So, I drew an antelope tag for the first time in about 5 years. The last one I shot with my .270 and it seemed a little too much gun.
And the truth is this may just be justification because I want a new toy... But I've been thinking about adding a .243 to my collection mainly for Antelope, Whitetails, and those California pigs (really fun, if you've never hunted them, plan a trip)
I've been looking at the Cabela's great outdoors days sale ad, and it seems that for what I want to spend, my basic choices are:
1. Ruger M77 MK2...
2. Remington 700 SPS
3. Savage 110
By the time a scope (3x9?), case, and sling are added all 3 price out right around $600.
I know this is the kind of question that if you asked 20 different hunters you will likely get 20 different answers, kind of like asking whats better Ford, Chevy, or Dodge... (Chevy of course... DUH...)
From what I've read in a few national discussion forms (Guns & Ammo & American Hunter I think) thats basically what I've been getting, though I did see more negative comments about the Remington than either of the others. (silicone parts, a bad trigger, and a non-floating barrel ??? I dont really know what the last one means...)
However, I know a lot of choosing the "right gun" has to do with local climate, terrain, type of shots, altitude, etc...
So, I now put the question to you, my local, always opinionated, fellow BFT hunting peeps...
Which one would you choose and why ???
Thanks,
Noonan...
[signature]
Well, I don't like the savage at all, I don't know much about the Remmington, and the Ruger .243 is an awesome gun!
I would definitley go with the Ruger, I promise you will not be disappointed. I have three friends that all have Ruger .243s and would not trade them for anything. Ruger makes a fantastic rifle, I have a Ruger .270 and it also is a very reliable gun.
Go with the Ruger!
[signature]
I am a die hard ruger man! I have many calibes in it. I would consider these two calibers. Either a 6mm or 25-06. Both are great guns for prarie gots, Deer, Sound dogs and will buck that Wyoming wind. I have the 6mm andIts my favorite gun.
Good Luck
[signature]
My large rifles have been remingtons from the beginning and i can't say enough about them. They have never let me down. Other people will give you their oppinion but this is mine. I can't see the difference in a gun that costs $300 and a gun that costs $600 or $700. If you are confident in your abilities and your gun you have nothing to worry about.[cool]
[signature]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]I have a .243 and a .25/06 both made by Ruger and thier quality is comparible to my Brownings. [/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3][/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]If your hunting big game in Wyoming I don't believe the 6MM is a legal cartridge. The caliber is fine but it is the length of the cartrige that if I remember correctly, that makes it not legal for big game.[/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3][/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]Later,[/size][/#808000][/font]
[signature]
IF I remember correctly, The 6mm was the smallest that you could use. However I would need to recheck it from the last time I read it. It could have changed. I mainly have used it over in your neck of the woods for P dogs when the wind gets blowin hard. the .22 stuff cant handle the wind at that long distance but the 6mm will do it out there along ways.
[signature]
Thanks for the input guys...
Update...
A wrench has been thrown in the works...
So I had pretty much resigned to buy the Ruger, on the front cover of
[url "http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/home/pages/eflyer3.html?catalog_name=rtl_4fe&store_num=13&rfx_versioningid=013"]http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/home/pages/eflyer3.html?catalog_name=rtl_4fe&store_num=13&rfx_versioningid=013[/url])
Everyone had good things to say about it, and it was stainless/ black synthetic stock which would match my Browning .270 (Pathetic and shallow I know...)
But then another visit to the Cabelas website brought the second addition of the "fall sport spectacular sale":
[url "http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/home/pages/eflyer3.html?catalog_name=rtl_6fe07&store_num=13&rfx_versioningid=013"]http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/home/pages/eflyer3.html?catalog_name=rtl_6fe07&store_num=13&rfx_versioningid=013[/url]
And on it's front cover is this Remington 710 combo .243 with a Bushnell 3x9 for $299. which seems like a really good deal, and now I'm thinking that I could do gun and a new Lorance X135 fishfinder for the same price as the Ruger.
So, now I'm really torn. I really only plan on buying one .243 and keeping it for the rest of my life. I will probably only shoot it once or twice a year at the most. And also I can wait till next spring for the fishfinder I guess...
So, my final question here is, or maybe I just hoping that somebody will confirm, that the Ruger M77 Mark 2 with a Leupold 3x9 ($169 on sale) is a way better gun, and worth the extra $310 over the Remington 710 with a Bushnell scope.
I starting to feel like a woman at a shoe store that can't make a decision...
Sorry guys...
[signature]
I've got both Rugers and Remingtons and I find NO difference in accuracy, reliability, etc. I like your way of thinking. Get the Remington AND the Lowrance. However, when you're in Cabelas, look at the Bottomline 5100. I was looking for a new finder a couple of months ago and was going to get a Hummingbird 565. I then COMPLETELY changed my mind and bought the Bottomline Tournament 5100. The screen is 7" wide which is about twice that of the Hummingbird I wanted. I looked at the Lowrance 125 with a 5" screen too. Anyway, since buying the Bottomline, I've been impressed. They had some problems a couple of years ago with some quality control issues, but have since dug themselves out of the hole and many of the walleye pros are running Bottomline units. Anyway, the finder I mention above was $199. I absolutely love it. It is by far, the easiest finder to use. Very intuitive and I hardly had to read the manual (however I'm a "techy" person and read it anyway). I have fished with it about a half dozen times and love it more each time. You'd be surprised, but the 2" difference in screen width between the Lowarnace 135 and Bottomline is quite a bit. The power on the Bottomline is 2400 watts versus 4000 on the Lowrance, but I haved fished in water 130' deep at Bear Lake this summer and could easily see my jig. Plus it tracks the cannonballs nicely too. Check it out for yourself. Maybe that's save you another $100+ dollars and you could buy some ammo for that Remington! [
]
[signature]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]I don't think that the difference in the guns is worth $310 dollars, but the difference between the Burris and Leupold scope definately is. Good optics can make a bad gun good, and bad optics can make a good gun bad. I don't blame you for going for the cheaper gun but I wouldn't skimp on the optics. [/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3][/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]Just my 2 cents.[/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3][/size][/#808000][/font]
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]Oh ya I have the X-135 and love it for the price, the X-125 is just as good too for that type of finder.[/size][/#808000][/font]
[signature]
I agree. If the Ruger and the Remm were the same price, I would go for the Ruger because I just like Ruger better. I don't think that the Ruger is worth $300 more. Go for the Remm If you are tight on cash.
[signature]