Which model should I consider? - Page 2 - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > >

Notices

Join Team RFC to remove these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 09-08-2019, 08:50 AM
JamesHP

Join Date: 
Aug 2019
Posts: 
93
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)


Log in to see fewer ads
Yes, the 1710 with the Heavy Barrel is much heavier. Although listed as a 1710 HB the description says “standard barrel” which may make a difference. I will email Brian Curry and find out tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-08-2019, 08:53 AM
JamesHP

Join Date: 
Aug 2019
Posts: 
93
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Email sent to Brian at ANA regarding gun weight
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-08-2019, 10:06 AM
Camster

Join Date: 
Sep 2003
Posts: 
14,932
TPC Rating: 
99% (57)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHP View Post
Yes, the 1710 with the Heavy Barrel is much heavier. Although listed as a 1710 HB the description says ďstandard barrelĒ which may make a difference. I will email Brian Curry and find out tomorrow.
Yes, on second look, it does look like a standard weight. These were always my favorite, (I've owned a few dozen 1700 series rifles over the years) so if they're bringing them back, that would be nice. Still, it would/should weigh more than 6.40#,unless it's balsa wood light walnut.
In years gone by, I wrote to them about no longer having standard weight barrels in the line up. They claimed no demand.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-08-2019, 10:51 AM
Bottom Gun's Avatar
Bottom Gun
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Dec 2002
Location: 
Southern Arizona
Posts: 
329
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Personally, I would look for a 64 action for field use. I love the way my 54 actions shoot but they are heavier than the 64 actions and not worth carrying the extra weight for a slight gain in accuracy.
The 64 actions like the 1416 models will shoot well enough for hunting and plinking and cost quite a bit less than a 54 action.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:13 AM
Camster

Join Date: 
Sep 2003
Posts: 
14,932
TPC Rating: 
99% (57)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottom Gun View Post
Personally, I would look for a 64 action for field use. I love the way my 54 actions shoot but they are heavier than the 64 actions and not worth carrying the extra weight for a slight gain in accuracy.
The 64 actions like the 1416 models will shoot well enough for hunting and plinking and cost quite a bit less than a 54 action.
Yeah, cost less, but not a huge jump up from his CZ. As the OPs age is on his mind, might as well make the full jump to a 54 action gun.
As with the 1710 classic, I think that a demand exists for a standard barrel weight 64 action sporter. At least with the 1700 series, one has the option with a 1712 or 1710DKL.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:51 AM
JamesHP

Join Date: 
Aug 2019
Posts: 
93
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Looks like you guys were right. See email from Brian Curry below.
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg F8891889-5936-4761-9177-0A8C01A9C370_1568040703012.jpeg (115.8 KB, 34 views)

Last edited by JamesHP; 09-09-2019 at 04:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:59 PM
JamesHP

Join Date: 
Aug 2019
Posts: 
93
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
To the OP:

Did you make a decision?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:16 PM
BadgerJack's Avatar
BadgerJack
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Feb 2018
Location: 
Nawthern Virginia
Posts: 
188
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
A longer barrel can be cut and threaded by a good 'smith... been there, done that.

A stock can be replaced... ben there, done that.

Thee are virtually no rifle actions out there today that are not scope ready, unlike back in the 40s'~60s', when they did not even groove .22s'.

After that, buy the action you want and go from there.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:09 AM
bowwild

Join Date: 
Jan 2004
Location: 
Lawrenceburg, Kentucky
Posts: 
855
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
I have two 1712's. One with a walnut stock is 7.3 pounds, without a scope. It is the 21.6 inch barrel.

The other is stocked with a Mcmillan synthetic. It is 6.8 pounds. Has same barrel and action.

I have not weighed my 64s. They are Weatherby Anschutz. Very noticeably lighter though. I would suppose they are at least 1 pound lighter.

Last edited by bowwild; 09-14-2019 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:43 PM
Bottom Gun's Avatar
Bottom Gun
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Dec 2002
Location: 
Southern Arizona
Posts: 
329
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
I have a number of .22 LR and .22 WMR sporters in both 54 and 64 actions. My wife and I shoot them a lot.
Iíve also owned CZs in the past. They are very good rifles but not in the same league as Anschutz.
Iíve been shooting rimfire for over half a century and have learned to appreciate a good quality firearm.

The 54 actions normally shoot slightly more accurately for us but not always. Some days the 64 actions can shoot equally well and, at times, can outshoot the 54 actions in side by side comparisons from the bench.
The 54 actions are smoother but they are also heavier than the 64 actions.

Anyone who tells you the 64 actions wonít shoot accurately is either mistaken, canít shoot very well or both.

Each of my three 1416 sporters of various vintages has a different barrel length. They are 22Ē, 23Ē and 24Ē IIRC.
I donít know why Anschutz felt the need to change barrel lengths but the different lengths shoot equally well for us.
Does anyone know why the barrel lengths vary?

I really enjoy shooting my 54 actions off the bench and they would be my first choice for bench shooting.
However, when I hunt with any of my rifles, I always take one of my 1416s out. The lighter weight 64 action is much easier to handle and carry.
In the field when Iím shooting offhand or using packs, tree branches, shooting sticks or my knee(s) for support, there is no real difference in accuracy.

Personally, I would start with a 64 action and later, if you want to upgrade or add to your collection, you can always pick up a 54 action.
Cost is another factor. My 1416s, 141M and 164M cost less than half what I paid for my 1712 and 1720.

My two cents.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:06 PM
lesley

Join Date: 
Nov 2006
Posts: 
82
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PWNolan View Post
Did the OP not say they decided to go with an Anschutz?
I was pointing out a more accurate repeater. for less money or close to an Anschutz money wise
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:22 PM
JamesHP

Join Date: 
Aug 2019
Posts: 
93
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
My 1712 weights 6lb 4oz without the scope so is very light for hunting and shoots very accurately from the bench. 18” stainless barrel
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:17 AM
VertFish's Avatar
VertFish
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2009
Location: 
Southern Indiana
Posts: 
2,472
TPC Rating: 
100% (59)
I own several 64 and 54 sporter rifles. Though the 54ís run about a pound heavier than the 64ís, I seem to always grab the 54ís for 3 hour squirrel hunts. The 54ís just seem to shoot a little better across the board and the actions are very smooth. I have never found them to be heavy, even when I have them up against a tree tracking a squirrel for 10-15 minutes at a time. If you could only have one sporter, here would be my choices in order of preference:
1. 1712 FWT
2. 1700/1710 FWT
3. Savage/Anschutz 54 sporter 22Ē barrel
4. 1712 with standard wooden stock
5. 1700/1710 wooden stock

I recognize that many 64ís can shoot as well as a 54, I have just found that day in and day out, my 54ís are just better. Since I donít get to go hunting as much as I would like, I want my best guns at my side.

I understand that the 54ís may be financially out of reach for many and that a 64 is a better option at the time. Thatís how I ended up with several 64ís in the safe. They served me well. Once I bought my first 54, my attitude about spending the extra money changed. If my time with gun in hand is limited, I want the best I can afford.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:34 PM
lesley

Join Date: 
Nov 2006
Posts: 
82
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Looks like the Anschtuz will fall the same way the 37 the 40x and all the 52s have. behind. Anschutz keeps putting out the same guns at a higher price. Nothing is changing they are still making the same guns they made in the late 90s and eary 2000s
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:03 PM
lesley

Join Date: 
Nov 2006
Posts: 
82
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I own a few Anschutz 22s. All of them have been rebarreled. Anschutz needs to get in the game. At current prices its cheaper. To have a gun built than buy a new rifle from Anschutz
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Took my Brno ZKM 455 S Model 3 Stecher out for a stretch, figured I'd share some pics jmrybak CZ / Brno 5 10-08-2018 11:12 AM
The Winchester Model 67 single shot rifle... PALADIN85020 Winchester 20 03-31-2018 10:11 AM
Model 18-7,,, Toss It? sweetmk Rimfire Revolvers 6 11-03-2017 04:31 PM
The HOLY GRAIL of the Model 37 Rangemaster RangeMaster37 Model 37/40X 4 08-11-2017 06:09 AM
Remington Model 12 Variation Listing Pete44ru Remington 8 02-03-2017 05:00 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.

Privacy Policy

DMCA Notice

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2018 RimfireCentral.com
x