5 Worst Hunting Rifles Ever Made

Rick H

Rick H

Well-Known Member
I had to laugh at the Ruger 44 mag. I had a buddy who owned one. The most inaccurate piece of......well he liked it. I took $20 off of him, outshooting it at 50 yds with my bow and arrow. (Twice, $10 a pop). He couldn't keep 3 shots on piece of letter stationary at 50 yds. I could with a bow.
 
Ian

Ian

Notorious member
I might have to put the Remington 760 on the list. Great idea, poor execution. Can't hit the side of a barn. The Mini 30 comes to mind also, although I wouldn't turn my nose up at any of them if I was trying to put meat on the table to stave off starvation.

I can't believe the article didn't mention the Mosin Nagant. I guess they realized even the poorer ones are still reasonably accurate and pretty solidly reliable.
 
M

Mainiac

Well-Known Member
Ian said:
I might have to put the Remington 760 on the list. Great idea, poor execution. Can't hit the side of a barn. The Mini 30 comes to mind also, although I wouldn't turn my nose up at any of them if I was trying to put meat on the table to stave off starvation.

I can't believe the article didn't mention the Mosin Nagant. I guess they realized even the poorer ones are still reasonably accurate and pretty solidly reliable.
Click to expand...
Here in maine,when i was young,,you either hunted with a 30-30win,,or a 700rem in 270,or a 30-06,in remingtons piece of junk 742.they all jammed,but people kept right on lugging the trap toggles!!!
 
462

462

California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
My pre-'69 Savage 340 was very accurate and would still have it if not for feeding and ejection problems.
 
R

richhodg66

Well-Known Member
He has this to say about the Savage 340; "The rifles were not even serially numbered until 1969. This probably saved a few cents. The 340 practically shrieked “I am cost-cutting run amok.”

The fact that he's supposed to be knowlegeable and doesn't know that no firearms were required to have serial numbers until the GCA 68 just illuminates the fact that he's a dumbass.

No real experience with the others, but I like the 340 and 99% of deer hunters in America could do a lot worse. My first "small bore" cast bullet deer (i.e., not a muzzle loader) was with a 340, or rather, the Sears branded 340 I have.

You know what they say opinions are like...

This writer is a moron.
 
R

richhodg66

Well-Known Member
waco said:
Good to know. My 340 in 30-30 is pre ‘69
I love that little guy. Feeds well with certain cast stuff. Plenty accurate. With nice receiver sights and $169 out the door how can I complain?
Click to expand...
I wish mine were tapped for a reciever sight, seems silly to scope such a thing, but that's what I did rather than shoot open sights.
 
R

richhodg66

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure mine was made in the 70s, it's a Sears marked one. It is drilled and tapped for a side scope mount. The one I have in .222 is D&T'd for a peep sight. The little STevens 322 I have wasn't tapped for either. Sad story, someone drilled it for the standard Weaver side mount, but apparently didn't want to cut the stock so the holes were way too high and would have put the scope at about 2 o'clock in relation to the bore. I had to do some Bubb modification of a side mount and them fabricate a base on top of it, but ot works. Might not with something heavier recoiling than cast loads in a .22 Hornet, but that was what I bought the rifle for.
 
R

richhodg66

Well-Known Member
Love how a rifle makes the worst five because it looks too nice. One has to wonder if that author has ever hunted or worked with rifles at all.
 
Bret4207

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
This is a good example of why I stopped buying gun mags 20 some years ago. The piece is pure, unadulterated crap based on nothing but fantasy and opinion, and poorly informed opinion at that. I swear most gun writers today are hired for their ability to take any gun subject and write a given number of words on said subject, with or without any actual knowledge of same, as long as they come to the conclusion the editor desires.
 
Joshua

Joshua

Taco Aficionado/Salish Sea Pirate/Part-Time Dragon
And, he finishes by continuing to spread the myth that late war production Arisakas are dangerous to fire. There were training rifles with cast iron receivers that were never meant to be fired are dangerous with live ammo, these are different than combat issued Arisakas.

“Last Ditch” rifles are very rough because unnecessary finish machining / fitting was skipped on these rifles. But they were still using good steel for the receivers and barrels, and they can shoot full pressure loads all day long safely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.