300 yards ... a true 1/4 MOA rifle and load ... 15 shot group in 0.814 MOA.

[WNTFW]

For a small piece of paper it carries a lot of weight
Oh, that mean, mean, mean, mean, mean green

Almighty Dollar!

Sorry, Texas Patriot had me go to O'Jays mode.


Nice 1858. The difference between shooting just above 1/4 moa and just below 1/4 moa is about as hard as it gets. Even at 100yds with no wind.

 

[Afy]

Good shooting.

 

[FLAvalanche]

Guy puts up an impressive group and you guys nitpick half an inch at 300 yards? Wow.

Tell you what...put up a target even relatively close to this and then you can bitch about his math.

 

[SpeedAKL]

Nice! Is that rifle a build you put together yourself or did you have a custom shop like GAP do it?

 

[wankerjake]

Seriously good shooting!

 

[MCMXI]

Thanks for the kind words guys. FLAvalanche, I should have been clearer in the thread title since it is a bit misleading. The point I was trying to make, and that I think most here understand, is that the rifle and load have to be a whole lot better than the group on paper ... particularly at 300 yards where any error will reveal itself in short order.

Nice! Is that rifle a build you put together yourself or did you have a custom shop like GAP do it?

If you have a minute or two .... this is a good lesson in incrementalism (avoid at all costs!! )

The action is from a Remington .308 Win that I bought about 15 years ago. I spent days looking on Krieger's web site and finally chose a stainless steel 26" fluted, MTU #10 contour barrel. I sent the action with the factory barrel to Krieger, had them true the action, then chamber, crown and install the barrel.

While waiting four to five months to get the action and new barrel back, I ordered an AICS stock, AICS bipod, Jewell trigger, Leupold Mark 4 6.5-20x50mm scope, Leupold Mark 4 rings and a Leupold Mark 4 one-piece base. I then upgraded the base to a Badger Ordnance one-piece base because it has a recoil lug and it extends further forward on the action. After shooting 300 or so rounds through the new rifle, I decided to upgrade the bolt to an oversized and fluted PT&G bolt with a Sako extractor. I was having extraction issues during rapid fire drills and wanted a tighter bolt ... the PT&G solved both problems. I timed the new bolt and welded on the bolt handle from PT&G but ended up bending, cutting and welding a 5/16" bolt to make an aesthetically more pleasing bolt handle.

The new PT&G bolt changed the headspace so I had a local gunsmith (now "my" gunsmith) remove the barrel and cut a new chamber to get the correct headspace. His match reamer didn't match Krieger's reamer so rather than have a transition in the chamber, I asked him to cut a new chamber. I lost 3/4" off the barrel so now my barrel is 25-1/4" long. At my request, he also installed a thicker Badger Ordnace recoil lug, and recrowned the barrel. I machined a wider notch in the AICS to accept the thicker lug. I grit-blasted and painted the action and barrel myself using GUN-KOTE 2400 from KG Coatings. I then upgraded the trigger to a CG X-Treme two-stage trigger, upgraded the Leupold scope to a Premier Reticles Heritage 3-15x50mm with Seekins 34mm rings. The other thing I "fixed" is the sling attachment that is sandwiched between the butt pad spacers and the stock. I welded the attachment to a piece of steel plate with holes for the butt pad screws and painted the part with GUN-KOTE. It's very rigid now. So that's what I have at this point and I'm very happy with the rifle. The only thing I should have done is have my gunsmith thread the end of the barrel for a suppressor.

So as you can see, I've had work done by Krieger and a local gunsmith but I've also done some things myself. I've learned a number of valuable lessons from this process.

 

[kis2]

a true love story. very nice work, both in shooting and building.

 

[MCMXI]

a true love story. very nice work, both in shooting and building.

More of a horror story when I think of the learning curve :banghead:. My latest build is going a whole lot better ... albeit rather slowly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Nice shooting!

The max spread in the horizontal direction is due in part to wind so this is NOT an indication of the rifle/loads potential accuracy.

I like the way you present data. I am going to start presenting data based on the potential of my rifle and load and not what I actually shot. So I take my best group and then reduce down to the next quarter inch. Hell, I might just cheat and reduce it to the next half inch...it is potential after all!

Can I extrapolate to hog weight as well?

 

[kis2]

haha, well there is a fine line between horror and love stories. the difference is in the end, and your groups speak to a good one.

and at least your in the building phase! i'm still in the 'learn the fundamentals' phase IMO. one day I'd like to build a nice 338 lpmag. one day I'd also like to be able to afford to shoot it.

again, nice job. now I have to go try a 15 shot group.

 

[MCMXI]

I like the way you present data. I am going to start presenting data based on the potential of my rifle and load and not what I actually shot.

The problem though is what is the potential of our rifles and ammunition? For most of us, it's hard to know. Benchrest shooters approach the mechanical limitations of their systems more than most of us, so for them, they probably have a better idea of what is possible. I have no idea how accurate my rifle is but based on last Sunday, I'm starting to get some idea of what it's capable of under fairly arduous conditions. Members here often state that their rifle is a sub moa rifle or their load is a sub moa load but at what distance, and for how many shots, and at what rate of fire? These are the interesting questions for me.

 

[MCMXI]

one day I'd like to build a nice 338 lpmag. one day I'd also like to be able to afford to shoot it.

No kidding. I have a rifle that is virtually identical to the one shown in this thread but it's chambered in .300 Win Mag. After this current build is complete, I'm going to start planning something in .338 Lapua Mag. It may be a turnkey system such as an AI AWM or a Barrett 98B.

 

[Walkalong]

Oh yea, almost forgot, beautiful rifle 1858.

 

[blackops]

1858,been a while. I see you have made considerable progress in your load development! I would expect nothing less from you. Was it the neck turning that improved your accuracy? I also noticed you switched from the PR to a MK4, I’m curious as to why? I’ve always like that rig, nasty rifle. Good work man, you’re really progressing with that rifle.

 

[blackops]

Members here often state that their rifle is a sub moa rifle or their load is a sub moa load but at what distance, and for how many shots, and at what rate of fire? These are the interesting questions for me.

I want to share my theory on this and would like your opinion, as I‘m sure that I‘m most likely not fully correct.

I think 8-10 shots is enough to establish an accurate MOA. Beyond 10 (that’s ten within a few minutes) personally, my barrel becomes too hot. This is the result of a factory heavy barrel, thus resulting in a sporadic POI. On the contrary, this ultimately results in a loss of accuracy when you compare to a Krieger or Shilen etc. So if you factor in more shots in a short time frame, does that make another rifle more accurate? Yeah, I guess it’s safe to say it is. For those first 8-10 though I can hang!

I also believe a 100yd test is the truest way to fully understand the potential of one’s rifle. While doing so you eliminate more human or atmospheric error. In my mind there is no reason one’s rifle shouldn’t consistently hold the same MOA with additional yardage as long as the atmospheric conditions are properly accounted for and equipment (glass, trigger, etc) allow you to.

 

[Bonesinium]

I like seeing posts of how well people shoot. It gives me something to shoot for. I just wish I could shoot as well at 100 as you do at 300! If I could shoot 17 shots in a grouping even close to that without at least one floater I'd be happy. Well done.

 

[MCMXI]

I see you have made considerable progress in your load development! I would expect nothing less from you. Was it the neck turning that improved your accuracy? I also noticed you switched from the PR to a MK4, I’m curious as to why? I’ve always like that rig, nasty rifle. Good work man, you’re really progressing with that rifle.

I haven't done any neck turning yet but I did correct the problem that I was having with inconsistent neck tension. Also, I used the AI bipod which seems to work better for me than the Harris bipod. I had the Mark 4 on the rifle, then the PRH, then the Mark 4 again and now I'm back with the PRH. I shot the target in this thread with the PRH mounted. Obviously I prefer the PRH scope being front focal and mil/mil, but the Mark 4 is still an excellent alternative. Once Leupold starts offering the M5 retrofit I'll be sending some Mark 4s to them.

I also believe a 100yd test is the truest way to fully understand the potential of one’s rifle. While doing so you eliminate more human or atmospheric error. In my mind there is no reason one’s rifle shouldn’t consistently hold the same MOA with additional yardage as long as the atmospheric conditions are properly accounted for and equipment (glass, trigger, etc) allow you to.

I agree that 100 yards is a good test of the rifle but not of the ammunition or the optics.

Bonesinium, thanks.