Any accurate rifle! Sorry guys, had to put my two cents in.

OldSchoolRanger wrote:

Any accurate rifle! Sorry guys, had to put my two cents in.

Here I go reading through all posts on page 1 only to find the 1st post on
page 2 says just about what I was going to say! Beat me to it!

To me, if it isn't accurate, it's just noise. The only other prerequisite is WOOD!
If it wears tupperware, and I decide to buy it, Boyd's gets another order!

Turns out that old guns are getting harder to resist for me... In the last few months I've picked up a Colt 1917 (made in 1919) and a Colt 1903 (made in 1909). My soon-to-be-son-in-law is finding these at auctions and reselling them. Luckily I get the "father-in-law discount".

OldSchoolRanger wrote:

Any accurate rifle! Sorry guys, had to put my two cents in.

After a few decades of shooting, I found that most well made and well taken cared of guns are more accurate that I am, so this point is a moot IMHO.

DannoBoone wrote:

...The only other prerequisite is WOOD! If it wears tupperware, and I decide to buy it, Boyd's gets another order!

To me, nothing beats a beautiful piece of timber in a rifle stock. Having said that, I have two hunting rifles that wear synthetic stocks and I am very happy with them.

The reason I opted for synthetic is purely practical...they don't scar as easily as timber, if they do get scratched it is hardly noticeable and the most important quality is they are not affected by rain. As much as I love a nice warm piece of wood, it is susceptible to swelling and twisting should it get wet or rained on when out hunting. This computes out to problems with accuracy.

Vince, I've become a fan of laminated stocks. I like the looks a lot better than synthetics and (I think) they are more resistant to moisture problems. But it sure is hard to beat the looks of a nice wooden stock!