This is hypothetical... The question is:
Between a 2008 limited run Featherweight new in the box, or a transition era pre-'64 Standard in what appears to be pretty decent shape, which one would you go for? Prices are within $20. Both are the same chambering.
My own iteration of the FN production Featherweights (a .270 from the following year, 2009) is about as near to a perfect hunting rifle as I could dream up. Light, perfectly balanced, terrific fit and finish, and gorgeous looks. Despite its delicate appearance, though, it has stood more than its share of battle wounds. Rain. Snow. Hot. Cold. I have literally fallen on this rifle. Year after year, it keeps stacking 130 Partitions into nice tight clusters. About the only thing it doesn't have is that exquisitely simple Winchester trigger. Granted, the MOA works just fine, but it lacks the basic elegance of the older one. A couple other contemporary manufacturing cost savings, such as I think the extractor is pressed pot metal instead of machined. But the rest of the rifle also benefits from current technology, as evidenced by the groups this thing shoots. My biggest concern is that something will happen to it...
Planning to go look at the Standard this weekend to get a closer look and examine the bore, but the pictures look pretty good. It is over a full pound heavier than a modern Featherweight, and the pre-'64 action does not have a guide rail relief cut in the bolt, so the newer ones are generally a little slicker. Outside of that it is, as always, the rifleman's rifle. I made two changes to the pre-'64 I have now: normal sling swivel studs and hex socket head action screws. I'd likely make the same changes to this or any other future acquisition.
So there you go, have at it!
Between a 2008 limited run Featherweight new in the box, or a transition era pre-'64 Standard in what appears to be pretty decent shape, which one would you go for? Prices are within $20. Both are the same chambering.
My own iteration of the FN production Featherweights (a .270 from the following year, 2009) is about as near to a perfect hunting rifle as I could dream up. Light, perfectly balanced, terrific fit and finish, and gorgeous looks. Despite its delicate appearance, though, it has stood more than its share of battle wounds. Rain. Snow. Hot. Cold. I have literally fallen on this rifle. Year after year, it keeps stacking 130 Partitions into nice tight clusters. About the only thing it doesn't have is that exquisitely simple Winchester trigger. Granted, the MOA works just fine, but it lacks the basic elegance of the older one. A couple other contemporary manufacturing cost savings, such as I think the extractor is pressed pot metal instead of machined. But the rest of the rifle also benefits from current technology, as evidenced by the groups this thing shoots. My biggest concern is that something will happen to it...
Planning to go look at the Standard this weekend to get a closer look and examine the bore, but the pictures look pretty good. It is over a full pound heavier than a modern Featherweight, and the pre-'64 action does not have a guide rail relief cut in the bolt, so the newer ones are generally a little slicker. Outside of that it is, as always, the rifleman's rifle. I made two changes to the pre-'64 I have now: normal sling swivel studs and hex socket head action screws. I'd likely make the same changes to this or any other future acquisition.
So there you go, have at it!
