We get a lot of threads on "which is the most accurate?", which is the "best"?, "How do I accurize?", and so on.

That brings me to ask a simple question I've not seen before either here or elsewhere.

Are there any commercially sold current big game rifles which are basically not accurate enough or not reliable enough to use for deer, antelope, and elk, hunting throughout the U.S.?

That assumes that no more than $300 more would be spent after buying the factory rifle new, to cover any changes in bedding, adding a scope, anything else you might deem required.

Your thoughts?

Please don't change the question with qualifiers, or what ifs, just deal with it as is.

Thank you all.

As an after thought, even if they are all marginally okay, what is the worst commercial hunting rifle now being made, over all, and why do you rate it that way?

There might be but I've never owned one.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
There might be but I've never owned one.

Agreed.....all of them either are or can be made accurate enough for hunting.

That said...unless Savage has changed a lot since the last one I bought.....I'd judge them to not be reliable enough for hunting.

I've had more than one Ruger that made me uncomfortable with the accuracy beyond about 100 yds. So, that's not a yes or no issue. Under 100 yds they shot good enough to hit the vitals of deer or hogs, so I suppose that is a qualified yes - good enough. These rifles that were not accurate stayed that way no matter what I tried to improve them. IMO, the only way to get them to shoot was to replace the barrel, true & lapp the action. I just sold them. I have some custom rifles on Ruger actions that are very accurate - it's in the barrel.

Most factory Rugers shot better that that and some excellent accuracy. I have three now, with untouched factory barrels, that shoot 3/4" or better groups, and they aren't picky about which bullet is used. They have been tweeked, trigger replaced, and sitting/bedded in stocks that are not factory.

For hunting? That may rule out Remingtons on safety issues, as in hunting situations it's not all about accuracy.

KB

Assuming they aren't defective from the factory, I can't think of any. Most rifles will shoot something good enough to hunt with.

There are among the brotherhood some individuals who just love to shoot and justify their delight in burning powder by attempting to get sub-MOA accuracy of of everything they own. I applaud their enthusiasm but disagree with their goal. Minute of Dinner Plate will work for anything in N. America and Minute of Volley Ball will do for DG in Africa. Give those parameters, any rifle that isn't 'accurate enough for hunting' needs to go right back to the factory because it has real problems. I've never owned one. The inaccuracy in the hunting fields has little, if anything, to do with the rifle . . .

I have a lot of Savage rifles, and nominate the NEF Handi Rifle as the worst. My 243 strung 12" vertically at 100 yards with Start loads. Hotter loads, the action opened on firing and the empty case hit you in the forehead. That was AFTER the factory fixed it. The NEF forum was full of guys trying to get their rifles to work.

Every other rifle I shot was sufficient for hunting, even the pitted old military rifles.

i've not seen many not accurate enough for hunting.. but i've seen plenty of hunters not patient enough to get within the limits of the gun.

3 moa is plenty --- at 50, that's 1.5 inchs .. which is better than most people can shoot a revolver or other pistol (unscoped) .

worst POS i'v ever seen, at 100 yards and 200 ... a gorgeous DCM m1 carbine.. the ONLY mark on it was the original purchaser's last 4 SSN electric penciled into the tang (all of his guns were so marked)...

lucky to hit a 2x3 FOOT target at 100 yards ... and frankly, distrubing at 200, in that it would hit in a pattern, about 7 YARDS wide..

a friend has a place, way on back in the woods, and from his barn, into his range, i was shooting ittybitty groups with my 222 ...

with the m1c... i aimed AT A TANK (that's a stock pond to the rest of you) that was about 50X30feet at 175ish yards.. 10 rounds. ONE made a splash...

it was "end of the driveway" accurate, and my wife loved it.... till she tried to hit a coke can at 50yards...

my NEF 223 is a 2" gun, with factory "trigger" job.. with the 45/120 barrel, about the same.

what i cant STAND is a finicky gun, that will shoot ONLY one combo into small groups, but will move around alot with other stuff.. that one will get sold.

There may have been more but a Mod.94 32 Special that I once owned comes to mind. My SWEET CARCANO delivered groups just under 3" at 100 yds. with open sights, the 32 special was far worse. roger

The most inconsistent bolt rifles I have seen are the Ruger M77's. Some shoot great, others are absolutely terrible. I've seen some that cannot shoot a 4" group at 100.

The best I've seen out of the box with alot of different factory loads is the Tikka. Ane I'm not a Tikka kind of guy. But they are accurate shooting riles.

I bought a Remington 700 VTR in 308 Win for my son that broke 2 extractor clips. This is a design that is destined to fail at the worst possible time. I will not buy another factory Remington rifle with the clip.

The gun had acceptable accuracy with most loads under 1.5" and a couple of handloads under an inch. The quality of the rifle was horrible and the stock was useless. I feel like Remington should have refunded my money with an apology.

I replaced it with a Savage 16 FCSS and could not be more pleased. I have several 3 shot groups at 100 yards at .4" I think Savage rifles are the best option under 1K.

I feel if a gun averages 1.5" groups with a hunting bullet it is more than accurate enough. The accuracy problem is compounded by less capable shooter's. Let's face it how many bozo's have we seen at the range that couldn't hit a 5 in target if you gave them a sub MOA rifle.

As for amount of money put in the rifle to make it acceptable. I put the VTR in a Bell & Carlson Medalsit stock and bedded the action. I had to pay a gunsmith to try and clean up the rails ramp and chamber because it scarred the brass horribly. It had 2 extractor clips replaced under the 1 year waranty but Remington would not fix the rough chamber. I spent an extra $500 in parts,shipping, and gunsmith fees and still never felt it was a decent rifle.

Probably will be shot down in a flash, but, I have never had a rifle that shot more than 1.5' from the first shot. Lucky? I don't think so. Bought Sakos, Tikkas and Anschutz rifles and they do always shoot. Would not touch a Ruger and it will take a lot of persuasion before I shoot a Remington...
My lesson of the day: buy European, their quality control and manufacturing standards far exceed the ones across the pond

best wishes,

Finman

Of all the rifles I'v owned I hade one 700 Rem 7mm/mag that I could not get to shoot under 4 inches at 100 yds. Not bad-one out of two dozen. My last two rifles were built on 700 actions,and both will shoot a honest 1/2in. 5 shot group at 100 yds. About as good as I can shoot?

quote:

The most inconsistent bolt rifles I have seen are the Ruger M77's. Some shoot great, others are absolutely terrible. I've seen some that cannot shoot a 4" group at 100.

I'll second that comment. I'll add that some of the Ruger #1's are not all that accurate as well. One, a #1A in 7x57 had a throat around two inches long based on a chamber cast. That one went back to Ruger, Took then seven months to get it back to me and it shoots fairly well now. Ruger's idea of suitable accuracy is 2" at 50 yards, or so I've heard. Fortunately most will do better than that. Probably the worst shooting M77 I've ever owned is my RSI in .308 Win. As I love the Mannlicher style stocked rifles, I was bound and determined to make this one shoot. The fellow I bought it from said the gun was totally inaccurate which is why he had it priced so cheaply. He was right. it didn't like any of the factory amo I tried and it took a bit over two years of pling with handloads before I found anything it liked. A true "one trick pony". Anyway a charge of W760 and the 165 gr. Speer Hot-Core finally turned the trick giving me a consistant 1.5" at 100 yards. velocity was only 2550 FPS but that was good enough to drop a nice Mule Deer at 250 yards. Later on, I acquired two more Ruger RSI rifles in .308 that I got into on the cheap for the same reason. The would group worth a damn. The load that worked in the first rifle has been a winner in the two newer rifles. Not too long ago, I removed the metal nose cap from the stock and removed just enough meatl so that the cap didn't contact the barrel. Average groups droped from 1.5" to 1.25". That's got me to wondering if they will now shoot other weight bullets accurately?
One thing I've noticed about Rugers. If you remove that rubber buttplte or take the gun out of the stock, you'll see that they do not seal the raw wood on the inside. What's with that?
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Are there any commercially sold current big game rifles which are basically not accurate enough or not reliable enough to use for deer, antelope, and elk, hunting throughout the U.S.?

As an after thought, even if they are all marginally okay, what is the worst commercial hunting rifle now being made, over all, and why do you rate it that way?

It occurred to me that there is one, IMO that answers both questions. It's the Ruger 77/44 bolt action 44 Mag rifle.

The reason is that the 44 mag isn't really a versitile rifle cartridge, and secondly the accuracy of the rifles is aweful. I based my opinion about the accuracy from the one I owned, and the reports of several others, and the testmony and demonstration of a friend at the range one day with his 77/44 - 6" groups with his best handloads, and worse with factory loads.

He did the same thing with his that I did with mine - sell it and get a 308.

The rifle is a neat concept, and the 44 cartridge could be made to work to 100yds or so, but the design of the rifle is flawed somehow, and Ruger knows it, and sells them anyway. This is a rifle that apparantly can't be tweeked into shooting well. I tried and was not successful, and wasted my money trying. Some have reported their rifles to be accurate. Reporting is one thing, and I'll believe it when I see what it can do at the range myself.

KB

Hey AC,

Your question is rather vague. I'll bring up a factor which no one yet has thought of that have a lot of bearing on the answer. It would probably change many of the respondents answers.

The range at which the shot will be taken

If you are hunting smaller animals or intend to be able to take an animal at long range, your accuracy expectations for the rifle must increase.

I bet everyone is assuming 100 yards

Yea I can get by with practically anything hunting deer in the local brush. Won't due for groundhog rifle though.

quote:

Are there any commercially sold current big game rifles which are basically not accurate enough or not reliable enough to use for deer, antelope, and elk, hunting throughout the U.S.?.... Please don't change the question with qualifiers, or what ifs, just deal with it as is.

No. Range will change for some but they will all surely work.

I spent a whole day helping a friend "try" to sight in a Rossi single shot 243 package he bought for his grandsons. Talk about setting a kid up for failure!!!

The gun literally shot minute of pie plate at 25 yards. I finally figured out the scope was bad, but even after putting one of mine on it, it still only shot about an 8" group at 50 yards.

While it's nice to know that your rifle groups into the magic 1 MOA at 100 yards, I'm probably more concerned with how accurate it is at longer ranges too.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamulia:
Hey AC,

Your question is rather vague. I'll bring up a factor which no one yet has thought of that have a lot of bearing on the answer. It would probably change many of the respondents answers.

The range at which the shot will be taken

If you are hunting smaller animals or intend to be able to take an animal at long range, your accuracy expectations for the rifle must increase.

I bet everyone is assuming 100 yards

Can't talk for the others but I was assuming the normal 300 yard max range most of us confine ourselves to!

Let us not get into the wee wee contest with the Grendel guys!

I bought a Ruger Hawkeye in 358 Winchester, it was accurate out of the box. I did a bit of barrel channel work and it shoots even better.
I have heard about some Ruger rifles not shooting very well, I have never had any accuracy issues with Rugers even though I have had many over the years.
One of the best shooters I ever owned was a Ruger MK11 in 338 mag, I didn't do anything to that rifle and it shot well under an inch at 100 yds.
As for Remington rifles, I have had more of these than anything else, I have never had any issues.
Accuracy was always something that Remingtons were capable of as long as the shooter did his or her part.
The older Remingtons are better made and have a nicer finish than the new ones for sure.
An SPS can't compare to a nicely wood stocked BDL or CDL Remington.
I always do my own accurizing on any rifle I own, that way I have no issues with how the rifle performs or how my reloads work in any rifle I own.
A lot of "problems" are operator error being blamed on a piece of metal and wood.

I owned a Remington BDL 338 RUM that was a 7" gun!! The second Remington I bought was an XCR in 7mm Remington Mag and the first two shots would be 2"-3" and the 3rd shot might be 7-8" and 4th might not even hit the target. I owned both of these guns before I got into reloading so they were both shot with factory ammo. I also owned a Ruger M77 338win that was consistantly a 7" gun with factory ammo.

I get lemmons from all brands and in a wide range of calibers, but not very many people bring a rifle in that shoots great. As a whole the accuracy of presently manufactured rifles is suitible for minute of deer out to maybe 200 yards. When it comes to minute of prarie dog at 300 yards, a fair amount will fail the test.

quote:

Originally posted by 303carbine:
One of the best shooters I ever owned was a Ruger MK11 in 338 mag, I didn't do anything to that rifle and it shot well under an inch at 100 yds.

A lot of "problems" are operator error being blamed on a piece of metal and wood.

If I didn't have some Rugers that were accurate, I wouldn't be able to compare with certainty those that were not accurate, and say that some are accurate and some are not, as they left the factory.

Ironically, one of the most accurate I ever had was a 338 in a MKII stainless, with the skeleton style stock. At that time, I had become so accustomed to mediocre accuracy from Rugers, that I didn’t even test the rifle. I bought it only because I got a great deal, and thought I might use the action as a donor someday. A friend talked me into selling it to him, and only later did I discover how accurate it was.

In Comparison:

quote:

Originally posted by Cary Howard:
I also owned a Ruger M77 338win that was consistantly a 7" gun with factory ammo.

Also, about three years ago I bought another Ruger MKII stainless in 338WM. I just remembered what I did with it. I had been thinking that my 458 was built on a former 300 WM Ruger action, but now I remember that I used that 338 as a donor, because about the best group I could get with it was about 3". Now with the 458, I can get 1" groups with several loads. It's kinda cool to shoot groups with those big holes overlapping each other.

KB

I only had one that was not going to be accurate enough for me. It was a Kimber in 308. It was an honest 4" at 100 rifle no matter what I did to it. My 30-30 does better than that. Bye-bye, never look back.

I won't hunt with the .243 barrel on my handi-rifle. It shoots 2-2.5" groups, which is good enough for deer at reasonable ranges, but empty cases get stuck in it often enough that I don't consider it reliable enough for hunting. Why they even make Handi-rifles in rimless chamberings is beyond me. The .22 Hornet and .45-70 barrels I have for it are perfectly reliable.

My first .270 WCF when I was about 12 was a sawed off pre 64 in rough shape, I traded a bike and a pair of Leddy boots for it..it consistently shot 4 to 5 inches with a Weaver 2.5X scope..Since I didn't know better I killed a ton of deer, a few elk and some antelope, lots of coyotes and many rabbits with that gun, and very seldom missed anything I shot at and made some out right outlandish long shots that I should have not even tried, but at 12 years old and nobody around to tell me no, I shot them when I saw them!..I wish I could duplicate that record with my MOA rifles of today, but I'm much more diciplined today!! I have no explanation for being able to hit with that most inaccurate rifle...

One of my current rifles dose not like the Federal 160 gr 7mm RM Load.It groups around 3 inches at 100 yards For an experiment I didn't shoot the rifle for a month, then I put out some grape fruit, these were just about to be thrown away. I put them out from 25 yards out to 200 yards. I was not surprised, I managed to hit them all. Shooting from sitting prone and kneeling positions. One shot from each position. So what was poor accuracy on paper was not so much a factor as good trigger control and good shooting form. It other words I could go collect elk and moose from now till dooms day. The same rifle will pile 150 gr Nosler Partitions under a quarter with change to spare. All in all, the rifles and ammo today is plenty accurate for big game hunting. Shoot only as far as you can hit a basket ball every time from field positions and off hand. And you will have meat on the ground.

quote:

i've not seen many not accurate enough for hunting.. but i've seen plenty of hunters not patient enough to get within the limits of the gun.

Include their own individual limitations and that covers all of it.

Part of the failure of hunters is not the rifle, but the hunter. If you shoot from a bench, it tells you what the rifle can do. Shooting off hand tells what the hunter can do w/ the rifle. This MOA BS means nothing in the field except the rifle should take game. A little buck fever, no support, wind, rain, snow, cold. They all play into it. Practice as you hunt. A rifle that shoots 4" groups in the hands of a competant hunter will probibly harvest more game then a so called MOA shooter that is in the hands of a guy that only shoots off a bench on nice days. Practice as you hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Jpat:
A rifle that shoots 4" groups in the hands of a competant hunter will probibly harvest more game then a so called MOA shooter that is in the hands of a guy that only shoots off a bench on nice days.

And it did. roger

The important thing not discussed other than range of the target and size of the target, is that hunting rifles don't need to shoot good groups.

It's the first, and only the first shot out if the cold bore that really matters for the rifle's accuracy.

If your load for your rifle consistently will put the cold bore shot where you want it, it doesn't matter where the next 2 or 4 will go to form a "group". You're not gonna be shooting groups on the sides of big game rib cages.

If the rifle/load combo will not shoot an accurate, consistent, predictable cold bore shot then you've got a problem.

quote:

The important thing not discussed other than range of the target and size of the target, is that hunting rifles don't need to shoot good groups.

It's the first, and only the first shot out if the cold bore that really matters for the rifle's accuracy.

If your load for your rifle consistently will put the cold bore shot where you want it, it doesn't matter where the next 2 or 4 will go to form a "group". You're not gonna be shooting groups on the sides of big game rib cages.

If the rifle/load combo will not shoot an accurate, consistent, predictable cold bore shot then you've got a problem.

Excellent assessment of the situation. Instead of worrying about where shots two thru four are going to go, make shot number one go where you want it too, and the remaining shells can go back in the box.

Minute of Dinner Plate/Minute of Critter with the first shot should be a hunters main concern. I have seen very few critters that after that first shot are still going to be standing around waiting to see what happens next.

Very interesting thread. Apparently the answer to the original question is yes. Lots of great points that may seem to be conflicting, but are they really?

Ive also always figured minite of paper plate is good enough to bust up some lungs @ a reasonable distance.. HOWEVER, another point made is that bench accuracy and field accuracy are rarley the same thing..

You can work your tail off getting a 1" group @ 100 yds and then find yourself trying to draw a bead on a skittish trophy that acts like he just had a double cappuccino and all you have is an off hand shot with no rest available @ 200 yds.. Thats when minite of angle can become minite of gutshot real easy, and the way to "fix" that is practice.

So all things considered, I figure there is a fine line between spending too much time from the bench and not enough time in the field. But both are important, and when that once in a lifetime shot comes around, I want all the advantage I can get. And if that means spending an evening bedding an action or working on a trigger then so be it. But trigger time in the field is also an asset that is far too often overlooked.

It appears the topic of this thread has been deviated from identifying rifles which are not accurate or reliable enough for hunting to one of whether the marksman is competent enough to be a good shot in the field.

That was not the intent. The intent was to identify "bad" equipment which could not be made "good" by the application of no more than $300 of improvements..

That does bring up something which has not yet been covered yet in this thread though, so far as I can recall. That is, are there any HUNTING rifles sold NIB out there which are plenty accurate and reliable enough from the bench, but the ERGONOMICS of which make them difficult to use reliably on game in the field?

quote:

Originally posted by rcamulia:
Hey AC,

Your question is rather vague. I'll bring up a factor which no one yet has thought of that have a lot of bearing on the answer. It would probably change many of the respondents answers.

The range at which the shot will be taken

If you are hunting smaller animals or intend to be able to take an animal at long range, your accuracy expectations for the rifle must increase.

I bet everyone is assuming 100 yards

It was intentionally vague in respect of range. I Do not know what everyone hunts or how long their shots need to be. And I wanted to know which rifles THEY do not find adequate for THEIR hunting needs.

I figured we might get some answers which said somthing similar to

"My Model 421 .30 Schwartsenager made by Wanna be GI JOE is adequate out to maybe 200 yards, but for anything beyond that, its groups are just too big. It averages 3.7 MOA 3-shot groups at THAT distance, but at 275 yards I can't even keep it on a sheet of 8-1/2 x 11 binder paper. As I mainly hunt rockchucks...."

And so on.

When Remington ran the 375 H&H in their classic model I purchased one. Absolutely the most inaccurate rifle I have ever owned a true 9" gun with everything used. Still hunted the gun as it was so good feeling in hand. Since I was hunting where a long shot was 125yds I figured that 4 1/2" from where the crosshairs rested good enough for elk, and every one I pointed it at died. A lesson in just how accurate a rifle needs to be to kill elk. Turns out the chamber was reamed off center of the bore, had a bunch of run out. Lynn

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
That is, are there any HUNTING rifles sold NIB out there which are plenty accurate and reliable enough from the bench, but the ERGONOMICS of which make them difficult to use reliably on game in the field?

Uh-Oh, now you've opened a can-o-worms. there are plenty of folks here on AR who think aesthetics and ergonomics are the same. I think the ergonomics of modern production rifles are fine. However there seem to be some folks whose shoulder is contorted by synthetic stocks due to their view of the aesthetic of it, and they will readily claim that walnut stocks fit their shoulder better.

To my shoulder even the Encore stock fits well, and some don't like it based on aesthetics, and I think they decide it's ergonomics. Those, IMO, are the guys who will have to look up the words to see what they mean.

I don't have any, but the rifles with the really straight classic stocks don't fit me well. I like a little drop at the heel better.

BTW, I agree with the cold bore - first shot importance mentioned above. I also wouldn't hunt with a rifle that couldn't do better than 3" or 4" groups consistantly, especially if the subsequent shots didn't cluster around the first shot. The reason I wouldn't hunt with such a rifle is first because I don't have to, nor need to, nor want to. Secondly is because I think it is a form or maybe the first step or first clue in the notion of being a slob. If it doesn't matter how well one's rifle shoots, then what else is rationalized to not matter?

Yesterday, I went to the range with my Ruger with the Douglas 9.3x62 barrel, just because I hadn't shot it in a while. I sighted it in last time out, and wanted to confirm. The first shot hit exactly to point of aim, the second shot enlarged the first hole a little, and the third inside the first two. I was fresh and steady and that rarely happens that I'm up to just letting the rifle show what it can do. To me, knowing that a rifle can do that, if I'm up to my part, is so much different than 4" groups, that I don't even want to go there.

The other part of the story is that I was using Lapua brass and Lapua Mega bullets to make that small group. As usual, I also had another rifle to shoot, which was my other 9.3x62 on a FN action. It shot the same load at a little over an inch group. Also, as usual, I was testing more than just the rifles and one load, but I had another batch of handloads, same brass, same primer, same powder, same everything except the bullet, which was the Prvi 285gr. They may look the same or very close to the Lapua Mega, but they don't shoot the same in my rifles. In both rifles the groups opened up to at least three inches, and maybe bigger since I just estimated. So, the point partially is that these two rifles are MOA rifles, with the right load, and when I'm having a good day, but on the same day they wont shoot better than a 3" group with different handloads, and the only difference is the make of the bullet.

KB

I had a 700 in 300wm that wasn't accurate enough to hunt with. Out of the box it wouldn't keep them on a 8 inch paper plate at 100.

After bedding and free floating it is well under an inch with some loads.

I guy gave me a 95 mauser in 7x57 that was half sporterized it wouldn't stay on a 8x11 at 50 yards. Cut off the barrel recrowned it Glass bedded it now she well put then in under a half inch at 50