Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Rifles 50 years ago

Are rifles made today more accurate than those made 50 years ago. I would assume so due to tighter tolerances, but that's just a guess?

Most of the changes are due to better optics, mounting systems and more stable powders/brass which allow rifles from different periods to be more accurate. However, Remingtons were more accurate for barrels and better quality control 50 years ago than they are now.

I was alive 50 years ago and shooting.. I would say over the counter rifles like Savage are far more accurate today than years ago.. But even in those dark days, there were guys doing some awesome long range shooting.. A group in northern Penna. shot woodchucks, deer and bear at long distances.. Many up to and just over 1000 yards.. In those days, the 7mm and 30 caliber Mags. ruled.. I have some articles from that era.. One of the popular scopes was the B & L 2=8.. It was equipped with a method to adjust the scope for long range, and another was the big 6-24 B & L... A friend of mine used one of these on his 7X61 to kill deer at 800 yards..

I think a big part is the bullets are better today.

Today's rifles have barrels that are made on more modern machinery and so the percentage of sub-moa barrels made today is higher then what we had 50 years ago. BUT....The high end of accuracy available then and now is not much different. I remember seeing some shooters make groups in the 1960s that are every be=it as tight as what I see today from top shooters. If we looked at the average size of the groups shot by most shooters then and now, I think tighter groups today are more common, but the very top end is almost the same.

And as noKnees said the bullets we have today are more accurate. The reason I believe we had more good shooters in the 60s and 70s then we have today is 2 fold. #1 shooting was still a very common thing then with high schools all over the western state having shooting teams, rifles and shotguns. Today the socialist mentality so prevalent in schools lies to the kids and tries to convince everyone they can that guns are bad.
#2 powder and primers were a LOT cheaper then, Sure I understand the issue of inflation, but even at the cost of living going up, prices on ammo components have gone up far more at a rate of hours worked to exchange for value in ammo. When I was 12 I could buy 4831 rifle powder for $1.20 a pound and I bought 270 bullets for $4.80 a box and my 270 brass was formed out of range pick-up 30-06 after the National Guard shot there, so it was free. Primers were 40 cents a flat. I worked for $2.25 an hour. 8 hour days paid 20 in cash if no breaks were taken for lunch so the full 8 hours paid a bit more then $2.25.
I could spend it all if I wanted to on ammo and most times I did. So I (and other boys I knew) became very good marksmen. By the time I was 18 I had to have my 270 re-barreled because I'd shot the rifling out of the throat. I am sure the bullets I bought then were not quite as accurate as what I can buy now, but instead of buying a few hundred now and then, I used to buy them 1000 at a time and sometimes 3000 at a time and 4831 was weighed on a scale and carried out of the store in a 1 gallon glass milk jug.

Sign of the times I guess.

I have many young friend today and I take them hunting and I train them in shooting skills but I am saddened at how many of them are not all that good at shooting and can't afford to fire enough rounds to get very good.

My "kiddos" who come to me for coaching and fun run from a 12 year old girl to a 24 year old man with about 7 of them being from 15 to 18 years old. the 24 year old is the best shot of the bunch, but has also been training with me since he was 17. The one boy of 15 is nearly as good but has a ways to go. The one I am most impressed with however is thew 12 year old girl. I made an AR10 for her at the request of her dad (a good friend of mine) and she is showing a lot of potential. The rifle is fairly light as AR10s go, but still comes in at just over 9 pounds with the scope and mount and a full 10 round mag.
She only weight 97 pounds but carries the 9 pound rifle as if it were weightless and is a real go-getter. On Christmas day she was up here and we were shooting at clay birds placed at 250 yards. From prone and she seldom missed one From sitting she gets about 1 in 4. But the misses are usually quite close. Not bad for a 97 pound girl with 4 months of experience using a full size man's rifle ,and I am very proud of her.
She starts hunting this coming season and I think the deer elk and antelope should be very afraid of her.

I don't know, my 1956 Winchester model 70 30-06 feather weight must think it's a shiny new rifle then:



This 64 year old rifle thinks its a shiny new Tikka:


Well, at least it shoots better than a brand new Tikka anyways...

OP, keep on guessing....

I have quite a few newer Remington rifles, and I can assure you that they are just as accurate today than they were 50 years ago, maybe even more so.

Your pretty much correct with your opinion.
Im very soon to be 85, and ive been long range hunting the steep N/C PA sidehills for more than 50 years.
I only recently swapped my old 6x24 B&L scope for a new Nightforce. Frankly, im not so sure i improved anything for what i use the gun for. Id agree that factory rifles out of the box are more accurate today than 50 years ago. Probably due to better machinery, not the men who build them. As for better bullets, there are many more of them by more makers than 50 years ago, but i doubt theres really been all that much improvment as for accuracy. 1000 yd benchrest records are controlled by conditions today more than the equipment and shooter, as many of them are capable of doing it given the right conditions.
And the majority of them are using custom bullets today as opposed to factory made. Barrels are no doubt more consistantly good today also than years back.
All in all, it’s a better time to be a young person just starting out. It’s just too bad the interest isnt there as it was 50 years ago.

I'd sure like to think that there has been some improvement over a 50 yr period! I've had really good shooting rifles for a long time. Vast majority get bedding worked on after being shot the first time though. Best shooting rifle I ever had was a Rem Mod 788 in 222 Rem. At 100 yds it would brake sugar cube's all day long! That was about 1971,that's over 50 yrs! My present Mossberg Partriot in 243 stays right with my Rm 700 ADL. Just under 3/4" group's is normal. The 700 ADL I got new about 2002 and came in that ugly POS plastic stock, wouldn't hit a barn from the inside! Intensive re-bedding made it a real shooter, ugly one but a shooter! Replacing the plastic with a wood stock kept it a shooter but lot better looking shooter. Haven't done a damn thing to that Mossberg and feel guilty about it!

I would second that, I have 700’s made 50 years ago. The 700’s made today are just as good.

Yes, on the whole improvement in machinery and materials have made even today’s bargain rifle sub-moa shooters. Older rifles were definitely fit and finished better.

I think stocks had something to do with an accurate rife or inaccurate rifle also. But CNC machining might be the biggest contributor.

Most all the modern economy bolt action rifles have gone to a 788 style small ejection port receiver that has less flex and is easier to build an accurate rifle around.

50 years isn't long in rifle terms.

The 700 was 8 years old.
Pre-64 M70 was a 6 year memory.
Savage 110 was here.
Talking accuracy, no need to mention Ruger. Well, compared to those
times, things are better.

But, now everyone has the cheap ass clunkers that shoot wel.

Then, there is Tikka. Cheap to build, not cheap. Or (mostly) cheaply built.


I think precision has improved. It's easier to maintain good tolerances
on mass produced items today. And lessons have been learned.

Consider bedding. The floating recoil lug was a cheap easy adaptation.
But, it allows for easier/quicker/better bedding.

Look at cartridge design.
There is more knowledge on how to design an accurate cartridge/chamber.
And that, along with better tolerances makes for a better interface.

Plus everything has improved if accuracy is thge goal.
Brass is available that is better than custom worked over stuff was.
Powders are more stable, consistent.
Bullets have been mentioned.
Nobody uses mounting systems common in 1970.


BSA's Winchester is a nice example. Of one.
Steve said that we haven't made big advances in absolute top
accuracy. Well? If you consider the very best ever attained as
maybe all that is possible (nothing is perfect), I'm willing to bet
that getting to that level is much easier.

Just something I read once about Stoner rifles in competition.
The quote was something to the effect,
"If you build 10 AR's,, and 10 Garands or M1a's, you will have
10 A R's that will compete at the top levels. Maybe 3 or 4 of the others will.
Another 3 or 4 are good enough for lower levels. 1 will need redone, and will
improve. And 1 may never shoot well.

I think that's where we are at. Overall the factory rifles are better.
The ability of good smiths to turn out stunningly accurate rifles has
become routine.

Me? Eyes are older. Body is shakier. Less patient. Shoot less.
I'm worse.

I'm with noKnees...a high percentage of the improvement is in components...and the lion's share of that is bullets. I have a friend who had the use of a Juenke machine for a weekend, shocking what he discovered. Some of the old hunting bullets were terrible. (a few of the new hunting bullets are terrible) And, in 1970, how many of us were match prepping, measuring and weighing? Now everyone can afford a runout dial indicator, a tubing micrometer and so on. Only the benchresters did that stuff. Let's not forget the operator and his optics, who had a 36X scope back then? I never even heard of a ladder test until 2005. With the interest in long range, we as consumers have demanded precision, and some manufacturers have tried to comply.
Are rifles better now than in 1970? I don't know...they are different certainly. But, having a small machine shop and many years experience...to me, when a manufacturer ballyhoos: CNC MACHINED! the warning flags go up. It all goes back to the machine, it's operating tolerances, quality control, accuracy of the D.R.O.'s controlling the machine. I am waiting to be impressed. So far my opinion is: CNC gets rid of skilled labor which make widgets cheaper to make. Which means guys like us can go buy an accurate rifle without the divorce.

I bought a 700 ADL in 7 mm mag in July of 1970 and was shooting it with hand loads using 160 gr Sierra BTSP's in the early 70's under an inch at 100 yds then. Early 2000's I bought a 1st year 700 ADL in 30 -06 (1962) and used some 40+ year old factory loaded 150 gr Corelokt's to shoot some 1 moa groups with as well as killing 140 pt
Whitetail buck with it. It's the components that have made the most progress in my book and scopes. MB

I agree with MagBob, scopes have come a long way too.

A very pleasant surprise for me is a 6.5 Swede (1908 stamp). Chopped the barrel (29 down to 24 inch), installed a new trigger, and added a 3-9 scope with intentions of it being a truck gun. It will consistently do clover leafs at 100yds. Somebody knew what they were doing when they put that rifle together 112 years ago.

There's really nothing new in firearms technology, but I'd agree that bullets (tolerances) and optics (clarity and parallax) have been considerably enhanced.

The metal finish and polishing is better but bullets are the improvement that allows your question in the first place because modern bullets prove old rifles were already well made and accurate. The concentricity of C&C bullet jackets and the introduction of homogenous bullet designs brings out the best in a barrel and therefor the rifles image, for delivering accuracy. Hence my comments on metal finish.

What AGW said, plus an addition.

The big factors in accuracy improvement have been better bullets, and factory rifles with properly bedded stocks. Which is why you can now buy factory rifles for less than 500 bucks that will shoot extremely well--without having to dink with the bedding. A good example was the 6.5 Creedmoor Ruger American I bought a maybe 3 years ago. Loaded some 140-grain Berger VLD's with a typical H4350 load, and the first 5-shot group at 100 yards was .33 inch.

Tighter tolerance?
Who believes that...things made today are bean counter driven...there is no pride in workmanship left..all plastic garbage...

I agree about the sweeds. I bought one a while back and she's a shooter: Pretty close to moa with iron sights:


I wonder if Carl Gustav had a 1 moa (3 shot) guarantee way back in 1906?

How about my 103 year old M1917?


How about my other m1917:

I'll blame my handloads because there is absolutely no way 2 different 100+ year old rifles would/should shoot the same exact load equally well (well below moa for 3 shots).

Oh, wait, check this out. The same rifle shooting a different load. Maybe it's not the load? Maybe its the rifle?


And then I said screw it, I have too many good shooting 30-06's!! So I turned it into a 308 Norma magnum:


Oh, chidt dudes, I realized I'm hitting the orange on every target. Throw those sumbitches out!!!!! Too old of rifles and they are hitting what I'm aiming at... Fu ck!!!!

Benchrest accuracy was less critical 50 years ago. Most hunters had not seen American Sniper and actually closed to within 100 yards of game.

65 years ago we didn't shoot paper, we had a white spot on a sand rock bluff behind the barn, we didn't know exactly how far it was but guessed it to be 200 yards + - if we could hit that white spot we were good to go, didn't make any difference what rifle bullet or powder, we killed ELK, Mule Deer, Speed Goats, Bear, and any other critter we shot at.
Nothing changed for me except now I shoot steel and I usually know how far it is. and I do have nicer rifles and ammo. Rio7

National Match M1 Rifles shot out of a machine rest would group ten rounds into a 4" group at 600 yards! That was also using Lake City and Frankfort Arsenal ammo!!

I was shooting rifles 50 years ago also and my buddy's father had a model 1917 enfield with a custom barrel in 30-06 with a B&L 2-8 scope mounted on it, he added a cheek piece and a pistol grip to the stock, he also sawed the barrel of to 22" and did the crown with a ball bearing and some lapping compound. A few years ago I got the rifle off of his estate it hadn't been fired since his son came home from Vietnam when he took it doe hunting here in Penna. I loaded up some light loads with 125 gr STMK and imr 4064 powder, I put a target up at 25 yards because since it hadn't been fired in over 50 years I didn't know where the bullet would hit guess what it was right on. I also tried imr 3031 and it shot good with it also. I tried the STMK and NBT and Speer hot core bullets all 125 grain and they all shot about 3/4" at 100 yards. I shoot it out to 400 yards on steel plates and have no trouble hitting them consistently. By the way the trigger is a crisp 2 lbs. I love this rifle and scope combo.
Joe

Cool story Joe,,

1917 Enfield huh? Is it a coincidence that a 1917 Enfield .30-06 with a bull barrel made from a truck axle (very popular barrel making raw material in the 20's, 30's and 40's, chrome moly with a soft core) held the 300 yard benchrest range record for many years at Snowman's Hill range in Northern Calif, not being bested until 2005 by a 6mm PPC. I, among others, was annoyed that it was a .30-06, which everyone "knows" is not competitive in benchrest circles. But the crowning humiliation was that the original truck axle finish remained, and with the bore on the muzzle end was a good 1/8" off center. The shooter's name was Dan Parkinson, a quiet gentleman it was impossible to dislike, although I wanted to.