Big groups with Marlin 60. What's your bet as to the cause?

[Smaug]

Results from today's outing.

Well, it turns out that ammo was as big a factor as the cheap scope/rings. So I'd have lost the bet. (it WAS a bunch of things) I didn't save it, but I did manage to get a 4" group with the Federal Bulk today. So 2" improvement due to less wind.

I think the best group of the day was MiniMag @ 100 yds. I may have done better at 50 yards with a smaller bullseye, but who can say for sure. I bet it is at or near MOA if my skill, the wind, and low magnification scope were removed as variables.

Subsonic was better than Federal bulk ammo, but not as good as Super-X or MiniMag HV.

Changing from Federal bulk to MiniMag was an eye-opener. Not only was it loads more consistent, but it also kicked harder and flew faster.

Subsonic was fun, because I could see the bullet for about the last 30 yards drop down into the target.

I also think I didn't do myself any favors by getting scopes that max out at 7X. I may have been able to shave it down a bit further with a 16X scope or something.

I may try some higher grade standard velocity target ammo in the future. My experience here though seems to point to the sound barrier stuff being nonsense, and the wind just has more time to blow it off course due to the lower velocity.

 

[Smaug]

Batch 2

...

 

[Smaug]

Batch 3

...

 

[MrSpiffy]

Congrats on figuring out the issue. I think I've only put Federal bulk pack ammo through my Savage MKII and haven't had much luck at 100yds with smaller groups. After reading through the thread, I'll have to test out some other ammo and see what my results are. (If I care enough to do so... I don't hunt with it, so it's just just a plinker for me.) But I'd imagine that some better ammo could help me get smaller groups, too. Bulk pack ammo is cheap for a reason: lesser quality components and lesser overall quality control.

 

[Smaug]

Oh, I forgot to mention, the targets with all white are at 100 yards, and the ones with the black inner rings are at 50 yards.

MrSpiffy: At least try MiniMags. I see now why they are so well-respected. They are even recommended by gun manufacturers when a customer complains of reliability. That was the first thing Ruger said to me when my 10/22 wasn't feeding reliably. They're $8/100 by me, as opposed to $16/500 for Federal bulk. Just over twice as much. Even as a plinker, keep a box stashed away when you really want to hit what you're aiming at.

 

[Maverick223]

My experience here though seems to point to the sound barrier stuff being nonsense, and the wind just has more time to blow it off course due to the lower velocity.

Glad to hear you have some of the kinks worked out, but transonic deviation is no theory. It does however play a bigger part in inaccuracy the farther you go out (from that point) and vary like most anything else.

After reading through the thread, I'll have to test out some other ammo and see what my results are.

I would highly recommend some inexpensive match like Aguila (or better if you are willing to pay the premium), or standard subsonic like Winchester. Either way subsonic tends to do a bit better (with most rifles...the OPs being an exception to the norm.) than standard/high/hyper velocity.

 

[CraigC]

We'll see how your theory goes about people not being able to shoot MOA consistently at 100 yards with a .22.

Now you're putting words in my mouth, I never said that. I have three rifles that shoot MOA at 100yds. My point is that shooting MOA at 50yds does not translate to MOA at 100yds. Which it doesn't. My point is that you're not gonna do it consistently with a rifle like the model 60 and you sure as hell won't do it with bulk ammo and a 4x15 scope. I'm not talking about shooting ability in the least. I'm assuming one 'can' shoot well. I'm talking about the accuracy potential of the cartridge.

Now let's see some MOA groups at 200yds with ANY .22LR.

Pay close attention to posts by MKnarr:
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=390921

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=386764

 

[Smaug]

Well, my point was to try to get my group size at 100 yards down to something reasonable. (6" was not, IMO)

I got it down to 4" by using a better scope & rings on a better day. Good start.

I got it down to below 2" by using better ammo. 1-9/16", I consider to be very good for this setup with this shooter, and I'm happy with that.

Craig makes a fair point about MOA not being MOA at every distance, especially with lower velocity rounds like the 22LR.

 

[CraigC]

Show me where I said I could shoot MOA at 200 yards.

You didn't but this is what I was responding to.

And why you think an MOA rifle will only shoot 4" groups at 200 yards is beyond me.

 

[CraigC]

And what those posts by someone else have to do with this is beyond me.

How convenient.

You seem to have a very low opinion of a fine American rifle.

I have a realistic opinion of the rifle I cut my teeth on. I've owned a Marlin 60 for over 25yrs. It is not a slam against a hundred dollar rifle to say that it can't shoot MOA at 100yds. Like I said, it is difficult to get a very good rifle to shoot that well. Much less a budget priced rifle that has been produced by the millions. One would not expect such a rifle to shoot so well. Hell, the rifle pictured below has a barrel that cost three times what my Marlin did.

shooting less than 4" groups at 200 yards is not out of the question by any means.

Prove it.

You still don't make real sense but I will address what you seem to be saying now. MOA at 200 yards is 2". Again, why do you think a rifle shooting MOA at 100 yards is going to double that group size (2 MOA instead of 1 MOA) at 200 yards?

Because the cartridge is incapable. Same reason why it won't shoot 5"@500yds and 10"@1000yds. Again, one more time, I'm not talking about shooter ability. I can shoot sub-MOA at 100yds with buckhorn sights on a rifle that kicks like a mule with a toothache. I'm talking about the capabilities of the cartridge. I was being optimistic when I said 4". Here is what happens when you put a rifle that shoots MOA at 100yds on a target at a lasered 230yds. As you can see, the spread on this target is almost six inches.



CNC machined Nodak receiver, Clark mid-weight barrel, Bushnell Elite 3200 10x scope, Warne base and rings, R/T accurized bolt, Boyd's Tacticool stock and KIDD 14oz trigger. Ammo used was Wolf MT. Obviously the rifle is no slouch and shoots lovely little .3" groups at 50yds and usually around 3/4 to 1MOA at 100yds. Which is a little better than my Savage MKII and Remington 541T. Those .3" groups at 50yds would be .6" groups at 100yds by your logic but it just isn't so. Like I said, things are starting to fall apart at 100yds. Shooting at inanimate objects is far more fun but can give you the false impression that you're shooting better than you actually are. Paper is boring but it doesn't lie.

 

[Smaug]

Well, for what it's worth, I believe that Jeff can shoot sub-4" at 200 yards with 22LR. Maybe even 2". I also believe that he can shoot sub MOA with a stock Marlin 60 at 100 yards. If I can do 1-9/16" on this stock rifle with a 7X scope and only trying for a coupe days with cheap ammo, I have no doubt a more capable shooter, with better ammo, better wind conditions, and maybe a higher power scope can certainly do better. The inherent accuracy of the rifle and the sluggishness of the humble 22LR may be limiting factors, but that doesn't mean it is impossible.

As I understand it, some folks shoot 45/70s and WELL over 300 yards, even though it is pretty widely accepted that it is at its best inside 300. Oh, and that's with peep sights too.

Nice rifle, Craig. Very classy, not tacticool at all to me; it isn't black, nor does it have rails everywhere.

One point, and maybe I'm mis-interpreting Jeff here. (I'm sure he'll let me know) But he said he can make the cans dance at 200 yards. That doesn't necessarily mean hitting them every time. Cans dance if you hit below them too. That dance a lot MORE when you hit below them than if you just drill right through them.

 

[Maverick223]

not tacticool at all to me; it isn't black, nor does it have rails everywhere.

Tis the name of the stock, which is a very good one...that was poorly named.

 

[oerllikon]

That ammo sucks in my experience. Federal ammo seems to be really good or really bad. I can get very good groups with my model 60 and 925 bolt action. Id try better ammo, and I would see how the rail looks on the top, apparently some of the new ones can have sloppy qc