out the top end stuff then I guess it falls to us to be more understanding.
Given the fact that nearly all the companies are doing it (heck, even Vangaurd could be considered an economy model when put bedside a Mark V) it's obviously a financial necessity. If it keeps the companies going so they can turn out the top end stuff then I guess it falls to us to be more understanding.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Years back in Saskatchewan quite a few other more flush with cash hunters, looked down thier noses at my plain jane 788.
But every fall I was tagged out and most often with just one shot per beast.
At the time this was all we could afford and a few years later my wife gifted me a Leupold Vari-X III to put on this deer rifle.
You should have have seen my clunker shotguns too! (pre-steel shot)
We all have to start somewhere.
But every fall I was tagged out and most often with just one shot per beast.
At the time this was all we could afford and a few years later my wife gifted me a Leupold Vari-X III to put on this deer rifle.
You should have have seen my clunker shotguns too! (pre-steel shot)
We all have to start somewhere.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
This sensitivity to honest questions and light criticism among some is a pretty common theme here. I was just elected to armchair expert and elitist snob for suggesting a fellow's friend practice shooting before shooting the feet off more animals, he had stated his friend had trouble shooting past 100 yards and exactly the former happened when he took a shot. His friend cleaned up the mess and posted about it. For the suggestion, I enjoyed several posts deep of the usual sensitivity, same sentiments here.
Nothing wrong with using a budget rifle, some guys do great work with them. Those really into the sport often enjoy tools that reflect that, and when brands we've grown up knowing as quality join the budget group it's a bit saddening to many of us. That's the part that irks me, companies like Ruger, who I really admire product wise, moving into bottom basement rifles and tacticool. They're chasing the $, it's a publicly traded company and they have to, just a shame to some like me that's where we're all headed. The good stuff will get more expensive, the cheap stuff cheaper.
handofzeus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Trout Creekish Ontario.
In the case of the Savage Axis? YES. In the case of the Stevens 200? NO.
I think its a fine analogy. If you baby a quality car it will last just as long as if you baby a quality gun. Treat either like crap and they won't last long. The analogy ends when it comes to your grand kids wanting it. I would have done anything for my grandfathers GTO, but I have no interest in his guns. I might take one for sentiment, but I have pictures for that so probably not. In reality they will be sold to the highest bidder in an estate sale.
As for the quality vs budget gun debate, different people see value in different things. You will never catch me driving anything less then a Lexus/Acura/Infiniti and even then its borderline depending on model. Also I believe anything less then a "mid luxury" car is crap not worth buying. But honestly, I don't see the value in 'high end' guns over my 290 dollar axis. Different things for different people.
Last edited:
You didn't uderstand me...the point was that if you are going to give people flak for buying a cheap product VS one of quality then you had better be the type that buys nothing but quality products otherwise you are in no position to judge. Guns, cars, trucks, tools, electronics, etc., they all come in various grades and qualities and they all have a place in todays market.
I for one would rather see a person start with a bottom of the line gun and invest more $$$ in ammo and practice in order to become comfortable and efficient at placing a well aimed shot on target. In the field a $400 dollar Savage or Stevens is just as accurate and reliable as a $3000 Cooper or H.S. Precision rifle and if taken care of, will last just as long and can be handed down to the grand-children.
- Location
- Where the sun shines
My $100 Mosin-Nagant will kill a bull moose just as dead as your $1500 Remington. And it is pushing 70 years of age.
A Stevens 200 will also kill that moose just as dead. So will the 710, the 770, and any other 'economy' rifle you want to name.
A Stevens 200 will also kill that moose just as dead. So will the 710, the 770, and any other 'economy' rifle you want to name.
Ok fair point. I have not handled an Axis or an American, but I have handled Cooey and CIL and they certainly don't feel like they're going to fall apart.
I agree full heartedly about the saving funds point. I am a FIRM believer in saving as much money as possible to get the best possible product (within reason... I'm not saying save for 20 years so I can afford an H&H double rifle as my first rifle, but saving a few extra months to buy a $900 rifle versus a $400 rifle makes complete sense in my mind).
However, at least in my mind the analogy of snap-on vs. powerfist or other premium to budget brand tools does make sense. How much deader can a $1200 rifle make a deer compared to an Axis?
But then the question of longevity does come in for me since I like to buy something nice, and hold onto it for a long time. I do believe that a well maintained and built rifle can last nearly indefinitely so I'm going to buy something that I am happy with in the long run. But I still stand by my earlier post about potentially having to purchase a cheaper rifle for someone like myself who is just getting into firearms and hunting to spread funds around to other hobbies when I am still not totally convinced that I am awesomely smitten by them.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Yep, and hope I can reiterate my comments regard the cheapening of brands we've grown to know to stand for certain things, that's what I take this thread as being. I'm not against cheap guns (unless Chinese and at the expense of western makers), it's as simple to me as don't buy them if you don't like them. It is simply sad for many of us seeing a company as in my case like Ruger start turning out bottom budget plasticized stuff when the company was built on quality steel and walnut (and some well used aluminum in the 10/22). I'm sure Bill Ruger Sr., or even Roy Weatherby, wouldn't be too pleased with where their companies are headed.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Not sure how much work you've done with powerfist, but my experience is they're OK for light duty, truck tools, and you don't sweat losing them- personally I haven't bought any in likely almost 10 years, most of it gave up the ghost somehow or other (a sand blasting cabinet comes to mind, and a jack, and that's likely it). Some guns are desirable in that niche too, this thread is degenerating from its intent however regarding brand damage.
As for buying prestige, I know a few guys here myself included who've never posted their nicest guns, and in fact I've only hunted alone with mine. Some of us just enjoy quality and for us, it adds to the experience, I took that comment of more of the automatic assumption of snobbery if you have rifles above several thousand in value.
Not on your life if you work to earn a living with them. I like my knuckles and could not care less what peers think.
- Location
- Alta/Sask Border Country
Not sure where you get that my guns and my 60's Impalas will be given to and enjoyed by my grand kids. All about how you take care of your stuff.
It is a matter of taste, means and priority, expensive long guns are a nice investment doubled with great performance, an entry level rifle is performing and is a tool, everyone sit were they want, i will shoot my Nemesis or my Steyr at the range with the same passion as i will shoot a Marlin X7 or a 22 lr, the key word here is shoot... JP.
I own some good quality firearms but never thought that it made me a better shooter, hunter or person in society. The Reminton 710, 770 and el al utilitarian makes has it's challenges and wouldn't trust such a firearm in the lonely wilderness. I don't look down at the person, I look down at the gun.
- Status
