So some of the posts have been really helpful for rifles

[Photon Guy]

Some of the posts here have been really helpful for rifles and for what good rifle companies might be. Forget all the big name commercial brands such as Winchester, Remington, Marlin, even Browning. They're all good but with some of the posts here and from conferring at gun shops I've learned of brands that are better, more high end, but with a higher price tag. From internet research I used to think Steyr Mannlicher was a top brand and they're good but here I've learned of other brands that could rival or even bypass Steyr Mannlicher. Brands such as Dakota Arms or Cooper for instance, although they probably have a similar or higher price tag.

[James K]

"...for what good rifle companies might be."

Define "good". When I worked in a gun shop a while back, we had some great customers who bought nothing but Weatherbys. Others wouldn't touch anything not made in Germany, or hand built in England, or custom made by one or another small shop.

So did those guns shoot better? Did the owners take more game? Well, maybe, but some never took their guns hunting, a few never fired them. They bought those high ticket guns for the same reason some ladies shell out thousands of bucks for a Hermes purse - bragging rights.

Nor, unfortunately, does high price always mean high quality or functional perfection or even the best accuracy, though it should mean more consistent quality. Even if one has the money to buy the top end, it is always better to buy what you like and what works best for you. And what you will use. I have never seen the point of shelling out thousands of dollars for a rifle that will sit in a gun cabinet because it is too pretty to take out, while that beat up, plastic-stocked Remington brings home the meat. Except for bragging points.

Jim

[T. O'Heir]

Higher price tags mean nothing. Don't buy stuff because you think high prices means high quality. Cadillac's have high price tags, but are exactly the same as a Chevy(also high priced) under the paint.
The big name commercial brands are all pretty much the same. Lot of 'em(like Browning) are marketing based on the name too. And have been for years. That doesn't mean smaller shops like Dakota Arms or Cooper are any better.

[jmr40]

Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Browning etc. are all production rifles. They all offer several models ranging from top end, down to budget rifles. Styer, Sako and other brands do the same. I've owned, or at least shot all of the brands above. The best of the Styer's or Sako's are no better than the best of the others. The budget guns offered by all of the above tend to shoot every bit as well. They just don't have the finer finishes and other details. Often plastic parts are substituted for machined steel that would on the high end models.

There are some smaller companies such as Montana, Cooper, Dakota, etc., that are really semi-customs. I'll be honest, I've never ventured into that type of rifle. They look very nice, and I'm certain they shoot well. But not enough for me to justify the cost.

Lots of folks look at Kimber as one of the high end rifles. Don't get me wrong, I own and like Kimbers. But they are really in the same category as Remington, Winchester, Ruger, and Browning. Their rifles aren't much, if any more expensive than the top end offerings from those companies. They are just now cataloging a budget version of their rifle, but I've yet to see one. Nor have I read any reports of them from anyone who has used one.

With Kimber you are paying a small premium for the weight reduction, not better quality than Remington, Winchester etc. If someone wants a 5 lb rifle they are truly a bargain at about $1,200. Anything else at or near that weight is going to be a NULA,( New Ultralight Arms) that sells for $3,000+ or a true custom that would cost $3000-$4,000 to build.

[dgludwig]

If you want a better finish and a higher level of workmanship on any firearm, there is a price to pay. Whether the higher price is justified is up to the individual, but don't kid yourself: higher prices generally reflect a more intensive, skilled labor investment and that not only costs more money but usually results in a "better" firearm, at least in an aesthetic, if subjective, sense.

[SSA]

I grew up believing that a rifle was supposed to look like a Winchester 70. My Model 70 30/06 has functioned perfectly for about 20 years now, and it looks just right. So, as far as I can tell, there is no better rifle than the Winchester 70 30/06.

[Pathfinder45]

Mine is a 270, but otherwise, everything that SSA said, applies to me as well.

[Art Eatman]

With today's lathes, mills, shapers and drill presses having greater precision than of yesteryear, tight-group capability can be had at relatively low prices.

What makes costs higher, generally, is fit and finish and the quality of both the wood of the stock and the proper fitting in the bedding.

I once had a guided tour during a visit to Bo Clerke's barrel making operation in Raton. He told me that they turned out some 160 barrels per week for .17, .204 and .22 calibers. Bore tolerance was one-ten-thousandth of an inch.

I didn't ask who were his customers, but at some 8,000 per year, there had to be many non-custom-rifle buyers. Some, from ads I read, were after-market for such as the Ruger 10/22.

[Mauser69]

My Winchester Model 70 Featherweight (.30-06), Remington 700 BDL from the 70s (.22-250), and Sako Finnbear from the 70s (.270) are all fantastic firearms with wonderful fit and finish and outstanding accuracy.

The worst disappointment I have had is my Steyr Mannlicher from the 70s - it was beautiful on the shelf, but it is very painful to shoot, and the toy-grade crappy plastic began breaking within 5 years. That terrible gun wasn't worth even half the price of a standard American rifle, but it cost much more!

[Photon Guy]

Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Browning etc.

From what I know about Ruger their forte is handguns, specifically revolvers. Anything made by Ruger should be good though, although I've had problems with some of my Rugers.

[Photon Guy]

So did those guns shoot better? Did the owners take more game? Well, maybe, but some never took their guns hunting, a few never fired them. They bought those high ticket guns for the same reason some ladies shell out thousands of bucks for a Hermes purse - bragging rights.

Nor, unfortunately, does high price always mean high quality or functional perfection or even the best accuracy, though it should mean more consistent quality. Even if one has the money to buy the top end, it is always better to buy what you like and what works best for you. And what you will use. I have never seen the point of shelling out thousands of dollars for a rifle that will sit in a gun cabinet because it is too pretty to take out, while that beat up, plastic-stocked Remington brings home the meat. Except for bragging points.

Well here is what I spent seven grand on.
http://108.174.112.211/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Buffalo-framed1.jpg

I've only fired it once since bullets are $20 apiece although I could imagine taking it hunting if I ever hunt anything really big such as Elephant or Hippo but I bought it because I want something very powerful and for collection purposes.

[Photon Guy]

Lots of folks look at Kimber as one of the high end rifles. Don't get me wrong, I own and like Kimbers. But they are really in the same category as Remington, Winchester, Ruger, and Browning. Their rifles aren't much, if any more expensive than the top end offerings from those companies. They are just now cataloging a budget version of their rifle, but I've yet to see one. Nor have I read any reports of them from anyone who has used one.

I thought Kimber excelled in handguns although I do know they make rifles too. I've done research which includes speaking to people at gun shops and they tell me that Steyr Mannlicher is a high end brand and that its generally of higher quality than Winchester, Remington, or even Browning. I've made some posts on this forum about Steyr Mannlicher rifles and people here have claimed that other high end companies such as Dakota Arms and Cooper can be just as good or better. One of the downsides I've heard about Steyr Mannlicher rifles is that their synthetic stock is not of a really good material.

[Photon Guy]

By good I mean high quality. I used to think Remingtons were really good but I've heard that as of recently their products have plunged in terms of quality. You can get a Savage Arms rifle for much less than a Remington and it will be a much better gun. That's what this guy who worked at a gun shop told me, Cabela's to be exact. I asked around about that and I got further confirmation that Remington does not make good quality products like it used to. Older Remingtons are good but the newer ones are junk. This is a shame as from what I heard about the Remington company its got quite a history. Elirphalet Remington supposedly made guns at home that were better than the commercial brands. So with his home made guns being better than the main brands, Elirphalet went on to start a big business of his own and that's how Remington became a big commercial brand itself. But that was in the good old days.

Now, as for my experience with Remington. I've got a Remington 870 which I got back in 2001 shortly after the terrorist attacks so I've had it for close to 15 years. As of now although it functions just fine it has rusted on the outside. Also, two years ago I got a Remington 750 in .30-06 and after keeping it in my safe for a few months it had rusted on the inside so the chamber wouldn't open and I had to take it in to get all the rust cleaned out so it could be opened and safely fired. Other than that I do have a Remington 700 in .375 H&H and I have had no problems with it so far, although I don't use it all that much. Also, around Christmas last year I got a Bushmaster in 5.56 which from what I understand is now owned by Remington. I've used it quite a bit and I've had no problems with it although I do have to keep it well oiled and I have to keep a sheath around it to keep it from rusting.

[603Country]

Simple fact - if you want 'the good stuff', it will be expensive. That goes for cars, rifles, woodworking tools, optics, trophy wives, and many other things. You can assuredly get 'good enough' for a low or reasonable price, if that will satisfy you, and it does satisfy most of us.

[Photon Guy]

Simple fact - if you want 'the good stuff', it will be expensive. That goes for cars, rifles, woodworking tools, optics, trophy wives, and many other things. You can assuredly get 'good enough' for a low or reasonable price, if that will satisfy you, and it does satisfy most of us.

Not necessarily. If you know how to find a good bargain you can get good stuff without completely breaking the bank. I got a Ruger Redhawk for a grand, and while a grand is certainly a lot of money if you ask me a Redhawk is worth more than that. With my experience with Ruger, you pay good money but their products aren't outrageously priced like Kimber or particularly Wilson Combat. So with Ruger you get what you pay for and more. I also got a Remington 700 for much lower than what I would've ordinarily had to pay for it since it had been used as a demonstration rifle to promote the product and thus was considered used. Although it was still quite new, it had only been used for display and if it had been fired only once or twice so you could still call it a new gun but since it was considered used I payed a used price for it. And as people here have said, don't fall into the trap of thinking that if you're paying a high price you're getting something good. I know a few things about sales. There's the technique called "foaming the top" where you increase sales by actually bringing up the price. The idea is that people think if they pay lots of money they're getting something good. "Its expensive so its got to be good," is a common train of thought in our world, and people can be taken advantage of by that.

And as for a good wife, if she's marrying you for money than in my opinion she is marrying you for the wrong reason and is not a good wife.

[Mauser69]

If your guns are rusting, you need to learn a LOT more about firearm maintenance and storage. Until you do, I would suggest that spending more than $10 on another gun would be quite unwise.

[Photon Guy]

If your guns are rusting, you need to learn a LOT more about firearm maintenance and storage. Until you do, I would suggest that spending more than $10 on another gun would be quite unwise.

My Smith & Wesson that I've had for over 17 years now does not and never has had any rust whatsoever. My Rugers never had any rust and neither has my Marlin or even my Hawk 12 Gauge which is a cheap gun that I wouldn't buy but in this case it was given to me. The only guns that I've had rust problems with are the Remingtons and while as of now I am storing my guns much better, I've got a much better safe and I've got a mini dehumidifier in the safe and I've even got a full size dehumidifier constantly running in the room where the safe is but even before that when I didn't have the good safe and the dehumidifiers the only guns that rusted were the Remingtons.

[603Country]

In another post, you attached a picture of a rifle you had paid $7000 for, if I remember correctly. Why'd you spend that kind of money on a rifle and then start a chat like this one.

I put the trophy wife comment in the earlier post mostly for humor. As for rifles, if you are talking Ruger, Remington, and a few others, you are totally missing my point on buying the 'good stuff'. Get a first class action, barrel, stock, trigger, and gunsmith and have a rifle made to your exacting accuracy specifications and see what the cost will run. Not cheap.

[SSA]

That's what this guy who worked at a gun shop told me

I knew it.

[Photon Guy]

In another post, you attached a picture of a rifle you had paid $7000 for, if I remember correctly. Why'd you spend that kind of money on a rifle and then start a chat like this one.

Why not?

[Photon Guy]

I knew it.

You're taking what I said out of context. I would suggest going back and reading the entire post.

[Pathfinder45]

Clearly, Photon, you have deeper pockets than many, so you can afford whatever rifle you want. If I wanted a really nice bolt-action rifle and the price was irrelevant, I would still be getting a model 70 Winchester, and it would have a walnut stock. But there would still be some questions to resolve: Will it be new, or pre-64, or pre-War? If it is to be a newer version it would be either the Classic Sporter or the Alaskan. It would have to be a 30-'06 or 270 Winchester. But if it was to be a pre-64 or pre-War, there might be some other acceptable calibers. But, yeah, if I had 7 grand to blow on a rifle, the only thing I would be sure about is that it would be a Winchester. If not a model 70, then it would likely be an older 1886 or 71.

[kraigwy]

Some people "confer a lot with gun store clerks".

So do I, and I know guns store clerks as well as other sales people push products that wont normally sell them selves.

I've seen gun clerks raving about the merits of a $2900 M1 Garand, but I know Garands, the rifle he's pushing wouldn't be allowed on the racks of Garands at the CMP with their $630 rifles.

Sorry, I don't do recommendations from clerks, gun store's or any other saleman.

You want a $7000 shooter, good, get one. Pay $500 for the rifle, and $6450 for ammo and learn to shoot it. The weakest link to any rifle is the guy pulling the trigger.

Wait, $500 + $6450 is only $6950. That's not common core math, that's a hint to set aside $50 and buy cleaning gear and lubes to keep your rifle from Rusting.

I have a Model 70 Win in 375 H&H I paid $235 for in 1974. I spent a lot of thine hunting with it in the salt spray of Southern Alaska, (Afognak Island to be more accurate). That rifle is 42 years old and doesn't have a speck of rust on it. Why??? Because I always carried a can of "RIG", and kept it coated.

I was putting on a CMP Clinic/Match one year. The match was won buy a guy who the night before went to town and bought a Mosin for $119 and some cheap surplus ammo.

He didn't win the match because the Mosin was better then the Garands, Springfields and others, he won by sticking to fundamentals that the Garand and Springfield shooters neglected.

[HiBC]

Well said,Kraig
Its a really good question to ask"What does "Quality"mean?
Depends on the customer.
I'm twisted in that I just don't get any satisfaction out of buying a new,factory gun.More likely,I'll get buyers remorse.

Most factory rifles are good,functional tools.And very often,their owners have a regard for them.Most people do not like to hear anyone badmouth wife,kid,dog,or the firearm they use.

You show me your pride and joy,Remington,Savage,Mossberg,Ruger,Weatherby,Grandpa's Springfield he sporterized,I'm going to ask "Does it shoot for you?" Then I'm going to say "Nice rifle"...And with sincerity.

The military and a lot of other folks have chosen Remington 700's.
Out of the box Savages outshoot a lot of really expensive rifles.I have not shot any Rugers lately,but the early 77's that I shot were accurate.

My problem is,not any of those,even the exotics like a weatherby or a Sako,give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

I have to start with some receiver or action,be it a Mexican Mauser,Springfield,Rolling block,cigar box of Ithaca 37 parts....a 98/09,or some Colt 1911 slide,then I have a vision of what I want,and I build it.

I have a Model 70 Laredo,and a Garand.And a 308 DPMS.Those were bought already built.

But its all in the eye of the beholder.Most folks might not give $200 for my MexMauser .257.I just smile and say I'm not looking to sell it.I can't buy a rifle to replace it.

BTW,as I remember it,Kimber started out filling the niche for a quality,grown up,wood and steel,very accurate .22 rimfire. The guaranteed 1 MOA at 100 yds with good ammo.I guess from what BartB wrote here,they don't make that good of .22 ammo anymore.
But,thats what I remember the Kimber for.
They appeal to folks who get off on the Anschutz and Win 52,but in a sporter trim.

[Photon Guy]

Clearly, Photon, you have deeper pockets than many, so you can afford whatever rifle you want. If I wanted a really nice bolt-action rifle and the price was irrelevant, I would still be getting a model 70 Winchester, and it would have a walnut stock. But there would still be some questions to resolve: Will it be new, or pre-64, or pre-War? If it is to be a newer version it would be either the Classic Sporter or the Alaskan. It would have to be a 30-'06 or 270 Winchester. But if it was to be a pre-64 or pre-War, there might be some other acceptable calibers. But, yeah, if I had 7 grand to blow on a rifle, the only thing I would be sure about is that it would be a Winchester. If not a model 70, then it would likely be an older 1886 or 71.

Now days I've got more money than I used to but I still don't have deep enough pockets to get any rifle I want on a whim. The 7 grand rifle I got that was a one time splurge that I was able to get since I had recently come by a good amount of cash, but its not something that I come by on a regular basis nor am I able to buy rifles like that on a regular basis. But I had wanted a big safari grade rifle for a long long time and I had the opportunity to get one. As for spending 2 grand on a rifle that would be something I would have to save up for, not something I could do right away.

I do know what its like to buy guns on a tight budget. When I got my first gun I was working as a lifeguard and I bought it on the pay that you get when you're a lifeguard. I really wanted a good quality gun though so I saved up and bought a Smith & Wesson, not a Taurus which I had at first considered buying. Also, the fact that I had to go through a 9 month waiting period to get the gun really gave me time to save up for it.

[Photon Guy]

Some people "confer a lot with gun store clerks".

So do I, and I know guns store clerks as well as other sales people push products that wont normally sell them selves.

I've seen gun clerks raving about the merits of a $2900 M1 Garand, but I know Garands, the rifle he's pushing wouldn't be allowed on the racks of Garands at the CMP with their $630 rifles.

Sorry, I don't do recommendations from clerks, gun store's or any other saleman.

When I do confer with gun store clerks I take what they say and I check it by doing further research. This further research involves talking to other gun enthusiasts, instructors, and researching on the internet which includes using forums such as this one. So some of my posts here, a good deal of my posts here are part of my research. Also, when I find a gun I want I check various sources to see where I can get it for the lowest price. This involves visiting different gun shops and in this day and age checking the internet as you can get really good prices when buying guns online. Often you will pay less for guns online than you would at a gun shop, even with the transfer fee. So when Im told something by a gun shop clerk I don't automatically believe it but I don't automatically dismiss it either. I check it against other sources. I do my homework, which involves all of the above.

You want a $7000 shooter, good, get one. Pay $500 for the rifle, and $6450 for ammo and learn to shoot it. The weakest link to any rifle is the guy pulling the trigger.

Wait, $500 + $6450 is only $6950. That's not common core math, that's a hint to set aside $50 and buy cleaning gear and lubes to keep your rifle from Rusting.

Not including my black powder rifles, I bought my first rifle for $300 and its a .22 so I can get much more ammo for a much lower price than for rifles in most other calibers so I get that much more practice. Of course the cheapest practice is dry practice.
And I've got good cleaning and oiling supplies too.

I have a Model 70 Win in 375 H&H I paid $235 for in 1974. I spent a lot of thine hunting with it in the salt spray of Southern Alaska, (Afognak Island to be more accurate). That rifle is 42 years old and doesn't have a speck of rust on it. Why??? Because I always carried a can of "RIG", and kept it coated.

I must say $235 is a good price for a 375 H&H even back in 1974 although this is just an educated guess on my part since 1974 was before my time. So did you buy the rifle new or used?

I was putting on a CMP Clinic/Match one year. The match was won buy a guy who the night before went to town and bought a Mosin for $119 and some cheap surplus ammo.

He didn't win the match because the Mosin was better then the Garands, Springfields and others, he won by sticking to fundamentals that the Garand and Springfield shooters neglected.

Well certainly its not the gun but its the person using it that makes the biggest difference although it does make sense to have a gun in good working order and its good to take advantage of the low prices on surplus ammo although you do have to be careful with that as supposedly some of the junk ammo can be bad for your firearm.

[DaleA]

Hey Photon Guy--how about some details about the safari gun in post #11. Don't be fooled by my high post count. I can NOT take a look at a rifle and immediately tell you the manufacturer, the caliber, details about the scope, etc.

One of my friends keeps saying this life we're living isn't a rehearsal, it's the real thing. He uses this to explain some of his purchases and IMhO he's right.

And if you really want to play games to justify a purchase nothing can beat my game where I figure if I take care of it, a firearm will last me a lifetime and probably the lifetime of whoever I leave it to...that makes the life of the gun just about forever so the cost (what ever it is) per month is just about nothing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is good for you for buying a rifle you really wanted.

[Slamfire]

I know this a gun forum, but recently I passed through Smokey Mountain Knife Works in Sevierville, TN . I have one gun club bud who is a custom knife maker, and because I love sharp edged things, I know many dedicated collectors.

They all have stories about which brands are the best and within the brands, what years are the best. I have been told that Case knives from such and such era are the best, and I have been told similar stories about other brand names.

Well, there are times when workmanship is better, and fit and finish might be better. My Boker 1976 Bicentennial knives are a bit rough compared to a Case of the same time period. But either takes an edge and holds it.

Case knives today show excellent fit and finish, take an edge and hold it, and what more do you expect of a knife? I talked with the guys behind the Case counter at SMKW and asked them if they had heard earnest collectors tell them that current Case knives are junk compared to ones a specific decade ago. I got a lot of eye rolling. Yes, they had, in volumes, "all the time".

I think the same is true of guns. Many people claiming this brand is good or bad, or this era is much better, really are talking from emotion more than evidence. I think most of them have a romanticized image they identify with and of course, everything in that fantasy land was better, strawberries were more strawberrier, cherries were more cherrier, the sun was brighter and it never rained . A good place to find this sort of person is at Culver Shooting Forum in the Garand and M1903 sub forums. Just go in there and claim the double heat treat M1903 was made of crap materials and the Garand can't shoot straight. You will get pilloried.

As a general rule, the guns of today are better made, of better materials, than ever before. Expensive features have dropped off, wood has gone to plastic, but today's stuff is excellent for the price point. You can always get more by paying more.

[emcon5]

Manufacturing has greatly improves in the past ~50 years or so, to the point even bargain basement entry level rifles normally shoot quite well, better than most shooters.

I am still not really understanding what you are looking for. I know you were interested in a Steyr hunting rifle in 270 Win, are you just looking for a hunting rifle?

What is it you are looking for?

[Photon Guy]

I know this a gun forum, but recently I passed through Smokey Mountain Knife Works in Sevierville, TN . I have one gun club bud who is a custom knife maker, and because I love sharp edged things, I know many dedicated collectors.

They all have stories about which brands are the best and within the brands, what years are the best. I have been told that Case knives from such and such era are the best, and I have been told similar stories about other brand names.

Well, there are times when workmanship is better, and fit and finish might be better. My Boker 1976 Bicentennial knives are a bit rough compared to a Case of the same time period. But either takes an edge and holds it.

Case knives today show excellent fit and finish, take an edge and hold it, and what more do you expect of a knife? I talked with the guys behind the Case counter at SMKW and asked them if they had heard earnest collectors tell them that current Case knives are junk compared to ones a specific decade ago. I got a lot of eye rolling. Yes, they had, in volumes, "all the time".

I think the same is true of guns. Many people claiming this brand is good or bad, or this era is much better, really are talking from emotion more than evidence. I think most of them have a romanticized image they identify with and of course, everything in that fantasy land was better, strawberries were more strawberrier, cherries were more cherrier, the sun was brighter and it never rained . A good place to find this sort of person is at Culver Shooting Forum in the Garand and M1903 sub forums. Just go in there and claim the double heat treat M1903 was made of crap materials and the Garand can't shoot straight. You will get pilloried.

Well if you ask me, I would say the best way to determine if a gun is good or not or if a brand is good or not is first hand experience. Its ideal to be able to fire a type of gun of a certain brand to see how it works for you and if you can find a range that rents out guns and that rents out the kind of gun you want to test out that's great. If you've got a friend who owns a gun you're interested in and your friend lets you try it out that's better, aside from trying the gun out your friend can also tell you of their experiences owning it. Than if you're satisfied you can buy and own the gun yourself and learn from your own experiences owning it. From my experiences I know what brands I like although there are brands I've yet to try. My experience with Remington has been both good and bad. I've never tried let alone owned a Browning but I would like to someday. I have heard that Browning makes excellent break open shotguns but Im not sure how their rifles are.

As a general rule, the guns of today are better made, of better materials, than ever before. Expensive features have dropped off, wood has gone to plastic, but today's stuff is excellent for the price point. You can always get more by paying more.

I would say that's mostly true. And sometimes the plastic or synthetic material can be better than wood, just look at the Glock. I love my Remington 870 which has a synthetic stock as does my Marlin although I would say there are exceptions about guns being better made today. With some of their products I would say Remington has recently gone the way of Ford and I speak from my own experience.

[kraigwy]

I must say $235 is a good price for a 375 H&H even back in 1974 although this is just an educated guess on my part since 1974 was before my time. So did you buy the rifle new or used?

New. Bought it at the Ft. Richardson PX, Anchorage AK.

[Photon Guy]

Manufacturing has greatly improves in the past ~50 years or so, to the point even bargain basement entry level rifles normally shoot quite well, better than most shooters.

I am still not really understanding what you are looking for. I know you were interested in a Steyr hunting rifle in 270 Win, are you just looking for a hunting rifle?

What is it you are looking for?

What I'm looking for is a good high quality hunting rifle for medium to large game. I was considering the Steyr but after some research I might instead settle for a Cooper or a Dakota Arms. I've got a Remington 750 in .30-06 but Im looking for something more high end and preferably bolt action. And a round of similar size to the .30-06 but with more velocity.

[emcon5]

Expensive features have dropped off

You can include Labor in that, less time spent on fit and finish.

What I'm looking for is a good high quality hunting rifle for medium to large game. I was considering the Steyr but after some research I might instead settle for a Cooper or a Dakota Arms. I've got a Remington 750 in .30-06 but Im looking for something more high end and preferably bolt action. And a round of similar size to the .30-06 but with more velocity.

So you are wanting something off the shelf? Meaning, have you ruled out buying an action or donor rifle and building something?

7mm Rem Mag or 300 Win Mag fit that description, but belted magnums tend to give up a little accuracy compared to standard non-belted cased cartridges. Depending on how good a shot you are, you may never notice.

[taylorce1]

And a round of similar size to the .30-06 but with more velocity.

I love the .270 Win but I got to ask, what's with wanting more velocity? You seem to be hung up on it by what you posted in the hunt. With equal weight bullets the .30-06 is going to produce more initial velocity, but down range beyond normal hunting ranges the .270 Win will be faster with equal weight bullets.

IMO muzzle velocity means very little, but retained velocity down range means everything. The higher the BC bullet the better off you are, even when using hunting bullets. It's all about finding balance In what you want to accomplish with the cartridge.

[Photon Guy]

I love the .270 Win but I got to ask, what's with wanting more velocity? You seem to be hung up on it by what you posted in the hunt. With equal weight bullets the .30-06 is going to produce more initial velocity, but down range beyond normal hunting ranges the .270 Win will be faster with equal weight bullets.

IMO muzzle velocity means very little, but retained velocity down range means everything. The higher the BC bullet the better off you are, even when using hunting bullets. It's all about finding balance In what you want to accomplish with the cartridge.

I will bring some physics into discussion. The equation for determining kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared. Another words, you take the velocity, square it, multiply it by the mass, and divide the result by half and that gives you the total kinetic energy. So, there are two ways of increasing the kinetic energy into the target. One way is to increase the mass of your bullet, since the mass is multiplied greater mass means more energy. But, the other way to increase kinetic energy is by increasing the velocity. And since the velocity is squared you get greater effect increasing the velocity than by increasing the mass. So by increasing velocity you're transferring more kinetic energy into the target than if you increase mass. That is why I want more velocity.

[taylorce1]

Well I explained in your other post that by 300 yards a 90 grain bullet from a .243 equalled the velocity and energy of the same weight bullet in a .270 fired 400 +/- FPS faster at the muzzle. So I'm not ignoring physics at all, I'm just adding aerodynamics into the equation which you aren't considering. Even though your bullet starts out with a lot more energy, by 100 yards my .243 bullet is within 200 ft-lbs of energy as yours. So if you think 200 ft-lbs extra is necessary to kill deer at 100 yards when both bullets are above 1500 ft-lbs at that distance then use the .270 Win. The deer can't tell the difference.

Or to put it another way a 130 grain bullet fired at 3060 FPS will have 400 ft-lbs more energy at 100 yards than your 90 grain bullet fired out of the same .270 Win rifle at 3600 FPS. If you want energy lighter and faster usually isn't the way to go IME. Trading a high BC bullet for a lower BC bullet with higher initial MV is a bad a idea, kind of like trying to tow a 10,000 lb payload with an El Camino.

If more energy is your goal lighter and faster rarely gets it done when it comes to projectiles.

[Photon Guy]

Well also, supposedly the .270 Winchester has a very flat trajectory. That's another thing Im looking for in the round.

[emcon5]

It is flatter, but in the grand scheme of things, not much.

Using Federal Ammunition as a reference, with a 200 yard zero, a 130gr .270 @ 3200 FPS has about an inch and a half less drop at 300 yards than a 150gr .30-06 @ 2900 FPS. on edit: drop at 300 yards

At ranges most people have any business shooting at game, it is not enough to bother with.

Compare for yourself: https://www.federalpremium.com/products/rifle.aspx

[handlerer2]

I don't question your desire for a high end rifle at all. You earned the money, your entitled to buy any rifle that pleases you. Besides the money's going to fine local cause, if the pic is the Dakota rifle you had mentioned.

Ever notice how some rifle owners are like new parents? Don't critisise my baby or my rifle, my baby may be ugly, but.

The notion that all rifles are Chevy's under the paint is, IMO, absurd. Yep, the main difference between a Cadillac and a Chevy are fit, finish, and add ons. When you compare it to a Mercedes or a BMW you find a real difference.

Any modern product Rem, Savage, Tikka, Browning offer a product that is reliable, accurate and affordable. I don't want any of them.

I don't hunt anymore, so I don't need to put put meat in the freezer. I have put it there with Rem, Marlin, Weatherby, and Ruger. All of them perfectly serviceable, and some quite nice. I now shoot for pleasure, I have either sold or given away all of my rifles except for three, two Weatherby's and a Cooper.

I won't say that I can shoot anything that I want, but I can shoot a Cooper MDL 22, 6.5x284, a varmint rifle that will kill a Moose. It is by far the most accurate rifle that I, or any of my crony's has ever seen. I was able to talk to the boy's that built and tested it. They gave me advice on dies, coal, powder, primers and brass. Even recommended that I try RL17, even though the test on my rifle was done with RL22. The price was $1700 at the Scheel's in Billings. This is no Chevy, believe me I have owned many.

I have always wanted a Dakota Traveler. I know I'll never have one unless I win the lottery, or finally make it on Jeopardy. I only envy you a little Photon.

You could reload for it and shoot it all you want.

[Photon Guy]

I don't question your desire for a high end rifle at all. You earned the money, your entitled to buy any rifle that pleases you. Besides the money's going to fine local cause, if the pic is the Dakota rifle you had mentioned.

Its an American Hunting Rifle in 600 Overkill.

[taylorce1]

Photon Guy my best advice for you is to seek a cartridge in 6.5mm to .308 calibers, and spend some time looking over ballistic tables. If its main purpose is hunting then look at bullets with a BC of .400 plus for your research. When leaving the muzzle at speeds of 2700 to 3100 fps you'll find that with a BC of .400+ it'll give you decent trajectories and plenty of energy to handle most North American big game.

[Photon Guy]

Well to bring in some further discussion on physics, momentum which is represented by P is a product of the mass and velocity. Now I would think the main factor in a bullet slowing down prior to exiting the muzzle is air resistance. If you were to shoot a gun in the vacuum of space the bullet would maintain its velocity indefinitely. In the earth's atmosphere however the air resistance will slow it down. How quickly the bullet is slowed down I would think would depend on its momentum. Now it doesn't matter if you've got a more massive slower moving bullet or a less massive faster bullet mass and velocity both have an equal effect on the momentum. So if the momentum is the same I don't see how a more massive but slower bullet would maintain its velocity better than if it were vice versa.

[603Country]

Photon Guy, why do I think that this discussion has no actual purpose other than your personal amusement? If you really wanted a new rifle, more than enough info has been shared with you (by extremely knowledgable folks) to make your choice well informed.

Go buy a rifle and tell us what and why.

[taylorce1]

Well to bring in some further discussion on physics, momentum which is represented by P is a product of the mass and velocity. Now I would think the main factor in a bullet slowing down prior to exiting the muzzle is air resistance. If you were to shoot a gun in the vacuum of space the bullet would maintain its velocity indefinitely. In the earth's atmosphere however the air resistance will slow it down. How quickly the bullet is slowed down I would think would depend on its momentum. Now it doesn't matter if you've got a more massive slower moving bullet or a less massive faster bullet mass and velocity both have an equal effect on the momentum. So if the momentum is the same I don't see how a more massive but slower bullet would maintain its velocity better than if it were vice versa.

Well physics is part of ballistics, but you're also ignoring aerodynamics in all your figures. Ballistics Coefficient or BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient) is the bullets ability to overcome the forces acting upon it after leaving the barrel. A bullet does not slow down prior to exiting the muzzle, not unless your barrel is so long that all the powder is consumed a long before the bullet exits.

Bullets with a higher BC resist the effects of drag better, to get a more streamlined bullet you need to increase the length and as a result the weight. You also need enough bearing surface on a bullet to engage the rifling to spin the bullet enough to stabilize its flight and to have enough surface to get proper tension when seating in the cartridge case. So in lighter bullets you can't make as streamlined of a bullet to resist drag as you can with heavier bullets and have enough bearing surface to work properly.

The only way to get a light bullet with a high BC is to drop bore diameter. So if you want to shoot a 90 grain bullet like you posted in your other thread your better off going to a 6mm bore rifle than a .277 caliber. So while you're not wrong in your physics, you're not correct in your ballistics.

I recommend you read this article by Bryan Litz (http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/30-caliber-1.php). Here is a little quote from it:
It’s a generally accepted fact that the heaviest bullet in a given caliber is the best bullet to use for long range target shooting. There are several credible studies of this topic, [Ref2] [Ref3] and it is one of the fundamental truths of long range ballistic performance. Assuming constant form factors (drag profiles), heavy bullets will have higher BC’s than lighter bullets of the same caliber. Heavier bullets will also have lower muzzle velocities than lighter bullets, but when loaded to the same pressure, the higher BC of the heavier bullet is more valuable than the higher muzzle velocity in terms of retained velocity and wind deflection at long range. German Salazar put it aptly: “Muzzle velocity is a depreciating asset, not unlike a new car, but BC, like diamonds, is forever.” For this reason, the present discussion focuses on the heaviest bullets available in each caliber.

[Pathfinder45]

Since the 270 Winchester has been mentioned here; it's a fairly well known, "fact", that the lighter 130 grain load with its higher velocity shoots with a bit flatter trajectory than the heavier 150 grain load. A lesser I own fact, is that when 150 grain bullets are used, they actually shoot with a flatter trajectory than the 130 grain bullets when the range is substantially longer, and they arrive on target with substantially more energy. Of course, this assumes that both bullets are otherwise identical in their points and bases. High muzzle velocity is worth something, but it's also overrated. When it comes to long range, ballistic coefficient is more important.

[Photon Guy]

Photon Guy, why do I think that this discussion has no actual purpose other than your personal amusement?

I don't know. There is no way I would know what you're thinking or why you're thinking it.

If you really wanted a new rifle, more than enough info has been shared with you (by extremely knowledgable folks) to make your choice well informed.

Go buy a rifle and tell us what and why.

I will, when I can afford it. Right now Im saving up and Im looking to buy a Cooper or a Dakota Arms.

[Photon Guy]

Well physics is part of ballistics, but you're also ignoring aerodynamics in all your figures. Ballistics Coefficient or BC is the bullets ability to overcome the forces acting upon it after leaving the barrel. A bullet does not slow down prior to exiting the muzzle, not unless your barrel is so long that all the powder is consumed a long before the bullet exits.

Bullets with a higher BC resist the effects of drag better, to get a more streamlined bullet you need to increase the length and as a result the weight. You also need enough bearing surface on a bullet to engage the rifling to spin the bullet enough to stabilize its flight and to have enough surface to get proper tension when seating in the cartridge case. So in lighter bullets you can't make as streamlined of a bullet to resist drag as you can with heavier bullets and have enough bearing surface to work properly.

The only way to get a light bullet with a high BC is to drop bore diameter. So if you want to shoot a 90 grain bullet like you posted in your other thread your better off going to a 6mm bore rifle than a .277 caliber. So while you're not wrong in your physics, you're not correct in your ballistics.

I used the wrong words in my previous post, a mistake on my part. When I said the bullet slows down prior to leaving the muzzle what I meant to say is that the bullet starts to slow down after it leaves the muzzle and no longer has the pressure behind it. But as you said, a bullet will only slow down prior to leaving the muzzle if the powder is all burned up well before it leaves the muzzle. Usually the bullet will be at maximum velocity just as it exits the muzzle. As the bullet is traveling down the muzzle it will be accelerating the whole time and then without the pressure and with the air resistance it will start to lose speed as it leaves the barrel.

Anyway, you seem to have a background in physics yourself, are you an engineer by any chance? As for me I took physics in high school and in college and while I by no means consider myself a bonifide expert I do know a few things. And I do find physics fascinating.

[Art Eatman]

Probably better to learn the trajectory for whatever cartridge is chosen, for shots beyond, say, 300 yards. Inside of 300, "It don't make no nevermind, nohow." On out past 300, most folks can't guesstimate plus or minus fifty yards. The laser rangefinder is a blessing. :)

I've always zeroed for 200 yards. At 300, a 130-grain .270 drops about five inches. A 150-grain '06 drops about six inches. Bambi will never notice.

[Boogershooter]

Physics is both fascinating and confusing. So many ( laws ) in physics and lots of formulas. I understand you like velocity. As a kid I shot alot of things with my pellet guns. .177 and .22 cal Benjamin's that were both very accurate and capable of killing all the small game around the house. If you pumped the rifle 5 times you could see the pellets in flight and they knocked cans down. Pump it 10 times and you couldn't see the pellet unless the sun was just right and the cans often went flying. These were the old metal cans back in the day not flimsy coke cans of today. Got a Lil older and started shooting 22's and other small rifles. Armadillos were the best target for me because the hard shell aided in expanding the bullets on impact. Man I can remember like it was yesterday the first time I shot one with a 220 swift.

I have since learned that bullet construction can help the slower cartridges can preform much like the high velocity cartridges if you chose the right ones. I shoot very soft bullets thru slower rounds and a tougher bullet thru high velocity chamberings.

The physics between the velocity and the density of the bullet transferring all its energy into soft tissue and fluid filled cavities is the fascinating part. That's why shooting a watermelon with a ballistic tip is much more explosive than shooting it with a fmj.

[Photon Guy]

Physics is both fascinating and confusing. So many ( laws ) in physics and lots of formulas.

You just got to break it down and take it step by step. There are lots of laws and formulas but after using them so often they can become second nature. I never did more of the advanced Physics which uses Calculus but even basic physics can be challenging, and its fun once you get into it.

[emcon5]

It is all a compromise.

Gravity is a constant, so "Flat Shooting" is all about velocity. In reality, it is not that important at normal hunting ranges. Zero your rifle at 200, and hold high a bit at 300, or you can adjust your scope. How much you hold off with one cartridge vs another is really irrelevant, provided you know the number for the rifle you are shooting (~7.5" for the .30-06, ~6" for the 270). Where "Flat Shooting" is a benefit is when you get the range call wrong, but in reality, at reasonable hunting ranges, it is not enough to matter.

If you think Bambi is at 300 yards, and he is actually at 325, a 150gr .30-06 will be ~3 inches low. A "flat shooting" 130gr .270, in the same situation will be ~2.5 inches low.

At longer ranges, you call the range 500 yards and it is really 525, the .270 will be 5.6" low, the .30-06 will be 7.7" low. Assuming a perfect hold and shot, both would probably still hit, but neither would be a good hit, most likely. Most people have no business shooting that far anyway.

Keep in mind too, that drag is based on the square of the velocity, so higher velocity bullets shed speed quicker the faster you drive them. For example, even a bullet with a pretty good BC, for example the Hornady 6.5mm 140gr Extremely Low Drag Match (0.610 G1 BC), if you somehow were able to launch it at 4000 fps, it would lose ~175fps in the first hundred yards. At a more realistic but still fast 3000fps it loses ~160fps in the first 100 yards, and a pretty slow 2000fps it drops ~128fps.

If the bullet sucks ballisticly, for example the .17cal 20gr Hornady VMAX (0.185 G1 BC), from a .17 Remington at 4000fps loses 638 FPS in the first 100 yards.

You also haven't mentioned sectional density, witch for a given caliber increases with bullet weight.

In other words, for most North American hunting, as long as the cartridge is of adequate power, and you use an appropriate bullet, any of them will work fine, and if you do your part, Bambi won't know that he was hit with a 90 gr .243, 140gr 6.5 Creedmoor, 130 gr .270, 180 gr .30-06, or a 200gr 8mm Mauser, or anything in between.

So in other words, here are most of the things you need to balance when deciding on a cartridge.

Sectional density
Velocity
Energy
Ballistic Coefficient
Barrel life
Recoil
Cartridge OAL (short/long action)
Ammo/component availability

If I was shopping for a general purpose, sporter weight hunting rifle, I would probably look for a 6.5 Creedmoor. The .264" 140gr is a sweet spot for all of the above except ammo availability (you probably aren't going to find it on the shelf at WalMart), but reloading components are readily available. With the 140 gr hunting bullets (Sierra GameKing, Hornady Interlock, etc) it is fine for anything in the lower 48 short of big bears, and I wouldn't hunt those anyway. There are also light (<100gr) varmint bullets available.

[kraigwy]

Since we know the bullet starts dropping as soon as it leaves the barrel, we pick a point where we want the rifle zeroed.

If we are shooting closer or farther, we will either be low or high.

So somebody, a long time ago made little knobs for our sights so we can adjust, and be dead on for what ever range we want to shoot.

In reading these post, I see people say a bullet from a X cal. will drop a certain amount at a given range where a Y cal bullet will drop +/- more or less then bullet Y.

Maybe so, in a vacuum. I don't shoot in a vacuum but I do know its more then cal. that makes a bullet drop more or less then another bullet.

There is such a thing called ballistic inequality. Meaning some bullets pass through the air better then others.

I just picked up my Lyman Reloading guide and turned to 30 cal bullets. Just off hand I picked 200 gr bullets. One has a BC of .481, another has a BC of .565. Everything else being equal the higher BC bullets will have less drop then the lower BC bullets.

Why? Because we cant shoot in a vacuum, we have air the bullet needs to pass through, which tends to slow down the bullet via drag.

We know if you drop two objects straight down, they will hit the ground at the same time. If barrel is level, it will hit the ground at the same time as one dropped straight down if dropped from the same height.

The difference is the bullet will drop a ways from the barrel. The higher the BC the farther from the barrel it will drop.

Its been said, that the best sniper is the one with the best gun, fastest bullet, and best scope.

I don't agree with that, I contend that the best sniper is the one who learns to weaponized math.

In other words, learning you rifle, your ammo and what the environment
does to the bullet from that rifle in flight.

You can compensate for a slower bullet, by making a few more clicks on your sights. You can choose a bullet that is designed to work at the distance of your target.

[emcon5]

In reading these post, I see people say a bullet from a X cal. will drop a certain amount at a given range where a Y cal bullet will drop +/- more or less then bullet Y.

Maybe so, in a vacuum. I don't shoot in a vacuum but I do know its more then cal. that makes a bullet drop more or less then another bullet.

I think the only person saying comparing anything is me, and the numbers I posted were at sea level, 29.92 in Hg.

If you have two rifles, both with a 1.5" scope height and a 200 yard zero, one in .270 shooting a 130 grain Spitzer Boattail GameKing at 3200FPS, and the other a .30-06 shooting a 150 grain Spitzer Boattail GameKing at 2900 FPS, the .270 trajectory will absolutely be "flatter".

The .30-06 will have a higher apogee before the zero range (about .4 of an inch at 125 yards), and drop off faster after the zero range, about 2" lower at 300. This is entirely due to velocity and flight time. The .30-06 takes longer to reach the target, and is effected by gravity longer, so it drops more.

In this case, the .270 has a higher muzzle velocity and a higher BC.

My point is that in the grand scheme of things for a hunting rifle, the difference between a "flat shooting" .270 and a non-flat shooting .30-06 is not really enough to care about when choosing a medium game cartridge.

As long as you know your rifle and where it shoots at a given range, "flat shooting" just doesn't matter.

[Photon Guy]

Gravity is a constant. The acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s squared and that's how it is with all objects regardless if the object is heavy or light. If the Earth didn't have an atmosphere you could drop a small rock and a large rock at the same time and they would both hit the ground at the same time. The rate of fall would be the same for both rocks 9.8 m/s squared. Supposedly they did that experiment on the moon which is in a vacuum. The difference here on Earth is that Earth does have an atmosphere and that will slow the rate of fall since the rocks would have to push the air aside as they're falling towards the ground.
When you plug in the equation F=MA (Force = Mass times Acceleration) the larger more massive rock will fall with more force than the smaller rock and thus it will push the air aside faster and fall faster. Now, as with bullets if you apply that same principle a bigger bullet will fall faster. A bullet of more grains will fall faster and thus its trajectory will be more of an arc. Also it will not go as far since it will hit the ground sooner. So a lighter faster bullet will not only have a more flat trajectory it will also go further. Now, I never got far enough in Physics to understand about how drag affects velocity and how its the velocity squared that's lost when it comes to drag but that would be another fascinating topic of discussion and something else to take in as a factor.

[emcon5]

When you plug in the equation F=MA (Force = Mass times Acceleration) the larger more massive rock will fall with more force than the smaller rock and thus it will push the air aside faster and fall faster.
No, this is incorrect. Acceleration is constant (gravity), so the larger rock will hit the ground with more force than the smaller rock, but they will hit at the same time. Go in your back yard and try it.

Now, as with bullets if you apply that same principle a bigger bullet will fall faster. Again, incorrect. The acceleration of gravity is constant.

A bullet of more grains will fall faster and thus its trajectory will be more of an arc. No, the trajectory is more of an arc because, generally speaking, the heavier the bullet the lower the velocity. There is more of an arc, because the lower velocity allows more time for gravity to act on the bullet.

Also it will not go as far since it will hit the ground sooner.

Assuming the barrel is level, and the rifles are at the same height above the ground, the heavier and lighter bullets will hit the ground at the same time. The lighter bullet will go farther, because at a higher velocity it will cover more distance in that time, but the time for the bullet to drop from the muzzle level to the ground will be the same, the same as if the bullet was simply dropped from that height rather than fired.

Mythbusters confirmed this with a .45 ACP one episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wQVIEdKh8

So a lighter faster bullet will not only have a more flat trajectory it will also go further. Depending on you are comparing it to, but even if true, this is meaningless. Any rifle bullet will travel way farther than you can see, let alone shoot accurately. Who cares that one bullet will travel 4600 yards and another will only go 4200? It is the equivalent of "I fired an arrow into the air, it fell to earth I know not where".

Now, I never got far enough in Physics to understand about how drag affects velocity and how its the velocity squared that's lost when it comes to drag but that would be another fascinating topic of discussion and something else to take in as a factor.

Run some numbers.

http://www.jbmballistics.com

[Photon Guy]

No, this is incorrect. Acceleration is constant (gravity), so the larger rock will hit the ground with more force than the smaller rock, but they will hit at the same time. Go in your back yard and try it.

Acceleration from gravity is constant but you also have to take into account air resistance. Both the small rock and the big rock have to push the air out of the way as they fall. The larger rock being more massive will push against the air harder than the small rock. We're talking about an environment that has an atmosphere, not a vacuum.

[taylorce1]

We're sure chasing this one down a rabbit hole! The physics discussion is being taken to a whole new level. The OP needs to forget physics and start studying the science of projectiles in flight called "ballistics". Physics alone can't answer his questions.

I love the "weaponizing math" kraigwy! I might have to steal that one in the future. My best advice is keep it simple, pick a caliber that has a large selection of projectiles with a decent BC. Make sure the rifle you choose has an adequate twist rate to stabilize the bullets you want to use. Find a cartridge with enough capacity to push your bullets 2700-3100 FPS at the muzzle and I can guarantee everything else will fall in place.

[Pathfinder45]

I don't think the air will have any measurable effect on rocks being dropped for the first few seconds of falling. Dropped from 30,000 feet, I'm sure it would get to a velocity that the air resistance would have a large effect and the rock would probably reach a stable velocity if it's round, perhaps even slow down as the air gets denser. But a bullet fired level over a level plain from the altitude of the shooter's shoulder standing-off-hand will hit the ground at the same instant as a pebble dropped at the same exact time and altitude above the ground. I could be technically wrong, but that would be quibbling over nothing. The air resists the bullet's forward travel because its velocity is thousands of feet per second. But the air will not resist the bullet's vertical fall from your shoulder to the ground. Sometimes I think the quest to be technically correct can lead us to be practically wrong.

[emcon5]

Acceleration from gravity is constant but you also have to take into account air resistance. Both the small rock and the big rock have to push the air out of the way as they fall.

The air resistance at the vertical velocities we are talking about is less than trivial. Remember, drag is to the square of the velocity, and with the comparatively slow acceleration rate of gravity, and the generally short flight times (1/3 to 1/2 second at normal hunting ranges), velocity on the vertical axis never gets high enough to have any real effect.

In .1/2 seconds of freefall an object will be traveling ~4.9 m/sec or ~16.1 fps.

Again, this can be tested with a big rock and a little rock in your back yard.

Bullets in flight work the same way. The horizontal velocity of the bullet has no effect on the acceleration of gravity toward the ground. See the Mythbusters video above.

Now if there was a minute or so of freefall, I suppose what you describe could happen, as the objects near terminal velocity, but that simply does not happen with rifle bullets.

The larger rock being more massive will push against the air harder than the small rock. We're talking about an environment that has an atmosphere, not a vacuum. Well, it would in theory have more frontal area and more air resistance, so if this was the case, it would actually fall slower and the smaller object would hit first, but it would require more time in freefall to reach a vertical velocity where drag would be an issue, which is why you need to factor in drag and frontal area when calculating terminal velocity. Also why a skydiver falls slower in a belly-down fall than headfirst. More frontal area = lower speed, even though the mass is unchanged.

Again, at the vertical velocities of a rifle bullet in flight, this is trivial at worst.

Not sure if it is any consolation, but Aristotle agreed with you around 330 BC, but Galileo proved him wrong around 1600 AD.

You are making this way more complicated than it actually is.

[gyvel]

What I'm looking for is a good high quality hunting rifle for medium to large game. I was considering the Steyr but after some research I might instead settle for a Cooper or a Dakota Arms. I've got a Remington 750 in .30-06 but Im looking for something more high end and preferably bolt action. And a round of similar size to the .30-06 but with more velocity.

And the irony here is that a $200.00 Lee-Enfield might do just as well as your $1200-1500 wonders; "Good" is such a subjective term...:)

[MrBorland]

The OP needs to forget physics and start studying the science of projectiles in flight called "ballistics".

Agreed. 5th grade math isn't going to provide all the answers you seek. As others are (and have been) saying, some basic knowledge of ballistics will help you tremendously.

I love the "weaponizing math" kraigwy! I might have to steal that one in the future.

Reminds me of a quote I read somewhere:

"Shooting a handgun well is skill, shooting a rifle well is a science, and shooting a shotgun well is an art".

[kraigwy]

The physics discussion is being taken to a whole new level. The OP needs to forget physics and start studying the science of projectiles in flight called "ballistics". Physics alone can't answer his questions.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

Well said.

[Photon Guy]

"Shooting a handgun well is skill, shooting a rifle well is a science, and shooting a shotgun well is an art".

Well than Im the best when it comes to skill, Im good when it comes to art, and Im terrible at science.

I always fancied myself a scientist.

[emcon5]

"Shooting a handgun well is skill, shooting a rifle well is a science, and shooting a shotgun well is an art".

I think shooting a rifle well, particularly at long range, is both. I would argue that reading the wind at 600 yards and beyond, while certainly a science (Isaac Newton will not be denied), is a bit of an art, that takes a lot of practice to get good at (preferably under instruction from someone who is already "an artist").

[Photon Guy]

So anyway Im wondering what is the deal with Remington. As I said earlier in this thread I heard at a gun shop that Remington isn't what its used to be and that as of recently they have been producing junk. The salesman at the shop said that for considerably less money you could get a Savage Arms and you would end up with a significantly better gun. You would get more for less when you buy a Savage Arms instead of a modern Remington. Now its just plain common sense not to believe everything you hear at a gun shop or for that matter any shop. Shops are out to sell stuff and that being the case they will tell you whatever they need to in order to get you to buy. Not to buy good quality stuff but just to buy and to get money out of your pocket and into theirs. That is why Im taking it with a grain of salt about what I was told at the gun shop. And as far as the shop making money, the guy at the shop was pointing me in the direction of buying a Savage Arms gun which costs less than a Remington and the shop sold both. So that's another factor to consider, I was being advised to spend less money at the store not more if I wanted something better. Anyway, as I said I am well aware not to believe everything I hear at shops so that's why Im asking about it here. Is Remington having problems with their products as of recently? If I were to automatically believe what I was told at the shop I wouldn't be posting about it here, Im posting it here because Im researching if I should believe what I was told, that Remington now makes junk and that Savage Arms makes better products for a lower price.

[Photon Guy]

Anybody here?

[Pathfinder45]

I thought this was already hashed out. Reread post #22 and make a decision; enough said.

[emcon5]

Remington quality has dropped off, but mostly fit and finish things, primarily driven by cost cutting. Savage fit and finish was never all that great to begin with, so it hasn't really changed.

This mostly applies to entry level rifles (SPS, ADL), the higher end Remingtons (BDL) still seem to be pretty good. If you build anything to a price point, you need to let some things slide, in this case the more labor intensive fit and finish.

There is also the issue of the Walker trigger, a subject that has been truly beaten to death (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=516968) on this forum. Really doesn't matter at this point, you can no longer buy a new Remington 700 with the excellent Walker trigger.

Modern manufacturing is excellent, even a cheap entry level rifle will outshoot most people.

And a shop owner pointing you toward a lower priced item is really meaningless from the standpoint of how much money he will make, since you don't know how much they cost him. The lower priced item may have a higher margin.

[Photon Guy]

Well I want to make the point that if I hear something that doesn't necessarily mean I believe it. I want to verify if what I hear is true and so that's why I post it here and mention what I heard.