Ricciardelli,

Thanks for making the effort and remeasuring that group. It just LOOKS like it should be more than .260 inch. I know most people think Rugers are a POS, but I have only had one disappointing one and it responded with just a recut of the crown. Some early Rugers had chambers that were a bit on the sloppy side but functional. Fire up the lathe, set the barrel back and recut the chamber and they were fine. I personally like the early M77 tang-safety models. The new ones have a trigger than can use some work, but most new rifles are that way. I don't feel like I am being screwed when I pay $468 for a new Ruger at retail. A couple hours of attention and it is ready for years of good use.

All my Ruger 77's are tang-safety types, except for one. Most were made between 1968 and 1970, however I do have a couple of the "Bi-Centennial" units.

The only thing I have ever had to do was hog-out the barrel channel so I have around 1/4" of clearance between steel and wood, all the way from receiver to the end of the forearm (and that means getting rid of that bump). And a little fine tuning on the trigger.

Well lots of info flowing here and I have learned some things since my last trip to the range with my new .260.
1........I shoot alot better with out my perscription glasses on.
2........A wobbling rifle rest didn't help.
3........I am getting older and not as steady
4........Rifle did well considering the above
5........Will quit bitching and get to work

I may be measuring my groups wrong. I placed a penny on a three shot group and the rim cut through the middle of each hole, actually leaving a bit less than 1/2 of each hole showing, and I called it a .0625. The longest distance between the holes was 5/8 or .0625. What would you call it?

Actual distance between the tree holes was;
7/16", 1/2", and 5/8"

Three not tree as I wasn't shooting at a tree!

5/8ths is 0.625

Well, I guess I have a horseshoe in my pocket, too. In the last 4 years, I have purchased:

Browning BAR LW Stalker, in .308 Win.
Savage 16, in .22-250 Rem.
Savage Striker, in 308 Win.
Tikka M695, in .25-06 Rem.
Tikka T-3, in .223 Rem.

And I won a Howa 1500, in .300 WSM.

All of them are shooting handloads into
sub MOA groups, for 3 shot groups,
and most of them will do that for 5
shot groups, and these are all sporter
rifles. The BAR put Winchester silver
box factory crap into 1 MOA or better
groups. About the only gun that fit into
this topic, about today's guns not being
as accurate as the 50's, and 60's, guns,
is a Thompson-Center Encore, in .308 Win.
It was no better than 2.5 MOA with it's
favorite factory ammo. It went back to
T/C, and they recrowned it, and now it
shoots factory ammo into 1.5 MOA groups,
and I have not worked loads for it yet. If
I can't get handloads to 1 MOA, this one is
on the trading block. I am spoiled with
today's guns coming out of the box, and shooting
1 MOA, or in my case sub MOA.

Even my son's Rem. 700 ADL, in .270 Win,
shoots sub MOA, and that is all I had done
to it was had the "Lawyer" trigger worked
down to something useable.

I am on the far side of 50. I was shooting in
the 60's, and was burning ammo as fast as
my limited means could afford it, and I
REALLY believe we have much more accurate
out of the box rifles today. At least the
Savage, and Tikka, rifles that I have purchased
have me believing this. I am not a big fan
of Remington, Ruger, Winchester, and
Browning bolt action rifles, so I have very
little experince with them. The few I have
had, or had knowledge of, did seem to need
some work to get to shoot well. Some needed
more than a little work, and some were better
used as a canoe paddle, or a tomato stake.

My uncle has selective memory, and always
remembers things were better back in the 50's,
and 60's, and I was there, and my memories
are very different. Yup the wood, and the
craftsmenship, were better back a few decades.
But I just don't remember those pretty rifles
shooting like today's ugly rifles. I remember
one Ruger, in .270 Win, that grouped a lot
like my Remington 1100 modified choke
shotgun slinging foster type slugs. Several
gunsmiths from Wisconsin, to Colorado,
took cracks at making it shoot, and it
never got better than 2 MOA. When ever I
shoot my ugly Savage 16, and put 5 shots,
into .4" groups, I think, "I sure am glad I
can finally buy a rifle the shoots well out of
the box".

Squeeze

and thy say drugs dont work

Now you guys have set me to thinking (a really scary thought, eh?). I've recently acquired a 77/22 in .22 Hornet and a 700BDL in .243 Win. Neither is shooting MOA with factory or reloaded ammunition. My "break in" process has always been shoot 3 & swab with #9 for 4 or 5 groups and then clean it thoroughly at home. Is there a better way? Am I missing something here?

Sounds like a lost cause...just pack them both up and send them to me.

Well, they say they don't make them like they used to. While that may not be necessarily true, half the fun of a new rifle is tinkering with it.
Getting back tot he older rifles for a minute. I like the old el cheapo J.C. Higgins Model 50 mausers that Sears sold btween about 1949 and maybe 1952, give or take. Not what one would call the most accurate actions around, so they say. I found one at a gun show and gave it a thorough cleaning. The guy selling told me it was shot out, and the barrel was no good. Can you believe that, an honest person selling at a gun show. Well, I bought it for the action anyway to use on a stil in the planning stage new rifle. After a long session witht he sweet's 7.62 and finally with the JB Bore paste, I told myself, "What the hell, let's see just how bad it really is?" I have some Hornady 190 gr. match boattails that came as part of a trade and decided that would be a good use for them. The rifle had an old all steel Weaver 4X scope on it. After making sure it would even be on the paper, I fired ten rounds, that's ten, not five, each shot two minutes apart. The group was less than a half inch, right at .470" to be exact. Yup! Those old guns will shoot. I've only had one M50 that wouldn't do 1.0" or better, and it was in .270 Win. That rifle only came in .270 and 30-06 BTW.
So, I guess that more or less backs up what Blob said, right? Well let's look a little farther. I have an el cheapo Winchester m70 that looks like a Black Shadow without floorplate made especially for Walmart. Comes with a crappy Simmons scope that I threw away. All I did to that rifle was adjust the trigger and put a decent 3x9X Leupold scope on it. Plain factory 180 gr. ammo will consisntantly do one inch, the pricey Supreme stuff does 1.25" (go figure?) My handloads with 180 gr. Sierra Pro-hunter or 180 gr. Nosler partition group into .75" all day long if I do my part. The real sleeper is the 200 gr. Speer Hot-core at .50". I recently picked up a Winchester M70 Stainless Classic that so far has kept all load at 1.25" or less.
However, is all that accuracy necessary in a hunting rifle for deer and larger game? Not only do I say no, but HELL NO! Any rifle that will do 2.0" or less will take a deer, elk, or moose to alt least 300 yards and bit bit more for the larger animals.
Personally, I am a bit fussier than that, as I draw the line at 1.5" for a serious big game rifle. To be perfectly honest, I don't think we have anyone around here who can hold into two inches at just about any range from the average hunting position anyway. I might do it on occasion if I can get into a good sitting postion with a rest, but I wouldn't give any guarantees on it. My longest shot on a deer was at 427 paces offhand on a running deer with two minute rifle. Lucky me, and unlucky deer, but I'm honest enough to admit it. A Hail Mary all the way.The shot was witnessed BTW. Just to be even more candid, it's not a shot I would normally take, but the deer was already wounded by one of my hunting partners and had to be brought down.
The point is, you do not need bench rest accuracy to kill big game, only for bragging rights. Kind of like, "My daddy can whip your daddy." sort of thing. call it practical accuracy, if you will.
Paul B.

Back in the 50's,60's ,70's a 1 inch rifle was some thing to brag about most every gun writer was happy with a 1.5 inch rile. I have brought several out of the box varmit rifles the last couple of years that will do under .5.

Rifles are made just as good now days as back then. I know the good old days my ass.

These are the good old days.

Hey glad for those that have new factory rifles that shoot well. Mine shoots Remington 140 Ammo at about a sick 3 inch and factory 120 accrutips at 2.5. But reloading will work out in the end.

Hey Bob, Overall, I'm much happier with all the firearms built today.

Old enough to have been through a bunch of the rifles made throughout the last century and few of them would compare to the tolerances of the factory rifles made today. They did have to "hand-fit" a lot of parts in the old days and the Marketing Whizzes of that era knew to say, "That makes them better!".

No, it just priced them out of the market.
---

Glad to hear you managed to get some good old ones. Hang on to them and enjoy them.

Also a darn shame you got some newer ones that don't work as well for you. Sometimes a rifle just doesn't like a specific bullet or a specific weight of bullet. It can happen to two barrels made at the same time. No idea why, but that is just the way it is.

Plenty of "old ones" on the shelves if that is what a person wants though. In fact, they can have my share of them too.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MikeMichalski:
Now you guys have set me to thinking (a really scary thought, eh?). I've recently acquired a 77/22 in .22 Hornet QUOTE]


I read somewhere of a trick with the 77/22 (.22hornet) was to put a shim between the bolt and the non rotating front part. Worked on one rifle apparently. Also a more aggressive copper remover than No. 9 may be some help.
John L.

When you go tuna can hunting give me a call I would like to see that at 400 yards

JAL John L, Do you mean I should use something more agressive than #9 at the range between groups or at home doing complete cleaning? I now do both with #9, at the range a couple of wet patches followed by a couple of dry ones. At home I use a bronze brush and leave the bore wet and check the next day for green/blue residue; continuing each day until the patch comes out clean. This sometimes takes a week or so.

I saw a post earlier in this thread about the Weatherby 1.5 moa guarentee. Weatherby now has a 1 moa or better guarentee on specific model Vanguards. Not with reloads but with factory ammo.

Yeah I boughtt a POS Taurus Raging Bee shoots like a shotgun.
Lyle

someone mentioned that very few factory rifles shoot MOA or better and went on to say that most shoot 2"or 2.5". Well I must just be very lucky because the factory rifles I have bought have shot MOA or better. Matter of fact every single one of them have. and the only way I would have one that ddin't shoot MOA would be if it were going to be a woods rifle and then still if it wouldn't shoot 1 1/2in or better I dont want it period.

As for weatherby guarantee of 1 1/2inch at 100 yards they can shove it because any decent rifle will shoot that good.

Thanks for coming back and telling us your results from the last shoot. Prouder men would have clammed up and stuck with their stories.

Blob, my old Ruger M77 (Blue) in 7mmRM was outstanding right out of the box. I bought it over twenty years ago, though.

If I bought a new rifle that I thought shot substandard, I wouldn't hesitate to write Sturm Ruger about it. My friends tell me I squeak when I walk, I'm so tight. You'll probably be surprised how good they will treat you! Through the years I've seen people write in to various gun magazines about how company X or Z fixed them up, no charge. Don't get mad, don't get even.......get ahead.

Regards, Jim

Sent my 77/22 .22 Hornet back to Ruger this past Friday. Hope to have it back when I return from the Grand American. I'll post the results, if any. Mike

just read this thread today, and was all worked up and intrigued what a let down.

blob1 did you ever try out those loads the next day? what were the results?

I beleive that the reason factory rifles do not necessarily perform right is that the factories have replaced craftsmanship with mechanics. The rifles of yor were often tuned for performance, cut rifle barrels that were lapped. No longer is any significant measure taken in the name of quality control. Most company employees don't shoot and are not interested in the product beyond a pay check. When you call a factory (Winchester) I know more about their products and what will and will not sell than the customer service personel do. If you call the custom shop you would expect expertise. Not so at Browning/Winchester/Ruger. It is truely pathetic.

Well this sure took off. When I first posted this I wasn't trying to suggest in any way that there wern't any good factory rifles around. I believe that the overall thinking has changed in this country from the time I wanderd in a 100 mile area without seeing a single person and 40 inch bucks were normal. The old 30/06, .270, or 30/30 was what we had and used well as we needed to eat and shot well. Seems today that the norm is to purchase a rifle and then spend another $1000 to make it shoot better. This is not the course of everyone of course, but for a multitude it is. With all the glorified war movies men begin to think they have to be able to shoot no matter what the cost but just like flying some will never be good at it and so what! But when I purchased an $800.00 bull barrled Rifle I expected it to a least shoot around 1 inch or so. But it wouldn't no matter what and another 5-8 hundred was needed to get it shooting well. This is a sad thing in America as far as Im concerned. We have let communist liberials dictate the quality of almost everything, and depend upon communists for most we have.

It seems every time anyone mentions the word Ruger the pot gets stirred. And then the Ruger bashers come out in force. It is my understanding that at the Ruger factory the grouping specification for quality control is 1.5" three shot group using their 50 yard range. If you own a Ruger you more than likely own a very good "hunting" rifle. Sure there are hunting rifles that shoot some decent groups. However, a Ruger is not and will never be a "precision" rifle. Just check the results of any competition shooting event and see how many Rugers or other factory rifles made a top 10 showing. Putting a custom aftermarket $400.00 on a factory Ruger is like buying chrome Mag wheels and putting them on your pickup truck thats sitting in the yard with a blown engine. Your gunsmith was probably way low on his 500-800 dollar estimate for getting your gun to shoot. Lets see---I believe you have the plastic paddle stock correct? Unscrew your barrel and throw it away, remove the factory trigger and put it out for the garbage man. Next take the plastic stock and give it to the kids next door to swat lightning bugs with. Now you have a bare action left right? Your action is cast and not machined out of a solid piece of real steel---good luck getting it machined trued and squared. I forgot to mention to look at that funny angled front screw on your Ruger and virtually non-existent recoil lug. So if you replace all of these items so that you can shoot tiny groups do you really still have a Ruger?
I don't hate Rugers. I think that the 10/22 was and still is one of the best .22s ever produced. The Single Six revolver is the same way. Factory rifles (add any brand name here) are fun to shoot and have their function for hunting purposes. If you want to shoot little holes then expect to spend bunches of money and go custom.

The Barnes Manual has a pretty good break in procedure for new barrels,

Remington seems to get the brunt of criticism from unhappy shooters. I think they are actually a victim of their own success. My last 3 Remington 700s have required glass bedding of the actions, barrel floating and trigger work to get them to shoot as accurately as my older Remingtons from the '80's. They all shoot well now, but the question is
should I have to shell out this extra $250. above the initial cost to get an accurate rifle? Do we hold Remington to a higher standard than the rest. I honestly don't know. I know I'm careful now how I spend my gun dollars. You want my dollar you damn well better give me a decent product. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

CalSibley--This is exactly why I also shoot the bow and arrow. When I get frustrated with such things and I don't think my hole is tiny enough then I take a week off and pick up the stick and string. Then the following week even the poor shooting/grouping guns in the stable look pretty darn good in comparison

quote:

Originally posted by one-holer:
It seems every time anyone mentions the word Ruger the pot gets stirred. And then the Ruger bashers come out in force. It is my understanding that at the Ruger factory the grouping specification for quality control is 1.5" three shot group using their 50 yard range. If you own a Ruger you more than likely own a very good "hunting" rifle. Sure there are hunting rifles that shoot some decent groups. However, a Ruger is not and will never be a "precision" rifle. Just check the results of any competition shooting event and see how many Rugers or other factory rifles made a top 10 showing. Putting a custom aftermarket $400.00 on a factory Ruger is like buying chrome Mag wheels and putting them on your pickup truck thats sitting in the yard with a blown engine. Your gunsmith was probably way low on his 500-800 dollar estimate for getting your gun to shoot. Lets see---I believe you have the plastic paddle stock correct? Unscrew your barrel and throw it away, remove the factory trigger and put it out for the garbage man. Next take the plastic stock and give it to the kids next door to swat lightning bugs with. Now you have a bare action left right? Your action is cast and not machined out of a solid piece of real steel---good luck getting it machined trued and squared. I forgot to mention to look at that funny angled front screw on your Ruger and virtually non-existent recoil lug. So if you replace all of these items so that you can shoot tiny groups do you really still have a Ruger?
I don't hate Rugers. I think that the 10/22 was and still is one of the best .22s ever produced. The Single Six revolver is the same way. Factory rifles (add any brand name here) are fun to shoot and have their function for hunting purposes. If you want to shoot little holes then expect to spend bunches of money and go custom.

I think there are a couple of phenomena that occur regarding hunting rifles today, one is unrealistic expections, and the other is shooting skills that don't match equipment. I have a tough time believing that many hunting rifles, ie bolt action, made today won't put 3 rounds of factory ammo into a 1 1/2" or smaller group at 100 yds. Last year I fired a buddies new 300 mag Ruger M77 Mk II with cheapy green box rem ammo and the group as about 1 1/4" for 3 shots. I'd also expect with handloading a combo to be found that would group 3/4", maybe even something that would do 1/2". It just comes down to how many bullets one wants to try to dial in the gun.

As far as mentioning what actions are used for benchrest and target shooting, what in the world does that have to do with hunting rifles??? Most competive BR guns start as Stolle or other custom build actions, not accurized M-700's. But that has nothing to do with what is used in the hunting fields.

I'd say for the money, Ruger makes a great hunting rifle. More then accurate enough for 300 yd shots, and about the only thing they need is a trigger job. Heck, they can even make a revolver that shoots as well, as my out of the box 480 SRH has shot 3 shot 1 1/2" groups at 100 yds, and may be capable of better, only I can't seem to hold steady enough to see if thats the case.

I just ordered a Howa 1500 SS in .223, for coyotes. I was all set on buying a Savage, but the feel and cheapish looking bolt scared me off.

I'm wondering if the coller style of barrel install on the Savage is one thing that is making them shoot so well out of the box. It would seem to me with that coller, it would be easy to get a real precise headspace.

As for the Howa- I loved the balance and the feel of the rifle, and over all craftsmanship.

I hope she's a shooter..

Paul:
Thank you my thoughts exactly. Rugers are outstanding "hunting" rifles. The misunderstanding starts when hunters see benchrest shooters shoot small groups and want to duplicate them with "hunting" rifles. It's just never going to happen. They shouldn't even waste their time. Paul, what I was trying to say was don't try to make a bench gun out of your hunting rig.

Update: 77/22 .22 Hornet sent back to Ruger for inaccuracy. Well, they removed my scope (sent it back separately)shot the gun and returned it as "fixed". They actually did nothing and their results were 1 to 1.5" @ 100 yards. I tried it with factory Remington, Winchester, and Hornady ammunition and the best was 1.6" with the worst over 3". They are sending me a shipper (told them I should not have to pay shipping more than once) to return for another try. Maybe all the bad stuff I've read is true, and that is sad for Sturm, Ruger and Co. As regards to the comments that hunting guns are OK with 1.5" @ 100 yards, the 77-22 .22 Hornet is a "varmet/target" rifle and as such should be able to hit a varmet consistantly at 100 yards. Is my logic or expectation faulty?

My Howa .223 has turned out to be very accurate, as long as I can control it, because it has a lousy trigger.

I had a "trigger job" done by a local smith and it's worse. So I'm going to keep shooting it and hope the trigger breaks in better.

Timney is way back ordered, and I don't want to put a blued trigger on a stainless gun. Groups still touch at 50. and I'm sub moa sometimes at 100, but if it had a good trigger, it would be a consisent 1/2" shooter at 100.

Defintely dead coyotes.

Wanted to see just how far this tread would go and what was said. Intresting info. And I was mostly talking about my own personal experience with rifles the last 10 years or so. I have A Ruger M77 mark 2 SS that shoots any weight load with any powder, from any bench, bag, or rest from 2.5 to 3.5 no matter what. We could talk all day about good old rifles and bad new ones and be right back where we were to begin with. MY personal experience with new rifles has been a nightmare to say the least, others like them so it goes. I have moved Four rifles in the past 5 years and working on the 5th. I was up front with the buyers who didn't
believe me and either spent another 500 on them or moved them on. Two were bull barreled rifles one a 308 the other a .223 with a Springfield aromory scope. They simply would not hold a pattern. But where I will be hunting this year I will break the in perfect shape 1952 30/30 and kill what I need. It's not a bench rifle but will cut the 1" center out of a target with 175 Remington core lokts so will do fine. I was going to leave it in retirement but has to com eout one more time.

Well, I got my 77/22 .22 Hornet back from it's second trip to Ruger. While I've not had a chance to really wring it out, preliminary test groups are around an inch with factory ammo. This is a vast inprovement from previous testing. Too bad I had to send it back twice to get results. Ruger does not say what they did to this gun except "repair barrel and stock", whatever that means. I did notice, however, that the barrel is VERY easy to clean. Some #7 at the range and another patch the next day and no more green. No brushing either. Any ideas?

Hello Blob1,

I for one agree totally with you. We pay $700-900. for a rifle and often how well it shoots is merely a crapshoot. I'm paying that kind of money for a rifle not a crapshoot. I recently purchased a Remington 700BDL in .25-06. I was thrilled because I've wanted one most of my life. I'm an experienced bench shooter with years of load development experience behind me. I can get no better than 1.3" from this rifle (5 at 100yds). Remington, if I return it, will say that's acceptable accuracy. That's nonsense. I spent $250. getting this rifles action glass bedded, the barrel floated and triger lightened by an expert benchrest competitor who knows his stuff, all before I ever took it to the range. This rifle with lighter bullets should be coming in at .6" or .7" at the worse. My Remingtons from the '80s will, why won't this one? I guess bean counters don't really make good rifles, they just improve the bottom line. You know it's really strange, but the US messed around with the automobile market until they lost it. Toyota and Honda probably smile each day over it. Now we're doing the same damn thing with the firearms market. I'll bet in 5 more years it'll all be CZ and Tikka. Sorry to rant, but Blob1 hit the nail right on the head. We'll just have to see how it plays out. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

What I wonder is this: to make guns lawsuit proof are most makers "free-throating" their guns so reloaders can't seat bullets jammed into the lands (high pressure) thus you can't seat anywhere near the lands which always yields poor accuracy?