Why aren't Thompson Center Contender Rifles more popular in Canada?

mikeyb said:
I wouldn't mind one in .30-30 with the Leverevolution ammo, but can't help think I'd have been better off with an Encore in .308 instead. Encore hunter packages in .308 with the scope are still only about 7¼ pounds and 38½ inches long which is very reasonable for a full rig with 24" barrel.

4933.jpg
Click to expand...

That's the route I would go also, and since I live and hunt in a westcoast rainforest I would go synthetic and stainless... 24" bull barrel. :D

Who is the best dealer/importer for these rifles in Canada anyway?
 
From comments here, it seems to come down to the chamberings: Despite being 1.5 to 1 pound lighter soaking wet and a couple inches shorter, it's the fact that one can't kill a deer at 300 yards with it that turns people to the Encore?

IMO people carry .30-30s with worse triggers that don't scope as well and seem to be inherently less accurate, so why not one without these deficiencies that you can convert to a .223 or a .22 LR or .22 Magnum, or a .357 Magnum/.38 special any time you like, from a barrel you are carrying on your person? Why not a Trapper-length .30 30 with a 23" barrel?

A take-down, Trapper-length, rimfire-weight .30-30 with seven inches more barrel and a proper cheek weld, that you can hunt rabbits and grouse with in the middle of the day? The advantages seem obvious to me, but maybe I'm a bit weird.
 
philthygeezer said:
From comments here, it seems to come down to the chamberings: Despite being 1.5 to 1 pound lighter soaking wet and a couple inches shorter, it's the fact that one can't kill a deer at 300 yards with it that turns people to the Encore?

IMO people carry .30-30s with worse triggers that don't scope as well and seem to be inherently less accurate, so why not one without these deficiencies that you can convert to a .223 or a .22 LR or .22 Magnum, or a .357 Magnum/.38 special any time you like, from a barrel you are carrying on your person? Why not a Trapper-length .30 30 with a 23" barrel?

A take-down, Trapper-length, rimfire-weight .30-30 with seven inches more barrel and a proper cheek weld, that you can hunt rabbits and grouse with in the middle of the day? The advantages seem obvious to me, but maybe I'm a bit weird.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the killing range of the chamberings. I could see myself personally using the .30-30 and .22LR barrels in a Contender, but that's about it. In an Encore, I would probably go for a few different barrels, .300 WM, .308, .25-06 at least, as well as .22LR, and probably a .243 and a .45/70 - I would just get so much more utility out of one in my various hunting situations than I would out of an Encore, so I would use that to justify the extra cost.

But I don't think it's weird that someone would want a more accurate .30-30 that they can load up with ballistically superior spitzers and swap out for a .22 for rabbits on a slow day. If that's what I was looking for out of a gun like that, then it's perfect for it!
 
My contender frame is registered as restricted and I have a 14" ssk bbl in .375 jdj and can hit 2 turkeys out of five at the silhouette range with hornady 270 spire pts. Those are at 400 meters and it knocks them back quite a ways.
 
philthygeezer said:
Despite being 1.5 to 1 pound lighter soaking wet and a couple inches shorter, it's the fact that one can't kill a deer at 300 yards with it that turns people to the Encore?
Click to expand...

This comment tells me that people do not understand Contenders...

I shot this deer @ 210 yards with the 308Bellm chambering if it was at 300 I would have killed it just as easily.

375RUM_420_and_460_yard_Shots_Nov_28_2008_Buck_015.jpg


Shot this coyote at 40 yards but this 223 barrel prints 1 1/4" 300 yard groups when I do my part.

Dec_08_to_Feb_09_066.jpg


Last spring using this Contender chambered in 375JDJ loaded with 260gr Accubonds I shot a 6' black bear @ appr 95 yards dropped it instantly, this rifle give the same kinds of groups @ 300 yards as the 223 above and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a moose @ 300 yards with this combo.

I was hunting grizzly with this rifle/cartridge combo when I shot the black bear...

TC_Contender_Carbine_375JDJ_001.jpg


Contenders are awesome little rifles that can get the job done.

I bought my first one in 30-30 15 years ago for my then 10 year old son I now have a 3 year old son that will be using the 22LR barrel by himself when he is old enough and he will have at least 7 other barrels to grow into.

I'm actually thankful that Contenders aren't as popular as other rifles means that I have a better chance at snagging barrels off the EE...




:D
 
mikeyb said:
It's not so much the killing range of the chamberings. I could see myself personally using the .30-30 and .22LR barrels in a Contender, but that's about it. In an Encore, I would probably go for a few different barrels, .300 WM, .308, .25-06 at least, as well as .22LR, and probably a .243 and a .45/70 - I would just get so much more utility out of one in my various hunting situations than I would out of an Encore, so I would use that to justify the extra cost.

But I don't think it's weird that someone would want a more accurate .30-30 that they can load up with ballistically superior spitzers and swap out for a .22 for rabbits on a slow day. If that's what I was looking for out of a gun like that, then it's perfect for it!
Click to expand...

If it's not the killing rage of the cartridge, then what justifies the .300 WM, .243, .308, .25-06 over a .30-30 that will do the job just as well or better?

@CampCook: I guess I approach the Contender from a factory load perspective. I think both the 7x30 Waters and .375 JDJ loads are available factory, or am I wrong?
 
35 Remington would probably be my choice... in an old Shooting Times mag is a fellow if I remember his name right it is John Fears, he went black bear hunting with a factory T/C Contender carbine in 35 Rem he killed a very nice bear with one shot.
 
Camp Cook said:
35 Remington would probably be my choice... in an old Shooting Times mag is a fellow if I remember his name right it is John Fears, he went black bear hunting with a factory T/C Contender carbine in 35 Rem he killed a very nice bear with one shot.
Click to expand...

Reading up this afternoon as well as asking your advice. Seems like quite a few recommend the .35 Remington for Elk under 150 yards with plain old 200 grain Remington Core Lokts. The ammo seems to be the most common of the big bores as well. However, ballistically it seems not much to choose from 200 grain 35 rem at 1905 ft-lbs or 170 grain .30-30 at 1873 ft-lbs. I 'spose a bigger hole and a bit more penetration?
 
troutseeker said:
Cause they are fugly. Ruger #1's are at least pretty!:)
Click to expand...

FUGLY is right.

And I dont' like how they fit and handle, either. Feel kinda funny, like someone stuck a rifle stock on a pistol.:p

If I am going to use a single shot, it's gotta be a bit classy, and Thompson is an epic fail in classy....;)
 
WOW now that is a load of spewing about a firearms company that has the most successful single shot handgun in the history of the world and were able to convert it into a fantastic single shot carbine... :p
 
I would have to agree that break action single shots aren't really my cup of tea. Falling block actions are more to my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom