Budget gun battle - Savage Axis vs TC Venture vs 700 SPS

[Elmo]

Just a curious argument.

Savage Axis (formerly Edge) versus Thompson-Center Venture versus Remington 700 SPS.

Which is the best bang for the buck?

Note 1:  They're different price ranges so the more expensive ones needs to be better to justify the extra cash.

Note 2:  I know the Remington is not really in the budget/entry level class but I threw it in there because it's less than $100 more than the Thompson-Center Venture so then one would ask why not spend a little extra change if you are potentially getting a better gun?

[Bballhunter11]

I have handled and used both the Savage and 700 SPS and the 700 is a better gun and action. But for 330 dollars the edge is a solid gun doesnt feel as cheap as it is. Why didnt u include the marlin XL7 or mossberg 100 atr i think they are the best guns for the money but i am not a big thompson center fan

[steve863]

Eventhough I am a Remington 700 fan, my vote would go with the Marlin XL7 also if you want an economical model that has everything one would want.  The problem with many budget models is that they have sloppy triggers.  That is one gripe I have heard against the Savage Axis.  The Marlin has a similar trigger to the high end Savage's which is pretty darned good.  For the money the Marlin can't be beat.

[Elmo]

Why didnt u include the marlin XL7 or mossberg 100 atr

Forgot to mention was looking for a .223 caliber.  I already have the 700 in a 308 caliber.  Didn't hear a lot of good things coming from the Mossberg camp.  Also removed the Stevens 200 because I heard they're discountinuing that line.

[Doc]

I own the Remington Mod 700 SPS Varmint in .223 and can personally vouch for the accuracy, and handling of that gun. I have no personal experience with the others.

I might add that if budget is a major concern, you probably should not rule out used weapons. Unless a gun has been severely mis-used, is just plain old, there most likely are a lot of great bargains out there in the used gun market. Usually abuse is obvious, and insisting on a few test shots before purchase would let you know if the gun is a "shooter" or not.

[Bballhunter11]

o ok the 223 restriction makes a difference. I agree with Doc dont discount used guns i just recently bought a used savage model 25 in 223 on gunbroker.com  tons of 223s on there and auctionarms.com. I would say if u are looking for an accurate varmint rifle go with a quality remington or savage in your price range.

[jr.deerslayer]

i own a venture in 233, very accurate, nice clip

[ny hunter]

Have you looked at the Weatherby Vanguard.It is a very accurate rifle that well not break the bank.

[Elmo]

I'm deciding on the Savage Axis.  The prevailing factor is money.

I just spent over a grand less than a month ago on a rifle (Remington 700 VTR, Nikon ProStaff optics, Harris bi-pod) and this is actually some left over cash from that budget.  I held the Venture and the Axis and I must say the Venture does feel a lot better and of course, I like the 700's.  But at $500 for the Venture, why not throw another $100 and upgrade to the 700 SPS?  At $600 for the 700 SPS, why not throw another $100 and upgrade to the Tikka T3?  At what point does it stop?  My brother was the one that suggested to get the one that's fit comfortably in my budget, play with it, beat it up, and then a year or two from now, I can upgrade and won't feel bad only spending $350.

Another factor was the girlfriend giving me the evil eye about my spending habits.    Why can't I just win the lotto?

The other reason I posted this question was because I have 4 friends that are some what curious about hunting after hearing my stories.  Of course, money is always a concern so it's great to be able to show them that they can hunt if they want with a quality gun without spending a lot of money.

Thanks all.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I can vouch for the Remington 700 as well. I have a SPS-V with the 26 inch bull barrel and its a tack driver, plain and simple. I have a couple of different bi-pods for it and a Vortex Crossfire scope. I have probably less than $800 into it as a brand new purchase on all components and It shoots sub MOA groups at 200 yards all day long with factory ammo off of the bi-pod and bags.

[Elmo]

o ok the 223 restriction makes a difference. I agree with Doc dont discount used guns i just recently bought a used savage model 25 in 223 on gunbroker.com  tons of 223s on there and auctionarms.com. I would say if u are looking for an accurate varmint rifle go with a quality remington or savage in your price range.

Thanks BBallHunter11.  I took your advice on auctionarms.com and tonight I just got the winning bid on a used Savage Model 12 in .223 for $400.  Once shipping and processing fee kicks in it'll be more like $500 but for a gun that retails at around $800-900, I'd say I'm pretty happy.  I won't say it's official until the rifle sits in my hands.

[ny hunter]

Enjoy the new rifle,I told you its a disease.You probably already see the next gun,and this one is'nt here yet! 

[Elmo]

Enjoy the new rifle,I told you its a disease.You probably already see the next gun,and this one is'nt here yet!

Haha.  Next one's either going to be a bow or a Henry Repeater.  I'm way ahead of you.

[ny hunter]

Enjoy my friend.

[Elmo]

Savage Model 12 in .223 with custom choate stock and stainless fluted barrel I won on auctionarms for $400 ($490 after processing).  It's really a bench gun (26" barrel and weights 11.2 lbs) but I still plan on making this my primary coyote gun.  Can't afford good glass right now so I'll probably end up getting the Bushnell Banner Scope in 6-18 X 50.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Toruk, before you buy the Bushnell, take a look at the Vortex Crossfire  line. I have one on my Remmy 700, its the 4-16x50 with illuminated  Mil-dot reticule. Lifetime warranty and its super clear and crisp. I use  it at night and it gathers plenty of light. I got a great deal on mine  at swfa.com and I couldnt be happier with it.

http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-crossfire-4-16x50-ao-riflescope-mil-dot-illuminated-reticle

[Pygmy]

I can't understand why so many hunters choose to handicap themselves by putting high magnification variables on a hunting rifle.

If you are hunting prairie dogs or ground squirrels, it's one thing. They are very small targets and are nearly always stationary when you shoot at them. However prairie dogs and ground squirrels are rather hard to find in New York.

A coyote is a 20 to 40 pound animal and more often than not will be moving when you shoot at it...A high power scope is a definite handicap on a moving target. I can see much more utility in a 3x9 for a coyote rifle than a 6X18 or some other such monstrosity.

Especially with a .223, which limits your to shots of say 400 yards max.  A 9 power scope has plenty of magnification for target aquisition on a target as big as a coyote at that range.

For some reason, many hunters seem to think that the higher the magnification, the better the scope is. They would be better off buying lower magnification scopes with better optics.

[Doc]

Some times there is a calming effect of seeing a sight picture that looks so big that you feel like you can't miss. It's the old confidence builder of being able to pick out which hair you want to hit. Rather than shooting at the whole animal, increased magnification aids in "picking a spot". Also, some predator hunters are trying to save the pelt, so head shots are preferred. So while the animal might be good size, it generally turns out that you are not shooting at the whole animal. Personally, I use the standard 3-9 variable, but I definitely understand if people want to go a bit higher.

I might add that in my case, my .223 doubles as a target rifle for some casual bench shooting. That is a place where I definitely wish I had more magnification. There is definitely no question that when I use my Brother-in-law's rifle with the 20x scope, I can shoot much more accurately than I can with my own 9x.

And finally, I suppose it just comes down to personal preference. And of course, that is why we buy everything that we buy  .

[WNYBuckHunter]

I can't understand why so many hunters choose to handicap themselves by putting high magnification variables on a hunting rifle.

If you are hunting prairie dogs or ground squirrels, it's one thing. They are very small targets and are nearly always stationary when you shoot at them. However prairie dogs and ground squirrels are rather hard to find in New York.

A coyote is a 20 to 40 pound animal and more often than not will be moving when you shoot at it...A high power scope is a definite handicap on a moving target. I can see much more utility in a 3x9 for a coyote rifle than a 6X18 or some other such monstrosity.

Especially with a .223, which limits your to shots of say 400 yards max.  A 9 power scope has plenty of magnification for target aquisition on a target as big as a coyote at that range.

For some reason, many hunters seem to think that the higher the magnification, the better the scope is. They would be better off buying lower magnification scopes with better optics.

Thats why I bought a 4-16, low enough power for shorter range shooting but high enough power for long shots at woodchucks, etc. I shoot a ton of targets with it as well, mostly at 200+ yards, so the high power comes in real handy. As far as how large the scope is, go hunting at night and look through it, then tell me that large objective isnt needed. 

[Elmo]

I can't understand why so many hunters choose to handicap themselves by putting high magnification variables on a hunting rifle.

I have the Nikon ProStaff 3-9 on my .308 which I plan on using as my deer gun.  I figure an animal the size of a deer and the power packed in a .308, I came come away with a humane kill as long as I get anywhere near the vitals.  But even at 9 power, when I look at a paper target 100 yards out, it's hard for me to see the bulls-eye.

I got the .223 as a fun gun.  Target practice.  Range shooting.  Coyote and raccoons.  For that, I want to be able to hit the target between the eyes.

Also I think there is something wrong with me.  On a 3-9, I don't see any real difference until I'm all the way out to 9 power.  I returned a 10X binocular because I didn't see any difference then I did with my normal eye and got a 18X instead.  I had Lasiks done on my eyes so I would joke around with people and tell them I have bionic eyes.  Maybe it's true?

I also need to consider budget.  Between hunting and photography, I have two of the most expensive hobbies possible.

[Pygmy]

Yeah, it is mostly a matter of personal preference.  For what it's worth, I don't think I have ever  influenced anyone to buy a good quality fixed power scope, no matter how much I have preached thier merits... ....

They'll listen as I prattle on about advantages such as lighter weight, smaller size, longer eye relief , generally superior optics, durability, etc. nod thier heads and smile at this crusty old fart (just to humor me)  and then go out and buy some overpowered, oversized contraption to ruin the appearance and balance of a nice hunting rifle...

It's no skin off my snout...I'll just continue to go out and kill stuff at all practical ranges with my sleek, wooden stocked rifles and thier antiquated 2.5X, 4X or 6X Leupies... ;D .....

[Elmo]

Yeah, it is mostly a matter of personal preference.  For what it's worth, I don't think I have ever  influenced anyone to buy a good quality fixed power scope, no matter how much I have preached thier merits... ....

In photography the prime lens (fixed zoom) does indeed give you the best picture quality by far.  I don't see why that would not hold true in scopes as well.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Its all about what fits the intended use 

[Pygmy]

It also gives us something more to discuss on these forums... ...

I enjoy discussing technical stuff regarding guns and gear..

I also have some  personal opinions regarding asthetics, but I realize that they are very much that..PERSONAL opinions... I'm aware that asthetics are very much individual views...

I grew up thinking that bolt action rifles with walnut stocks , classic configurations and blued finishes are a thing of beauty, and although I admit I own a few UGLY but FUNCTIONAL firearms, I still think that life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun...

That said, I will concede that beauty is in the eye of the beerholder...SCUSE ME, I meant to say beholder.. ;D .. What is ugly to me may be beautiful to the next fellow... Some guys like stainless steel and composite..( GAG...!!..CHOKE..!!).. : ..

Still, my preference for high quality, relatively low powered scopes goes further than that...

It is based on pure utility and dependability... How many times have you or your buddies jumped a game animal at close range and been unable to get it the field of view because your variable was set too high..?.. It has happened to most guys that I know.. With my fixed Leupold 4X , I am all set to take a moving shot at close range, and if I get a chance at 300 ( or 400 for that matter) I can kill it, provided I have a good steady rest... I have done it a number of times, and people like Jack O'Connor and Bob Hagel were doing it years ago, with lower quality optics in the same power range..

I think that what bothers me most is the idea that many hunters seem to have the opinion that you can't shoot REALLY GOOD unless you have high magnification optics...I have shot too many sub-MOA groups with my 4X scopes to believe that...

For bench groups that are measured in fractions of an inch, maybe so...But in the real world of hunting, at normal hunting ranges ( I consider normal ranges from 0-400 yards)  a good 4X or 6X will defintely cut the mustard, and I think for many hunters it would be a BETTER TOOL than some high powered variable...

Woops.. There I go again.... : .. : .. ;D ....

[WNYBuckHunter]

Im kind of a gadget guy that likes any advantage I can get, well most of the time anyway. My guns are no exception to that, so for my long range guns, I put scopes on that can get me as good of a view of my target as I can afford. Now my slug gun on the other hand, has a pretty low powered scope on it, as my range with it is pretty limited. I also have my lever action, which still has iron sights, but if I put a scope on it, it would be a lower power scope similar to what my slug gun has. Now my TC Encore handgun, that is getting a new scope soon (the cheap-o NC Star that came on it has got to go), and it will get something in the mid range on it, probably a 3-9. Where I see the real bulk in scopes though, isnt from the variable power, but the objective lens. For my handgun, its probably going to be under a 30mm lens, my slug gun and regular rifles get something with a 32mm lens, which I find to be a good size for hunting at any time but at night. My predator gun though, got a 50mm only because it gets used at night. Ive tried 40mm scopes at night, and it just didnt do it for me, but the 50mm lets a ton of light in, and works well for me. I admit, its big, and bulky, but for how well it does, I can live with it.

For me, its all about the application.