Cheapest 1/2 MOA .308

AAAAAHHHH, .5 moa ? That has a lot to do with the nut behind the stock. There are a lot of bolt guns on the market now that will do that with a Nikon or Bushnell 3x9

I agree. Even a $300 rifle might have that type of potential with a scope of half that price.

There ain't one.

Any manufacturere will put out a rifle that is capable of occasional .5 moa groups. If you want a consistant .5 moa rifle you are gonna spend some money.

Not sure why you need a .5 moa rifle becasue if you had the ability to shoot it that well you would already know the answer.

I agree. Even a $300 rifle might have that type of potential with a scope of half that price.

Click to expand...

Let us know when you find that $450 half-minute rig.
We won't even count the cost of the rings or the bases in the total cost.

100 yards
Two targets
5 shots each target
Each target fired one right after the other
5-shot groups must measure no more than half-inch, center-to-center

Yeah, I want to see that.

Going to 0.5 MOA raises the bar considerably. There are a lot of fairly cheap rifles out there that can deliver consistent groups less than 1 MOA. I venture to say that a $300 Stevens with a $150 Nitrex (at Natchez while they last folks) will shoot less than 1" all day long. A couple years ago I would say the same about a Marlin XS7. And there are other fairly cheap rifles like Tikka, Weatherby Vanguard, TC Venture that will all give less than 1 MOA with a suitable handload.

But the question is 0.5 MOA. That's different territory for sure. And not just everybody can take a great half minute rifle and start shooting half inch groups. It takes a lot of practice to shoot those kinds of groups every time.

Most "accuracy problems" with rifles are user induced, as are .5 moa groups. "What is the CHEAPEST .5 moa rifle" is just such an odd question.

Btw to answer your question... Probably a Remington 770

bjs1187 said:

All of you are right. I'm not capable of 1/2 MOA accuracy. And I'm not going to be able to spend $1000 this year it doesn't look like. The reason then that I want something that shoots that way, is that in my experience with other things, it is easier to learn to do something with a good tool, than a poor one. .5 MOA is just something that I came up with for the sake of it. Also, and yes I would like to compete someday. Probably not in the couple of years though.

Click to expand...

You are probably gonna have to spend a good bit more than 1k to get a true .5 moa rifle. If I was in the market for a .5 moa rifle I would be looking at Surgeon rifles or a comparable maker. If you want a true .5 moa rifle you are looking at spending a few grand on the rifle.

There ain't one.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've owned over one hundred bolt action rifles during my lifetime and the only two factory guns that shot .5 MOA were Remington 40X's. I spend a lot of time at the local club with some highly accomplished riflemen and never saw anyone constantly shoot .5" groups with any factory, sporting weight rifle. The greatest group shrinking device known to man seems to be a computer keyboard.

lets not forget load development. Shooters often spend a lot of time and money fine tuning the right combination of brass, bullet, powder, case OAL, bullet seating depth...and the list goes on.

A .5 MOA shooter with factory ammo?..that' s a special rifle and rifleman.

RickMD said:

The greatest group shrinking device known to man seems to be a computer keyboard.

Click to expand...

Well said my friend.

Its not the arrow, its the indian.

That said, taking the time to develop a handload a given rifle likes can make half-MOA groups substantially more likely from a factory rifle...cuz you ain't gonna do it with green-box Rem or silver-box Win soft points.

remington police sniper.

Doesn't Wilson come with a .5 MOA guarantee? Also, if you are willing to deal with 3/4 MOA, RRA's float tube models all come with a 3/4 MOA guarantee.

probably a savage. they make a very accurate gun.

when I was looking at the savage axis a bit I found a couple of gun mag type tests where they were getting under 3/4 inch groups. that's both accurate and about the cheapest rifle I can think of.

optics wise, redfield and vortex are good vaues. I have a 6-20 nitrex, and the glass is good, but the eye relief and position are not. if I was going to get a high powered scope on teh cheap I'd look for the simmons whitetail midway puts on for around 100 bucks. they might even still have the $20 rebate on those.

W.E.G. said:

Let us know when you find that $450 half-minute rig.
We won't even count the cost of the rings or the bases in the total cost.

100 yards
Two targets
5 shots each target
Each target fired one right after the other
5-shot groups must measure no more than half-inch, center-to-center

Yeah, I want to see that.

Click to expand...

not a .308 but....there you gohttp://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=QPlWTuDWL6bc0QG-xtXADA&ved=0CEQQ8wIwAA#

If you believe what is posted on the net nearly every model of rifle shoots .5" for someone. .5" is asking A lot.

Remington SPS / police.
Savage 110 Police.

Scopes, it depends if you want mils or you want bullet drop/comp.
Not so expensive scopes.. don't like cheap ones....

Burris Fulfield/others
Redfield (made by leupold here in the USA!)

Vortex Viper
Nikon Monarch (others might do too)

If you want to get dirt cheap then get a mossberg 4x4 with a burris timberline scope. Will not do the above but will not be too far behind.

group size claims are like fish stories..
"It was THIS big" ..LOL

I have a savage I got for about 300 bucks. While I've had it I put several different barrels on it, all could agg .5" at 100 yards with hand loads. The gun now has a shilen barrel that can typ. do .5 MOA at 600 yards with only 500 dollars in the gun.

I agree with the Savage. Have one in .223 and it can do under 1 MOA when I do my part with factory ammo. .5 MOA? I HAVE done it, but certainly not on a regular basis.

Best potential for the least money would probably be a Savage action with an aftermarket barrel. The optics don't have to be spectacular, only consistent. The role of the rings and bases are, IMO, greatly overstated. They need to be straight and hold the scope solidly. Neither of those requirements are cosmic or cost a ton of money to do right.