picking a new groundhog gun - VTR .223?

[blargon]

What's a groundhog? Haven't seen one in years...

 

[chuck nelson]

Oh yeah, I forgot. The important factor in choosing a gun is what self-appointed arbiters of aesthetics will think of how it looks on you.

I've no doubt a Savage looks better in Saskatchewan.

 

[mike shickele]

I just bought a CZ527 M1 synthetic, and minus the iron sights that you are looking for, it may fit your purposes very well. By lightweight 223's, I presume that you are thinking actions such as the CZ527, mini mauser (rem799), and small Sakos.
Mike

 

[Timberwolfe]

I would get a CZ 527 American in what ever flavor you like best. I have a 204 which I love. But if you plan on shooting lots of paper 223 would be a far better choice.

 

[gibbs]

Been a while since I hunted groundhogs, but I don't recall them being the brightest game on the planet. I've bagged them with anything from a .22 Lr up to a .243. I wouldn't neccesarily limit myself to a centerfire for groundhogs, a .22mag or .17 HMR would mess up a ground hog at quite a distance and be a lot cheaper for the rifle and for the ammo for target work. For CF, yes the .223 is the cheapest factory ammo you will likely find. Around here ammo prices are as follows:

.223: $12.50/20 rounds (American Eagle)
.22 mag: $ 15.00/ 50 rounds
.17 HMR: $16.00/50 rounds

 

[scott_r]

Me too, garbage Remingtons ...
4 that all shoot under 1/2 MOA and 2 that shoot under 1/4 MOA.

None have barrel nuts, plastic bolt shrouds or trigger guards.

Each to their own ... whatever floats your boat.

Plastic bolt shrouds and trigger guards..ouch!! A stock Tikka will out shoot a stock Remington any day of the week and thats all that matters.

 

[Artie Fufkin]

Think the VTR is just fine. If you like it go for it.

 

[chuck nelson]

Plastic bolt shrouds and trigger guards..ouch!! A stock Tikka will out shoot a stock Remington any day of the week and thats all that matters.

Prove that please.

As an aside, accurate junk is still accurate junk.

 

[KDX]

Hahaha. Some good posts here. I've never owned a Remington and probably won't as there are a lot of quality control issues with the new ones (as per some posts here on CGN) and I've found what I need and like in other brands. It's a Ford/Chevy kind of thing with Remington sneaking up on Yugo.

 

[chuck nelson]

For kicks.

A Remington receiver and a Remington barrel do suck.

 

[KDX]

How come you can't hit the target Chuck?

 

[blargon]

A stock Tikka will out shoot a stock Remington any day of the week

Define "out-shoot"...I've had a few of each, and have yet to see any difference in accuracy, as all would shoot under an inch...

If you're arguing that a rifle that shoots a .3" group is better than one that shoots a .5" group, well thats just silly...

and thats all that matters.

That may be all that matters to you, but fit and feel matters to others...

 

[beretta boy]

.... A stock Tikka will out shoot a stock Remington any day of the week and thats all that matters.

Horsefeathers !

 

[blargon]

How come you can't hit the target Chuck?

Needs more plastic...

 

[gunrunner100]

Buy what you can afford to feed.

 

[Artie Fufkin]

Buy what you can afford to feed.

Ha, best advice yet. Thats why I don't own a 338 Lapua....

 

[KDX]

Needs more plastic...

That's kind of like high speed low drag.

 

[scott_r]

Prove that please.

As an aside, accurate junk is still accurate junk.

Id rather shoot accurate junk vs. plain old junk like a Remington. Remington is good for the economy though....keeps the gunsmiths real busy.

 

[chuck nelson]

Id rather shoot accurate junk vs. plain old junk like a Remington. Remington is good for the economy though....keeps the gunsmiths real busy.

I love how you leave out the response to the "prove it" part.

 

[scott_r]

I love how you leave out the response to the "prove it" part.

I don't need to "prove" something that is a known fact.

If you were shooting a Tikka Chuck those groups you posted would be at least 50% tighter at 400 yards.

Cheers!!