quote:

Originally posted by Lynn Beier:
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

Interesting report, in my view.

I find it really interesting beause Remington 700s are very easy to make in such a manner they WILL shoot very accurately. I've done it too many times starting with just a bare M700 action to doubt that.

But several folks report buying ones that are basically either not accurate enough for their hunting, or just barely enough.

I too had one in the past, but thought it was probably just my components, or karma, or something.

Mine was a 700 Classic in .250-3000. I love that cartridge and have had a number of them in various versions of the Savage M99. All my Savages shot easily under an inch 5-shot 100 yard groups with good handloads and very low powered scopes, such as the old Weaver 330s with only 3/4" tubes & no objective "bell".

However, my M700 classic .250 Savage was at its very best maybe a 3 MOA rifle. So, I sold it. Sorta wish I hadn't, but on the other hand I didn't and don't want an altered 700 Classic in my collection (accumulation?).

And, as the .250 Savage round is no great powerhouse, I wanted to hit game with it right where I aimed. So it is gone and my seller's remorse is only fleeting moments long, whenever it arises.

I wonder if the issue really is a good design with LOUSY quality control? Or is there some heretofore un-noted design flaw?

Quailty control on mine there was so much fore end pressure on the barrel that I could see it move up wards when I tigthen the action screws.

I was told by a remington armorer at a armorer school that they test fire only one out of 10 guns now. So a bad one gets by now and then.

quote:

Since I didn't know better

Ya know, those words aren't given enough credence in the shooting and hunting world...

it is amazing on how many things work just fine for guys who simply " don't know any better"...

vs all the statistical and ballistic experts out there...who tell others, a rifle can't do this, or that bullet can't do that.. or that caliber isn't adequate for that...

and then you have these rural guys who particularly live out west or down south, or live in the Upper Midwest States...or isolated rural Canada... who just manage to get the job done, in spite of what the 'experts' tell us...

Super trendy bullets make things that have worked for years, suddenly obsolete....

the ability of a rifle is based on its price tag and what trendy after market add ons it may have had done to it...

I mean everyone knows the worst Kimber ever made with outshoot the best Savage ever made...for example... because the Kimber cost more...

I've had rifles with finicky barrels, but handloading tweaked that problem....or the few bad ones I have had, the factory squared them away... or replaced them..

heck, even on shot out barrels, I have been able to give them extended life by handloading using SR 4759.. like the Cast Bullet guys like..

didn't make it a benchrest shooter, but it certainly gave it enough to be a good deer hunting rifle...

because remember, besides we experts on forums like this, the average deer hunter still takes his deer in less than 100 yrs 90 % of the time...and over 95% of the time if you stretch that out to 200 yds...

SR 4759 will still give any rifle of deer hunting caliber, enough oomph to take a deer to 200 yds...

I mean as long as the screws are tight, the scope or sights aren't mess up, the barrel isn't rubbing against something.. and the guy pulling the trigger can manage to hit the ground with his hat...we aren't talking rocket science here...

I really believe ( and no ill or malicious intent to the gentleman from Oklahoma above) that if a rifle turns in 6 and 7 inch groups... particularly in a magnum or other large capacity case, I think more often than not it is not the rifles fault, it is the shooters fault...

I watch it every season at our local range, when people are sighting in and have just purchased a new WhizBang Magnum...they get 7 or 8 inch groups and then they see me shooting small groups and offer me money to shoot their rifle to see if I can do any better than they are...

I always decline the money, but will shoot the rifle... and most of the time it is the shooter, not the rifle... and when it isn't the rifle, the next culprit is the lousy scope mounting job they got where they bought the scope or they mounted it themselves...

sadly there are plenty of them that mount the windage on top and the elevation on the left side of the scope.... and then wonder why the adjustment knobs aren't working real well...

and not to mention the few nimrods that mount their scope backwards, because it looked better to them this way than that way....or they thought the bigger objective should be in the back as it would be easier to see out of...

lot of things to work out before folks blame it on rifle accuracy...

I've always thought it was funny, that instead of the few nights before deer season opener, being the busiest nights at the range, the real busiest, is the Sunday night of the first weekend of deer season...


every guy who missed a deer that weekend is over there with 3 boxes of new ammo banging away at targets... they missed their deer due to the rifle, the scope or the ammo...

it had to be something instead of admitting to themselves they muffed the shot, because they don't shoot enough, or they got excited and got buck fever, or they just are a lousy shot, period...

they blame everything but themselves....

pride goeth before the fall...

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
sadly there are plenty of them that mount the windage on top and the elevation on the left side of the scope.... and then wonder why the adjustment knobs aren't working real well...

and not to mention the few nimrods that mount their scope backwards, because it looked better to them this way than that way....or they thought the bigger objective should be in the back as it would be easier to see out of...

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:

quote:

Since I didn't know better

Ya know, those words aren't given enough credence in the shooting and hunting world...

it is amazing on how many things work just fine for guys who simply " don't know any better"...

vs all the statistical and ballistic experts out there...who tell others, a rifle can't do this, or that bullet can't do that.. or that caliber isn't adequate for that...

and then you have these rural guys who particularly live out west or down south, or live in the Upper Midwest States...or isolated rural Canada... who just manage to get the job done, in spite of what the 'experts' tell us...

Super trendy bullets make things that have worked for years, suddenly obsolete....

To me there is a difference in not knowing any better compared to being a perpetual dumb ass, and proud of it. I'm saying that without anyone here in particular in mind.

It all depends somewhat on why one has a firearm. Those reasons are satisfied in different ways.

I suspect some collectors don't care how it shoots, as long as it retains value, is unique, or some other thing deemed of value.

Others will spend thousands on a pretty walnut, and stick it in a safe.

Others buy a used rifle from a pawn shop, a used tasco, and a box of bullets and take their deer for the season, and sell the rifle in Feburary to buy groceries to go with his venison. Then do it all over next season.

Then there are those who get enjoyment from both hunting and shooting at the range, testing stuff. How boring can a 4" to 5" rifle get? That's not the way that game is played, in my observation.

KB

Alberta C,
Ya shoulda kept the 250 Savage!

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
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..

There are plenty of rifles that aren't accurate enough to "hunt". For instance, a 200yd shot with the average AK is something I'd think twice about. The usual cure, however, is to get closer to your target!

The other variable is the game involved. I'd probably take that 200yd AK shot at a groundhog, but I'd pass at game I value more, like a deer.

So, when you get down to it, a derringer is accurate enough to "hunt". Something anyway.

Yes, but I'm certain you'd agree that a derringer is not sold as a hunting rifle....which derringer should be clear even to a blind man is not what I was asking about.

So, I'll take your post as saying you have not had any rifles not good enough to take hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Alberta C,
Ya shoulda kept the 250 Savage!

I agree Ray. Like all true gun nuts, I have a lot of such "shouldas" in my life.

A rifle that's too accurate is no good for hunting sometimes too.

In example a 11 lbs Sako varmint in 308 with a great scope is a dead loss if you're walking through the woods after muntjac.

It matters not that the rifle is capable of half an inch at 200 yards on the bench, after 4 hours of carrying it between your hands in thick cover your arms will wobble so much when you do see a deer that holding it on hair may be difficult.

I want a 8-9lb 4moa gun in those circumstances and I wouldn't think twice about the rifle's accuracy either.

Sat up in a highseat overlooking a large field or patch of clearfell the Sako suddenly becomes my best friend and I can place my bullet like a surgeon with confidence, in those circumstances a 4moa gun would have me worried and praying that the deer do not come out more than 100 or so yards away.

On the open hill with a good sling and bipod, same thing.

A rifle that is too light to hold steady on an improvised rest or freehand may also be too inaccurate for hunting as though it may hold an inch off the bench shooting from sticks after a climb up a hill at a nervous beast with the cross-hairs bouncing two animal lengths due to your heartbeat is worse than a heavier, steadier
rifle that shoots minute of pie plate; you'll miss by a greater distance with the light notionally accurate rifle in those circumstances I guarantee.

These are all somewhat extreme examples based on my field experiences, realistically for my hunting here in the UK I would want at least 1.5 MOA and be comfortable, my rifles are around 0.5-.0.75 MOA with their chosen loads and whilst this handy for the occasional neck shot I could live with about twice that if I had to.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
A rifle that's too accurate is no good for hunting sometimes too.

.

Not really - The example you gave wasn't that the rifle was too accurate, simply that it was too heavy. A rifle doesn't have to be heavy to be accurate.

So, the SAKO you described might not work as hunter (it wouldn't work well for me these days), but that is not a question of excessive accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
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?

That all depends upon how far out/what type of game your shooting. (And of course discounting the occasional lemon that comes off the line.)

I haven't bought a factory rifle in years, but when I did, I had no issue with any of them. Most have been 1-1/2" which is adequate for most of those common hunting situations.

Most off the rack rifles would be fine to shoot most NA game in most situations and if you use the rifle in it's appropriate setting ie lever action- brush etc.

I can't comment on negatives. I've had good luck with Rem and Wbys as far as bolt actions, and good luck with Marlin lever actions.


As far as custom rifles is concerned, my benchmark is 1/2" with standard cartridges and 1" with magnums. The reason I say that is R. Kleinguenther would guarantee those numbers back in the '70s on Voere barreled actions just by bedding them (not even with custom barrels). I've had a dozen or so over the years and all of them would just flat out shoot. And if you're spending good $ on a custom, it oughta at least shoot better than the donor.

Regardless, basic bedding and prudent handloading would tighten up groups quite well in any of the aforementioned rifles to extend range.

No such thing as too accurate, you never know when you're gonna have to reach out there and sling one downrange.

I have been very fortunate over the years,and scores of rifles later, have never had one that I couldn't hunt.

Of course there is a human element to it, but a rifle can NEVER do better in the field than off the bench.

I find a rifle with good accuracy invokes confidence and a rifle with good feel and fit really invokes confidence - then I just can't seem to miss. Having an under power hornet with good feel and fit and a great trigger with the knowledge I had to put the shot just right worked wonders and everything I pointed it at went down. I also knew it had limited range. It's actual accuracy? I don't really know. It just shot to point of aim, is all (with the emphasis being on 'point'). If only I could shoot like that with my 303 Brits! My lack of confidence in my rifle tends to limit my range - that and lack of range and field time.

Very early in my shooting career -- more than 35 years ago -- I had a Ruger M77 tang-safety in 7X57. I could not get this rifle to shoot consistently with factory or handloads. We're talking three inches at 100 yards. Even changed scopes on it. I managed to kill my first mule deer with this gun, but it took several shots to do it at about 200 yards. Might have been the bedding, but I have also heard Ruger subbed out much of its barrel work in those early days, with some mighty poor results. I do not know if this is true.
A Remington 700 (only one I have or ever will own) in .243 was also wildly inconsistent, but I am sure in retrospect that it was a barrel desperately in need of a break in that I shot from the start with Barnes' first X bullets, and failed utterly to appreciate the detrimental effects of copper fouling. So that one I blame on myself.