I had never fired a Ruger American rifle before. Today I took a 14 year old boy and his father to the range. He has a new Ruger American Predator in 223. He had a cheap BSA scope on it that I couldn't even see through, he could better but obviously not by much. The groups showed that.
I took the Sightron SII 6-24 Dot recticle off my AR and put it on his rifle. Then the 5 shot groups went to one vertical hole that you could cover with a nickle. That was 25.3 grains of AR-comp lit with a CCI 450 primer and a 55gr V-MAX.
I am impressed to say the least.
Only issue now is that I showed him what quality glass looks like and daddy might not end up too happy about that.
They get great reviews, I bought a Vanguard S2, I'm amazed how well it shoots also.
I've heard lots of good about those rifles but no first hand experience with any of the centerfire models yet. You can tell his dad he can do a lot better than that BSA without spending an arm and a leg. I've only got one BSA scope and that's a 2-7x that been on an unmodified 10-22 used for general plinking, squirrels, and other small game. It's been on there since 1999 and it works well enough that I'm just gonna leave it on there until it dies or I decide to upgrade optics. I'll admit it's not the greatest but for my uses it gets the not too demanding job done. Can't see myself putting a BSA on a centerfire anyway.
Recently acquired a Ruger American Preditor in 243 to use as a truck gun/loaner.
After useing some miscellanious rounds that I had on the shelf to get it on paper, 3 shots with Federal Fusion ammo went into 0.86"
Then I fired 3 rounds with some 95gr Ballistic Tips and 4350 that I had loaded for another gun. They went into 0.68".
I have a bunch of 90gr Speer Deep Shocks, that I got a "deal" on. So next trip to the range, I took some of those, loaded with IMR4350. They went into 0.64", Quickest load development ever!
I love walnut and forged steel rifles, but I am impressed wiht what Ruger has done with the American Rifle.
I've had great luck with them. Not fancy or beautiful but, as accurate rifles, they are interesting.
I've had great luck with them. Not fancy or beautiful but, as accurate rifles, they are interesting.
That is actually the only rifle that is interesting.
Armednfree,
Congratulations on your RAR "discovery"!
Right now I only have four, one rimfire and three centerfires. The rimfire is one of the most accurate .22 Magnums I've ever shot, and better yet shoots all the ammo I've tried so far (at least 10 kinds) pretty well. It cost $179 at a local store.
I bought two of them for my son and oldest grandson. One is .30-06, one in .243. Both will shoot under an inch. They won't win any beauty contests, but for a rough and tough hunting rifle, the Americans are darn good. I'm thinking I need a predator in 6.5 for a really good truck gun.
I have Predators in 308 and 6.5 Creed as well as a Compact in 223. I bought the 223 1st and wanted the shorter barrel. If doing it today I'd buy the Ranch rifle in 5.56. My brother has a 6.5 as well. All 4 rifles simply amaze me with the accuracy and I paid under $400 each.
I had reservations looking at the magazines. The one that came from the factory on my 223 didn't work, but Ruger made it right with one that did. I've since bought a couple of spares for each and none but the 1st have failed yet.
One of the 22's may be next.
I think it is a credit to many of the gunmakers on how well their factory rifles shoot. I just bought a tikka 243 for my son and it shoots very well with 95 BT. Ruger, tikka, howa ,savage, you can go down the list.Great accuracy, for minimum money. It used to be that if you had a factory rifle that shot an inch group,you had a real shooter. Now if one doesn't shoot under an inch,you wonder what is wrong with it.A real testament to some of the rifle makers. Kudos.
I bought a stainless American .270 cheap via Gunbroker, just to have for a loaner/beater/rain gun. Everything about it gives me the willies...from all the plastic etc. But it's light and handles nicely and works well and I find myself liking it. It would be an easy rifle to grab off the rack, as long as I wasn't trying to impress anyone that day. I am amazed how inexpensively Ruger can manufacture a rifle in the USA that works so well.
They sure ain't pretty, but they shoot, and you don't worry about using one hard.
You all are making me want one.
I traded mine in 30-06 away and replaced it with a left hand Savage to fit the grandson who shoots much better lefty, neither wins a beauty prize but they do shoot well. I did just buy the rinfire and with a Leupold 1.75-6x32 on that little 18" barrel rifle in QD mounts with the quick change length of pull it is the best darn teaching tool I've ever seen. You can start junior off with low comb short pull iron sights and in a minute or less switch to longer pull higher comb stock and glass for dad to fine tune his accuracy and all with a very crisp 2,5 lb trigger that is easily adjustable.
I think it is a credit to many of the gunmakers on how well their factory rifles shoot. I just bought a tikka 243 for my son and it shoots very well with 95 BT. Ruger, tikka, howa ,savage, you can go down the list.Great accuracy, for minimum money. It used to be that if you had a factory rifle that shot an inch group,you had a real shooter. Now if one doesn't shoot under an inch,you wonder what is wrong with it.A real testament to some of the rifle makers. Kudos.
You are a witness to progress.
I don't know how old you are, but it wasn't too long ago that people, poo pooed synthetic stocks and the increased use of polymers in non-critical areas of firearms. Not just the stock, but magazines too.
Most factory triggers were so-so (or poor) and required a trip to the gunsmith. These days, the triggers on inexpensive rifles are adjustable, albeit over a small range, but better than what was coming out of the factories not long ago.
CNC machining was a huge leap forward in rifle manufacturing.
Factory ammunition is better made.
Optics are improving.
It puts a more accurate rifle in the hands of those who either cannot afford big bux on a rifle, or do not use them enough to justify the expenditure.
Wonderful, isn't it?
My Ruger American Predator in 300 Blackout is deadly accurate. I liked it so much I bought another American in 7mm-08. It, too, is accurate beyond belief. I would not mind having another, maybe in 450 Bushmaster at some point in time.
my RARR in 300 BLK is acurate too..........
the 450 Bushy looks interesting...........
Have one in .223 and it is a tack driver... ugliest rifle I own, but shoot great.
I think it is a credit to many of the gunmakers on how well their factory rifles shoot. I just bought a tikka 243 for my son and it shoots very well with 95 BT. Ruger, tikka, howa ,savage, you can go down the list.Great accuracy, for minimum money. It used to be that if you had a factory rifle that shot an inch group,you had a real shooter. .
I agree there are good shooting rifles from the factory.
You don't have to buy butttt ugly.
Jerry
An addendum :
"Only accurate rifles are interesting. "
Interesting does not make guns or women good looking.
I also understand, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
What I think is good looking - may not necessarily be good looking to others.
Jerry
I have a lefty in 7-08. Deer and pigs hate it.
So, WHY is the RAR so accurate in so many chamberings, right off the shelf? What is the secret sauce? What did Ruger do right, while controlling costs?
I am going to guess that smart engineers used modern precision CNC and QA/QC throughout the build to produce a rifle with a stiff action, an excellent bore, a crisp trigger, proper headspace, and minimum SAAMI spec on the chamber, all controlled to extreme tolerances, with a stock that does not interfere with barrel harmonics...
but figured I would ask...
not deep enough. more engineering details please
So, WHY is the RAR so accurate in so many chamberings, right off the shelf? What is the secret sauce? What did Ruger do right, while controlling costs?
I am going to guess that smart engineers used modern precision CNC and QA/QC throughout the build to produce a rifle with a stiff action, an excellent bore, a crisp trigger, proper headspace, and minimum SAAMI spec on the chamber, all controlled to extreme tolerances, with a stock that does not interfere with barrel harmonics...
but figured I would ask...
I doubt we'll get that as a matter of course in a production rifle. If you do have one in hand it's a good bet the reamer used was on the last sharpening of its life cycle.
not deep enough. more engineering details please
Don't guess. Phone Ruger.
Dogger,
I've talked quite a bit with Mark Gurney, the product manager for Ruger, about the RAR. He said that when the project started, several Ruger people got together and discussed what features they'd like to see that would enhance accuracy but would be easy to manufacture. Many of us are familiar with those features, but Mark pointed out those he considered most pertinent, including the action bedding block, which bypassed the vagaries of "traditional" action bedding; the detachable magazine, which bypassed bedding problems possible with fixed magazines; the 3-lug bolt, which distributes pressure-forces more evenly than a 2-lug bolt; the small ejection port, which stiffens the action; and of course injection-molded stocks. (As it turned out, the first stocks were pretty floppy, which caused problems, though they usually were easily fixed with a round rasp, but within a year or two the stocks were stiffened up, preventing most problems.)
I also asked him about the barrels, not just on RAR's but all Ruger rifles, because through my bore-scope many looked so smooth they might have been lapped. He said no, they don't lap them. Instead that's just the way they come out of Ruger's hammer-forging machine--but he also pointed out that hammer-forging isn't as "automatic" as many shooters believe. First, you have to start with a decent blank, but even then practice at "feeding" the blank through the machine results in better barrels. Ruger's now been hammer-forging their barrels for around 25 years, and as Mark pointed out, their operators are now really good at it.
He did not mention "minimum SAAMI spec on the chamber," but did mention the nut-attached barrels, which are easier and quicker to headspace precisely than the traditional threading of the barrel/action. But the reamers are not minimum to start with, because initial wear would render them useless, which would cost too much money when the goal is an inexpensive rifle.
I had another conversation with Mark after buying an RAR .22 Magnum from a local store, which turned out to be the most consistently accurate .22 Magnum I've ever owned. By "consistently accurate," I mean it shoots just about any kind of ammo reasonably well, not just a 2-3 brands as so many .22 Magnums do--thoigh it also shoots a couple of brands REALLY well. I specifically asked if they were doing anything special with the chamber, and Mark said no. I then noted that an informal survey I'd done on the Campfire resulted in about 3/4 of the respondents saying their RAR shot like mine, but the other quarter said theirs tended to be standard .22 Magnum "picky about ammo." I asked Mark if he has a guess as to why some some RAR .22 magnums were like mine, and others not. He said, "Luck," meaning manufacturing variation.
I've visited Ruger's plant in Arizona and they have some of the most advanced CNC machinery available, but CNC machining itself does not guarantee absolute uniformity. It does, however, make manufacturing reasonably uniform products possible at a quicker rate, and hence less expensively.
What I got out of our conversations, both personal and e-mail, is that Ruger did everything they could in the design stage to bypass the possible accuracy problems of "traditional" 2-lug bolt action rifles, then used state-of-the-art machinery to manufacture RAR's. The rifles will still vary some, just like any other mass-manufactured product, but because of the basic design and very good barrels, they tend to be more accurate than "traditional" bolt-actions--which have basic design features that tend to prevent obtaining the finest accuracy, unless, of course, we "accurize" them.
Among the most interesting aspects of all this to me was that the RAR is essentially a rifle designed by a committee, generally regarded as a bad practice. But evidently it was a good committee, and they worked well together.
Mule Deer, Very, very interesting. I had not considered the three lug bolt, or the detachable mag, or the nut attachable barrel, but it all makes sense when it comes together. Thank you for the informative post. "Only accurate rifles are interesting"... these inexpensive and accurate rifles are going to put a hurt on traditional blue and walnut Rugers costing twice the price.
Though they have several lefty models. I keep waiting for a creedmoor and .22 mag lefty.
Though they have several lefty models. I keep waiting for a creedmoor and .22 mag lefty.
So many of us "lefty's" are waiting for both.....many of us right here on the 24hrcamfire.
Doc
Dogger,
I've talked quite a bit with Mark Gurney, the product manager for Ruger, about the RAR. He said that when the project started, several Ruger people got together and discussed what features they'd like to see that would enhance accuracy but would be easy to manufacture. Many of us are familiar with those features, but Mark pointed out those he considered most pertinent, including the action bedding block, which bypassed the vagaries of "traditional" action bedding; the detachable magazine, which bypassed bedding problems possible with fixed magazines; the 3-lug bolt, which distributes pressure-forces more evenly than a 2-lug bolt; the small ejection port, which stiffens the action; and of course injection-molded stocks. (As it turned out, the first stocks were pretty floppy, which caused problems, though they usually were easily fixed with a round rasp, but within a year or two the stocks were stiffened up, preventing most problems.)
I also asked him about the barrels, not just on RAR's but all Ruger rifles, because through my bore-scope many looked so smooth they might have been lapped. He said no, they don't lap them. Instead that's just the way they come out of Ruger's hammer-forging machine--but he also pointed out that hammer-forging isn't as "automatic" as many shooters believe. First, you have to start with a decent blank, but even then practice at "feeding" the blank through the machine results in better barrels. Ruger's now been hammer-forging their barrels for around 25 years, and as Mark pointed out, their operators are now really good at it.
He did not mention "minimum SAAMI spec on the chamber," but did mention the nut-attached barrels, which are easier and quicker to headspace precisely than the traditional threading of the barrel/action. But the reamers are not minimum to start with, because initial wear would render them useless, which would cost too much money when the goal is an inexpensive rifle.
I had another conversation with Mark after buying an RAR .22 Magnum from a local store, which turned out to be the most consistently accurate .22 Magnum I've ever owned. By "consistently accurate," I mean it shoots just about any kind of ammo reasonably well, not just a 2-3 brands as so many .22 Magnums do--thoigh it also shoots a couple of brands REALLY well. I specifically asked if they were doing anything special with the chamber, and Mark said no. I then noted that an informal survey I'd done on the Campfire resulted in about 3/4 of the respondents saying their RAR shot like mine, but the other quarter said theirs tended to be standard .22 Magnum "picky about ammo." I asked Mark if he has a guess as to why some some RAR .22 magnums were like mine, and others not. He said, "Luck," meaning manufacturing variation.
I've visited Ruger's plant in Arizona and they have some of the most advanced CNC machinery available, but CNC machining itself does not guarantee absolute uniformity. It does, however, make manufacturing reasonably uniform products possible at a quicker rate, and hence less expensively.
What I got out of our conversations, both personal and e-mail, is that Ruger did everything they could in the design stage to bypass the possible accuracy problems of "traditional" 2-lug bolt action rifles, then used state-of-the-art machinery to manufacture RAR's. The rifles will still vary some, just like any other mass-manufactured product, but because of the basic design and very good barrels, they tend to be more accurate than "traditional" bolt-actions--which have basic design features that tend to prevent obtaining the finest accuracy, unless, of course, we "accurize" them.
Among the most interesting aspects of all this to me was that the RAR is essentially a rifle designed by a committee, generally regarded as a bad practice. But evidently it was a good committee, and they worked well together.
John I don't know how you find the time to attend this forum the way that you do, but I am infinitely grateful. Thank you.
Dogger,
I've talked quite a bit with Mark Gurney, the product manager for Ruger, about the RAR. He said that when the project started, several Ruger people got together and discussed what features they'd like to see that would enhance accuracy but would be easy to manufacture. Many of us are familiar with those features, but Mark pointed out those he considered most pertinent, including the action bedding block, which bypassed the vagaries of "traditional" action bedding; the detachable magazine, which bypassed bedding problems possible with fixed magazines; the 3-lug bolt, which distributes pressure-forces more evenly than a 2-lug bolt; the small ejection port, which stiffens the action; and of course injection-molded stocks. (As it turned out, the first stocks were pretty floppy, which caused problems, though they usually were easily fixed with a round rasp, but within a year or two the stocks were stiffened up, preventing most problems.)
I also asked him about the barrels, not just on RAR's but all Ruger rifles, because through my bore-scope many looked so smooth they might have been lapped. He said no, they don't lap them. Instead that's just the way they come out of Ruger's hammer-forging machine--but he also pointed out that hammer-forging isn't as "automatic" as many shooters believe. First, you have to start with a decent blank, but even then practice at "feeding" the blank through the machine results in better barrels. Ruger's now been hammer-forging their barrels for around 25 years, and as Mark pointed out, their operators are now really good at it.
He did not mention "minimum SAAMI spec on the chamber," but did mention the nut-attached barrels, which are easier and quicker to headspace precisely than the traditional threading of the barrel/action. But the reamers are not minimum to start with, because initial wear would render them useless, which would cost too much money when the goal is an inexpensive rifle.
I had another conversation with Mark after buying an RAR .22 Magnum from a local store, which turned out to be the most consistently accurate .22 Magnum I've ever owned. By "consistently accurate," I mean it shoots just about any kind of ammo reasonably well, not just a 2-3 brands as so many .22 Magnums do--thoigh it also shoots a couple of brands REALLY well. I specifically asked if they were doing anything special with the chamber, and Mark said no. I then noted that an informal survey I'd done on the Campfire resulted in about 3/4 of the respondents saying their RAR shot like mine, but the other quarter said theirs tended to be standard .22 Magnum "picky about ammo." I asked Mark if he has a guess as to why some some RAR .22 magnums were like mine, and others not. He said, "Luck," meaning manufacturing variation.
I've visited Ruger's plant in Arizona and they have some of the most advanced CNC machinery available, but CNC machining itself does not guarantee absolute uniformity. It does, however, make manufacturing reasonably uniform products possible at a quicker rate, and hence less expensively.
What I got out of our conversations, both personal and e-mail, is that Ruger did everything they could in the design stage to bypass the possible accuracy problems of "traditional" 2-lug bolt action rifles, then used state-of-the-art machinery to manufacture RAR's. The rifles will still vary some, just like any other mass-manufactured product, but because of the basic design and very good barrels, they tend to be more accurate than "traditional" bolt-actions--which have basic design features that tend to prevent obtaining the finest accuracy, unless, of course, we "accurize" them.
Among the most interesting aspects of all this to me was that the RAR is essentially a rifle designed by a committee, generally regarded as a bad practice. But evidently it was a good committee, and they worked well together.
John I don't know how you find the time to attend this forum the way that you do, but I am infinitely grateful. Thank you.
I agree. A very interesting and informative post. Thanks John!
No doubt the the RAR and RAR Predator are inexpensive, accurate rifles. I just can't find any comfort with the stock. Some say flimsy, some say not. To me the biggest distraction is the uber slick finish, regardless of the molded in checkering. The thought has crossed my mind to buy one and drop it in a Boyd's AT-ONE stock, which looks interesting at $189 - especially with it's adjustability, and interchangeable grips and forends.
Spending almost $200 on an aftermarket stock turns a great shooting $400 rifle into a $600 rifle. I like the Rugers quite a bit, but not at $600. The stock wouldn't do a thing to improve accuracy and may well hurt it. If the stock is too slick a paint job with textured finish paint will do the job for $5.
The flimsy stock doesn't hurt a thing because they aren't bedded the same way conventional rifles are. The stock never touches the action. It is bolted to V blocks in the action. This is why I'm leery of fooling with an aftermarket stock. It can't help, and has the potential to make it less accurate. V blocks can be seen in the photos below.
Early rifles forends ends could flex enough to touch the barrel unless given a generous free float. Newer stocks are much stiffer.
Old stock
![[Linked Image]](http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m513/jmr40/002_zpsoi8gg0zm.jpg)
New stock
![[Linked Image]](http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m513/jmr40/001_zpstj37v9ja.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1129.photobucket.com/user/jmr40/media/002_zpsoi8gg0zm.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1129.photobucket.com/user/jmr40/media/001_zpstj37v9ja.jpg.html)