Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Current rifle accuracy and the truth

I know, I know, accuracy topic has been beaten to death, but for about 10-15 years now I've been reading gun articles that repeatedly state how 'out of the box' accuracy on new rifles has consistently improved over the years. New rifles are so much better than the old ones is a consistent mantra and we should EXPECT better than the holy grail of 1 moa from a rifle for its first 3 shot group at 100 and be able to down a deer or elk at 700 yards by just adding the latest whizbang $2000 scope, of course most of these articles are trying to sell me a firearm and accessories. When reading more the technical (and realistic) articles from Rifle magazine, Gun Tests etc there are a considerable number of rifles (regardless of brand and cost) and load combination that don't break the magical 1 moa barrier, in fact some of them are quite a ways from it. I understand that due to limited time and resources not every rifle is tested with different loads or much 'tuning'. I've seen many articles on Savaga Axis rifles to mention just one that supposedly will shoot groups well under an 1" with just about any ammo apparently. Just wondering where the reality lies, and I'm sure there is more to it.
My most accurate rifle is a lowly Marlin 917 with a $100 Simmons scope on it that will shoot right at 1" at 100 yards. My 30 year old Remington 700 mountain rifle (with a $100 Cabela's brand scope on it) will shoot about 1 1/2" with inexpensive Remington Core Lokts - although I'm not sure if its the gun or me holding it back, but for my purposes that's much better than required for the (at most) 200 yard shots that I might have at a whitetail.

The reason new rifles in general shoot better is that manufacturing techniques have vastly improved due to the use of robotics and machinery. Also design tools such as cad and system modeling programs have refined the designs. Finally, there is more testing done today to figure out what works. This results in more consistent parts, assembly, and refinement.

Mister Call is right.

You have to understand a bit of the history. It used to be that you needed to pay a premium and do quite a bit of work to get to the kind of accuracy we are seeing with out-of-the-box offerings now. It used to be that. . .

1) Ammo was kind of hit-and-miss. Lot-to-lot consistency was not what it is now. It used to be if you found something that worked, you'd have to buy as much of that lot as you could. That's one of the reasons reloading became popular; it allowed you to build more consistent ammo.

2) Optics were not nearly as good. It used to be your scope would go off-kilter every whipstitch, and it would take a box or two of ammo every year to get it figured out.

3) Stocks would warp. Inletting was iffy.

4) Triggers could be downright abominable.


30 years ago, it was kind of axiomatic that a 4 MOA rifle was okay for deer hunting. It still probably is, but you can do a heck of a lot better with not as much cost or effort. Nowadays, if I bought a 4 MOA deer rifle brand new, I would demand my money back.

A Savage Axis has a street price of $250, give or take. In 1989, adjusting for income, that rifle would be worth $120. However, you could not get anything near a 2019 Savage Axis for $120. Instead, a Rem 700 cost about $350+. A $120 rifle (I bought one around then) would be more like a used Winchester 670 that looked it had been dragged behind a truck on a chain. It had been purchased new in the early 70's at K-Mart and traded between family members in rural KY before one of the brothers brought it North to a gun show to dump it. I was the dumpee. To get to where a new $120 gun would get you 1 MOA accuracy out of the box might be well back into the early 1960's. However a $120 rifle back then would be a $1200-1500 rifle now.

I test a great number of new rifles, usually 2-3 per month and the accuracy is generally far beyond any reasonable expectation that a hunter could have. As has been suggested, better quality ammunition is one of the variables that has improved overall performance. I also think that the art and science of making great barrels has become more universal and factory barrels are better than they used to be. Finally, many manufacturers have figured-out some tricks to make rifles shoot better without adding to the price tag. The aforementioned Savage as well as the Ruger American are great examples of this.

When I see a rifle that won't group under 1-MOA with at least one load these days, I take notice.

MN

I have ‘limited’ experience with current Factory ammo. I bought WW 270 W. 130 PP
in 2007. It shot extremely well in my T 3 SS Lite. I killed several WT with them and used
the Brass later.

In 2008 I bought a 70 Black Shadow in 300 WM — ON opening day of our Deer season.
I went to W W &. bought. Fed Blue Box 180 Speer Hot Cor ammo. I sighted it in on Monday
afternoon & killed my Heaviest WT - 194 lbs - with the FIRST shot at game Tuesday AM, so...
It shot extremely well in the 70.

So much for my Factory ammo since 2007.

From the past, you are correct about rifles & ammo. In the 70s-80s. IF you could
handload 1” accuracy you were golden.

It does seem that Rifles & Ammo have “Come A Long Way Baby “.

Jerry

My very first attempt/beginning to reload was with a stock Mod 77 .280, a Wards 3x9 ( made by Tasco); and once fired Remington brass, 9 1/2 primer, Hornady 139sp, IMR 4831 (all assembled with a LEE Class Loader) I worked up in 1/2 grain increments from 53 and hit paydirt at 55gr. I had a 3 shot, triangle that measured 1", I was ecstatic! This was in 1977 and the "best" it shot the 150 factory load was 1 3/4-2". I killed a nice buck with that load...at 15yds, ha. The next Fall ( after shooting all summer) the 139gr allowed me to hit another nice buck at 276 looong steps! Amazing! Even today, I have had rifles that shoot well under 1", if a rifle "consistently" shoots 1 1/4", I know I have an accurate rifle/load. Less is nice, but no way I can take advantage of it, I just strive for it....it "please me", but certainly not needed for my hunting style. I do understand the "need" for one hole accuracy for what I call "Ultra Long Range" (500-1000K). But there are not that many bonafide 500-1000K shooters/hitters. I've shot an 8" howitzer a gazillion times out to +10 miles...but I didn't always "hit" on first round!

They're putting some amazingly accurate rifles together these days and if accuracy is the only thing that matters to a guy, then he should be ecstatic with one of them.

For me, though, other things come into play...things like function, aesthetics, carrying qualities, ergonomics, and just plain appeal. We all have unique approaches to the game and that's just fine. What suits me may not suit another.

We've got it pretty good when it comes to choices and I think it's great!

So has the internet. Everyone on the internet can shoot sub 1/2 moa all day long baby.....

What has gotten much better is bullets and powder. Some rifles were very accurate back in the day. I have many pre 64's that will prove that day in day out...


So it's not really rifles getting better, just better everything else. I will attest to the savage rifles being pretty good now days though. Well, at least until they sold out. Lately Iv'e been seeing some pretty lousy savage rifles. I know of a lot of old savage rifles that shoot lights out too... Good barrels and machining practices have been around for a long time, and so have good accurate rifles...

10-4 on the components, BSA. You have to be amazed, though, with the accuracy we hear about being achieved with the Axis, Ruger American, and some of the other economy rifles available lately...not to mention some of the other premium offerings.

I think it's accurate to say that most EVERYTHING is getting better---except where the beancounters have had negative influence.

A few years back I found a Winchester M70 XTR push feeder in .270 Win. wit a scope for a decent price, What struck me is I would have sworn the rifle had a McMillan stock with lines like the M70 Featherweight which I happen to like. So I bought it and stopped at Walmart and got a couple of boxes of Winchester 150 gr. Power Points to try the the rifle out. I'd asked the seller if it was accurate and he said, "It's very accurate. You'll love it." He wasn't lying. The first group of 5 shots was a half inch. I shot three more shot groups and they did open up some as the barrel heated up with the last group doing IIRC .85" for the now hot barrel. The rifle does equally well with the two hand loads I've worked up. I can shoot the Winchester factory 150 gr. load or either the 150 gr. Sierra Game King or 150 gr. Nosler Partition without having to adjust the sights. Dunno why that guy ever sold that rifle but methinks it was a serious error in judgement. I don't shoot 130 gr. bullets in the .270 and maybe it wasn't accurate with those for him.

Funny thing I a few years before I bought the .270 I picked up another Winchester push feeder in .300 Win. Mag. that looked like the stock wasa McMillan, but with a blind magazine. Shot reasonably well with 180 gr. ammo but my hand loads using the 200 gr. Speer Hot Core were always shooting tiny groups ranging from .375" to .75" depending on how well I'm shooting and wind conditions. Substitute the 200 gr. Partition and they'll be in that same group.

Then there is my Remington M700 Classic in 30-06 that the only way to get reasonably small groups is to load that sucker balls to the wall. That's with 180 gr. bullets, mostly Sierras but some Noslers. I just may rebarrel it to something else and a have a few 30-06s that shoot much better than that Classic.

Frankly, I haven't bought any rifles now for quite a while. At my age the sensible thing would be to sell off everything but the treasured few. But then again, what rifle loony is sensible?

Paul B.

I agree buddy. I can take most all of my Savages and Tikka's out and just bug hole groups with them. My pre 64's are accurate, but they did take some work. Now days, you have some dang good options out there for excellent out of the box accurate rifles. I guess you can say the budget rifles are a lot better now days... To some extent, I am amazed with some of these rifles. One of the reasons I've been buying a lot of savage and Tikka's lately...

Loony to the grave man. I keep thinking I am going to sell some of my rifles I don't use much. Then I buy another one, just so I can work on it, make it accurate and put it in the safe... Then on to the next one...

Ah, Shaman......The Win 670. My first rifle in about 1975.

I traded a nearly new 12 ga 870 magnum for a 670 in 30-06. I put a bit of Acra-glass under the action and worked on the trigger with a set of ignition wrenches. Then I added a Weaver 2-7x32.

I acquired a young wife with a five year old daughter in the fall of '82, and by 83 had a son on the way. All of my firearms were sold to help keep food in front of my kids.

But in about '86, I had the opportunity to purchase another 670 in 30-06. This one was covered in a thin, light layer of rust and I paid $100 for it.

That light rust turn into decent blueing after several hours of hand rubbed oil. I repeated the bedding and trigger work performed on my first 670. I had hung onto the V-7 and put it on the 2'nd rifle.

Either one of them was good to clip the head off of a grouse out to 80 yds, and plenty good enough for heart shots on deer out to 400 yds. Ammunition was a 165 gr boat tail from Speer, or Sierra, or most often a Nosler bt and always over 60 gr of H4831 in whatever brass which happened to be lying around. Federal, Remington, Winchester, lots of military of various years, it all worked.

If I could walk out of a gunshop with a rifle, and know for a fact that it would shoot as well as either of those two 670s, I would gladly pay $1500. I would not care that the rifle had a birch stock, and a blind magazine. Actually I would prefer that to the typical soft plastic stocks often found on introductory level rifles. And I would definitely prefer a blind mag to the vaunted "DBM".

I spent the winter stripping and sanding mine. In the spring, I rubbed on a new finish and felt I had a work of art



The first time I had it out to the range, I had a fellow offer me $400 for it. I politely turned him down, because of all the work I'd put in it.

I gave it to #3 son when he started hunting on his own. Last November, Angus had one of those hunt-of-a-lifetime moments, and now his soul is bonded to that rifle.



Details here:
But Wait! There's More

Purchased my last new rifle 20 years ago. Have shot maybe 3 boxes of factory ammo in the last 40 years not including RF ammo. Dunno diddle about how new stuff works these days.

Praise be unto God,

Dan

I would venture to say that 95% of production rifles will out shoot 99.5% of their owners thereof!!

I would be one of the 95%. Don’t shoot as well as I once did

There be a reason for shotguns in the closet.

One summer a while ago, for some reason I decided to shoot prairie dogs with sort of a Grand Slam of firearms, except I forgot about muzzleloaders. (Mine are all "traditional," which wouldn't have made any difference.) If I recall correctly, these included:

The Colt Frontier .22 rimfire I inherited from my father.
A Ruger Blackhawk .45 Colt.
A Winchester Model 62A .22 rimfire.
My .45-70 trapdoor Springfield, also inherited from my father.
My 12-gauge Model 97 Winchester, purchased for $75 from my first wife's grandfather in the 1970s.

Out to 50 yards they all worked pretty well, but the handguns missed now and then, especially when shooting at heads. Obviously it was their fault, as everything else did fine. The most reliable, however, was the 97.

Any bolt action hunting rifle can be made to shoot MOA. Just depends on how much time and $ you are willing to put into it. The ones rolling out of the factories today need less tweaking in general and there are probably fewer "dogs" than in the old days. Used to be you bought a rifle and if it shot MOA. you were ecstatic, if it shot 2-3MOA you just accepted it unless you were a rifle loonie, then you started bedding, trigger job, truing, aftermarket barrel.... OR you sold it to the next unsuspecting slob and bought another.

i have some rifles that shoot very well and i am not showing what they can do or have killed . but i had a friend who was a manager - machinist at a ammo factory for 40 years. Jonny watched me shoot some very small groups with my handloads and he told me this : you are not shooting mice so a 1 inch group is just fine for deer maybe even larger groups its not that big of a deal for a small group with a hunting rifle within 200 yards where 90 % of the deer are shot or closer.

Of this I truly believe.....more 1/2" groups are fired on the internet than fired at any rifle range.

For the hunting I do.....(350 yards maximum) I can easily live with REAL 1.25" groups

What defines a real 1.25" group?

Repeatability ?


I’ve never claimed to have a 1/2” Rifle/load.

Most of my rifles & loads will do 3/4” @100 yds. “MOST of the time”.
For the targets I use and MY aiming procedure, I know immediately if I’m
ON target or hi/lo, Left/right when the shot goes off.


I have 2 rifles - magnums - that I’m sure will shoot better than I can.
I kill WT with both of them — proving that sub 1” loads are NOT required
for deer hunting.

Jerry

I have never had as much focus on "groups" as I have focus on the cold bore shot.

Shoot a group of ten cold bore shots.

Over ten days...

Yes, on one target.

mathman,

Apparently very few can define a certain level of accuracy--which as you and I know is not surprising.

Newer rifles do seem to be better than some of the older ones I have had. Yet for some reason they all seem to be capable of killing a deer. I get upset if I can't get a rifle to shoot MOA for a three shot group at 100 yards, I prefer a 5 shot group. Repeatable is the big issue, several will do it once... Even had a few with select loads hit 1/2 MOA (once)

I was reading a Precision Shooting piece that said a rifle would shoot bigger and bigger groups up to about 20 shots (the article was specifically referring to rimfire). So I decided to try it with a center fire.

20-shot group


And if the photo thing would work here’s a picture of the same rifle, 1/2 inch 5-shot group.

[img]https://imgur.com/a/Skks2iK[/img]

Really irrelevant to the discussion but while talking about maths...

If all I wanted to do was kill deer and elk a Remington 783 would get the job done.

One of the newer used guns I have is a custom flintlock of .45 caliber. It was built somewhere during the late '90s. Don't really know it's valid to compare it to new guns or not, but I was at the range maybe 10 years ago on the 50 yard line when some young punks with new ARs showed up. One of them thought the old fart with the old gun was vastly amusing. Some of his jabs were fairly rude actually.

Anyway, I was set up and the line went hot. Loud Mouth set up with his front rest and bags, snickering all along. I was shooting offhand and ol' Betsey went phfft-boom. Kid says "You hit the target?" I started reloading as he began ripping thru 30 round mags about as fast as he could. I got off 5 rounds before they called the line cold. We went down to check targets, his buddies tagging along.

I had already shot one string at the first of two targets, and I had a group of about 2" or a little less on both. My antagonist had not hit paper once. His buddies showed no mercy. Got all mad and packed his stuff then left.

I find it quite amazing these days the number of kids at the range that can't hit a damn thing at any range. I helped a young lady one day and all the pieces of the puzzle fell together for her to the extent that she was out shooting her man. He got all grumpy...

...I think old shoots better than new most days. Least ways in my neighborhood it does.

OK....for me it's five shots fired from sandbags at 100 yards and all within five minutes. and yes, I do cheat a little.....since I use mostly .308 caliber bullets, a quarter must touch or cover all or some of all five shots. I don't dismiss "flyers" as they are counted as part of the five shot group.

As to repeatability, when I get the above criteria met, I'm ready to go hunting.....no need IMO to fire five more.

Yep, especially pistols. Most setup at 7 yards and look at me very funny when my target is at 25 yards. The Plastic Fantastic group is always confused when the old fart has a better group at 25 yards with a revolver than they do at 7 yards with their Glocks etc.

I grew up hanging around an extreme groundhog hunter who taught me to shoot, hunt and reload. He thinks an MOA group looks ugly. He reached that time of life now where most things don't matter as much as they used to and sold me a collection of his bolt action 270s and 7mms. Most rifles he owned he got to shoot extremely well, if not, it was down the road with those rifles. I'll never match his knowledge in regards to what makes a rifle shoot or his dedication in fussing over concentric reloads.

It was not uncommon for me to bring him my used rifles like a 1963 Remington 243 carbine or a 1973 Remington Custom C 270 and have him tweak loads for the rifles and invariably have the rifles shoot three shot groups under 1/2". In the case of the Custom C - much less. The rifle that has given me a challenge is a newer Model 14 300 Savage American Classic that I can't get to shoot non leaded bullets under that magic mark.

My point is that in the right hands most rifles, even many of the older ones will shoot far better than most shooters. Shooting groups at the range is one thing, in the field under hunting conditions many other variables enter into the equation and "milage may vary."

Actually most of us use the phrase "accuracy" loosely or incorrectly. When we are talking 10 shot groups or 5 shot groups, that is more about precision than accuracy. Here's a picture defining both:



A lot of guys talk about how "accurate" their rifles are, but when they show their target pic, it's generally way off in left field (as I call it). By definition, that is very poor accuracy. It may be good precision, but still poor accuracy. It's better to have both, IMHO:


Then you have guys that don't like shooting paper targets, but swear their rifles are accurate enough to kill chitdt... More power to them, but if I don't know where my group is going on paper, I'm for damn sure not going to aim my rifle at a critter. Good accuracy and precision helps to put that bullet in the right place:


Then there are the guys that shoot competitively. They need to put that bullet in the x-ring. Not a damn thing wrong with that either:


Accuracy for me is keeping it in the orange. Cold barrel, hot barrel, I don't give a fu ck...:

Some people offset point of aim from POI intentionally when shooting paper. I'm so inclined up until the point I'm ready to zero the load selected for hunting. Doing so preserves a clear POA.

Cases in point:



Versus....



Your accuracy/precision target illustration is something all shooters need to consider. They are indeed different things.

And let's not ignore the fact that not everyone can shoot accurately. Heck, it's the rare buzzard who knows how to properly shoot off the bench, let alone the seemingly lost art of position shooting (24 HCF members excluded, of course). That's why I view accuracy rants on the internet as amusement only- I don't know if the guy even knows how to shoot.

yep, one of those is called "The Paper Tiger".


In my last post (IIRC) I said that 'most' of my loads are +/- 3/4".. "most" of the time. Some times I can't shoot 3/4" groups.


Jerru

The only rifle that would not shoot worth a darn is a Ruger made back when the barrels were bad.

I still have it because it is chambered in 250 Savage.
I did find one load that it shot like i thought it should and it was with a 75 grain V-max.

I have not given up on it but i sure got tired of trying.

Does not matter how many targets.
If the distance/conditions/wind remains constant, 1" high at 12 o'clock is 1" high at 12 o'clock on any target.

Doing it when conditions are variable is the true voodoo.

I can't say ALL newer designed and factory built rifles are any better than SOME older factory builds. But it is easier to find a rifle today with modern optics mounted using the excellent factory loadings available today that can give a strong handicap to the inexperienced shooter.

The idea is to check the variability of the cold bore shots, one way or the other.

Roger that!

This point is evidently lost on some, especially the paper queen.

Useful words rarely heard here. I'd rather see pics of ten-shot offhand groups than the three shot bench groups we usually see.

Getting back to the original topic, I suspect that such improvement in out of the box accuracy as we see nowadays is down to a combination of better QA and tolerances at the mass-production end, both of rifles and ammunition.

Better manufacturing methods have allowed rifles to be built to tolerances which once required hand-fitting, lapping, and various other fettling to achieve. As well, I think there's little doubt that ammunition has also benefited from better manufacturing, and that has not only enabled new rifles to shoot better but also I suspect it has allowed older ones to do better too.

There's no reason to believe that older rifles can't shoot. I have rifles from the 70s, 60s, and even the 40s that will consistently beat 1 moa for five rounds. I have one built in about 1900 that will nearly do it with iron sights - probably would do it with a scope and/or a better shot than me too ;-)

I disagree. There's always been some accurate factory rifles out there. What's changed is consistency. Also, barrels are definitely better. But what I've noticed is most people reporting their group size shoot 3 shot groups. Back in the day most groups reported in gun magazines were 5 shot. Nobody paid attention to 3 shot accuracy. My old 1966 Model 70 .270 Win. with good hand loads would shoot 5 shots into an inch at 100 yards and occasionally it would shoot 3/4". With factory ammo 1.5" to 2" was more the norm. It would shoot 3 shots at about 1/2". That rifle has been pillar bedded and the trigger is at 2-2.5 pounds. I have several deer rifles and that one is still my go to hunting rifle. I have a few other factory rifles that won't top it in accuracy but were all made since 2005. All except one that is. I have one Savage 110 pre accu-trigger, actually way before the accu-trigger, probably made in the 80s if not before that is chambered in 7 Rem. Mag. that will shoot 3/4 inch 5 shot groups pretty consistently. Like I said, back in the day there were many rifles that were pretty darn accurate but not as consistently so as today.

I don't recall anyone from even 40 years ago that thought a scoped bolt action rifle that could only shoot 4MOA was good for anything other than pounding nails with.

That being said, I believe there have been a couple of big changes that really made factory rifles more accurate. The first is when Savage took one of their tupperware stocks and molded pillars in them. All of the sudden their average rifles shot lights out, and everyone else had to get to work because a cheap Savage outshot everything else on the rack, looks be damned. The second is the wave of outstanding bullets that became available to handloaders and the factories, led by the Nosler BT's. They were head and shoulders above everything else when they came out. Now, you can get virtually any of the fantastic component bullets made by any manufacturer in a factory box of ammo.

Unless you are shooting deer or game 'off hand' that is a waste of time and components.

The only deer I've shot off hand have been running...... a very small percentage of my shooting.


Jerry

I agree FC. 40 years ago was 1979. I have magazines and books from that time era and 4" MOA was totally UNacceptable.


Jerry

So...I enjoy shooting off-hand, even more so when there are rabbits involved.

I also don't really give a toss if I miss as I do it for the fun, if I want a feed I shoot out of my vehicle.

easy there Jeb, I was responding to 10 shot groups off hand.


Jerry

There isn't any personal animus involved.

I would point out that I also enjoy waving my rifles off-hand at paper...wasteful or not I simply enjoy it.

The best groups turned in on the Campfire wouldn’t make the cut for any bench rest competition at any range in the U.S. There is no doubt they look good on your computer screen, but looks won’t kill anything.

I have sighted plenty of rifles in on rocks and had more than enough accuracy to hit small targets at 350-450 yards. One thing all paper shooters may overlook is that even a 1.25 inch group means that the bullet still is hitting within half the distance of the group size from where the crosshairs are held.

Another overlooked part of shooting is the so-called “flier.” If the gun shoots it, I don’t know how you can’t consider it part of the group. What causes the flier may be an assortment of reasons, but because it isn’t nice and tight, how do you not consider it part of the group?

Obviously there must be several kinds of loonies if you want to shoot paper then put your gun away, but I would rather shoot a rock, then go shoot prairie dogs or gophers for a few days and not worry about what a group looks like on paper.

It is fascinating to see all the attention to groups and paper with little regard for just how much accuracy you really need to hit something other than paper.

Of 60+ new out of the box off the shelf hunting rifles in the last 20+ years, tikkas, kimbers, rem 700, model 70's, x-bolts, rugers, etc, with random ammo factory and reloads, most shot around 2 to 3 inches for 5 shot groups. Tailored reloads and factory loads they liked brought most between 1-2" on average for 5 - 5 shot groups, maybe 10 of those rifles would shoot 60% of those groups with specific ammo around an inch with many smaller "wallet groups" and just as many larger. Most small caliber varmint rifles will generally average under an inch with ammo they like. Have never seen one of those mythical rifles that are posted about on forums that will shoot 1/2" groups "all day long" except for short range custom benchrest rifles. About half of those factory guns were "broken in", overall average the broke in rifles averaged the same as the ones that weren't before abandoning the procedure. I only break in benchrest barrels now to smooth the throat, still don't know if it makes any difference. Stainless barrels foul less and clean easier than blued. Borescope says blued erode faster than stainless. Just my experience, thats about all I learned from all those 5 shot groups, about 5 thousand rounds of centerfire a year.

I wore my cap guns every day when I was 5 in 1956.
I got a BB gun when I was 10 in 1961 and started target practicing in the garage.
...
Lots of other gun stuff in my life..

By 1991 I was 40 and looked like I would be like my dad, and own a 22, a 12 ga, and 30-06.

In 1994 at age 43, I got a job where they put a Spark Workstation on my desk where I had access to email and usenet ... rec.guns and rec.crafts.metalworking

I started buying many guns per year.

In rec.guns every rifle needed to get a 1" 5 shot group at 100 yards.
I went to the Issaquah range, the Renton Fish and Game range, the Tacoma Sportsman range.
I never got a 1" group.
I saw hundreds of other shooters, and none ever got a 1" group.

By 2002 I chambered a light varmint Lothar Walther barrel on a Mauser and with a 40X scope and 75 gr Vmax in 257 Roberts Ackley, I was getting a 0.5" group of 5 shots at 100 yards.
To reach this point I had to overcome internet advice and make up my own rules.

It seems that benchrest accuracy rituals make up the bulk of internet folklore and have virtually nothing to do with ordinary shooters getting a 1" group.

e.g. do not deburr flash holes, but do only go to the range when there is no wind
e.g. do not weight each powder charge, but do practice dry firing to see the crosshairs stay on the bullseye.
e.g. do not weigh and sort brass, but do be suspicious of a Copper fouled barrel

I have 2 rifles out of 12, 13 if you count my 94 Winchester .30-30, that will shoot 1" 5 shot groups and will on occasion shoot under. And both those rifles are not the latest and greatest. They just happen to be well made with few flaws in their machining.

Also, the shooter, me, has put quite a number of rounds down range in the past 60 years. I think that has more to do with it than anything. And that's all with reloads. I don't think I've ever shot 5 shots at one sitting under an inch or even an inch in my entire life with factory ammo. To shoot that accurate in my opinion you need to employ proper bullet seating and that requires hand loading.

To shoot five shots inside an inch with factory ammo is asking more than a production rifle is capable of. Even a bench rifle would be challenged to do it with factory anything because bullet seating depth is totally left out of the equation and that right there is a very very very important part of extreme accuracy.

How much load work goes into a bench shooters competitive load? I believe many many rounds and adjusting powder charge weight and bullet depth as well as trying different bullets. If you buy a box of factory ammo that gives you that kind of accuracy you need to go buy yourself a lotto ticket immediately if not sooner.

That simply isn't true.

The saving grace here is that for hunting medium-large game you don't need that kind of accuracy. unless you've bought into the idea of shooting at game in the next zip code that you can't see without powerful, expensive binos. I limit myself to 400-500 yards and that's the extreme. 300 yards is pushing it for most people. Too many things can go wrong for that to be ethical for shooting at game. Punching paper is quite another thing. If you hit the paper in the wrong place it's not going to die a lingering painful death. I won't even shoot at a hog at long distance, just because I don't want to make any creature suffer like that. Most shot at game are within 100 yards with occasional shots out to 200-300 yards. I remember once I shot a hog a long way off. He ran about 20 yards before dying just off the sendero he was crossing when I shot him. He was a 200 pound bore. When I first shot him I thought he was 400 yards or more. Later my son in law used his range finder and determined he was only 300. It's easy to over estimate range in the wild. I believe that's the reason we hear about so many fantastic shots.

Accuracy claims at cocktail parties are a hoot.

1. Distance is often overestimated - a clue to this are the words about or roughly in the sentance
2. Group size is often not specifically measured just estimated - again a clue are the words about or roughly in the sentance
3. Shots strings are not high enough for a good sample (3 shots usually) - a clue is when the shooter neglects to mention how many shots
as if somewhat embarassed at how small the number
4. Group sizes are often not repeatable - best group ever shot out of the rifle in it's life now becomes its standard performance - a clue is
when the shooter claims he can do this every day, all day long. Let's face it some days are bound to be worse than others.
5. Some shooters just lie so they can get one upmanship over others - a clue is that group sizes get smaller and smaller with each successive
speaker's contribution.

I just laugh and move on

You’re going to send The Paper Tiger into a tail spin talking about shooting rocks.

It doesn't accord with my experience either. I have had several rifles, production/unfettled, shoot groups under an inch with factory ammunition, five rounds at 100 yards. I have also had other rifles which weren't entirely stock shoot similarly small groups with factory rounds. Not all rifles will, but not all rifles won't. I'm not just talking about that one great group that one time either. FWIW I've also shot any number of matches with both .22LR and 7.62 factory ammunition, and relied on doing rather better than 1 moa with them, week in and week out.

I have also not been convinced that you always have to do a lot of faffing around to find a load which will shoot. Some rifles are fussy, sure. With others I have found it actually pretty easy to identify a good, accurate load. FWIW I don't usually worry too much about seating depth either, unless I'm running out of other ideas. I usually find that a bit of jump to the lands does no great harm, and factors like fitting magazines, feeding well etc are considerations more important than kissing the lands. I think that sometimes people make reloading sound a lot more complicated than it really needs to be, at least for reliable hunting ammunition.

Personally I'm happy with a hunting rifle which will consistently put 5 rounds into under 1 moa, and I have several which will do it. I have a couple which will do a bit better. I have a couple of others which won't but I forgive them because they do well enough all things considered, such as my old Marlin, mentioned earlier, and an SMLE with open sights, which really wasn't built to do that well (though they can be tuned to do it, like my other Lee Enfield, with target sights and bedding etc). I would never expect my double rifle to shoot under 1 moa (though each barrel will go pretty close) - but it really doesn't need to do better than the roughly 2 1/2" group for four rounds which it will usually achieve from a standing rest, given the size of target I have it for.

I don't mean to get into an argument. I also don't mean to hold Chuck Hawks up as an ultimate authority, but here is an article that kind of gets at what I was saying:

https://www.chuckhawks.com/practical_accuracy.htm




In my neck of the woods, specifically SW Ohio, deer hunting was always done with shotguns. A 4 MOA smoothbore pump was considered a great deer gun. For a guy coming up in those conditions, it made sense to hear that 4 inch groups at 100 yards was reasonable accuracy. Heck, we were fighting to keep it on a pie-plate at 50 yards.

When I moved my deer hunting to KY, 30-30's shot off-hand were part of the standard kit. What passed for accuracy then was not much better than what I saw in Ohio.

Back about 2014, my deer friend O.T. sold me his Custom Mauser in 25-06 that he had built in 1980. He was going blind. He was about 6 months away from dying, and I knew he needed the money. O.T. had always talked about his deer rifle as being the most accurate rifle in this part of the county. Other folks talked about it glowingly as well, so I wanted to make sure it found a good home. This was everyone's estimation of the best deer-getter in the neighborhood.

O.T. claimed it shot any Remington ammo with equal aplomb. When I finally got it out, I found that it was at best a 2 MOA rifle. I've since whittled that down considerably with handloading. However, it took some doing.

About the same time, I bought a Ruger Hawkeye in 30-06. I did some quick loads just to check function, and it shot an inch or better at 100 yards the first time out. After that, I loaded up some 165 grain deer loads and never worried about it again.

Chuck ............, who ?


4" moa WAS and still IS Unacceptable.


Jerry

AGREE. I have 2 < examples > myself. In 2007 -- 270 Win, Win 130 PP, Tikka T3 Lite SS . (edit - exceptions TO examples)

In 2008 -- 300 WM, Fed Blue Box 180 S H C. Win 70 Black Shadow.


That's ALL the factory ammo I've bought/used in the last 12 yrs.


Jerry

"To shoot five shots inside an inch with factory ammo is asking more than a production rifle is capable of. Even a bench rifle would be challenged to do it with factory anything because bullet seating depth is totally left out of the equation and that right there is a very very very important part of extreme accuracy."

Filaman,

As some others have already pointed out, this is BS. Dunno how many production rifles I've shot that can consistently put 5 factory-ammo rounds into less than an inch, because it's so many I've lost count over the years. It sure wasn't common for a long time, but now it's not unusual.

If the Norma made "sniper/police" contract overrun ammo I bought a while back counts as factory for this conversation then I have several factory 308's that'll put five well inside an inch. Ten for that matter.

Yeah, I dunno how many .308's I've owned that will do it, including several sporters. The first I can recall was a Sako 75 that would do it with a Federal load featuring 150-grain Ballistic Tips. And aside from mounting a scope, that was right out of the box.

Everyone has opinions, mine regarding the OP question is that average rifles today are way more accurate than average rifles from the 1960's. However, there were some very accurate rifles in the 60's.

My first rifle I bought with my own money was a new in 1966, model 700 ADL .270 Win. An older buddy helped me put a scope on and he adjusted the trigger and wanted to go with me to the range. I had done elementary shooting from bags in the Army but was surprised with the accuracy of this rifle. The first three shots @ 100 were all touching and could have been covered with a dime using factory Corelokts. There was no problem getting it zeroed. It also shot Super X, Winchester, and Norma ammo very well. I never tried hand loads in it because it was stolen when I was living in some apartments before I ever thought of hand loading, but I consider it as accurate as any rifle I have ever had, and it wasn't even glass bedded.

I also suspect there are some very accurate lots or runs of rifles with good accuracy. I have also had a couple of friends who had extremely accurate Ruger M77 tang safety rifles in 25-06. You guys may have noticed some other brands and calibers that were above average from a certain time frame.

I grew up in Columbus, so we're from nearly the same area. While the fact that a rifle that can shoot a 4" group is capable of taking a deer at 100 yds is correct, it's also a totally different discussion than the original post. I still maintain that newer rifles shoot better because the plastic stocks have better bedding than the old stocks came with, and newer bullets just shoot better.

That is great. I remember well a couple of deer I have killed with Dad's old Rem 760 in 30-06. Those are special memories.

My son killed his first mulie buck with my Ruger all weather 77 (boat paddle) in 260. It is his now. In regard to the intent of the OP, I tweaked and tuned and bedded and tried various bullets and powders over the course of two years and finally got that bitch to shoot to 2.5 MOA. An identical rifle purchased at a later date would never shoot inside 4 MOA, not even after being restocked and bedded into a laminate. That one now wears a 26 inch semi varmint weight Krieger barrel.

My shooting hobby for many years revolved around experimenting with various bullets and powders. Hunting with the rifle was only done as a means to justify the money spent on powder and bullets through the year. Eventually, I figured I had tried about every combination possible to try in the '06, and I got bored with the cartridge. So I sold that old 670 and used the money to buy a Ruger #1 in 7mm STW.

The last time I saw the 670, it looked very much like the one in your photo. The new owner stripped the stain from the stock and refinished it.

I once worked with a guy that had a M-70 in 7mm Rem mag and he claimed it was so accurate that he could hit a nickel at 300 yards.....after hearing that way too many times, I challenged him.....I told him that he could have 40 rounds of ammo......twenty to get sighted in and for every time thereafter he hit a nickel sized circle at 100 yards, I would pay him a dollar and if he could hit half of the remaining rounds in the nickel sized circle, I would pay him for all forty rounds he bought to the "party"......well he jumped on that like a big dog....and a day or two later, he and I (and others) went to the range to watch him proceed to "zero" his rifle.....a fruitless exercise as not one time in the first twenty rounds did he show us anything even approaching a 3" group at 100 yards......a truly embarrassing effort to say the least.

the result was twofold.....
1. He never bragged about his gun again

2. A few days later I saw his gun at the local gun shop being glass bedded

Yes, I shot the Garand at 100 yds offhand, and kept the holes in the paper in my thirties. Today, I am not shooting at game offhand unless the game is inside bow range. Our shots are more typically taken at 400 yds than 40 yds. I gotta get prone, or rested over a big rock.

I used to shoot a lot of paper from prone out on the BLM. Today, I mostly shoot from my bench outside the front door of the house.

At least from my observations, there was something magical about those tang safety Rugers in 25-06. I knew a group of six hunters who were using identical tang safety model 77s in 25-06 for elk hunting in the early '80s. Every one of those rifles were REAL tack drivers with Nosler solid base bullets. 120 gr I think??? Then they all switched to Barnes X bullets and their rifles shot them very well as well.

In the summer of '82 I got the chance to purchase my own 77 in 25-06, used with a Bushnell Banner 4-12x40. It had the magnum weight 24 inch barrel, just like those of my friends rifles. I loaded the 117 gr Hornady boat tail over H4831 to maximum charge weight. And it shot every bit as well as I had come to expect watching my friends shoot theirs.

I later offered it for sale to a friend. He took it out and consecutively broke three boiled eggs at over 100 yds with it. Yes, he bought it.

Yep.
Is it my 80 year young eyes or my well used nerve/muscle system?
Had my 6.5CM Kimber Hunter out yesterday and when shooting 5 shot groups there would be a cluster of 3 touching but 2 would "wander" out to an inch or 3 sometimes. Must be the rifle. Odd thing was I could call those wandering shots every time. Gotta be the plastic handle or more probably the Leupold VX2. They ain't much good either you know.

One of the great truth-tellers to check accuracy claims is competition.

Either formal target shooting like F-Class, High-Power, etc... Or even informal, just some guys at the range with their hunting rifles, all shooting in the same conditions, at the same range, at the same time...

Somebody's going to have the best results. Somebody is going to place last. Some folks are going to look pretty silly when they can't shoot worth a hoot, even if they've spent a gob of money on a nice rifle, scope & ammo...

It's just an awfully good truth teller, and more fun than just pounding the keyboard, or leaning on the gun-counter and making claims. Either ya shot "high master" or you didn't. Either your hunting rifle made 1.5" groups at 300 yards, or it didn't.

I enjoy getting out to the range with my buddies now, for some informal shooting. My neck is too messed up for prone shooting anymore, so I can't compete with them, but they don't mind me shooting from sitting instead. Nor do I.

Sure is impressive what some of these low-budget new rifles can do! I broke down last winter and got a Ruger RPR in 6mm Creedmoor, popped a pretty decent Vortex scope on it... Even the factory 108 gr ammo was shooting great! Gave me a goal for my handloads. That Ruger was only $750 - with all those features it seemed like a bargain for an accurate, low recoil, range toy for me. But guess what? Sometimes I can't shoot 1/2 MOA groups even all morning, let alone all day!

Regards, Guy

Just another opinion, regarding, new manufactured rifles are better than those built 40 or 50 years ago. Seems to me mostly it is due to bedding improvements. I think a lot of it is due to improvement in components, specifically bullets. A lot of it is due to better barrels, I am a firm believer in hammer forging. In recent years I have taken a few jobs rebarreling or wildcat chambering on full cnc machined actions. I am not impressed with cnc. Using custom turned mandrels in the action, for a true axial center, I gotta opine that cnc is no great improvement over the old mechanically indexed machining operations. Almost any machinist who has worked on pre '64 Win.'s will testify that the abutment faces are dead true and the bolt bore is dead true to the boreline and amazingly, headspacing is within limits when installing any Winchester barrel of similar vintage on a different action. And, the iron sights will be true vertical when the witness mark is aligned. That said, I have never had the opportunity to work on any of the high dollar brands and they may be better. Big box store brands are about all I ever see.

A lot of people here can remember when rifle stocks were made almost exclusively of wood. Even the so called "budget rifles" had walnut stocks. But times changed. They always do. More stocks were made with birch or beech or something, and people complained. The stocks weren't as well finished. Gone were the rich, darker tones of quality walnut. And some people said that these cheaply stocked rifles weren't as tight shooting as their more upscale counterparts.

Looks still seem to influence shooters. But like the stocks of old, almost none are bedded at the factory.

In 1983, I got a Rem 788 in 222 Remington. It consistently shot 3/4 inch groups at 100 yd. I could coax the occasional .5 inch group with IMR 4198 and Rem bulk bullets. It also had a cheap hardwood stock. It wasn't bedded and the trigger was original. The magazine was a cheap stamping, and Remington had a small problem with a small number of bolt handles coming off. What a piece of crap!

That was back in the daze before 788s became magical. Few people wanted them, at least, around here. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why .75 inch groups were possible from a cheaply stocked rifle., made from stamped metal parts, no pillars or bedding of any kind, and with a factory barrel. I think the Internets had a big hand in making the Rem 788 magical.

Companies have always tried to reduce costs by changing stocks, not offering iron sights, changing metal for stampings or even polymers. None of these changes has made any firearm less accurate. No company can afford to build a rifle that doesn't shoot. Their reputation is on the line. The method of assembly and materials must come together to create a firearm that is as accurate or better than the previous generation.

These advances sometimes come with the odd hiccup. The biggest hiccup however, is the consumer. He fights, kicking and screaming, railing against polymer magazines or cheap metal stampings. But the consumer rarely knows what he wants.

From an armourer's perspective, I have often wondered why all the rifle companies didn't use a form of Savage's screw on barrel or their plastic, pillar bedded stocks. For maintenance and cost reduction, this was the bee's knees. The bonus was, they shot well. But humans being what they are, the resistance was strong. Plastic and barrel nuts were ugly, would 'probably' break, and this was the big one - Savages could not win shooting competitions.

If looks are your thing, there are lots of aftermarket accessories to dress them up. And Savage did get rid of the old barrel nut to smooth out the lines. Hey, it's the Ford vs Chevy argument all over again.

Remington helped Savage out immensely. Remington has been lost in the wilderness for years, trying to come up with an econo-rifle, but never getting the formula right. Winchester decided to change their rifle line as well and they got expensive. Ruger figured it out though. And for the US at least, more Euro-rifles hit your shores. You got more choices and the quality has improved, as much as many of you will disagree. The fact is, rifles and cartridges are better today than they were even ten years ago.

Now comes the Creedmoor. Pair it with these advances in rifle construction, and you have a winner. The barrel twist, throat, magazine length and the cartridge have come together to create that magic. We also have a lot more powder and bullet choices. It's hard to believe that the designers and engineers all sat around the same table and worked together to produce this cartridge - but they did. We have witnessed one of the few times that everyone did their part correctly and the end result came together perfectly.

Give me a rifle that shoots well out of the box. One that doesn't need hundreds of dollars in aftermarket parts to make it better. Give me a rifle that is easy to work on, should I need to change the barrel or stock. It's finally happening, but like all technological advancements, it happens gradually.
---

And this is a rusty bucket.

Generally this should hold true and somtimes does but I will point out the purpose of the mas cnc machine was not for accuracy but rather to lower the skill level of the operator and cut costs...when the machine is working all is well...when the machine looses some tolerance or goes jawire in some way ther may not be the skill set to recognize it...you don't think they will back up a whole days production....they go out the door....
I remember a TC rifle came to the shop with bad headspace...it was new bought at cabelas...since it was new I told him to take it back as I had no way to shorten headspace on those...he called cabelas and they said they would replace it...I went along with my gauges to insure he got a good one...every one they had on the shelf swallowed a no go.gauge... They gave him his money back and stuck his rifle on the used rack...the rifle wasn't really unsaf Persia but brass would budge at the belt ..300win mag...

What CNC does allow though is the achievement of tolerances which used to take a skilled operator and often a good deal of hand work. That has meant that the sort of tolerances which used to be found on better (and more expensive) rifles have now trickled down to cheaper ones, because the cost of achieving these better tolerances is less.

It isn't just the barrels and receivers either. CNC machining has allowed such things as good inletting, bedding and even good quality checkering to trickle down.

As well as that, there are other technologies which have improved. There should for example be less excuse for off-specification work too, because such things as measurement technologies have improved, though as your example shows it is still possible for off-spec products to be made.

It really is true that most production rifles are much more accurate nowadays. The rifles and ammo in the 60’s certainly wasn’t doing “one moa”

Back in the 60’s, most hunters would grab whatever rifle they had available and pair it with a box of ammo that was on sale, and go sight the gun in at the local gravel pit until they could consistently hit a tin can at 75 to 100 yards.

Then they would go bag their deer, year after year.

Those hunters didn’t know how bad their equipment was and didn’t know what “one moa” was, but they just kept bringing home the venison.

Hmmmmmmm.....