Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles WILL WINCHESTERS SHOOT AS TIGHT AS GROUPS AS???

If I had a "gunsmith" tell me that, I'd be looking for a new "gunsmith".

Him full of schit.....

Ah the old Chevy vs. Ford argument.

FORD is way better.

unless your pushin a Chevy....

winny ammo is tighter tolerance - in fact it's pure magic (thinking of MD's article now).

Spot

Even though almost all of my guns are push-feed remingtons and WBY's and I only own a couple winny's I will still admit that the Classic/pre 64 style action is probably better for a hunting action.
That being said if your intention is for your rifle to be a hunting rifle I wouldn't be as concerned about accuracy as I would for it to have great features that make up a great hunting rifle. I know there is somewhat of a standard that we all want out guns to shoot but remember,
You don't shoot game with groups and you probably won't have bench rests in your tree stands, However you will have to aim your rifle and fire a round into a certain sized area that is dependent on the game being hunted. A rifle that shoots into .50MOA instead of 1.5MOA won't help as much as a stock that fits you well, a good trigger, good reasonable optics/sights, a cartridge that you can shoot well, and last but not least good field shooting ability.

I always pick my guns based on how well they fit me more than what brand or how accurate they are, and I think I am a better field shot for it.

Oh and every winchester that I have ever shot has shot really well, certainly better than would ever be required to hunt big game.

Win 70 SS Classic factory action/bbl, McMillan stock.
Handloaded 200gn TSX's. 100yds, 3 shots



Win 70 SS Classic Factory action/bbl, HS stock. Handloaded 260 Partitions. 100yds, 3 shots



Win 70 SS Classic, Factory action/bbl, McMillan stock. Handloaded 140gn TSX's. 100yds 3 shots.



I see a pattern emerging here.

I don't see much difference between the two in accuracy but I will give it to the Remingtons I guess. I have both. I would encourage you to consider the whole gun rather than simple accuracy.

The three Winchesters I use more than all the others will all group under 3 inche at 300 yards.

I much prefer the model 70 for hunting.

I wish Winchester had equivalents for Mountain Rifles and Wilderness rifles. Something on the order of the Montana.

I hate cleaning the bolt on a 700, the trigger wants to gum up and that two position safety that doesn't lock the bolt is silly.

My Featherweight in .308 Win will certainly shoot under an inch all day long with any ammo I feed it, including green box Core-Lokts! But it has been bedded and the trigger worked. One of the most accurate rifles I have ever fired was an friend's 700 ADL stainless barrel circa 1965 that was never touch by a smith.

The reality is that just about any rifle made today with modern technology will shoot far better than most hunters can. While I have no direct knowledge, I have been informed that the newer Savage rifles are incredibly accurate.

So if the source of you info is talking bench rest accuracy, I have no idea, but I do know nearly all tactical teams in the USA were using Remingtons. But for hunting applications, is bench rest accuracy really necessary???

Uh, No!
Probably the biggest most useless trend going in hunting rifles.

I really like Remington 700s...

But I love a Model 70 a LOT more!!!

But me and Rugers and Savages get along pretty well also these days....

The Model 70 is still the rifle model that I would keep if I was only allowed to have one....

Win M70 Featherweight 6.5x55.
140gr Partition
46.5gr DP 86
Lapua Brass
Fed 210M
2720fps
100 Yards

One of my hunting buddy's go-to deer rifle is a synthethic stainless M-70 with 24-inch barrel .30-06 that shoots 5-shot groups of 5/8 inch at 200 yards. He is a former Army armorer and SWAT team armorer, but he did't do much to it beyond a trigger job and pillar bedding.

I love my Remingtons.... I did have them all accurized by MGA.

They all shoot better than I do.

That said...

I don't see why Winchesters can't do just as well with the same work. This guy just loves Remingtons or rrefers to work on them.

As others have stated the need for benchrest accuracy is not there, even if average shooters could utilize it. But the rest of the anecdotal evidence means squat, particularly when talking about out-of-the-box accuracy.

If you are talking about untuned there is zero doubt in my mind the 700 is way ahead of the 70 in average accuracy. Once tuning starts all bets are off.

And I would make the bet more than one way... More 70s were bad out of the box than 700s; More 700s are exceptionally good out of the box than 70s were.

The pre-64s made at the very end were horrible as were several later phases of the 70. Remington has put out more than its share of lemons, but look at how many more units they sold.

There is plenty to like in both actions and taste dictates that, but for sheer OOTB accuracy I do not think it is even close...
art

I have a hard time fathoming how a gun can be too accurate, or striving for top notch accuracy being a bad thing. Me thinks the trends towards more accurate rifles might challenge folks to work on their skills until they match the equipment available.

Folks thinking shooting 1/2" off the bench equating to all the shooting skills they need is a different issue.