Unreasonable accuracy

[gunners]

What about Tikka, Sako, Thompsen Center some Weatherby's they guarrentee moa for at least 3 and some 5 shots . The Tikka, T/C and weatherby ain't that much dearer than a Ruger especially if you get one you have to tinker with to get it to shoot. I'm crossing my fingers that my new Ruger will be a good one if I'd bought the Tikka I would Expect it to deliver the goods straight up. I guess we would all love the same guarrentee from Ruger, even if they did a moa line like Weatherby does and charged a premium for the extra cost

 

[Lloyd Smale]

thats odd as ive had one 6x18 fullfied go bad right out of the box. the crosshairs came loose with the first shot out of a 22250. My buddy had one on his 300 mag sendero go bad and sent it back and got a replacement and put that one on his single shot 50 bmg and it lasted 10 rounds and went bad. This happened around the same time and when he got his back the second time he sold it and i sold mine about the same time when it came back. I dont know if a bad batch got out or there just junk but it was the 3rd burris fullfield i had that has had to go back and it was at least 10 years that i wouldnt buy one. I just picked up a 3x9 from cammeraland because the price was just to good to pass. Its been ok so far but the 300 wby its on has only been shot maybe 20 times since i swapped it onto it. They might be good scopes and ive just had bad luck but my buddy who owns the gunshop says more burris have been sent back by him then all the others combined if you leave out bushnell. He absoulutley detests bushenells. Like i said I bought another but to say i dont have alot of confindense in the brand is an understatement. Personaly i think a leupold is a better built scope hands down.

Wunbe: I run the last generation El Paso Micro Tracson a bunch of #1s. Decent glass at a fair price that fit #1s without a bunch of messing with rings and mounts and the like. I run Burris Fullfields Ones made in the USA for the same reason. Decent glass at a reasonable price that fit #1s without all the trouble of exstended rings and Weaver mounts or rails or............. By the way the engineers at Burris tell me that the 6x18 Fullfield I is probably the finest "Piece of glass we ever made". I run them on nearly all my varmint cartridge #1s and the factory is great about still working on them.

A quick count, looking around this room shows 19 #1s wearing Leupolds.
Most are hunting rifles with scopes that cost less than $500 new. There are a couple that are very specialized ala 22PPC that wear pretty big and hugely exspensive Leupolds, $1000+ given my tendancy to be frugal, but if you can't SEE 1/4" you can't shoot 1/4". ;-)

I'm broke enough as it is. If I insisted on spending the most I could for the very best glass made, for a couple hundred rifles.....................I'd be a Hell of a lot broker than I currently yam. ;-(

Especially when you figure maybe 20-25 get shot in any given year?? ;-)

As soon as I spendy a gazillion dollars on a hunting scope for that special trip, the temperature will drop to 20 below and we'll getting freezing sleet and rain for a couple of weeks and all the wonderful light transmission will go right out the window and the ability to see a bunch of little Mil dots will no longer exist. I'm more likey to take the 6-284 with the 8x-56 Weaver Micro Trac with the German Post and Cross hairs that you can actually see and put on an animal in nearly ANY weather,

It isn't the Olympic Biathalon, it's deer hunting. ;-) They would probably cancel the day at the Olympics.

Lloyd, bet you could have made the Rl shoot at or near MOA. I can see Rugers point they'd go broke trying to get MOA out of everything that goes out the door and as soon as they did, It wouldn't be the load you want to use. We own 6, 77 RLS and mostl shoot near MOA but all took some tinkering, usually load work. The little 250 Savage shoots 100s well under MOA.

Ross









Most are smaller fixed powers 4x throu

 

[Lloyd Smale]

The weatherbys i have are guaranteed 1.5 inch for 3 shots cold barrel. Thats ALL theyll warantee and it has to be with there overpriced ammo. Ive got a 257 that shoots 3 shots cold clean barrel into 1.5 and after three rounds it fouls so much that groups double. they wouldnt do a stinking thing about it even though after ten rounds it has about a lb of copper in it the barrels so rough. Yes ruger should get real about there accuracy standards but i just had the barrel replaced on my 264 hawkeye because it was rough and ruger never even asked how well it shot. Personaly i dont think either one of them is great when it comes to backing a rifle but i have to admitt that ruger was better then weatherby. By the way weatherby told me just to look at my gun they wanted a 100 bucks to range test it and that was non refundable. So there gurantee comes at a price. 30 bucks to ship and a 100 to test before they even think about rebarelling a bad gun

What about Tikka, Sako, Thompsen Center some Weatherby's they guarrentee moa for at least 3 and some 5 shots . The Tikka, T/C and weatherby ain't that much dearer than a Ruger especially if you get one you have to tinker with to get it to shoot. I'm crossing my fingers that my new Ruger will be a good one if I'd bought the Tikka I would Expect it to deliver the goods straight up. I guess we would all love the same guarrentee from Ruger, even if they did a moa line like Weatherby does and charged a premium for the extra cost

 

[wunbe]

My one experience with a Burris was also bad. Tw was a 3x8 Signature with terrible design features -- towers way up front, poor eye reilef (which they lied about in the specs for the scope), and zero customer service in terms of adressing the problems. US made or not , never again.

wunbe

 

[Major T]

The last generation El Paso Weavers were/are so good that they are what put Weaver out of business. They cost a bit more to manufacture and with the inflation that was going on at the time, Weaver had to sell them at a price that folks were not accustomed to paying for Weavers. Thus came resistance, sales dropped, and Weaver sold. I still have two - a 3X and a 4x. They do not have modern lens coatings, but the images are clear and sharp (and for those to whom it is important, they track.)) I bought a NIB 6X at a Dallas show a few years ago. Three or four moves later with jobs and finally retirement, I don't know where it went. I would be really pleased to find it somewhere stashed away in my "good stuff."

Accuracy is good but as others have stated, hit ability is better. My favorite '06, shoots Hornaday Light Magnum 180s at around 1.25 inches. Tinkering with hand loads might get it better, but why bother? It hits everything that I put the cross hairs on out to around 300 yards without giving serious thought to holdover. 2" high at 100, a little low at 300 is all I need to remember. And as age takes it's toll, I may have trouble hitting stuff any farther anyway. I stocked up back when I discovered this loading. I sure hope the revamped Superperformance does as well, because I am about out of the initial purchase.

jack

 

[6GUNSONLY]

A rifle that groups 3.5" at 200 yards will strike within 1.75" of point of aim... I think that is plenty good enough. Yes, I want my rifles to shoot as tight as possible, too, and am always looking for better groups through handloading, better shooting technique, rifle tinkering, etc... but as others have stated, we can get carried away with the pursuit. JMO.

I posted a picture on another thread in this forum of a recent group shot with my flatbolt M-77 .308, 3 shots at 100 yards measuring .690" C to C. I was very pleased with that from a stock hunting rifle, and realize it is by no means typical or to be expected from every out-of-the box bolt action. That's my best so far with this rifle, and I've had many that wouldn't do nearly that well, despite my best handloading and tinkering efforts.

DavidMc116 wrote: "..or just buy a pre-Garcia Sako Vixen or Forester."

... got one. That'll work, too. :wink: Actually mine's a L61 7mm Mag with no importer markings, dates to about 1970. It'll shoot.

 

[Bayouhunter]

No use to enlighten him with all the available info out there already. Since he he is so disappointed inthe gun offer to buy it low price of course and use it for was it is designed for.

 

[RJ556]

6gunsonly, there is still a flaw in that statement. If a rifle will hold 3.5" at 200 yards, it may strike only 1.75" from its mark, FROM A BENCH, not in the field. And before I get slammed about, "practice your field shooting", All of the practice shooting from field positions in the world, is not going to enable a shooter to shoot as precise as he can from that bench. I'm not saying that it won't improve your probability of better field shot placement. I'm just saying that you have to add that human error on top of that 1.75". And it's going to be considerable.

 

[wunbe]

Another apples an oranges argument.

3.5 MOA at 200 yards is NOT 4 MOA at 100 yards which Ruger says is "acceptable hunting acciuracy". That Ruger standard works out to @8 MOA at 200 yards which often causes a missed or wounded game animal! If you want to restrict your clean kill zone to 100 yards almost any ML and many modern shotguns will do the job.

What an ad campaign that would make. "4MOA is good enough for Ruger but it is not relaible beyond 100 yards."

wunbe

 

[Chief 101]

Another apples an oranges argument.

3.5 MOA at 200 yards is NOT 4 MOA at 100 yards which Ruger says is "acceptable hunting acciuracy". That Ruger standard works out to @8 MOA at 200 yards which often causes a missed or wounded game animal! If you want to restrict your clean kill zone to 100 yards almost any ML and many modern shotguns will do the job.

What an ad campaign that would make. "4MOA is good enough for Ruger but it is not relaible beyond 100 yards."

wunbe

I think MOA is an inch at 100 yds...feel free to correct me if need be.

 

[Major T]

Minute of angle remains constant as distance increases. In theory, a minute of angle rifle should be able to maintain that level of accuracy over longer distances. Minute of angle (just a tad over 1" at 100 yards) rifles should shoot just over 2" at 200, 3" at 300, etc. The inches get bigger over distance, not the angle. The problem is that some bullets do weird things as velocity drops off, sighting equipment may not be precise, and there is always the nut behind the butt. His skill, vision, heart rate and several other factors enter in even from a bench, not considering field shooting. I use a quality airgun to hone my offhand skills - works for me and I can do it in the garage.

I do not know that I (or my rifle) can still shoot a small paper plate group at 300 yards, but if not, I will just stop shooting that far or get a rifle that will. I see Roger's point. They cannot control all the variables. Most of their stuff will do better than their standard. Best wishes, jack

PS: what Ross said. Shoot varmints, or plink to sharpen skills. Sight in on benches.

 

[Hank in Indiana]

Accuracy is a relative term. 3.5"@200 is OK but not great. For a Ruger is as good as I have seen. Recently I spoke to a target shooter with a Rem 40X in 6mm PPC. He was dissapointed that his rifle shot groups of.200-.300"@ 100. I told him that was great. He responded "You should see the groups from the good shooters." For some people 3.5"@200 is great, to some its OK, and for some its dissapointing.

 

[BikerRN]

On another forum, I was reading the post of a shooter who was distraught over the fact his brand new Ruger Hawkeye .308 was producing "only" 3 1/2 inch groups at 200 yards. He was asking for advice on cures for this "terrible" accuracy. I started to respond that his rifle was fully accurate enough for any hunting to which it was suited; but then realized it was a waste of time. It was not what he wanted to hear.
Like anyone, I appreciate fine accuracy in a rifle; and have been very fortunate that most of the rifles I've owned have been highly accurate, far more so than necessary in most cases. But I think many shooters have grown to expect unreasonable accuracy, which most cannot use. The above shooter had a rifle which would group five rounds of factory ammunition into 3 1/2 inches at 200 yards. This is smaller than a deer's heart. I doubt very much he could hit a 3 1/2 inch target at that range under field conditions. I think the obsession with "sub MOA" groups is resulting in good rifles being denigrated without cause. A particular rifle may not be match-accurate; but if it feels good, is reliable, and you consistently hit with it, I feel that is more important than one-hole groups.

I'm starting to agree with you.

For years I have been obsessed with one hole groups but I'm starting to see the futility of it. The standard for accuracy for years was 6" at 100 Yards back in my Grandfather and Great Grandfather's day. There sure were a lot of game animals killed with inaccurate rifles back then.

I'll take 2" at 100 Yards as more than acceptable for hunting.

Biker

 

[wunbe]

Major T,

I was indeed inaccurate in my use of MOA. Sorry. The numbers are still right. 4" at 100 yards is 8" at 200 yards in most cases. (The odd rifle will actually shoot tighter groups further out.)

wunbe

 

[Tx gun runner]

I'm sorry 3 1/2" at 200 yds is not acceptable for a hunting rifle . I built this in 1978 to carry on my dirt bike for hunting coyote at over 300 yds with scope on it . With a 3 1/2" group , only a lucky shot would ever bag a coyote at 300 or 400 yds .

 

[RJ556]

A rifle that shoots 3.5" at 200 yards off of a bench rest is good enough for game shooting at 200 yards? For those of you who think it is, I have a question for you. Can you take that rifle into the field and hold even 6" at 200 yards from field positions, consistiently? I think not.

 

[pcgod]

When I was in my 20's I searched for the mythical sub 1" groups. Me and my friends were crazy about accuracy and if a gun didn't produce .5 or less we felt it was crap. At the range there was an old guy with a Winchester 30/06, it had a old redfield 2 power scope with a post reticle. The rifle was either a feather weight, if they made them back then, or it was something he modified because it was very lite.
He told me to get off the bench, stand up like a man and learn to shoot. His groups ranged from 1.5 - 3 in. offhand at 100 yds. He believed if you can hit a paper plate at hunting ranges you were good. He was retired and hunted several states in the fall and normally ended up with 4-6 deers for the season.

Living in the Northeast I find shots above 200yds are extremely rare and I heeded this old mans advice. I regularly shoot my 77/22 at 2 inch plates at 50 and 75 yds and it has made me a better shot. Prior to any hunt I start 2 months before with dry firing everyday and ONLY offhand pratice on the weekends at the range.

I am still working with the loadings for my 308 compact and it is a solid 1.25 inch gun. I have only shot a couple 200yd groups off the bench and they were just under 3 inches. This will work for its intended purpose. I guess as I have gotten older I trust my skills more than my equipment.

The take away here is don't worry as much about groups with your hunting rifles. If your hunting range is 200 ensure you can hit a pie plate and your fine for larger game, if coyotes are the game shoot at clay pigeons. If you reliably hit these you'll do fine.

 

[mattsbox99]

I almost wish I knew what it was like to have an inaccurate ruger.

 

[Tx gun runner]

I never bench my hunting guns . These are the 1st 3 shots ever at 200 yds using cross sticks ,
which is the way I shoot 200 or more yds with a rifle hunting . These are hunting loads not target .
A far cry from 3 1/2"

 

[Major T]

Back In my younger days, our community was in need of a good place to shoot. We formed a shooting club and the city (imagine that today!) allowed us to build a rifle range to 200 yards, a handgun range to 50 yards and a regulation skeet field, on the back side of the municipal airport. We needed some funds for more improvements, so we held a "turkey" shoot. All kinds of shooting games, including shots at live turkeys behind a barricade where only the head and a little neck were exposed. We were making money hand over fist on the live turkeys as they bobbled up and down. Off hand at 50 yards. Then one of my old friends showed up with a .30-06 Remington 740 (or whatever the Model of the day was.) I suspect friend had a couple of drinks under his belt to steady his nerves, but anyway that former Marine (an airplane driver at that) almost broke us. I finally told him that enough was enough after he killed five or six with only a couple of misses. One of those birds showed up in my refrigerator a couple of days later - oven ready. I think that was the only rifle Mr. H owned and he could use it OFF HAND. jack