Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Gear Reviews Bye bye Handi Rifle

How many people own MOA rifle and just are not a good enough trigger man to know it? Or vice versa? MOA is relative to the person holding the rifle IME/IMO. YMMV.

While my most recent Remington shoots a lot of different ammo well enough for hunting and I haven't found the need to tinker with it, most Rems I've worked with have needed work to get both lugs to bear evenly. In fact that is a standard practice of the smiths I've dealt with when I've had Rems rebarreled. Will a rifle shoot well with only a single lug bearing most of the pressure? It can, especially if the load pressures aren't real high. Buying the Remington brand surely gives one no assurance that out-of-box accuracy will be stellar. They are, however, easier than many guns to get to shoot well with minor tinkering.

The only Remington I've ever seen that wasn't a MOA gun was a Model 7 in 7mm-08. It was a hair over MOA with Federal Premium ammo. After it's less than stellar performance on a small PA buck, I sold it and went back to the .308. If you can't shoot MOA then spend more time at the range until you can.

One of the best kept secrets regarding hunting rifles is that you don't need a 1 MOA rifle to shoot 2 or 3 MOA in non-bench and non-prone situations, nor do you need to shoot in either position to hunt humanely and successfully at most normal distances. I am much more impressed by the person who can shoot decently off his hind legs or from a typical field position than I am with one who can make itty bitty groups from a very controlled situation. I'm not a terrible shot, can shoot 1 MOA at 200 yards without much problem, but know that ain't nuthin' if I can't make my shots the way they present in the field. That's the only thing that really matters to me. Go right ahead, send that 2 MOA rifle back to the used gun rack. They make great hunting rifles for those of us who hunt things bigger and meaner than gophers.

I guess you'd be content with a Ruger then. Why accept substandard accuracy when it's easy to find? Personally I'm looking for 1/2 MOA.

Swampman1,

Are you a varmint hunter, or do you just like to spend a lot of extra time and money building and replacing things that really aren't broken? I realize that the Remington is the small block Chevy of the rifle world, and that lots of people have made lost of money making aftermarket parts for both, but putting a tricked out machine in the hands of an idiot doesn't make the idiot a genius. Look at NASCAR, give 40 guys basically the same setup and you'll notice that a quarter of them are the ones that win races, it's the indian that makes the difference, not the arrow.

As you can see from the pic posted previously, that Ruger #1 has potential, as do the other Ruger rifles I own. I have not messed with any of them to get them to shoot 1 MOA or less, just build the right loads. I cannot say the same for the Remingtons I use although with a bit of work they have also done well. I have discovered, however, that it really doesn't matter for a lot of big game hunting - but you do have to be able to shoot well from many positions.

Myself, I don't much care if my hunting rifles and loads are 1 MOA or not. I will not hunt with a bolt gun that drops cases feebly and maybe sometimes inside the receiver. I wouldn't and don't hunt with single shots that do. Hunting rifles ought to eject empties or, at least, provide that option.

NEF better figure out how to build an ejector that works. While I have no burning desire to own their single shots myself, I have looked at them as potential first guns for the kids when they are ready. They'll lose customers one at a time. I'm sure I'm not the first.

"NEF better figure out how to build an ejector that works."

They did and nobody wanted it.

i dumped my nef and was glad to do so.

I'm glad you did too. One more for me to buy.

if the remington is the chevy small block of rifles,then the nef must be a yugo with a header !!!

I see no reason to poor mouth Remingtons. The NEF Handi Rifle is probably the best buy in the firearms industry. MOA groups for under $200.00 with a little careful shopping. Of course most people will spend 3 times this much on a Ruger and then bitch about the 4" or 5" groups at 100 yards. A fool and his money are soon parted but the wise man shoots an NEF product. They aren't for boys that think spending a lot of money will make them a better hunter. They are for the seasoned woodsbum who fills his freezer every year.

i am in no way bad mouthing remingtons. its the second rate nef's that i (and many more people) have the trouble with. it's the poor workmanship,or the stocks cut from a fencepost, or the pot metal barrels,or all of the above.
but don't take my opinion,checkout the nef forum over at graybeard for yourself.
you can't make chicken soup from chicken $#!+ !!!

"but don't take my opinion,checkout the nef forum over at graybeard for yourself."

I've been there a long time...did you have a point?

Comparing anything to a GM product is like calling it junk.

NEF is the only firearms company around that proof fires every single gun. The workmanship is nice, the stocks are American hardwood and nicely finished. The barrels are American steel. If you had a problem with the gun, I'd say it was operator error as are nearly all problems with firearms. Rugers are pot metal. Remingtons and NEF products are steel.

the transfer bar safety broke out of my new nef at exactly 10 days old. the only operator error was in me getting suckered into buying one.
workmanship = huge amount of tool marks.
american hardwood basically painted.
and american steel.
one out of three- better than nothing,almost

Maybe if you could find an experienced shooter to show you what you are doing wrong, it would help.

Where, dear fellow, do you come up with this authoritative cluelessness? Rugers, Remingtons, Marlins, and Winchesters are all good guns relying on differing manufacturing methods. None, that I am aware of, is made of pot metal anymore than the pistons in your automobile or truck likely are. I did have a cast bolt handle come off from my most recent Remingtons which, BTW, cost me more than $70 even under warranty while the last Ruger I returned to the factory - it was a really beat up old rifle - came back with a repair bill plastered with "N/C" all over it. That cost a few dollars postage only.

It is true that Ruger uses cast metal in many of its components as well as aluminum alloys in some of them. They hardly qualify as "pot metal" anymore than do the similar castings used by the other companies, Remington not excluded. Remington does use sintered metal for its sights as well, a process I do not hold in especially high regard and about as close to "pot metal" as anything on any of them.

There's nothing wrong with using inexpensive rifles if that's what fits one's budget. There's also no reason to assume that those who buy more expensive rifles do so because they need them to overcome inadequacies in skill or wish to do it out of snobbish boorishness.

I guess British proof marks are some sort of cammo?

Your ignorance show in almost EVERY post about Rugers - from construction to price to accuracy.

i have read this from one end to the other twice. my 2 handirifles were sold because after a year of loading for them i couldn't get either to shoot tight enough groups to deer hunt with. i had a 243 and a 25.06. and swampman ,just why do you hate the 270 its only the best caliber out. oh, yeah the SAVAGE is the MOST ACCURATE OUT OF THE BOX RIFLE ...... PERIOD!!!!1111

I been ALL over the Marlin/H&R/Nef web site - not one mention of firing proof loads in any of their wares much less each and every NEF that goes out the door - care to provide a source for your assertation of said information?

I am curious as to how it compares to the British system or if they are identical.