I'll never buy another Ruger. They have to work a little harder to get my money. The new rugers look like something made in China or Mexico.

I got my newer .300WM 77 to shoot accurately by selling it. I tried a jillion loads/powders/bullets over three years. It would sometimes hold a tight group for three shots, sometimes not.

Sick of it, I'm done with them.

The death of Bill Ruger changed the company. Until a new managemnt team is brought in, do not expect a change in quality. Customers will vote with their $$$'s. Poor quality does not sell for long and poor value expires sooner! Ruger was once a good value. The older ones I have are great guns.

I'm glad (in a bad way) to read that it's not just me. My wife's laminated stainless M77 is good for about 2"@100 - with just about everything I've tried, loads, bedding, new stock...

One good thing about Ruger rifles is that they're hell 'fer stout though! They'd be my choice for GIs.

I wish they'd quit cutting the bolt notch with a chain saw but .257 Roberts Hawkeye model shoots well.

It seems odd that your second (middle) 5-shot group changed its point of impact from the 5 o'clock position of the first and last, to the 12 o'clock position. Any idea what caused it?
Probably a different forend placement on the sandbag ?

Does L.W. import those SS Match bbls to the US?
Was the reamer used a carbide reamer?
KB
I think LW match bbls. are imported in the U.S.
I can't tell. The barrel came chambered and threaded from LW. We only had to adjust headspace.

quote:

The death of Bill Ruger changed the company. Until a new managemnt team is brought in, do not expect a change in quality. Customers will vote with their $$$'s. Poor quality does not sell for long and poor value expires sooner! Ruger was once a good value. The older ones I have are great guns.


Jim

Dall85 (Jim),

Do you think there are more quality problems these days. There were some complaints about feeding the 375Ruger hawkeye on the big bore forum. Its a big company and had it share of glitches over the years, but now this sounds like a trend rather than exception. Not, saying, I buy into this, but I would like to hear more.

I have a Ruger #1 SS 45-70 all factory. Shoots 5 shot 1/2" at 100 and I shot a 10 shot 300gr Midway factory blem rounds into 1.2" at 100yards. I have a few 10-22's for plinking and never checked into their accuracy. I have a Mini-30 SS that's a 1.5" shooter.

I just bought a almost new #1 B in 30-06 ---- after all I've read I'm scared to see what kinda accuracy I get.

For some reason, I like the #1's but really have a negative attitude toward Ruger. I'm a Savage and Rem guy. Just way tooo many people bitching about quality and lackluster results for it not to be leaning toward the truth side of it.

quote:

Originally posted by BISCUT:
I have a Mini-30 SS that's a 1.5" shooter.

From what I've read, that's probably the most accurate Mini-30 out there.

Excepting those already wearing custom barrels, I have sorted those I have down to just two keepers. One in 308, and one in 30-06. I have replacment stocks for those two, so I can mess with them some more and see if I can get them shooting accurately. If not, they have the smoothest actions, and I have a 9.3x62mm replacment barrel, and I've been trying to find an accurate 7mm-08 for a long time. I'll just have one made if the 308 doesn't get its act together.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

How do you get Rugers to shoot accurately?

It's really quite easy.....simply trade them for Remingtons!

I was gonna say the same thing

My experience with Rugers is that trading them on a Remington is a guaranteed fix.. nothing else is.

In one instance I was going to trade in a Tang safety model and wound up getting an iffy offer from the gun shop and decided to sell elsewhere, another customer followed me out and asked to see it, we went back inside and the dealer very happily made his comission doing a transfer and selling me a Rifle I bought a rifle off his used rack rack...

it was one of those rare deals where everyone cncerned was happy

AD

generally, i bed them and put bullets in them.. i don't expect them to be benchrest guns.. 1.5 moa or better is all that I ask.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I'm a bit frustrated with some of my Rugers, with factory barrels & stocks. It's rare for me to find one that is accurate. Right now, I have found one of the mysterious accurate Rugers. It's an older 300 WM stainless, made 8 - 10 years ago. I have others that I've yet to get any kind of consistancy out of, and I can't remember ever having an accurate factory barelled Ruger, before the 300WM. There may have been some, but I can't remember any.

I've lost count of how many I've tried too, and I have several with custom barrels, that shoot accurately.

It's frustrating, because I read reports of others having better results. I want to read what others are doing to get them to shoot well. I've tried several things, but so far, the best and most consistant results have been by just switching to a Hogue drop in stock, to free float the barrel, but that's not working every time.

I sent one back to Ruger, and they said it shot 1" groups in their tests, but I can't make it shoot that well. It's all over the place for me. When I got it back from Ruger, the front and rear guard screws were torked down so tight that it took a lot to turn them with my screwdriver, and the way the stock fits, it's tight against the barrel, and has a lot of pressure pushing up at the forend tip.

What's up? Is it so simple that it's obvious? They either shoot accurately or they don't? Find one that's accurate, keep it, and sell the inaccurate ones? Is that what's happening, and when I pick up these "good deals" they are really someone's rejects being recycled?

It seems strange to me that my experience doesn't mesh with some of the things I read about this. It also seems strange to me that a company can put such inaccurate rifles on the market these days, and find customer acceptance.

KB

Have you let another skilled shooter have a crack at it? It could be inconsistencies in your technique. I have a .222 Rem M700 Varmint Special that I could not get to group under .75 inch. Finally one day I let a fellow club member try it. He is a known excellent shot. He got a .25 in group on the first string. It was me. He watched me and noticed little differences in my cheek weld and front bag pressure. After some coaching I got groups down considerably, but I still can't shoot as good with that rifle as he can.

I can't help much only ruger factory I had was a 338Wmag. I turned the barrel down cut off two inches and stock it in a 16oz stock. Super light to carry in the Mtns. A bitch on the bench. Even kicking like a drunk mule it would group right at 1". It was bedding sloid in glass and the barrel floated.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
It could be inconsistencies in your technique. I have a .222 Rem M700 Varmint Special that I could not get to group under .75 inch. Finally one day I let a fellow club member try it. He is a known excellent shot. He got a .25 in group on the first string. It was me.

The difference between .75" and .25", due to technique - I could be happy with never discovering that .5", assuming that the rifle was capable of a better group, by .5". Translate that to the real world - 2" groups to 1.5" regular enough to notice could be attributed to technique, not the rifle. Same thing for 1.5" to 1", however if 2" or 1.5" groups are not good enough in the first place, then what's the point?

If a rifle that hasn't been bedded or tweeked in any way will shoot 1.5" at its best, then it may have possibilities. By bedding it could do 1", for example.

Generally, I take several rifles to the range each trip, not just the Rugers. Most of the time, I'm finishing or confirming a load in a proven accurate rifle. I have good days and not so good days, but generally a rifle previously proven to shoot well, shoots well even on a bad day. Then I try the Rugers, and group all over the place. So, I'm saying that technique, or a bad day, may attribute to .5"(one-half inch), but not 5"(five inches).

Heck, if they would string the shots, that would be improvment, because I could figure it was due to the stresses in the barrel showing up as it heated up.

Let me inform you of an observation about technique that I was surprised to see. I generally take so much trouble to make sure the rifle is supported at the forend and butt by sand bags, so it's steady. I have a friend who simply uses an old rolled up sleeping bag, he keeps in his truck, and supports the forend only, on the bench. Yet, he easily shoots two and three inch groups with his 22-250 at 200yds, with his old, beat up, ugly, rusty, Rem 788.

Go figure !!

KB

Well, I have had experience with two, a late 80's/early 90's 300wm and a new hawkeye in '06. The 300 gave good results but was bedded, the '06 on the other hand shoots better much better than I expected ( roughly 3/4 moa).
The new hawkeye impressed me so much that I picked up one of the limited run ss 280's but haven't worked with it yet.
After these 'horror stories' I am hoping the '06 isn't some freak of nature and the 280 preforms at least adequately.

quote:

Originally posted by CMH:
Well, I have had experience with two, a late 80's/early 90's 300wm and a new hawkeye in '06. The 300 gave good results but was bedded, the '06 on the other hand shoots better much better than I expected ( roughly 3/4 moa).
The new hawkeye impressed me so much that I picked up one of the limited run ss 280's but haven't worked with it yet.
After these 'horror stories' I am hoping the '06 isn't some freak of nature and the 280 preforms at least adequately.

I spent years trying to get one to shoot 5 shots inside a pie plate at 100 yards. A friend came over one day with his Ruger, (both of our guns were .270s), his shot like a target rifle with just about any load we could run through it. I think it's hit or miss with Rugers. For my money, there are a lot better odds on getting a shooter elsewhere.

I chuckled when i read the earlier post on ruger 257 roberts 77s. Ive had two unltra lights and one 77r chambered for that round and none would shoot. The last one an ultralight was so bad that i would have jumped up and down to get a 1.5 inch group. Most groups went 3 inch and none less then 2. I sent that gun back to ruger and they sent it back with a note that said that 3moa accuracy was within accuracy limits for that gun!!!! I called them on the phone and unloaded on the guy. I told him that i spent good money on a flat shooting bolt gun that any of the marlin or winchester lever guns in my safe would outshoot with open sights at a 100 yards. I got no where with him and sold the gun the next day. I just got a #1a in 257 and am going to give ruger once last chance on a 257 that shoots. Thats not even the worse shooting ruger bolt i have owned. Last year i picked up a like new old round top 77 in 7mag. That gun did about 3moa with the best load i found. It didnt stay here long. I must be unlucky as ive never had a ruger bolt that shot moa with any load. I have had #1s that were very accurate though.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
Most groups went 3 inch and none less then 2. I sent that gun back to ruger and they sent it back with a note that said that 3moa accuracy was within accuracy limits for that gun!!!!

I read horror reports here on AR a few years ago where guys sent back Rooger bolt guns, not necessarily ultra-lites, because they would not group better than 4 inches @ 100 yards and Rooger returned them intact saying that was also within tolerances.

Cripes, to me 4 inches stopped being a group and is now considered a pattern.

I've never owned any Rooger product, but I've also never owned a Savage, Stevens, Mossberg, Weatherby, etc., either. But I always kept an open mind and never discounted them out of hand when deciding to make a firearm purchase. Until Rooger said 4" groups are satisfactory. That sealed their fate as far as me ever buying one of their guns. I always thought there must be something better; and so far there has been.

When all other gun manufacturers go out of business and it's either a Rooger or nothing, I might buy a Rooger. On the other hand, there's always the used gun rack.

quote:

because they would not group better than 4 inches @ 100 yards and Rooger returned them intact saying that was also within tolerances.

Rooger returned my 6mm Rem in a #1 rifle with their varmint weight barrel several times before I called them and asked what load they were using to shoot the gun.....it was then they informed me that their standard for a #1 varmint rifle did in fact include 1.5" at 50 yards.....skroo-em!

I have had a good experience with Ruger starting back in 1970's with an M77 in 250/3000 that shot ~1" with Rem 100 grain loads and back then that was considered pretty darn good. Had a few others and still have a couple. No complaints with the M77s.

It does seem on average Remington shot better. I never understood why that was. Winchester is back and IMHO better than any pre-64. I'd try them first for a classic basic nice gun today.

I made the mistake of buying a mini-30 as a fun gun. Shot about 4 inch groups with Russian ammo and 12" groups with some USA hunting load. I was told it was a bullet diameter issue. Dumped that quick. Fun is one thing but that was just terrible.

I give Ruger a lot of credit for a renaissance in American gun building. The offered the M77 with nice classic lines when Rem and Win were in a contest to see who could build the worse quality and ugliest gun. Ruger handguns another revolution. The revolvers really put Colt and Smith to shame. I think they shamed the whole industry to get their act together. I am sorry to hear they have these issues today.

There was some mention of several bad Hawkeye in 375Ruger from a couple guys on the bigbore forum. Certain loud mouths proceed to shout them down and in a not to subtle way imply they were lying or stupid. One guy seems to have this inexplicable ego stake in the 375Ruger.

Over here in medium bore its a whole 180 degree reversal. Is this the same website?

I guess I have been lucky with my Rugers. I love my Rugers for good hunting rifles. I have three and they all shoot good with factory ammo in the "from the factory" rifles. The M77 tang safety 30-06 I bought new back in '81 is my go to deer rifle and shoots extremely well. I also have a Mk II stainless/laminate 300 WM and a Hawkeye African 338 WM and they both shoot great.
Three shot group from the 30-06 from the bench using Federal 165 grain Nosler ballastic tip.

I have and have had at least 12-15 ruger 77's. The only two I couldnt get to shoot well were a 257 R and an ultralight in 250 sav. Most required some fiddleing of the action screws, I also free float the barrels and glass the action and first 2" of the barrel. My worst shooting Ruger now is a 7x57 with it's very looong throat, but using 160's seated way out will do 1 1/4"

quote:

I give Ruger a lot of credit for a renaissance in American gun building. The offered the M77 with nice classic lines when Rem and Win were in a contest to see who could build the ugliest gun.

AMEN to that!.....they did indeed do that!

One of the nice things about owning 100+ sporting rifles and having owned several hundred more of both sporting and target ilk is that they give a fella a chance to learn a few things (whether "right" or "wrong"). Some of the stuff I've learned likely isn't true, but I don't know which things those are yet...

Anyway, aside from a bunch of accuracy-tweaking tricks, how to barrel match-winning rifles, and so on, one of the things I've learned is this:

Some of the rifles I bought years ago which weren't very accurate have become more accurate by sitting in my gun vault!

Amazing, huh? Must be true though. Couldn't have anything to do with 60+ years of putting centerfire rounds down range.

Just one good example is my Ruger M77-S in .257 Roberts. It never was very accurate 30 years ago when I bought it, but the last time I took it to the range its four 5-shot groups that day were each under 1/2 MOA.

I'm sure that is entirely due to its rest in the vault. It couldn't have been anything related to the fact that 25 of those 30 years I was shooting in highpower and benchrest competition, and doing some kind of shooting at the range at least once a week.

No, I'm sure it was the time in the vault that did the trick for that Ruger. Couldn't have had anything to do with my shooting ability being improved by those years of competition.........LOL

Seriously, all rifles are part of a larger "accurate shooting system", which is heavily affected by the techniques of the shooter. Some makes may be easier for most shooters to do well with, but it's amazing how more rounds down range improves the shooter part of the system.

That doesn't mean a shooter is a lousy shooter if he doesn't shoot well with a Ruger. Maybe a Ruger really isn't as easy to shoot as well with. But a lot of shooting may subconsciously teach things which make Rugers do better...and other rifles too, sometimes.

AC

I've probably only put between 5000, and 10000 rounds through my centerfire rifles over the past 30 years, so I always figure if I can shoot a .5" MOA 3 shot group with my rifle, the rifle's at least twice that good. Seriously just getting the exact same sight picture every time is a skill, not to mention trigger control. Once you're inside 1" MOA shooting technique becomes very important.

quote:

Some of the rifles I bought years ago which weren't very accurate have become more accurate by sitting in my gun vault!

I have seen this as well. It believe it is beacuse they are making the ammunition better. Or specifically the bullets are better.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Some of the stuff I've learned likely isn't true, but I don't know which things those are yet...

Seriously, all rifles are part of a larger "accurate shooting system", which is heavily affected by the techniques of the shooter.

Maybe a Ruger really isn't as easy to shoot as well with. AC

At last - we finally have post which dismisses inaccuracy as simply due to technique, and the shooter. Humm

Well guys & gals, there is no point in load development anymore. There is also no point in trying different factory ammo to see which shoots better, because yesterday's results aren't valid anyway. It was your technique. So, buy another box of the same ammo, and work on your technique. Doesn't matter what brand, heck just mix them up.

I remember that 338WM barrel take-off that I sold on Gunbroker for $75, and I remember the groups with that particular rifle had improved a lot with the replacment barrel - from 4"-5" groups to sub MOA. Must have been something I did different with technique.

There is no point in bedding or other accurizing anymore. It's all about technique.

Also give the rifle a rest. Take those that are giving you a fit, and hide them in the back of a closet for a few years. Forget about them. Surely they will shoot better, when you take them out again.

There is no such thing as an innacurate rifle. Tell yourself that 12 times today, and do it again tomorrow. Then when you go to the range and can't shoot a good group, or perhaps you do shoot a good group with one rifle, but can't with another, then really study what technique you are doing wrong.

Keep us posted on how this is working out for you. Really, we're here for ya, with encouragement.

KB

I have 2 Rugers, 1 Kimber and 2 CZs in the Full Stock variation. So far, I've been most impressed with the CZ rifles. Good looking , accurate and nice trigger right out of the box. The pricey Kimber had to be sent back to the factory where they replaced the barrel. It's a great shooter now but they didn't get it right the first time out. My Rugers all needed a little work to get them to shoot consistently. Shift in POI seemed to be my biggest problem with my Rugers.

My Ruger Mini 14 shoots all shots into a hole less than .25 MOA at 100 yds.

I'm still working on getting those holes with 4" of each other.

I want to know what is the standard we are looking at here what is accurate rifle. Is a 1 inch a accurate enough rifle or does it have to shoot to .5 inch to be accurate.

Most of he people who are moaning about a rifle not being accurate really start moaning when some one says you are going to shoot game over 300 yards.

Unless you are shooting varmints or are shooting big game at extented distances say over 300 yards. If varmints are at under 300 yards a 1 to 1.25 varmint rifle well kill all of them you want. if over 300 yards I would like my varmint rifles under .750 Less would be nicer.

As for big game up to 375 yards a 2 inch rifle well kill every thing you shoot at if you do your part. A 1.5 inch gun is a big game killer to to 500 yards if you do your part any of the above rifles well put all the bullets into the kill area of a small deer at these distances if the shooter does their part.

That is if one is useing a 8 inch kill zone for deer A lot of deer have more like a 12 inch kill zone.

Then if we are talking elk and moose we most likely are talking a 18 inch or bigger kill zone then we are talking 900 yards for a 2 inch gun if the shooter does their part.

It doesn't matter where in the kill zone one places the bullet it well kill the animal.

Then we have to talk about the human factor a lot of shooters seem to try and make up for their short comings by having a super accurate rifle. if they are only a 2 inch shooter then a 2 inch guns becomes a 4 inch gun ect.

I do like accrate rifles I have some that well do under .5 day in and day out I have some that well do under 1 inch day in and day out. I have a lot that well do under 1.5 I have a few that well do under 2 inchs. I have a couple that are to to 2 to 2.5. I have killed game with them all I have missed game with some of the super accurate ones I have missed game with some of the less accurate ones. The stuff I missed has been my vault not the rifles. Is missing a running deer at 40 yards with a 2.5 inch rifle much diferant then missing a standing p dog at 300 plus yards with a under .5 inch rifle.

I enjoy all my rifles and I know not to use my 2 inch savage 99 for p dogging but I have killed dozens of deer with in the north woods. My hunting partners say I can't miss with it but I have missed with it not often and its been my fault not the guns.

I like playing around and trying to get guns to shoot I have glass bedded, restocked, rebarreled, played around with loads ect because I like too. Most of the time the guns have shot better because of it.

But I don't lose any sleep over them if they turn out to be a 2 inch gun I use them for what a 2 inch gun is used for.

Like most of use here I own more then one I don't need my 99 savage to shoot p dogs so it doesn't have to b a .5 inch gun.
I don't need to shoot whitetails in the brush with my 12lb varmit guns that shoot under .5 inchs they are not a brush gun my savage 99 works very well for that.

So if some of you enjoy losing sleep pissing and moaing about this or that rifle ect have at. I'll just enjoy shooting what I have.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
My Ruger Mini 14 shoots all shots into a hole less than .25 MOA at 100 yds.

I'm still working on getting those holes with 4" of each other.

My first and only mini-14 shot closer to 10" groups and had a trigger pull not quite as good as the pre-accutrigger of Savage!.....IIRC it was a nice crisp eleven pounds with a full 1/16 inch creep!

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I want to know what is the standard we are looking at here what is accurate rifle. Is a 1 inch a accurate enough rifle or does it have to shoot to .5 inch to be accurate.

Most of he people who are moaning about a rifle not being accurate really start moaning when some one says you are going to shoot game over 300 yards.

As for big game up to 375 yards a 2 inch rifle well kill every thing you shoot at if you do your part. A 1.5 inch gun is a big game killer to to 500 yards if you do your part any of the above rifles well put all the bullets into the kill area of a small deer at these distances if the shooter does their part.

That is if one is useing a 8 inch kill zone for deer A lot of deer have more like a 12 inch kill zone.

Then if we are talking elk and moose we most likely are talking a 18 inch or bigger kill zone then we are talking 900 yards for a 2 inch gun if the shooter does their part.

It doesn't matter where in the kill zone one places the bullet it well kill the animal.

Then we have to talk about the human factor a lot of shooters seem to try and make up for their short comings by having a super accurate rifle. if they are only a 2 inch shooter then a 2 inch guns becomes a 4 inch gun ect.

I do like accrate rifles I have some that well do under .5 day in and day out I have some that well do under 1 inch day in and day out. I have a lot that well do under 1.5 I have a few that well do under 2 inchs. I have a couple that are to to 2 to 2.5. I have killed game with them all I have missed game with some of the super accurate ones I have missed game with some of the less accurate ones. The stuff I missed has been my vault not the rifles. Is missing a running deer at 40 yards with a 2.5 inch rifle much diferant then missing a standing p dog at 300 plus yards with a under .5 inch rifle.

I like playing around and trying to get guns to shoot I have glass bedded, restocked, rebarreled, played around with loads ect because I like too. Most of the time the guns have shot better because of it.

But I don't lose any sleep over them if they turn out to be a 2 inch gun I use them for what a 2 inch gun is used for.

So if some of you enjoy losing sleep pissing and moaing about this or that rifle ect have at. I'll just enjoy shooting what I have.

Although I have now way to prove it, I'm pretty sure the premise in the above post accounts for why Ruger rifles sell. That and the price, although in reality, for the price of a new Ruger 77 MKII, a guy could buy an accurate rifle, in several other brands.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
So far, I've been most impressed with the CZ rifles. Good looking , accurate and nice trigger right out of the box.

While it's the exception for me to have found an accurate Ruger, so far all the CZ 550s that I have and have shot were accurate.

The CZs were accurate enough with no tweeking, but bedded they have shot just as accurate as the custom barreled Rugers that I have. It's a lot of difference in the dollars for an accurate CZ with a factory barrel, and an accurate Ruger with a custom barrel, both shooting approximately the same accuracy.

The main reasons I can think of to use a Ruger action rather than a CZ, is bacause the Ruger can be had in stainless, and drop-in stocks are available at reasonable prices.

However, I have done the math lately. Compared to building up a custom Ruger, it would still be less expensive to get a factory CZ 550, say in 30-06, and buy a McMillan stock for it, or just buy a factory rifle with the kevlar stock. Then have the CZ fiberglass or kevlar stock glass bedded, and have the metal Black T coated.

Compared to buying a Ruger 77 MKII n 30-06, replacing the barrel, and the stock with even a $100 Hogue, trigger replacment, and Black T, the CZ is less expensive, and IMO a nicer rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by ole_270:
Guess I must of gotten the good ones. Out of 7 or 8 M77 sporter barreled rifles in the family, none have refused to shoot underyy MOA. A couple are real burners. I've done the triggers on all of them and bedded them, same as I do with any other rifle I buy.

This is an example of what gets to me, on this subject. Based on your experience, most of them are accurate. Based on my experience most are inaccurate. How can that be reconciled

KB

.
.
. Not to kick a hornets nest .But it seems more like good days and bad days at the range . .
.
You could always buy Remington 700 . . I know how much you like them . .
.
Some people see the glass half full some see it mostly empty and try to find who is to blame for it being thus .
.
Since you seem to be over come with deer cartrirges you aefinatly need a Rem 700 in 270 Win.
.
I,ve had so many Ruger 77 mkII s that shot well I can,t remember them all .
My Spruce King is the least accurate and yet I,ve shot deer at well over 200 yards from kneeling with it . With a 450 gr Swift A Frame @ 2000 fps or less .
.
When you get a Ruger that won,t shoot well , have someone else shoot some groups with it . .I thier groups are better than yours the problem is obvious ..
.
.Beins I don,t want to strain a good friendship I,m gonna shut up and sign off .

Kabluey, no one is saying you're technique isn't good. Obviously if you shoot sub MOA with some rifles and can't with your Rugers it isn't you it's the rifles. Alberta Canuck just made a good point that even for those of us who at least at some point of our lives had the opportunity to shoot a lot (1000 plus centerfire rounds per year) my Rem 700s have always been more accurate than I can shoot them even when I shoot nickel sized groups.

My recommendation is buy yourself a nice Remington 700. Hard to find one that won't shoot exceptionally well out of the box, though I don't know about their new triggers ...

My concern about accuracy is that, IMHO, it promotes a high degree confidence when the shot is presented. If I KNOW that my rifle will do a consistant 1" group for me, then I have a high degree of confidence that when/if it comes time to pull the trigger, I'll put my moose, caribou, sheep down. My expectations of accuracy could well be different than someones elses. Everyone has a preference. My partners & I hunt moose & caribou to fill the freezer. If something happens & the rifle doesn't live up to it 's accuracy expectations, it could well be a considerably more expensive winter. By the same token, a sheep hunt is time consuming and expensive as well - even for we Alaskans.
Accuracy is not a single, 3 shot group that has all three touching. Accuracy is a repeatable grouping that the shooter can accept.
Not to get into Kimber bashing here but the .270 WSM Montana I had once put 5 shots touching at 100 yds. I could never, ever, get that rifle to repeat that grouping nor even come close a second time and I had all of my load info written down. That rifle went down the road.
Again, accuracy, equates to confidence.
Bear in Fairbanks

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458:
I,ve had so many Ruger 77 mkII s that shot well I can,t remember them all .

When you get a Ruger that won,t shoot well , have someone else shoot some groups with it . .I thier groups are better than yours the problem is obvious ..

Uh Huh. How about if I send you all my Rugers that I'm having trouble with, and a generous year's supply of ammo for each. You can test them for me, and get back with me on that when you're ready, at your convenience, of course.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
Kabluey, no one is saying you're technique isn't good. Obviously if you shoot sub MOA with some rifles and can't with your Rugers it isn't you it's the rifles. Alberta Canuck just made a good point

my Rem 700s have always been more accurate than I can shoot them even when I shoot nickel sized groups.

My recommendation is buy yourself a nice Remington 700. Hard to find one that won't shoot exceptionally well out of the box, though I don't know about their new triggers ...

I was just messing with Alberta Canuck a little, not to discredit him, but to make satire, or spoof about what he said.

Years ago, I quit thinking of Remington 700s as a good representation of the craftsmanship and ingenuity in the art of rifle designs. To me it's like comparing a fine Mauser to the Mosin–Nagant. You can dress up a 700 with nice walnut, and shoot 1/2" groups, but it's still a design that was intended to cheapen production costs, with many flaws, IMO. The basic rifle has so many flaws, that replacing parts with aftermarket stuff would raise the cost to about where the price of good rifles start, and you would still have a Remington. One saying I read, that seems appropriate, is that upgrading a R700, is like putting chrome wheels on a Yugo.

I would rather have one of the old Mod 70 push feed actions, than two R700s.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
My Ruger Mini 14 shoots all shots into a hole less than .25 MOA at 100 yds.

I'm still working on getting those holes with 4" of each other.

My first and only mini-14 shot closer to 10" groups and had a trigger pull not quite as good as the pre-accutrigger of Savage!.....IIRC it was a nice crisp eleven pounds with a full 1/16 inch creep!

Don't Mini 14's come with a set of screw in chokes?

Took a new LH SS Hawkeye in .270 out of its box in November & after less than 200rds had it consistently shooting sub MOA five shot groups using four bullet weights & six bullet types.
Needless to say these were handloads.
Apart from the 130gr bullets which grouped sub MOA at minimum & maximum loads (with 2MOA plus in the middle), the others all performed at their best using maximum ("Lawyer safe") loads of RL15 & H4831sc.

Sub MOA out of a cheap (the scope cost more...) & unmodified hunting rifle is a good performance in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by Oddbod:
Sub MOA out of a cheap (the scope cost more...) & unmodified hunting rifle is a good performance in my book.

Yup !!

KB