quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I've shot a few Christensen rifles, both bolt action and AR15. They are built built with quality components, are assembled well, and are quite accurate. The statement that you don't like the feel of the rifle you shouldered does not detract from the way Christensen Arms makes its firearms. It just means you don't like something about it. Christensen's light-weight guns are made light for carrying long distances. They use polymer stocks because wood can't do what polymer can -- high strength, low weight, low flex, resistance to moisture. Christensen uses heavier stocks on rifles not meant to carried long distances.

I have two wood-stocked bolt actions -- pre '64 Winchester in .270 and Kimber sporter .22lr. Both are nice looking guns. The Kimber is really accurate, the Winchester only sort-of. My precision bolt actions have composite McMillan and Grayboe stocks. I've shot a bunch of rifles with Manners stocks, too. These composite stock rifles -- coupled with finely machined actions and barrels -- feel really good and shoot with stunning accuracy.

The days of wood stocks in precision rifles are long gone, with exception of those carried no more than a few feet from the back of the SUV to the top of the bench rest.

My AR15s and AR10s have Magpul polymer stocks. They are finely tuned machines that shoot really well.

I cannot see my owning a Marlin. I don't consider them well made, even for the price. Currently, unchambered quality bolt action barrels retailing for $300 to $400, with chambering definitely increasing the cost. The price point for Marlin rifles (and many others, too), tells that corners had to be cut to sell firearms at such prices. CNC machine time is expensive, as are the hours required for quality gunsmiths.

Rant all you want about current rifles. It will fall on plugged & muffed ears of those who shoot modern rifles in competition. We don't shoot old rifles. We don't shoot Marlins. We don't shoot long guns with crooked sights. But we do invest in quality components, which are assembled by craftsmen. I can hardly wait to see what the next iterations of rifles include, regardless of the ages of those who touch it along the way.

I don't think you understood my point about the Christensen Arms rifle. I didn't say it was a cheap gun, I just said for a gun in that price range I felt they could have put more effort into the way the gun handles, that's all.

But I DO have a bone to pick with your statement that "The days of wood stocks in precision rifles are long gone". You may not realize it but there are shooters out there who appreciate precision and funtion just as much as you do. Look at this and tell me exactly what Christensen arms has over this gun:

https://www.johnrigbyandco.com...on_alpha025_new1.jpg

Even though Christensen guns are not my thing, a Rigby gun would be if it weren't out of my price range. The quality and craftsmanship in that gun far exceeds any Christensen gun made. The price of that Rigby is many multiples of your Christensen gun too. If you're still not convinced, there are double rifles that are far more expensive than that Rigby, and they are still working rifles.

And, there are standing world shooting records achived with rifles with wood stocks.

So maybe, just MAYBE, you are wrong about old fashioned steel and wood. And those guns handle orders of magnitude better than the Christensen rifle I picked up.

The main place where wood-stocked precision rifles are currently being used is in bench rest and F-class. In other words, rifles carried from the SUV to the firing line. But not all of them have natural wood stocks. Laminated wood is becoming more common, as it allows greater flexibility with stock shape. When the shooter wants options for weight (both high and low), customized fit, and adaptability across multiple positions -- wood almost always takes a back seat to composite, polymer, and metal stocks.

Wood stocks are very rarely seen in precision/steel/tactical matches. Or 2-gun matches. Or 3-gun matches. Chassis systems of steel, aluminum, titanium, and polymers rule. Even traditionally styled McMillan/Manners composite stocks are becoming less common, although I think composite stocks generally absorb recoil better than chassis systems.

Wood stocks are almost always used in super high-end African plains rifles. And uber-custom O/U and SxS shotguns. Such long guns cost tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes hundreds of thousands. But African plains hunting rifles are not precision rifles. Sure, they shoot well in the hands of those who can manage the heavy recoil of cartridges used, but they aren't precision rifles. Modern precision hunting rifles -- even the light weight ones like Christensen -- shoot more accurately than a big bore African plains rifle.

As for whether or not wood stocked rifles hold more accuracy records than composite/polymer stocked rifles, a reputable source should be cited.

You may not like the way a Christensen handles in the shop. That's your experience, that's your opinion. But fondling a rifle in the shop is a long ways from actually putting rounds down range. And I don't just mean from a concrete bench, piled high with sandbags, at pasters at 100 yards. Shoot and move with a Christensen, shoot from multiple positions, shoot from marginally supported positions, shoot at multiple target distances, hump the rifle up and down mountains in crappy weather -- and a Christensen (or similar rifle) flat out performs.

You're wrong dude, high end hunting rifles most definitely ARE made with VERY high precision machining and hand fitting. If you're talking about precision target shooting, that's a completely different subject that has nothing to do with my OP. These old world hand made guns aren't designed for target shooting. If they were, they'd be unsuited for hunting dangerous game. I hope that makes more sense. If I were shooting high-end F class, I would have a synthetic or laminated stock as well. I have a couple synthetic stocked guns myself, one of them cost as much as a Chistensen, but it's not a target gun.

Nope dude, you're wrong. The best built big bore African plains rifles are 1 MOA capable. That's respectable accuracy for large bores, and more than adequate for the game they are intended to hunt. They are made with precision machining, using precision parts, assembled by gunsmiths who do precision work. But they aren't precision rifles.

In this day and age 1 MOA at 100 or 200 yards is pretty common, even from value line bolt action rifles. My '48 or '49 vintage Winchester model 70 in .270 is consistently just a touch better than 1 MOA, given certain limitations. As in letting the barrel cool between shots, using only quality 130 grain ammo that doesn't push the bullet too fast, and shooting only 3 round groups at 100-200 yards. It took a bit of tuning by my gunsmith to get it to that level of accuracy. And it's a nice looking rifle.

A couple years ago my boss won a new Winchester 70 in .270, with a black plastic stock. Definitely a hunting rifle, with the light weight stock making the rifle a bit nose heavy. I sighted in the rifle for him, using 3-round groups at 100 yards, shooting IIRC 8 different types of ammo. At first I let the rifle cool between rounds, then later just let the rounds rip. Every single group I shot measured 3/4" or less at 100 yards, with one group at a stunning 1/4". From a cheesy plastic stock, with a bolt that wobbled upon closing, and with a somewhat heavy trigger. But that darn bolt locked up like a vault, and the barrel must have been really good. His new Model 70 even had less felt recoil than my old M70, and from a lighter rifle. I suspect it was that cheesy stock soaking up the recoil. His model 70 is close to producing precision results, but it's not a precision rifle.

For those of us who shoot thousands (even tens of thousands) of rounds per year, 1 MOA capable isn't a precision rifle. Half MOA, 3/8 MOA, even 1/4 MOA capable is what defines precision rifles. And at distances to many hundreds of yards, even 1,000 yards and beyond. Round after round, groups after group, over the effective life of each barrel installed in the rifle. It doesn't matter what kind of materials are in the rifle's components. It doesn't matter how the rifle cycles. Magazine type or capacity doesn't matter, nor does it even require a magazine. It doesn't matter what the rifle costs.

I've shot two big bore SxS rifles, a Holland & Holland and a Rigby. Both rifles were owned by very wealthy students in Rifles Only courses. Also shot a big bore Dakota. Beautiful well-made rifles. The H&H and Rigby were works of art. But they weren't precision rifles.

All of this is worlds away from your original rant of how recently made Marlin rifles aren't well made. But that's not news.

"Nope dude, you're wrong. The best built big bore African plains rifles are 1 MOA capable."

I never said hunting rifles were not 1 moa capable. I have a sub 1/2 moa Model 700 "varmit" barrel (as Remington called it then) from the mid 70's. I loaded Sierra 70 gr match HPBT pills with Dupont IMR 4350 and drilled pennies at 100 with improvised rests. That was fun to say the least.

"They are made with precision machining, using precision parts, assembled by gunsmiths who do precision work. But they aren't precision rifles."

So you're saying that a working can be be built with precision but isn't a precision, aka TARGET, gun ? If that's what you mean then we agree. I hang with "precision" clay shooters, but that's not what we call them or their guns. We call them ranked shooters with custom fitted guns from the best manufacturers. There's that damn precison word again. I think we are mixing terms, which may be my fault since I've never attended serious rifle events.

"I've shot two big bore SxS rifles, a Holland & Holland and a Rigby. Both rifles were owned by very wealthy students in Rifles Only courses. Also shot a big bore Dakota. Beautiful well-made rifles. The H&H and Rigby were works of art. But they weren't precision rifles."

As per your own words above, they are precision made, but are not target rifles. I'm assuming we can agree on this.

BTW, what is your impression of those rifles, the Holland and Rigby, after shooting them ? I have never had the pleasure of shooting that quality of rifle. But I have shot expensive target shotguns made for clay games, and the difference in the feel, balance, sight picture, quality of build, physical design and ergonomics, and sight picture, orders of magnitude better that any regular (Beretta, Browning) target shotgun.

"All of this is worlds away from your original rant of how recently made Marlin rifles aren't well made. But that's not news."

Well it was a little bit of "news" for me because I heard that Marlin quality had returned, and I read it more than once in more than one place. Maybe some damn gun writers were copying each other's words without personally examining a sample or they were mellinials comparing Marlins those from ten years ago or whatever. Those new Marlin levers were not worth the prices the store was asking, even if one overlooked the rear sights.

He jes wore out, an I have not yet begun to defile myself.

It seems to me that you have a good eye, and would be a handy fella to have along next time I buy a new long rifle.

I appreciate what you are saying.

Thanks Jim, we could be shoppin mates.