Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Crappy shooting Montana (for real)!

My FX-3 or Steve's VX-III?

If you're asking about the FX-3 on my rifle, it was a proven scope on several rifles prior to the Montana and several after.

Jason;
Top of the morning to you sir, I trust this finds you well and keeping cool enough.

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on this subject, it's sometimes nettlesome to pin down exactly how to make a particular rifle dance - IF it can be made to do so.

Your post brings up two instances that I'll quickly share here and as always are only worth what they cost the reader in time.

We had at one time two different .308 Norma's and a .300 Win Mag living here that I did a bit of experimenting with using the same powder, bullet and primer - just slightly differing charges - to get the same velocity.

Anyway one of the facets that became immediately clear to me was that the lighter rifle - built on a Liberty Ruger 77, stocked with a light piece of Claro - required a much firmer hold off the bags to get it to group as well as the Ruger No. 1 which was a good 1½ lb heavier.

Until then I'd have said that a pound and a half would not/could not make that much difference - and I would have been wrong - for me shooting them anyway.

Perhaps equally important - how the stock fits me appears to play a much larger role in how well I'm able to shoot a rifle than I'd previously believed. I'd say that the heavier the rifle is, the more I'm able to overcome a less than perfect fit.

Lastly and I apologize for repeating this story again - I was at the range one day when a chap I've known for awhile showed up and asked if I'd shoot his new project - a .284 built on a 600 action with very thin barrel and Chet Brown Pounder stock. He is about a foot taller than my towering 5'6" and would likely have a good 100lb on my 160lb.

So we both shot a group with it - I think 3 shots but perhaps 5 - and while we were both able to get respectable groups, the centers of the point of impact were a good 2" apart.

For the life of me I can't recall at this juncture who shot higher but I'd suspect it was my group???

Anyway we thought at the time that in all likelihood the difference in our weight and how the rifle recoiled for us made the difference.

Again thanks for sharing your experience with us sir, I appreciate you taking the time to do so and found it an educational read.

All the best to you folks this Fourth of July Jason.

Dwayne

Oh I think it's plainly cited in Starting At The Fhuqking Start,to scratch things offa the list...not add to 'em. Many miss that approach and by miles. A Montucky is no different than ANY other rifle,in what is requisite to nip mechanical and them constants is constant. This schit is as easy as you wish it to be and it's a breeze to have a Skookum rifle on the first outing,in no time flat. Hint.

On the average,assembly,base/rings,glass,bedding and ammo are botched by Joe Average,thus my loooooooonnnnggggggggggggg running affinity to scoop up used rifles that "don't shoot".(grin) The newest is blowing minds and pards are contemplating a similar build,after only ONE Skinner load having been whistled through it ala Kiss,Found Pressure and Rocking On. Hint.

Anywhoo.

Royce I've only seen a couple few thousand Caribou...this week.(grin) Nothing huge yet,but it won't be long. Had a 7D2/100-400L II melding handy and didn't gun a frame,as I'd forgotten my card reader. Hopefully a big bunch will saunter through on the next pass.

I'm beyond content gunning a 1D3/100-400L 1st Gen as a mainstay and cain't cuss riggin',if the files aren't to my liking. I'm content,when I can see me,in the catchlight.






When the light ain't forgiving,it's time to yet again crush the "rule" of thirds and gun some mood.



Mebbe even gun some screaming harsh backlight.



Or Crazy Eyes.



Nice to catch some light,when they're pissed.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...Slope%20Work%20And%20Play/2R8G9934-2.jpg[/img]

Or mix it up and break all the rules.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BigStick/Stuff/North%20Slope%20Work%20And%20Play/sunrun.jpg[/img]

You get the drift...so I digress.

It'd be hilarious to have 15 minutes of time and a video camera,to shoot a "bad" Montucky,after hastily building ammo for it.(grin)

I hear good thangs about Fixed Fhuqkers and their uncanny ability to retain zero,reliably deal copious amounts of erector latitude and return unerringly,while granting a reticle that is far easier to hold hard and extract finite Precision from. in fairness,I haven't broken that many sets of LW's.(grin)

Cracks me up,that all the Whining Dumbfhuqks come crawling outta the closet and love to "brag" about how fhuqking STUPID they are and how something as simplistic as a bolt rifle,reliably whoops their ass. SquatToPee was likely THE Queen,but more than a few Texans are giving her Dumbfhuqkery a real run for it's money,by simply doing their "best".

Bless their hearts!

This schit is ALWAYS funny and it's never been tough to cypher who shoots and who Pretends.

Just sayin' and I may or may not have a LEGENDARY 600 wearing a Flyweight spout,that shoots in the Nothin's too. Curiously enough,none of my Flyweights are floated and there's been way better than 100 gents trip triggers on the fleet,then procure in like fashion. I'm more than a touch good for The Economy,as gents I've never met or talked to,have followed suit.(grin)

'Nother Hint.

Hint....................

Those caribou pictures speak for themselves-

Good stuff Dwayne. Thanks for the info and wishes.

I've recently started a new job and have access to lab grade accelerometers, data acquisition boards, and software for time and frequency based analysis. It would be interesting to quantify the recoil characteristics between different rifles and shooters. But its a lot more fun to "just shoot" without a bunch of lab crap (and data to process), and to be honest I still need to figure out how the heck to perform this new job and run this gear

I'm by no means a rifle expert, or the best shooter but from what I've seen... I've got a lot more confidence in modern rifles than I do in most shooters in terms of their shooting ability, ability to keep emotions in check, and ability to check the obvious. It seems that many are too quick to blame the rifle without checking for obvious issues in rifle, mounts, scope, loads, rest, etc. I'm sure there are truly bad rifles/barrels but I haven't seen one in at least 30+ factory rifles with hunting grade accuracy being the expectation.

I can think of 15 rifles off the top of my head that I've "fixed" or helped friends fix. In the end, none needed any real fixing... maybe minor tinkering. In most cases the shooter needed fixing, a better rest, a new load, or hardware tightened. In all cases, the shooter lost confidence quickly and almost always blamed the rifle.

I think we are quick to unfairly blame a rifle, even after what seems like extensive load development, when we don't think about "how" the rifle system moves under recoil or the barrel responds (distorts) to different loads. Some buds have been meticulous with scope mounting, reloading, etc. but are careless in their rest selection and natural point-of-aim. A good rest and consistent shooting form has "cured" several "bad" rifles. I also suspect that "good" loads are more forgiving to inconsistent shooting form and variable whole body recoil behavior off the rests.

Another thing... as I've been helping others shoot at medium ranges, out to 600 yards, we are seeing that their skills and sometimes loads are not as good as they thought. Shooting a really good 3-shot group at 100 yards on occasional isn't the same as being able to stack 10 at 100 on a regular basis or being able to keep shots on a 6-8" target at 500 yards on a regular basis. Its easy to blame the poor performance on "having a bad day" but its really more likely that the rifle/scope/load/shooter have never really been proven and simply false confidence in those occasional lucky 3-shot groups with no real evidence of solid performance. So reports of inaccurate rifles won't mean much unless we know the shooter is skilled enough to validate the rifle.

As my shooting skills, reloading skills, and ability to look for obvious problems have improved, I've noticed that there are no more "bad" shooting days. Things just work as they should and if they don't, there is an issue I've overlooked or a mechanical/component problem.

This has been my experience, with factory hunting rifles with reasonable accuracy expectations. These same ideas are known to many others that shoot a lot, but I don't think many others pay enough attention.

Jason

No you are not nuts. I feel the same way. That's why I am just going to buy next rifle and take it right to the gunsmith. I am going to let him tell me why it will or won't shoot. Then fix it or not. For the kind of money these manufactures get i can see why the cheaper rifles are so popular.

I must be lucky then, NEVER had to do anything to any rifle I've purchased, new or used...

I bedded my Montana today. Will be shooting her later this week. Hopefully it will do the trick.

I would be surprised if that didn't do the trick.
Good luck.

Went back to the range this morning to test the new bedding job. Still shooting 2-3" groups with most but really likes the 139gr Scenars. Mind you all I shot today was 140gr IL, 139gr Scenars and 130gr Berger VLD under one load of H4350.

I know it can shoot with the right combination. This one might be a bit pickier than other for loads.

This is 5 rounds with the 139gr Scenar. The bottom one I pulled after shooting my Savage 35Rem bolt action, damn accutrigger.