Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I'm sure income matters quite a bit on this question, personally I wonder why people won't justify spending more on a firearm? I see a gun as something thats hopefully going ot be passed down from generation to generation. I'm not one to spend alot of money on junk i dont need, but can be one to be extravagent on something I want/like, such as a firearm, I want a .458 lott, and like cz's fancy grade version, but after some looking, of late I'm trying to talk myself into a dakota? I know there's limits on how much anyone can spend....least to most guys there is. Though to dispute my own question, if eel like remington and others are making higher quality rifles for the money than ever, anyone agree? So my point is, why not spend another $1000, what's that cost spread out over a lifetime?

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I have more in my barrel on my Blaser than most of my friends have in their whole rigs. What you choose to spend YOUR money on is YOUR business. I like "high end" firearms and don't mind spending a couple grand for a nice gun, but it is my preference.

My feeling on the subject is that you only live once, and if you can afford it, go for it!!!

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I don't mind at all spending more for better quality. I'll gladly pay more to buy a Benelli rather than a Mossberg, a HK rather than a Sigma...it's about buying a higher quality product and not simply settleing for something that just "works". Some ppl simply have their brains set on quantity and ignore the whole quality aspect. I know ppl like this. Be happy to let others know about them having 80, 90 or more firearms yt just doesn't disclose that the level of quality on all but a very few are sub-par and then some.
Kinda like vehicles. Why buy a Volvo or Lexus when a Ford will get you to the same place?

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

If your single with out kids..Go for it..LOL I do agree about a firearm is a life long investment.. You buy guns to keep not to sell.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

salukipv1:

If you can afford a Dakota, gor for it. Good luck.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I like nice guns and wish i could afford to spend $2000 on a rifle. I get the best guns i can for the money i have to spend on it though. I dont see why people need to have 40+ guns. I wouldnt shoot them all if i had that many. I like to be farmiliar with my guns. I have 5 long guns right now and only plan on getting 5 or 6 more before i start trading guns fornicer guns.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I go with what works, and will do the job. However, I don't feel the need to carry a status symbol into the woods.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Better to have one very well built shotgun/rifle then 100 of lesser quality . Same applies toscopes. Buy the best you can afford if you can't do it right away save for it.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

If the Dakota is what you want then all I can say is go for it. You earned it...

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I tend to keep my purchases more towards the utilitarian side than the fancy/pretty side. Personally, I can't see spending extra to get a fancy beautiful gun I would be too afraid of scratches to take out of a velvet lined display case.

I don't mind spending more for a better quality product to a certain extent, but I can't justify purchasing a gun with such a nice finish that I'd be afraid to take it out of the safe and use it for its intended purpose.

In my mind an heirloom doesn't have to be fancy, just something with some memories attached.

All that having been said, the things I find important in a firearm are completely irrelevant to what you want, so if you have the money and it happens to be what you desire, go for it.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I own a Dakota in 330 Dakota. Its plain jane... 97 Long Range model. No frills. Got it when I worked at the gun shop... set me back about $3K. Which is about as inexpensive as they get. Its an amazingly well built gun. In a fantastic caliber. I sold the first one I bought at a considerable profit, and decided I wanted to keep one for myself anyway. I'm glad I did.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

It is personal, and everyone has different budgets. I bought a cheap rifle -- a Remington 700 ADL in .30-06 -- for less than $300 at a grand opening of a Bass Pro Shop. This is in a black synthetic stock. My use for this rifle is as a back-up and as a foul weather rifle. I don't like taking my nice wood stocked rifles out in rain. Maybe they would be OK, maybe they wouldn't. I don't know. I bought a $500 scope to put on this $280 rifle. I didn't want a scope that would let me down on a hunt or that would fog up. This makes perfect sense to me. My "nice wood stocked" rifles are custom rifles that my father made -- one in .30-06 the other in .25-06, both on Springfield actions. They shoot well and fit me very well. I'm 6' 2" tall and their 15 1/2" length of pull fit me much better than the factory standard 13 1/2" length of pull. These are beautiful wood stocks and since my father is dead, they are not replaceable at any price. Naturally I'm reluctant to use them in inclement weather.

Sometimes you need to buy a rifle or shotgun before the next season, and the budget just is not there for the higher quality firearm. That's just the way it is. I understand that. I'm fortunate I've never had to make that kind of purchase, but I understand this perfectly.

I am a big advocate of high quality. The difference in price is typically returned by longer life, and they are a bargain when considering the superior performance they give. Quality waders come to mind. The difference between $40 waders or $80 waders is very significant compared to $190 waders. How many more years of service do the high dollar waders provide? How much better service do the high dollar waders provide over those extra years of service? How much warmer are you in the high dollar waders? Whoe much more flexible during walking into the marsh are the higher dollar waders?

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I don't look at price as something to make a firearm a good gun or something to pass down.I've shot dove with a single shot 410 and also hunted with a 16 gauge model 21 with Alvin White engraving (the engraving brings price into 5 figures) but it's still a gun or work piece!Why worry about hunting with a $10,000 gun when it's something we can control what affects it,but we don't think twice about driving a $40,000 truck down the road with morons next to us at 70mph!Get what you like,can afford,shoot well,etc! I don't shoot the hi-end guns any better than my LC Smith or Black Diamond Winchester...but I will drive my paid off 4x4 places posers wouldn't think of driving their H2's and King Ranch's!:D

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

It comes down to price VS performance and looks. I want a fine looking, well made rifle that shoots good. But IMHO, a person can achieve this standard at under $1,000 pretty easily. Beyond the $1,000 price tag, I think a guy is laying out a lot of money for very little real gain...at least in performance. I've got a sneaking suspicion that 3/4ths of the guns out there can outshoot the guys who own them. Me included, I'm afraid.[:o]

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

There are plenty of UGLY, black, bolt action rifles for more than most of the dakota rifles. If you really want to go hog wild for an expensive rifle, check out Accuracy International. They build world class Sniper Rifles. Somebody has said that more money does not get a better, or more accurate rifle, and in this case you are wrong. Check them out, I think that they start around 6,000-8000 for a .308 and go up from there. It is the only rifle that I have ever shot an honest 1/4 group at 100yds with. Factory demo rifle at a sniper competition, with a Nightforce scope. This is one that you really do get your moneys worth.
All that said, sure, this isn't the caliber that you mentioned. I am sorry for rambling there. Just had to make a short point to those who say it isn't worth it, or not worth the extra money. If you want a dakota, by all means get one. I looked at their Dakota Longbow a couple years back in .338 Lapua Mag. Dakota guarantees accuracy. That particular rifle factory guarantee of 1/2 MOA out to 1500 yds.
If you want the dakota. BUY IT. KEEP IT. AND HAND IT DOWN TO YOUR KIDS OR GRANDKIDS. It will last. ( that is the other reason to buy nice firearms. THEY LAST LONGER. long enough to give your kids.

good luck.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

KDV, I'm not saying more money can't buy you a better, more accurate rifle. What I AM saying is that somewhere around $1,000 bucks I think one reaches the point of diminishing returns. In you're example, a person is paying $6-$8 thousand dollars for a .308 that will shoot a 1/4 inch group at 100 yds when most $1 thousand dollar rifles will shoot a 3/4" group at 100 yds with a good shot and good ammo. Not many people willing to pay an extra $5 thousand bucks just to cut half inch off their groups. That's what I call paying a LOT of money for damn little in return. I doubt there is an animal in this hemisphere that would appreciate the investment...and even fewer wives.[:-]

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

If your rich, or I guess really passionate about something I guess it isn't a big deal. However spending considerably more money on a rifle really doesn't get you anything other than self satisfaction. Or it might help your ego out if you like telling others how much you paid for something.

Now a days the extra money spent is going towards prettier wood and metal and a name. Functionally there probably isn't a whole lot of difference between that and something half the price, or more. There really hasn't been much revolutionary design in the standard bolt action design in a LONG time. They are all based on the same concepts and designs. As a matter of fact from what I have seen some of the more expensive guns don't shoot as well as some of the cheaper ones do. And I'm not talking ultra expensive custum guns either, I'm talking production guns you can go into a store and buy. You can drop thousands of dollars into any gun to try and make it more accurate if you really want to.

I would also assume the more expensive rifles would hold their value much better as well if you were thinking about an investment. However there are much better ways to invest your money.

When I first think about it for me spending a grand or more on a rifle seems insane, especially for someone of my income level. However I have around that much into one of my bows. And in 2,000 I paid that for a computer tower. Not a whole computer, just the tower![:o]. So I guess it boils down to what you want and where your priorities lay.

In the end though a factory rifle for around $1000 dollars probably doesn't shoot any better, or last any longer than a quality made rifle for less money. Most $500 Savages shoot pretty darn well right of the box and I am quite sure they will last generations. For that matter I bet a Stevens for 300 bucks will too.

I would love to have an expensive pretty gun, but it just wasn't justifiable for me. My $500 savage with synthetic stock and stainless metal with a $250 scope is more than what I need for my purposes. Spending twice as much on a rifle and scope would not have gotten me more performance in most cases, just a gun I was afraid to take out of the gun rack;).

I don't think it really matters as far as being a family airlume either. I want all my dads guns when he passes away, and would like nothing more than to pass them down to my kids. None of them were really expensive guns though. A Marlin .22 lever gun, a SxS imported shotgun and a few others, but they are priceless to me because of the memories they hold.

Expensive guns are really only worth more if you intend on selling them at a later date. Maybe;)

My opinions anyway.

Paul

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Do you think this is the only rifle that will do this? I know of plenty that will do this that cost much less money. I know of rimfires that will hold quarter inch groups at 100 yards. My stock $200 savage 17HMR with a mid priced 20 power scope could come very close to it. And that kind of accuracy out of a center fire has a lot less to do with how much money you spent on the gun. Don't think your going to drop 8 grand on a gun, slap an expensive scope on it and run to walmart and grab what ever rounds are on sale and shoot those kind of groups. I am quite sure there are plenty of custom guns out there that shoot just as well that have much less money invested in them.

Are you saying that gun will last longer than a browning, remington, ruger, winchester, howa, sako, savage or similar? Or that any of these guns won't last long enough to pass down to your children? They are all made from the same materials for the most part. I don't see where the one for twice the money will last considerably longer than any of the others as long as they are well taken care of. I know of some of those brands that have been around for generations.

Paul

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I had a Savage bolt-action in 7mag that shot sub-MOA. I bought it a Wal-Mart on sale with a scope for $170. I have a friend with a really nice Robar in .308 that will shoot sub-1/2 MOA. I'm not sure, but I think he spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $3500 for it. Don't get me wrong, I am way jealous of that rifle, but that's quite a price difference for a difference of less than an inch. Since my hunting area rarely provides a shot of over 100 yards, I cannot justify the difference in expense. Maybe if I get into handloading and benchrest shooting it would be worth it, but not now.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Last week I had my hands on a 97 in 257 roberts(black synthetic stock) that was at my Gunsmiths place for work . I normally don't get excited about rifles but that one got the bp going. It fit and pointed perfectly for my taste and the caliber is as good as it gets for WD.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

One of the things I liked the most about Dakota, both times I purchased with them, was the level of involvement that I got to have in the building of my rifle. From engraving, to quarter ribs to sights to finish, I got to hand pick everything. I went to economy route, because this gun is a hunter first and foremost. I don't want to fret over my exhibition grade wood and gold inlays when my rifle gets kicked off the back of the hunting vehical in the middle of the Kalihari Desert. But I could of had any of those if I want to ante up the fee (would have more than doubled the cost to go with wood... no thanks).

Is the rifle any better than a custom shop Remington in 338 RUM... ehh not really I don't suspect. But I really enjoyed the entire experience. Took me almost a year to get each one made. And when they came in, they even told me what bullet to load and what formula to use. They have a real wizzard working there in the ammo shop.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

If my life was on the line I would never buy cheep. Some of my friends ask why I use the guns I do as they cost more than there. I say I never want to miss that shot of a life time. Or leave my life to chance.

When quailty cost and you know your gear thats is priceless.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Someone earlier I think was spot on, saying if you're passionate about something.....spend it, well hunting I am, and some people would like to spend their money around, I tend to save and buy really nice things that I really want, but somethings you look at and think they'd cost 1500, and you find out they cost 4000, then youre like ok i guess i have to sepend that, then while youre at it its like on what about that one for 6000, im just sayin for instance, could be a sofa we're talking about here. also when i'm talking about a dakota, I'm talking about a dangerous game rifle/stopper, not the .270 on mule deer, so we're not just talking about missing the shot of a lifetime, well maybe we are! haha, but when somethigns coming at you to kill you, i want the gun to load, fire, and reload and fire again. I know the parts are typically all made of the same material, but i wanted to point out, machining isnt always done to the same precision.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Thats why I pay a white boy with a funny not-quite-british accent about $4000 a week to stand behind me with something in the neighborhood of 12,000ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle in his hands. :D

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Guys, I was not saying that those expensive rifles (Accuracy International, Dakota Arms) are the only way to go by any means. I only wanted to use those as examples of in some cases, yes, the extra money does get you more. I fully understand that both of those are way more expensive than most guys are willing to spend, or are able to spend for that matter. I am not one of the guys willing to spend 6000 on a pure hunting rifle, but, if I could save it up, I would spend that much for a rifle that I can use as a Tactical Rifle for competition, and it will double nicely as a hunting rifle. Has the accuracy for sure. Now if I were buying a strictly hunting rifle, I can't see spending over a grand on it. for $1000 a rifle that shoots 3/4 MOA is 99% of the time more than adequate. Keep in mind, i listed the AI and Dakota because they are 2 that I am familiar with and what you will get for your money. ( I am not too familiar with many companies that will GUARUNTEE 1/2 MOA out to 1500 meters. Dakota did on that one rifle. That is part of what you are paying for.) Not saying it was always practical, or the best choice, but if you can afford it, and you want it, then hell yes, buy it. Sure, lots of less expensive guns will shoot small groups at 100, and even some down right cheap ones will too, but I promise you, as the distance increases, most of those less expensive guns will not perform as well. I might be comparing apples to oranges here in a sense as most of my rifles and rifles that I have owned are designed for tactical purpose, and are therefore GENERALLY ( not always ) inherently more accurate. I could only use the 100yd number for that AI rifles as that was the only available range for us to shoot on, the 200 yd deck was being used for the competition, and 100yds was good for taking it for a test drive.
And no, i didn't mean to say that the AI, or Dakota rifles will last longer than ALL of the Brownings, Sako, FHN and other big names, but I will say that I think that they will last longer than SOME, and for sure the really cheap models. I'll be honest, I would love to own any of the rifles made by Browning, and the others for a hunting rifle. But since I can't afford a room full of guns, I have to stick to something that does both, and it has to do the tactical side better than the competitors. Either way, It still goes back to what I said, Dakota firearms are nice, really nice, and well built. They are expensive for sure. If you want one, then get one. It will last and, like others, you can pass it down to your kids / grandkids.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Why spend $1000 on a benelli when my Mossy shoots just as well? Its as simple as that. Unlike some of you, i don't have money to blow. I saved and scraped to buy my Mossy Combo. I bought a nicer looking Mossy than the original mossy thus it cost a little more. That gun means everything to me. I bought it saving my money. I clean it and treat it like my baby. No one in my family has ever had the luxury to go blow thousands of dollars on something they wanted. We choose paying the bills over luxury items.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

As far as rifles go, I've only owned Remington, Browning, Savage, Marlin, Winchester, and maybe a couple of others that I can't remember right now. They have all outshot better than me. I have never owned, or will I own the super high dollar guns. If any of the other guns let me down, I might think about it, but until then, no way!!! If you can afford them and want to spend your dough on them, more power to you!!!!

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I guess I need to apologize here sort of anyhow. Understand that I look at a rifle first as a tactical tool, for tactical purposes, which changes some of the parameters of what I expect from my toys. If it is accurate enough to do that work, then it will work for hunting too. That's just how I do it.


KDV, I'm not saying more money can't buy you a better, more accurate rifle. What I AM saying is that somewhere around $1,000 bucks I think one reaches the point of diminishing returns. In you're example, a person is paying $6-$8 thousand dollars for a .308 that will shoot a 1/4 inch group at 100 yds when most $1 thousand dollar rifles will shoot a 3/4" group at 100 yds with a good shot and good ammo. Not many people willing to pay an extra $5 thousand bucks just to cut half inch off their groups. That's what I call paying a LOT of money for damn little in return. I doubt there is an animal in this hemisphere that would appreciate the investment...and even fewer wives.


pavomesa,
In most cases you are right, the extra money just to shave 1/2 inch at one hundred isn't worth it, however, if you are ever going to shoot out over 5-600 yds, that is 1/2 inch for every 100 yds at a minimum, assuming that you do everything perfect as far as shooting fundamentals. That, at least for one of the uses for my rifles, can be the difference in winning or losing, or shooting an innocent person.....etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdvollmer

Somebody has said that more money does not get a better, or more accurate rifle, and in this case you are wrong. Check them out, I think that they start around 6,000-8000 for a .308 and go up from there. It is the only rifle that I have ever shot an honest 1/4 group at 100yds with. Factory demo rifle at a sniper competition, with a Nightforce scope. This is one that you really do get your moneys worth.


Do you think this is the only rifle that will do this? I know of plenty that will do this that cost much less money. I know of rimfires that will hold quarter inch groups at 100 yards. My stock $200 savage 17HMR with a mid priced 20 power scope could come very close to it. And that kind of accuracy out of a center fire has a lot less to do with how much money you spent on the gun. Don't think your going to drop 8 grand on a gun, slap an expensive scope on it and run to walmart and grab what ever rounds are on sale and shoot those kind of groups. I am quite sure there are plenty of custom guns out there that shoot just as well that have much less money invested in them.




quote:


If you want the dakota. BUY IT. KEEP IT. AND HAND IT DOWN TO YOUR KIDS OR GRANDKIDS. It will last. ( that is the other reason to buy nice firearms. THEY LAST LONGER. long enough to give your kids.


Are you saying that gun will last longer than a browning, remington, ruger, winchester, howa, sako, savage or similar? Or that any of these guns won't last long enough to pass down to your children? They are all made from the same materials for the most part. I don't see where the one for twice the money will last considerably longer than any of the others as long as they are well taken care of. I know of some of those brands that have been around for generations.

Paul

_____________________________




Paul,
Not trying to start a war here. I understand that your 17 will shoot small ragged hole at 100 yds, but will it shoot that 1/2 moa, or 3/4 moa out to say 800 yds. I used that example because that was the smallest group I had shot with a Large Bore, center fire rifle. I buy rifles for dual use since I cannot afford to have a safe full of both hunting rifles and tactical rifles that I would take to a Sniper shoot. I can afford though to spend more for one rifle that will work competitvly, as well as work as a hunting rifle.
I have to say, most of the companies that you listed, IMO Browning, remington, Ruger... are not cheap rifles. Those names to me, represent fairly high end, factory rifles. People buy those rifles as well BECAUSE you can hand them down. But lets face it, not all guns, and especially cheap ones are going to last as long as higher priced guns. Sure material might be generally the same, but some metal is not as hard as other, parts wear out faster, and that is why you spend more, or at least why I do, to avoid that. Just for general Info, I haven't yet spent more than 1500 on a rifle. I will most likely not either unless I hit the lottery. I too can get what I need for less than the 6000-8000 I Listed. Those, we just examples where you do get more for the $$$.

No need to worry about me thinking that I can drop the cash, buy a scope, and the cheap ammo to shoot those kinds of groups either. I am no beginner to the sport of shooting, or to long range shooting either. I am, to be honest a little insulted at that, but so be it.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I'd much rather have a few high end products than many entry level or cheaper ones. That's true for weapons, optics or most anything else.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

KD, sorry if I insulted you that was not the intention. I was just pointing out that there are many people that think they can buy accuracy. I have seen it both with bows and guns. They drop a ton of money on a target model because they think it will make them shoot better, when in most cases it won't. Long range shooting has more to do with skill and homework than it does ultra expensive equipment in my opinion. I was reading up on F class long range shooting and most of the stuff I read said that a gun that could group MOA at 100 yards was sufficient to compete with.

I see it a lot in archery though. Someone goes out and plunks down over a grand on a bow, then almost that on sights rests a fancy release and other stuff. Then they are mad because it doesn't shoot any better. When the truth is they just don't shoot that well to begin with. You give a professional target shooter an old beat up out of date poorly tune bow and they will shoot it great, you give someone that sucks a really expensive target bow and unfortunately they will still suck;).

Like I said in my original post though, I am basically talking about the average guy that will walk into a gun store, pick one and go home with it, not a custom made gun. I actually thought about getting a browning and had several people tell me not to, the savage was actually better for almost half the money. I still wouldn't mind having one though.

Out of curiosity what are average groups for long range target shooting, like 600 and 1000 yards? Can you really verify that a gun will hold half in groups at 5 or 6 hundred yards? I find that mind boggling if you can. There are so many things that can effect the shot at that distance.

Paul

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Paul,
No worries on the insult. It happens, and many times unintentionally. As for the question of whether a rifle can actually be verified. It isn't so much that a rifle will hold 1/2 inch at that range, but 1/2 MOA. as you may, or may not know, one MOA (minute of angle for those that don't) is 1 inch at 100 yds. That take a little further is one inch for EVERY 100 yds. therefor 1 MOA at 100yds, is 1 inch, at 200 yds, 2 inches, 300yds, 3 inches. 2 MOA at 100 is 2 inch diff, at 200 yds, is 4 inches....etc.
SO, all that said, a gun guaranteed to shoot 1/2 MOA out to say 1500 meters, will shoot a 7 1/2 inch group. A 1 MOA gun would be a 15 in group.

You are also very correct in saying that there are MANY average guys that think that just buying the cool guy equipment by it self will make them a world class shooter, when the fact is that there is soo much more that goes into long range shooting than anybody can imagine. Temp change from zero, humidity, light, ammo storage, different ammo for different tasks.

Average groups for rifles at those ranges, depend on the gun, the shooter, the ammo....lots of variables. For example, the dakota longbow gives their promise with match ammo. Might have been match ammo from their ammo shop. Available to the public, costs about 80-100 a box, but it will get it done. Might be tested with Black Hills Match, which is the factory ammo I choose. Said by many to be the industry gold standard now for accuracy. I tend to agree. So anyway, it really differs. When I got to shoot the AI Rifle in California. Sure, 100 yds, not much, but with their rifle, and ammo ( can't remember the brand, but I am thinking Norma, or Lapua brand) i shot the smallest group ever for me, 1/4 inch or so ( before i get blaasted for that, it is an estimate, but it was one small hole, not much bigger than a 30 cal hole.) That was a good improvement on the 1/2 inch I could shoot with my rifle and match ammo. And I thought that I already had an accurate rifle. It was for sure a better more accurate rifle.

For me personally, I consider myself a pretty damn good shot. Generally, I shoot around 1/2 inch groups at 100 -200 yds. the further out, I tend not to be quite as steady, though I have taken Prairie dogs at over 700 meters. I would say in all honesty, out to long - long range, I am an honest 3/4 to 1MOA shooter. Longest confirmed shot was 926 meter. It was a 10" x 10" steel plate. That was with an M-24 Sniper Rifle.

Hope that helps answer some of your questions for me, and maybe fill in some blanks on how I look at rifles VS cost VS rifle ability.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Now that's impressive. I was looking at the rules for the F class long range shooting and the 10 ring for 600 yards is 3 inches I think. You would clean up in that competition.

KD, I understand now. I know how MOA works I just thought they were guaranteeing that the gun would shoot half inch groups at 500 yards and was wondering how you would verify something like that. A bird could fart 100 yards down range and change your path at 500 yards:D.

I'm not sure how it works with rifles but that theory does not work for muzzle loaders and shotguns. Just because you shoot great groups up close doesn't mean they will at 100 yards and beyond. I have seen it several times where a gun will shoot great at 75 yards and fall apart at 100 yards and beyond. I noticed while testing different loads for my slug gun this was quite evident. My muzzle loader would do the same thing. One inch or better groups at 100 yards but out to 150 yards the groups opened up to about 5 inches. I played with different load weights, different powder and bullets with a better BC and cut that in half though. I discovered faster is not always better;).

Seen it with .22's as well.

Never messed much with centerfires though because of where I live. I just got a 243 for a varmint rifle though. 300 yards seems like an incredible distance to me, let alone 600 and beyond[:o].

I've never shot a deer farther away than 80 yards though.;)

I just figure when I hear someone say a gun will shoot a certain sized groups at a specific distance I figured it was actually shot at that distance. I guess that is where I got confused.

Paul

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Just a guess, but I would imagine the accuracy drops off when the speed of the projectile drops below the speed of sound and encounters all sorts of turbulence when this occurs. That would help explain why it isn't as evident in most higher powered rifles, but can be readily apparent with muzzle loaders and shotguns.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I also would much rather have one high end gun that several average ones...

I have prople tell me all that time, "i can't afford to have a gun like yours"... Yet they have 10, 15 or more guns in there closet!!!

That just cracks me up!! lol

DM

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I agree with you 100% but the question would be what cartridge, that’s the challenge...[8D]

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Thats not that big of a deal... heck I can do that too off a good rest... with no wind.... if I haven't had any coffee that day... and I'm feeling just right... and if no one is watching.... and if the target is just about 560 yards closer..... :)

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I could easily get by the rest of my life with a 30-06, i just don't see a problem here...

DM

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

Life is too short to have crappy guns.

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

If I had to have just ONE rifle, it would be a really high quality gun in one of the .300 mags. Not sure which one exactly, as I have only shot the .300 Win Mag which is no slouch in itself. Of course, that would be for everything bigger than small game. Really kind of Ugly on Prairie Dogs.....

RE: Cheap vs. Expensive?
 

I would have a harder time, but the 30-06 would be a good choice...:D