Printable View
There seems to be a lot of love for some of the older rifles that pop up from time to time. Older Tikkas, Vixens etc. I can understand there is a bit of nostalgia value to them but were they actually any better than the new offerings for the money you paid. There are definitely more options these days.
Prefer them much the same way I prefer classic cars to todays offerings.
This will be good !
I will watch and listen before I comment on Really Old vs New
Difficult comparison. Technology in cars has changed infinitly in the past 50 years. Bolt action rifles, not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by The bomb
My 2 cents - I have a tikka LSA55 and a new Howa superlite sitting side by side. Tikka action is smoother, far superior trigger that has no creep like the howa and breaks crisper. Fit and finish on the tikka is def above the Howa. Bolts weigh the same, tikka action is heavier but shorter. Mag feed feels solid compared to the howa. And as for old Brno ZG47s and model 21’s old Sakos that I’ve had in the past, just super quality rifles, even the Husky 8000’s are smoother than the modern tikkas. I don’t care for the mid aged BSA rifles like the CF2? I think they are called… dog aweful rifles. And as for the new tikka rifles - I think they are great, just that the LSA locks up like a rolls Royce door compared to a Toyota Corolla type feel. As for the newer higher quality rifles… never owned one so can’t comment
Did you buy the LSA55 new? What did they cost? @zimmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Cowan
I think we need to establish some benchmarks and comparisons.
For example:
Budget Rifles,then and now
Medium priced Rifles,then and now
Premium Rifles,then and now.
Mmmm, IIRC I paid $128 new somewhere between 1971 and 1973. Memory might be out a tad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearer
Just b4 the change to decimal currency I paid 59 pounds 17/6 for a Sako Forester in 308W.
Old things have an added attraction when your feeling nostalgic
Secretly we all yearn for the simpler life we had before technology and full time jobs
Thats the life we want and think of when considering old rifles, canvas packs, bullers , air cooled motorbikes and our own bit of land with a hut on it :)
Subjectively the further away from full time jobs we are the more freedom we enjoy
Genuine freedom starts within a man and propagates outwards
Having said that, and back to the op’s question, some old things are better and some new things are better
Yeah. As I said, a lot less choice back in say the 70s.
A mid priced rifle these days (say a Tikka Superlite for $1900) would have cost just over $100 in 1971. If you paid $400 for a new rifle back in 1971 that's the equivalent of $7156.36 these days. That's a lot of rifle.
https://www.inflationtool.com/new-ze...equency=yearly
For $3500 now I can buy one of these.
https://www.berettanewzealand.com/fi...product_id=656
That's less then $200 in 1971.
Ok. $128 is about $2300. Good buy:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
Regards the LSA I did not buy new. But it’s almost as nice as the Sako A2 series in my opinion. As for level of rifle, I used the tikka LSA and howa superlite as I thought they were comparable in action size, and maybe price range tho I don’t have a handle on olden day prices, superlight being more expensive than the basic t3x means it a mid range value rifle from where I see it.
I like old and new.
Quality is quality old or new. Some of the wood on the older rifles is much nicer looking than the modern equivalents but this is a cosmetic rather than functional difference.
I still use the shotgun I learnt to hunt using fourty years ago.its still as good today as was then. My howa is as good as my model70 lightweight was. They actually very similar
You are semi right. The BSA CF2 was an absolute abomination as a rifle. A moron must have designed it. Railway iron is lighter. Best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Cowan
Pounds to dollars was the 10th July 1967,just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
My LSA55 in 22-250 cost me $410 in 1976 or 77, for brand new rifle, genuine Tikka rings, and Weaver 3x scope. I was on about $110 a week in wages and had to put it on 6 months finance. As Scott has said, better barrel, smoother action, excellent trigger and great stock. Cost less than a Sako and shot better than most Sako's, still does.
if one takes accuracy - new any better not really but some of the benefits of older -- trigger older rifles way better and by a good margin unless one pays for a timney or similar - hand cut checkering - fit and finish way way way better - bolt and action feel no comparison - just better made with care - a lot of hand finishing - value increase well thats a goody a sako vixen would now be worth in good condition probably 3-400 percent more than original cost - take an early vixen and feel the action silky smooth feels like real steel then take a modern tikka - they feel junky simple as that in comparison - my ten cents worthQuote:
Originally Posted by Shearer
I have a Tikka M695 in 270 win and a T3 in 7mm rem mag. They are very close to each other with regards to production dates (roughly 10-15 years apart from first introductions). Most fundamental design principles are shared between the two excluding a few action specific features like magazines and action length. Although the M695 is a heavy cannon, the feel, fit, and smoothness of it in all areas is leaps and bounds beyond that of my T3. But then again, the T3 is stainless, is a few pounds lighter, and you don't have to upkeep a plastic stock like you do timber. There are trade offs in every regards but I think the quality of engineering has definitely changed to be geared to economy of scale somewhat. The M695 is far more beautiful and refined despite being manufactured only roughly a decade before the T3.
I think part of is that modern rifles use more stamped and cast parts (not to mention plastic), whereas almost everything on the old guns is machined. Everything just gives the aura of quality as the whole part is machined and finished to the same high standard. Old trigger guard? Machined from solid. New trigger guard? Plastic, or if an expensive gun, cast or maybe stamped.
A cast part for example, often would only be machined on the surfaces that actually matter, leaving mold lines and comparatively poor finish on the rest of the part. A stamped part may have no real finishing done to it.
I think the finish on the old guns is often better than what's seen on modern guns. Bluing is deeper and more lustrous, finishes in general are smoother and more precise, especially the surfaces that don't really matter for function.
The old guns kind of remind me of an old manual sewing machine, they are smooth due to their precision and pride in manufacture. Things that didn't really need to be done to a high standard, were still done to a high standard.
Whereas IMO new guns are often smooth due to modern design and a lack of general tight tolerances, and only have tight tolerances in only the places that are absolutely required for good operation, as opposed to the old stuff being smooth due to tighter tolerances and more care in the manufacturer and finishing on all parts.
That old M55 for example, it just feels like a much better made mechanical object than a modern tikka or other modern gun. Like a really nice fine tooth ratchet vs a clunker with massive teeth.
I can remember someone saying they used to start with a block of steel and machine all the bits that didn't look like a rifle off.
Yep, nostalgia ain't what it used to be...sigh....
I like to have a few for nostalgia. Currently have a ZKK 600 which I like a lot and a savage 99 that I'm still trying to get it shooting half well.
I often wonder if the fellas who trade in a good n faithful wife ,the mother of thier kids and who was great homemake and no slouch between the sheets for some younger slimmer model with less sag and more bounce...get five years down the track and look back thinking oh what a dickhead I have been..thinking with the dick instead of the head...the gloss wears off the newer model with time too and its then not as good as the old model... and thats possible the biggest difference with rifles ,how well they will age..... LOTS of you fellas have bought something like a brand spanking new T3 and then change things right from the get go...yip guilty of adding wooden stock to my howa to replace the hogue....
guess its like buying the new wife a boob job???would have got better value for money and..and...and bang for your buck!!! sending the older model in for some updates (but only if it was her suggestion of course) pity the little ladies dont get a suppressor screwed on to lower the noise factor LOL
I’m a fan of ‘old school’ quality but new. A good example is Schultz and Larsen. Metal work of refined quality, cut rifles barrels, and extremely accurate. To make modern rifles economic, mass production techniques rule.
I’ve got many other new quality accurate rifles like Dakotas.
Many old rifles become legionary. For sure the mass produced, mainly robotic made rifles of today fail to capture my attention. The deep blued, well fitting walnut and supremely finished rifles of yesteryear still hold a place in my heart.
still trying to get my head around ya lady comparisons but agree - photos - no thats changing the whole forum - good on ya mate good readQuote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Here is my 695 in 270Quote:
Originally Posted by Floundering Around
https://i.postimg.cc/sgTwZzW9/IMG-1222.jpg
My T3 300 mag has no soul.
Ok. $410 in 1976 is the equivalant of $4250.80 in todays money. If you were buying today would you spend that money on the LSA55 if you could buy a new one? Or maybe something like this which is $750 cheaper?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husky1600#2
https://www.berettanewzealand.com/fi...product_id=656
Also makes the one @ChrisW is selling at the moment seem like a bargin.
That is a well loved M695 EmpireSafaris. I got the iron sights removed off of mine and fitted with special filler screws to plug the holes. Also got a can on it courtesy of Dean Maisey. I have also just completed a refinish of the stock to seal off all the wear and tear marks from moisture. I have had an ongoing battle with rust spots due to fading blue so I am going to get the barrelled action cerakoted by Delta Mike just before Xmas. I do wonder if the quality of the bluing on them was a bit lacklustre?
Attachment 237422
Attachment 237423
So here's my take on comparing old with new
I will start in 1873 which is when my Alexander Henry 450 was delivered to the customer who ordered it.
To the best of my ability in asking some learned gents it was likely a
( 1873 vs £ now converted to $NZ)
£30 rifle = £4000 = $8000NZ
A gun trade labourer might earn
£50 = £6700 = $14000nz
A skilled gun trade worker
£80 = £10700 = $22000nz
An engineer
£100 = £13500 = $27000nz
So for sure the guys who made the guns couldn't afford to buy them
So is there a comparable quality modern $8000 NZ rifle available?
And what will it look like 150 years from now ?
There are definitely rifles of this quality currently being built
But totall bespoke and likely in real terms vastly more expensive compared to yearly earnings
Attachment 237577
Of course these are really rough numbers and I don't have a copy of the AH ledger to know exactly what this rifle cost the original owner.
But you get the idea
There are definitely $8000 package deal rifles out there new... But as to their longevity.....
I have a modern Ford Ranger, who the fuk build shit like that? I have two zkw 465s, bloody smooth to handle, love taking them for a walk or ride, most days they get to throw lead around.
