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

southtexas,

Yeah I'm probably pushing the statement,

I guess I've just been lucky, but really, more times than not and if I take the time to find the right handload they can perform.

I just feel very confident about that.

That is because you are a good shot.

I know of a lot of "inaccurate Pieces of Shat" that shoot sub-MOA as soon as the loon behind the trigger is removed.

BMT

I just read an interesting article by Ian McMurchy and he had much lower standards for most rifles which I was somewhat shocked with. He indicates that most factory varmint rifles will do about 2moa with factory ammo and will not reach 1moa without handloads. He was much less optimistic about hunting or lightweight rifles saying most will go about three inches, 2 with handloads. He primarily attributes this to poor bedding and horrible triggers.

This clashes with my own experience, I have only had one rifle go over 3moa (brand starts with a K) and would say most hunting weight stuff is usually about 1.5moa with a factory ammo, cutting the last .5moa may take some doing but is possible. I taught alot of sniper schools and can confidently say a Rem700 in .308 with factory match and a leup scope (99% of all sniper rifles in the 1990s) will consistenly hold 1moa right out of the box shooting off of bipods.

On the other hand I recall Robar being one of the first to offer a submoa claim for their SR60 sniper rifles in the early 90's and they wanted a hefty sum. Their SR-60 was a 1/2 moa claim and the cost was almost double. I think the custom smiths are offering exceptional work today based on better equipment and tighter standards. Todays higher end shooters are much more demanding on a rifles capabilities even if the rifle will greatly exceed their own ability to wield it. I agree 2moa will do for 99% of all hunts but most will search for more as a simple confidence issue.

As someone else mentioned we have the best ammo and components ever available and I think that is a huge contributor to the accuracy you often see reported.

I don't claim every rifle I own is sub-MOA, I have a couple MOA, every time, if I'm behind the trigger. I have a 6PPC barrel for my TC Encore that is .5 MOA out to 200 yds with the loads it likes. I've also shot load development groups with this barrel that make me cring, 3 MOA or worse! It depends on the load, but most of all on the shooter! My brother-in-law, whom I load for, started complaining about his .30-06 (Browning A-Bolt) shooting poorly at his last range session. I load it with the same load I shoot in my M70, 57 gr. of IMR 4350 and a 165 gr. Nosler BT. It shoots MOA in both rifles. I went to the range with him a week later and asked him to shoot it for me. He shot a 2 1/2" group and said "See, that's what I'm talking about." I said, "Do you mind if I run 5 shots down range?" He said "Go ahead" 5 shots later I had a nice round cluster of 5 shots that measured .85". He couldn't understand what happened. I offered to load each round for him and hand him the rifle, I claimed I had a "trick" I did with the loading. The trick was an empty cartridge in the chamber and the result was a flinch from him! I explained to him gently that that was why his group was 2 1/2" and mine was under an inch. Turns out he had been shooting him 7mm Mag with no recoil protection the week before and he was scared of everything! I told him to get out the .22 LR and spend a few hundred rounds behind it to make his .30-06 shoot better.
Selmer

A "flyer" is the weakest excuse yet. I wouldn't even think about posting some shabby assed group with a couple of holes circled and labled as "flyers"

g

I suppose I've seen quite a few guns that won't shoot 1 MOA out of the box. Usually something like a M740 (or whatever the number is for a Remington semi-auto).

I also must be an oddity, because I save groups like this.



Why shouldn't I? It was shot with a 03-A3, that's older than me, that had the original stock and trigger and a $29.95 scope on it. It was also shot with a Blue Dot load and a "junk" bullet used 50+ years ago. I like to think it's educational, for me, if for no one else.

I bought a couple of boxes of Winchester .30-06 factory loads a few years ago, but they weren't premium loads. If they are an example of what's offered, they haven't begun to equal what we loaded 40+ years ago.

That H4350 must really be some hot stuff in a 7mm Mag. I use 50% more IMR 4350 (even the newer short tube Canadian stuff) with a 139 gr Hornady and only get 3200 fps. Maybe I need to see if the 1964 M700 will still shoot MOA with that load.

I shot both these 3 shot groups on back to back consecutive days just to see if I could do it, i did.

I used magnum powder to do it. A month later the temps changed by 40 degrees and the next groups patterned like a shotgun.

[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/su35/IMG_0181.jpg[/img][/img]


I also save most targets for reference with a certain load. Not all are moa.

[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/su35/deerelkphotos077.jpg[/img][/img]


Yeah, there's a lot of BS and exaggeration here.

Paul5388 - what do you mean by the "new short tubed I4350 from Canada"? I checked the IMR website and they do not mention this powder being made in a short cut version.

IMR powders have been made in Canada for years. They were shipped to the States (New York state I think) for packaging and distribution. This was always a sore point for many Canadian shooters because this system caused us to pay far more for the powder than we should have had to.

No flame intended, just curious if there has been some change I am not aware of.

Thanks, Jim

In 1969 I bought a used m700 BDL in 30'06 put a used Weaver v7 on it bought a box of Remington 180 Corelocks at Firestone & went to the local redneck range. Using a rolled up coat I shot 2 ea 1" groups off a truck hood. This rifle in now on it's 3rd custom barrel & 2nd custom stock. In the nearly 40 years since my 1st bolt action I have owned over 100 some shot some didn't. I think what has improved has been more the shooter's equipment & the availabiity of good information. I how shoot off a good solid perminate bench rest with a good set on shooting bags on a safe range. I did not realize it but my 1st m700 had a from the factory 2.5# crisp pull. I have read both Handloader & Rifle for 20+ years & I am sure that has improved my groups by a minimum of 1/4".

Thanks Dober.I never said Good BS`ing didnt take talent and acknowledge it.Gives me something to strive for!!!!

It's my opinion that the improvement in the accuracy of todays guns and loads is real. Partly because bullets are better, partly because barrels are generally better, and partly because we shooters/reloaders are better at putting together more accurate ammo. As an example, my own reloading skills have improved greatly over the past decade or two. Heck, twenty years ago I knew little about how to build straight ammo or why it was important. Guys like M.D. also played a very large roll in educating all of us regarding precision reloading as did the bench rest crowd.

The phrase that says it all is: "...the gun shoots 1/4" groups when I do my part." That is Internet code for "I once shot a 1/4" group."

As a former silhouette and BR shooter, I know that regardless of the intrinsic accuracy of a firearm, very few shooters have the skill to shoot a 1/4" group, period. When they do shoot a group that small, it really is a fluke. I challenge anyone who thinks their rifle is a 1/4 moa shooter to shoot four consecutive five-shot groups and post them. No "alibis", no discounting for wind, just the raw average. This will tell us what that shooter/rifle combo can produce on demand.

And really, isn't that what matters? Who cares if a .22-6mm varmint rifle built by a noted 'smith can shoot a 1/4" group once and awhile - what matters is can he do it in the field when shooting varmints? Tiny groups shot on occasion make for great bragging rights on-line, but I know from experience that few shooters have rifles or the skill level capable of reproducing what they claim.

Disclaimer: I also know that such shooters exist, I've lost matches to them!


.

The internet has allowed the average Joe gun owner to dish out the same crap some of us have been reading for years.

Where's Denton (on statistics)? Three shot groups are statistically pretty shaky, meaning it's not hard to find a good one to show on the 'net. Now if you put eight to 10 shots inside an inch you may be on to something.

While 3 shot groupd may be statistically insignificant (um......bullsh$t) shooting enough of em will give you a good idea what the rifle is capable of. Three shots tell what the rifle is capable of, five shots or more tell you how good the shooter is at reading the conditions. Unless your shooting in a tunnel it's gonna be tough to get five shots off under the same conditions.

The ones that crack me up are those who will post a photo of a group claiming it to be 1/4" when you can see plain as day (without measuring) the group is quite larger. Then the poster gets insulted when you politely inform them their measurement is "slightly" off.

Just because some guys can't take home the prom queen don't mean others can't.

BTDT.

Part of the problem is that so many people think shooting a 1" group @ 100 yards makes a rifle 'a MOA gun'. It doesn't. Even if a rifle consistently puts down 3 shot groups that come in a little under 1" the odds are overwhelming that it is not a 'MOA gun'.

I'm talking groups, not quickly shot strings.

When a man shows me a target where he has the impact point of all shots within a 1" circle CENTERED AT THE DESIRED SIGHT-IN POINT, then I call it a MOA gun if he can repeat it more times than not and they are 5 shot groups.

I've seen exactly 2 rifles in my life that will do that with factory ammo. One would only do it with one specific load/brand. I've seen one other that might just be one. It hasn't been shot enough to be sure. They are all three Remington and they are all magnums, strangely enough.

Will

I once have shot a 0.5 inch group, and a 0.7 inch group! If I take my time, watch the parallax issue that exists in every scope, wait until the barrel is completely cooled min 15 minutes or better between shots during the summer, shooting in the shade, once in a while I am rewarded by a 0.5 inch group at 100 yards...I cannot shoot worth a chitt, but there it is! Most of my groups are just banged out and they hover around 1-1.5 inches for 3-5 shots depending. Most important to me is that I go to the range and every time I shoot the rifle hits where I expect it to hit.

I like a rifle as accurate as possible but would rather have a 1.5" rifle that was consistent day in and day out than a rifle that requires one bullet over one load with all of the stars to be in alignment to shoot 1/4" groups.

OK, answer this for me. My most accurate rifle is my Tikka 30-06. I don't measure every group I fire, usually the small ones, but I can't recall it ever shooting a group larger than 1 3/4". This with some military surplus ammo. With generic factory ammo such as Remington core-lokts it "USUALLY" groups right at 1" or slightly less. I say usually because I do get maybe 1 out of 10 groups that is 1 1/2" because of obvious shooter error. With premium factory ammo or reloads it "USUALLY" comes in at under 1", quite often approaching 1/2". Once again, because of obvious shooter error I will get a group of 1 1/2" on rare occasions. I get the 1/2" groups far more often than 1 1/2" and my best ever group is 3/8". When asked, I tell people it is a sub 1" gun. Is this not a fair statement.

What evidence do you have that the large groups are indeed "shooter error"? In almost any population of groups, a few will be very large and a few will be very small. It is a statistical reality, and can be caused by ammunition inconsistencies just as easily as by "shooter error".

But why discount the "shooter error" groups at all? Is not the shooter's skill instrumental in obtaining any group size? In competition or hunting, actual results count, not what we want to think happens. If you do not measure all groups and consider them, then you do not really know the expected accuracy of your rifle. If you fire twenty groups, varying in size from 1/4" to 2" but with an average of 1 moa, then most shooters would consider that to be a 1" rifle.

If you choose to only include those groups fired on windless days, then all you can say is that your rifle, with you firing it, can group 1" on windless days. You have no idea how you'd group on windy days, or days with mirrage, or on days that you didn't feel good. How many competitions or varmint hunts are done only on windless days? Do you cancel your hunt because you felt a little "off" that day? Consider the accuracy of your rifle under all conditions that you will encounter when shooting it, or you are just fooling yourself.


.

It's the BIGGEST group a rifle shoots that matters. That's all you can depend on.

Take a stock 308 heavy barrle like varmints mentioned, run Federal GMM in it and it'll be sub moa all day long generally speaking... IE at least most of the rifles will be, have to make room for lemons...

As to fliers, I dont' know what that has to do with the rifles accuracy, the shooter doesn't reflect the accuracy of the rifle. I have called fliers where they are called off, no one is perfect, but a NON called flier is part of an actual group.

When shooting competitively I shot 10 shot groups at 300 yards for testing ammo as we shot in no less than 10 shot strings. AR15 service rifle. It was common in load work to find groups of 10 larger than 3 inches. It was also very easy to get every barrel I've ever had to 2 inches or less at 300 for 10 shots. Not with factory ammo of course.

If you don't know how wind and mirage affect your groups, then you really don't know but the tip of the iceberg about shooting. Not that you can beat them all the time, but you sure better understand that a group thats over average size in bad conditions only means conditions are bad, not the rifle.

BTW my comments are directed at no one specifically here. Just general comments.

Jeff

Bob,

I have had a couple of bolt rifles (including Rems) that just didn't want to shoot better than 1.5" groups, even when I used benchrest loading methods. While it may have been possible to keep trying new and different stuff and evntually find a load that would stay onder MOA, it just wasn't worth the effort to me.

If I can't get a rifle to shoot for me MY way in a couple hundred rounds, I'll get rid of it and move on. At this point, I am more interested in finding a rifle that fits my loading methods than finding a load that fits the rifle...........

As all of us that hunt much know , sometimes (Usually) field conditions are less than perfect. Being able to make a quick shot when your huffing and puffing after climbing up/down, or scrambling into a better position cus the animal moved, our shots are rarely MOA per real life conditions. But the obsession to find a gun that will shoot MOA under the best of conditions means, that you have taken most of the mechanical error out of the gun! The mistakes you make are human mistakes. In contrast a gun that shoots 2" groups at 100 and 4" groups at 200 , and at 300 yards..well you get the picture. The margin for error is greatly reduced when you know what the gun is truly capable of. I obsess and shoot enough that I remove the gun/ammo from the equation, at least mentally. The rest lies on my shoulders to do my part. Once a gun has met my criteria for accuracy with said loads, thats when I head to the range with a backpack, some clays or water bottles and place them at the differing ranges from 100-330 yards and practise real life shots from real life positions. That in itself builds far more confidence than teh target shooting. Just the other day I found the laod that I want to use for my 06 and once the groups were very good at 100 I moved the target to 200 (220 actually). Once the groups were good there I moved the target to 300. I shot with crosshairs on center target, confirmed my drop at that range and then played with my own perceptions that would compensate for the drop. After 3-4 shots of what I would call precision acccuracy at that range, notes were taken and my work is done. The rest of my range time with that gun will be spent having fun, and challenging myself. Nowhere in that equation does a MOA rifle not make things easier!

I believe that the accuracy potential of the rifle and the accuracy potential of the shooter are 2 different things and should be viewed separately. If I can shoot a 1" or smaller group 9 out of 10 times with my rifle and the average group size is less than 1" I think it is safe to say it is a sub 1" gun. My wife has never fired a centerfire rifle and she may not be able to get a group of under 3" with the same rifle. A better shot than I, after developing better loads may be able to shoot groups consistently less than 1/2". What is the accuracy potential of the rifle?

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer. For some reason, I don't get notification of responses to threads on this forum.

DuPont IMR 4350, and others, was originally made in the US. The physical tube size of what they extruded was larger than the Canadian variety DuPont also offered in the 1980s and later.

A year or so ago, I weighed a full case of powder in R-P 6mm, using different powders from different vintages.

H4831SC 53.5 gr
1974 DuPont IMR 4831 48.4 gr
2003 IMR IMR 4831 52.3 gr
1973 DuPont IMR 3031 47.2 gr
2003 IMR IMR 3031 49.7 gr.

The reason I noticed this was during a loading session of duplicating 7mm Mag loads we had been using since about 1965. My dad pretty well insisted on a case full of powder and what I loaded with IMR IMR 4350 didn't come up in the shoulder very far. That was very uncharacteristic, so I checked further. The newer IMR 4350 shoots within 10 fps of the old powder (in limited testing), but uses less case capacity for the same weight of powder.

A cap full of powder from each of the old metal cans clearly shows a difference in tube size.

My obsevation in regards to internet and accuracy, is that everyone that has access to the internet doesn't have anyone looking over their shoulder when their tiny groups are being shot.

Some of these internet wizards also show up at gunshows with the same claims of groups the size of their little fingernail. I know of one gunwriter that has offered $20.00 for every group they shoot that makes their claim. He then asks them to pay him $1.00 for every group they shoot that doesn't measure up. To date, he has had no takers.

I don't have very many sub 1 inch guns. If you talk to these same guys, you will find that they have 4 wheel drive pickups that get 22 miles/gallon and their progressive reloaders never foul up. Me, well I continue to be cursed with inaccurate guns, reloaders that screw up on occaision and a pickup that gets 14 miles/gallon.

If you spend a lot of time on here(24CF),you see that a lot of guys are getting very fine accuracy from a lot of different kinds of rifles, both factory and custom.I think the big reasons are better understanding by manufacturers of what it takes to make rifles shoot well,better scopes, and better components.

Ruger is a classic example.For years they used barrels from an outside source that produced spotty accuracy. Friends and shooters I knew stayed away from Rugers in droves.These days, they make their barrels with the same hammer forging machines used by Remington and Winchester(before it closed),and Rugers seem to shoot with everything else today.

I used to see old-timers at the range who performed all kinds of tricks to get pre64 M70's to shoot, even bedding barrel channels with caulking compound to "dampen barrel vibrations", etc.I have owned slews of pre 64's and they have generally all shot very well with the modern components I have fed them.So, I never understood the problems the oldtimers complained about.

I have been handloading for over 35 years now,so my experience with factory ammo is a bit thin; but I can pretty much count on picking up a box of Fusions or Federal Premiums and generally get really fine accuracy in most of my rifles today.And the velocity is more in line with what you'd expect from the cartridge. This was not always true.

There are still problems; you can take the best rifle components in the world,improperly assemble them,and have an inaccurate rifle.A buddy has a 280 built on a pre 64 M70 action, Kreiger barrel,and Brown Precision stock that was built in the 80's; would not shoot for crap. I told him I suspected it was not assembled well.He took it to our gunsmith, who is a match shooter and understands accuracy.He tore it apart, recrowned the barrel,trued up the lugs, rechambered, and faced off the barrel and receiver. Then he rebbeded it. The thing is now a drill with 140 TSX bullets.

We can see from looking at the experiences here that shooters know more,and demand more today.Some manufacturers "get it", and some don't,and if they don't they'll hear about it.Look at Kimbers as an example;some shoot great,and others shoot lousy, feed lousy,etc. This tells me it's either the barrels, or assembly.I suspect they'll get it right eventually....

Thanks for the explanation. It was mostly an academic interest since these days I mostly use Hodgdon 4350 in place of the IMR4350. With regard to my bigger cased rifles 4350 of either brand has not been my preference for a long time so I probably haven't been paying much attention to the structure of the powder.
Jim

I used to shoot inch and a half groups pretty regularly out of a lot of my rifles. Then I got connected to the internet, and my groups shrunk almost immediately.

But there is a lot of good information on sites like this one to help a person with accuracy issues, whether it is load development or taming the nut loose behind the wheel.

Most of my rifles will shoot minute or just sub-minute on a good day with the right load. Some of them shoot better, consistently. And all of my rifles are box stock. No maney for expensive customs or smith trips.

3 shots test the rifle, 5 shots test the shooter as some say.

So, who cares about statistical groups with a "hunting rifle" as the first shot is what really counts, right?

I think I will change my outlook on this and show my
"COLD BORE TARGETS".

I shoot one shot, then wait 5 minutes till the bore goes cold then shoot another shot and then another, and so forth.

This target is a cold bore shot target. I think my hunting rifle will do just fine in the hunting fields.

This target as I've shown below is a cold bore target!



[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/su35/IMG_0181.jpg[/img][/img]

yup! That'll do jess fine.

You MUST have been shooting an A-Bolt.

HA!

You never know!

I would be a closet shooter if I owned one.

Steve,
I don't know if the internet has improved shooting or not but it certainly seems so.
From what I can tell most custom hunting rifles in a magnum chambering shoot just about as well as my BR rifles.
Most Savages in varmint chamberings shoot better than the best BR rifle I ever owned!
The average factory hunting rifle will easily match my long range target rifles. In fact, I've begun to wonder if I shouldn't just get rid of those heavy rifles with the Hart and Shilen barrels and pick up a couple A-bolts and maybe a Savage.
It would be easier to carry them up to the firing line and, since they would do just fine with factory ammo, I might be able to eschew the drudgery of reloading.
Often, after reading about the performance capabilities of the internet rifles, I have to hold myself back to keep from going downstairs and taking a hammer to mine.
I consider myself to have been very fortunate over the last few years. I've managed to win my share of tinware and awards at various matches. I've been fortunate in that the internet shooters and rifles have nothing to proove so they don't come to matches. Otherwise, I'd never win a damn thing! GD

Well said greydog, well said.

I do feel sorry for you guys who spend $500.00 on a custom barrel
when all you have to do is JB a $20.00 factory tube 100 x and have it shoot just as good.


That's got to hurt when you see us cheap bastons do that, but then maybe not.

My take on this is pretty simple. Humans are storytellers and it has been made easier by the Internets.

Before we had the ability to instantly communicate with thousands of others around the world, most of us judged rifle accuracy on our own experience or what we read in a magazine. That, and inputs from a few of our friends/acquaintances. Now, we can read about performance from people all around the globe.

We read stories posted by all kinds of people - rich and poor, seasoned and starting shooters, the competent and incompetent. Many using the same rifle or cartridge, but in wildly different areas of the planet against varying types of game. We don't always know who these people are.

Posting comments and impressions is the purpose of Internets forums, but, as we are so often reminded, we have to take what we read with a grain of salt. Some posters don't have the piece of equipment or cartridge in question, but we get their opinion too. Others don't have the expertise; that is, the knowledge of the animal, terrain hunted or cartridge used.

While we all know that technology continues to improve, I wonder how much of it is actually equipment related versus better story telling.

Steve,
Interesting subject.
I worked at Federal Cartridge years ago and the policy was to pull ammo off the production line and shoot it at 200 yds underground.
They would shoot 4 10 shot strings. They fired from a machine rest with a piece of wire to pull the trigger.
Different calibers were held to different standards.

By the end of 40 rounds the barrel would get hot and dirty, I would imagine. I can't remember how they dealt with these variables?

What I care about is where does the first round go out of a cold clean barrel. I never need to shoot a game animal three times since I got my 35 Whelen.
whelennut

I only take one bullet deer hnting anyway

I know for a fact that rifles/ammo are more accurate today than in the past. I have a 458 win that will shoot sub 1/2" 1 shot gropus all day. That is with iron sights at 200 yds.

I guess the guys at the range yesterday had no Internet connection at all�
My oldest son & I went out to shoot Handguns yesterday� The group of guys there were scary bad�
Really!
We did not set the world on fire; mine was 278 out of 300 his was 280 out of 300� at 15 yrds ( Scored by LT).
I know this may not seem respectable to many of you�. But there were a lot of guys who were missing the target at 7 yrds� at least theory, they were out there getting some range time in�
you know there are a bigger group of gun owners who need the time but don�t even make the attempt
Sometimes you have to wonder�

There is a real nugget of truth.

.

There's been an interesting thread on the statistical validity of 3-shot vs. 5-shot groups going... most of it is over my head but it's an interesting read for those so inclined:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2293091/page/1/fpart/1

I don't get too excited when someone posts a pic of a good 3-shot group... I'm guilty of it myself, but the reality is, anyone who shoots a lot has seen rifles/loads that are in NO WAY sub-MOA print an amazing 3-shot group.

What impresses me these days is good 10-shot groups. My now-departed (stoopid stoopid STOOPID!) DPMS 308 LR would put 10 Nozler J4's into under .8" at 100 yards. I did that twice with it without trying that hard. Since I'm not a great rifleman I am sure it would do HALF that with a better shot driving it.

Anyway, shoot a couple sub-MOA 10 shot groups with a rifle/load and you know you are onto something IMHO. That was my criteria for my load for my new Sendero- that it shoot a BUNCH of shots into one tight cluster. Not shoot a tiny 3-shot group. Hell, it did this with the first three shots I got on paper:



I didn't measure that but it's got to be, what, .4" or less? But that turned out to be an accident, not repeatable (or at least not with that load).

To the subject of he internet, as long as a person has a functional BS filter, and is willing to get out and actually DO the things he/she is reading about on the internet, then the heavens open up! A person can learn a lot pretty quickly these days; the info is all out there to be had. It wasn't, 15 years ago. Likewise, it's much easier to find one or several "mentors" on the internet who can really help you cover some ground and get where you want to be (sub-MOA in this case) much more quickly than flailing around on your own. I know this from personal experience, having been blessed with a very generous internet "mentor" for the last... gosh... 7 or 8 years. He knows who he is and if he's reading this... THANKS MAN!!!

On a broader philosophical note, the Internet is truly revolutionary in the way that it has created an almost instantaneous dissemination of information and ideas... the "collective mind" is, finally, a reality. Us crusty old 40-and-up year olds are certainly participating (hell, we invented the damn thing <g>) but just imagine in 20, 30 years what this level of connectivity will have done!! If Coca-Cola can be demonstrated to have LITERALLY hard-wired itself into our brains, physically, as a brand through it's advertising (which has been shown) then I for one believe that the human brain will be a different thing in the future- due to the connectivity the internet provides. A measurably, physically different thing.

Not saying that's a GOOD thing, just sayin'...

A functional BS filter is necessary, though <G>.

I'ts a good .5"

I can place a full caliber hole between the outer holes by my eyes.

I'm not a golfer, but I imagine shooting is a bit like golf in that we all have days when we are "off" and then have other days when we can do no wrong. I remember taking a very accurate rifle to the range and shooting back to back one-hole groups at 100yds. The next time I came back it was shooting closer to an inch. But everything I shot that day was doing terribly. The following range session yielded great groups again. Sporting clays does me the same way sometimes.

.

I don't quite agree with you, Jeff. If a rifle will not shoot three shots into a good group then shooting seven more is not going to make it good. If a new load will not print a couple of very small three shot groups it is abandon. I have no further interest in it. Three shot groups make it much easier to see exactly what the load/rifle is doing and saves a lot of powder, bullets, and time. So the three group has it's place.

Does one three shot group show that you have an accurate rifle? NO! One group means nothing. A golfer's hole-in-one demonstrates nothing about his skill level. Neither does one group prove a rifle's accuracy. If a rifle/load combo shoots 2 or 3 CONSECUTIVE very small groups then it gets my attention. I shoot five shot groups often, but not ten shots, why burn up the extra ammo? Now, in match competition shooting, ten shots are usually required but that is not the same as load development. They do not have time for several small groups.

One shot groups are usually the smallest!

.

.

Anyone can shoot a good group now an then. The true accuracy level for any rifle is what it will do repeatedly with a given load using batched components.

When multiple groups are shot on the same target, these targets don't photograph as well.

JW