Rifle reviews

[jmayton]

So I'm shopping around for a varmint rig and just reading various reviews, both professional and amateur, and apparently, every single rifle out there will shoot easily under 1" and many will shoot under 1/2"!  Doesn't any of these reviewers get a lemon every now and again.  Why do we never see a bad group in a review?  I know that my 30-06 will go under 1" with 150grainers, but will open up to just over 2" with 180's.  So why don't we see those type of results from someone else?

[Swampman]

I rarely see a review on a non-Remington 700 that shoots better than 1 1/2" at 100 yards.  I never see a Model 700 review that shows groups over 1" at 100 yards with at least one factory ammo.  I've been checking them carefully for about 35 years.

[jmayton]

Swampy, can you actually respond to a post without using the words Remington or the number 700?  I would actually believe that you would respond to a post about shooting technique with something like, "If you were shooting a Remington 700 in 30-06 you wouldn't have to worry about technique so much." 

Seriously, give it a rest.

[mcwoodduck]

In most reviews they shoot many types of ammo and usually only show the best groups.
I remember seeing articles in the 80's G&A where they would show three or four groups and write the ammo down with each group.
I think it was to show that different bullet weights, speeds and designs acted different in every rifle.
In stead it had the opposite effect and people were writting in saying they read the article and they bought the X brand of ammo cause it was the most accurate in the test of the rifle and the groups opened up.  The opposite also came true in advertisement.
If Win was the top loading in the month before they had adds in the mags if Rem or Federal was the top it was buying space.

And Swampman is just a Rem fan.  No Matter what the question, Remington is his answer.  I sometimes wonder if Remington sends him a check for a quarter for every post he makes here talking about Remington.  
I think if you showed him a swayed barrel from one of their guns out of the box he would say it was the best thing since sliced bread as you can hide behind a tree and still shoot the deer, and while it does not shoot where the scope points it will still shoot 1/2" groups at a mile.

With that said I have four (4) rifles in 223 rem.
the two bolt actions both shoot very well and I am taking caps off of soda bottles at 100 yards with either.
And I hate to write this as it adds fuel to Swampmans arguments but my 700 SPS with the Reminton UMC 45 grain bulk ammo I can take the caps off soda or water bottles at 200 yards with out a problem.  But i think that is more to do with the weight of the rifle and the scope than the make.
The SPS wears a Weaver 6-24X42 scope and the Cz 527 American wears a 3-9X38 weaver.
Oh at 200 yards with the scope at 24X I can still read the whole label on the water bottle but can only see the bottle at 9X.
The SPS is in a Kevlar stock and weighs about 11 pounds with out the bipod and the Cz is under 7 pounds.
I think if the Cz were a 527 varmint in the kevlar stock with the same scope I would have the same results.
The other are an AR with Iron sights and a T/C with a 16.25" carbine barrel and weighs about 4 pounds.
All four have a different use.

[jasonprox700]

I do enjoy reading reviews, but like you said, it seems like every rifle they review is a sub MOA shooter.  You have to remember that a lot of the guns being reviewed are also sponsoring that reviewers magazine.  

I actually have to say that I very rarely see Remingtons being reviewed these days.  Most of the time it's Kimber this and Tikka that, and the current Model 70 is as good as the pre-64...yada yada yada.  Don't get me wrong, all are great rifles, just not that great.

Another thing that bothers me is that when a rifle doesn't shoot that magical sub-moa group, there is always some other reason why it opened up.  Most of the time it's gale force winds, or a tornado moved in between the bench and the target, or the typhoon caused vertical stringing, or my personal favorite, "I'm sure the gun could shoot better than I can."  

The last one really drives me mad.  I consider myself a pretty decent shot, above average if anything (average being the general shooting public).  I try to get out and shoot when ever money or time allows, which isn't as often as I would like.  But these guys probably get in trigger time a few times a week.  If after that many years of shooting, you have not refined your skills enough to shoot a tight group with a rifle that IS capable of tight groups, then you have no place in reviewing rifles and then gushing about them.  If you are a seasoned shooter, and you go out and are able to run a couple hundred rounds through a particular rifle, and the tightest group you can get is over 1 MOA, then the gun is not sub-moa rifle!  So writers, don't say "I'm sure this could shoot under 1 MOA if I did my part" or "this shoots better than I can".  For one, you should have done your part since your doing group testing and writing about it.  Also, how do you know it can shoot better you???  If you shot the heck out of it and shot crappy groups, then state that in your review; "This gun shoots crappy groups!"

These are just my ramblings and venting.  But, I'm with jmayton on this one.  Why don't we ever see a bad review?

[Swampman]

The current Model 70s are better than the pre-64s and the post-64s.

[jasonprox700]

The current Model 70s are better than the pre-64s and the post-64s.

That's not my point.  The way they talk about them though, you'd swear they were the only rifle made or that all you have to do was shoot and the rifle would make sure the bullet got to where you wanted it to go.

Your right though, I believe some of the newer models are better.  Newer machining processes do make for tighter tolerances and more consistency across the whole production line. 

[Swampman]

Mass Produced out of the box MOA rifles are a relatively new thing.  CNC machines made them possible.

Still many brands hover at 1 1/2"s and that's about all they'll do without a lot of tinkering.  I saw a review the other day for a $1600.00 Browning rifle and the best group they got was 1 1/2".  I'd be pretty upset if I payed that much for an inaccurate rifle.

[mcwoodduck]

Jason I think you have an answer.
With computers and lasers the quality and tolerances are getting better and that makes a better rifle or Scope.
What used to take hand lapping and master gun smiths to turn out in the 50 and 60 is now done with a computer driven turret laythe.
And checked with a laser for accuracy.
Tools and alloys have changed and more precise items can be made in mass quantities.
I really think if you grabbbed similar models from each manufacturer in the same caliber, used the same scope and shot the guns with the same ammo from the same rests in the same indoor range.  They would produce the same results.
The end answer is what is pleasing to your eye, what features are important to you (detachable mag, big bolt, heavy barrel, light barrel,  ect. ) and what price point you have that would allow you to get the rifle, scope, other items like a sling and case, ammo and be able to use it.

[mmt7714]

I understand exactly what is being said. Every rifle reviewed today is the next best thing. One thing I don't understand though, is everyone's obsession with accuracy. 1.5" at 100yds is not the best accuracy I have ever seen, but it sure ain't that bad. I promise a deer won't know the difference. I want my rifles to be as accurate as they can be of course, but if a particular hunting rifle shoots 1.5" at 100 then that is just fine for hunting. Now if you are shooting competitively thats a different story, but I think the quest for perfect accuracy in a hunting rifle has gotten a little silly. It is all relative to where you hunt as well. I don't hunt where 400 yd. shots are common. If I did I would need my rifle to be more accurate, but not many people shoot well enough to be making 400yd shots anyway whether they think they do or not. Don't get me wrong, I love super accurate rifles, but a lot of new comers to the sport of hunting and shooting I talk to seem to think that if don't shoot under an inch it ain't worth using as a boat paddle. Its just not true.

Mike

[Swampman]

I consider 1" at 100 yards acceptable accuracy.  That's not much to ask IMO.

[jmayton]

I read somewhere that Carlos Hathcock's M70 was a solid 2moa.  Most any production rifle today will do better than that.  But I do know that rifles are machines and there will be inconsistencies, so there will be the occasional lemon.  I just rarely see those in gun reviews. 

Swampy, for hunting rifles I would agree that 1moa is acceptable and desirable.  I'd be worried about one that never got under 2moa, but perfectly happy with a 1.5moa rifle. 

[Swampman]

For pumps, levers, semi-autos, and single shots 1 1/2 MOA is acceptable for me.  In a boltgun for really big game 1 1/2" groups are fine for me anyway.  I think a deer rifle ought to do better.  A varmint rifle ought to do a lot better.  I expect a .22 to shoot 1" or better at 50 yards.

[BBF]

Swampy, can you actually respond to a post without using the words Remington or the number 700?  I would actually believe that you would respond to a post about shooting technique with something like, "If you were shooting a Remington 700 in 30-06 you wouldn't have to worry about technique so much." 

Seriously, give it a rest.

                      LOL !!  My sentiments as well.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

My last 3 rifles I've purchased were all sub-MOA shooters with very little trouble or messing with loads-----Hawkeye--X-bolt---TC Venture---just clean it -mount a scope--and get the cheap Federal loads from Walmart. The rifle makers are all stepping up their game.

The same couldn't be said even 10 years ago----you were messing with triggers--bedding--free floating and loads-----to get what comes out of the box today.

I'd say the Tikka T3 is what changed the whole ball game---very accurate shooters there also.

[Lloyd Smale]

ive had good guns and turds from all the manufactures including remington. Ive got my opinion as to what to bet my 500 bucks on when trying to buy an accurate rifle but its still a bet and ive been fooled before. A guy cant look at gun reviews and think that because a certain gun shot better then another he is going to get that exact same performance out of the one delivered to his door. I too am a 700 fan. Ive probably had better luck with them then the rest but ive owned very accurate winchesters, brownings, weatherbys, savages and even rugers (though much less then the others) Heck i even have a 250 dollar mossberg 06 that shoots moa with loads it likes. Its luck of the draw and theres to many variables in mass producing a gun to gurantee it. thats why you dont see accuracy guarantees on guns costing less the 600 bucks. dont be fooled by anyone that says a certain brand will gurantee you a moa performer. Its just not realistic. Just about every out of the box bolt gun will at least take some load developement to do it.

[Dave in WV]

Doesn't any of these reviewers get a lemon every now and again.  Why do we never see a bad group in a review? 

Very few times are firearms taken off of the assembly line and given to  gun writers for evaluation. Many times in the past the barrel was say a Douglas barrel with the factory markings. 

[PowPow]

Mine may be the exception to the rule, but the reviews I found on the Ruger 1-RSI said to expect 1.5" groups, which would have been good enough for my purpose, but I lucked into a couple of recipes that went a 1/2".

But if you pick up any enthusiast magazine with new product reviews, its the same.
These guys write about toys they don't have to pay for and wouldn't get to play with otherwise.
Make them pay their hard-earned money for one and live with, and I think you would get a different answer.

[jhm]

At one time I had a collection of Rem. 700s from 17 rem. all the way up to 300 Win. Mag. and believe me they do manufacture rifles that group over 1in and I mean way over 1 in.  most manu. today build a decent rifle, and for just the average 1 week a yr. deer hunter he will be satisfied with the $300 package guns sold at the big box stores that come with everything the hunter/shooter needs except for a MRE to get by in the woods for a 2 hr. hunt in the AM and a 1 hr. hunt in the PM.   Jim

[Swampman]

Most of those $300.00 package rifles will shoot MOA right out of the box with factory ammo.  At least the have for me.

[BBF]

Those package deals usually have a Simmons scope on them, the model that sells for about 50 bucks in the US if bought seperate.
 So : Are they a good scope or just a piece of junk and the package is just a gimmick. However if they are good, do you pay the extra several hundred $ for the "good" scope only because of the name?

[Swampman]

The scopes work fine for me, but I usually move them to a .22 or something that isn't critical.  I don't pay over $200.00 for a replacement scope anymore.  It's just throwing money away IMO.

[Barstooler]

My first two Remington 700s were sub-MOA....a 338 RUM and 22-250.

When I bought a new 700 in 243 Win I had no doubt that it would be a tack driver....until I shot it.

Tried every load imaginable to include the fist box of factory ammo I had bought in 40 years and could not get it under 3.5-4.0 MOA.  Changed the scope and no improvement.  Talked to the factory and they said that that was "acceptable accuracy" and would do nothing about it.

Finally free floated the barrel and glass bedded the action and that just barely got it under 1 MOA.

That is the last Remington I will ever buy.

Consider this a "Review" Swampy

Barstooler

[Swampman]

I doubt it was the rifle.

[Empty Quiver]

Savage, Tikka, Sako, Howa, lots of models come to mind. Most include model #'s without the number 7 in them. Your Remington bias is justifiable swampy, they can make a fine firearm. So do many other manufacturers, routinely.

[Barstooler]

I doubt it was the rifle.

Gee.  It must have been you then.

[Squib]

if guys deprived of sleep and time to clean their weapons properly (beat up in the field and probably rebuilt a couple times) can pull off record shots with dirty scope lenses while in mortal danger overseas then 700's are good to go. 

ps- some of those guys are even ARMY, so just think of what a marine could do with a 700.  oh my bad, carlos hathcock already took care of that one.  OH SON! 

[Squib]

onto a more serious post:

my first 700 was a used m700/scope combo.  I don't know if the scope was from rem or the first buyer, it looked like a cheapo.  the barrel had some scratches on it, the stock had a few dings.  I think it had been beat up against a ladder a few times, no big deal.  I was poor and I wanted a .300 win mag so I bought it and couldn't really get a decent group with it till I locked it down in a gun rest and WOW!!! at 100yds with factory ammo the holes were overlapping so bad I couldn't distinguish one from another, smaller than dime sized groups at 100yds from a bench.  I don't know that I could have commissioned a custom rifle to do any better, and if I could have then so what because I cannot shoot like that freehand anyways! 

especially with a .300 win mag and above, light rifles hurt (synthetic stock, thin barrel, small scope- big cartridge).  so my only experience with a rem not shooting is that one.  the rifle was a 1% marvel and I was the weak link.  I stepped down to .308 winchester in a vtr and now I'm able to shoot decent freehand and PROBABLY as good as the other one if I lock this one into something BUT I've not needed to within 300yds so I don't really know... I know it's better than me though.

[patrickjames]

I see swamptroll is ruining another great web site. I find it hard to believe he is put up with,seeing he is mainly interested in ruining somebody else's thread. He almost make's me want to sell my Remington's.

[Squib]

that's his plan, he wants your remingtons!  just ask top dollar since he's a diehard and might actually pay up.  hey if you'll part with them for bottom dollar pm me instead okay.     I'll tell you the one negative gun that wouldn't shoot no matter what I did.
Ruger mini-14:  awful inaccurate gun, worse than any gun I've ever owned except a .45 colt blackhawk (the blackhawk probably would have shot good with tailored handloads but I didn't do that back then so I don't know).  no it WASN'T made during the obamarush either, I bought that thing in '07 and got rid of it in '07 because it was garbage.  it jammed a lot too, MORE than a M-16.