Win, Browning, Remington or Ruger?
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
Zeppy,
what would make you steer someone towards a Weatherby? You can buy them at Wal-Mart, right next to the 700ADL's and the M70 Super Shadows and Savage 110's. I've seen nothing to suggest that Weatherby rifles, aside from the Wal-Mart Vanguard model, are any more accurate than other brands that cost half as much. For that matter, if you're not getting a cartridge of a performance level only available in a Weatherby round, which is getting easier to do in other rifles unless you want a .257 or .244 or something really HUGE that will knock you over, the Weatherby Rifle is one of the last on the list in my book. The fact that they gaurantee the rifle will give you 1.5" 3-shot groups at 100 yards using one of the their boxes of ammo is no real feat for me. If I had to buy a box each of Weatherby ammo for my .340 to see which one would shoot under 1.5" at 100yds it would cost me over $200. If I bought one of their fancy new lightweight rifles for $1200 and it wouldn't put three shots in .75", I'd feel like I'd been violated. From the shooting tests I've seen, your lucky to get the 1.5" groups out of them. If you want to shoot far they make great rounds, but 1.5"at 100 yards is 6" at 400yds before you take into account for shooter error. Doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for error on the part of the shooter.
what would make you steer someone towards a Weatherby? You can buy them at Wal-Mart, right next to the 700ADL's and the M70 Super Shadows and Savage 110's. I've seen nothing to suggest that Weatherby rifles, aside from the Wal-Mart Vanguard model, are any more accurate than other brands that cost half as much. For that matter, if you're not getting a cartridge of a performance level only available in a Weatherby round, which is getting easier to do in other rifles unless you want a .257 or .244 or something really HUGE that will knock you over, the Weatherby Rifle is one of the last on the list in my book. The fact that they gaurantee the rifle will give you 1.5" 3-shot groups at 100 yards using one of the their boxes of ammo is no real feat for me. If I had to buy a box each of Weatherby ammo for my .340 to see which one would shoot under 1.5" at 100yds it would cost me over $200. If I bought one of their fancy new lightweight rifles for $1200 and it wouldn't put three shots in .75", I'd feel like I'd been violated. From the shooting tests I've seen, your lucky to get the 1.5" groups out of them. If you want to shoot far they make great rounds, but 1.5"at 100 yards is 6" at 400yds before you take into account for shooter error. Doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for error on the part of the shooter.
That 1.5" is the LOW cost model. My .338/.378 was guarenteed for 1" and I get 1" at 200 yards. Weatherby is a more powerful weapon if you start to compaire it with the more standard rounds. Also weatherby engineers the breaks perfectly for the model.
I have Winchester 70 and a Remmington 700. For the bench they both work real good. For hunting however I go with the Weatherby.
Yes it costs more.....
I have Winchester 70 and a Remmington 700. For the bench they both work real good. For hunting however I go with the Weatherby.
Yes it costs more.....
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
There are many considerations about what makes a good hunting rifle, and the power of the cartrtidge is fairly low down the list, I think, unless you are hunting something dangerous. Almost all modern loads are capable of taking most game in America. I know a hunter who has killed elk with a .243, and another acquaintance has killed five bulls with 6 shots from his 30-30. So the power of the cartridge is, in a way, irrelevant. Yes, I have preferences, and I know some cartridges are better in some applications than others, etc. etc., but I don't think they should be the determining factor in what rifle you buy.
The Weatherby's are well made rifles, and I particularly like the weight of the Lightweight models, but I personally believe the Winchester has the best features for a HUNTING rifle. True, it's all a bit of the Ford/Chevy arguement, but I appreciate the big claw extractor, safety that mechanically blocks the firing pin in ALL safe positions, and a bolt that can be disassembled without tools. That can be important in my climate, where it often rains/snows and freezes up during hunting season. For what it's worth, many African PH's detest Weatherbys because of reliability issues in extreme conditions.
But, as I've said before, you should shoot what you like. They'll all work under most conditions!
Have fun!
The Weatherby's are well made rifles, and I particularly like the weight of the Lightweight models, but I personally believe the Winchester has the best features for a HUNTING rifle. True, it's all a bit of the Ford/Chevy arguement, but I appreciate the big claw extractor, safety that mechanically blocks the firing pin in ALL safe positions, and a bolt that can be disassembled without tools. That can be important in my climate, where it often rains/snows and freezes up during hunting season. For what it's worth, many African PH's detest Weatherbys because of reliability issues in extreme conditions.
But, as I've said before, you should shoot what you like. They'll all work under most conditions!
Have fun!
IdHunter, there you go discriminating against Zeppie's Dodge.I was not a fan of the Chevy trucks ever, but when I tore my buddies new "Hemi" up with my 8.1 liter in a Crew Cab 4x4, I was rather suprised after all the hype Dodge put out trying to pull out of the distant third place in the truck race. The funniest thing is that my Chevy, which I would never buy, rides nicer, pulls better, accelerates stronger, and gets 30% better gas milage than his little hemi. Did I mention it rides MUCH nicer, and gets MUCH better milage. I'm really not sorry if I start a flame here, all the guys citing the Ford/Chevy argument started it. That said, my next truck will probably be another Ford or Chevy.
I like the lightweigh Weatheby rifles. Nice to look at. I'm guessing nice to carry. I haven't seen a test report that will make me run out and buy one. I have a .340 that I've had to mess with the stock on so much, that it's going to get a new stock that cost as much as the rifle. The two .270 Weatherby rifles of the same make that my friends have, have the same stock problem. The name is no magic bullets. I've shot a 30/378 that was a tack driver. I have a brake on my .340 for the obvious reasons, I'm a bit of wuss to do extensive load testing from the bench with it without one. It's a removable brake, as I'd never even think of hunting with ANY rifle with ANY muzzle brake on it. I don't carry ear plugs or muffs with me in the field. As far as the HUGE rounds go, I don't see the need. The .338/378 gives about a 100-150fps over my .340 at the very most with any published data I have seen, and that's being charitable as is. If you can't shoot like David Tubb, the difference between a .340 and any of the REALLY BIG rounds is a moot point. Weatherby, now that other companies have big power rounds, needs to re-examine what they sell. The name may carry them, but who knows. I can have built a semi-custom rifle which will shoot circles around any Weatherby I've seen for the same amount of cash, but I can't go buy it off the rack.
I like the lightweigh Weatheby rifles. Nice to look at. I'm guessing nice to carry. I haven't seen a test report that will make me run out and buy one. I have a .340 that I've had to mess with the stock on so much, that it's going to get a new stock that cost as much as the rifle. The two .270 Weatherby rifles of the same make that my friends have, have the same stock problem. The name is no magic bullets. I've shot a 30/378 that was a tack driver. I have a brake on my .340 for the obvious reasons, I'm a bit of wuss to do extensive load testing from the bench with it without one. It's a removable brake, as I'd never even think of hunting with ANY rifle with ANY muzzle brake on it. I don't carry ear plugs or muffs with me in the field. As far as the HUGE rounds go, I don't see the need. The .338/378 gives about a 100-150fps over my .340 at the very most with any published data I have seen, and that's being charitable as is. If you can't shoot like David Tubb, the difference between a .340 and any of the REALLY BIG rounds is a moot point. Weatherby, now that other companies have big power rounds, needs to re-examine what they sell. The name may carry them, but who knows. I can have built a semi-custom rifle which will shoot circles around any Weatherby I've seen for the same amount of cash, but I can't go buy it off the rack.
You know I never like to argue with you KCIH but...
.338/.378 Weatherby
You get 2989fps with a 250grain bullet
.340 Weatherby
You get 2784fps with a 250grain bullet
What do you get out of your 340?
Weatherby goes for the fastest cartridges. If you compair them they are always faster. You cant seat the bullet to the lans and the forcing cone is designed to put the maximum pressure on the bullet at the optimal time.
A better comp?
A .460 Weathby will pump out a 400g bullet at 2640fps while a .458 Winmag pumps out a 400g at 2407fps.
Another comp?
A .416 Weatherby - 400g at 2711 fps while a .416 Remmington is 2420 fps.
Now I dont think the Weatherby's are 2x as good and therefore thats why they are 2x the cost. However for out of the box they are a superior rifle. If I have 1 rifle to hunt Deer or Elk or Bear its the .338/.378. For deer I can load up light loads - 160g at 3610fps or for the bear I can load up heavy loads - 275g at 2893 fps.
P.S.
That 30/338 -- fastest 30 caliber there is! 150g at 3690!
.338/.378 Weatherby
You get 2989fps with a 250grain bullet
.340 Weatherby
You get 2784fps with a 250grain bullet
What do you get out of your 340?
Weatherby goes for the fastest cartridges. If you compair them they are always faster. You cant seat the bullet to the lans and the forcing cone is designed to put the maximum pressure on the bullet at the optimal time.
A better comp?
A .460 Weathby will pump out a 400g bullet at 2640fps while a .458 Winmag pumps out a 400g at 2407fps.
Another comp?
A .416 Weatherby - 400g at 2711 fps while a .416 Remmington is 2420 fps.
Now I dont think the Weatherby's are 2x as good and therefore thats why they are 2x the cost. However for out of the box they are a superior rifle. If I have 1 rifle to hunt Deer or Elk or Bear its the .338/.378. For deer I can load up light loads - 160g at 3610fps or for the bear I can load up heavy loads - 275g at 2893 fps.
P.S.
That 30/338 -- fastest 30 caliber there is! 150g at 3690!
Zep,
I haven't played with the 250's as yet. I've made the focus of my efforts the 210-225gr slugs. I'm pushing the Barnes 210XLC out at 3250. Sort of a long range sledgehammer in my opinion. I don't doubt that the 338/378 shoots a bit flatter, or hits a bit harder, but I will stand by the statement that you'd have to be a expert or better class marksman to even use the power of the .340 in the field, let alone the 338/378. If you can't get it done out to 400 yards with the .340, which is way beyond most hunters ability in a field situation, the 338/378 isn't going make it happen. I understand the idea that it's the last day on your $8K trophy elk hunt, nearing dusk, and you've only got a raking shot at 500 yards to take the "trophy of a lifetime" marketing scheme. Personally I think that kind of shooting for 99+% of hunters is pure irresponsibility and the height of unethical, so called, hunting. The odds that something will go wrong under field conditions with this mentality are FAR greater than the odds things will go right. I also understand that a 50 yard shot can cripple an animal if not properly placed, but at 4-500 yards where these cartridges shine, the odds are a hundredfold greater that a lost animal will be the outcome. So, since I think the shot is irresponsible, I don't see the need for the greater power. I'm not condemning anyones hunting style, or their choice of cartridge, but I fail to see the real world benefit or the ethical argument for this type of shooting at game animals. If you can do it 100% of the time at 4-500 yards where the cartridge has it's benefit, the more power to you, but I'd like to see guys who spout about this put 5 shots into 8" from prone with a sling at 500 yards...every time they practice, let alone with a increased heart rate.
As far as the Weatherby rifles, they are nice, but I don't see the value. I'm know the muzzle brake is effective, as I said I shot the 30/378, but I don't use hearing protection in the field and will NOT use a muzzle brake without hearing protection.
I haven't played with the 250's as yet. I've made the focus of my efforts the 210-225gr slugs. I'm pushing the Barnes 210XLC out at 3250. Sort of a long range sledgehammer in my opinion. I don't doubt that the 338/378 shoots a bit flatter, or hits a bit harder, but I will stand by the statement that you'd have to be a expert or better class marksman to even use the power of the .340 in the field, let alone the 338/378. If you can't get it done out to 400 yards with the .340, which is way beyond most hunters ability in a field situation, the 338/378 isn't going make it happen. I understand the idea that it's the last day on your $8K trophy elk hunt, nearing dusk, and you've only got a raking shot at 500 yards to take the "trophy of a lifetime" marketing scheme. Personally I think that kind of shooting for 99+% of hunters is pure irresponsibility and the height of unethical, so called, hunting. The odds that something will go wrong under field conditions with this mentality are FAR greater than the odds things will go right. I also understand that a 50 yard shot can cripple an animal if not properly placed, but at 4-500 yards where these cartridges shine, the odds are a hundredfold greater that a lost animal will be the outcome. So, since I think the shot is irresponsible, I don't see the need for the greater power. I'm not condemning anyones hunting style, or their choice of cartridge, but I fail to see the real world benefit or the ethical argument for this type of shooting at game animals. If you can do it 100% of the time at 4-500 yards where the cartridge has it's benefit, the more power to you, but I'd like to see guys who spout about this put 5 shots into 8" from prone with a sling at 500 yards...every time they practice, let alone with a increased heart rate.
As far as the Weatherby rifles, they are nice, but I don't see the value. I'm know the muzzle brake is effective, as I said I shot the 30/378, but I don't use hearing protection in the field and will NOT use a muzzle brake without hearing protection.
Hello All,
I'm a newbie to the site; just wanted to throw my two cents in. I just bought a Model 70 Classic Featherweight in the 270 WSM. This gun is a tack driver, and does not kick bad at all. I can shoot a box of 150 grn's without a problem. If you decide to go with the Model 70, I would suggest to have the trigger adjusted. It cam from the factory set to about 6.5-7 lbs. I had mine adjusted down to 3 lbs, and it shoots much better. Good luck, and enjoy.
I'm a newbie to the site; just wanted to throw my two cents in. I just bought a Model 70 Classic Featherweight in the 270 WSM. This gun is a tack driver, and does not kick bad at all. I can shoot a box of 150 grn's without a problem. If you decide to go with the Model 70, I would suggest to have the trigger adjusted. It cam from the factory set to about 6.5-7 lbs. I had mine adjusted down to 3 lbs, and it shoots much better. Good luck, and enjoy.
Joined
·
89 Posts
TPM,
The '06 will handle anything you have mentioned, and do a very good job of it. As for rifle selection. Every rifle you mentioned are good ones, but I would stick with either the Winchester or the Remington. I have owned and used both and wouldn't turn either one of them down. If I had to choose between them, I'd go with what I have in the gun cabinet right now. The Remington M-700 BDL. For me, the tie breaker is the trigger. While the Winchester trigger is adjustable, it cannot be adjusted to remove all creep and backlash. The Remington trigger can be. The Remington trigger pull weight is easily adjusted to exactly what you want. I like to lighten a trigger if doing bench test, and then back up to a hunting weight for normal use. To top it off, I think the Remington is a better looking rifle, and pretty does seem to count. Good luck. Let us know how it all works out.
The '06 will handle anything you have mentioned, and do a very good job of it. As for rifle selection. Every rifle you mentioned are good ones, but I would stick with either the Winchester or the Remington. I have owned and used both and wouldn't turn either one of them down. If I had to choose between them, I'd go with what I have in the gun cabinet right now. The Remington M-700 BDL. For me, the tie breaker is the trigger. While the Winchester trigger is adjustable, it cannot be adjusted to remove all creep and backlash. The Remington trigger can be. The Remington trigger pull weight is easily adjusted to exactly what you want. I like to lighten a trigger if doing bench test, and then back up to a hunting weight for normal use. To top it off, I think the Remington is a better looking rifle, and pretty does seem to count. Good luck. Let us know how it all works out.
TPM, wow, you have made a decision about the 30-06, and you will still have folks trying to change your mind. I think you have made a fine choice - versitle, easy to get ammo, not bad recoil. Now, about the brand of rifle........
The good thing is that you really cannot make a "bad" choice here. You should really go and at least, bring the different rifles to your shoulder. I have gone into shops twice to buy a Winchester, and come out with a Browning and a Ruger....They fit me better. The Browning A-bolt is a wonderful weapon, and the bolt action slides like warm butter, it is accurate (last mule deer I got was a legitimate 300 yrd shot with a 30-06 and Burris ballistic plex scope, and a bipod). It is great! The Ruger I have in .308 is probably the most accurate weapon I have ever owned, and really is a sub MOA rifle out of the box, factory ammo. I have the target to prove it. I have owned Winchesters in the past, and have been very pleased. Remmington rifles and I don't get along as well, but that is a personal choice of mine, there is nothing wrong with the rifle.
However, that is what it comes down to....your personal preference. Hold them, shoot them if you can, bring them up to shoulder.....you really can't make a bad decision.
Whatever you get, you will get good with it if you shoot it. You won't be good with it if it spends all it's time in the gun rack. Enjoy your new rifle!
The good thing is that you really cannot make a "bad" choice here. You should really go and at least, bring the different rifles to your shoulder. I have gone into shops twice to buy a Winchester, and come out with a Browning and a Ruger....They fit me better. The Browning A-bolt is a wonderful weapon, and the bolt action slides like warm butter, it is accurate (last mule deer I got was a legitimate 300 yrd shot with a 30-06 and Burris ballistic plex scope, and a bipod). It is great! The Ruger I have in .308 is probably the most accurate weapon I have ever owned, and really is a sub MOA rifle out of the box, factory ammo. I have the target to prove it. I have owned Winchesters in the past, and have been very pleased. Remmington rifles and I don't get along as well, but that is a personal choice of mine, there is nothing wrong with the rifle.
However, that is what it comes down to....your personal preference. Hold them, shoot them if you can, bring them up to shoulder.....you really can't make a bad decision.
Whatever you get, you will get good with it if you shoot it. You won't be good with it if it spends all it's time in the gun rack. Enjoy your new rifle!
Joined
·
92 Posts
Get the Winchester, good looking, controlled feed. I have one in .270 and it's accurate. I don't have anything to do with a cheap Remington and their sevice is bad.
Hi i am new here.If yall don't mind i have a question close to this threw..I am looking at getting a new hunting rifle this season, the problem i have is what calibar do i want or need..i want to be able to shoot long range one day and i like to hunt Deer and Hog...a friend of mine told me that hunting in florida you really don't need anything bigger then a 243 but i think i would like something in the 30cal size something like 308..i was also looking at a Remington 700VLS the gun weights 9.4 lbs....does anyone know anything about this gun and what cal. would be good between the 243 or 308? thanks
You cant go wrong with a .308!
Light recoil and excellent accuracy.
Remmington makes very good .308's so that would be a good choice. If you want to use it for long range target practice I highly suggest you add a break on the front to keep the rifle from jumping off of the table.
Light recoil and excellent accuracy.
Remmington makes very good .308's so that would be a good choice. If you want to use it for long range target practice I highly suggest you add a break on the front to keep the rifle from jumping off of the table.
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
