The Crap Shoot That Has Become the Modern Bolt Action Rifle. official rant

[Mr. Joe]

Before you begin, please excuse the various spelling errors.  Its late and my spell check in not working properly.

This is not a rant so much as a culmination of some modern research done by yours truly over the last six months. 

Let me first start by stating the reason for said research.  In May, I purchased a rifle that i thought was a sure thing.  This rifle, (A Kimber 84 super America in .260) though beautiful and well made turned out to be on the poor side of sub par as far as the accuracy goes.  The Real catch is that my brother within two weeks of my purchase, found a Ruger 77 MKII on gunbroker also in .260 for roughly $700 less.  After some glowing range reports from him, i decided i better call his bluff and shoot the ruger.  Sure enough, his factory 77 was a inch grouper at 100 yards.  Mind you he was shooting factory core lokt 140 gr. loads.  My Kimber was struggling to get under two inches not only with factory fodder, but with my hand tailord loads none the less!  Keep in mind his ruger was bone stock, and a trigger that would make a working girl call a preist.

Shocked and dismayed i sought out my options at my local gunsmith which just happens to be the world renowned Williams Gun Sight Co.  After chewing the fat with several of their smiths for a brief while, i came to a very strange conclusion.  Actually, their was no conclusion to come to.  Buying a center fire rifle is an absolute crap shoot regardless of what you pay for it, or whats stamped on the side of the receiver.  This was laid out for me so elegantly by the knowledgeable staff, that i could not bother to argue, for this would be like debating scripture with St. Peter himself. 

Later that night with the aid of a six pack of Blatz, it all became crystal clear.  I have in my short time on this planet owned guns made by most major firms in one form or another.  Not always at the same time, as receiver a man of somewhat limited means, but i have owned and shot them none the less.  After hours of drifting back and forth to days gone by, i found my experiences reflected the same trend as given to me durring my apparition at the gun store.  I have had rifles that were supposed to be shooters print patterns, and guns that were supposed to be without hope post clover leaves.  Basicly i think it comes down to the old saying, you pay your dime and take your chance.  I strongly suspect this is the absolute truth.  Regardless of who makes the gun, it may or it may not be a shooter.

I have found it Regardless difficult in today's age of modern communication (i.e forum postings) to find the real information when it comes to results.  Perhaps a few of you  have noticed the same trend.  It seems every clown who can wrap his booger hook around the bang stick has a sub minute gun that can neuder a crow at a 100 yards and magicly shoots factory ammo just a litter faster than everyone elses.  Those who have not only been around guns our whole lives, but who have studied guns our whole lives know this is not the true dope on the subject.

What i am basicly getting to is my "study" if you will over the last sevarl months.  This study, though not scientific is a "common sense" study, one that i think many here will apreciate.  I have been talking via the phone and email to gun smiths whom i know to be honest and knolegable men about this subject and they agree whole heartedly.  You really have no better change with any certin brand when it comes to pulling a "keeper" from the gun box than you do with another brand, reguardless of price.  A good example is my Kimber.  What i beleive you are paying for is features.  Checkering, stock material and finish, marketing, things of this nature.  My previous example was in no way trying to belittle the kimber while boosting the ruger, but mearly to give an example.  I have had Rugers that would drive tacks and Rugers that would drive the stock prices down, same goes for Remington, Savage, and Winchester just to name a few, and yes i have seen many a kimber a do great work on the range. I do beleive some guns are easier to make acurate however.  Remington is a great exmple of this.  They are the easiest for the smiths to work with and the cheepest for the consumer to customize.  I have been told on good authority that the biggest reason for this the vintage of the action.  Its one of the oldest unmolested action on the market.  It was also designed with cost of manufacture in mind.  This last part may seem like it shouldent matter, but think how much cheaper it is to inlet a stock for the cylendrical action of the 700, or to make a stmaped trigger group for the stamped housing.  It just makes sense. 

Now im not tooting big greens horn, you could say kind things about most modern actinos, for instance, if the Ruger 77 was $500 dollars more, it would be considered the riflemans rifle.  Think about it.  It has the controlled round feet, the three position saftey, the best stock profile and scope mounts on the market and they make it every caliber known to man.  My point is, you can sing the praises of most any brand of rifle for various things, but when it comes to shooting, its all a crap shoot like it or not.

Such well respected writers as Dave Petzel, Jim Carmicheal, and various others have been pounding the same point for years, so what im writing is by no means original, but until recently, i dont think i truly understood it.

I really get sick of seeing good companys take it on the chin.  The greatest example are these internet snipers who know everything, and probaly get about as much trigger time as my sister, whoom for the record doesnt shoot.  Some people think that certin brands magicly make better guns than the competion.  Im here to tell you it just isnt so.  They are all pleagued by the same ghosts.  Quality controll, consistancy, and cost cutting just to name a few.  The internet is a sewer of information folks.  Beleive half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear. 
Thoughts?

[jvs]

The American gun buyer has become way too demanding from an Industry that produces rilfes to standards of 2 inches or less at 100 yds.  If you happen to get a rifle that shoots a ragged hole, you are happy.  But if you happen to get a rifle that is at 2 inch groups, it's a piece of crap.  Everybody wants to be the Sniper and not the Grunt.

Both rifles conform to industry standards, whether it is a Kimber, Winchester, Savage, Ruger, Mauser, Weatherby, Browning, or Remington.  They all use the same standards for performance.  For a manufacturer to have a gunsmith tighten up every rifle would make them as pricey as a Sako.  So it's a trade-off.  Keep em cheap to produce with mediocre ewaults, or buy a Sako, or take yours to a gunsmith for the proper work to be done.

[Old English]

There is of course another option. Spend your $500 on a Tikka T3, guaranteed to put your rounds inside an inch with it's Sako barrel, super trigger and slick action. I have 3 of them and they work just fine. I know, you old traditionalists like wood and steel, not plastic. This old man likes the plastic magazines, solid synthetic indestructible stocks and light weight.  I know that this props up the Finnish economy but, when I spend my $$$$ I don't want a crapshoot. You will struggle to find an innacurate Savage too. 

[Mr. Joe]

Yep, had a few sakos to.

[NONYA]

Next time order your rifle from the custom shop at Rem,I own a few and they dont disappoint.

[Graybeard]

I certainly can't agree with all your conclusions and evaluations regarding the state of the industry. As JVS said there is a basic industry standard regarding accuracy and while not all makers use 2" as that standard few promise better. Strangely those who "promise better" don't even shoot the actual rifle they sell you to verify it. I think instead they just hope yours meets your satisfaction or if it doesn't that they can bamboozle you into accepting it as is.

While I long ago gave up trying to keep a count on the guns I've owned I'd estimate conservatively that for me the number of Remington M700 and M7 rifles likely exceeds 200 to date. Of those I can recall at most a few that could be counted on one hand that failed to shoot far better than that 2" standard and mostly right out of the box with no more than a bit of reducing the trigger pull which seems an almost universal requirement in this day of lawyers.

I did come across one that had been returned within a week of purchase by the former owner and which I suspected had to have problems but the price was right and it was what I wanted at the time. So I bought it and found that sure enough it had a major flaw in that the barrel channel had been cut off center and was bearing very heavily on one side of the barrel and had a wide gap on the other. A single phone call to Remington to explain it to them to include that I bought it used but as new got a new stock shipped my way with no questions asked and with that in place it immediately became a nice shooter.

I have an original M7 7-08 from the first year or so of production. That gun has long been a frustration accuracy wise on paper seldom beating that 2" figure JVS used by much regardless of what it was fed reloads or factory. Yet it never missed a game animal it was fired on from a squirrel to a variety of large game and never required a follow up shot in over 20 years of use by three members of my family. So while the paper accuracy disappointed the on game performance was flawless. Then a couple years ago I tried Hornady Light Magnum ammo in it as that's what I use in all other 7-08 rifles we own. Like magic this formerly poor shooter became an MOA riflel with nothing else done but to find the ammo it really had been wanting since day one.

So if your expectation are that every over the counter mass produced rifle you buy is gonna shoot those magic bug hole groups right out of the box then you are likely to be disappointed but then I blame not the rifles but the expectation as being unrealistic.

Still I think that in general the potential is there and at least in the case of Remington from my personal experience when it fails to do what it should due to some fault of the factory they will willingly work with you at their expense to fix the problems. Then with some minor tuning they seem to do all one can reasonably ask of a mass produced factory rifle.

I suggest to you that if that is not good enough for you then you should look into a custom rifle with an accuracy gurantee that does meet your rigid standards and which is fired as an actual rifle by them to verify that and which they will then tell you what ammo factory or reload to use to obtain said accuracy promised. Or you could have just kept those you said you had that shot like magic rather than dumping them to go buy another to see if it would also shoot.

For me life is more simple. From a rifle that I expect to use on big game I demand it generally shoot to 1.25" with a few loads equal to the task I'll use it for. I like to see it shoot MOA with some regularity with it's chosen loads but if it doesn't I don't lose sleep over it so long as I have only a bit of work involved to find loads that do shoot to 1.25" and can live with 1.5" if the rifle is not expected to do long range work. As I said the one that has shot the poorest on paper has been flawless on game.

For a varmint/target rifle my expectations and demands are far higher. With them I set the bar at five shot groups at 100 yards pretty much ALWAYS being MOA or less and expect the majority of groups fired to be 1/2 to 3/4 MOA with several different loads either factory or reloads and I expect a fair percentage to shoot less than 1/2 MOA.

To date I've not ever bought a Remington M700 Varmint rifle that failed to easily meet that standard and so far the ONLY work required to get them there was a reduction in the pull weight of the trigger which is a five minute job on an R700.

Yeah I've heard other internet pundits such as yourself bash Remington as being horrible and well perhaps yours was. But I've owned something likely in excess of 200 of them to date and can count on one hand those that failed to meet the above stated standards. Maybe I'm just a real lucky person after all in my 62 plus years of life I've managed to win a grand total of ONE THING in my entire life so yeah I'm probably just lucky.

But I strongly suspect that folks who are less lucky than me and get all those bad rifles either have no clue how to shoot accurately or have a basic misunderstanding of the subject of minor tuning of factory rifles to bring out the intrinsic accuracy that's there and when it is not delivering that don't give the manufacturer an opportunity to work with them to make them shoot adequately. Then too maybe their standards are just higher than mine. Dunno but for me Remington rifles have always delivered the goods.

Ruger on the other hand never really has for me. True enough I've never owned nearly so many Rugers as Remingtons and the number of them is likely more like 10% of the number of Remingtons I've owned. But so far I've yet to find a Ruger centerfire rifle that met my above stated standards. No I honestly have not given Ruger a chance to make any of them right I just traded them back to a dealer and got a Remington to replace it.

Some time back I was considering a Kimber rifle for myself. I liked the looks of a couple of them and they were chambered to the .260 Remington round I was interested in. But I noticed a darth of information on their website regarding accuracy to be expected. I'd read more than a few tales of woe regarding their accuracy on the internet so I called Kimber to ask what was their accuracy standard for their rifles.

What I got was an immediate wringing of their hands and crying about how those thin barrels and light weight guns of theirs shouldn't be expected to shoot like heavier guns and they absolutely would not discuss just how well they should be expected to shoot.

Since many of my Remington guns have been thin barreled Mountain rifles and model 7s with similar thin barrels to what Kimber uses I already knew that thin barrels does not have to mean poor accuracy. I concluded after speaking to the Kimber rep that it was unlikely their guns would meet my personal standards so instead I bought a Remington M7 CDL in .260 Remington. So far I've not shot it extensively but I had a couple boxes of Nosler Custom ammo on hand for the round and both gave MOA performance after sighting it in and both loads hit within an inch of each other at 100 yards. Since the hunt I was planning to use it on wasn't likely to produce a shot an longer range than that I figured I'd call it good for his season and work more with it to develop a reload when warm weather returns this spring.

[PartsMan]

The Weatherby vanguard comes with a target in the box.
Under 1.5" for the standard or under 1" in the sub moa.

Plus, have you called Kimber about your rifle?
Many manufacturers will work with you on accuracy.
Ask nicely, It's up to the person you are talking to on the on the phone.
You may have to send it back though.

[Mr. Joe]

I would like to state for the record that Remington is probably my favorite or second favorite rifle producer, so green bashing was certainly not my intention.  I dont bash brands.  Ive seen rifles from every major producer that were certainly fine examples.

As far as the state of the industry, i think most if not all company's are better now than they ever have been.  It used to be a gun that shot around an inch was a real gem, and something to be shot sparingly, or at least according to guys like O'Connor and Page, but now it seems alot of guns shoot that well, so i was in no way trying to throw the rifle makers under the bus.  Im simply stating that its my conclusion based on personal experience that you have about as much chance getting a shooter from brand A as you do from brand B.  Thats all.

[beemanbeme]

Lotsa good stuff in your post. And I agree with most of it.  I think the problem today is a matter of expectations.  It starts with the gun writers. They shoot a lot so they feel they should be better shots than us great unwashed.  Maybe it starts before them. The gun companys take a specially set up rifle with tuned ammo and shoot a group and then use it in an ad.  Then the writers either quote it or feel they have to dupe it.
 Then contributors in cyberspace lie.  It's as simple as that. They want everybody to think they are great shots. In cyberspace a group can be anything you want it to be.  Few folks are gonna spend $1500 on a new rifle (or more) and then say: "it's a real dog. It won't hit a barn unless you're inside."  Nor is someone gonna buy a top of the line box gun, put a dramatically overpriced scope on it and admit they are a lousy shot. 
So when the next fellow comes along and buys one of these rifles and finds it won't do any better than 2", what is he gonna do? He's gonna do what any red-blooded American would do. He's gonna lie.
It wasn't too long ago that a box rifle that would put it's shots into 2" was considered to be a deer killing machine.  But the accuracy bar has been raised.  By the industry itself as each company sought market share. And shooters, especially shooters that frequents rooms like this, have learnt a great deal more about shooting techniques.
I don't think accuracy has BECOME a crap shoot in modern bolt action rifles.  If anything, it has always been like that and I would opine that it is less now than at one time.  It is gonna be an unusual rifle that you can't take from the box, put a scope on it (sight in), and go deer hunting with.  Will it drive tacks? Perhaps not, but Joe Box-a-Year isn't interested in driving tacks. But it will keep most of its shots inside of a 2" circle drawn on the side of a box shooting acrost the hood of a truck.  And too, a deer is considerably bigger than a tack. That is the person that drives the market.
If I were to buy a Kimber rifle, or a Remington for that matter, and after I had tweaked the rifle around a bit (I certainly don't mean sending it off for some high dollar "accurizing") and using tuned ammo, if 2" was the best I could do, I would be very dissapointed. And, I would certainly be letting someone at Kimber or Remington know about it.
 

[Graybeard]

The Weatherby vanguard comes with a target in the box.
Under 1.5" for the standard or under 1" in the sub moa.

Yup sure enough but guess what, that target WAS NOT shot with YOUR RIFLE. It's simply a bit lie they foist upon you. What they REALLY did was to mount your action ONLY in a solid machine rest and fired it. That is merely a test of the barrel NOT the rifle. Mount that rifle in a stock and then shoot it and that's a test of the rifle and shooter but the way they do it is not.

Been there done that and the rifle would NOT even remotely match the target that came with it with the ammo they used. It was bedded poorly and needed to be returned or reworked by someone else. I decided that Weatherby Vanguard was not the rifle for me and went back to Remington guns which seem to work a lot more regularly out of the box than any other brand I've worked with so far.

[PartsMan]

I did not know that, Graybeard.
Seems silly to do it that way.
They are just asking for mad customers calling in every day.

Yes the stock has a lot to do with accuracy.

[TxRiverman]

The Weatherby vanguard comes with a target in the box.
Under 1.5" for the standard or under 1" in the sub moa.

Yup sure enough but guess what, that target WAS NOT shot with YOUR RIFLE. It's simply a bit lie they foist upon you. What they REALLY did was to mount your action ONLY in a solid machine rest and fired it. That is merely a test of the barrel NOT the rifle. Mount that rifle in a stock and then shoot it and that's a test of the rifle and shooter but the way they do it is not.

Been there done that and the rifle would NOT even remotely match the target that came with it with the ammo they used. It was bedded poorly and needed to be returned or reworked by someone else. I decided that Weatherby Vanguard was not the rifle for me and went back to Remington guns which seem to work a lot more regularly out of the box than any other brand I've worked with so far.

Graybeard,im sorry to have to disagree with you,but the Vanguards are actually mounted into a real stock,not a machine rest. I too thought thats how they did it until i got ahold of somebody at Weatherby and found out different. The stock isnt one thats comes with the gun,but all Vanguards are mounted into a slave stock,not a machine rest.

[PartsMan]

That's not really any better.
Shoot it in a proven stock and then sell it to me in a warped one?

Wouldn't it be easier to just mount it one time in the stock it will be sold in.

[KenSel]

I know exactly what you're talking about Graybeard.  My family has always been diehard Remington fans.  Not because of accuracy (liviing in the mountains of West Virginia we don't need tack driving accuracy; we sighted our guns in at 50 yards from a standing rest on a makeshift bench) but because of the price and reliability.  I never owned anything but Remington rifles until about 6 years ago and didn't even realize how accurate they were until then either.  When I got stationed out west in WA state I decided that my 7600 probably wasn't accurate enough for the long ranges I would be shooting while hunting mule deer and elk.  I bought a Weatherby Vanguard in 270WSM, it came with a target that showed a 3 shot clover leaf.  I fed about $200 worth of factory ammo through that rifle including the load it suggested and the best I got was 3" at 100 yards with Federal 130gr TSX.  I tried to slide a dollar bill between the barrel and forend and I'd have been better off trying to fly!  Sure it could have been easily fixed, but that's not the point.  I know damned well they didn't shoot that target with the rifle I had, if the did it was at 10 feet not 100 yards.  I sold the rifle and bought a Remington 700 ADL 7Mag;  another trip to the range with a box of Win 150gr. BST ammo consistently gave me 3 shot 1" groups at 100 yards.  And just for the heck of it I wanted to see what my eastern deer/bear rifle that wasn't accurate enough for the west would do at 100 yds from a real bench rest would do.  I loaded up my normal factory fodder consisting of Federal 180gr. Nosler Partitions and proceeded to shoot.  WOW!!  1 1/2" groups at 100 yards!!  Granted the ol' 7600 has a mile long trigger pull, but this gun would shoot!  I've since tried other loads in the gun and have gotten better and worse results;  the best being 1" and the worst being 2 1/2" but all are still very acceptable for hunting, especially since I had such low expectations.  I've owned several Remingtons, as well as a handful of other rifles over the years and have determined that Remington and Browning are the only 2 that I've been completely happy with overall right out of the box.  I expect more out of these 2 rifles than I do any other and I have yet to be disappointed by either of them.  I think a lot of it comes down to expectations.  If your expecting benchrest accuracy out of a big game hunting rifle then you're probably going to be disappointed, maybe not, but probably.  If you want a tack driver, then buy a benchrest or varmint rifle.  One of the biggest surprises was my Ruger 350 Rem Mag; I was expecting 2" groups at 100yds and it'll consistently shoot clover leafs, even with the 15lb trigger.  I really think you'd be hard pressed to find a big game rifle today that won't shoot 2" or less and with a Rem or Browning from my experience it's usually around 1";  if you try different loads, and make minor adjustments to usually the trigger and sometimes the bedding, 99% of todays rifles with give you all the accuracy you need and more for big game hunting.  Sure there's a dud once in a while, but any reputable company will take care of that with no cost to you.  I had to send back a Rem 700 SPS 300WSM because of a feeding problem and a flaw in the crown; a week and a half later I received a rifle that was slick as snot and would put 3 shots with 165gr. Federal TSX into 1" at 100, and they gave me a Remingon cap and coupon for a free box of ammo for my troubles and it didn't cost me a thing.  I forgot what the point was I was trying to make, but I'd feel very confident anytime I purchase a Rem or Browning, but I also have realistic expectations of accuracy for the rifles intended purpose.

Ken

[SuperstitionCoues]

Me?  I'm staying the heck outta this one ... see my comments about ordering a Ruger Hawkeye earlier this summer, of which I was chewed apart for.  Your story is reminiscent of mine, for similar yet different reasons.  I will say that I think you need to add customer service into the equation, at the store counter AND at the maker.

Question:  Have you tried talking to Kimber about the problems?  What did they have to say?

[Graybeard]

Graybeard,im sorry to have to disagree with you,but the Vanguards are actually mounted into a real stock,not a machine rest. I too thought thats how they did it until i got ahold of somebody at Weatherby and found out different. The stock isnt one thats comes with the gun,but all Vanguards are mounted into a slave stock,not a machine rest.

That is NOT the same story they have told others. It might be it has been done both ways and if so which is the current way I have no clue. But it really matters not in the least. If they do not shoot it as it comes to you then it's NOT been fired and the target provided is not from the gun you bought. It's fraud plain and simple.

[Mr. Joe]

Yes, i gave kimber a call to see if they had any type of guarantee for which they don't.  There was nothing wrong with the rifle, as it would feed and extract very well and the accuracy was certainly usable.  It just wasn't a keeper.  I don't think accuracy guarantees do anything anyways.  I believe company's state a guarantee knowing that most people don't even know what they mean.  If a 100 people buy a rifle because the box says guaranteed on it how many are actually good enough to shoot one inch groups?  How many know what a one inch group even is?  Not many i can assure you; maybe four or five.  In which case the company doesn't care if they have to replace four or five guns, due to the higher sales volume. 

I want to be clear that in my original post.  I was not picking on any certain brands or favoring one over the other.  If you all must know my personal favorite long arms are probably Remington's, but thats because of personal reasons. 

[jvs]

If you buy a centerfire rifle to hunt with, as about 99% of people do, in most cases there is too much weight put in the 2" group as being unacceptable.  Unless you are in a heavily wooded area 2" is not all that bad when you consider that you don't take a bench with you, instead you shoot off-hand.   Off Hand I am happy to hit a 4 inch circle at 100 yds consistantly because I know that will put meat on the table.

If you really want to test yourself and your rifle, then shoot it just like you would under hunting circumstances.  This is where you will learn the most about accuracy.  But then the realization may hit you that it isn't the rifle...  It's you.  Everybody wants perfection, but it is still human failure that is responsible for misses.  Not the rifle.  The only thing you get out of having it 'perfect' is knowing that when something doesn't go as planned, it isn't the rifles fault.

Next time you go to the range and you think your rifle is shooting bad, hold the target up to your chest, over your heart.  Then decide if your rifle is shooting badly.

Obviously, if you are shooting a 4 or 6 inch group, something is wrong, but industry standards of 2 inches or less is more than you need in most cases for big game.  

I have to admit though that the rifle I want dead on, no matter what, is the .22 I use for squirrels.  I will accept nothing less than 'perfect' for squirrels.
  

[sniperVLS]

Amen to that.

I love my sub-moa Remmy rifles but at the end of the day, shooting off the bench doesn't prepare you for the offhand shot.

I hate when I read "I bought a Remington(or any other maker) lemon and never again. It wasn't capable of 1" groups so it's gone. What are they thinking making something with such poor accuracy! Never again!"

Do these people ever hunt? or do they sit on the bench and shoot their lives away aiming at paper?

*sigh*

[DalesCarpentry]

I have enjoyed this thread and have read every word of it so far. I think the industry standard of 2" is a poor standard. I also think the bench rest shooters over the past 20 years have helped us more than anything. They demand better than 2" at 100 yards. I demand much less at 100 yards. One thing I really do wonder is how many people really know how to shoot? I had a neighbor that I met when I moved to a small town in Florida when I was 16 years old. That man taught me more about shooting than anything I could have ever read on the net. When I met him I did have a bad flinch. He cured it by loading my rifle behind my back. Sometimes I had a loaded weapon sometimes I did not. He taught me breathing, holding my breath and squeezing the trigger between heart beats. I am not going to lie to you off the bench I can hit about any Groundhog out to 500 yards. Without that bench that is another story. I am sure I could hit a deer at 200 or so yards off hand but would not try it past that. My point is I really wonder how many people really know how to shoot and spend enough time at the range shooting at the bench or off hand. I myself spend a lot of time at the range and Groundhog hunting during the summer. I can tell the difference when shooting Groundhogs if I did not spend any time at the range in the past couple weeks. Practice makes perfect and if you do not spend time at the range and practice shooting how can you say how your rifle really shoots. Dale

[kevthebassman]

The only rifle I've ever found to be unacceptably inaccurate was a used Ruger Mini-30, and it was piss-poor.  At 50 yards, it printed about an 8 inch group pattern with a scope that had shot well on another rifle and still does.  That rifle was sold soon after.

I have a friend who had a problem with a Kimber rifle.  Sent it back to Kimber and they re-crowned it, and it improved to a 1.5 MOA shooter.  This fellow is a damn good benchrest shooter, so the problem is not him.  In my humble opinion, a $2,000 rifle ought to be a tackdriver.

[DalesCarpentry]

That is why I am tickled with my Remington 700 SPS 243 Varmint. Here is a group that measures 7/8" at 300 yards. This is what makes me laugh at an industry standard of 2"/ Dale

[sniperVLS]

I don't want to stray off topic here but Dale, is that top shot your Cold bore shot? I'm assuming it is because the others are next to each other and were shot when the barrel was heated up. If I'm right, and your'e out hunting and that CBS is repeatable, you've got a winner for sure. Well we already knew ya did but it feels good to hear it doesn't it?

Kevthebassman, a $2,000.00 rifle is another matter. I would indeed demand it to be almost perfect in every way.

[DalesCarpentry]

I don't want to stray off topic here but Dale, is that top shot your Cold bore shot? I'm assuming it is because the others are next to each other and were shot when the barrel was heated up. If I'm right, and your'e out hunting and that CBS is repeatable, you've got a winner for sure. Well we already knew ya did but it feels good to hear it doesn't it?

Kevthebassman, a $2,000.00 rifle is another matter. I would indeed demand it to be almost perfect in every way.

Well I am going to have to put my rifle back together after having some hard times. I have sold the stock and the scope. The great thing is I got to keep the most important part. The action and barrel. I really do have real plans for the action and barrel. This is going to be a tactical set up all the way. Boy I really want to let you guys in on what I am up to. Lets just say at this point I will be working on a 1,000 yard rifle. I don't know if I can shoot that far yet but you never know till you try. If you guys have followed my posts I think you have a good idea what I want to do. I really don't know if the top shot was the first out of a cold bore. I spent some time at the range that day and I did allow the barrel to cool between shots. I shot this group at the end of the range time. I ran out of bullets. ( AT THIS POINT IT WAS ZEROED AT 200 YARDS ) I read on the box of 58 grain Hornady's that with a 200 yard zero it should be 5" low at 300 yards. I had a Muller 8.5x25x44 scope on my rifle at the time. I had  turned the power all the way up to 25 power. This was an 8" target so I figured I would aim at the top of the target for the first 2 shots. The third shot I held the first mill dot down. I wanted to know how it hit compared to the first 2 shots. I still wonder if I could of clover leafed it if I had not held on the mill dot. Dale

[Mr. Joe]

I don't shoot offhand when hunting, unless of course im wing shooting.  I will instead drop to a sitting position or sometimes kneeling or prone. Its not to say Ive never fired offhand, but i take great pains in avoiding it.  While i cant shoot siting or kneeling at the range, i would estimate that 10-15% or my practice is under these hunting conditions (when practicing on private land).  When you have a rifle set for a mpbr of say 300 yards, i feel a two to three inch group can hinder the hunter somewhat.  Lets face it, when faced with shooting at game, still or moving, its tough to be able to shoot that well, but figure the critter is 300 yards away, so your three inches low.  Your talking about a 9-10 inch variation in shot placement in some instances.  That *could* mean the difference in a lung shot or a paunch shot...just to play devils advocate.  I think gilt edge accuracy is more of a confidence builder than anything.  I do think confidence in ones rifle is important.

[sniperVLS]

Confidence in ones rifle is very important, I'd tend to say that everyone here would agree. If my rifles shot 2" at 100 yards, I'd be content. Not pleased but at minimum..content. When I walk into the woods, I do so with a smile because I have the utmost confidence in my gear and I appreciate it. If my rifles shot 2" groups, I'll admit I wouldn't be so proud of them and that smile might not exist. Part of the fun for me is enjoying what I'm holding. Everyone go to your safes/cabinets....if you don't smile, you don't have a rifle or shotgun in your inventory that you truly love and in my opinion, that's ashame. I am very fortunate that I'm so easily turned on and I love them all 

When I do my part off the bench, all are .5" shooters day in and day out. Now I admit, I do not practice enough @ shooting offhand and I need to stop relying on my bi-pods. I am more than adequate offhand when it comes to a shorter, lighter rifle that has open sights, say the Rem 7600. But holding out my 11 and 12lb 700 varmint types isn't something I'm comfortable with. When I hit PA this year for deer and bear, I'm taking a 7600 I'm buying in the fall JUST for that purpose. I went last year with my 700 VLS and it just felt wrong to have that as my deer rifle in the environment I was in. 12.5 lbs slung around me, sighted in at 200 yards, and if I did see anything, it would have been no further than 30 or 40 yards. I didn't have anything else as all of my rifles are setup for long range hunting but that will change.

When I go out west and longer shots present themselves, that's when my heavy barreled 700s are my pride and joy. A comfortable sling is your best friend when carrying those beasts, that's no surprise. Being so far away(500 yards or more), I have time to use the rangefinder several times to make sure it's reading correctly, extend bi-pod legs, lay down, make scope adjustments, rangefind again and if the wind isn't a problem, it's time to fill the freezer At those ranges, I've had to pass on multiple shots because gauging the wind wasn't working, and I'm not one to squeeze the trigger unless I have wiped out all variables and can put that animal down with a precisely placed shot.

All this talk has me excited 

[victorcharlie]

Enter Savage/Stevens.......

For the money, the Stevens is hard to beat......if it doesn't shoot (and most of them do) you've only lost a couple of hundred......

[woodchukhntr]

IMHO, if one spends more than $700 - $900 on a rifle, it should be a tackdriver, with a factory guarantee of MOA accuracy with a factory target stating the ammunition used.  With modern production equipment it is possible to mass-produce accurate rifles.  Take one of those barreled actions, spend a little extra time finishing it and bedding it into a good stock, and you will have a good looking and shooting rifle in that price range.  Take the same barreled action and drop it into a regular stock and you will have a rifle that can sell for less and still shoot well.  It is nice to have pride of ownership in a special rifle, but if the manufacturer can't guarantee accuracy, why buy it? It shouldn't be a $1000 crap shoot!

[Dave in WV]

Mr Joe, two things come to mind on your problem.
1: a poorly made barrel
2: a bedding problem

Several years ago I was at the range and a guy had a stainless Ruger 77 300 WM he had bought to take out west. He could only get 3" groups with it and told me if he could get 1.5" groups he'd be happy with it. I asked him if he checked the action screws for tightness and he hadn't. We snugged the screws down and he got 1.5" groups or better. My point is maybe it's something simple.

[kevthebassman]

Well, these rifle manufacturers are going to have to get smart or die.  Why is Savage selling so many rifles?  The answer is, of course, that they have a reputation for accuracy at a reasonable price. 

Why is it that one company can pump out $400 rifles that generally shoot MOA, but other companies charge $600-$700 for rifles that don't shoot as well?  I don't know why, but I like accurate rifles and I'm not picky about the name stamped on the receiver.  That's why I've been buying Savage rifles, and most recently CZ.  I've had great luck with both companies, and I will continue to do business with them so long as they keep putting out accurate rifles at a great price.