Author Topic: ACCURACY - What do you expect? (Read 2565 times)

gunnut69 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:56:16 AM »

As a gunsmith I get to see a lot of problem rifles. I wish I could tell you haow many tmes those accuracy problems were the shooters and nt the rifles. A Rem 700 in 7mmMag comes to mind(actually I've had more than 1) but the guy said he missed a deer at short range and the rifle of the scope must be toast. The first group I fired from the rifle was less than 1/2 inch.. I new the guy and a trip to the range gave me the sollution. I loaded a couple of rounds and watched him shoot, then loaded a fired cartridge into the chamber. Her very nearly thru the rifle down range.. He had one of the worst flinches I've ever seen.. I suggested that he needed to lose the flinch and the best way was to go to a lighter recoiling rifle, perhaps a 243. he got a bit upset that I might suggest the rifle was fine..so I shot a 3 shot group and pointed out that the only thing that had changed was the shooter! He's shoting a 25-06 and happy as a clam from what I hear.. There are lemons out there and Remington has certainly been producing their share lately but the 700 design is not at fault. Sloppy production tolerances most certainly is.. I have over 100 centerfires just now and find no realtendancies that affect hunting. The accuracy varies depending on the weapon. I would certainly expect a heavy vamiter to shoot better than a short mannlicher carbine. A group of 3 inches at 100 yards will pretty easily handle 90% of our hunting needs but better is certainly nice. Need and want are the difference..

savageT · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2005, 08:18:39 AM »

Gunnut69,
I've been having eyesight problems in the last few years, but I wonder if there is some repeatable way we as consumers could truely test our guns for accuracy and eliminate the shooter altogether? Do any of you know a way that this can be done with existing sandbags or riflerests, etc. by setting up the gun on a benchrest, sighting it in, and firing off a three shot group,,,that would eliminate the trigger pull weight and any chance of flinch input?

Jim

mjbgalt · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2005, 08:25:52 AM »

yeah there are gun vises and other setups that all you have to do is help absorb the recoil with your shoulder and pull the trigger.

it is a good test of the rifle but not of your ability to shoot it.

-Matt

Lawdog · « **Reply #33 on:** February 13, 2005, 11:30:27 AM »

Quote from: longwinters

LD, Actually I was refering to my rifles, not rifles in general, when I said if they don't shoot it is my fault. But I do think that it is not uncommon for the shooter or his projectiles to be at fault in "poor" accuracy situations.

Long

I agree with you in most cases. It is just that the number of cases where the rifle is at fault is becoming more prevalent. I believe that most times when it is the fault of the rifle it is due to poor quality control and that even sometimes new technology has a hand in it. Lawdog

Don Fischer · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2005, 06:41:13 AM »

Some are confussing one's ability to shoot with the accruacy level of a rifle. Few of us, myself included, have the skill's to consistently place all of our shot's into 1/2" or less at 100yds, seem's the standard measure. Speaking of accuracy and what is acceptable; claitify that. From a field position or from sand bag's and a bench? If you do it fron a field position, you'll have no idea of what your RIFLE is capabile of under the best of condition's with you pulling the trigger. If you don't know that, how do you know how well YOUR doing? And if it is something with the rifle, how will you ever know if you don't know what your capabile of under the best of condition's?

We've all heard the guy that say's "I can't shoot from a rest but, run a piece of meat by me....". That's a guy that probally CAN'T shoot from a rest for no other reason than he won't try for fear of people finding he doesn't shoot well. How many time's have people said "1/2" or 2"" is fine for them? Well the truth is, it is. Those people, I presume, at least know how their rifle shoot's and 1 1/2" to 2" is plenty good for a big game rifle.
Less than 1 1/2" @ 100yds is usefull mostly for bragging right's, it'll get you no more game. For those that feel the need to shoot in excess of about 250 yds, that's also for bragging rights!

So, how accurate should your rifle be? One hole at any distance your likely to shoot. You'll rever do it but the practice won't hurt if you try, and you'll become a better shot. In the end, hunting is about the taking of life, do it well!

earschplitinloudenboomer · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2005, 07:45:59 PM »

Don Fischer;
...sounds about right.

Zachary · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2005, 08:54:24 AM »

Quote from: Lawdog

Quote from: Don Fischer
Lawdog,

I've acouple old 700's left myself and a 660. They are great. When I wrote remington about that mod 7, I got the same response you did. They told me that the mod 7 wasn't a target rifle and 3" and better group's were fine, from a 223!!!!! Nedless to say, it's someone else's problem now and I'm looking into a new savage.

I don't know what Remington did with the one I sent back to them. I hope they recycled it but doubt it. When a rifle shoots groups the size that the one I had did and that shot that way for everyone that fired it, including the technicians at Remington, its the fault of the rifle not the shooter. Sorry Zachary and longwinters but you are very wrong on this point. Many times it is the rifle/ammo combination that wont shoot. Rifles can/are finicky and shoot different loads differently. For an example my fathers custom Enfield .30-06 will put 150 - 180 gr. bullets into 1 groups all day. Move up to 200 - 220 gr. or down to 125 - 110 gr. and the groups open to around 2 and more. But in the case of the Remington I had it wouldnt group with any factory or hand loaded ammo. The fault lay in the rifle. Lawdog

Lawdog,

I see your point - sometimes it's not the shooter's fault, but actually the rifle. I happened to mention that when I was at the range that it was purely the fault of the shooter, not the rifle. I agree - Not the best shooter in the world can make a bad rifle shoot good (unless, of course, the gun is modified). But, then again, I'm sure you can agree that there are a lot of guns out there that are a lot more accurate than the shooters firing them.

Zachary

Power · « **Reply #37 on:** February 19, 2005, 09:01:16 PM »

Way I look at it, if my rifle can't shoot MOA, I'm not interested. When you figure MOA (Minute Of Angle - about 1" at 100 yards for the uninformed) and shots can reach out to 300 yards or so in the West where I live it is important. That means if there is a deer 300 yards away (about as long a poke I'd want to take at big game) a MOA rifle will hold the shot into a 3" circle. Factor in wind, heavy breathing from running uphill, shooting off-hand (not at 300 but you get my point) and adrenalline all factored in and the rifle better shoot pretty good so I have some margin of error. If you factor all that other stuff PLUS a gun that won't shoot too well (nevermind my not shooting as well as the rifle is capable) and you start making those long shots more risky.

That's why I insist on MOA. Not necessary for everyone, especially if your shots are inside of 200 yards. But for me and the places I hunt, I consider it a must.

magnum308 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 15, 2005, 04:36:04 AM »

I'm a bit of an accuracy freak to. I like my hunting rifles to be real tack drivers. I'm not happy until they shoot better than MOA, preferably .75MOA or better.

Recent load development has produced the following:

.308 Norma Mag (equiv to .300 Win Mag) 180gr @ 3,153fps, 3 shots in .704" @ 100 yds.

.308 Win, 150gr silvertips @ 2,900 fps, 3 shots in .5" @ 100 yds

Regards,
Magnum308

Mac11700 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 15, 2005, 08:36:17 AM »

The old saying" Only a accurate rifle interest me " is how I feel about them...unless it is a wall hanger or one that will forever remain in the safe...if I can achieve a 1" 5 shot group or less off a bench with the rifle...then I'm not truely happy with it...and usually will trade them off if I can't get it to shoot ...that's just the way I am...now...give me a tack driver...1/4" or even a 1/2" shooter...totally different story...I know that if my rifles are capable of shooting tiny groups thru all different types of weather extreams...then I know that when I go afield...it will be MY ability to shoot that matters,not the rifles fault...I don't want to have to guess if shooting thru a tight opening if the need arises...if my rifle is up to the task or not........I shoot a-lot...in all positions...and I utilize a rest ever chance I get...I know how far I'll shoot off-hand and I won't stretch that distance... and I'll always try to get as close as possible before pulling the trigger...if I can't and I feel it's to far to take a chance on the shot...I'll pass on it ...and try to get in a better position later...this is how I was taught...this is the way I teach my children...a man has got to know what his...and his rifles limitations are...and stay within them...

Mac

flintman · « **Reply #40 on:** March 16, 2005, 03:56:16 AM »

1.5" at 100 yards on deer and other big game and 1" at 100 yards for groundhogs is good.
'Course I do try to use only Kimber of Oregon rifles in my modern gun shooting. :-)

tomaldridge · « **Reply #41 on:** March 16, 2005, 05:05:22 AM »

I've always thought of precision as group size, and accuracy as where the group is on the target. I want 1 MOA or less in a varmint rifle that's likely to be fired from a pretty solid rest. For deer-type calibers likely to be fired from a tree rest, 1-2 MOA is fine with me, considering I've never shot a deer at over 125 yards. MOA, to me, must be consistent out to the practical limits of the cartridge. For example, my Savage 112 in .223 Rem will give me .5-.75 groups all day at 100 yds, and 1.0-1.5 groups at 200 yards. That's 1/2 - 3/4 MOA, and that's fine with me. If I could fire at 300 yards, I'd want 1.5 - 2.25" at that range. I don't expect the .223 to hold up all that well at 400 yards, but would shoot for 2 - 3 " groups if I could find a 400 yd range. If this rifle went from .5" groups at 100 yards to 2" groups at 200 yards, it wouldn't be 1/2 MOA to me. What's more important to me is "true" accuracy. The group must be windage-centered at all practical ranges to make me happy, and not change as the range increases. My Savage groups right on for windage at all ranges. When these 3 standards have been met, I look at the coldshot accuracy. Simply put, some firearms put the first round in a slightly different place than others. A rifle that changes only minimally is best. My Savage shoots 1/2" low at 25 yards on the first round through a cold, clean barrel if I forget to run a tight, dry patch through it. A cold, clean, DRY barrel does not change noticeably at 25, 50 or 100 yards. I'm still testing at 200 yards, but it looks like the change is very small. After that, consistency in all climates. A rifle that shoots well in 20 degree weather should also shoot well in 90 degree weather. In order of importance to me, the 5 categories are:

Trueness at all practical ranges
Accuracy on the target
Precision (1 MOA or less)
Coldshot consistency
Climate consistency

Took a trigger job, 3 years, and 500 rounds with 4 powders and 2 different die sets to find what the Savage liked, but that's part of the fun.

1911crazy · « **Reply #42 on:** March 16, 2005, 09:46:25 AM »

With a new rifle its a crap shoot to what its going to shoot like because your not sure of the way the barrel was machined as to wether the tool (broach or button)was sharp or dull, were just not sure how many barrels were machined with it before they did yours? So its a toss up wether the gun needs to be broken in or not. I expect 1 1/2" or better groups with bought ammo. I've had right out of the box 700 remington in 338win.mag. shoot two bullets thru the same hole at 100yds with new winchester 338 ammo and that was less than 1/2 box of ammo thru it. I zeroed in the scope and my last two shots went thru the "X" on the sight in target. With my old '72 mossberg i reload for it to shoot nickle sized groups all day long. I made my own gun rests out of 2"X12"'s the front rest is very large "V" while the rear rest is a taller narrower shaped "V". In stead of trying to hold and steady the gun sideways, i pull it straight down into the rests so the Vee's hold the gun straight and i adjust the rear vee till the front and rear site or scope cross hairs are on the dead center of the site in target meaning the cross hairs are in the cross hairs of the target. Then its ready to shoot and site in or see how accurate it is. It elimates my error when i do it this way. BigBill

magnum308 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 16, 2005, 11:22:34 AM »

Let's up the anti on this a bit. What do you consider acceptable accuracy for a dangerous game rifle?

Say we start at .375.

I'll start this with my experiences with a .375 Chatfield-Taylor (375/338WM). I have one on a Ruger M77. I have not done a lot of shooting with it. Late last year decided to work up some loads with 270 gr Hornady spire bullets. I used ADI powder (being here in Australia), it's equivalent to IMR4064, I think. Using around 66gr and a magnum primer with Winchester (originally) 338 cases.

It's not a pleasant experience shooting a DG rifle from the bench rest for groups. The best I could do was 3 shot 1⅛" group @ 100 yards. I feel that the rifle is capable of a lot better but I was getting a bit punchy by the end of the session.

Tell us your experience with your DG rifle and how it shoots?

Cheers,
Magnum

Power · « **Reply #44 on:** March 16, 2005, 02:29:53 PM »

Quote from: Mac11700

The old saying" Only a accurate rifle interest me " is how I feel about them...unless it is a wall hanger or one that will forever remain in the safe...if I can achieve a 1" 5 shot group or less off a bench with the rifle...then I'm not truely happy with it...and usually will trade them off if I can't get it to shoot ...that's just the way I am...now...give me a tack driver...1/4" or even a 1/2" shooter...totally different story...I know that if my rifles are capable of shooting tiny groups thru all different types of weather extreams...then I know that when I go afield...it will be MY ability to shoot that matters,not the rifles fault...I don't want to have to guess if shooting thru a tight opening if the need arises...if my rifle is up to the task or not........I shoot a-lot...in all positions...and I utilize a rest ever chance I get...I know how far I'll shoot off-hand and I won't stretch that distance... and I'll always try to get as close as possible before pulling the trigger...if I can't and I feel it's to far to take a chance on the shot...I'll pass on it ...and try to get in a better position later...this is how I was taught...this is the way I teach my children...a man has got to know what his...and his rifles limitations are...and stay within them...

Mac

Couldnt' agree more with this. That is exactly how I am too when it comes to my guns.

borg1 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 22, 2005, 02:38:45 AM »

I am an accuracy nut too. Generally, i'd like all my guns to shoot MOA or better. But, sometimes accuracy must be a relative thing. For examples:

My varmint gun is a .243 savage 12BVSS. That is grouping about 0.55" at 100 yards with 70gr HPBT. IMHO that is good accuracy for a varmint gun, which is not really 'broken in' yet (90 rounds so far). Now, i also get good groups with deer weight bullets (105 gr at 0.6") and so perhaps it should do ok for long shots of 300 yards or less.

My 'deer' gun is a tikka whitetail hunter in .308. normally i get 0.75" 3-shot groups with it with factory ammo. I've gone to reloading and still have not found a good loading for it, so groups are about 1.5" at 100 yards. KNOWING this i would limit my shooting to the yardages where i could hold a 6" group FOR DEER. My guess is that 300 to 400 yards ought to do it.

In a bench rest competition neither of these guns would be especially good.

In short, i feel relative accuracy is best used to describe the combination of target being shot and precision of rilfe. Hence, caribou moa... :grin:

Mac11700 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 22, 2005, 03:49:49 AM »

The one thing that amazes me..is when anyone says" Minute of _______" (your choice of animal)...I'm sorry...but that just don't cut it with me...if your only getting 6" to 8" groups with a rifle...there is way too many things that can turn a killing shot...into a wounding shot...and I have more respect for what I'm hunting to do that...I take nothing for granted...Mr. Murphy has taught me that...I know I may catch some flack over this...but I can't help but feel that way...I've seen too many " Bad " hits from guys in deer camps that feel like that.....I'm not saying that everyone that feels that way is a bad shot...but come-on...something is wrong with that statement...

Mac

borg1 · « **Reply #47 on:** March 22, 2005, 03:59:58 AM »

Mac11700,

You're right of course. I would never shoot an animal at a range where the accuracy of my rifle could not cleanly kill it....

cheers,

HuntingGuy · « **Reply #48 on:** March 22, 2005, 04:37:47 AM »

Quote

if your only getting 6" to 8" groups with a rifle...there is way too many things that can turn a killing shot

So true.. I have seen way too many guys at the range taking their brand new rifles out of the box topped with a trashco scope 2 days before deer season. They shoot it 2 times, the shots are 7" apart because they "hardly ever shoot rifles", they put it in a case and are ready to go deer hunting! Come on guys, is it too much to ask by making sure your rifle can shoot 1-2", none of this 6" bull crap.. I don't think that is fair to the animal much less the other hunters who spend all season gettin their rifles to that point of shooting MOA and getting comfortable with them, when their buck is being shot at by six inch Mitch... IMO, I define accuracy as 1-2" @ 100 yards, 2" or close holding out to 200..

victorcharlie · « **Reply #49 on:** March 22, 2005, 05:31:22 AM »

When I was growing up, if you could put five rounds in an aluminum pie pan or a paper plate at a hundred yards that was considered to be good enough to deer hunt with......in those days, most everyone hunted with iron sights as the woods were thick and most shots were under 100 yards.......the vast majority used Marlin or Winchester 30.30's.........

Myself personally, I like the rifle to be more accurate than I can shoot.....with iron sights, 3 inches at a hundred is pretty good.....1 1/2' is great........for a varmit rifle......one hole is what I'd like, but anything under an inch is pretty darn good......when I had better eyes and was a little more steady, 1/2 inch or less with my rifle and handloads off a good rest is what I expected.

When I went in the army I learned th army's expectations weren't near as high as mine.......they just wanted me to hit a man sized sillouette at 300 meters......heck....I was used to shooting the nose off a ground hog at that range........Id get mad at myself if I aimed at the nose and hit him between the teeth!

Mac11700 · « **Reply #50 on:** March 22, 2005, 08:26:01 AM »

victorcharlie:

Your absolutly right..." Back in the day" a 3"-8"goup with an open sited Winchester or Marlin lever gun was the accepted norm...but...not anymore...not only are the guns more accurate...but the ammo and the components we have today make it way too easy to get good groups from these fine little woods guns...plus the fact that more and more folks are scoping them now helps as well....but...for a bolt gun to only be able to have that 6"-8" group...no-way on Gods green earth would I ever accept that...nor would I ever let my sons go hunting if this was the best they could do...nor would I hunt with someone if they were only that proficient... I think the majority of us feel the same on it too...

Mac

borg1 · « **Reply #51 on:** March 22, 2005, 08:38:30 AM »

If a new rifle printed groups of 6-8" that would indeed be a rare rifle by today's standards :-D

Even cheaply made handi rifles (visit the chat group on Graybeard) are capable of sub MOA groups with a little work. Not bad for a $180 rifle... see pic below...

Speaking of old guns. My buddy has a sporterized enfield in .303. His uncle salvaged a good action, worked the trigger, put the action in a good target grade stock, and placed a nicely bedded sporter barrel on it. That gun routinely shoots MOA or better.

I have been eyeing a 6.5x55 that has been fitted with a stainless bull barrel (looks like a Douglas air gauged model). I bet ya that'll shoot!!!

victorcharlie · « **Reply #52 on:** March 22, 2005, 09:57:26 AM »

Mac: I agree with you totally......the standards have changed.......any bolt gun that is in the 6 inch range definitely has a problem.......expectations now are much different that they were then........ammo is IMHO much better now than anything off the shelf then.......In those days....hand loading was a requirement for accuracy, but most off the shelf ammo I've ran across lately will at least do 1 1/2" to 2".....that's the cheap stuff........My muzzle loader will get about 3" at 100 yards if I do my part, and shotgun slugs have greatly improved to the point that a good slug gun will shoot a pie pan at a hundred yards all day long.......I think that's why savage is kicking some serious rifle butt as they raised the bar again........but, in the typical deer stand, with a guy in a baker type or self climbing stand.....and shooting off hand.......MOA accuracy is not much benefit......most simply can't hold a rifle that steady under those conditions..... same for jumping a deer out of deep brush and shooting on the fly......that's one of the reasons I gave up climbing trees to hunt a long time ago......

Still, shootings a lot like golf in a way.........I go to the range and shoot several average groups......then maybe one exceptional group......and I'm back again in a few days trying to get them all to be exceptional groups.......It's the hope of shooting one hole groups consistantly that keep me coming back.......

And again, uncle Sams expectations are way off the average hunters.......of course uncle Sam would rather you wound the enemy anyway......

Ramrod · « **Reply #53 on:** March 22, 2005, 12:22:59 PM »

Quote from: magnum308

Let's up the anti on this a bit. What do you consider acceptable accuracy for a dangerous game rifle?

Say we start at .375.

I'll start this with my experiences with a .375 Chatfield-Taylor (375/338WM). I have one on a Ruger M77. I have not done a lot of shooting with it. Late last year decided to work up some loads with 270 gr Hornady spire bullets. I used ADI powder (being here in Australia), it's equivalent to IMR4064, I think. Using around 66gr and a magnum primer with Winchester (originally) 338 cases.

It's not a pleasant experience shooting a DG rifle from the bench rest for groups. The best I could do was 3 shot 1⅛" group @ 100 yards. I feel that the rifle is capable of a lot better but I was getting a bit punchy by the end of the session.

Tell us your experience with your DG rifle and how it shoots?

Cheers,
Magnum

That is excellent accuracy, and good enough for much longer ranges than dangerous game should be fired at. I don't feel like I need better than 1-1/2 inch groups in ANY big game rifle, even though I prefer better. My .375 H&H will do better with most loads, but that is certainly good enough. Under 100 yards, getting a good shot off quick is more important than small groups, so a gun that only shoots into 2 or 2-1/2 inches but handles well is better than a heavy, or unwieldy 1/2 inch group bench gun.