What the #@*&^)$@ is going on anyway????

[Nightrain52]

Bill, I think a few of the other posters have hit on something and that is the relationship of the barrell threaded straight into the reciever. If there is just a slight deviation in the way the threads have been cut it is possible that as it is mated to the reciever off center causing what I would call barrel yaw, much like a misaligned bullet in a case. As it is screwed into the reciever the end of the barrel would wobble ever so slightly. It wouldn't take much to throw the shot way off.

[Butler]

Maybe you have developed a terrible flinch :-D

[Graybeard]

Maybe you have developed a terrible flinch

Unlikely since both the Remingtons are now sighted in and it seems pretty much anything I feed them shoots from around 1/2" at 100 to a bit under an inch.

I still need to pull the stock on the VLS and lighten the trigger pull and make up my mind just which of the loads I've tried I'll load up for the shoot.

[lowertroll]

Two things come to mind that I will share.
1.  With the aid of a bore sighter, I have found that I consistently shoot a little high and right Therefore I make a low and left adjustment when mounting scopes and using the boresighter.   I am convinced that this high and right poi vs poa is due to my bench protocol (which I am too stuborn to fix).  I doubt that the author has the same shortcomings I do in good and consistent shooting practices, but I wonder if there was a change in bench/ bags/glasses/ etc before this issue began.
2.  For those who mount the scope to the rings, then the rings to the bases, and then the bases to the gun------get yourself a 12" piece of steel bar stock to use instead of the scope.  Could save some damage and the bar stock can be used to lap the rings in if you needed for perfect alignment.
ps:   the high right thing is there with my off hand shooting also. :evil:  :evil:  :twisted:  :shock:  :?  :?  :?  :?

[Slamfire]

Maybe you jest need to give up them suppository rifles, and get you a front stuffer. Shootin' patched round balls requires you to get close enough to the game that you can see it with yore mark I eyeballs..  :-D  

[safetysheriff]

GB', et.al.

I've had such good luck with Millett Angle-Loc's that I wouldn't bother paying higher prices for any other ring.    I've used their 'Extended' rings as well as their regular-type, which are all adjustable for windage.    I Loc-Tite them all.    

Why bother banging your head over this when the Angle Loc's can easily solve the problem?    Move the rear ring a Little to the right, move the front ring a Little to the left, and you will easily center those shots that were 8+ inches to the right at 25 yards.    For height adjustment I'd shim the inside of the front ring 'just a touch' on the Bottom to bring down the point of impact.    

I admit that I'm believing you already know these things, but I'm seriously telling you that when I've mounted scopes on the last 5 or 6 Remingtons, and then lightened their trigger pulls, the rifles have shot like a house of fire......with properly tested/developed handloads being very accurate.    (An RCBS Trigger Gauge helps us set the triggers to 40 ounces for the varminters, and a little heavier for the big-game models.)

I have a friend who used to be Real Big on Brownings and Sakos.   Now he's Very Happy with the Remingtons we've worked on.    You've got the right brand when you choose Remington; now you can buy the right ring if you go with Millett.

Not bragging, just very opinionated in favor of that combination....

Take care,

SS'

[Graybeard]

I say again, Millet rings are VERY BAD for your scope. To use their adjustment feature you must put the scope tube in a bind big time. It's why scopes fail. The Burris Signature Rings accomplish the same end but with no bind on the scope. You use them if you like. BUT they will NEVER EVER be on a gun of mine. I like my scopes too well to break them with Millet's junk.

[safetysheriff]

GB'

I use a 3-ring set up, with Millet's, on my Handi's; and I use the 2-ring set up on my Remington's.    I don't think I've had a failure yet from the rings.    I've put some electrical tape inside the rings on both the top and bottom halves to eliminate slippage, and maybe to allow some give (though not much I'm sure) inside the rings.    No problem that I can tell so far.    

Incidentally, I set up my front ring, on a 2-ring set up, as far forward on the scope as I can, so there's distance between the two rings.    On the Handi's I eyeball them to set them up properly.    The 3-ring'd Handi's maintain zero from one year to the next, once the scopes are 'settled in'.

I really wouldn't worry about minor pressures on the aluminum scope tubes of a good brand of scope.    (I do not consider cheaper models of BSA to be good scopes, for example).

Take care,

SS'

[Judson]

Since this is happening with so many rifles could we be flinching and yanking the trigger out of the rifle?     Sorry about that but just could not resist throwing that in forgive me please!

[waterfowlhunter]

I had the same issue with a Savage and  a Remington 700.  The Remington went back to the factory and they told me that the front holes were not perfectly in-line with the bore but it was within their tolerance so they would not correct it. Also the front of the action was a bit undersized but still within their tolerance so they told me to use Leupold bases for a Weatherby which has the same holes but slightly smaller dia on the front of the action and also use the rear base to set windage and that should correct the issue.  I sold them both to avoid the issue.  I have several Browning A-Bolts and one Remington VLS 243 and they have been fine.

[Graybeard]

Since this is happening with so many rifles could we be flinching and yanking the trigger out of the rifle? Sorry about that but just could not resist throwing that in forgive me please!

You are joking, right Judson? Or did you just not read the full thread?

I have responded to such already. Other guns fired which had been previously sighted in fired same day were still on point of aim and groups were normal. These guns (the Remingtons) have been sighted in now, loads developed and are shooting tiny bug hole groups.

The problem is that something about the gun, base, rings, scope combination is just not right from the factory. In the case of the TC Classic I commented that when properly sighted in it shot very tiny groups BUT the scope looked like it was pointing way off to the side. When you shoot tiny little bug hole groups that's a fair indication you're NOT flinching.

The problem is NOT the shooter it's the guns. Why so dang many I have no clue but such is the way of life.

[Judson]

Yes I was picking on you, however I have not read every thing posted.
    This may have been brought up all ready but in recent years quality control has gone down hill.    You might want to check the height of both the front and rear of the receiver with the bases installed.    Many times I have found that there is a difference and there should be none!    To check, like I said have the bases installed and take the action out of the stock.    Now measure from the bottom of the receiver to the top with dial callipers, both measurements should come out the same.     If the receiver is off you can either shim the low side or cut down the base on the high end or both if needed.    I hope I have been of some help and not repeating some one else.    Oh yes, you may even find that the holes are not drilled on center from front to rear I ran into this on a model 70 last fall.

[myronman3]

sadly,  i think you already know the answer to your own question.    it all boils down to quality control really sucks.  i am sure there are a number of reasons for it,  none of which i care about.   i would rather pay more than take chances with getting a junker.  
    the only three solutions are 1.   only buy guns that you are able to shoot first  2.  buy older guns that were made right (still no guareentee, but i think odds are more in your favor)  3.  buy from makers that will stand behind their guns.  if that means going custom, so be it.   shipping charges can eat you alive.   overall,  i think it is a sad state of affairs.  it appears the days of a good gun that is affordable are over.   :cry:

[williek]

Graybeard-
I believe you have answered your own question.  You have done everything within your power and skill to align the scope with the receiver; yet the scope appears to be pointing off to the side.
I suspect you have indeed aligned the scope correctly; however, the barrel is not aligned with the action and leaves the appearence of the scope being off.  I believe we sight along the barrel and use that to determine if the scope is in alignment, in our minds.
No other answer seems logical.
Free advice, and that's what it's worth.
williek

[Judson]

Graybeard, I might have found your problem if you are using Leupold rings like the duel dove tail ones.   I just received two sets that were way off, first set the front was off .020" and the rear .05"    the other set was off .015 in the front and .010" for the rear.    When these were on the rifle so the tolerances stacked up we could not zero the rifle, you may want to check this.

[Graybeard]

Graybeard, I might have found your problem if you are using Leupold rings like the duel dove tail ones. I just received two sets that were way off, first set the front was off .020" and the rear .05" the other set was off .015 in the front and .010" for the rear. When these were on the rifle so the tolerances stacked up we could not zero the rifle, you may want to check this.

Nope I don't think the Leupold Dual Dovetail has figured into any of the problems I've had of late. Basically cuz I don't often use Leupold Rings altho I do love the Leupold Dual Dovetail base or the Burris Double Dovetail base. I generally use Burris Signature rings with either.

Both rifles have long ago been taken care of. In fact at the NEF Prairie Dog shoot out in OK this month both rifles killed dogs out to around the 450 yard range. So I guess those folks who thought maybe the old man couldn't hit the paper was at fault or wondered if the rifles just weren't accurate weren't right.  

It has to be a failure on the part of some manufacturer or manufacturers to keep the parts in spec. I just posted it cuz it has been so many guns of late from so many makers and the bases and rings as well as scopes have also been from a variety of makers. Might just be the curse on me of "if it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all". Jist the way life is at times.

The Savage will go back to the dealer I got it from soon and no more of those will come home with me in this life time.

[victorcharlie]

The Savage will go back to the dealer I got it from soon and no more of those will come home with me in this life time.

I take it your Savage wasnt' a shooter?  Was there a problem other than cosmetics?

[Graybeard]

I take it your Savage wasnt' a shooter? Was there a problem other than cosmetics?

I never got it sighted in. No matter what adjustment a set of shots indicated was needed when applied it never even came close to POA. I don't think I ever got a bullet to hit closer than 6" to the POA at 25 yards. In frustration I gave up. This is the only the second gun I've ever owned that I was unable to make hit POA. The other was an imported Sharps replica (IAB I think) that felt like the stock was made from a 2x4. It was almost 15" high at 25 yards with the rear sights all the way bottomed out.

[victorcharlie]

Interesting........I'm sure you are convinced that the savage is at fault......do you think it was the bedding of the stock?  Just curious why you think the rifle is at fault and not the scope or something else?  

Also, what model and caliber savage was this?  What ammo?

I'll admit the Savage ain't the prettiest rifle out there, but most of them shoot  very good........this is really out of character for a savage........

[Savage .250]

Graybeard:  Redfield base ought to do all you need ....left or right.
  Sure saves all that"clicking".  Up or down i`ll leave for others.
   That being said i`ll bet you knew all this anyway.   Life is good.

  " The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience".

[myronman3]

my pops bought me a savage 300 win mag when i got out of the service.  biggest p.o.s. i ever shot.    worse yet was savage's response.  basically "within factory specs"  even though the gun's best group was about 8" at 25 yards.  

%@!*  savage.

[Judson]

Graybeard, if those are the rings with the plastic "inserts" you will find them out of round so you can turn them to adjust for windage.    If these are the rings you are using you might want to check this out.

[Graybeard]

There ya go trying to pull my lag again Judson. Been using them thangs since Burris started making them. Way back then the offset ones came with the rings. Now ya gotta buy them separately and only ZERO rings with no offset come with the rings. Way back when I bought my first set of extra offsets they came two pair of each per package, now there is but one set of each per package.

Trust me I know how to use them. Been doing it since day one.

Guys this whole deal has long long ago been resolved. The question was rhetorical to begin with.

Both Remingtons made shots well over 400 yards on prairie dogs in early June out in OK Panhandle. The Savage I gave up on as a POS and will never own another Savage in this life time. It's being replaced tomorrow with a CZ 452 American. I'm also trading the R700 VLS in .223 on another of the XR-100s in .22-250.

[HuntingGuy]

The Savage I gave up on as a POS and will never own another Savage in this life time. It's being replaced tomorrow with a CZ 452 American.

 :-D    Cheers to that.

... Wait, you say 'this' lifetime.. How bout when you come back in your second life as a Pamela Anderson look-alike? LOL    

Glad you got things figgered out, and finally realized that the majority of Savages are worthless POS's.  Not that i've shot too many, but enough to know I dont reckon i'll buy one any time soon.

[jro45]

I'm glad for you it is resolved.