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

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...