|
First off to address the question of a Remington rifle. The most accurate rifle I ever owned was a Rem. 700 in .308, but it was a police sniper special order. That was bought back in the 80's from Edelman's in N.J. Remington only made them to order, and they came with a oil finished walnut stock. It could shoot into the size of a quarter all day long at 200 yards. It's one drawback to practicle use was it's weight. I had eventually sold it which I do regret. If I wanted to buy something along those lines today it would probably be the Savage 10FP. For a rifle that sells for less than $500, it will shoot factory loads into 1/2" 100 yard 5 shot groups right out of the box. As for barrel length, I don't believe there is any advantage to longer barrels as long as your using a scope. Barrel diameter is more important and the extra length just leaves more room for harmonic tuning issues to come into play. I do still use a .308, but one in a much handier package. It's a Ruger M77 MkII compact with a 16" barrel and weighing only 5.5 LBS before the scope is added. I hunt in some pretty thick stuff, so this length is handy, but more important is the fact that when the thick stuff does open up a bit, the .308 still has the stuff for longer shots. I had learned a lesson last year when I came onto an area where I could see 300 yards. I had spotted one of the nicest bucks I ever saw in these woods. He was out all of 300 yards, and I was holding a Marlin 1894P 16.5" ported barreled .44 mag. I didn't even bother to try the shot.
In the synthetic versus wood stocks issue, if I was hunting in Alaska I would worry about it, but for the PA. area, well I think a wood stock will serve just as well. I'm a sucker for a nice walnut stock.
Don
__________________
"Inspired by Reagan, educated by Rush!"
|
Threaded Mode
