Rifle Accuracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

itgoesboom

member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,675
Location
By the River
Still narrowing downt the possible field of choices for my next rifle.

Currently looking at either a Remington 700 ADL synthetic, Savage 11fxp3, or a NEF handi-rifle. I am looking at either .223, .243 or .308.

How accurate are these particular rifles? Will any of the .308 versions be capable of 1MOA or under?

Thanks.

I.G.B.
 
One inch at 100 yards has been the Holy Grail for rifle owners for years. To get it, the rifle has to have all parts working together - the barrel, the action and the action squareness, the bedding, the trigger, and the cartridge load. My impression is that the barrels are much better than they have been for years, while the triggers and the bedding are worse. (This is, of course, a generality, and I understand the Savage trigger is good.)

What this typically means is that to aspire to 1 MOA, one must tweak, since out of the box accuracy such as that is rare. You do the simple things - get the trigger fixed and the action/barrel bedded - then handload cartridges that explores what the rifle's capabilities are. If it doesn't work, you move on, since action squareness and new barrels are expensive.

One MOA is still rare. My rifles are capable of it - sometimes, and with three- and sometimes five-shot groups. None of my rifles are capable of it all the time, though my new Ruger M77 MkII 6.5X55 shows considerable promise, but it won't so it with all loads either.

This isn't much help, I'm afraid, but the consistent level of accuracy you're looking for is still a crapshoot. If you want it, be prepared to buy more than one rifle until you get it. FWIW, I suspect you'll find the smaller calibers more accurate than the larger.

Jaywalker
 
A rifle tuned by a gunsmith usually can be guaranteed under 1 MOA (several gunsmiths routinely guarantee this and deliver)... assuming the action is good, the trigger is tuned and the barrel freefloated, with good optics and decent ammo and ASSUMING THE SHOOTER IS COMPETENT, 1 MOA is not that extraordinarily difficult. I shot a sandbagged Remington 700 rechambered in .30 Gibb ( a .30-06 wildcat) helping a guy zero it in and fireform brass for a long range rifle match. Five shot groups I shot were consistently (over sixty rounds) at approximately 0.75 to .90 of an inch at 100 yards and one particular group was half MOA (.50 inch) for three shots... and the round is .30 itself, so I had a very large one hole group. The rifle was in excellent condition with a 2lb trigger and a good scope, which helped a lot. I'm not a master shooter, but I do know what I'm doing with a rifle, and the piece certainly proved it's worth. Wish I owned it! :)
 
Both Jaywalker and Mr. Murphy provide good info...look up Williams
Trigger Specialties on the INET for additional info and their prices.
 
See, that's intresting, because the way alot of people are speaking of their rifles, they almost always sound as if they can do 1 MOA.

I have heard on a few occasions about a rifle out of the box shooting sub-MOA with mil-surp ammo, which I am sure there are a few rifles capable of it, but I figure thats gotta be rare.

Honestly, I am nowhere near that good of a shot, and you won't hear me claim to be either. Even when I had what was by all acounts a good accurate rifle (swedish mauser), I wasn't a great shoot. Probably not a real good shot even. Maybe average. But it would be nice to get atleast somewhere near there.

So what do you consider to be good accuracy? What could I expect, with an ordinary everyday deer rifle, ammo from your local hunting store, at 100 yards? Assuming of course that I actually got good. So lets limit this to the rifles performance.

Maybe my expecations are too high.

I.G.B.
 
If you want to shoot in matches you'd better be able to shoot consistently within 1 MOA. Some shooters are using rifles specially built for just shooting paper and they're a whole lot better than 'good'.

If you want to hunt, about all you'll need is 2-3 MOA accuracy. If you can hit a deer or a pig or a moose within 3 inches of your aiming point, it'll go down. Most good rifles are plenty capable of hunting accuracy right out of the box and some are even better. I haven't used any of them, but Remington, Savage and Winchester all make rifles that will shoot better than most of their owners can.

On these forums we all talk about various rifles, bullets, powders and "magic formulas". They're all part of the picture, but the most important part is keeping the nut behind the trigger properly adjusted.
 
"...rifle out of the box shooting sub-MOA with mil-surp ammo..." That I'd like to see. Milsurp ammo isn't made to that exacting specs. It's just not that good.
itgoesboom, what do you want to do with your next rifle? Hunt? Hunt what? Punch paper? Target shoot? What flavour of either? It makes a difference.
Unless you're looking for a reasonablely accurate 'truck' gun or you just want one, forget the NEF. The other two are comparable. Same excrement. Different pile. I just can't get excited about commercial rifles. Any of 'em. They're just rifles. Look at the CMP and buy a Garand or an 1903A3 Springfield. www.odcmp.com
Trust me. Shooting either of 'em just isn't the same as any hunting rifle. It's much better. Every time you pull the trigger you're reliving history.
 
I've owned a few well built AR 15 uppers, with float tubes. Most of them have/had Krieger barrels. They all shot sub-MOA with good ammo (even manufactured ammo like Black Hills).

I would think that the Remington or Savage should be sub-MOA with good ammo. If they're not, then you really have to question why they cost so much.

IMHO, it's trigger pull that kills most groups. Most people slap their triggers.
 
As to expectations, recall that small increments of improvements get more and more costly, so a one-inch rifle is lots more difficult than a two-inch rifle. A half-inch rifle is lots more difficult than a one-inch rifle. So, I would guess that if you were to buy a new factory rifle, you could expect two-inch groups and not be disappointed (though with some rifles you'd need to get the trigger worked on to realistically achieve that). Pay a 'smith for the trigger and bedding work and virtually all factory rifles today should be capable of 1.5 inch three-shot groups.

Continuing with different expectations for a second, how many shots do you want to go consistently into this circle? It makes a big difference. Three shot groups - probably okay. Five shot groups - 40% harder. Every additional bullet and trigger squeeze adds "risk" to your group. Mathematically, risk is "probability," and probability means the bad things will happen from time to time, so the smaller the number of shots, the smaller the chance that any given group will be afflicted.

What do you want to do with this rifle? If you plan on shooting matches, you'll certainly need the accuracy we're discussing. If you're shooting deer, you don't "need" it, but may want it anyway. No big deal - the search is part of the fun.

Probability also works for you, too, as long as you keep your attitude steady. If you want the 1 MOA rifle, you probably won't get it if you're sentimentally attached to it and give it a name. If you think of it as a tool that you trade or improve as needed, you're closer to your goal. If you just want to take a "good old friend (rifle)" hunting, that's okay too. I have one of those, and it doesn't shoot anywhere near 1 MOA.

It really depends upon your definition of "MOA." With your "1.5 inch" rifle, you can expect a certain number of sub-MOA groups (as well as a certain number of "flukes" above two inches). I suspect many of today's "MOA" rifles are those pictures or descriptions of the groups that really did go under an inch. The basic question to consider is whether "all" of the groups do it or merely just "some" of them.

Jaywalker
 
Exactly...even though the rifle may be capable of it, you may not. Someone once said any gun is more accurate than most of it's shooters and is right.


A basic deer rifle (say a Remington 700 ADL in .308) with factory ammo, say, Federal or Speer hunting loads... maybe a Barnes X bullet. At 100 yards, expect 1.5 to 2 MOA from a rest with a scope and a halfway decent shooter. This is more than enough to whack a deer, put down a terrorist, and kill paper, etc. 1MOA is the "magic" number simply because it says "Hey, they built this one good". An M16A2 is a 2-3 MOA rifle and at 300 meters I can routinely (as in every shot, or every other) score an upper body hit on a man sized target with iron sights on a popup. Most deer rifles have scopes and are more accurate than M16s in general..... so hitting a deer in the proper spot anywhere inside 300 yards doesn't require a MOA capable rifle (though it is nice) just a fairly accurate one.

Expect to spend as much on the scope as the rifle ($300-400) for a good quality scope, which makes a difference. Leupold, Burris, Nikon, IOR Valdada, various other high quality makers, etc.
 
For a hunting rifle, the most important feature to me is that the first shot from a cold barrel always goes to the same place.

My 77 Mk II Ruger got easier to group tightly after I put a Timney trigger in it. It regularly shoots 1/2 MOA (three shots) with almost any old ammo, and I haven't done any of my usual tweaking. I think it's a keeper.

I bought a Wby Mark V, long ago. No way would it meet their claim of "three shots within one inch". But, some stock tweaking and a Canjar trigger, and it became a 10-shot, 1-1/4" rifle. A few years back I used some copper-removing bore solvent and then got a 3-shot, 1/2" group. 3/4" is common. (Common for the rifle, not always so for me. :( )

I did some major stock-tweaking on a Sako .243. That got it to regular five-shot groups of 7/8" at 100 yards, AT WORST. Three-shot groups of 1/2" are common.

And I've had some rifles that never, ever could be made to get down below one MOA, but not many.

From reading some five years of comments at TFL and THR, I'd say few factory bolt-action rifles of any brand or cartridge WON'T generally get very close to one MOA for three- and maybe five-shot groups.

Still, it's that first shot that puts meat in the pot.

:), Art
 
Jaywalker, you asked:

What do you want to do with this rifle?
Click to expand...

See that's part of the dilema here. I am feeling the desire/need to add another rifle to my collection of firearms. I feel that I have the shotgun part down with one shotgun and two barrells. I feel that I have my pistols down, with a .22, a .380, a 9mm and a .357 mag.

But right now I only have a SKS.

The biggest problem, is that this rifle will have to be it for awhile. My wife who is very supportive of my hobby, would like to see us spend money on other things for awhile. No more guns for a bit. That could mean a year untill I get a much better paying job, or that could be 5-6 years.

So I am at the point where I have to decide what kind of rifle to get, anticipate my needs and desires for the future.

Part of me wants to get an AK, just because it will probably be banned again in the future, and part of me wants a nice accurate target rifle. Part of me wants to be able to go hunting with friends this year, although, honestly it would probably be next year before I would be able to make the time.

So I see the savage, remington and NEF as possibly taking care of two of my desires.

Most likely, I will be doing most of my shooting at just a hair under 100 yards, either prone, sitting or offhand.
 
I have to remind everyone that there are several definitions of "out of the box." My PSS is, in some ways, a straight factory gun. No replacement trigger, no rebarrel, etc. But I did twist the screws on the trigger, and more importantly I broke in the barrel.

The gun shot around 2.5 moa when I first grouped it straight out of the box. I have semi-recently completed the official break-in period (but still Sweets it after every range day) and its right at (or maybe a TAD under) 1 moa. And that's with quality hunting ammo. When I bother to order some Black Hills, or even start handloading, I ought to be able to squeeze a tad more out of it.

For me, 1 is a good figure. 300 yds is the longest range we have around here, and 3" groups at that range are quite dangerous-looking. Milsurp runs into 8" at 300, btw, which is around 2.5 moa, so pretty good. All my groups are 5 shots or more.

A PSS is basically just a matte-black 700 with a snipery stock, so this should hold true for any of their guns, and I suspect any quality bolt gun maker.
 
Well, a lot of us (me included) fell into this "one perfect, all-around bolt action rifle for hunting in North America" thing that the gun magazines encourage in us. Forty years ago what sold magazines was ".270 vs .30-'06." (Today's animals must be much tougher, since the gun mags are now pushing various versions of some .300 magnum for the same purposes. That's a rant for another day, however, and doesn't apply to this conversation.)

The logical fallacy in the "all-around rifle" is that we like rifles and really don't want to be limited to one for any extended period. Can you imagine a professional photographer trying to interpret the world with one camera? It'll work, but a single tool has limitations and compromises.

You sound like a guy who will have more than one rifle in the future, so why start with an "all around" that won't satisfy you for long? Instead, pick one specialty, target, hunting, AK, or whatever, that you'll be using soon and then add to it as you go along. FWIW, two years ago I bought a Bushy AR-15, but it never really sang to me, and I'm back with bolt actions - accurate, reliable, easy to clean, and non-threatening in appearance, but that's just me. YMMV, and free advice is worth just what you pay for it!

Art Eatman's comments are very good, and actually show a better level of performance than I've experienced, but he's likely a better shot and reloader than I am. I echo his experience with the Ruger M77 MkII. It's inexpensive ( I bought mine recently new for $489), probably has the best factory barrels now available, actions that are possibly improvements to the historic Winchester Pre-64 Model 70's, simplified bedding (with their angled action screw), and integral, really strong scope mounts. The only fly in the ointment is a generally bad trigger, but that disadvantage is offset by its design - cheaply and easily adjustable by a gunsmith. I think mine's a keeper, too.

Jaywalker
 
There is one other possible route... One that probably won't be much (if any) cheaper but which can be very rewarding in other ways. Besides, the cost can be spread out over time and therefore may be more palatable to the wife.

A number of people will warn you off of building your own from a surplus action. Had I heeded them I wouldn't have had all the fun I did building it and I certainly wouldn't feel the satifaction I do when I shoot a great group.

I built a good rifle from a Turkish Mauser Action, a Parker-Hale barrel, a Timney trigger, a surplus "sniper" stock and a Simmons scope on Burris rings. I've got about $350 into it and, while I know it won't measure up to a "precision" rifle, it puts most shots into a 2" diameter circle and lots of them in a 1" spot. I load my own ammo for it, which is almost as much fun as shooting it.

At 70 years old, I don't imagine my chance of shooting terrorists or UN occupiers is very good, but it's nice to know I have the proper tools for the job and could pass them on to someone else. My hunting is pretty much confined to finding a comfortable place on the firing line these days so, in effect, I just shoot to make sure I can still do it. With a little luck, you'll be there too someday.
 
Thanks again for all of the comments. You guys actually really are helping me here.

Jaywalker,

You kinda hit a note with the thing about a pro photographer, simpy because I am a pro photographer. That's mainly the reason why I can't afford more firearms, the cost of doing business as a photographer is outrageous.

Oldfart,

That sounds like a nice rifle. I actually had purchased a couple of milsurps a few years ago, with the intention of restoring them, but I found that I am not that handy with that kind of work, and with the cost of the ammo for them (.303 and 6.5 swede) I almost never shot them.

I also would love to learn to reload, but that is something thats going to have to wait unfortunatly.

I guess what I am really after is the "beware the man with one gun" thing. I want to learn my rifle, and become a very good shot. Kinda what I did when I started in photography, 1 camera, 1 lens 1 type of film in one type of developer.....etc etc.

Realistically, I could always use my SKS for deer hunting, I know several people around here who use .44mag and 30-30s and the 7.62x39 round is at least that good under 150yards.

And quite honestly, I have no illusions about taking out terrorists, a) they haven't exactly been using tactics that allow us to use small arms to defend ourselves, and b) if they did, quite unlikely that a rifle would be around.

So it's more a pride than thing and enjoyment more than anything else. Enjoyment in shooting, and taking pride in being a good shot.

I.G.B.
 
Well, very few of us need all the firearms we do have. Which one do you want? At the very least., we can help you rationalize it! :cool:

Jaywalker
 
Well, very few of us need all the firearms we do have. Which one do you want? At the very least., we can help you rationalize it!
Click to expand...

Rationalizing it isn't really the main problem, it's paying for it. And believe me when I say that I am going to be paying for it. Not only at the shop, but with my wife. :what:

I am really leaning towards a bolt action now or the NEF survivor, probably going to go .223.

I could get a NEF survivor HB .223, and a leupold or nikon scope for my budget.
I could get a Savage 11fxp3, shoot it till the scope breaks, while saving up for a better scope.
I could get a Savage 10fpl3, not shoot it for 5 months while I save for a scope,
I could get a Savage 12bvss, not shoot it and wait 6-7 months for a scope (but it would be sweet!!!!!)
I could get a Weatherby vanguard, and get a scope after 2-3 months.

So it's a tough choice. The NEF and Vanguard seem the logical explanation, but they are 1 in 12" twist, so that doesn't make me happy. (even though I know I have no need, I would still prefer a rifle that could handle atleast 62gr bullets.)

Either way, any of these rifles would probably be pretty good for coyote hunting (something I would like to try).

So, I don't know.

I.G.B.
 
You know....... rifles come with iron sights (generally)...

I hit a truck sized target at 950 or so meters 20 times in a row with only 2 ranging shots with my Lee-Enfield using the issue iron sights..... for a nonmoving paper target at 100 yards, you'll be fine with irons until you get a scope!
 
itgoesboom: You've received many cautious, conservative comments on accuracy, which is great. Still, I bought a Savage after hearing about a zillion folks crow about the out-of-box accuracy of theirs. Mine is a stainless package .223, with a $25 trigger job and a better scope. True to all the comments I'd heard, but even better, it turned out to be consistent 1/2 MOA shooter -- with numerous groupings 1/3" to 1/4." For the money, I think a Savage is about as close as you can come to being assured stellar accuracy.
 
I don't know anything about NEF rifles, but I've come to just expect my modern bolt actions to shoot under an inch. My Vanguard in .270 and Rem 700 in .308 will shoot under .75 groups pretty much all the time, and usually under .50. That's with reloads, but good quality ammo will do very well, too. Hunting ammo will not be as accurate as match ammo, so of the three rounds you suggested in your first post I'd suggest the .308 or the .223. And yes, the .308 is easily capable of 1 MOA groups. The limiting factor will be you, not the gun, for a long while.;)
 
Thanks again guys.

I figure it will take me a good long time to get to the point where I am as accurate as my rifle, but when I get there, I want it to be as accurate as possible.

After thinking about it more, I have pretty much elimanated the NEF, and probably wouldn't go for the Vanguard in .223 either.

Savage will probably be the company that gets my money in the long run, although I do like the Weatherby Vanguard as well. Might be an option if I go .308.

So I just need to decide if I want a HB varmint style rifle, or a lightweight hunting rifle, and between .223 or .308. I wish I could afford to get setup reloading, then I would go for the .308, but thats not going to happen for awhile either.

Probably end up going for the heavy bbl in end just to upset the anti's. :neener:

That will probably change though before I purchase the rifle, in about 2 months.

Thanks again guys.

I.G.B.
 
Add-on to Art's comment about the first shot going into the same place...

One gunwriter (Petzel?) wrote about a friend who would take a target to the range and shoot it ONCE from a cold barrel.

Then next time he was at the range, he would hang the same target and shoot it ONCE again.

After the 10th range trip, he had 10, 1-shot groups that gave him a pretty clear picture of how much variation there was in that first shot from a cold barrel.

I think its a great idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
308 Rifles?
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
zammyman
Z
J
  • Locked
best bang for the buck
Replies
7
Views
1K
Sisco
S
I
  • Locked
Help with scope decision.
Replies
10
Views
847
glock 21
G
M
  • Locked
First Bolt Action Rifle
Replies
17
Views
1K
tbige
T
A
  • Locked
Savage 11F vs. Remington 700 ADL
Replies
5
Views
631
Cueball
C
Back
Top