Accuracy of modern bolt actions

[Rob96]

I have a Remington 700 ADL Varmint in 308 Winchester. With my handload of 42grs. of RL-15 with a 168gr SMK I consistently get .59moa. This is with the "flimsy" plastic stock either shooting with a front rest or off a Harris bipod. When reading different rifle magazines or LE magazines reviews of tactical rifles, the group measurements noted in their charts are right on with my group sizes or sometimes a little larger. This with higher end stocks and so forth. It leaves me to wonder if rifles being manufactured today are just more accurate than what we as the shooter are capable of.

I originally bought the rifle with the intentions of switching out the stock becasue everyone had said the stock is flimsy and that the two pressure points on the barrel are not good, but the rifle flat out shoots. Then when I look at stcks from HS-Precision and so forth I can't really justify the purchase. As one retired cop I know says, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[timothy75]

Thats outstanding for 100yards. Unless you dont like the look of it i wouldnt change the stock. I agree most rifles today shoot better than most could utilize. It sorta makes the saying "so and so makes an accurate rifle" pointless.

 

[Effigy]

Unless you're a competition shooter and need every ounce of mechanical accuracy you can get, I'd say your setup sounds great. 0.59 MOA is more than enough for any casual purpose you can put it to. Any improvement in accuracy would likely be marginal and not worth the added costs.

 

[Rob96]

This isn't about my rifle so much, but rather current production rifles as a whole. There is another thread going about a good budget 500yd rifle, and it seems that today many of them are very well up to the task.

 

[451 Detonics]

These groups were shot with an factory Savage while sighting it in. The rifle is straight out of the box without any tuning or aftermarket parts. It has the old pre-Accutrigger trigger in it. Shot at 100 yard off a bench and I called both low fliers while;e fighting the 8 pound plus trigger. Ammo is BVAC 55 grain V-Max in 22-250. Rifle is a stock Savage 12 BVSS.

BVAC is a very inexpensive ammo btw, this ammo was cheaper than Wal-Marts lowest priced even with shipping added.

 

[wingman]

Overall I think the fit and finish is less today then it once was however barrel improved has made up the difference in standard production guns.

 

[SentinelStrategic]

Some rifles are able to pull 1MOA, and others are pulling much better. Remingtons are an excellent example of getting excellent value for your money.
With factory rifles, higher costs provide more options and accessories. When you start adding a detachable box magazine, higher end barrels, etc., you start really tacking on cost. The advantage with higher end rifles is that it's easier to get exactly what you want from the start.
To be fair to the higher end rifles, you tend to get a product with higher build quality and more precision tolerances. In the case of some of the specialty sniper rifles like Accuracy International, you have unequaled durability and reliability.
However, the average Remington is still a good rifle with exceptional accuracy. They offer a good package with everything the average shooter, or even the minimalist advanced shooter, would need.

I am impressed by modern rifles and their accuracy. I would agree that fit and finish is lacking on the lower end, but there are still some exceptional rifles out there with excellent build quality. Sako, Tikka, Kimber, FNH to name a few good examples.

 

[benzy2]

There is a difference between those more expensive tactical rifles and the budget lines made today. If you take a rifle from the safe, in a padded case, to the range, and shot off a bench, the benefits of the more expensive rifle may be little. On the other hand, if you are abusive on a rifle and have to rely that it stays a 1/2 MOA shooter through thick and thin, having less corners cut on the more expensive rifles certainly is more reassuring. I'm not one to abuse a rifle, but I can appreciate the durability and consistency in a more expensive rifle. I find the more budget minded lines to be the ones I buy from, but I don't feel I am using a rifle hard enough to justify the extra money.

 

[TonyAngel]

Rob96, I'm new to shooting centerfire rifles for accuracy, and you've made the same discovery that I have. There just isn't one particular brand of rifle that stands head and shoulders above all others in terms of accuracy, as long as you avoid apples to oranges comparisons.

I have personally seen cheap Remingtons, Savages, Stevens, Marlins, etc. shoot MOA or better right out of the box. Still, Benzy makes a valid point. A better quality rifle does have its perks. The question is whether you are the type of shooter that will realize those perks.

Some of those perks MIGHT include the ability to shoot an increased number of rounds before you see the accuracy degrade due to copper fouling. The point of impact not shifting if the rifle/stock takes a good knock. The rifle not rusting as though it was meant to do it.

The bottom line is that a more expensive rifle doesn't always mean a more accurate rifle, but there are other considerations. Free floating is also not always the best way to go, with some of the thinner profile barrels.

In your case, I'd leave it alone. Replacing the stock is probably going to mean a good bit work just trying to get your rifle to shoot as well as it does now.

You load of 42gr of RL15 under a 168gr SMK was the first load that I toyed around with. I could shoot .5" groups all day long with my SPS Tactical. The only problem I had with it was that I was only getting 2400fps with it out of my SPS. That may or may not apply or matter to you.

 

[TuckerNielson]

better than ever

With modern manufacturing technologies and better metallurgical capabilities, I do believe that modern 'entry level' rifles shoot much better than 'entry level' shooters are capable of. I bought a used (but only a year old) Remington 700 that shoots sub MOA (just barely) for about 300 bucks. I spent more than 2000 bucks on an 'upgrade' that I shoot .51 MOA at the same distance. That is basically the limit of my skill - I'm amazed at the accuracy of both guns.

 

[Cop Bob]

Definitely, there will always be exceptions, but overall, today's bolts tend to shoot pretty well bone stock outta the box... Glass and mounts have a lot to do with it, but we are leaps and bounds above where they were just 15, 20 years ago.. New advents in powders and bullets have made their contributions as well..

I am amazed at the progress in accuracy in autos as well...

 

[ghostwriter]

Savage does make a very accurate rifle O.O.T.B. and my 110 BA is a perfect example. Before I settled it down with a nice custom load I was able to get under 1.5 MOA with factory loads and now after 180 rounds down the tube and using handloads I easily shoot under a 4" group at 550 yards.
Your rem 700 is awesome just like it is. If you really hate the stock, change it and work with it, but like someone else said, if you don't have to... leave it alone.

 

[ball3006]

My most modern rifle is a 30 year old Remington 700 BDL with a steel tube Weaver scope. That rifle will do 1 1/2 inch groups with Greek surplus ammo. The most accurate rifle I have is a 1942 Finn Mosin Nagant M39 with a scout scope. That rifle will shoot less than one inch at 100 yards with Privi ammo.....The only thing I have that is "modern" is my Marlin 60 22 which I bought last year.....chris3

 

[capreppy]

I have to agree with all of the posts. I just got a Stevens 200 in 270 Win. I bought it from a buddy I met here. All he did was put a Boyd's stock on it to replace the rather lacking synthetic stock. I put a Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40. My first 3 round group after sighting was 3/8MOA. I am pretty sure that this rifle can shoot better than I can. When I can get back to my buddies range, I'm going to try to see what she'll do at 200.

 

[Slamfire]

This weekend I shot a mid range, 300, 500, and 600 yard match. You shoot prone, and there were sling shooters and F class shooters. The F class shooters used F class targets all the way out, the sling shooters used the 600reduced at 300 yards, the standard 500 and 600 yard targets.

The shooter to my left had a stock box Savage M110 in .223 and he was shooting very well with the thing. He was an experienced shooter, not a newbie, but he just wanted to shoot his $300.00 Savage. He had a scope on top, shot it prone with a sling.

Even with a five pound trigger that rifle was more than capable of holding the ten ring at 600 yards.

I think this is amazing. I have a number of pre 64's, and 50's vintage rifles, and you are doing good with 1.5 MOA with the older rifles.

 

[06]

Bought a Ruger 77 in '06 a few years back to replace my '03 "deer rifle". Sighted it in at 100 yds, turned the elevation to 220 yds, and fired at a flattened drink can wrapped in tin foil. I hit it dead center--I put the rifle back into the case. Still have the can in the wall cabinet to brag about to my sharpshooting sons and daughter. It is the most accurate "off the shelf" rifle I have ever owned. Naturally with the sporter barrel it would lose a lot to multiple shots but for cold bore hunting it is hard to beat.

 

[Sako Shooter]

I expect MOA accuracy from my rifles, be they centerfire or rimfire. If they shoot MOA or better, I will not to sell them. If they cannot shoot MOA at least some of the time, I sell them because MOA is so common today, even with factory ammo, that I can easily buy a factory rifle that will.

Now, if your looking for 1/2MOA most of the time, then that is a different story. A factory rifle that will shoot 1/2MOA w/factory ammo is somewhat hard to locate, at least in my neck of the woods anyway.

Kept a few old rifles around passed on from my grandfather. Built well, but not MOA rifles. Kept them due to sentimental value. That is the exception.