oldelkhunter

+1 although there are other brands that do that as well but cost much more money

rem 700

Seems to me like most major brands are a "hook up some glass and shoot" deal for accuracy...I thinkthe shooter is usually the problem with accuracy.I've shot Remington, Ruger, Browning, Savage, Sako and others...although I like my 700smost, all those rifles seem to do fine with a little load experimenting and a solid rest.

retrieverman

I have hunted with many brands of rifles and have never had any reliabilty issues with any of them, but my Blaser R-93 and Sauer 202 are the most accurate rifles that "I" own. I have never been to Africa or Alaska, so I can't say that guides in either place don't use them. As far as long range competitions, that is not a subject that I am familiar with, but in hunting rifles, there is no need for a Sauer to be a "basis" gun when they shoot sub MOA out of the box.

Jackson Bowner

oldelkhunter, I think I made referrence to the fact thatthe Sauer is one of thesub MOA rifles. There are several sub MOA's mentioned in this thread and I think by answering the original post, it is implied that a gun that a responder is recommending is both sub MOA and reliable. That was the original question was it not???? Translation, sub MOA means the rifle is very accurate. Isn't that clear enough??? And yes, there are several others (even Tikka) thatare capable of sub MOA shots consistently for a fraction of the cost of a Sauer.So this leads to the last of your questions that is worth responding to, that your "inquiring mind" wants to know the answer to....would an Alaskan or African guide spend $2700-$3500 on a "pretty" rifle...one that is going to be thrown in the truck and beat around in the bush, when a Tikka for example will kill exactly the same game just as dead as a Sauer will? Geese, grow up!

oldelkhunter

This thread is very misleading as there is no such perfect rifle that is both most Accurate and Most Reliable. There are tradeoffs in every design. If one were to get the most reliable rifle for the money then they would get a Empire Arms or a Heym,Mitchellsor use a heavily modified Model 70. That rifle would allow one to hunt in Alaska and Africa . I will bet that most guides in alaska have some version of a Ruger 77 or a Model 70. In Africa my bet goes to CZ(brno),Mauser and Model 70's. Accuracy well I have not heard of "Most" accurate rifles built on Mauser derivatives or Model 70's. The ones I have heard that give great accuracy would not be my first choice if my life were on the line on a DG hunt. Last time I checked high gloss bluing and impeccable checkering and a super smooth bolt don't equate to reliability .

starhunter21

Not to turn to far away from the original post, but I was thinking a bit more about this. I agree with elk, rem, and retriverman, that most guns regardless of make are mostly accurate. If not, they probably would not be in business. However, as mentioned is a couple of posts, its up to the shooter. Not only do they need to have a bit of experience with shooting, but I also think you need to “like” the gun that you shoot. You really need to be happy when you pull it out of the case and set it on the bench. I had a nicer 7mm bolt action that I absolutely hated. Felt like I was shouldering a baseball bat, kicked like a mule, and I couldn’t hit a paper plate at 100yds. Shot a few deer with it but hated it.

I had the opportunity to purchase a rifle last year. I saved for a couple of years and wanted what I thought would be the best. I had budgeted $3-4K and wanted something that I considered special. I shouldered all the high-end guns, shot a couple, and the one I bought wasn’t even in my top 5 when I started. And I am still happy a jaybird, and will use the other $2K to purchase another one this spring, just like it different caliber.

oldelkhunter

You see a lot of AFrican or Alaskan guides using Tikkas on dangerous game , is that what I am hearing?1000-3000 dollars gets one a solidly engineered rifle that will be very reliable. BTW lay off the personal attacks, I have very little patience for the likes of your kind.

jeepkid

I'm betting most guides in Africa use open site double rifles....which would classify as the most reliable out of any rifle made, but not the most accurate. imo

retrieverman

I have very little patience with argumentative posters too.

The Sauer 202's that I have are not "pretty" guns. I have 2 of the Outback models (lightweights in 270 and 22-250) with synthetic stocks, alloy receivers, and fluted barrels with factory "teflon type" coatings. I bought both of mine used and only have a total of about $2500 in the two guns. I use mine as "truck/atv guns", and they see alot of dirt, dust, and wet conditions and have never failed to function. I am not sure what other kind of reliabilty test besides daily carry and use a gun is supposed to be put through to be called "reliable".

I also have a Blaser R-93 with 308 and 9.3x62 barrels for it, and I wouldn't hesitate to go up against any dangerous game in the world and know my gun would function and shoot when the cards were down.

The adverb "most", as it relates to calibers and guns, is WAY over used on hunting/shooting message boards, and this thread further proves it.

Sako7STW

Given my handle, I no doubt would say go with the Sako. Although, I have seen some absolutely superb guns mentioned in this topic that would treat anyone right like, Lazzeroni, Jarret, Dakota, Ed Brown, Cooper, Sauer, Chritensen (my dream choice, light and accurate), etc., there is one that I haven't seem mentioned yet that is very common and have the same accuracy guarantee as Sako, have had for years, proves it with every gun, and the other gun in my cabinet, is Weatherby. One of the best actions EVER made, proven in DG hunts around the world, SUPERB customer care, quality through and through that cant be denied, one of the best stock triggers on the market. One thing about threads like this, remember, people often scoff at that which they cannot afford.