ORIGINAL: oldelkhunter
would an Alaskan or African guide spend $2700-$3500 on a "pretty" rifle...one that is going to be thrown in the truck and beat around in the bush, when a Tikka for example will kill exactly the same game just as dead as a Sauer will? Geese, grow up!
BTW lay off the personal attacks, I have very little patience for the likes of your kind.
I have very little patience with argumentative posters too.
The Sauer 202's that I have are not "pretty" guns. I have 2 of the Outback models (lightweights in 270 and 22-250) with synthetic stocks, alloy receivers, and fluted barrels with factory "teflon type" coatings. I bought both of mine used and only have a total of about $2500 in the two guns. I use mine as "truck/atv guns", and they see alot of dirt, dust, and wet conditions and have never failed to function. I am not sure what other kind of reliabilty test besides daily carry and use a gun is supposed to be put through to be called "reliable".
I also have a Blaser R-93 with 308 and 9.3x62 barrels for it, and I wouldn't hesitate to go up against any dangerous game in the world and know my gun would function and shoot when the cards were down.
The adverb "most", as it relates to calibers and guns, is WAY over used on hunting/shooting message boards, and this thread further proves it.
