Budget MOA Rifle

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by tobnpr

Actually, I see nothing that's "opinion" about that post.

What, exactly, would your rebuttal be?

Didn't think you would. You think because someone report's a three shot group it's from one time, I think you called it cherry picked. Well lot of hunter's shoot three shot group's to sight in rifles and to develop loads with, we find it perfectly alright. I guess match shooter's would say your wrong, only way to test accuracy is with a 10 shot group. Simple fact of like. If your hunting and within reasonable range of the animal, getting even the third shot could be no more than a dream. How about the one shot group? If every time you take your rifle out and fire one shot that always hit's in the same general are, is the rifle sighted in? Probably but I just like to shoot more than that!

Your opinion is that anything less than a 5 shot group is no good and that people that tell you of a three shot group cherry picked it, your words!

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

Here; buy this one: http://www.gunbroker.com/item/693109226
If it's over your budget, sell your AR's until you have enough in your new budget.

I bought that exact rifle in that cartridge maybe 10 yrs ago. Love it! I paid right around $800 if I remember right, little under.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by RC20

Having been in the game a while, I can tell you that those so called MOA rifles are a bunch of bull.

They still are 1.5 inch rifles.


It takes some good load development to get them under 1 inch.

That's one reason the Savage Cabela 12FV is such a bargain.

It has a heavy barrel and that gets you 1 inch, 1/2 or so with reloads.

Dicks also has a budge heavy barrel rifle.

Those pencil barrel standards are lucky to get 1.5 inch with 3 shot group.

I have one, throws the first one about 1.5 inches to the left of the next two.

Its off the rifle, I will play with it as a guy claims he can get one to shoot sub MOA 5 shots with the right loads.

Most people shoot factory. A lot of those do not have match grade ammo.

308 has a lot, 6.5 has a lot, 270? 243?

I think I agree with this except for one thing. Usually handloading can made a big difference but if the bedding isn't right, no amount of handloading can fix that. How the expensive factory ammo shoot's, I got no idea, never used any. But does seem to be a lot of people that like it. I think most people that get that ammo to shoot in their factory rifles are happy with less than 1" accuracy, maybe 1 1/2" is good for them, they might get it and for the majority of hunter's, 1 1/2" is fine. Depending on where you hunt, 2" might even work. Already sorry I said that!

[tobnpr]

Mr. Fischer,
Please re-read my post, as I believe you are misrepresenting what I stated.

I said nothing about what constitutes "accurate enough", in fact I unwaveringly have stated over many years and thousands of posts that everyone's needs are different.

Nor did I say that " people that tell you of a three shot group cherry-picked it". What I DID state is that a cherry-picked group (and I don't care it's 3, 5, or 10 shot) is not representative of a rifle's true performance, and it's clearly not. A rifle's true performance is what it shoots consistently, with premium factory ammo at minimum.

The OP is looking for a RANGE rifle (benchrest, specifically) sub-moa, per her first post.

Anyone, that knows anything about barrels, knows that long strings consistent with the requirements of target shooting requires a heavy contour barrel. A lightweight, sporter contour simply does not have the mass to absorb the heat without long waits between relatively few shots to avoid overheating.

Most, if not all, of the rifles in her original post are HUNTING rifles, not range/target rifles.

Apples and Oranges, sir. PDog/varmint hunters know this and compromise with a mid-weight barrel (hence the name "varmint contour").

There are completely different standards for evaluating suitability of rifles for range/target use as compared to hunting. Hunters care about cold bore, and one or two follow-ups (hence the three-shot group). A target shooter is going to be woefully disappointed if they buy a lightweight contour barrel only to find that it can't hold up to the high round count they were after.

Forewarned is forearmed. Customers of mine that put eight pound barrels on their rifles aren't expecting to tote them into the mountains, nor are those with a lightweight contour expecting to use them for target shooting. Can they take it to the range, sling some impressive shooting (even at long-range), and call it a day? Absolutely. But if they expect to shoot long strings accurately (a range rifle), then they need to be aware of the limitations/compromise of such a rifle in an application for which it was not designed.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by tobnpr

A sub-moa rifle is one that will shoot to that level, consistently.
Five shot groups minimum, all the time. Not "sometimes", not a cherry-picked three shot group out of several.

No doubt manufacturers are turning out more accurate rifles, most of which will be accurate "enough" for most people. Problem I see nowadays, is that when someone gets one that shoots 1-1/2"-2" with factory ammo they feel they got a lemon...

Don't buy an entry level factory rifle expecting custom rifle accuracy- you may be lucky and get it, maybe not...

OK, here's the post. Five shot group's all the time. Not sometime's, not a cherry picked three shot group.

I think that the average person couldn't shoot a 1" group by other than an accident! Actually in my experience, people with a 1 1/2" rifle are thrilled!

Don't buy an entry level factory rifle expecting custom rifle accuracy- you may be lucky and get it, maybe not... Some how on here we went from entry level and skipped over everything else till we got to custom! Not saying I disagree with that but I think most rifle's, custom and otherwise in the hands of the average shooter, he will not be distressed with a rifle that only does 1 1/2" and would like it even if it was a custom rifle.

Mostly what I think we were talking about here were not competition shooter's but the average guy. I think that you would agree that a very accurate rifle in less than competent hands will shoot no better than an ordinary run of the mill rifle. I'm quite certain my rifle's these days shoot better than I do, probably always have. I'm also certain that most factory rifles can be made to shoot better with nothing more than tweeked bedding.

I think we have both heard/read where a good trigger can make you a better shot, I'd think we'd both disagree with that. It you can't control a trigger you can have the best trigger in the world and it won't make much difference.

The entry level rifle's today seem amazing to me and for the most part probably shoot better than any of us. Think about the match rifle, super small group's depending on who's touching off the shot. In every rifle, entry level or custom, the human error will surface.

I think suggesting that factories are turning out rifle's most of which will be accurate enough.........! Well does a guy hunting deer need a .250" rifle? No, doesn't generally even need a 1" rifle! many people even like yourself will never know what the entry level rifle's can do because you won't try them in the first place. For the average guy and his hunting rifle, the entry level rifle's are more than good enough.

I've got an entry level 700 ADL that was a gift. One of the absolutely worst shooting rifles I ever saw. lot of bedding work later I was shooting very well. Then that plastic stock changed out for a wood stock and bedded for that barrel action and it's a very accurate rifle. Will the best computation rifle shoot say .250" groups every time? I doubt that, the human error will get it.If it wasn't for human error we may well have already seen the rifle that can put all it's shot's in the same hole. And the average guy? Give him the same rifle and he still shoot's 1 1/2" groups!

[RC20]

Phew I agree with the last part.

I do think there is so much buzz about MOA these days shooters expect it.

I also do not say the pencil barrels are in general a problem, just I have been less than impressed and barrels have gotten lighter since my Ruger of the early 80s.

What I like about the Ruger was it shot dead center on the first shot and the other two orbited around it.

The Savage pencil in 270 had a single by itself and the other two were close together.

Could you live with that, yes, like it, no.

For hunting all I ever did was shoot 3 shot groups. I didn't expect any more out of the gun but it game me an honest 3 shot group. Not one shot in one place and two 1.5 inches out by themselves.

[Pathfinder45]

Three shot groups work well enough for sighting in, but are pretty meaningless for load-evaluation. For that matter, MOA-5-shot groups at 100 yards are absolutely meaningless in a rifle that is expected to perform well at 300 yard and beyond. That MOA 100 yard group may well be over 16" at 300 yards. Don't assume anything about it; you can't know until you try it. On the other hand, if you have great load for 300+ yards, you shouldn't fret if it looks less accurate than some other loads at 100 yards. I think 100 yards is a great distance to evaluate iron-sighted lever-action rifles and their ammo. But it's meaningless for a scoped, bolt-action rifle.

[Nunya53]

From what I've heard, go for the Mossberg Patriot....I have one 5.56 I have yet to shoot but everyone I know with the Patriot raves about their accuracy...

Jerry

[ARqueen15]

Interesting discussion and certainly one that raises some questions.

Just to clarify, yes I am looking for a range/target rifle. That I could hunt with it would be a bonus but hardly a requirement and I looked at the 243 because of the combination of low(er) recoil and the overall ballistics of the 6mm family of cartridges.

I admit when I see people say they shot a 3-shot group that was .0000000181 inches at 100 yards.....ALL DAY, i sort of am dismissive. Statistics teaches us that sample size matters immensely in the confidence we have in any given study or set of results. And having a single 3-shot group as the benchmark accuracy for a target rifle strikes me as a rather low confidence metric which is another way of saying cherry picking. We have to have enough of a sample size to grasp the variability and deviation for the performance of the rifle.

Imagine you put the rifle on a mechanical rest and shot it 10 times (assuming sufficient barrel cooling, etc), you'd have a 'group'. Try it 200 times and the variation of that group is going to really consolidate around a particular number. Except I doubt anyone wants to spend the money to buy or load 200 rounds just to establish that so we use samples that are representative and to me a 3-shot one alone doesn't do a good job of it.

And if I follow this to its logical conclusion that's probably why a company like T/C can "guarantee" that the compass/venture line of budget rifles will shoot MOA for a 3-shot group. With enough ammo especially handloads and from a rest it is likely you can get a 1-1/2" MOA gun to occasionally shoot 1 MOA or less. Guarantee met...

As for minute-of-deer accuracy, I don't think 1 MOA is needed for where I'd nominally be hunting if I were to use this rifle for that purpose given I'm in the East coast. If I were back out west then I'd weigh my rifle's proven accuracy, be it 1, 1/2", or 2 MOA, against the vital zone of deer/elk/etc and establish a max range based on that.

re: Mossberg Patriot. thanks for the suggestion. I saw one sans optics for < $300 which is quite a deal and the reviews on accuracy are generally very good, plus they make an affordable wood (or maybe laminate?) stock version which is nice. I'm hesistant to go with them due to what i've read about some QC issues they have had. With one rifle already sitting in Savage's warehouse/gunsmith for a month now, I'm wary of getting another lemon. Probably impossible at this budget price point to not gamble on getting some problems, be it with the Remington 783, the Savage rifles, and the T/C which had recalls just this past year.

[tobnpr]

^^^
What was the issue with the Savage?

Your statements regarding group sizes and "guarantees" is spot on and shows you have an excellent grasp of the arguments IMO.

My advice is to look for a "compromise" contour that fits the target vs. hunting percentage of use.

Nothing at all wrong with the .243, but consider there may be other choices that will suit your intended target use and provide longer throat/barrel life such as it's .308 parent case.

Good luck.

[stagpanther]

That MOA 100 yard group may well be over 16" at 300 yards

Hmmmm....for example, what cartridge?

[RC20]

ARQuees write up is very deep grasp of the whole situation.

Again that's why I recommend the Savage 12FV, but in 6.5, its not a barrel burner cartridge, just the opposite. AT $318 I think that is a bargain as it has the more flexible Varmint Contour barrel. The 6.5 is a soft shooter.

At that price you could get a Gun Smith to shorten it and crown it!

Its still the Top Bolt Release which are preferred.

Dicks also has a store only Savage with a shorter but heavier than normal barrel that would make a good target/field gun.

[pgdion]

If you spend a little more, the T/C Venture is a really nice rifle that doesn't break the bank. Maybe not quite 'budget' though. I have one in .270 and think I'll get another one other .243 or 6.5CM (if they'll make it, I'm expecting they will) .... possibly .308.

[pgdion]

BTW - I jumped on the 6.5 Creedmoor bandwagon .... and I love it. A very awesome round. I have it in a BA10 Stealth which is also awesome. I want a lighter rifle for so.e competitions though.

[Pathfinder45]

That MOA 100 yard group may well be over 16" at 300 yards
Hmmmm....for example, what cartridge?

It's not so much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle's vibrations as the bullet exits the muzzle, potentially inducing a destabilizing effect on the bullet. Sometimes, bullet stability is marginally OK at 100 yards and then that stability decays radically as the range increases. Oftentimes the cure is to free-float the barrel. Yet with load experimentation, one may eventually discover a load that shoots very well without changing the barrel bedding.

The other seemingly odd thing that I have noticed is that with some loads, bullet stability may actually improve with increasing range. Thus, the most promising 100 yard loads may be quite undone at 300 yards, being beaten by another recipe that didn't look so promising at 100 yards. Most rifles probably aren't this way, but some certainly are. It always amazes me that some folks will shoot their targets at 100 yards, then figure they are good to go hunting at longer ranges, taking their accuracy and trajectory on blind faith.

[stagpanther]

It's not so much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle's vibrations as the bullet exits the muzzle, potentially inducing a destabilizing effect on the bullet. Sometimes, bullet stability is marginally OK at 100 yards and then that stability decays radically as the range increases. Oftentimes the cure is to free-float the barrel. Yet with load experimentation, one may eventually discover a load that shoots very well without changing the barrel bedding.

The other seemingly odd thing that I have noticed is that with some loads, bullet stability may actually improve with increasing range. Thus, the most promising 100 yard loads may be quite undone at 300 yards, being beaten by another recipe that didn't look so promising at 100 yards. Most rifles probably aren't this way, but some certainly are. It always amazes me that some folks will shoot their targets at 100 yards, then figure they are good to go hunting at longer ranges, taking their accuracy and trajectory on blind faith.

If a bullet is inherently unstable for whatever reason--than it's more than likely going to show that at all distances. Now what does happen, though I'm not a real long distance shooter--is that some really high velocity bullet designs needs some reach to fully spin-stabilize in it's trajectory--so I could see for example a load that returns sub MOA at 100 might not be the optimal load for judging how the cartridge will perform at longer distances. Though it may well exist--off the top of my head I can't think of a cartridge combo that could return MOA or better at 100 and go to 5+ MOA at 300 unless it's some short to intermediate range cartridge that loses gas fast??

[Pathfinder45]

Well, Stagpanther, first of all, thank your lucky stars that none of your rifles have exhibited this phenomena. Perhaps your rifle(s) have free-floated barrels? But the bullets are reasonably perfect. The actual rifle, (Yes, this is a real rifle), tends to shoot five shot groups of just about any ammo into 1-1/2" at 100 yards, rarely, if ever, better than 1-1/4". I don't think I have ever shot a five shot group with it that was minute-of-angle or less. Yet one of the loads that is merely 1-1/2" at 100 yards, is consistently putting 5 rounds into 2-1/2" and less at 300 yards. Some of the most promising 100 yard loads are extremely disappointing at 300 yards, while several aren't nearly that bad but not great either. It's just finicky about what it likes. It isn't free-floated; I could have it done, but it shoots so well with what it likes that I think I will leave it as it is. I consider it a great rifle; sub-MOA at 300 yards works for me. It's my best rifle. It could be any caliber and any brand of rifle. They all have their quirks and preferences.

[stagpanther]

I was just wondering how a 5 shot group that is MOA at 100 yds "has absolutely nothing to do" with inherent accuracy of a weapon! I'm not a long distance shooter--but I have hand-loaded ammo for cartridges like 300 win mag and have observed that the higher-power/velocity combinations do need more distance than 100 yds to indicate the optimal load. I'm also assuming the statement referred to an inherent relationship between distance of target as a function of a projectile's accuracy--assuming the weapon is in good working order.

Not trying to get into a pissing match--I was genuinely curious how that much deviation could happen in an otherwise normally-functioning weapon. I'm no expert--most of what little I know is from screwing things up and then figuring out how to fix them. lol

[Pathfinder45]

Yeah, of course, I felt you were genuine all along. I only meant that if any given rifle and ammo shoots excellent at 100 yards, that we shouldn't take for granted that the same combination can be counted on to deliver the same excellence way out there without having been proven to do so. I'm not sure what you meant by this:

I'm also assuming the statement referred to an inherent relationship between distance of target as a function of a projectile's accuracy--assuming the weapon is in good working order.

But when I think of a scoped, bolt-action rifle intended for, let's say, deer and perhaps Elk hunting, I'm thinking that the whole point of selecting such a rifle instead of a lever-action 30-30, for example; is the expectation of useful accuracy at a much, much further distance than what the typical lever-gun can be relied upon. That's where the, " MOA-5-shot groups at 100 yards are absolutely meaningless...." comes into context. A 30-30 carbine that can only do 3 or 4" groups at 100 yards is just as good a deer rifle as any MOA scoped bolt gun if all the shots will be 100 yards or less. So, I just find it humorous that all the gun-magazines test all these new-fangled rifles and scopes and ammo, publishing the results at 100 yards as if it really meant something significant for you to buy that rifle for a Wyoming Pronghorn hunt where you might take a 400 yard shot. I do think that people put way too much emphasis on 100 yard groups when they really ought to shun that addictive bench and learn to shoot from realistic field positions.

[603Country]

Over my half century of shooting, I have not yet had a rifle that shot good groups at 100 yards that didn't do well at least out to 300 yards. That said, if I had loaded up bullets that were only marginally stable at 100, results at 300 or more might be dismal. Just load or buy ammo suitable for the twist rate, which probably applies to the 223 more than any other caliber.

To the OP's original question: if I wanted a good shooter at best price, I'd probably buy a RAR, but if I was willing to pay a bit more, I'd most certainly buy a Tikka.

[Scout]

Are you willing to buy a second hand rifle? If so, look at the Stevens 200. It will fit the bill.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

It's not so much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle's vibrations as the bullet exits the muzzle, potentially inducing a destabilizing effect on the bullet. Sometimes, bullet stability is marginally OK at 100 yards and then that stability decays radically as the range increases. Oftentimes the cure is to free-float the barrel. Yet with load experimentation, one may eventually discover a load that shoots very well without changing the barrel bedding.

The other seemingly odd thing that I have noticed is that with some loads, bullet stability may actually improve with increasing range. Thus, the most promising 100 yard loads may be quite undone at 300 yards, being beaten by another recipe that didn't look so promising at 100 yards. Most rifles probably aren't this way, but some certainly are. It always amazes me that some folks will shoot their targets at 100 yards, then figure they are good to go hunting at longer ranges, taking their accuracy and trajectory on blind faith.

Guess you've got it figured I do 3 shot group's for testing new loads. But once I think I have a load, I do go to 5 shot group's. Kicker is once that is done, I shoot at longer distance's, usually with a hunting rifle to 200 yds but then I have only shot beyond that a few time's in my life, I do not hunt long range! Once I have the load I want I chronograph it to 350 yds and shoot at the MPBR. If it's on, I shoot some of the other ranges just to check the chronograph reading's. This working up loads with 5 shot group's is for me a waste of bullet's. If the thing won't hold three shots at an inch or under, it's not going to hold five an inch or under! And then, I've found that seldom will a one inch group at 100 yds give me a 2" group at 200 yds. Normally a bit bigger but not so bad I wouldn't hunt with it, as I said, I seldom shoot much past 200 yds at game. Of course predator's and varmint are a different story.

All thins stuff about working up loads in five shot groups is bull, nothing less. Then again once the load is developed, it should be tested at longer range. No question about that. Just that I don't care to waste bullet's shooting more than three shot's when the load with three shot's doesn't do it for me!

[sablesdaddy]

It's got a 8-900$ street price, lighter than the Ruger Precision Rifle and it can be used for hunting as well. Have seen nothing but good info on all of the Bergara rifle line. Don't own one, but will before the year is out. Only one article is available on all of the FLF articles on this site. Maybe in the ignorance...there really is bliss?

[ARqueen15]

A brief interruption from our regularly scheduled programming...

I ordered the rifle and should receive it tomorrow. In addition I picked up 4 different kinds of ammo for it across a variety of bullet weights and companies. Come saturday I'll take it out to the range, sight it in, and see what we can do.

I'm rather curious to see what happens and I'll post the results here.

Now please carry on

[Lohman446]

If your results are good there will be a tirade on why you just got lucky and no one should expect that type of result from a budget rifle. Or your testing protocol will be flawed. Or the definition of MOA (which is, from my understanding, a long standing technical definition) will be questioned. The usefulness of MOA will be questioned. Anything to prevent a consideration that rifle manufactures may have found a cost-efficient way to create budget price point rifles that might even be considered in the same breath to have anywhere near the performance of very expensive custom and semi-custom rifles.

Or it will not shoot well and we will hear "I told you so" and people will point out you get what you pay for and ignore the fact that not all expensive rifles shoot well and some need to have loads built for them and tuned.

Its kind of like with pistols. If you buy an expensive pistol and it has several failures in the first 100 rounds you are told you need to break it in for at least 500 rounds. If you buy a cheap pistol you got what you paid for and what did you expect.