So you bought a new “less than MOA” rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcb said:
Going from decent quality factor to high dollar custom will have very little impact on a new shooters ability to learn the fundamentals IMHO. For that mater the best thing to learn the fundamentals on IMHO is a 22LR at relatively close range. You can learn the fundamentals of sight picture, trigger control, and all the various shooting positions and do with with minimal investment in hardware.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree about better equipment, even for new shooters. Go back and look at Taliv’s post about very young, new to the sport shooters getting consistent hits at 600 yards.

I have an extremely accurate .22 CZ 453 with higher end Leupold VX3 4-14. It has a single set trigger that is extremely crisp and breaks well under a pound when set. I had multiple kids in the 8 to 12 y.o. range getting nearly 100% hits on a 2” steel at 100 yards off a very steady bench and good rests and bags.
 
hq said:
:what:

...as great long range cartridge .270 is, several hundred of yards is borderline indirect fire in my book.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that a .270 Winchester cartridge is not good for 200 yards? On a deer sized animal? The rifle is sighted zero at 200 yards! And it will hit dead freaking middle of bullseye every shot. Geez, if I cannot ethically take a deer with a .270 Win at 200 yards or even to 400 yards then something has changed that I am not aware of? When I said "several" I meant more than one (hundred yards) but I did not define an outer limit, that is true, but I would not have taken from that I would be shooting 1,000 yards. I would have taken from my statement of "several" as a range appropriate to the .270 Winchester.

This will make it even more funner, the Ruger M77 wears a Westernfield scope in 3X9 purchased circa 1964 by my mother when my father was the Montgomery Wards store manager and of course there was some little employee discount I imagine. He drooled over it for months and it sat there for months because it was expensive (to them) and my mother bought it for him as a birthday gift. I went along on the mission at my mothers request to point out the specific one he wanted. At 12yo I was pretty sure I knew which one he wanted, the most expensive one! It was moved to the Ruger circa 1984 when the sporterized Argentine Mauser it had been on was then retired from service.

The Westernfield replaced a Weaver K3 that was moved atop this Marlin 336 some years later, 100 yards:

IMG-4152.jpg

I could have sworn I have taken a few deer at two hundred plus yards with the 336 but I guess I did not. Is it MOA, hmmm, looks it.
 
Last edited:
redneck2 said:
I respectfully disagree about better equipment, even for new shooters. Go back and look at Taliv’s post about very young, new to the sport shooters getting consistent hits at 600 yards.

I have an extremely accurate .22 CZ 453 with higher end Leupold VX3 4-14. It has a single set trigger that is extremely crisp and breaks well under a pound when set. I had multiple kids in the 8 to 12 y.o. range getting nearly 100% hits on a 2” steel at 100 yards off a very steady bench and good rests and bags.
Click to expand...

JMHO but you don't teach a new driver in a Corvette. You don't teach a new pilot in an F-22. Can you? sure, but it will be a long time before they can realize the benefits of the expensive hardware and you can learn all the basics just as well in a Civic, or a Cessna 172, or with a 10/22.

I learned to shoot with a Winchester Model 62 pump 22LR at age four (nearly five) shooting old bottles at ~20 feet. I learned all the fundamentals right there with no expensive equipment and I don't think I would have learned any faster with an custom rifle at longer ranges. I know have rifles that will shoot 1000 yards and I have the skills now to appreciate what it takes (both skill and equipment) to get hits at 1000 yards and not from a bench but from more practical shooting position built and executed under the pressure of a clock. But I didn't build those skills with that rifle, I learned the skills with cheaper guns at shorter ranges and worked up to what I currently have.

This, Indian is more important than the arrow/bow, become even more apparent the more practical the shooting setting is. I love it when you get a new shooter show up to a USPSA match with a brand new super expensive Limited or Open rig and they still get beat by the veteran competitors running a Single Stack or a Revolver.
 
mcb said:
This, Indian is more important than the arrow/bow, become even more apparent the more practical the shooting setting is. I love it when you get a new shooter show up to a USPSA match with a brand new super expensive Limited or Open rig and they still get beat by the veteran competitors running a Single Stack or a Revolver.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
My deer rifle for the past few years has been my Tikka T3 Hunter (wood stock) chambered in .30-06. Last year's deer was a whitetail doe standing near broadside at about 70 yards. Easily within point-blank range of the 200 yard zero on the 165 grain Speer Hot Core bullets.
The year before was an older 5x5 mulie buck at 244 yards (ranged), also within the point-blank range. (Point-blank being defined as striking within the kill zone of a deer with a dead-on hold to the center of the killzone.)
Though the area we hunt is mostly wide open, rolling prairie, a shot beyond 300 yards is unusual. Under most circumstances, the deer see you long before you see them out there. The chance of a longer shot exists, but is rarely necessary. Patience is a virtue, believe it or not.
 
When I worked at the LGS, we had a relatively new shooter at our indoor range that couldn’t keep his shots on a full size silhouette at 7 yards. It was bad. He was shooting his new semi auto that had a really, really bad trigger. Long, gritty, extremely heavy pull.

I let him shoot my Roger Bisley that had the trigger reworked. He was holding 2-4” groups

If your equipment is only capable of 10” groups, the best you’re going to shoot is 10” groups. Seems simple

Go back and read posts 15 and 30. Then read them again.
 
Last edited:
My Steyr came w a 1 MOA guarantee.
.30-06 Looks like it does it w one factory load, non premium.
May do better w other.

My 700 is for varmints, .243...........it is sub MOA.

35 rem is about 1.5 MOA. No worries.

These all w factory ammo. Good enough I see no reason to reload.
If I was shooting chucks I'd handload. But I don't shoot enough yotes to warrant reloading.
 
3Crows said:
So you are saying that a .270 Winchester cartridge is not good for 200 yards?
Click to expand...
No, I am not, as should be quite apparent as my post states. The speculation of what "several" means was left open as I clearly stated.

Several = two? Even though one of the definitions of the word in Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines it "more than one", I'm far more accustomed to the other two, ie. "more than two but fewer than many" and the dialectal definition of "being a great many".

Not trying to split hairs here, but if I can put two or maybe three consecutive shots in the 8-ring of a standard, moving 12mph/110yd moose track target with a bolt action magnum in the sanctioned timeframe of 4.3 seconds, I'd be more than hesitant to call that "several" shots without risking to sound like I'd be presenting myself as a machine gunner, the long lost twin brother of late Tom Knapp or a darn liar. I rather say two. Or three.

If you catch my drift. :)
 
We are talking two entirely separate issues. When commenting on the accuracy “capability” of a firearm, the shooter should not come into the equation. Because it’s not a constant. Testing a guns accuracy should be done in the most stable condition possible. Lead sled, ransom rest, etc. THAT is testing the firearm’s accuracy. Including the user, it becomes about their accuracy potential... not the gun’s.

Everyone is arguing the same basic thing. Just saying it in two different ways. Mostly because so many people on public forums just want to argue .

The shooter has NOTHING to do with a firearms accuracy potential. Only the accuracy at that specific point. Anyone who says different is Vin Diesel in Fast & Furious saying the driver is the only thing that matters! LOL!
 
My fifty years of shooting tells me that you need decent gear and at least a fundamental understanding of what you are doing. I see great shooters and horrible shooters at the range all the time - the only thing they have in common is a firearm in their hands - their results are subject to gear and ability.
 
mcb said:
JMHO but you don't teach a new driver in a Corvette. You don't teach a new pilot in an F-22. Can you? sure, but it will be a long time before they can realize the benefits of the expensive hardware and you can learn all the basics just as well in a Civic, or a Cessna 172, or with a 10/22.

I learned to shoot with a Winchester Model 62 pump 22LR at age four (nearly five) shooting old bottles at ~20 feet. I learned all the fundamentals right there with no expensive equipment and I don't think I would have learned any faster with an custom rifle at longer ranges. I know have rifles that will shoot 1000 yards and I have the skills now to appreciate what it takes (both skill and equipment) to get hits at 1000 yards and not from a bench but from more practical shooting position built and executed under the pressure of a clock. But I didn't build those skills with that rifle, I learned the skills with cheaper guns at shorter ranges and worked up to what I currently have.

This, Indian is more important than the arrow/bow, become even more apparent the more practical the shooting setting is. I love it when you get a new shooter show up to a USPSA match with a brand new super expensive Limited or Open rig and they still get beat by the veteran competitors running a Single Stack or a Revolver.
Click to expand...
And that’s point I was trying (but apparently failing) to make.
 
redneck2 said:
When I worked at the LGS, we had a relatively new shooter at our indoor range that couldn’t keep his shots on a full size silhouette at 7 yards. It was bad. He was shooting his new semi auto that had a really, really bad trigger. Long, gritty, extremely heavy pull.

I let him shoot my Roger Bisley that had the trigger reworked. He was holding 2-4” groups

If your equipment is only capable of 10” groups, the best you’re going to shoot is 10” groups. Seems simple

Go back and read posts 15 and 30. Then read them again.
Click to expand...
Aye, but the opposite is also true. If a shooter is only capable to a certain point because of a lack of requisite skills, it’s not going to matter how good th gun is.
 
David Hoback said:
We are talking two entirely separate issues. When commenting on the accuracy “capability” of a firearm, the shooter should not come into the equation. Because it’s not a constant. Testing a guns accuracy should be done in the most stable condition possible. Lead sled, ransom rest, etc. THAT is testing the firearm’s accuracy. Including the user, it becomes about their accuracy potential... not the gun’s.

Everyone is arguing the same basic thing. Just saying it in two different ways. Mostly because so many people on public forums just want to argue .

The shooter has NOTHING to do with a firearms accuracy potential. Only the accuracy at that specific point. Anyone who says different is Vin Diesel in Fast & Furious saying the driver is the only thing that matters! LOL!
Click to expand...
I hope the original post didn’t come off that way. I meant it as, rifles that have an out of the box guarantee or that have been lead sledded and the like but the shooter still can get the kind of accuracy they should be getting.
 
Btw....i shoot 5 shot groups. Not 3 shot groups.

And no, as a hunter I dont worry about 10 shot groups

5 shot groups have let me know when things are funky

And I dont cherry pick either.

It just is what it is, and shows where the work needs to go. Its no big deal.

Must admit, my previous 700 ADL did upset me when 4 went into .330 and the 5th opened it to .500.

Back to back. LOL
 
daniel craig said:
I hope the original post didn’t come off that way. I meant it as, rifles that have an out of the box guarantee or that have been lead sledded and the like but the shooter still can get the kind of accuracy they should be getting.
Click to expand...

No, no.. not at all Daniel. I got exactly what you were saying. I was alluding to the seeming disagreements throughout. I think everyone more or less agrees.....it’s just saying it in different ways. Almost like arguing for the sake of arguing. LOL!
 
Hookeye said:
Btw....i shoot 5 shot groups. Not 3 shot groups
Click to expand...

I agree 100% Hookeye. 3 shot groups don’t tell us quite enough, and 10 shot groups tell us Way more than is relevant. A 5 shots group is perfect. It’s the perfect amount to discount a lucky two-shot string.

Going a step further, I also believe it should consist of FIVE, 5-shot groups for a complete accuracy account. But I digress.
 
Most people are terrible marksmen. They might be able to hit something once or twice but 10-20-60 shots will show the true potential of the shooter.
 
An accurate rifle is one thing.

But its a tool and requires fitting to the user.
And once properly fitted, needs to be employed in consistent and proper fashion.

Rifle and shooter are a system.

Ergonomics matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
hunting with what you have
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
ArmedBear
A
Russell13
  • Locked
Looking for a long range shooting platform
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
MarshallDodge
MarshallDodge
MCMXI
  • Locked
300 yards ... a true 1/4 MOA rifle and load ... 15 shot group in 0.814 MOA.
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
MCMXI
MCMXI
Gridley
  • Locked
Help me choose a CQ rifle: Tavor X95, LMT LM8, or Hybrid DD/LMT
Replies
20
Views
1K
SCC
S
S
  • Locked
So I’ve got an old Bubbaed cetme.....
Replies
7
Views
696
entropy
entropy
Back
Top