Most inaccurate rifles?

SMLE .303 Brit Jungle Carbine with famous wandering zero...:banghead:

M

People tote AK's as invincible and innacurate. Neither one of those are true. The AK is a very sturdy rifle, but it is fallible just like any machine. It does not have the accuracy of an AR-15, but a well made AK with quality ammo will shoot around 2-4 MOA reliably. Just not when its being sprayed from the hip or blindfired by a bunch of undisciplined idiots

I bought a Spanish 1916 Mauser advertised chambered in .308 Win for something around $100 a number of years ago. Yeah, it chambered .308's, but was probably originally 7.65 Argentine, or some other calibre with a bore larger than .308, because I've never seen anything nearly as inaccurate. I shot it at a rock wall one hundred yards away, and never saw the bullet strikes. I couldn't hit one of those large NRA targets at 25 yards either. I have no idea where those boolets went.

The bore was pretty pitted as well, I never have slugged the barrel to find out what size it really is. I should try inserting a bullet tip in the end and see how loose it is. If you want inaccurate, she's your gal.

4" at a 100 yards is inaccurate.

I had an early Century WASR-10 I bought from the exchange at Parris Island years ago that I couldnt water with when I was shooting from a pier........
<deleted>, it was that bad.

Lee enfield mark 4 with a shot out barrel lucky to hit a paper plate at 50 yards.

4 MOA was considered serviceable accuracy for M-1 Garands.

M

Probably going to have a bunch of people jumping at the chance to flame me for this, but IMHO, having a 1 MOA rifle (and personal ability to match it) only matters for those of us who hunt at several hundred yards (I'd almost lean toward saying "target shoot" - even if the target is an animal... I mean, how often does active hunting require a shot at 750 yards? Maybe a handful of times in a lifetime, if that? That's another topic altogether...), and for competitive shooters. But even 2-4 MOA is enough for most people's needs. You may want more, but do you really need it? Probably not.

Most self-respecting hunters aren't going to be sufficiently pleased with a kill if it was sloppy and the animal suffered it's way to a slow and painful death. On the other hand, if you're in war, the goal isn't so much to kill the other guy (much less kill him cleanly) as it is to make him stop shooting back. For that reason, along with the fact that many combat engagements take place at less than 100 yards, 4 (even 5 or 6) MOA is plenty. If you can hit a torso at 100 yards, you're doing just fine, and so is your rifle. Most hunters would storm back to their local GS and expect a refund for a rifle with that kind of performance.

At least the US government agrees, because when I was in basic training, all you had to do was hit a 6"x6" target at 50 yards to qualify with the M16. And that was in 2004.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should all be perfectly pleased with 4 MOA rifles, and stop complaining in threads like this. Not at all. I'm just saying, it seems to me that MOA comparison is just another example of the attitude Americans are almost expected to have these days. "As close to perfection as possible, damnit! Whether or not it's necessary is irrelevant." Look at cars, for example. Do I need a car that can drive 200+ MPH if every speed limit on every road I'll ever drive on is 70 MPH? My car could top off with a max speed of 75 and it shouldn't bother me, but it damn well would if it did.

We're being crafted into dissatisfied consumers, whether that's a goal or not. On the plus side, it keeps us spending money. On the down side, it keeps us spending money...

I'm not going to flame you AT ALL regarding AK accuracy. Mikhail Kalashnikov never intended them to be 1-MOA. They were meant to be FUNCTION in the worst possible BATTLEFIELD conditions. 'Nuff said about AK rifles.

M1 carbines are not famous for their accuracy, nor are the older Mini-14's. A lot of older lever actions were/are pretty poor. Most of them were used at pretty short range most of the time, so they got by. Of course a lot of the lead bullets used years ago were nowhere near as perfect as today's match bullets. With the foreign military rifles, bad bores, crude sights, and bore diameters that varied quite a bit all made for a wide variation on what you could expect in the way of accuracy.

Worst accuracy from a rifle I owned was a back-bored Mosin. Literally would not stay on a stop sign sized target at 50 yards. Didn't even sell it, gave it away.

AK-47's aren't known for their accuracy

Click to expand...

True, but for their purpose, they work well. I have noted with my SKS that a lot of the surplus ammo is inaccurate. With US made commercial ammo, my Nork SKS will clover leaf at 50 yards.

Mostly depends on condition of bore and skills of shooters and quality of ammo used.

The happenstance of me wandering into a rifle that was worse than me as a good shooter is rare and I mean it.
I am not after precision shooting. I don't have the time nor the funds to chase it. 4 Moa is plenty enough for me.

Just about any one of them I am shouldering.

4 MOA was considered serviceable accuracy for M-1 Garands.

Click to expand...

Fired from the prone position at 500yds. Big difference between that and bench shooting at 100yds.

A lot of older lever actions were/are pretty poor. Most of them were used at pretty short range most of the time, so they got by.

Click to expand...

It's pure myth that leverguns are inaccurate, regardless of age. Neither is there an issue obtaining accuracy with cast bullets.

4 MOA at 100yds is accurate enough to hit a human head. Even on a small whitetail the vitals area is about 8" in diameter.

4 MOA is still a torso hit at 300yds.

M

Most inaccurate thing I have ever shot was my first deer rifle. A Model 70 super shadow 7mm rem mag. It was one of the "pumpkin batch" with defective barrels. Forget MOA it would not hold MOB (minute of beachball) at 100yd! Never could get it to touch paper at 100 but at 50 some of the bullets hit the 16"x16" target!! I thought I was just a really bad shot untill a friend of mine who was a crack shot could not make it touch paper either. Sold it and bought a Savage that I hold sub MOA groups with.

That's easily a Tikka T3 Lite I bought new and took it back to the dealer for a refund. It's best 3 shot groups were grapefruit sized or slightly larger.

got my hands on a BUSHMASTER that would not sight in @75yds no matter how far u moved the rear sight 2 the right. latter found out that bushmaster had a bad batch with a barrel nut issue

There are plenty of Mosins out there with cooked, rotten, dark, and destroyed barrels out there for $80. Mosins can range from great shooters to absolute junk.

Had a Rem 700 VTR .223 that wouldn't shoot any ammo under 6-7 MOA. I fussed around with scopes, mounts, ammo, floated the barrel, torqued the stock screws, etc. No luck. Finally, I put a Hogue stock on it with pillars and it immediately shot MOA. I was too mad by then though, so I sold it and bought a CZ.

My brother has a Remington 597 that just cannot shoot jacketed bullets. Since it's a .22 the scope doesn't move off the target and you can see exactly where they are hitting. Best group is probably 7" at 50 yards. Put some lead bullets in it and it tightens right up to ~2" at 50.