ACCURACY - What do you expect?

[Zachary]

I must admit, I am somewhat of an accuracy freak.  I own several bolt action rifles and they all shoot 1MOA or better - some as tight as 1/4 of an inch!

I was reading an article about the .325WSM and the author said that the gun grouped about 1.75 inches at 100 yards.  He said while that might not be minute of "Angle" accuracy, it was minute of "Caribou" accuracy.

He has a point.  On an animal as large as a caribou (which I guess is a little larger than a mule deer), and at a distance of 100 yards, 1.75 inches is okay.   You really don't need benchrest accuracy for such an animal at such a distance, but I would go crazy if that was the best that my gun could shoot.

Still, everyone is different.  So the question therefore begs to be asked - what kind of accuracy do you expect from your rifle?

Zachary

[gwindrider1]

Zachary,  While it does depend on the rilfe/caliber to some extent, I can't be very happy with any rifle that won't group down to 1" @100 yds.

"Only accurate rifles are interesting!"

[hardly]

Consistant 300 yard eggs.

[Graybeard]

While I have hunted quite successfully with an old Model 7 that does no better than that generally it's never been asked to go on such a hunt. Inside even 200 yards it has proven adequate but for an expensive hunt like a caribou hunt no way.

From a big game rifle I expect most groups with loads I'll use to hunt to remain inside of 1.25" at 100 yards for three shots. An occasional 1.5" group is not a big deal to me but I expect as many under an inch as I do at 1.5" One that stays under an inch most of the time is really satisifying and not that hard to come by from Remington.

Now for a varmint rifle I expect more. I move to five shot groups with it and expect all groups to stay under an inch with most in the 1/2" to 3/4" size or less. One that frequently keeps them under 1/2" is a comfort to own. But if it can't keep them well under an inch it's not worth having.

[lilabner]

I agree with GB. The use you plan to make of a rifle dictates your expectations. I don't much like the concept of "hunting accuracy" because accuracy is accuracy. If you are shooting at a distant animal with a 12 inch kill zone, you need a rifle that will do the job. If you are only capable of holding inside an 11 inch circle at that distance, the rifle must be able to shoot inside an inch at that range to assure a kill. So, the accuracy of the rifle is still important even with a large target area.  I don't keep a big game rifle unless I can get it down to MOA with some poking, prodding and handload testing. I don't hunt prairie dogs or ground squirrels, but if I did, sub MOA would be the goal.

[Dave in WV]

I know my .243 & 30-06 will put three shots under 1". I can't do it day in and day out. Accuracy is the combination of the firearm, ammunition, and the marksman. IMHO most firearms out shoot more marksman than are given credit. Col. Jeff Cooper has stated "tiny groups from the bench help build confidence but most of it is lost in the field because so many shooters only practice from the bench". I tend to agree with his thinking. I'm guilty of not practicing field positions as much as I should. Do you have a rifle you shoot better off hand that isn't as accurate on the bench as other rifles you own? Which is the better hunting rifle?

[bigjeepman]

Very good post Zachary ...

I think each of us has his/her own definition of what being "accurate" is. What brings us all closer together in defining accuracy is MOA. MOA at 100 yards is the standard I think we all refer to and strive for. I am like you Zachary in that if some of my rifles were only capable of 1" groups I think I'd just about die. I say this because my expectations in certain setups of mine are really high. I have a new Savage Model 10 FP in .223 with a 4200 Bushnell Elite 6-24x40 that I can tell you now ... it will consistently shoot .50" groups of 5 before I am done or I will be disappointed in my abilities in shooting and reloading. I am not talking about an occasional group of .50" but a day in day out average of .50".

Now someone brought up it depended on caliber what level expectations are and I agree. My .300 wsm Win Model 70 is another story. Consistent groups under MOA have been my expectations from the beginning and after many hours of testing reloads, I can say this rifle averages about .80 to .90" in 3 shot groups. I have shot groups as small as .332" but only once. I base my accuracy on averages over the long haul.

[Lawdog]

I too believe that it boils down to different categories.  Big Game, Small Game/Varmints and Target.  Each has their different requirements.  I too am an accuracy “nut”.  So for me acceptable accuracy would be,

All groups 65 shots @ 100 yards

1.]  Big Game - 1.75”

2.]  Small Game/Varmints - .75” maximum

3.]  Target - nothing over .5”

It drives me nuts but every year before deer season I see hunters show at the range to check their rifles before going hunting.  They take a paper plate, paint a circle on it with a magic marker and tact it up at the 100 yard line.  If they can keep four out of five shots on the plate they’re happy.  When I was younger I used to say something but now I just shake my head, turn and look the other way.  Lawdog
 

[stork]

Well From my Savage 111 30-06 I expect 1 inch or less for five shots.  If I was measuring 3 shot groups it would have to a 1/2 inch or better.  This is from the bench of course.

[Ramrod]

I'm with Lawdog on this one, except I can even tolerate 2" groups at 100 yards in a big game gun. I prefer .500 for a varmint gun, but I don't believe I have any alibis when I miss a 300 yard woodchuck with a gun that "only" groups .750 at 100.

[Shorty]

My rifles are (probably) more accurate than I can shoot them!  :oops:
So, how accurate are they?  I dunno.  :wink:

[MickinColo]

For any scoped rifle I own I expect a 3 shot 1 MOA or less. For open iron sights such as my 1886 or a 94, or Marlin, I expect a 3 shot 1 ½ inch or less pattern at 50 yards.

When I work up loads for a new “scoped” rifle I mount a 24X or my 8-32X scope to it. I like to take all the shooter error I can out of my bench sessions. You might be amazed as to how tight your groups get when you use a high powered scope for your bench work. When I’m satisfied with the round/rifle combination I’ll take the target scope off and replace it with the scope I’ll hunt with.
 :-)

[Don Fischer]

I too am an accuracy nut. That meaning a hunting rifle must be a 1" at 100yds. Why not, there's 12 months in a year and hunting season here only last's a couple week's. Need something to do the rest of the year when I'm not fishing.

But I've run into a snag. It's a Remington 700 in 243 that on a good day does minute of watermelon at 100yds. This is the second Remington I've had do this, think it will be my last!

One last thing, one of you gut's has dated himself. That quote is from Warren Page in "The Accurate Rifle"!

[Lawdog]

Don Fischer,

But I've run into a snag. It's a Remington 700 in 243 that on a good day does minute of watermelon at 100yds. This is the second Remington I've had do this, think it will be my last!

I know what you are talking about.  Been there and went thru it.  Good luck in getting Remington to do anything about it.  They told me that groups of 4"(+/-)@100 yards(three shots) were well within company standards.  Sincerely I wish you all the luck in your dealings with "Big Green".  Lawdog
 

[bigjeepman]

I have never owned a Remington rifle so I am not qualified to give an opinion on a Remington problem. What I am qualified to talk about is the Savage 10 FP in .223 I just bought last week with the Accu-trigger. I am telling you guys if you have not shot one of these you are missing out. I shot a 1.10" ten shot group today with a crosswind of I'm guessing of 5 to 10 miles per hour at times. I ran 60 rounds through it of 55gr Federal reloads and 45 gr white-box Winchesters. The largest 5 shot group I shot was right on MOA. There were no unbelieveable small groups but I consistently shot in the .60" to .75" range with factory ammo. With more practice with the Accu-trigger and my own reloads, I am about to have a new "most accurate rifle."

[RaySendero]

Dime size 3 shot groups at 100 yards is darn good for hunting rifle but have found it can be done with PMC's silver line of ammo.

Late model Remington 700 in my favorite caliber:


270 Winchester:

[HuntingGuy]

But I've run into a snag. It's a Remington 700 in 243 that on a good day does minute of watermelon at 100yds. This is the second Remington I've had do this, think it will be my last!

Should you, Lawdog, and myself join the Remington Watermelon Club?    I have a Model Seven 260 SS that wont shoot factory ammo worth a damn.  Needless to say, it isn't in the case to go deer huntin  :-D  

[mjbgalt]

my Vanguard .243 doesnt seem to do any better than an inch at 100 yards but then again that was just me resting it and not on a bench and with 80 grain bullets....supposedly the twist in these guns is better for the 100-grain size.

i know what Zachary means though....i wanna be able to punch em all through the same hole...lol

-Matt

[Zachary]

i know what Zachary means though....i wanna be able to punch em all through the same hole...lol

Yup, ain't nothing wrong with that.

BTW, I'm surprised to hear about Remington rifles that can't even hit a "watermelon."  Prior to my joining this site, I had never heard of a Remington that shot much over 1MOA.  Granted, some of you are telling us about your horrible accuracy experiences with your Remingtons, but maybe I'm just in denial?

All of my Remington 700s shoot MOA or better - even the magnums.  Graybeard will also probably echo similar experiences.

Zachary

[lilabner]

You can't always go by brand names when looking for accuracy. Some examples: without any real load testing, the '03 Springfield sporter with 4 groove military barrel I inherited from my dad will shoot MOA 3 shot groups all day with 165 gr. Hornady spire points pushed by 58 gr. of H4350. I had a Herters (BSA) rifle in .257 Roberts that shot under MOA consistently. I had a 6.5 lb. JC Higgins '06 model 51L that would consistently shoot sub moa ( and loosen your fillings doing it) It had a High Standard barrel on a Husquvarna action. Brand loyalty is OK but shouldn't be carried too far. I had a Rem. 700 classic in 7MM Magnum that I fooled around with for a couple of years - trigger, bedding, handload testing etc. An inch and a half was the best it would do for me. Go figure. I sold the gun, of course. Some don't think much of Rugers when it comes to accuracy. I bought a second hand M77 25-06 with tang safety some years ago. It would shoot half inch groups at 100 yards consistently if you let the barrel cool. It is still in the family and still shooting one holers.

[longwinters]

MOA, or less, is the only accuracy acceptable to me.  Some rifles seem to shoot it easily, sometimes inspite of me the shooter.  For other rifles I have to be shooting well.  But it is not the rifles fault, just the shooters.  What I would like is a string of rifles that all shoot it easily.

Long

[Lawdog]

But I've run into a snag. It's a Remington 700 in 243 that on a good day does minute of watermelon at 100yds. This is the second Remington I've had do this, think it will be my last!

Should you, Lawdog, and myself join the Remington Watermelon Club?    I have a Model Seven 260 SS that wont shoot factory ammo worth a damn.  Needless to say, it isn't in the case to go deer huntin  :-D  

Lets just pray that the boat holding us isn't a small one because there are way to many of us that have had the same experience.   :shock:   Funny thing is it's the newer Remington's that have that problem.  Older ones seem to be very accurate and well worth their cost.  I just bought a 1969 Model M700 in .350 Remington Magnum that I have been wanting for a number of years.  Found it in a pawn shop of all places.  Almost NIB condition(at least 96% NRA).  If only Remington would just get back to old company standards.  Lawdog
 

[Zachary]

But it is not the rifles fault, just the shooters.
Long

That's so true.  I was at the range on Saturday and I saw a guy shooting a Remington ADL synthetic stock with a Bushnell Trophy on it.  The gun was a .308 and his groups were about 2 inches at 100 yards.  When I was talking with him, he was telling me that he expected better accuracy.  He was shooting Federal Premium Sierra Boat tails, I think 165 grainers.  I told him that I was surprised that he was getting 2MOA.

To make a long story short, he let me shoot his gun and I took 3 shots and put them into 1" at the 100 yards.  He was surprised.  Then I observed him when he was shooting and I noticed that he jerked the rifle when he shot.  Let me tell you,  it is helpful to have someone watch you when you shoot.  He dropped his groups down to about 1.5MOA, and I'm sure that with pracrtice he will do better.  I also told him to have a competent gunsmith do a trigger job and adjust the pull because it was about 6 pounds, which is way to heavy for me, and probably at least a little heavy for him or anyone else.

So, yes, a gun is only as accurate as its shooter.

Zachary

[High Brass]

Good post Zachary.  When my fiance said she wanted to deer hunt with me, I was tickled.  I have had a Savage M110E in 243 Win  for almost 15 years.  I load for it and when I hold my mouth right, it averages just under an inch(IIRC .88" or so).  

Well, off to the range we went and I let her get used to the manual of arms, trigger pull, scope, etc. and then it was field shooting only.  I was not only pleased....I was impressed!  Out to 100 yards(which covers alot of deer hunting in eastern NC) she was pro.  I put a cardboard deer target up at 50 yards and she shot a five shot group roughly the diameter of a copenhagen can.....offhand!  Point being she was confident and enjoying it at the same time.  I learned something that day, it's a heckuva lot more fun to shoot "stuff" than to glue yourself to sandbags and worry about groups.  Yes, of course that type of shooting has it's purpose(obtaining zero, load testing, new scope mounting, etc.) but I think that it's more gratifying and practical when you shoot field positions and targets that go "bong" when ya hit 'em.  I try to handload my ammo for my rifles to produce 1 inch groups at 100 yards and have been successful so far.  But here in the last year or two, I've concentrated more on what I can do in the field.  I shoot a high powered air rifle weekly in my backyard to maintain basic marksmanship skills and shoot 22 rifle and pistol more than anything else.

[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.

[earschplitinloudenboomer]

I started reading about and shooting centerfire rifles in the early 60's. MOA was a hot topic then. With the advances in technology, materials, ballistic data, and ammunition manufacture, why shouldn't I expect MOA in 2005? In a sporting rifle, of the Winchester, Remington, Ruger, Savage quality (and price), with quality optics, properly mounted, and with good commercially produced premium ammunition, I feel the gun should be capable of that level of accuracy. Not with every brand or style of ammunition, but with something easily available in standard calibers. If I am capable of shooting to that degree (from a bench rest), I expect the rifle to. I have long admired Remington rifles for their "right out of the box" accuracy, this 3 or 4 inch BS is unacceptable. If Remington or any other gun maker feels that this is good enough, we shoud become very vocal about it. Is 1 inch at 100 yards necessary, not usually. Can I  shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards, sometimes, but I usually can tell if it's me or the gun. This points out the hair in the biscuit, do we do our part in practice, developing good shooting habits, searching for a brand or type of ammunition that shoots to optimum in our rifle and using good quality optics, or do we let a bad day at the range or poor quality equipment bear on our judgement of a guns performance? Remember, I stated that I felt that the gun should be capable of MOA, if you throw 'er across the hood an' let one loose at a distant oil can as your yearly sight in ritual...good luck.

[IowaBuckHunter]

I love all my remingtons.  It is all I own.  In my opinion, they shoot the best for the money.  Sure if you buy a kimber or cooper, you will get a little better accuracy, but I would put my remingtons against them.  They are so easy to tweak to get max performance.  All guns shoot well, with the exception of a few lemons.  If you have accuracy troubles, try different brands of ammo, some guns are ammo particular.  If that doesn't work, you may have troubles with your optics.  Optics are a huge part of your accuracy.  If you spend the money on a new rifle, get a good scope, skip over the $100 Simmons.

[Lawdog]

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, it’s 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 won’t shoot.  Rifles can/are finicky and shoot different loads differently.  For an example my father’s 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 wouldn’t group with any factory or hand loaded ammo.  The fault lay in the rifle.  Lawdog
 

[jvs]

I use the bench to get the tightest group I can from a rifle, without being too micro-managing.  I need to have the confidence in the gun so when I have a shot in the woods which has a tight shooting lane, I can squeeze one off without worrying about bouncing one through the trees.    Pa is a woodsy state and most all shots have some kind of wood involved.  I know that if I miss, it wasn't the rifle.  Most of the time 1 or 1 1/4 inch groups would be fine.  Sometimes all it takes is a change of ammo.

Some calibers won't get tight, while others will.  Knowing how the rifle shoots is the most you can do before it hits the woods.  Then you can either take the shot or wait a few seconds for a better one.    

Knowing the weapon is about the only reason I use the bench.   I was alot more fanatical before, but not any more.  Now my .22 is the only rifle that I insist it have the tightest group possible because I use it for head shots on squirrels.  Hardly any other game animal can make you a better shot or a better hunter than the lowly squirrel.

[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