new versus old

newbedoo

newbedoo

Member
Rating - 100%
157   0   0
Location
EDMONTON
How do modern $500-600 22 rifles compare to 1960s single shot match rifles like Anschutz 54,Walther, Schultz & Larsen, Valmet single shot match rifles like the ones TEC Trade Ex sells?
Plan on shooting up to 100 yards at a range for fun and personal challange
 
I have some great old stuff, but there nothing like choosing something based on your own narrow criteria and buying it brand new. Many times you come across an old rifle, and you may compromise, or just settle as there could be fewer choices. 600.00 isnt much to risk Ive paid more for some of my air rifles and still no regrets. My 2 cents.
 
Some of the old iron is definitely a crap shoot. I've been pleasantly surprised and other times quite dissapointed. When buying new it should be pristine. If you're handy and a decent home smith by all means try and older used rifle as you usually always have to fix something. I once bought an older mossberg 46b from a dealer that was supposed to work. Not so it had multiple issues but being handy I fixed them all.
 
Thanks for the info.
I am a old fart and do like the old guns but think unless you are willing to pay big bucks for a true fine classic
new is hard to beat for the money
 
Rarity is what I look for. Many people pass up an older .22 rifle for the latest and greatest which is a good thing because all that means is that the selling price for the old stuff remains relatively low. I enjoy doing the reasearch into the history of older guns and I find that they have more personality than newer ones. It is also nice to be the only person at the range with that rifle and when it draws a crowd, for me it is a bonus because I am totally into the social aspect of shooting. The other thing that I find is that there is a greater chance of an older gun appreciating in value.

As for accuracy, the majority of new $600 guns are mass produced and more corners are cut than ever before to maximize profit which I feel effect quality control and thus accuracy. Labour and material are higher than ever which is why something like a walnut stock on a $600 gun is becoming quite rare. Older guns were produced when labour and materials were cheap so I personally believe you are getting a better overall rifle.
 
I have owned both old and new 22s ,, the new ones blow away the old ones .. new guns are built smarter more precision with cnc machined parts the old guns were hit and miss ,, new guns have better triggers, and overall way more accurate then the old guns
 
Is there a $500 - $600 new rifle that is truly an accurate shooter? I suppose it depends on one's definition of accuracy, but I don't know of any new rifles under $600 (even $1000?) without modification that can easily complete the 1/2" rimfire challenge here in this forum. If you look at the results, there are not many CZ's or Savages on the list. This is not to say a CZ or a Savage cannot meet the challenge, for they have. The point is that there are not many. There are, however, a lot of older European rifles. Rifles such as Anschutz and Walther simply have better barrels and triggers than any new $500 - $600 rifles, and many of them have stocks configured for target shooting. Sporters have a harder time competing with them.
 
Last edited:
grauhanen said:
Is there a $500 - $600 new rifle that is truly an accurate shooter? I suppose it depends on one's definition of accuracy, but I don't know of any new rifles under $600 (even $1000?) without modification that can easily complete the 1/2" rimfire challenge here in this forum. If you look at the results, there are not many CZ's or Savages on the list. This is not to say a CZ or a Savage cannot meet the challenge, for they have. The point is that there are not many. There are, however, a lot of older European rifles. Rifles such as Anschutz and Walther simply have better barrels and triggers than any new $500 - $600 rifles, and many of them have stocks configured for target shooting. Sporters have a harder time competing with them.
Click to expand...
Yes my preference as well. I've tried a few vintage sporter American made rimfires and although they shoot good none would have made the 1/2" challenge. My European match rifles and Sporter stock have all made the challenge. I struggled with my CZ 452 and my 455 and my savage but they all made the challenge but not low averages.
I have a vintage shultz and larson match rifle on its way and hope to see it shoot under a half inch.
 
The best shooter I ever owned was a 1958 Bruno #4, on par and usally better than my sako P94 finnfire
A BSA international match was right up there as well.
Had a annie 54 , but did not work for me, other guys had better luck with that one.
new stuff, I don't use it so don't know, I admire the coopers, but buy too many handguns now.
 
Gordon M said:
I have owned both old and new 22s ,, the new ones blow away the old ones .. new guns are built smarter more precision with cnc machined parts the old guns were hit and miss ,, new guns have better triggers, and overall way more accurate then the old guns
Click to expand...

With you on this one old usually means lower quality, and fit and finish is always suspect, the metallurgy is always poor at best, there is a reason they all require lighter loads then the modern stuff.
 
Here is the original question:

newbedoo said:
How do modern $500-600 22 rifles compare to 1960s single shot match rifles like Anschutz 54,Walther, Schultz & Larsen, Valmet single shot match rifles like the ones TEC Trade Ex sells?
Click to expand...

Gordon M said:
I have owned both old and new 22s ,, the new ones blow away the old ones .. new guns are built smarter more precision with cnc machined parts the old guns were hit and miss ,, new guns have better triggers, and overall way more accurate then the old guns
Click to expand...

Grock-co said:
With you on this one old usually means lower quality, and fit and finish is always suspect, the metallurgy is always poor at best, there is a reason they all require lighter loads then the modern stuff.
Click to expand...

Gordon M, have you compared the rifles referred to in the original question with new, $500 -$600 .22's? What new .22's "blow away the old ones"? Maybe you are comparing inexpensive older North American .22's with inexpensive newer ones, in which case you might have a point -- but it is not relevant to this thread.

Grock-co, do you really mean to assert that older rifles such as those referred to by the OP are of "lower quality", always have "suspect" fit and finish, and suffer from "poor at best" metallurgy? Such claims would have little merit. Further, why would all older .22's require "lighter loads" than modern ones? Are you lamenting that match rifles don't like Stingers? They are not designed to shoot them. Match rifles are designed for accuracy, which is best obtained with standard velocity ammo. On the other hand, perhaps you are confusing .22's with center fire rifles.
 
Last edited:
newbedoo said:
How do modern $500-600 22 rifles compare to 1960s single shot match rifles like Anschutz 54,Walther, Schultz & Larsen, Valmet single shot match rifles like the ones TEC Trade Ex sells?
Plan on shooting up to 100 yards at a range for fun and personal challange
Click to expand...

newbedoo....from your list, I currently own a '71 Schultz & Larsen (from Trade Ex). The rifle has been fully restored and is beautiful! It has a set of diopter sights and the trigger is the best of all the firearms I own.
My "modern" rimfire is a Savage MKII TR. In my eyes it satisfies my "tactical" wants in rimfire. All black, fluted bbl, over-sized bolt knob, bi-pod, stock, etc.
The S&L consistently shoots one hole groups with CCI SV at 25yrds with the diopters. The TR prefers CCI Blazers and shoots similar groups (but not as consistent) and has a heavier trigger.
Fit and finnish goes the the S&L as well as accuracy (at diopter sight distances:)). The TR gets the nod at longer distances due to it being scoped.

Both are great rifles IMO. Glad I don't have to choose only one.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom