Cheap vs. Expensive Hunting Rifles: Which is Right for You

1ABNDT

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2021/6/23/cheap-vs-expensive-hunting-rifles-which-is-right-for-you

photo-1.jpg


Cheap vs. Expensive Hunting Rifles: Which is Right for You?
by Aram von Benedikt - Wednesday, June 23, 2021


Cheap vs. Expensive Hunting Rifles: Which is Right for You?


Recently I had a conversation with a young hunting enthusiast. I posed a question to him; “If you were capable of paying for either, would you choose to purchase a hunting rifle costing a few hundred dollars, or a hunting rifle that cost a few thousand dollars?”

His answer? “I’d buy the few-hundred dollar version, every time.”

He went on to say that he’d look for an older, high-quality used rifle. Since I’m familiar with his infatuation with pre-’64 Winchesters (an affinity I share) I knew where he was going with this.

I then asked “What if you were headed on a coastal Alaska hunt for Sitka Blacktail deer where you would be exposed to constant rainfall and salt sea air?” His eyes almost crossed at the mental sight of his beautiful old Winchester rusting away. We agreed that a stainless rifle in a composite stock would be a wiser choice, given the circumstances.

I then threatened his rifle with sub-zero conditions where an inexpensive composite stock (injection-molded) would be prone to shatter if accidentally banged against some inopportune rock or tree trunk. His eyes kind of got that deer in the headlights look.

Lastly, I’ll add this to our scenario: You’ve purchased a new rifle, scheduled a hunt for trophy Sitka deer on Kodiak Island, and have spent the better part of a week glassing for big bucks and dodging brown bears. Now, finally, you’ve spotted a monster buck. Problem is, he’s 482-yards distant across a canyon, and working slowly away and out of your life. There is no way you can close the distance for an easier shot. It’s a now or never opportunity on a world-class buck. To cleanly harvest him, you’ll need a rifle with which you can place an accurate, lethal shot on a smallish target at extended distance.

Now, considering all the above criteria, I’ll ask you the same question:

Would you buy a cheap hunting rifle, or an expensive one?


Cheap Facts and Expensive Realities
It’s a simple fact that most of us, myself included, will never NEED a multi-thousand dollar rifle. For less than a quarter of that amount we can buy a rifle capable of completing 85 percent of whatever tasks we throw at it.

It is, however, also a reality that if you like hard-core hunting adventures, a cheap rifle won’t cut the mustard. Why not? Well, let’s take a close look at the differences between, say, a $450 dollar rifle and a $2,250 dollar rifle.


The Lowdown on Cheap Rifles
Candidly, manufacturers can’t invest much money and time to build an inexpensive rifle. Barrels, actions, and stocks have to click off the line like so many Cheetos, and snap together like a lid onto a service-station cup. What about the trigger? It must be as cheap to produce as a plastic fork-and-spoon set, and will be just as refined. Funny thing is, though, plastic tableware works okay, service-station cups do the job, and Cheetos taste great. They’ll get the job done. However, plastic-ware is not suitable for cutting and serving a fine steak, service-station cups don’t last long, and Cheetos sure don’t add to your health and vigor. In similar fashion, cheap barrels don’t generally shoot awesome, cheap actions aren’t as smooth and reliable, and cheap stocks are inconsistent and can fail under adverse conditions. A cheap trigger will drive a saint to strong drink.

But can you kill big game with an inexpensive, cookie-cutter rifle? You bet you can. If you hunt whitetail deer from box blinds at distances of 200 yards and less, an inexpensive rifle will do everything you’ll ever need. You can even hunt elk in the Rockies, pronghorn on the plains, and mule deer in the sage with such a rifle. It’ll work just fine, most of the time.

Unfortunately, the things that make a rifle inexpensive to produce and affordable to buy are the same things that render it unsuitable for hardcore hunting adventures. In terrible weather the cheap finish will rust away before your eyes. The mass-produced action may let you down when a grizzly bear considers adding you to his menu. And the plastic stock can shatter in extreme cold or interfere with accuracy in extremely hot weather. The rifle likely won’t provide consistently great accuracy when exposed to adverse weather, hard backcountry living, and accumulated bumps and bruises.

That is why, my friend, a cheap rifle won’t cut the mustard for hardcore, wilderness-type hunting.


The Upshot on Upscale Rifles
In rifles, as in every other aspect of life, the old adage “You get what you pay for” holds true. To continue our culinary comparison here, when you fork over a couple grand on a hunting rifle you’re getting the equivalent of a beautiful steak that’s been grilled to perfection. A sharp knife and a polished stainless steel fork peek from their wrapping in a fresh cloth napkin. And the beverage of your choice is served in nice crystal (or a sturdy tin cup alongside a smoky campfire; your preference). You get the picture.

Expensive rifles generally feature high-quality stainless barreled actions. The metalwork throughout is often coated with an abrasion- and corrosion-resistant finish. The action has been methodically milled to high tolerances, creating a smooth and reliable system. And the bore was carefully cut and perhaps hand-lapped to provide superior accuracy. A top-end trigger assembly is meticulously tuned and attached. The assembly is then fit into a composite stock made of hand-laid fiberglass, carbon, or aramid fibers and epoxy. From the recoil pad to the muzzle, materials and craftsmanship are all high quality.

Can you kill something deader with this rifle than you can with a cheap rifle? No. But you may succeed in making meat with this rifle in cases where you might fail with the cheap edition. It will be more accurate, more reliable, tougher, and more forgiving to shoot. The composite stock is very durable and not susceptible to changes in temperature or humidity. The metalwork and bore will be weather resistant and slow to corrode. The action will be smooth and reliable. And the trigger will make a saint of you.

What Will You Buy?
In the end, the choice is up to you. If you have no plans nor desire to hunt hardcore, then an inexpensive rifle will work perfectly. Keep it clean, don’t take real long shots or hunt grizzly bears, and it’ll serve you well for years. For great cheap rifles check out the T/C Venture II, the Mossberg Patriot, and Winchester’s XPR models. They will reduce the thickness of your wallet to the tune of $450 - $700.

If, on the other hand, you’re one of those hardcore hunters that dreams of backpack hunting mule deer where the saw-tooth peaks cut the sky, pursuing caribou in the arctic circle, or horsepacking for late-season elk in Montana’s Rocky mountains, consider saving up for an expensive rifle. Three of my favorites are Browning’s X-Bolt Pro, Kimber’s Mountain Ascent, and Weatherby’s Backcountry. All can be purchased for between $2,000 and $2,500.

Author’s Note: Old “inexpensive” rifles can be very interesting. Back before stainless steel and composite stocks were ever used in rifle building, manufacturers built some great rifles. They hand-tuned the actions, hand polished their barrels, and finished them with a deep, rust-resistant bluing. They attached good triggers. They fit the barreled actions into good walnut stocks. These rifles were and still are awesome, though not incredibly accurate by today’s standards. Eventually, legal liability forced manufacturers to reduce their trigger assemblies to something that required vice-grip pliers to touch the thing off. Metallurgy and manufacturing standards fell off. “Value” rifles became the mass-produced things we’re familiar with today.

My point is this: if you can find an old Winchester Model 70 or Remington 700, you’ll likely be able to purchase it for $1000 or less. It will not shoot with today’s high-end rifles, nor will it be as weather and temperature resistant. But it will be a great hunting rifle.
 
They don't make 'em like they used to, so I'd go for an older model.

Pre-'64 seems to be a safe bet for any make, not just Winchester.

Take your time and find one in excellent shape. They're out there.
 
Does anyone have personal experience with shattering a cheap composite stock in really cold weather? Or is that statement perhaps a bit hyperbolic?
 
Does anyone have personal experience with shattering a cheap composite stock in really cold weather? Or is that statement perhaps a bit hyperbolic?

I personally do not, but would not exclude the scenario from not being possible.
 
I'm really pleased with Zastava bolt action rifles. Price-wise just a little bit above cheap, but quality wise, they display old world craftsmanship and quality rarely seen in much of anthing anymore and provide controlled feed with a true 98 Mauser action. Mine is reliable and accurate with all kinds of home-loads. There is a good selection of calibers for about everything from varmints to big game.
 
I opted or a new sub $1000 rifle as a beater. I know how I treat my rifles, some cases it is deffinately better no to have an expensive one.

Personal preference I find myself reaching more and more for my beaters. Ride em hard and put em away wet, don't loose any sleep.
 
Last edited:
If someone is actually going to hunt hard , then cheaper is better as rifles do get banged around if hunted hard with . Budget rifles from Savage , Remington and Ruger are pretty accurate , and you see them sell used in the 350 to 450 range on a regular basis . Buy cheap , don't worry about scratches , and laugh all the way to the bank .
 
Does anyone have personal experience with shattering a cheap composite stock in really cold weather? Or is that statement perhaps a bit hyperbolic?

I agree.
I have had some very cheap plastic stocked rifles out in -30c weather and was never worried at all that the stock would shatter from being too brittle.
 
I agree.
I have had some very cheap plastic stocked rifles out in -30c weather and was never worried at all that the stock would shatter from being too brittle.

Same, I've been out in - 25c with my old savage axis and never once had a worry about the stock.
 
I started with budget guns... I've now sold off all my budget guns and went to proper ones. I'd still recommend going budget because it helped me figure out what I want from them. It's also easier to sell budget guns if you don't like them or move on, than high-end guns.

SKS and Modern Sporter are hardly comparable.

____
best fixed blade knives under 50
 
Last edited:
I'm in the process of selling every one of my budget guns. They feel horrible, shoot mediocre groups and they are the last firearms out of my safe for any task.
 
My cheap stainless 7mm-08 Savage axis sits pillar bedded in a Boyd's laminate stock with a timney trigger.
It would have zero trouble taking that trophy buck at 482 yards shooting Berger Hunting 140 VLD's ...:)
 
Last edited:
This article is idiotic. It makes it out as if there are only $500 and $3000 rifles. You can get a Tikka T3 that can make that hypothetical shot no problem for under 1k. Never mind the fact that as long as you have a moa capable rifle it's the optic that counts for shots like that. I get the guy has a certain number of articles he has to write to get paid. But at least be objective. I don't know anything about the author, but based on this write up I have to assume he has a steel plate in his skull and an electromagnet in his rectum.
 
Fwiw... I ran into a native trapper at the local gun store in Fort mcmurray. He trapped in the firebug area BTW.

He said all his rifles are now wood stocked, because on a snow mobile riding through the bush, when it's really cold, if the synthetic stock hits a tree it breaks. He said cost of the rifle didn't matter so he had given up on all of them.

Incidentally, he also mentioned he had recently shot a huge trophy moose, which was the last time he'd do that.
Now he had a pile of meat that was tough as shoe leather.

Regarding the article, the logic to me is a bit off. You should only shoot game to the range you've tested your equipment and yourself to.
Right now there are many excellent $500-800 used controlled feed guns like voere, Husqvarna etc in 30-06 on the market that I would trust completely on a (hypothetical) expensive hunt.

I suspect some magnum hunters have too much gun and a flinch, and do more missing/wounding at those long range shots mentioned in the article. The price of the gun they shoot is inconsequential.
 
Last edited:
To each their own, Period. Everyone will have their opinion and preferences. I don’t enjoy the current budget-oriented musings. I don’t care for the flimsy I’ll-fitted stocks and pressed-on barrels, horrible triggers, etc. While I cannot afford those luxury hand-laid jobs either, it doesn’t stop me from drooling over such aspirations lol. I prefer those moderately-priced used quality firearms that are seemingly harder to come by. Most of my hunting rifles are older than myself. Variety is really the spice of life. We’re fortunate to live in a world of some many choices.
 
What the author seems to forget is that many of the "budget" rifles can be easily upgraded. Remington and Savage both have many aftermarket options in stocks, triggers, and even barrels. Expensive doesn't necessarily mean better. There's a good chance that you are getting better quality, and better accuracy, but there is no guarantee. One of the reasons that I think that you often see so much disdain for Savage's is because often that $500 rifle will outshoot many $2000+ rifles. Often the expensive rifles have a lot more flash, deeper blue on the actions, and really nice wood, but neither of those thing will inherently make the rifle shoot better, just make it prettier.

Case in point. About 15 years ago Weatherby offered a series of rifles in their MOA line. These were definitely a step up from the Vanguards that were around, and the price reflected that. Great name....MOA. However if you read the literature on them they were only guaranteed to shoot 1 1/2 MOA with premium ammunition. Were they worth the extra money? I don't know, as I never bought on. They sure were pretty though.
 
Back
Top Bottom