quote:

I am going to go through my loading/shooting log and list the last and then the best group that many of my factory Rifles have shot.

Varmintguy...I am not picking on you but since you took the time to list all of your rifles, I took the time to analyze it. You listed 38 rifles in total which is a statistically significant number. Of those 38 rifles, 17 showed "consistant" grouping of 1/2"(.500) or better. That works out to 44.736% which is impressive. Being generous, 1 out of every 2 of your rifles is a consistant 1/2" gun. As I stated earlier in this thread I don't doubt that 1/2" factory rifles exist but not to the mythical proportions mentioned by some people on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by A/C guy:
...Is it possible that factory ammo is more consistent today?

Hey A/C guy, No doubt about it.

Back when I started shooting(as well as Steve, Bob and the older folks), finding a Factory Rifle that would shoot "consistent" 1.5" groups was something to be very proud of.

You can see folks whinning and crying about current rifle Quality all the time. And in some specific situations they are totally correct. But from an overall view, we are getting some of the most accurate Factory Rifles ever built today.

Same for the components and your Factory Ammo as well.

One of the very best things people can do for their "older" firearms is to use current production Components in them. Even some of those old 1.5" rifles become 1"(or better) shooters with the current Powders and Bullets.

By the way, nice shooting.

Have the rifles themselves become more accurate or is it just due to better quality ammo or is it a little of both.

quote:

little of both.

Think thats your answer.

poor horse.

Just curious - what bullet "jump" do all posters here find is best for obtaining their best groups? Or is there one?

Hot Core: I collect pre-64 Winchester Model 70's and have for many decades. Love'em!
And I have quite a few pre-64 Winchester Model 70's I still Hunt Big Game and Varmints with, I would say, about 12 of them. But those were not included in my overview from my loading log because... well because they are no longer made and have not been made for 32 years or so. We were discussing factory Rifles of current manufacture - or so I thought.
I have not bought a "new" Winchester Model 70 for my own uses in many, many years!
To bad about the latest downturn over at Winchester!
Shame.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

JMJ888: Thanks for doing the math for me!
And your numbers I am sure are correct - and for full (or repeated) disclosure those two 5 shot groups I listed for each Rifle were, FIRST GROUP LISTED = the last group I fired with that Rifle (most often a pre-Safari sight in verification or in some rare cases additional load testing) and the SECOND GROUP LISTED = the best group I have ever fired with that particular Rifle!
I had to answer or clarify that in several off line E-mails and PM's.
And to answer a couple of other private inquiries regarding my groups and loading and testing methods - I will repeat here also - that I indeed did NOT follow proper Bench Rest protocol by shooting under conditions "the day of the match" or "on demand" or under a strict short time limit per group! I clearly stated the way I test my Rifles to try to subvert those who choose to try and berate my (and oftenly other folks) results.
I want to test the RIFLE and the LOAD - NOT ME!
I know how well (or how poorly!) I shoot in poor light and high mirage and burping or buffeting wind conditions!
MY purpose for logging in my results under MY preferred shooting conditions and having them available for all future inquiries is so I know I am either moving in the right direction with my load development and sight ins - in other words I want the range conditions to have as near zero effect on my load testing, Rifle testing and sight ins as possible!
Now I will freely admit to those (maybe even yourself?) that if I had to take all my Rifles to a typical Bench Rest Match in Arizona in July and have to contend with the mirage, wind and time limits probable then, I would have maybe 6 Rifles that would standup or compete UNDER the 1/2" factory Rifle standard that you infer.
I still am impressed with the accuracy that I obtain with most all of the factory Rifles I have owned and shot in the last 20 years.
And I wanted to add for those that may be wondering most all of the Rifles I listed used variable scopes with top end powers of 18, 20, 24 or 25 power. I have a couple of 36 power scopes on two Remington 40X's.
Also all loads listed were made with bullets that I Hunt either Varmints or Big Game with!
Perhaps .050" to .100" could be subtracted from listed groups if I were to have used custom match grade target bullets in each Rifle?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Sonofagun, try loading to what is called jam length. Put a dummy ctg. in your gun and close the bolt, measure the length of the ctg. base to ogive and try that as a starting point. If your gun is fairly new and the lands are still sharp the bullet may be pulled when opening the bolt. If so just try again with a little tighter neck. This is more often than not very close to where you will realize your best accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
...Have the rifles themselves become more accurate or is it just due to better quality ammo or is it a little of both.

Hey Jarrod, I agree with Schromf that you were correct when you said "a little of both".

From back when I started shooting, hunting and reloading, I can't think of a single component that has not seen Quality improvements. Cases, Primers, Powders and Bullets have all gotten better. We have more types of all those components available today than we ever have and most are just excellent.

Bullets do deserve special recognition because of the great strides that have been made in reducing tolerances and increasing the relative consistency from Bullet to Bullet.

I believe we made a HUGE jump in Bullet Quality back when the FBI went looking for a new Cartridge and settled on the 40S&W in the 1980s. I still prefer the 45ACP, but at that time they wrote a Functional Specification for the bullets they wanted to use in specific situations. The industry responded with lots of new Designs that far exceeded the Requirements.

Then people began asking why they weren't doing the same thing with Rifle Bullets. We had the good old Nosler Partitions, Bitterroots, Fred Barnes Originals, Hawks and a few others back then for the Premiums. Today, nearly everyone has an excellent Premium Bullet in their line.

Even the Standard Grade Bullets have been improved. I'd say Nosler led the way in producing very accurate Hunting Grade Bullets. As everyone else watched reloaders stocking up on the Noslers, they either had to improve their Bullets or go out of business.

It is very difficult to find a Bad Bullet today. Many folks use the wrong Bullet for a particular situation and then complain about the Bullet. But, from the benefit of a lot of hind-sight, we have the very best Bullets ever produced - available for us today.
---

I've been fortunate enough to handle and shoot a lot of rifles over the years. And I understand people liking the older vintage firearms like VG and his M70s. As for me, I prefer current production. There are exceptions to all of this, but the manufacturers are producing the most accurate Factory Rifles they have ever made. You can look at this Thread and see where that is true.

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
.... We were discussing factory Rifles of current manufacture - or so I thought...

Hey VG, I understand. Thanks.

Hey Bob Beyer, Go to the top of the page and click on the "PM" box. I sent you one.

Hot Core: I agree wholeheartedly on the improved bullets that are available today! I have shot some wonderful groups with the humble and cheap Sierra 50 grain Blitz bullets. I have a bunch of these in stock and many of my Rifles shoot them quite well!
I also think another wonderful advancement for the average Joe shooter/reloader are todays scopes!
I remember the days when a five shot one inch group at 100 yards was cause for celebration!
And a group measuring anywhere near 1/2" was automatically cut out of the target and placed in ones wallet for safe keeping and bragging about - let alone all the phone calls to friends and relatives!
Now when I punch out a half incher I just smile to myself and wonder if I had held a little finer and squeezed a little smoother that group would surely have been in the high 3's!
Times are changing and some things are getting better.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

B beyer: I agree that usually the shorter the jump for the bullet to the leades of the rifling the easier it is to obtain accuracy with a particular loading.
Trouble is with many (most?) factory Rifles it is often the case that the bullet just can not be seated safely in the case and be anywhere near the leades of the rifling!
Many (if not most!) of the recent factory Rifles I have purchased this is the case. Many of my handloads need to jump many hundredths of an inch to hit rifling!
All three of my 204's (one Ruger and two Remingtons) has the bullet jumping nearly a tenth of an inch to hit rifling! I still get pretty good accuracy with my handloads and ebven factory ammo in these Rifles!
The tendency of many factory Rifles anymore is to be made "long throated" - I guess is what I am saying.
Shame that, but even with the long jumps I find that varying the seating depth still affects accuracy (improves it sometimes and diminishes it some other times). Yes I have had occassion to experience shorter seating depths being slightly more accurate than longer seating depths in a particular Rifle/loading!
My Hunting and gun trading buddy Steve from Puget Sound country always says when we talk accuracy and load testing - "handloading causes questions"!
I agree with him.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

(Shhh...better not let Roy Weatherby hear you say that a long throat is bad...)

What's the best (usually yielding best result) bullet jump?

Remington told me once thank their lawyers for the long throating.

Supposedly a bullet jammed into the leade raises peak pressures - BUT OTOH I think I read somewheres once that this doesn't always hold true.

Anybody shed some light on this?

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
...I also think another wonderful advancement for the average Joe shooter/reloader are todays scopes!

Hey VG, Absolutely. When I saw your comment, it got me to thinking back about the good and bad scopes I've had over the years.

I still have two original Weaver Scopes from their El Paso days that handle anything I can mount them on. One has very thin crosshairs which negates it for Twilight Deer hunting. But for longer range shooting in good light, it is great.

I contrast them with the Leupolds I have and the Leupolds allow you to clearly see the Buttons or small Spikes when you are trying to kill a bunch of Does. The difference in low light clarity between them and the old Weavers is literally - night and day.

And long ago I tried so of the "economical" scopes only to find they were just trash can fodder. Only a few shots on a seriously recoiling rifle would shake them apart.

Today though, there are some excellent lower cost scopes that will serve a Beginner quite well. And the best scopes continue to get even better each year.

quote:

I remember the days when a five shot one inch group at 100 yards was cause for celebration!
And a group measuring anywhere near 1/2" was automatically cut out of the target and placed in ones wallet for safe keeping and bragging about - let alone all the phone calls to friends and relatives!...

Brings a smile to my face thinking about it. I know just what you mean.

quote:

Originally posted by sonofagun:
...Remington told me once thank their lawyers for the long throating.

Hey sonofagun, I'd suggest the reason the Lawyers told them that is because of people like jack belk who are willing to work against the industry "IF" you grease their palms with a few dollars.

Most people on juries have no knowledge of Engineering Design fundamentals and when faced with an "alleged" expert, they tend to accept his words, even though he is simply guessing or making it up as he goes along.

So, every time you buy ANY shooting or hunting related product, you have fools like belk to thank for a "higher" cost - which pays for all those lawyers.

quote:

Supposedly a bullet jammed into the leade raises peak pressures - BUT OTOH I think I read somewheres once that this doesn't always hold true...

I generally start a Load Development with a Match Grade bullet Seated Into-the-Lands and work up watching for the various Pressure Indicators. But, it really depends on the specific rifle as to when Pressure Indicators begin appearing. Sometimes I have to STOP below most Manual MAX Loads and sometimes I can go a bit above.

Like you, I've seen people trying to prove it one way or the other. But it seems they are always working with just "one Powder" or just one Rifle. When that is the situation, even though they may be correct for their specific rifle and components, it does not convince me they have proved a universal truth - I know better.

Sorry, don't get the ref to Mr. Belk and don't have the time to

Clarifying: IOW Rem told me to protect themselves against somone possibly suing them over a gun blow up due to excess pressure from jamming into lands...they made it less possible to seat into the lands.

good grief - ain't lawyers and lawsuits grand!

Only one half-inch factory rifle in my safe at the moment, guaranteed consistent, too. It's an 1868 Springfield in .50/70.

Hot Core: I was smiling also when I wrote that. Its been nearly 20 years since I have carried a "cut out group" in my wallet!
I was once at a monthly meeting of the Renton, Washington Fish and Game Club (30 years ago or so). There was a groups of 7 or 8 of us standing around after the meeting was over and - I swear this is true - someone pulled out his wallet and brought out his "cut out group" the ooh's and aah's were quickly followed by every one of us reaching for our wallets and our "cut outs"!
Tickles me to think about those days. I only rarely see a "wallet reaching" anymore!
Shame that.

Ricciardelli: I often wonder about long throats and how one could test - quantifiably - how much difference in accuracy there would be with a short (or normal!) throating compared to a long (or Weatherby style!) throating!
I would gladly contribute a $20.00 bill to someone who would take the time and effort (and expense) of making up an accurate Rifle and having it chambered (throated) in a normal manner that would allow seating the bullet right at the lands (.002" off the lands say?) and then finding an accurate load and shooting it for record - then taking that same Rifle back to the Riflesmith and have him use the floating type throat reamer to "lengthen" the throat! Then checking the accuracy in that same Rifle again with the bullet seated in the neck a normal distance but the bullet needing to jump a full .100" to the leades!
I wonder what the difference in accuracy would be?
I am guessing the groups would be larger by around .100" to .200"!
Just a WAG there on my part but I have been in a somewhat similar kind of position several times in the last few years!
In many of my newer Remingtons I find myself using my Sinclair bullet seating gauge and I make up my test loads so the bullets jump only about .005" to hit the leades of the rifling. When they shoot well then I load up a bunch of them and go to load them into my Rifles magazine well - OOPS (I always say) - they won't fit in the magazine well as they are to long! And I have to go back and shorten the cartridges (seat the bullets deeper in the case so they fit in the magazine!) and then I go back to the range with my now "jumping" handloads! The accuracy has suffered in most all these cases or in a couple it stayed the same!
But I end up with bullets seated deep in the neck or into the body of the case?
Again even with the "jumping bullets" I get respectable if not pleasing accuracy.
The BR type folks would have a tizzy fit if their riflesmiths ever throated a chamber "long" - I do know that much.
But I am not a true BR type myself.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Then checking the accuracy in that same Rifle again with the bullet seated in the neck a normal distance but the bullet needing to jump a full .100" to the leades!

.100"? I've seen 700s with .500" jump!

quote:

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
... Its been nearly 20 years since I have carried a "cut out group" in my wallet! I only rarely see a "wallet reaching" anymore!
Shame that...

Hey VG, Yes it is a shame, but for the most part the small groups seem to be a lot more prevelant today.

Just about the same time frame as your Billfold Group, I was with a buddy in Raleigh who was sighting in his Black Powder Rifle. Come to think of it, I was actually "chronographing" some Loads a few benches away.

He gets it all sighted in and wants me to shoot it. I'm not a big fan of shooting other folks rifles, but after a bit of frendly ragging I said I would. But, I wanted to fire it Off-Hand.

So, he gets it all loaded up and I look down range to see he is shooting at a 1.5" Day-Glo Orange Dot with a small Black diamond in the center. More discussion ensued about the Dot.

I got ready and shot. He was looking through a pair of Binoculars and said, "You missed the whole Darn(maybe a bit more colorful) Target!!!

I looked through the rifle scope and thought I saw a hole, but kept quiet about it. We walked down to the Target and the 45cal(Saboted bullet) had cut most of the Diamond out and was slightly to the right(as any good Conservative would shoot ).

He was shaking his head saying he couldn't believe it and of course I was complaining about "the scope" being off a bit.

Then it dawned on me. Before he could do anything, I reached up, peeled the Dot off the Target and stuck it inside my Billfold.

He said, "I'm gonna see that again aren't I?" Told him there was a right good chance of that.

Every once in awhile I'd open my Billfold, lay it on a copier and send a copy to him. It really got him wound up for some reason.

Then for Christmas about 10 years ago I mailed the actual Dot to him. He called and said he had NEVER received a gift that he threw away quicker.

V.G. The big advance in scopes [target scopes anyway] was getting the front mount off the barrel and both the front and rear mount mounted on the reciever. Scopes are still the weakest link in accuracy shooting of all components involved. I think that you would be surprised to see just how many B.R. scopes crap out in the course of a year. More than likely because of the continued pounding they take, but for what they cost, someone should be able to come up with a decent scope that will stay together.
Ricadelli, that long throat in a Weatherby does what it is supposed to do, keep pressure down. It is also one of the reasons they have never built a gun that shot worth a damn.

B. Beyer: I did not know that - about the BR scopes biting the big one = dying!
Maybe it has something to do with the delicacy of the innards of the higher magnification scopes being more delicate somehow?
Maybe you can answer this for me there B. beyers - a particular shooter has two Rifles in the same caliber - say 6mm BR, and this shooter mounts the same scope on each Rifle - say a Leupold 6.5x20 variable or a 24x Leupold fixed power (either will do for this illustration/question) all things are equal including the action (Remington 700 lets say) except that the two Rifles weigh greatly different amounts!
One Rifle is built like a heavy Varminter or BR type Rifle and weighs 16 pounds! The other Rifle weighs only 8 pounds! Now the rings are the same type and the caliber is the same but one Rifle is twice as heavy as the other!
WOULD the half weight Rifle create twice the wear and tear on a scopes innards as the heavier Rifle would?
OR does the caliber NOT the weight of a Rifle determine how much wear and tear will be imparted to the scope?
I have never had a Leupold scope go tits up on me and at the last Bench Rest Match I was at I saw that most of the folks were indeed using Leupold scopes.
Any thoughts along these lines.
Just yesterday I was watching TV (it was 19 degrees below zero outside!) and the show was about the Burris scope company. They showed a "jarring" machine that tested all the Burris scopes. It looked like a hydraulic or pneumatic driven machine that held about 6 scopes and it pounded them up and down a bit for QC testing! Big rig it was! But maybe it was only the mass of the scope that imparts internal stress's on the scope upon each shock?
I don't know!
Are larger scopes more prone to recoil punishments due to their own mass's?
I don't know!
Thanks in advance for any thoughts along these lines!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

V.G. I have no idea on just what the failure rate would be in the instance that you speak of. I do know that I have about 8 of each, the 6X and 36X and about evenly divided between Weaver and Leupold with a couple of the Burris 6X HBR thrown in and I send maybe 2 a year back for repair. There is a gentleman in Huston [spelling] that last year disassembeled a scope and froze the innards, to use adjustable mounts, and did very well. The problem is he also did something else that could have affected his shooting[forget just what it was] and it is impossible to tell what did what. This is what I have heard, and think that it is true as he has posted a number of articles about it on the benchrest.com site. If you would like to look into this further his name is Jackie Schmidt I believe and you can look his posts up there.
On which scope is more likely to crap out I have no idea, I shoot 6X HBR in compotition and that is what I am more familiar with but know that I and others have had an equal amount of problems with the 36X scopes. It is not just that they fail, there is also a problem with them holding and returning to zero. They are most certainly the weakest link in the accuracy chain. I think the biggest advances have been made in bullets, the custom bullets that are made today are superb, the question is how the makers eke out a living selling them for what they get for them.
I have seen a similar show, I think from Leupold od the testing of their scopes. I would think that they would be good for longer than they are, that is not to say that there are some scopes that do not hang in there, I couldn't even guess as to the maker of the better of the bunch is.

quote:

From back when I started shooting, hunting and reloading, I can't think of a single component that has not seen Quality improvements. Cases, Primers, Powders and Bullets have all gotten better. We have more types of all those components available today than we ever have and most are just excellent.

Bullets do deserve special recognition because of the great strides that have been made in reducing tolerances and increasing the relative consistency from Bullet to Bullet.

Hot Core,

Your right on the mark there. Back many moons ago when I started shooting, the best bullets didn't really compete with todays average bullets, at least from the accuracy standpoint. Two things have definately gotten better over the last 30-35 years; barrels and bullets. We tend to banter opinions a lot around on best bullets and barrels on AR, truth is the selection today is just awesome, a dozen good barrel makers and a equal amount of bullet makers, all doing quality that was a dream some years past.

The only downside to all the good stuff today is its more expensive, but I am not even sure that is valid when you factor in real dollars and inflation over the years, and in truth it might even be cheaper, it just seems more expensive when I run across a box of old bullets that I bought for $5.00 thirty years ago.

I will say that today are selection of components is so much better. In the 1970's if you had a 9.3, or .423 rifle or even a .416 you were pretty much screwed. Choices were hunt down the almost impossible to find, or make your own. Today get on the internet, pull out your plastic and 3 days later its at your doorstep. Oh yeah you can find a hole in this once in a while sure, but for the most part we have it great right now.

B. beyer: Bob thanks for the input and your observations and the Jackie Schmidt connection.
The show I saw was definitely about the Burris company as they showed the long aluminum "rods" that the whole Burris scope tube is "turned" from! These tubes are about 3 1/2" in outside diameter and about 4 or 5 feet long!
They obviously cut them to the chosen length and then chuck them up and turn them to dimensions which I saw on the show. The smaller powered scopes (with smaller objectives!) came from smaller original aluminum "rods". There were holes down the centers of these rods - I assume corresponding to the needs of the various scopes innards.
I have two Burris scopes on a couple of Varmint pistols but I do not currently have a Burris Riflescope. I do have a small Burris spotting scope that was given to me as a gift for helping a friend of mine scout out and then Hunt down a Mt. Goat here in Montana last year!
That was one tough assed way to earn a spotting scope!
Anyway the Burris is small and works pretty well. My friend thought my Nikon spotting scope was "to BIG" for back pack scouting and Hunting!
Thanks again.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

The show I saw was definitely about the Burris company as they showed the long aluminum "rods" that the whole Burris scope tube is "turned" from! These tubes are about 3 1/2" in outside diameter and about 4 or 5 feet long!

What sense does that make? I'd think there's a better way to make 1" (or 30mm) tubes wouldn't you?

I remember a cartoon where an entire redwood tree was turned down to make one toothpick! I always thought that was a bit wasteful, and I still wonder how they really make toothpicks.

At least I now know how my scope tube was made.