Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Internets Rifle Accuracy

Is it me, or have rifles become more accurate with the arrival of the Internets? Or maybe it's us...

---

Not too long ago, out of the box, big game hunting rifles were shooting 1.5 to 2 inches at 100 yd. Handloads could reduce that to about an inch. Smaller calibers like the 223 could often manage .75 to 1 inch, shot from factory rifles. That's changed. With the invention of the Internets, groups have shrunk considerably. I never realized how much influence Bill Gates and his techno-geeks truly had!

Gun companies say that technological improvements have made modern firearms manufacturing more consistent. Ammunition companies too, talk about more uniform construction, saying that assembly techniques are better than ever. There�s no reason to doubt their assertions, but these are just two of the three things that produce superb accuracy. People are the third part and affect the result more so than anything else. And boy, have humans ever had an impact!

According to the Internets, group size has gone down markedly over the last twenty years. You can find evidence of this by opening your browser and 'Googling' shooting/hunting performance. You'll find tons of testimonials, complete with pictures and witnesses. We have evolved. Our training has improved. We now possess superior mental discipline. We can shrug off the pressures associated with competition shooting or the jitters caused by buck fever. Good old cyberspace! What would we have done without you?

With all that proof, I must accept that humans have become better�

Okay, maybe not, so it has to be our rifles, right?

Today�s rifles truly are technological marvels of our modern age. They are magical! It�s a mystical combination of the Force (from Star Wars) and the wizardry of Lord of the Rings. Yeah, yeah, but I got proof! Despite manufacturing short cuts, poor quality control and the increased use of polymers, groups have continued to shrink. Strange isn't it? Regardless of the complaints from hunters and shooters about crappy, flexible stocks, heavy, lawyer proof triggers and so-so stock/action fit, I keep reading about out of the box accuracy being better than ever before. I read this stuff on hunting and shooting forums...on the Internets.

Some might say that you can't have it both ways. Shooters must be telling fibs, because we cannot have poorly made, butt ugly, ill fitting firearms that shoot better groups than competition rifles! Well, I'm sorry, but the evidence isn't there, folks. Google, and the Internets, do not lie.

In fact, with improvements coming so fast, we will soon be shooting groups smaller than the diameter of the bullets we launch!

At the rate we're going, shooters should be bug holing with econo-guns by the end of the decade. It sure looks that way. It seems that we'll be doing it with ten lb trigger pulls, using assemblies made from pot metal parts, housed in ugly, limp and shoddily made plastic stocks. All this will be attached to less metallic versions of traditional rifle actions, assembled by numpties, using poorly constructed, off shore parts. The worse rifles get, the better they�ll shoot! Wow!

I know what you're thinking, but it has to be true because the evidence is floating around in cyberspace.

Since 1962 Remington has made the same 700, it's accurate as it ever was, no rocket science or magic there.

It's all very simple Steve, more people handload better more accurate bullets.

Here are a couple thoughts.

1. The internet HAS affected the accuracy of rifles and ammo. Today the manufacturers are under more pressure to "get it right" every time (i.e., high level of precision) because the internet has brought information transfer to the masses, and a problem with a gun in Alaska in the past that probably wouldn't be known by a guy in Texas can be found out in a matter of days. Similarly, good news travels fast, too. Therefore, bad manufacturers get punished more, and good manufacturers get rewarded more than in the past, causing a migration in buying patterns. Cheap is still a reason a lot of people buy, but if you have a choice between an inexpensive gun that will really shoot well and one that won't, which are you going to buy?

2. The internet has led to a greater awareness of what our tools will do when the nut behind the stock is appropriately tightened. Thus, there is a pursuit of sub-MOA accuracy in guns because sub-moa guns do exist in large numbers.

There is a caveat, though. I think deep down most of us know that our guns can shoot somewhat (ok, maybe a lot) better than we can. Thus, if we get multiple sub-moa groups from a rifle, we conclude that it is a sub-moa gun because "when we do our part" it is a sub-moa gun. Now, the fact of the matter may be that it is really a 1.1 or 1.25 MOA gun, and the sub-moa groups represent groups out past one standard deviation on the bell curve. However, if a gun will shoot sub-moa groups more than most of the time (say 70% of the groups) when I'm in practice and I can call the fliers at the trigger pull for most of the rest of the groups, I tend to believe that the gun is a sub-moa gun.

3. Obviously there is some selectivity in reporting results. We don't usually hear about the four groups that ranged from 1.3" to 1.8" to go along with the fifth group that happened to go under an inch. That seems to be human nature. Of course, every once in a while you might run across a "fish story," too.

The run of the mill firearm still has about the same abilities as in the past. What the internet does is provide a platform where folks like us, that are widely dispersed but a little more passionate and demanding about our pursuits, can gather and discuss things.

Joe public brings his arms out a week before the season and closets them about 2 days after the season. Likely he does not come here and may not know that a 30-30, 30-378, and 300 Winchester Mag can pass the same bullets down the tube. The 1 or 2% of the public that frequent sites like this are probably seeing some slight performance increases, simply because we are more quickly exposed to some of the obscure tweaks etc that can help ones performance. It's a bit like any other endeavor though. In the beginning substantial improvement can come in a hurry. With refined equipment and technique though, improvement may be measured in 100ths of an inch and be a little less apparent.

I haven't gone bench rest yet, but I do know some of the hints that have been offered up here have rectified some issues on several of my firearms. Most prominent for me have been pointers on bedding, reloading, and truing up actions. 1Minute

Allready happening. 1/4" groups from a .30 cal aren`t all that rare anymore.
I think RR has a point. We tend to dwell on the good groups and forget about the bad. I`ve no doubt people shoot some very tiny holes. I just believe they also have more larger groups they blame on wind or the guys muzzel brake on the next bench then they maybe should.

My 30-06 Win M70 stainless classic out of the box would shoot 1.25MOA groups consistantly with Federal Premium ammo when I bought it in 1995. I have since restocked, rescoped and reloaded for the rifle. It shoots pretty consistant at 3/4 MOA with my handloads. I have gotten 1/4 MOA with it but I havent been able to repeat it in that gun. I have yet to see a rifle shoot sub MOA out of the box with factory ammo.

The worst guns produced today are worse than the worst guns produced 50 years ago. The best guns produced today are better than the best guns produced 50 years ago. The worst optics produced today, are likely better than the best optics produced 50 years ago. The best optics produced today are a quantum leap or two beyond the best optics produced 50 years ago. The worst bullets produced today are equal to or superior to the best bullets produced 50 years ago, while the best bullets are so far beyond anything dreamed of then that it's indescribable.

So, despite the heartfelt needs of the doom-sayers -- firearms, optics and bullet technologies have advanced tremendously in the past half-century. Add in information transfer through the Internet, plus a greatly elevated standard of living that allows many more of us the discretion to experiment, shoot and hunt far more than our parents could -- and it's no surprise we're getting better at it.

And then, of course, some people do exxagerate their accomplishments .

Dennis

I do think we shoot better. At least, gun nuts do. I don't know that your average 2 shots a year shooter has been impacted one way or the other.

The equipment and components are more consistent. Optics, bases, bullets, powders, primers, barrels, etc. But there are human elements as well, for one, we're sharing information about _how_ to do it. Another factor is that knowing someone else did it, we actually try harder rather than accepting mediocrity and mere adequacy as "the best we can do."

Least wise, that's what I think I see happening, and the internet is a major facilitator of the human parts of that.

Tom

Your accurate assesment is backed up by conversatiions I have had with guys I work with.
One guy owns 350 acres of good deer hunting land in west Texas. His family and friends hunt half of it and he leases out the other half. He was astounded when I told him my 7mm rem Mag is a smaller caliber than his 30-06, I don't think he even believed me. I think he should have known.

Another guy has a .45 ACP pistol and is sort of in the market for a smaller gun. We were discussing .38 Special and 9mm pistols and he kept asking how big were they. When I realized he was meaning physical size of the firearm, I explained you could get a given caliber in several different size of pistols, he had the hardest time grasping that, and may still not understand.

That seems to be it in a nutshell.

I think it's more like target envy.

Just for you Steve. Stock rifle with pressures points still attached.


[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/su35/IMG_3827.jpg[/img][/img]

Muledeer: My head hurts. I think I need to go take a nap. Yes, if one is willing to pay for and exploit all the technology available today, he/she should be able to acquire or develop a true nail driver. I don't have the $$$ for that yet, but enjoy milking the most from what I do have.

Factory ammo is better today.
I have owned several rifles since the 1960s and have records of how they shot various Super-X, Peters and Federal loads into 1.5 inch groups. 1.O MOA required handloading. Today, those rifles shoot sub MOA with many factory loads.

Also, most of the loads posted are the accurate ones. The 1.5 and 2.0 MOA loads are the ones we tried and wrote off. Everybody that has accurate rifles has some accurate rifles that don't like some loads.

Forums like this and competiton forums spread the word about good and bad rifles and loads, so individuals don't have to make the same mistakes and reinvent the wheel.

+1

Bull Pucky.

You can take any factory off the shelf Sako, Rem, Win, Savage and shoot sub moa.

With the right load.

If you can't, it's not the rifle or the loads fault.



Please tell me what part of exaggeration is this from a
from a rifle designed 50 years ago.

[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/su35/IMG_0435.jpg[/img][/img]

Anybody can post a target pic with a good group on it.Means nothing.1/4 " groups standard and any factory rifle can do it bone ass stock.I don`t think so.In fact would be willing to bet a large amount of money on it.People shoot a good group save the target and call their rifle a sub Min. of angle or what ever.Rifle has to do it every time to get that designation.I have shot BR for years and been to the Super Shoot.I know what you have to do to a Rifle to get bug groups and the practice needed to do it.Thats why I am calling Bullchit!!!!The only thing the Internet has done for shooting is get all the BS`rs together where they try to out lie each other!!!!

SU: "ANY" is a pretty all-inclusive word. (kinda like "never" and "always"...which hardly ever apply to rifles in the real world)

But I'll take that bet. I have no doubt that I can find a "off the shelf" (read unaltered) factory rifle of one of the brands that you mentioned, that will not shoot MOA, no matter how many different handloads you run through it.

Now, I'll agree that most factory rifles are made to closer standards than they were 50 yrs ago. And I'll agree that most bullets and brass, and primers are made to closer standards. But your statement goes a little far, IMO. .

Good to see you've joined all us BS'rs on the net.......

Dober

You can call it all you want but if I don't shoot a sub moa group today it's because of one of two things.


It was my fault or temp sensitive powder of which I've seen groups go to hello with a 40 degree temp change.

I weigh my accuracy hunting loads in my 7x57, 280 and 30.06. I try to record each group on days that are not gusting or if I call one. I add and average each to the group. There are 25+ groups with each gun. the 7x57 and 30-06 have shot a 1/2-2" spread. The 280 from .26-1.3". The average, and what I tell everbody is that my 7x57 shoots 1.20" the 30-06 shoots 1.27" and the 280 shoots .80". If I throw out the best and worst couple of groups, the size is virtualy un-changed. To me this simply means taht they are more flukes than anything. But, I keep those good groups to show, hehe. capt david