For those of you who remember, I've been browsing around for a bolt action rifle for some time now. I have no experience with bolt guns, so I really don't know what I'm looking for. I have it narrowed down to two choices. One is an old springfield that has been rebarreled and restocked, action is excellent, but barrel and stock need some work. I could have a new barrel installed and redo the stock myself for not too much money.OR, I could buy a new production gun, remington, savage, ruger, etc. Like I said before, I have no experienc with bolt guns, but the srpingfield seemed better crafted, more "solid" and the bolt worked much smoother, whereas the new commercial guns I handled all seemed fairly cheesy. Am I right in assuming that the springfield would be a better choice? I really dont know anything about them, but just going by feel, thats the way I'm leaning.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which rifle?
- Thread starter RPM
- Start date
cornered rat
Moderator
My own preference has been for older guns for two reasons: they tend to be better adapted for stripper clip loading (more combat-worthy) and their actions appear more solid. Also, they have aperture sights instead of open "express" sights. Further, even a collectible 1903 would set you back less than $400 and a sporter would be under $200....modern rifles start at $450 or so.
Owned and respected a coupla 03s, and wish I still had at least one of them. Here's a comparison...
Pros:
Tough, accurate, reliable. The feed system and extraction is based on the Mauser 98, and argumentatively the best ever devised. Price wise, available for less than the new stuff.
Cons:
Some built under wartime conditions were a little rough, like the 03-A3 two groove barrels. Very early Springfields also had bad heat treating on the recievers,and some are still out there.
If you're going for a good using rifle, get an 03, tweak and cherish it. For use, it can't be beat.
Pros:
Tough, accurate, reliable. The feed system and extraction is based on the Mauser 98, and argumentatively the best ever devised. Price wise, available for less than the new stuff.
Cons:
Some built under wartime conditions were a little rough, like the 03-A3 two groove barrels. Very early Springfields also had bad heat treating on the recievers,and some are still out there.
If you're going for a good using rifle, get an 03, tweak and cherish it. For use, it can't be beat.
I'm also new to bolt guns and rifles in general. I bought a mauser 96 a couple days ago fro Dennis Kroh at Empire Arms, and am very pleased. I paid $250 for a roughly 98% gun with a slightly used (condition "1") bore.
I know I could have gotten it cheaper elsewhere, but I paid a premium for having someone with experience pick a good gun and not misrepresent it to me. You could buy a gun from Samco for less, but you are in a crapshoot, esp. as a novice. Another company I've heard of that has a good rep is AIM surplus.
I would recommend the Swedish Mauser, as it is around half the price of the Springfield and they didn't drop quality to meet production quotas. Besides, I believe that the A3 (correct me if I'm wrong) was a cheaper (though more rugged) version of the '03. I don't know the models, but that one goes for substantially more when I've browsed.
I wanted a Springfield, but I'll wait until I feel more familiar and comfortable with milsurp and boltguns.
I know I could have gotten it cheaper elsewhere, but I paid a premium for having someone with experience pick a good gun and not misrepresent it to me. You could buy a gun from Samco for less, but you are in a crapshoot, esp. as a novice. Another company I've heard of that has a good rep is AIM surplus.
I would recommend the Swedish Mauser, as it is around half the price of the Springfield and they didn't drop quality to meet production quotas. Besides, I believe that the A3 (correct me if I'm wrong) was a cheaper (though more rugged) version of the '03. I don't know the models, but that one goes for substantially more when I've browsed.
I wanted a Springfield, but I'll wait until I feel more familiar and comfortable with milsurp and boltguns.
I went through the same search but ended up with a newer gun, these items are really supposed to last just about a lifetime. so why be cheap on 100.00s or less, you can pick up a remmington 700 350.00, winchester 70 450.00 or marlin or ruger bolt actions for 350.00 as well and have new gun, with pre drilled sights , no question on how many shots if there is rust in the barrel, or stress cracks if the guy before only shot homemade magnum shells. on and on. even yet you can get these used for 75-100.00 less if you scout around. I think looks and feel are important so if you like the springfield for other reasons then go for it and make updates and upgrades, i have the Win 70 and the Ruger M77, the WIN has a slight better bolt feel and trigger but I think unless you are going to hunt excessively it will be hard for me to tell how much better one is over the other except for feel. just my 2
I have a springfield a3-03 (remmington) with a sporter stock and military stock, and a savage 116 rifle. Both are 30-06.
The springfield is DEFINITELY more robust, and its also a LOT heavier. I'm not a huge fan of military apeture sights either, I can only get a 4 or 5 inch group at 100 yards with this rifle (shooting argentine 150 fmj ball ammo). I like the controlled round feeding and stripper clip options for this rifle but the advantages of that are lost (as well as the sights ) if you scope it. It was also cost effective I bought it for $50.
The savage is lighter, more accurate (.5 moa at 100 yards) easier to clean (stainless) and uses less parts, and is designed to be used with a scope. It was more expensive at $400 (rifle) $100 (Burris rings and mounts) $100 tasco 3x9 x 40 scope (everything in stainless)
It really depends on what you want your bolt rifle for. I could hunt with the springfield, but i would not be taking the precision shots i can shoot with the Savage my effective range would be cut in half.
You can sure MAKE a target rifle out of the spingfiled but is it worth it??? Is it cost effective or is this going to be a hobby gun??
Really depends on what you want to do??
Dr.Rob
The springfield is DEFINITELY more robust, and its also a LOT heavier. I'm not a huge fan of military apeture sights either, I can only get a 4 or 5 inch group at 100 yards with this rifle (shooting argentine 150 fmj ball ammo). I like the controlled round feeding and stripper clip options for this rifle but the advantages of that are lost (as well as the sights ) if you scope it. It was also cost effective I bought it for $50.
The savage is lighter, more accurate (.5 moa at 100 yards) easier to clean (stainless) and uses less parts, and is designed to be used with a scope. It was more expensive at $400 (rifle) $100 (Burris rings and mounts) $100 tasco 3x9 x 40 scope (everything in stainless)
It really depends on what you want your bolt rifle for. I could hunt with the springfield, but i would not be taking the precision shots i can shoot with the Savage my effective range would be cut in half.
You can sure MAKE a target rifle out of the spingfiled but is it worth it??? Is it cost effective or is this going to be a hobby gun??
Really depends on what you want to do??
Dr.Rob