Cooper Firearms of Montana

[HowieG]

Who has a Cooper and what do you think about it?

I bought a 22-250 M54 Classic back in 2011. Nice looking rifle. I bought it for a coyote gun. It has a long magazine and a long throat, but a slow twist (1 in 14). Kind of hard to find bullets that I can seat out near the rifling and still have them stabilize good.

I had to send it back pretty soon after I bought it because it would eject the empty case right up into the bottom of the scope where it would bounce off right back into the rifle. Cooper changed the ejector spring to fix that.

The rifle likes Sierra bullets and hates Hornady VMax. Does okay at my altitude with the 50 grain Barnes TTSX.

I don't think much of their "3 rounds" accuracy guarantee either, but they aren't the only ones doing that. 3 rounds isn't statistically significant. Give me a 5 under an inch. If you really want to impress me, give me 10 under an inch.

View attachment 960229
Both of these groups are 3/4" center to center

 

[GooseGestapo]

I had a good friend that had two.
A rimfire that was ok. No more accurate than my CZ452 American however.

He had a M24 (IIRC) in .25/06.
It had similar issues to yours. After sending it back to Cooper, they sent it back with a target demonstrating it met their accuracy standard. Problem was, we couldn’t replicate it. That is till he showed me the original factory target. It plainly had printed on the bottom of the target that it was fired at 40yards! Not 100yds.

He had David Sams true the action (needed it). Set back the barrel, clean up the threads, recut chamber and throat, recrown the muzzle. Rebedded the barrel/action.

It would then shoot 5-shots under 1/2” at 100yds with 52.5gr of IMR4350 under a Sierra 100gr MatchKing bullet a 3.250”oal at which point the bullets just did touch the rifling...
This was in the late ‘90’s while Cooper still owned the company. It has since sold...

My Remington M700ADL .22-250 likes that same load (@39.0Gr however). But it shoots bug holes (.3’s-.4’s). It’s also ambivalent about Hornady bullets. Especially the 60gr Vmax that hit the target sideways, if it hits at all. It too has a1/14” twist. It even shoots the 63gr Sierra SMP under 1”. It uses 35gr of H380.

I met Dan Cooper once. Likeable fellow. Good salesman. We even discussed having shot Pdogs at same field near Big Sandy, MT. I couldn’t bring myself to spend the $$$$ to buy a rifle. I would like to have had him build me a .22Cooper. (cf .22WRM).
He did build some beautiful rifles.

 

[HowieG]

I had a good friend that had two.
A rimfire that was ok. No more accurate than my CZ452 American however.

He had a M24 (IIRC) in .25/06.
It had similar issues to yours. After sending it back to Cooper, they sent a target demonstrating it met their accuracy standard. Problem was, we couldn’t replicate it. The is till he showed me the original factory target. It plainly had printed on the bottom of the target that it was fired at 40yards! Not 100yds.

He had David Sams true the action (needed it). Set back the barrel, clean up the threads, recut chamber and throat, recrown the muzzle.

It would then shoot 5-shots under 1/2” at 100yds with 52.5gr of IMR4350 under a Sierra 100gr MatchKing bullet a 3.250”oal at which point the bullets just did touch the rifling...
This was in the late ‘90’s while Cooper still owned the company. It has since sold...

My Remington M700ADL likes that same load (@39.0Gr however). But it shoots bug holes (.3’s-.4’s). It’s also ambivalent about Hornady bullets. Especially the 60gr Vmax that hit the target sideways, if it hits at all. It too has a1/14” twist. It even shoots the 63gr Sierra SMP under 1”. It uses 35gr of H380.

I cleaned up my crown a little. My bolt would stiffen up if I ran the loads up towards max until I ran a flex hone into the chamber. Simple stuff, but stuff that shouldn't need done on a rifle costing over 2 grand today. I am at 4900 feet and the SMP works fine for me too, but I am not sure I would try it at sea level. I haven't tried the the 60 vmax because I know it won't work.

 

[horsemen61]

Man I want one!

 

[Hookeye]

Had the hots for one back in the early 90s.
All single shots then.
Wanted the then new .25-06

If a deal comes along I still might.

 

[Legionnaire]

I've owned a couple of Coopers over the years.

I had a 54 Phoenix in .243 that was a great shooter, but heavy for the cartridge. I sold it when I built a .243 Ackley.
Had a 54 Excalibur in .260 Rem that was really sweet, but sold it pay for a custom 700 Ti in .260 Ackley.
The most recent to head on down the road was a 52 Classic in .280 Ackley; fine rifle, but heavier than I wanted and for a walnut stock the wood was meh.

Can't get them out of my system though. Picked up another a couple months ago; a 52 Excalibur in .280 Ackley. Work and other projects have kept me from shooting it yet. If it shoots as good as the others, I think this one will be a keeper.

 

[mshootnit]

Who has a Cooper and what do you think about it?

I bought a 22-250 M54 Classic back in 2011. Nice looking rifle. I bought it for a coyote gun. It has a long magazine and a long throat, but a slow twist (1 in 14). Kind of hard to find bullets that I can seat out near the rifling and still have them stabilize good.

I had to send it back pretty soon after I bought it because it would eject the empty case right up into the bottom of the scope where it would bounce off right back into the rifle. Cooper changed the ejector spring to fix that.

The rifle likes Sierra bullets and hates Hornady VMax. Does okay at my altitude with the 50 grain Barnes TTSX.

I don't think much of their "3 rounds" accuracy guarantee either, but they aren't the only ones doing that. 3 rounds isn't statistically significant. Give me a 5 under an inch. If you really want to impress me, give me 10 under an inch.

View attachment 960229
Both of these groups are 3/4" center to center

Which one do you think has a higher correlation with rifles who can group 10 shots inside an inch at 100 yds, rifles who can put the first three shots under 1" or ones that can not?

If you were in the biz would you spend the time and money to test fire production rifles to see if they can put 10 shots inside 1" at 100 yds? How many would get out the door? 5%?

 

[Varminterror]

3 rounds isn't statistically significant. Give me a 5 under an inch.

Is 5 rounds statistically significant?

 

[HowieG]

Is 5 rounds statistically significant?

The qualified answer would be yes, if you proof test by shooting several 5 round groups. Attached is a PDF discussing that very issue. Caution, math and science is involved. You will note at the end of this, a correction factor was developed to allow you to evaluate the accuracy of a rifle based on the number of shots in your groups. For instance, if you use a 3 round group, your correction factor is 1.158. If you fire a number of 3 round groups, you can multiply the average group size of those groups by the correction factor and see how your rifle stacks up to a 1 MOA rifle. You will not that the correction factor gets smaller as the number of shots in a group increases. Also note that a 4 round group comes the closest to a correction factor of 1, so you can basically skip applying the correction factor if you fire a number of 4 round groups and get the average. The author of this paper says he personally uses 4 groups of 5 shots to proof his loads.

Be ADVISED that I did NOT write this paper, although I do think it is intriguing and do use it to evaluate what I have going on. As I stated above, the PDF is attached, but the link to that PDF is here: http://the-long-family.com/Group size statistical analysis.pdf

 

[Varminterror]

Unfortunately, Matlab has never fired any round from any of my rifles....

 

[HowieG]

Unfortunately, Matlab has never fired any round from any of my rifles....

Lol, yep. The model simulated 100,000 shots out of a 1 MOA rifle. I don't have enough years left to actually fire 100K rounds while actually concentrating on a point target. Plus I would go through maybe 20 barrels in process so any actual firing test would be irrelevant. The point as I see it was to develop correction factors based on the performance of a theoretically perfect 1 MOA rifle. I used this paper to develop my own standards which vary depending on conditions, the test rifle, and how I feel that particular session. I do my testing now based on how much powder I want to burn and how much recoil I can handle if the cartridge is on the vicious side of the fence. I may fire 10 straight at one target, or 20, and then apply the correction factor for evaluation. Or, if the cartridge is huge, I might fire 3 groups of 3 shots. Depends.

Anymore, I try to get where I am going with the smallest amount of rare, expensive powder burned.

 

[HowieG]

Had the hots for one back in the early 90s.
All single shots then.
Wanted the then new .25-06

If a deal comes along I still might.

These things are getting more expensive every year. The M54 Classic costs several thousand more now than I paid back in 2011.

 

[HowieG]

Man I want one!

Save your allowance. I paid for mine using hazard pay when I was in Iraq. I couldn't justify it to myself now though.

 

[HowieG]

I've owned a couple of Coopers over the years.

I had a 54 Phoenix in .243 that was a great shooter, but heavy for the cartridge. I sold it when I built a .243 Ackley.
Had a 54 Excalibur in .260 Rem that was really sweet, but sold it pay for a custom 700 Ti in .260 Ackley.
The most recent to head on down the road was a 52 Classic in .280 Ackley; fine rifle, but heavier than I wanted and for a walnut stock the wood was meh.

Can't get them out of my system though. Picked up another a couple months ago; a 52 Excalibur in .280 Ackley. Work and other projects have kept me from shooting it yet. If it shoots as good as the others, I think this one will be a keeper.

A lot of rifles shoot really well this day and age. I like Cooper rifles and others like them for esthetic reasons. They just make me feel good. And I like walnut. I am not big on synthetics though I do see their advantages.

 

[HowieG]

Which one do you think has a higher correlation with rifles who can group 10 shots inside an inch at 100 yds, rifles who can put the first three shots under 1" or ones that can not?

If you were in the biz would you spend the time and money to test fire production rifles to see if they can put 10 shots inside 1" at 100 yds? How many would get out the door? 5%?

I think a big game rifle that can put the first 3 shots under an inch is good to go for it's job. A varmint rifle that does the same thing might not be good to go if the target is small. At prairie dogs, you are always firing more than 3 shots. I think a rifle that puts 10 shots in 1.5 inches on average is a 1 MOA rifle based on the statistical analysis I have provided elsewhere in the thread. A rifle that put's 10 in an inch repeatedly would be a 2/3rds MOA rifle by the same analysis. I think that such a rifle would shoot better than me at the present time. The more rounds I fire, the more chance I have of screwing it up.

 

[LoonWulf]

A Wester Classic in 7mm Remington Magnum is my end game rifle I think....unless I find something else as attractive.
I want some changes to the options, and will probably have to put off a vehicle upgraded to pay for it........but I've wanted one of those since I saw a G&A article about them back in highschool. I figure ill probably buy one in the next 5-10 years.

 

[HowieG]

A Wester Classic in 7mm Remington Magnum is my end game rifle I think....unless I find something else as attractive.
I want some changes to the options, and will probably have to put off a vehicle upgraded to pay for it........but I've wanted one of those since I saw a G&A article about them back in highschool. I figure ill probably buy one in the next 5-10 years.

That is a good schedule. Might as well make darned sure you get the particulars right before you pull the trigger.

 

[LoonWulf]

That is a good schedule. Might as well make darned sure you get the particulars right before you pull the trigger.

Ive gone thru a few guns and cartridges to just get down the few things I know I want lol. Figure IF i can afford one of those 52s, ill have probably figured out the rest of it, and quit buying stuff just cause it looks interesting.....Course, it will probably also be at a point where i decide how much I like/dislike doing mechanic work....

 

[HowieG]

Ive gone thru a few guns and cartridges to just get down the few things I know I want lol. Figure IF i can afford one of those 52s, ill have probably figured out the rest of it, and quit buying stuff just cause it looks interesting.....Course, it will probably also be at a point where i decide how much I like/dislike doing mechanic work....

I am already there. I doubt I will ever touch another helicopter. Of course, I am forced to work on vehicles/RV because I have five and somebody has to do it. I don't have that many good years left. Time to quit accumulating and trim up a bit. I might still buy an air rifle....in the next 5 or 10 years, lol.

 

[Bill M.]

For my featherweight 5 rounds is too many and it heats up. It puts 3 right together. Two or 3 shot groups are statistically significant if you do enough of them. Once when I had more range time I did some 1 shot groups. First shot from a cold barrel on a target and then keep that target for the next time. A 10 shot group like that over 10 range trips tells you where the rifle is going to shoot when it counts. But yes, a heavy barreled .22 ought to shoot nice 5 shot groups too.

 

[HowieG]

For my featherweight 5 rounds is too many and it heats up. It puts 3 right together. Two or 3 shot groups are statistically significant if you do enough of them. Once when I had more range time I did some 1 shot groups. First shot from a cold barrel on a target and then keep that target for the next time. A 10 shot group like that over 10 range trips tells you where the rifle is going to shoot when it counts. But yes, a heavy barreled .22 ought to shoot nice 5 shot groups too.

I know my Cooper sporter weight barrel definitely changes POI if I hang a Magneto Speed bayonet on it. Other than that, it will do five rounds without a hitch. I don't let my barrels get super hot anyway. If it gets where laying a hand on it is uncomfortable, I let it cool.

Boy, that 10 shots over ten trips thing would get old if you only had one rifle to test.

 

[mshootnit]

Seems like there is always a muddling of these two:
1. Hunters who are out to set hunting zero and get a general idea of the accuracy of their outfit (three shot groups with cold barrel for each shot are appropriate.)

2. Social or Competitive target shooters who are out to prove the absolute accuracy of their outfit, and who are actually affirming their own bench shooting skills. (10 shot groups with a minute or two between shots are appropriate.)

 

[HowieG]

Seems like there is always a muddling of these two:
1. Hunters who are out to set hunting zero and get a general idea of the accuracy of their outfit (three shot groups with cold barrel for each shot are appropriate.)

2. Social or Competitive target shooters who are out to prove the absolute accuracy of their outfit, and who are actually affirming their own bench shooting skills. (10 shot groups with a minute or two between shots are appropriate.)

I am in group 2. I like piddling with match handloads and I like taking a gun out that might not shoot so good and try to make it right. I know some group 1A types who kind of zero their rifles and don't fire them again for years unless they take them out to hunt. The crooked scope hit a pie plate at 100 yards types.

A group 1A friend of mine made a comment to me about taking up handloading. I told him to just buy a box of 20 rounds and it would probably last him 10 years.

 

[CraigC]

People kill me with this nonsense about groups. Whether it's an average of three, three shot groups or ten is irrelevant. For one thing, context is critical. If we're discussing benchrest rifles, then more is obviously better. However, this discussion is about hunting rifles. How relevant is whatever someone thinks they can discern between three shot groups and five or ten? Does a tenth of an inch really matter in the field? We all make fun of the "crooked scope hit a pie plate at 100 yards types" but there's something to be said for folks who don't obsess about foolishness.

If I shoot three shot groups out of rifles (five for handguns), it's for a multitude of reasons. First being that I hate punching paper. Load development is not something that excites me. Three shot groups save bullets, time and effort. All of which cost money. If I can't learn what I need to know in an average of three or more three shot groups, five won't tell me any more and ten certainly won't either.

Lastly, I'd hate to know I had a Cooper rifle, which is basically a factory custom and all I could obsess about was that it shot 3/4" five-shot groups instead of a half inch for three shots. There's a whole lot more to a custom or semi-custom rifle than group size. I'm not going to be sitting in the woods with my $3000 custom flintlock obsessing because my $500 Lyman shoots 1/8" smaller groups. To me, this is akin to buying your daily driver strictly according to 0-60 times. Sorry, I guess I'm feeling "ranty".

 

[HowieG]

People kill me with this nonsense about groups. Whether it's an average of three, three shot groups or ten is irrelevant. For one thing, context is critical. If we're discussing benchrest rifles, then more is obviously better. However, this discussion is about hunting rifles. How relevant is whatever someone thinks they can discern between three shot groups and five or ten? Does a tenth of an inch really matter in the field? We all make fun of the "crooked scope hit a pie plate at 100 yards types" but there's something to be said for folks who don't obsess about foolishness.

If I shoot three shot groups out of rifles (five for handguns), it's for a multitude of reasons. First being that I hate punching paper. Load development is not something that excites me. Three shot groups save bullets, time and effort. All of which cost money. If I can't learn what I need to know in an average of three or more three shot groups, five won't tell me any more and ten certainly won't either.

Lastly, I'd hate to know I had a Cooper rifle, which is basically a factory custom and all I could obsess about was that it shot 3/4" five-shot groups instead of a half inch for three shots. There's a whole lot more to a custom or semi-custom rifle than group size. I'm not going to be sitting in the woods with my $3000 custom flintlock obsessing because my $500 Lyman shoots 1/8" smaller groups. To me, this is akin to buying your daily driver strictly according to 0-60 times. Sorry, I guess I'm feeling "ranty".

Lol. I like more shots because I do have a long range rifle and a big expensive scope and I am interested in things like Extreme Spread and Standard Deviation. To get that data, more shots is better. Sure, you can sight in with three. Or less if you are lucky. I don't collect all of this data on my lever 32-20 with open sights because it isn't necessary. I certainly don't measure group sizes for muzzle loaders. Yes, I certainly would like to have a $3000 dollar custom flintlock. I bet most of us would. Make my curly or tiger maple please. It's what ever makes you happy, brother that counts. If ranting makes you happy, go right on ahead and I will read it and give you a like.