Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles MOA Accuracy - The Standard for Factory Rifles?

Super interesting article!

All a manufacturer can do is tell one that of which the rifle is capable. The rest is up to the owner/shooter going forward.

For example, I'm reminded of a sort of parallel situation I had to deal with circa 2000, as sales manager for a Ford dealership.

Had a customer complaining about lousy fuel economy from his new Ford Explorer, something in the order of 18 mpg (CDN, imperial gallons) highway. Ran it through the shop, everything checks out perfect. Salesman mentioned to me that the customer, whom he knows somewhat, drives with his foot in it pretty much everywhere he goes. Hmmm...

So, I suggested to the customer that he leave the vehicle with me for the morning. I'd top up the tank, take it for a drive, fill it again and find out what it's doing for myself. Done deal.

Filled it, headed out on the highway, set it on cruise at 100 kmh (60 mph), and drove about 30 kms out to the lake, turned and came home. Good highway, couple long hills, little of it very straight, but all 60 mph stuff.

I used the cruise control because I wanted establish what the vehicle would do, not what I could make it do.

It got 25.4 mpg, which was pretty close to EPA rating.

He called me a liar to my face.

I said, you wanna go do it again with me?

He got, shall we say, a tad huffy and left.

Point being: This is what the vehicle can do. How you get there is up to you.

I wonder sometimes that manufacturers of rifles don't wince a tad as they hand off their products to gun writers to be evaluated, including mandatory bench shooting for grouping.

'Cause, frankly, I doubt very many of them are capable of actually matching, or even coming hopefully close, to the potential of the gun. And the good writers, bless their little trigger fingers, qualify their test reporting by admitting as much.

I don't think any gun maker worth their salt today intentionally puts out a product that won't shoot MOA, certainly not if they want to survive in a highly competitive market.

The quality of both rifles and ammo available today is pretty darn good, indeed so good that it's hard to imagine where there's much room left for improvement...at least that most of us could ever afford.

I was out at the range one day with my Sendero 300 WM (26" barrel), sighting it in for Federal Premium 200 gr Sierra Gamekings. There was one other fellow there, big box of handloads and a chrony set up, going through the paces.

After I was done, I wandered over and asked if he would run a round through his chronograph just to see what this ammo was actually doing. Sure! No problem! I handed him the Sendero...

Took the shot, looked at the reading...and shook his head.

2903 fps.

"Why am I even bothering to handload???"

Really didn't mean to spoil his day.

Mule Deer (John Barsness) has written several times about how well 50 and 60 year old rifles will shoot with modern ammunition. I think modern ammo has more to do with the results reported in the article than modern gun-making machinery. I have an old Sako .222, built in 1951 according to the serial number. It weighs less than 6 lbs without scope. I bought it used so have no idea how much it was shot before I got it. Benchrested with Remington factory ammunition it will put 3 shots into 0.5" or less at 100 yards routinely, and with handloads using Sierra bullets and H322 sometimes into 0.3."

And I think to a large degree you're right. The quality of today's ammo far exceeds that of just 20 years ago.

I used to pay the extra bucks to buy Federal "Premium", which was almost a novelty when it first appeared. But it shot much more consistently better than the usual fodder I'd been brought up on.

That said, it's true that modern technology is producing much tighter standards, certainly with firearms, than was the case not that long ago. Manufacturers like Sako and TC now include "match grade" barrels, even on relatively bargain priced rifles, that once were only found on premium customs costing multiples of the average rifle.

Where do they go from here???

What I'm interested to see now in particular, is when is Remington going to finally realize that they're going to find themselves playing catch up in a big way. There are a considerable number of improvements to be made to their bread & butter 700 series that, IMHO, are long overdue.

Shot out? It was made in August, 2005 and I purchased it new March 29th, 2008. It has been a consistent 1-1/2" shooter since I got it, using factory ammo from Remington, Winchester, Hornady, Federal and my handloads. Best I've been able to do is about 1-1/4" groups. That barrel doesn't have more than 100 rounds through it and I'd guess more like 80.

You've seen pictures of some of my groups - my shooting is not the issue either, as the picture below should attest.

This target was shot from my 1975 Remington M700 BDL in .308 Win, acquired by me in November of 2005. The target is from my first development effort for that rifle and the second time I had shot the rifle (it saw a few factory loads on a previous trip to the range). I got lucky on the load. Nine shots, each with a different powder charge by 0.5g:

You know, I have been enjoying your writing, I bet money you are very entertaining when you are in your cups.

Regards.

I find a few that won't shoot 1" groups. I trade them off.

Appreciated!

(I had to dig around the net to find out what "when you are in your cups" meant!)

I'd sell it, or perhaps donate it to the NRA. An inaccurate Model 700 is the rarest gun ever made.

Guys ,
what can your rifle group - 3 shots - shooting free hand ??

No rests, no fence posts, no bipods - NOTHING.

Try IT - its harder than it looks.

If you can get three shots into a 6 inch circle at 100 yards - YOU ARE DOING WELL!!!!

CK

Off hand shooting is much harder with a rifle that won't group off the bench.

I agree with Steelhead:

Hard not to.

A group maker is usually a pretty good thing hitter IME.

Good shooting is about confidence, whether in the field or in a match where there is some pressure involved.

Accurate rifles inspire confidence.

JM

A lot of my older rifles shoot sub MOA with me pulling the trigger. I think it is the bullets as much as rifle technology.

I'm pretty sure I don't have a rifle that doesn't group better than I shoot.

There was a little discussion about group shapes in the article I liked. I really like a rifle that tends to shoot a triangle or round group however you describe it. The A7 is a hotty.

Most equipment will surpass the shooter. The human element is the weak link. Funny how we spend so much time tweeking equipment rather than the nut loose behind the wheel.

I've seen guys that with a good rest couldn't hold three on an 8.5"x11" piece of paper at 100 yards. I take their rifle and put three in 1.75 or 2". Nothing wrong with the equipment. Some folks just jerk the trigger because they are scared of the recoil. "Flinch" is a four lettered word.

Not necessarily.

A good group maker can be a one-holer off a bench, but an ungainly b!tch in the field and from non-bench positions.

Conversely, a good hitter in the field, due to design, balance, handling, might not be a great group shooter, but the first shot hits, and making that hit with it in the field is what counts, and is easy if the rifle is just "right" in the hands.

Va,

I agree. My comment about a good group maker without a doubt, includes field positions.

I consider a good shooting rifle one that doesn't produce substantial POI shifts related to postion or barrel temp.

JM

Understood.

Here's my point, though.

One of the most inaccurate (as far as a combined 3 or 5 shot group) rifles I own is my T/C System 1 muzzleloader. 3" 3-shot groups at 100 are a best, and not even average.

However, the first shot from a cold, clean bore always hits POA.

And, it handles perfectly for me; balances and hangs right, swings great, in the field, it's a hitter.

I've never missed with it and it's got quite a few critters to it's tally.

A "grouper", it ain't; not even close. A hitter, it is, and then some.

I agree. But never said a rifle that couldn't shoot groups wasn't deadly. My 7WSM will put two touching and throw the third about an 1" out @ 100. Still acceptable and I consider it a good shooting rifle, but it doesn't fair to well in IBS matches.

Just said that a good grouper is usually a good killer IME.

Best,

JM

I am pretty certain all of my rifles shoot better than I am capable. In the 90's I tested loads in my pistols in a ransom rest. My gold cup would shoot 4.5 gr of bullseye 200gr semi wadcutter into 1" at 75 meters all day with the rest. The best I was ever able to do was 2" off a sand bag/ shooting bench. My average was more like 2.5-3".

In response to the other poster, I count on 8" at 100 offhand. I get the occasional 6", but they always surprise me. That is why I always shoot from a support of some sort even if it is just a hand full of branches or grass to steady me. When hunting open areas I carry shooting sticks. My abilities need to be augmented.

Randy