Anybody read the July 08 Field&Stream accuracy issue?

[nomosendero]

Interesting article about the most accurate factory bolt actions.....  I just read it yesterday, then I left the issue at my cousins house.

Top 5, rated best group to worst group average, off the bench:

Weatherby Vanguard SS MOA
T/C Icon
Savage 110
Marlin XL7
Mossberg ATR

All of these averaged less than MOA.

Remington 700 was 2nd to last, Winchester Model 70 was last place.  The 700 average was 1.45" and the Model 70 was slightly higher.  Most other bolt actions ranked in between the Mossberg and the Remington.

The gun part of F&S is entry level geared for the once a year shooter. I see several things wrong with this article on the surface, but I am assuming so you that have read it please answer these questions & maybe then I won't be as
doubtful.
1. How many rifles of each model were tested? If it is only 1 per model was tested then the test has zero credibility,
period. I bought a Savage Varmit in 22-250 & even after bedding the rifle & every trick in the book the rifle just did not group the way it should. But MOST OF THE TIME they are VERY accurate. I have a plain Jane Mod
700ADL in 270 that right off shot extremely small groups & with the first 140 Accubond load I worked up the group was .187". That rifle is crazy accurate, but are all the Mod 700's that way that I have worked with, no they are not, but I can say the Rem. has been more more consistant than most. Unless you go the custom route you will not get
100% consistant results. And I am not a big Mod 70 fan, but if you think a Mossberg will be more accurate rifle to rifle
than a Mod 70, I have some swamp land in the Grand Tetons for sale! I have known of some of those to shoot well & others that would pattern like a shotgun, come on. Bottom Line: IF SEVERAL OF EACH WERE NOT TESTED< THE TEST IS USELESS.
2. How many loads of each main bullet weight were tested? For example if they were 30-06 or 308, did they try several loads in 150, 165, & 180? Many times with a 30 cal you will find that they will prefer one of those 3 only & you won't know that sometimes until you try a few loads of that weight. If they did not do so, then again the test has zero credibility.
3. Did they use a comparable grade of rifle with each brand. If they used a Sub MOA WEa. for example, did they use the best Sav, Rem & others? If not, why not?

[kyelkhunter3006]

The gun part of F&S is entry level geared for the once a year shooter. 

Exactly.  This wasn't a "test" to what the most accurate rifle is.  It was an "article" talking of the accuracy of the market as a whole.  What can the average buyer expect when they leave Wal-Mart or the gun shop?  What they did (my take from reading the article) was basically grab one each of the popular rifles, some were new, some were used (owned by staff).  Just like the once a year hunter would do, not the gun nuts like most of us with multiple rifles and the will/ability to take the time to test different loads, bedding techniques, etc. 

The person whose idea of a lot of shooting is going through a 20rd box at one sitting once or twice a year is buying a gun based on one (maybe more) of 4 things:

1.  It's what my dad used. Tradition.
2.  He knows that a certain name brand has a good reputation.
3.  Price.  Why drop $800 on a gun that gets used for 2 weeks a year, if that?
4.  My buddy who shoots a lot (relative term) knows more than me, and he said it's a good gun.

So they're going to buy a gun, get some shells from the same store, whatever the brand, get whatever scope the store or their friend talks them into, and go the range.  The article is saying that whether you drop a grand or more on a "fancy" gun or spend $300 on a Marlin, Mossberg, or Stevens, you're going to get more than acceptable accuracy, sometimes extreme accuracy, for your dollar. 

My whole point is that I found it interesting that the budget guns (on a whole) shot better than than the fancy guns (on a whole).  The two biggest names in the business were what those a lot of us here would call average shooters, no better.  The cheap guns that some of us like to slam at times, in general, were better shooters.  In this circumstance.

[slim rem 7]

 i like the premise of your poll ..i also would love to have all the centerfires that novices have ruined .. the words of an novice are to be taken with a grain of salt..thats why when i finally got something that shoots on par with the best groups i see pictured on this forum ,[in my hands yet].. i treat it like a baby. to the people your post was directed at ,ill say it again .. take a look at savage 110 or 111 blt.
 yes even the wally wrld versions altho its kinda sad for a an action and barrel like that to have junk stocks onum..
  i speak from experience about what novices can do to a gun.. i slowly burned an fairly accurate 243 handi rifle up one fine day ..before i really knew better.most of these guns are not to be shot like 22s..

[nomosendero]

Thanks Kyelkhunter for clarifing the article. And you are right, it is not a test at all but an "article".

"The article is saying is whether you drop- a grand or more on a fancy gun or spend $300 dollars on a Marlin, Mossberg or Stevens, your going to get more than acceptable accuracy, sometimes extreme accuracy, for your dollar."  On that I agree, because the entry level shooter won't utilize as much accuracy anyway. So basically this is a "feel good" article that they feel compelled to do from time to time.
A novice shooter can expect a cheap rifle to "work" at woods ranges to take a Whitetail, fine. And we don't have to worry if a novice thinks he can expect better accuracy from a Mossberg than a Sako, if he ever starts shooting alot, he will learn better.
 
An experienced shooter would know that this article has nothing to do with what a serious shooter can expect from a given brand & since they only tried one of each, it has no credibility at all as far as a "test" is concerned.

Again, Kyelkhunter, thanks for the clarification.

[kyelkhunter3006]

I'd like to see them grab a sampling of the top of the line 30-06 or .308 from each company, regardless of price, you know, their "flagship" of the line (not counting custom shop work).  Then use sales figures from the ammo companies and get a respective sampling of the best selling PREMIUM ammo line loadings of each, and shoot them and see who's the best.  That's a test for the guys like US.   

Then do the same thing with the base model from each company, and use the best selling base ammo loadings, and see which is the best.  That's the test for the rest of the population. 

[Swampman]

Oddly enough in most instances I've found that PREMIUM ammo didn't perform any better (if as well) as the standard ammo offerings.

In some instances the most expensive rifles won't shoot better than 1 1/2" groups at 100 yards without tinkering which means they'll be traded off at the next gun show if they are mine.

It's a lot harder to find a bad rifle/ammo than it use to be.

[kyelkhunter3006]

That would be the point of the test....to see which of the rifles actually shoots best out of the box, no tinkering with anything.  I love to tinker, I love to shoot even more, and I don't have enough time for both of them, so I'd rather just shoot.

Really, I don't know why I even get going on posts about centerfire guns anymore...  I LOVE rifles, and everything about them.  But I really only hunt and shoot with muzzleloaders anymore.  No paperwork, cheaper on average, easier to clean (no copper fouling) and for some reason I just shoot them so much better than any centerfire rifle (must be a balance thing??) when I'm not using a bench.

[poncaguy]

Well, I agree with the Marlin XL7, my 270 is under MOA. My ATR 7-08 is MOA, my ATR 25-06 is 1 1/2 at best. My new Tikka heavy varmit 308 is 1/2"...........