Which varmint gun?

GRiNGo

GRiNGo

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
75   0   0
Location
Meadow Lake, SK
Okay I prefer a detachable mag and looking to be cheapish. So here are some guns I have access to.
Rem SPS in 204, 223 for $440, $480
Sav 11fcns 22-250 $510
Sav 111fcxp3 243 with scope and sling $400
Stevens 200 223, 22-250 $300
Tikka T3 lite 223, 22-250 for $660

Okay cheaper the better, but not sure I like the blind mags, is the 243 okay with 55grn bullets, I don't want to reload, just shoot some yots and wolves.
Also I like the lite weight for packing.

Please give some opinions guys, Thanks.
 
Last edited:
243 is a great predator round, especially with the lighter 55-70 grain bullets. The SPS DM in 243 would be a good pick. Winchester and Federal, and Hornady, all make factory ammo in the 55-58 grain range
 
GRiNGo said:
I know the Rem 710 is a swear word, what about the 770's on sale for 350.
Click to expand...
the remington 770 *is* the 710, pretty much. its just as bad. they are both swear words.

the cheapest most versatile solution would be just to make do with the blind mag and get a Stevens 200 in .223 for $299.

if you really hate the blind mag, then move up to the scoped DM Savage package for $399, and perhaps ditch the scope for a better one. this would be your cheapest solution for a good, accurate, detachable mag gun.
however it doesnt come in a .223. .243 will cost you twice as much money for the ammo - however it would give you more range and effectiveness and would double as a very nice deer gun.

especially if money is an object i wouldnt even consider the Tikka. getting up into the ~$600 price range get the Ruger Hawkeye for $599, it also includes Ruger rings.
the Tikka is (IMO) a much 'cheaper' gun that costs $60 more, and then youre going to spend $100-180 for a good set of optilock rings/bases or ringmounts.

the Ruger Hawkeye at $599 is an incredible deal on a great gun. to get a Tikka to a comparable level its going to cost you ~$800, and IMO the Tikka is not a better rifle. The Ruger is a much better Mauser-based action, CRF, better fit and finish, and stainless. a stainless Tikka with rings/bases is going to run you ~$900 plus tax.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but in a different order.

I would vote for the Savage .243 package... but since you don't reload, I would go with the Stevens .223 second.
 
Anyone of these should give you great pride in ownership, they're classics, timeless, future family heirlooms. Everytime you take it out, it will invoke thoughts of the past, great hunts by the likes of Keith, Ruorke, it will take you back to a time long ago when everything was made cheaply out of plastic? I must say however that i do like the seams left in the Stevens stock by the plastic molding process, the hollow plastic stock on the Tikka seems like a real bargain at $800 and the repl. plastic mag. can be had for $100.I'm gonna' stop my rant now because I see you are from Sask. and thus, a good guy, and just advise you to get something made of steel and wood and made here in N.A.
 
The Stevens 200 is a pretty good choice but the stocks suck the big one, when I put my stevens and my T3 lite side by side its like night and day. That being said the T3 is twice the money. I have both and other then the stock find they both shoot extremely well. One more plus for the T3 is a really nice crisp trigger, Stevens is not adjustible.

Plus for the Stevens is because the stock is crap you can paint it and not feel bad!!

IMG_0258.jpg
 
Last edited:
good choice, you cant really go wrong with either that or the Savages for hunting.

i get ben's point on 'heirloom' firearms, but IMO you should take advantage of both worlds. yes, an heirloom gun that you will pass on to your children is a pleasure to own, but a high quality gloss-blued w/select walnut gun isnt something you drag around in the muck or poor weather, or at least i dont. perhaps i overprotect mine.
its nice to own some lower-priced yet equally accurate/functional synthetic (and preferably stainless) guns for bad conditions, rough use, to use as loaners, etc. while i love using my quality blued/walnut guns on nice days, its nice to know that the stainless/synthetic ones are there to grab if i know theyre going to take some abuse.

you dont have to choose one or the other... you can own and appreciate the advantages of both.
 
You want to shoot wolves, you better get a bigger gun than a 22 caliber.



GRiNGo said:
Okay I prefer a detachable mag and looking to be cheapish. So here are some guns I have access to.
Rem SPS in 204, 223 for $440, $480
Sav 11fcns 22-250 $510
Sav 111fcxp3 243 with scope and sling $400
Stevens 200 223, 22-250 $300
Tikka T3 lite 223, 22-250 for $660

Okay cheaper the better, but not sure I like the blind mags, is the 243 okay with 55grn bullets, I don't want to reload, just shoot some yots and wolves.
Also I like the lite weight for packing.

Please give some opinions guys, Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
this is an old thread so i completely forgot about the wolf thing....
yeah for varmints and coyotes its fine but there is so little in the way of bullet selection for the .204 Ruger (all the factory loads ive seen were 32-34gr only) that it cant be ideal for anything much larger.

then again, many inuit used to shoot polar bears with .22LR, .17 Rem and .22 Hornet, so im sure its fine with good shot placement.
 
manbearpig said:
then again, many inuit used to shoot polar bears with .22LR, .17 Rem and .22 Hornet, so im sure its fine with good shot placement.
Click to expand...

This is a true statement. I'm actually of Inuit decent and I've seen/heard of people killing just about anything with a .22LR...wolves, black bear, caribou, etc.
 
im sure theyd work in a pinch but its gotta take cojones the size of beach balls to actually choose a .22LR or hornet for protection in polar bear territory - much less to actually hunt them :)

polar-bear-heat.jpg

armed with only a varmint rifle, thats one bigass 'groundhog' :)
 
manbearpig said:
im sure theyd work in a pinch but its gotta take cojones the size of beach balls to actually choose a .22LR or hornet for protection in polar bear territory - much less to actually hunt them :)
armed with only a varmint rifle, thats one bigass 'groundhog' :)
Click to expand...
I agree, very poor idea for bear defence/protection, but hunting is a whole different ballgame. Put four hunters at good vantage points within 50 yards of a bear, and the odds swing dramatically toward the group of hunters. That being said, you'd have to be stone cold nuts to try any of these firearms for a solo hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom