Shoot’n, Fish’n ‘n’ Hunt’n

In today’s world, there has been a marked increase in the level of technology that is available to the average person. While that has been good, in many areas, one area where the benefits have been questionable is in the firearms industry. This is not to say that shooters can’t benefit from new technology. The problem is that, in many cases, the quest for new technology has been corrupted to become the ‘look’ of new technology. This has had some very unfortunate results and we now have a plethora of ugly firearms that seem to be aimed (pun intended) more at looking like they are of a ‘tactical’ nature rather than being comfortable and practical to shoot. In short, ergonomics and class have been thrown out the window and image and perception have been put in their place. As a result, we are most certainly in the age of the ugly rifle!

The Ruger Precision Rifle is just one of many ugly rifles that are now the current trend, but does a precision rifle really need to be ugly?

The following features are often found on the world’s ugliest firearms. I am not suggesting that these features are all useless, as that is simply not true, and in some cases these features offer some real benefits. The real problem comes about when a large number of these features, or even all of them, are offered in a single hunting rifle and where the provision, of these features, is nothing more than an attempt to look ‘tactical’ or to give the impression of ‘precision’ and, at the same time, empty the wallets of the less informed. There was a time when the firearms manufacturers vied with each other to see who could produce the best looking firearms with lots of truly custom features. Now, most of the firearms manufacturers seem to be competing to see who can make the ugliest firearms that are festooned with the most bolt-on gimmicks.

Stainless Steel Rifles:

In recent years stainless steel has made serious inroads into the firearms marketplace and, to be fair, there are some advantages to stainless steel but it is not the wonder product that some people think it is and it is often misused. There are many grades of stainless steel and those grades of stainless steel, with the most corrosion resistance, are often those with the poorest machining qualities. Accordingly, for firearms use there must be a compromise between corrosion resistance and ‘machinability’. The most common grade of stainless, in the firearms industry, is 416 and, it might come as a surprise to some shooters, but 416 can still rust and still requires cleaning. While this may seem obvious, to most of us, I know of a number of cases where shooters have complained about the loss of accuracy with their favourite, stainless firearm and the cause was simply that they never cleaned their firearms; after all, it is stainless and it doesn’t need cleaning, does it?

The other aspect, in regards to the use of stainless steel for hunting rifles, is the utter contradiction that stainless steel represents when we are trying to remain inconspicuous to the animals we hunt. It amazes me that hunters will don all manner of expensive camouflage clothing then venture into the bush with a bright stainless steel rifle and a matching silver coloured scope. If you are going bush with all of that shiny stainless steel, why bother with the camo gear? You might as well stick a flashing neon sign, on your head, that says ‘Run, here comes a hunter!’ In my opinion, any firearm that is made in stainless steel should be cerakoted in a matt finish before it is considered ready for field use. The final point, I would make in regards to stainless steel firearms, is that there is absolutely no justification, whatsoever, for a silver coloured scope on a hunting rifle!

Synthetic Stocked Rifles:

While synthetic stocks have some advantages, they also have some disadvantages, too. The arguments, in favour, of synthetic stocks, includes the belief that synthetic stocks are generally immune to adverse weather and don’t warp or swell. The other argument is that wooden stocks can be scratched and gouged and most owners would hate to see their exhibition grade, timber stock damaged but wouldn’t mind if this happened to their synthetic stock, instead.

However, there are synthetic stocks and there are synthetic stocks. In the recent race, by gun makers, to produce the cheapest and least sophisticated rifles, we have seen some awful synthetic stocks hit the market. For example, the stock on the Remington 783 synthetic model, is the flimsiest and most abhorrent stock I have ever seen. Just holding the forend, without any excessive pressure, and it is possible to move the synthetic forend back and forth, touching the barrel in a totally random way. How can a company, with the reputation of Remington, put their name on such a worthless item, is completely beyond me, but they are not the only company selling such cheap junk. You only have to look at the price tag, on some of the ‘budget’ rifles hitting the market today, to realise that quality has been severely sacrificed. When comparing synthetic stocks, such as the one fitted to the Remington 783, with even the nastiest and cheapest wooden stock, then I would take the wooden stock every time.

The argument for synthetic stocks, for use in bad weather, overlooks a couple of simple facts about their performance in such weather. Depending upon the materials used in their construction, synthetic stocks can get very cold and very unpleasant to hold when the thermometer drops. In hot weather, they can be unpleasantly hot to hold and your hand can sweat excessively. In cold weather, some synthetic stocks will become very rigid but in hot weather they can become more malleable and are likely to flex. The problem is that when the flexing is inconsistent it can pull the muzzle in difference directions, as the shot breaks, and this will affect group size and bullet impact. Quality wooden stocks are not subject to these issues.

The argument that gun owners are less concerned about their synthetic stocks getting scratched and marked, than they would be about a wooden stock, overlooks the fact that most synthetic stocks cannot be easily repaired. To remove scratches and dents, from a synthetic stock, is just not feasible. A wooden stock, if the scratches become unbearable to the owner, can be refinished and returned to looking new. However, most hunting inflicted scratches and dents are quite acceptable and, in my opinion, simply reflect honest, and even desirable, ‘battle scars’. You only have to look at some of the classic rifles from the great days of hunting, in the early part of the 20th Century and these are rifles that have seen a great deal of use, to realise that only rifles that are abused or neglected end up with unacceptable marks and damage on them.

There is a perception, amongst many shooters, that wood will always warp and swell when exposed to bad weather. This is not always true and I would suggest that a properly made wooden stock, carved from a dense, well seasoned blank of walnut and completely sealed, will handle most weather conditions as well as any synthetic stock and be a lot more pleasant on the eye and hands. The real issue, and in my opinion the only valid argument against wood, is that good stock wood has become scarce and so many wood-stocked rifles, today, are stocked with poor quality, poorly sealed timber. This poorer quality, and lack of proper finish, is why so many hunters have experienced warping and swelling problems with wooden stocks.

What needs to be realised is that the gun factories are trying to maximise their profits, and so the wooden stocks that accompany most factory rifles are of average quality and only sealed, sufficiently, to look good to the owner at the time of purchase. They are not sealed sufficiently to handle extreme hunting weather and you need to continue the sealing process, after purchase, if you want to use the rifle in bad weather. Compare your average, out of the box, wooden factory rifle and a synthetic stock is, almost certainly going to be superior from a weather resistance viewpoint. However, if you compare a quality wooden stock, made from dense, mature and fully seasoned walnut, accurately inletted to your action and fully sealed by a skilled stock maker, and the advantages of synthetic stocks fade away.

Picatinny Rail Mounted Rifles:

Picatinny rails are my pet hate. The value of the Picatinny rail, from a military viewpoint, is unquestionable. However, on a fine sporting rifle they are nothing short of ugly and superfluous. There are plenty of quality scope mounts and bases available for your favourite hunting rifle and these come from companies like Warne, Talley, Recknagel and Leupold, to name a few. These rings and mounting systems have been designed to be streamlined and unobtrusive on quality sporting rifles and some models even allow for quick detachment without loss of zero. In short, quality scope mounts don’t have to be ugly.

It amazes me how some hunters will fit a picatinny rail to their favourite hunting rifle which already includes excellent, integral scope mounts such as the Ruger M77 and the CZ range of rifles. Not only are these firearms owners overlooking the fact that they already have the best scope mounting systems on their rifle but they are then adding extra weight to their rifle and extra height to their scope mounts.

For target and varmint rifles, fitted with large objective lens scopes, adding a Picatinny rail on top of existing mounts might actually be an advantage, if you can’t find rings of the correct height. However, for your average hunting rifle, fitted with a low or medium powered variable, it is a distinct disadvantage and you end up with the scope mounted way too high. The best height for your scope is always going to be low and as close to the line of the bore as possible. When you raise the scope up too high then you are exaggerating any errors caused by any misalignment of the mounts. You are also forced to raise your head, up off of the stock, and this will break your cheek-weld and a solid cheek-weld is vital to accurate shooting.

Then you get the situation where hunting rifles have been fitted with stocks incorporating some bastardised form of the Quad-rail system. How many of us really need all of those extra rails? How many of us even need one rail? I would bet that the answer is very few. Further, there is nothing more uncomfortable than holding onto a forend that is festooned with Picatinny rails. The box shape, and all of the sharp edges, that go with a quad-rail system are very unpleasant to hold in your hand, especially when recoil adds to the discomfort. If you shoot off a bipod then you might not notice how uncomfortable the quad rail is.  However, very few hunters will shoot off of a bipod. If you are ‘still hunting’ or stalking game, then there are very few opportunities to adopt a bipod-assisted, prone position. Most of your shots will have to be taken off-hand or using a convenient tree for a rest. The movement required to go prone will almost certainly be spotted by the game and the presence of grass and low scrub often makes shots, from the prone position, unlikely.

Chassis Stocked Rifles:

Why on earth would you take a perfectly serviceable, attractive and comfortable, bolt action hunting rifle and replace the sporting stock with a chassis stock? Not only are you adding extra weight, to your rifle, but you are also adding a great deal of superfluous gimmicks. Further, the design of most chassis stocks are not suited to hunting use. The general layout of a chassis stock, and they always incorporate a pistol grip, works fine on a target rifle that is shot from the prone position. However, when you are shooting off-hand and trying to work the bolt quickly, then you will find that the pistol grip design is a handicap.

Rifle pistol grips were designed for semi-auto and full-auto firearms, where the hand does not need to leave the pistol grip except, for possibly a magazine change or to operate the charging handle, but on a bolt action rifle it is just a handicap. Rapid bolt operation, with the pistol grip design, means that you have to disentangle your hand from around the pistol grip, for every shot, and then bring that hand out from under the stock, before you can get to the bolt handle. This comment applies, equally, to thumb-hole stocks, too; great for target or varmint shooting but not the best choice for a hunter.

In contrast, a well-stocked, conventionally designed, sporting rifle is ideal for the off-hand shooting that you would normally experience when hunting. Not only is your hand closer to the bolt handle but, the moment you raise your hand off of the conventional grip, it is already under the bolt handle and the operation is natural and fluid. A skilled shooter, with a conventional rifle, will be able to put more aimed shots downrange, than the same shooter with a chassis stocked rifle. The difference may not be huge but why replace your conventional stock with an ugly chassis and lose the utility of the conventional stock? If there was a clear advantage to swapping to a chassis stock, for hunting, then it might make sense, but there isn’t any any advantage that I can see. A chassis stock on a hunting rifle is just an ‘image’ thing and a handicap!

Just consider the Mad Minute rifle practice, as conducted by the British Army in the first half of the 20th Century. Using Lee Enfield service rifles, soldiers began with four (4) rounds in the magazine and were required to engage a 1.2 square metre (48″) target with 15 rounds at a range of 300 yards in less than 1 minute. The record, for the Mad Minute, was 36 hits in 1 minute and remember this was with a 10 round rifle and reloading with the aid of 5 round stripper clips. It would take an exceptional effort to even approach this performance with a chassis fitted rifle as the time required to get the hand from the pistol grip, to the bolt handle, would greatly impede the rate of aimed fire.

Further, any advantages in accuracy that a chassis stock may provide, and they usually include better bedding solutions than your average hunting stock, is negated by the fact that, for general hunting, you don’t need sub-minute of angle accuracy. There are too many hunters who have been seduced by the hyper-accuracy crowd into thinking that their hunting rifle MUST shoot like a target rifle and nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing wrong with having a super accurate hunting rifle but too many of us waste a lot of time and money chasing accuracy that we simply don’t need. You can read more about this issue in the article “Hunting Rifle Accuracy“. If you really must have more accuracy, than you need for ethical hunting, then you can still have your favourite, wood stocked, hunting rifle bedded accordingly.

Adjustable Stocked Rifles:

Adjustable stocks are simply a cheats way of getting around stock fit. Anything that is made to be adjustable can, and often does, work loose. This is especially so when it is fitted to a rifle and subjected to repeated recoil forces and bounced around in a vehicle on your way to, and from, the hunting area. When we are discussing hunting rifles then there is no need for an adjustable stock provided that the stock is made to fit the shooter. Indeed, once an adjustable stock is fitted to an individual, there is no need to adjust it further and so the adjustment feature becomes redundant. It just makes far more sense to have your stock fitted to you, properly, in the first place and so that no further adjustments, or re-adjustments, are necessary.

Also, when you carry an adjustable stocked rifle in the bush, then you have lots and lots of knobs, buttons, levers and adjustable components that can catch on the foliage, trap dust and dirt and collect water when it rains. A practical hunting rifle should, as much as possible, adhere to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. After all, you should be concentrating on finding, stalking and cleanly taking your game, and not worrying about the settings, or configuration, of your equipment.

Muzzle Braked Rifles:

I was at the shot show in Vegas, a couple of years ago, when Ruger introduced their Hawkeye African models with their muzzle brake system. I was in the Ruger stand looking at the display of the African models when one of the Ruger reps came over to talk to me about their rifles. He asked me what I thought and I told him that I was a big fan of the Model 77 Hawkeye and I liked their rifles very much. He seemed pleased with my comments but when I added that I would remove the muzzle brake, paint it green and throw it into the long grass, he was horrified. Quite simply, I hate muzzle brakes on hunting rifles and, I believe there is no place for them in the bush. Indeed, I don’t like them on the rifle range, either, because if you are the shooter next to someone with a muzzle brake fitted, or the range officer overseeing the practice, then it is hard to concentrate on your tasks when you are constantly being blasted by the shooter next to you. In addition, if your hearing protection is not adequate, then muzzle brakes can result in hearing damage.

Muzzle brakes direct all of the noise and gasses back towards the shooter, when you really want all of that going away from you. If you are hunting with a guide or a buddy, then the problem really becomes extreme and a lot of hunting guides hate it when clients turn up with muzzle brakes fitted to their rifles. The argument that you can use the muzzle brake for practice and remove it for the hunt, doesn’t make sense to me either, because part of your practice should be getting used to all aspects of shooting your rifle, including the recoil. For my money, muzzle brakes are just another gimmick that have no place on any sporting rifle.

And the award for the ugliest rifle of all time… goes to the Mossberg 464 SPX. What were the people at Mossberg thinking?

In Conclusion:

As I said at the start of this article, not all of the features I have mentioned above are useless or superfluous. Indeed, in come cases, using a combination of these features might be ideal for your particular purposes. What is useless and superfluous is when a number, or all, of these features are combined into a single firearm simply to look as ‘tactical’ as possible. Going hunting is not the same as going tactical. If your intention is the latter, then go and enlist in the Army.

If you are looking for a precision or target rifle, let me ask the question: ‘why do target rifles have to look ugly?’ In my view, and considering the protected environment that target rifles are used in, I would think that building a stylish and classic-looking, target rifle would make a lot of sense. If I ever get heavily involved in target shooting, again, then I am going to build a rifle that looks good in the classic style and is completely devoid of all of the gimmicks and I would put that challenge out to other target shooters – make your rifles look good, not ugly.

However, if you want to be a hunter, then choose your next hunting rifle wisely and without the influence of the marketing ‘gurus’; in other words, don’t be seduced by the proponents of the age of the ugly rifle!

A classic Mauser 98, from the great gun maker of Mauser, and the antithesis of the products of the Age of Ugly Rifles.

Copyright © 2019 - Robert Pretty - Shoot'n Fish'n 'n' Hunt'n.