Is classic hunting bolt action rifle dead or?

RMP

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
19
Location
SE Virginia
The real innovation in the last 30 year or so is weight reduction. "Classic" guns can be heavy. I find myself gravitating to my lighter guns for the vast majority of my hunting. I'm less concerned about hunting with a wood and blued gun than I am about lugging a heavy rifle up and down mountain trails.

My Winchester M70 Super Grades are heavy for caliber.

vyMH0e8.jpg

cLqCZCb.jpg
 

kaboku68

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
272
Location
Alaska
Going to take this bear hunting this fall.
IMG-0121.jpg


OG 1956 Model 71 in 348-450 Ackley improved. Loaded at max it is 5% more powerful than 458 Win mag with 500 grain bullets.
 

MtnW

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
85
I think there is a purpose for both types of rifles. Sure don’t want to take my full blown Mauser custom on a two week BC horseback hunt where it can rain the entire hunt. There I take a synthetic rifle. Hunting in Africa ,Texas , MO, Rocky Mtns under normal conditions I enjoy my wood & blue guns. When I travel for a hunt I usually bring one of each to cover all conditions.
 

Ifunk

Junior Member
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
20
I feel there is nothing more beautiful than a classic walnut stock and a blued finish. I wanted an accurate rifle to hunt with in Western Washington, so I bought a Bergara Ridge in 30-06 which comes with a synthetic stock and a blued finish - a compromise. I drank the Bergara Kool-Aid early.

Then I went out one October morning crawling chest deep through ferns and salal while the clouds cried on me the entire day in search of Mr. Blacktail. When I got back to the truck I wiped all the visible rain off the rifle and thought since it was brand new, I was doing my due diligence. Boy was I wrong.

I grabbed it the next day and the entire thing was oozing rust. Of course nobody had ever taught me better.

I'm not lazy, but figured if it rusted that easily off the shelf than I'd better get some protection for it. I had the whole thing cerakoted including the scope rings and sling hardware.

Do all blued rifles rust this easily or did mine just have a bad finish to begin with?
 

WRM

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
330
I feel there is nothing more beautiful than a classic walnut stock and a blued finish. I wanted an accurate rifle to hunt with in Western Washington, so I bought a Bergara Ridge in 30-06 which comes with a synthetic stock and a blued finish - a compromise. I drank the Bergara Kool-Aid early.

Then I went out one October morning crawling chest deep through ferns and salal while the clouds cried on me the entire day in search of Mr. Blacktail. When I got back to the truck I wiped all the visible rain off the rifle and thought since it was brand new, I was doing my due diligence. Boy was I wrong.

I grabbed it the next day and the entire thing was oozing rust. Of course nobody had ever taught me better.

I'm not lazy, but figured if it rusted that easily off the shelf than I'd better get some protection for it. I had the whole thing cerakoted including the scope rings and sling hardware.

Do all blued rifles rust this easily or did mine just have a bad finish to begin with?

Today's bluing just does not hold to a quality bluing job from the 70s and before. I'm betting the EPA has something to do with that.

I have one word for you: Corrosion Block.

Sorry, second word was free.
 

762Gunner

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
387
Location
northwest
An inaccurate 700 CDL is usually due to a super inaccurate shooter.
If you say so
Mine was a 270 and it shot 2 moa at best, pretty much the same for my mom's pre 64 model 70 and my dads older 700.
Granted I didn't handload then so there wasn't any fine tuning involved, plus the triggers were definitely God awful.
 

robtattoo

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
1,947
"Functionally inferior"....... more maintenance? I've yet to shoot ANY rifle (I shoot a ton of LR gear) that outperformed a well built, blue & wood rifle, at sensible ranges (sub 800yds) that didn't cost 3 to 5 times as much. My go to, bad weather, longer range gun is a stainless t3x in .30-06, simply because it's the most suitable chambering. It doesn't shoot any better than either my wood stocked Swede or Bob. Incidentally, the Roberts was built in 1947. Rebarrelled in '76 & still shoots moa groups.
The Swede is a bottom shelf, Sears gun that I fancied up myself. Spendy bluing & walnut. It'll still drill 5 rounds into a one hole group at 100yds.

Totes inferior........

You have to understand & appreciate, hunting guns AIN'T benchrest guns. I couldn't honestly give two shits about 1/4 moa groups, since my usual hunting range is 300yds max. Anything under 2moa is PLENTY accurate for me & I've yet to miss a hunting shot.
I've got heavy bench guns, for bench shit. I need my hunting rifles to be hunting accurate & walnut stocked, blue steel guns are more than good enough for that.

Don't let perfection get in the way of good enough 😉
 

JohnJohnson

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
254
"Functionally inferior"....... more maintenance? I've yet to shoot ANY rifle (I shoot a ton of LR gear) that outperformed a well built, blue & wood rifle, at sensible ranges (sub 800yds) that didn't cost 3 to 5 times as much.

Anything under 2moa is PLENTY accurate for me
More maintenance is functionally inferior for some people, including me. My price point sweetspot for a rifle is the Tikka CTR. It shoots noticeably better than the other rifles at or below its price class (including wood stocked ones) and is not 3-5x more. As far as 2MOA being good enough, other people have different requirements. I've shot out to 1200 yards with my main hunting rifle and out to 1125 with my Tikka as well. On targets only at those ranges of course. Nonetheless, I like my rifles to be able to do both unless you count the Fieldcraft which is a dedicated lightweight rig.
 

wind gypsy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
4,450
"Functionally inferior"....... more maintenance? I've yet to shoot ANY rifle (I shoot a ton of LR gear) that outperformed a well built, blue & wood rifle, at sensible ranges (sub 800yds) that didn't cost 3 to 5 times as much. My go to, bad weather, longer range gun is a stainless t3x in .30-06, simply because it's the most suitable chambering. It doesn't shoot any better than either my wood stocked Swede or Bob. Incidentally, the Roberts was built in 1947. Rebarrelled in '76 & still shoots moa groups.
The Swede is a bottom shelf, Sears gun that I fancied up myself. Spendy bluing & walnut. It'll still drill 5 rounds into a one hole group at 100yds.

Totes inferior........

You have to understand & appreciate, hunting guns AIN'T benchrest guns. I couldn't honestly give two shits about 1/4 moa groups, since my usual hunting range is 300yds max. Anything under 2moa is PLENTY accurate for me & I've yet to miss a hunting shot.
I've got heavy bench guns, for bench shit. I need my hunting rifles to be hunting accurate & walnut stocked, blue steel guns are more than good enough for that.

Don't let perfection get in the way of good enough 😉

Don’t disagree with anything you’ve said just have different priorities is all. Building from scratch, there aren’t wood shapes that interest me.

Tikka for example, I could use the same rifle wood or synthetic stock interchangeably and not really have any impacts in a whole bunch of hunts. But the wood one is going to be heavier and more at risk of causing issues if it gets wet. I don’t think they allow for the different grip options either. To me, that could be classified as “functionally inferior”. I would never argue that wood doesn’t work just fine as a hunting stock, I’m just saying I don’t get off on rifle appearance enough to choose a wood stock and the sacrifices (which can be minimal) that accompany them.
 

WRM

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
330
If you don't "get off" on a fine wood stocked rifle....I don't know if there is a cure for ya. But, to each his own.
 

z987k

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
212
Location
Anchorage, AK
"Functionally inferior"....... more maintenance? I've yet to shoot ANY rifle (I shoot a ton of LR gear) that outperformed a well built, blue & wood rifle, at sensible ranges (sub 800yds) that didn't cost 3 to 5 times as much. My go to, bad weather, longer range gun is a stainless t3x in .30-06, simply because it's the most suitable chambering. It doesn't shoot any better than either my wood stocked Swede or Bob. Incidentally, the Roberts was built in 1947. Rebarrelled in '76 & still shoots moa groups.
The Swede is a bottom shelf, Sears gun that I fancied up myself. Spendy bluing & walnut. It'll still drill 5 rounds into a one hole group at 100yds.

Totes inferior........

You have to understand & appreciate, hunting guns AIN'T benchrest guns. I couldn't honestly give two shits about 1/4 moa groups, since my usual hunting range is 300yds max. Anything under 2moa is PLENTY accurate for me & I've yet to miss a hunting shot.
I've got heavy bench guns, for bench shit. I need my hunting rifles to be hunting accurate & walnut stocked, blue steel guns are more than good enough for that.

Don't let perfection get in the way of good enough 😉
More maintenance is almost the definition of functionally inferior. certainly in any type of tool.
 

chindits

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
522
Location
Westslope, CO
Dunno what you all are doing to your guns but wood and blue still kill game with no issues. I backpack hunt, so the gun doesn’t get cleaned until the hunt is over. This gun is only two years old and came with a wood stock and that rag horn didn’t care. I have two older guns that I replaced the synthetic stock with cheap wood stocks. Their weight didn’t increase but I know how to use a router and finish wood.

F5D9B1FB-E450-4FB3-9DCB-34D9D9FBA17A.jpeg
 
Top