What's a good deal and what's a fair price?

mr00jimbo

mr00jimbo

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Location
GVRD
This I do not understand. You can get a nice Weatherby for under 1,000 to shoot a guaranteed sub-MOA. Alternatively, you can buy a Savage or Tikka for quite a steal to do the same. The quality of these guns seems top-notch. 700s are in the same price category (maybe a little higher for a higher-end model)

Then I see Sako 75/85s, approaching the almost 2000-dollar range. Are they worth the extra green? What about a Marlin 1894/5 being more expensive over a Winchester 94: is the Win 94 a bargain, or is the Marlin overpriced, or what?

It mostly happens with bolt guns, where for the accuracy, quality, features, the price ranges and I cannot figure why one is priced so differently over the other; sometimes an 800-dollar gun will outshoot a 2000 dollar one and match its quality.

So why the big widespread price differences?
 
Accuracy isn't always the last word....people also pay for fit, finish, a carriage-trade name, looks, "slickness", stock or mag or sighting features....
I myself own just the cheapo stuff. But there's a very noticeable difference in the feel of my A-Bolt compared to a Sako 75. They're probably on par as shooters go, but the Sako's fit and finish, and the slick bolt travel, are far and away nicer. So to some extent, you do get what you pay for.
Of course, sometimes the prices get crazy. Holland & Holland guns are very fine indeed, but I can't see a rifle being so much better in all respects as to merit a $25,000 price tag. Especially now when, as you pointed out, very inexpensive rifles provide us with levels of accuracy which were almost unheard of 30 or 40 years back. Lots of people now are actually frustrated when they can't do better than 1.25 MOA. Me included!
 
If you can live with plastic (composite) parts. Inexpensive finishing. Triggers that may need tuning, injection molded or "hard wood" stocks. Then most lower end guns will serve you well.
 
It is not difficult to make a reasonably accurate rifle for not too much money these days. Savage has been proving it for years, and they continue ot do so with thier Stevens rifles.

The difference comes down to fit, finish, reliability, features, ergonomics, stock material, and durability of parts.

If we look at opposite sides of the spectrum, it's easy to illustrate. Looka t a Sako and a Stevens side by side, and you will see what I mean.:)

(Although I still think that if someone is spending $1500 or more on a rifle, they should look at having one built for them, to thier specs):)
 
yup, compare a Savage to a Sako 85 and you'll feel a difference in quality, especially ones with wood stocks

accuracy wise, you probably will never be able to blame a missed shot while hunting on the lesser rifle
 
What would be the quality difference in something like a Sako compared to its cheaper brand, Tikka?
How about the quality in woods? I'm curious how good (or bad) the wood stock on my LSS remington is now.
 
the_big_mike said:
I havnt really seen any fancy schmancy woods except for on early model guns..


this excludes weatherby!
Click to expand...
Some of the new Kimber's have very nice wood.
 
The same applies to the car dealing business...... exactly the same...........


BB



mr00jimbo said:
This I do not understand. You can get a nice Weatherby for under 1,000 to shoot a guaranteed sub-MOA. Alternatively, you can buy a Savage or Tikka for quite a steal to do the same. The quality of these guns seems top-notch. 700s are in the same price category (maybe a little higher for a higher-end model)

Then I see Sako 75/85s, approaching the almost 2000-dollar range. Are they worth the extra green? What about a Marlin 1894/5 being more expensive over a Winchester 94: is the Win 94 a bargain, or is the Marlin overpriced, or what?

It mostly happens with bolt guns, where for the accuracy, quality, features, the price ranges and I cannot figure why one is priced so differently over the other; sometimes an 800-dollar gun will outshoot a 2000 dollar one and match its quality.

So why the big widespread price differences?
Click to expand...
 
mr00jimbo said:
What would be the quality difference in something like a Sako compared to its cheaper brand, Tikka?
Click to expand...


The only similarity between the Tikka and the Sako is the barrel. Everything else is different. The stock has a much better fit and feel, all action parts are steel, including the mag. I had 2 tikka stainless rifles, sold them both, and went with a Sako 75, and don't feel like I wasted $$ at all. You'll know the difference when you handle it.
 
plywood is just thin layers of wood glued together to give strength. A laminated stock is the same idea. The different layers gives it great look, as the stock is rarely the same thickness in any spot, lots of curves
 
Laminated stocks dont squirm around like solid wood stocks. High humidity can cause a long straight chunk of wood to curve (warp). The lam stocks are way more stable and since every layer is usually sealed with epoxy they dont soak up any moisture either. Slicing the wood evens out the stresses grain can impose on a block of wood. Have a grey lam stock on my Ruger 77 ss and it looks pretty nice.
 
Kilo Charlie said:
Accuracy isn't always the last word....people also pay for fit, finish, a carriage-trade name, looks, "slickness", stock or mag or sighting features....
I myself own just the cheapo stuff. But there's a very noticeable difference in the feel of my A-Bolt compared to a Sako 75. They're probably on par as shooters go, but the Sako's fit and finish, and the slick bolt travel, are far and away nicer. So to some extent, you do get what you pay for.
Of course, sometimes the prices get crazy. Holland & Holland guns are very fine indeed, but I can't see a rifle being so much better in all respects as to merit a $25,000 price tag. Especially now when, as you pointed out, very inexpensive rifles provide us with levels of accuracy which were almost unheard of 30 or 40 years back. Lots of people now are actually frustrated when they can't do better than 1.25 MOA. Me included!
Click to expand...


You have to have those $25 000 rifles...for the guy that has everything...and can afford anything. If Bill Gates was into shooting...do you think he would buy a $400 rifle or a $8000 rifle??
 
Gatehouse said:
It is not difficult to make a reasonably accurate rifle for not too much money these days. Savage has been proving it for years, and they continue ot do so with thier Stevens rifles.

The difference comes down to fit, finish, reliability, features, ergonomics, stock material, and durability of parts.

If we look at opposite sides of the spectrum, it's easy to illustrate. Looka t a Sako and a Stevens side by side, and you will see what I mean.:)

(Although I still think that if someone is spending $1500 or more on a rifle, they should look at having one built for them, to thier specs):)
Click to expand...

Amen...........x2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom