The crf is considered superior for a dangerous game rifle. I agree. Although my first choice would be a double then the crf.

Todd E

I have had quite a bit of experience shooting and hunting with the push feed and the CRF.I've had problems at times with both,and to tell the truth I've had more problems with the CRF than a push feed.

Unless you plan on shooting charging dangerous game,it all comes down to personal preference.If you are a PH and need a gun to depend on when the chips are down,I'd say take a double gun ANY day over any bolt action.If you can't afford one,buy a CRF bolt gun and eat beans until you can afford a double.

I really couldn't tell you which I prefer,since my all time favorite action is the Ruger #1 (human controled round feed ),but I own many CRFs and many push feeds and I'd never NOT buy a gun because it was one or the other.

Just my $0.02,for what it's worth

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

Kent

My advice is get all the reading material you can on the Mauser 98 action, thoroughly understand its design features, and then compare it to modern manufactured hunting rifles.

If you don't understand the differences, then, and with no disrespect intended, you just won't care about the differences.

Some of us are passionate about our choices, others really don't give it much thought. Neither approach is right or wrong, better or worse.

Personally, I think that Mr. Mauser was a genius, and that modern adaptations of his design have to cut costs and ease manufacturing. I prefer simple, robust and reliable designs, that was handily accomplished over 100 years ago, and there haven't been any improvements on the design, just some adaptations to allow for the mounting of telescopic sights.

Kent

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I think CRF is nicer to use but I would not buy a rifle just because it was CRF.

For example, I would take a Remington over a Ruger. That would be because I don't like Ruger mounting system, the Rem 700 has an action that has a better configuation for bedding and I can do far more with the Rem 700 trigger.

But I would take a Model 70 over a Remington. That is because it has an even better bedding confguration and I can also fit a Jewell trigger. The narrower locking lugs allow more cam forward and primary extraction. Also in magnum calibers I don't have a rivoted extractor which in some Rems will often balk as it goes over the case rim and leave lots of brass shavings.

But for a "glue in" instead of bedding, I prefer the Rem 700 to the M70 because the round action is much easier to break free.

For actions set up so that barrels can be changed between actions, then I prefer either a Rem 700 or M70 push feed as you can't do it with CRF actions unless the extractor slot is cut all the way round the rear of the barrel.

The point of all of the above being that I think CRF is nicer to use and it is a bonus if it is on the action of my choice.

I think a negative with CRF as compared to push feed is that everything has to be "more right" for trouble free operation than is the case with a push feed.

Mike

To those of you that feel a remington is simpler then a mauser 98, I beg to differ.

I have a commericial mauser 98- the trigger has about 4-5 total parts to it. How many parts are in your m700 trigger?

A remington 700 is about the ugliest gun I have ever seen. I would never buy a product from a company that produces such elegant rifles as the M710. If they are capable of creating a modern art masterpeice such as the 710, who knows what else they are doing to their guns?

Besides its next to imposible to get a control round feed gun with a decent looking stock. I cannot stand "american strait" stocks nor huge monte carlo stocks. I little drop and I get pumped up!

I guess I'm just a feen for classic guns. If I had the extra money just lying around I would go buy a brandew M700 and jam the barrel into the ground, then load a round and with a string pull the trigger and watch the gun blowup- then have a good laugh.

This fine peice is an excellent Oberndorf type M

This disgusting peice is the unfortunate thing called a m700

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buell:
This fine peice is an excellent Oberndorf type
This disgusting peice is the unfortunate thing called a m700

---

Well, as the French say, chacun a son gout.

To me that Oberndorf in your picture is a disgusting piece and the Remington 700 is a thing of beauty!

At least one time I have had to disassemble the bolt in the field. As you may know, all one needs to accomplish that with a Ruger bolt is a small nail or wire, but one can do it without tools as follows: With the bolt out of the rifle and the firing pin cocked, insert a small nail or wire in the small hole on the cocking piece, then turn the firing pin assembly counterclockwise. That's all there is to it.

Your view of the world is completely errounious. There are few things uglier then a synthetic stocked m700.

One day I am going to do as I said above, and destroy your beloved M700 by blowing it up, with me at a safe distance away. I have also thought of melting a m700 action down and turning it into a paper weight. It has more use as a paper weight then a rifle action.

I couldn't care less if you like M700's or not. Just leaves more Mausers for me to choose from so long as you are not buying them!

This is another fine peice.

This is likely the most horrid rifle of all time!

This is an excellent rifle by a good Austrian maker...

By the same Austrian...

To try to answer modle 88's original question (and not trying to talk down to you at all, just going over the basics as you said that you were new to rifles :

To start off, in both rifles a cartridge is pushed forward by the bolt face so that it's nose (the bullet) is pushed up and toward the center of the chamber by the feed ramp - that sloping part just before the chamber. This combination of forward, upward and centering movement eventually pops it free of the magazine lips or feed rails.

At this point in a push feed rifle, the cartridge is free and unfettered. It is just lying loose on top of the feed rails and magazine follower with the bullet tip hopefully already entering the back part of the chamber. The bolt continues to push it into the chamber. When it can go into the chamber no further, a spring loaded extractor in or on the bolt face will snap over the rim of the cartridge.

A true CRF rifle does not have this snap over extractor. It will have what is called a claw extractor alongside the bolt. When the cartridge pops up out of the magazine, the back end slides up along the bolt face so that the rim of the cartridge slides up under the extractor claw. After this point the bolt pushes the cartridge into the chamber and the bolt is turned down and locked. The important thing is that at no time in a CRF feeding cycle is the cartridge left free to move around AFTER it leaves teh magazine. Hence the name, Controlled Round Feed.

The main criticism of the push feed design is that the base (back end) of the cartridge is left free to move. Reportedly there have been instances where the cartridge pops up out of the magazine with such force that the base flies up above the bolt face, then as the bolt is closed it pinches the body of the cartridge resulting in a smoke stack jam.
Also, once the cartridge leaves the magazine, there is no way for the bolt to pull it backwards until it is pushed fully forward and the extractor snaps over the rim. If you DO pull the bolt all the way back and then push it forward, it will try to strip another cartridge from the magazine. With the previous cartridge lying halfway in the chamber this will result in a double feed jam.

In a CRF rifle the bolt can be withdrawn at any point in the feeding cycle and the cartridge will come with it. Pull it back and it is ejected completely from the action so that one can push the bolt forward without a double feed jam. If you push a cartridge forward enough so that the nose starts to enter the chamber but the magazine has not released it, then pull the bolt back, then push it forward, it will pick up chambering that same round, no problem.

There, that's about as objective as I can be about the operation of each. Now for some subjective opinions.

I've gone round and round on this, and I still haven't found a good instance of why one would pull the bolt back halfway through the feeding cycle, even under a panic situation, to cause a double feed jam. Could happen, sure, but that seems the least likely scenario of all.

CRF proponents say that their rifles will feed upside down, muzzle up, muzzle down, no matter what. They have a valid point.

In theory, a push feed rifle held upside can let the cartridge base fall past the bolt face and cause that smokestack jam described above. In practice I haven't been able to cause a smokestack jam in my push feeds no matter how I hold the rifle. But I guess the possibility still exists.

The spring loaded extractor of the push feeds is considered weaker than the large claw of teh CRF rifles. That has been largely disproven in my mind. Strength seems to be more a function of the individual extractor's "mettle" than a design flaw of one or the other.

As to safeties, trigger designs and everything else, those are properties of the individual riflemaker's design and really have nothing to do with push feed vs. CRF. Many CRF rifles do not come with true, firing pin blocking safeties while a push feed rifle can certainly be fitted with one.

IMHO, most of the thunder in this debate is based on bias toward this manufacturer or that and again for whatever reason; aesthetics, perceived quality of manufacture, whatever, but has absolutely nothing to do with the explicit merits or one feeding system over the other. Most of this is actually directed toward the Remington Model 700 specifically as can be seen in earlier posts in this thread. The push feed design is seen as simply a way to produce a rifle cheaper,not better. The Mauser Model 98 CRF rifle is seen as the epitome of the reliable bolt action, and in truth it is, but many of the later CRF rifles have also cut corners and strayed from Mauser's original design, yet are stilled considered superior to even the most finely made push feed. Witness the Winchester Model 70, as well as many commercial "Mausers" which do not have a third lug, C-ring, three position safety and all the other goodies Herr Peter deemed necessary.

Again, IMHO, the arguments for CRF's advantages hinge on the remotest possibilities (like maybe what, .005 percent of all dangerous game hunting encounters?) that may occur when one is under attack by an enraged large beast. An elephant is atop you and you are on your back loading your rifle upside down, for instance. Of course, when one is under attack by an enraged large beast one wants ALL the bases covered.

My moderate amount of personal experience lends much credence to Mike375's contention that CRF rifles have to be "more right" to work properly. As long as a push feed rifle gets the nose of the cartridge in the back of the chamber everything seems to follow along successfully.

ANY rifle that is not a Model 98 and relies on spring loaded moving parts is subject to failure, whether CRF or push feed.

Finally, if you want to know which is "BEST", look at the overall quality of the rifle and it's other features over the feeding design. A gazillion hunters take to the fields all over the world each year with push feeds that serve them just fine. Sako's are finely made rifles, the modern Model 75's are push feeds. Modern Remington's are not built as well as they used to be, but a 10 year old used Model 700 is a fine and very highly probably reliable firearm.

In summary, if you foresee the possibility of staring at an elephant's or buffalo's underside, then you should probably get a CRF. But barring that, just get whichever rifle floats your boat and learn to shoot straight. That first shot hitting true will negate about 110% of the rest of the argument.

[This message has been edited by Jim in Idaho (edited 01-24-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I don't particularly care what others use but you will not catch me in the dangerous game fields with any pushfeed rifle or an untuned control feed..I want a tuned up Mauser, M-70 or a double rifle for myself...

---

Ray-
Can-you-(or-anyone)-tell-us-what-they-like-to-do-to-a-M70-to-tune-it?

Or is your M77 an older push feed? Only owned one of those but a lot of M700s. With those I agree, the bullet and case is about halfway into the chamber before the feed rails let go of it. I've never seen a smokestack jam in some 36 years of using push feeds, just mentioning it as a theoretical possibility when the cartridge base is not captured as it is freed from the magazine.

From my prior post: "In theory, a push feed rifle held upside can let the cartridge base fall past the bolt face and cause that smokestack jam described above. In practice I haven't been able to cause a smokestack jam in my push feeds no matter how I hold the rifle. But I guess the possibility still exists."

To the board in general:

The ONLY jams I've ever seen were when the nose of the cartridge was not guided properly into the chamber and got caught on the back end of the chamber. And I've only seen that once, on an old Savage 110 using round nose bullets. I read about one wherein an assistant of Phil Shoemaker's hung up a round nose .375 H&H bullet on the chamber of his new Winchester Model 70. My mechanical intelligence is not the greatest, but I fail to see how an extraction system helps either way to get that bullet nose started properly. Seems a properly sized magazine and properly made feed ramp have more to do with that.

In response to the original question, I am trying hard not to take sides, just state the factual mechanical differences and then go over some of the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of each so that modle 88 can make up his own mind. My lament in this debate, as stated above, is that folks get to arguing that "this manufacturer's overall rifle is a POS so that proves that (take your pick) CRF/push feed is a totally worthless design".

Also, it seems that too often folks have to take sides and say that "my favored design is great, your's sucks". I just don't think that way. I think a properly timed CRF rifle is the cat's meow, but that push feeds are perfectly serviceable for about 99% of all hunting as well.

IMO, the quality and care of manufacture of the individual rifle is FAR more important than which feeding system is used.

I was reading a back issue of Rifle magazine the other day and Ross Seyfreid had an article therein about "professional's rifles". Not pretty rifles, not heirloom rifles, just rifles that work. Well dress me up and call me Sally, but what does he mention as a great stopping rifle? A M700 Remington push feed in .416 Remington Magnum, which he had sent to Brown Precision to (paraphrasing) "... make sure it worked every time...".

Now one can debate the theoretical merits of push feed or CRF till the cows come home, but as long as YOUR rifle "works every time", isn't that all that matters?

Once in Tanzania, I shared a camp with a professional hunter of long experience (guiding another client) who related a very frightening and ugly story about a Custom Shop Remington 700 he used for a season when the .416 Remington Magnum cartridge was first introduced. It seems that this PH had to follow up a client-wounded buffalo, then during the course of events experienced a smokestack jam with that Model 700 that nearly cost him his life. He was extremely sour on any push-feeds after that episode, and was using a .416 Rigby built on a Czech Brno CZ action.

I find it amazing that Remington still clings to an action design that was created around mass production technology as it existed in the 1940's; a seriously flawed trigger mechanism that has created ugly and expensive class-action lawsuits; plus an ill-conceived brazed-on bolt handle that's been known to pop off quite unexpectedly.

There are certain push-feeds that I would trust implicity (the PF Model 70, for example, is a great, under-appreciated action), including the Model 700 if it was properly and extensively reworked by a skilled gunsmith. The work I would insist on is a new bolt handle, a new aftermarket trigger, new bottom metal, and a new direct-acting safety, plus feeding work. But in the main, I trust all of my big game hunts these days to CRF actions. The only reason to really go with a PF is availability or possibly cost.

AD

I know of 2 rem model 700's that broker their extractors in Africa and were finished. Never heard of a Mauser 98 breaking an extractor.

I saw a Browning A-bolt become completely incapacitated because it got a dab of mud on the bolt. That doesn't happen to Mauser 98's.

Further, in my view the model 70 is just a cheapened model 98.

Is this just an aesthetic consideration? I don't think so. I think that Remington 700 bolts operate more smoothly than Mauser-type ones.

Those tight, seemingly less sloppy Model 700 dimensions that get routinely applauded are actually a liability under many hunting conditions. If you can find a copy, get Stuart Otteson's (an engineer) great, eye-opening book, "The Bolt Action" and read the expert analysis about this very issue as it pertains to the Mauser 98 and Remington 700 systems.

AD

It has a spring loaded "claw" extractor.

Is it classified as a CRF action?

Rick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gatehouse:
Ray-
Can-you-(or-anyone)-tell-us-what-they-like-to-do-to-a-M70-to-tune-it?

---

Yes, I can. Winchester's bedding sucks. Grind scoop or gouge it all out. Glass or piller bed the action and about two inches of barrel forward of the action. Float the rest of the barrel. Adjust the trigger to between two and three pounds. Shoot. So far this has worked on everything but two different .375s. One of these was a push feed the other controlled round. A .458 controlled round feed given the same treatment was minute of angle but not the .375s.

Polish the sides of the ejector blade and it's slot so it rises freely. Make sure the pin that holds the ejector in place is not too tight. You may or not want to polish the pin and the correspinding hole in the ejector, this is probably not needed but doesn't hurt as long as you just polish and not enlarge the hole or shrink the pin diameter. Nothing should hinder the ejector blade from rising when the bolt is retracted, but then you don't want it sloppy loose either.

Make sure that the extractor claw is tensioned properly. Remove the bolt and slide a cartridge up under the claw. It should stay there, held by the slight spring tension of the claw. If it doesn't the extractor can be removed and bent ever so carefully to provide the necessary tension.

Make sure the lip surrounding the bolt face is free from burrs. Ideally it should be polished mirror bright so that nothing interferes with the cartridge rim sliding up under the extractor. Not much can be done to those ugly machining marks on the bolt face itself without screwing up the headspace. If you ever decide to rebarrel this can be deeply polished at that time.

A slick trick is to drill a third small detent depression in the safety lever so it is harder to push off of third position - all the way back, bolt locked. You may have to undercut the lever itself just a tiny bit so it will go back another millimeter or so, and you may not be able to completely clear that second detent hole. This is not a cure all but it helps to decrease the possibility of the lever being accidently swiped off of third position. Do not drill or grind on anything but the lever itself, so in case the job is messed up you only need to replace the lever.

Make sure that the bolt slides in even if slight offset pressure is put on it. I.e., when starting to push it forward from it's most rearward position, don't just push straight in but also push up or sideways a bit to simulate a hurried operation. All of the Model 70's I've owned (and yes, some Model 700's) will bind to some degree if this is done. One, and of course it has to be my .375, will stick tight so it won't budge. I don't yet know how to cure this, even with polishing and lubrication.

Make sure that the magazine spring is positioned properly. Apparently Winchester only uses one size spring no matter which follower they use. So on a long follower the spring can slide forward or backward. Backward seems to be okay, but if it slides forward it provides too little support for the rear of the follower.

Polish the sides of the follower to at least a 400 grit smoothness. Polish the insides of the magazine box with 400 grit paper as well. Combine a follower with burrs, a magazine box that is not smooth inside and a magazine spring that slides around and you get a cartridge whose rear end is not pushed up enough to be caught by the bolt. Hmmm, five shots in the magazine, I've fired four and get a Click! Where's that fifth round? Why, it's still hiding in the magazine!

Polish the corner of the extractor cut on the barrel or break that edge a bit. I don't know exactly how this is done, but I have heard from a reliable source that this is how you keep some bullet shapes from hanging up there.

Now, how do I know all of this? Been there, done that, and had at least one incidence of each problem described above with my (so far) five Model 70's.

However, once you get them polished up, they are pretty good rifles.

Don't forget to put a decent grease lube (I use Tetra-gun) on the backs of the locking lugs and on the cocking cam surface. Go real easy, a teeny tiny dab is plenty.

Some people evidently never learn. The mauser is outdated deal with it.

Kent

gatehouse,
I normally polish the rails, polish out the safty for quiteness, polish the ramp, and above all make sure it feeds properly if it is to be used for hunting....I do glassbed the stocks, but on mine I usually build a stock....

Buell,
I couldn't agree more, your taste in rifles is very close to mine...I like the stocks on the Mauser Orbendorfs, Brno 21,22, Most Guild guns and all the Hollands and Westley Richards guns...

A rifle needs some drop as opposed to the 2x4 stright stock designs of today that "absorb recoil" by driving it stright back..I would rather split that recoil up, half going up and half comming back. it took me 30 years to figure out O'connor was strictly a scope sight shooter of small guns..Also the drop makes the iron sights usable, and in my mind does not effect scope use one bit...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

If the mauser is such an awesome battle rifle why has it not been brought back with an extended magazine for greater capacity. I'll tell you why. It is outdated. Even the germans knew that and were replacing it during WWII. What did the germans replace the mauser with and everybody else to. A push feed semiauto. These maybe semiautos but they are first and foremost push feed actions. The M700 is just as reliable as the modern assault rifle and maybe more so since the magazine rails are better protected.

Kent

The other way to tune a Model 70 is to not buy one. Instead, buy a Dakota action for about 1900 bucks. Buy a #2 or #3 contour barrel from Pac-Nor, Shilen, Lilja, Walther Lothar or any of a half dozen other good barrel makers. Make that a #5 or #6 if you are talking .375 H&H magnum and up.

Call Winchester and order a new LT stock for about $225. I am not certain but I think that the Dakota action will fit. You�re going to have to mess with the barrel inletting at least. OR, for about 1000 more bucks you can get any of several hundred good to excellent stock makers around the country to make you a good stock of your own design. OR, call McMillan or Borden and order a fiberglass stock to fit. If your name is Ray you can even get a pre-64 design with some goodly drop to the stock. �Course, if your name is Ray you would sooner cut your wrists than insult a good action with a fiberglass stock. OR, for right handers only, call D�Arcy Echols and order his McMillan built Legend stock for a tad over 400 bucks.

Gather up your action, barrel and stock and send them off to any of several hundred competent gunsmiths for assembly, to include glass and/or pillar bedding.

For somewhere�s between $2500 and $3000 you can have a sub-MOA sporting rifle that will feed as properly as an ambassador having dinner with the Queen, and generally imitate the sun rising in the east as far as reliability.

�If I knew then what I know now��, instead of some dozen Remingtons and Winchesters in the gun safe there would be two or at the most three LH Dakota actioned rifles as described above, plus my Kimber .22. And I�d have enough money left over to pay for most of a good first class guided hunt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent in IA:
If mausers are so present then why don't any militaries still use them. Some of you may have noticed that the worlds militaries are going back to semiautomatic weapons and getting away from full auto. This was due to fact that you cannot hit anything in full auto.

If the mauser is such an awesome battle rifle why has it not been brought back with an extended magazine for greater capacity. I'll tell you why. It is outdated. Even the germans knew that and were replacing it during WWII. What did the germans replace the mauser with and everybody else to. A push feed semiauto. These maybe semiautos but they are first and foremost push feed actions. The M700 is just as reliable as the modern assault rifle and maybe more so since the magazine rails are better protected.

Kent

---

Why don't you hunt with an AR-15? Would you rather be in the sights of a trained shot with a mauser, or a punk wildly spraying with an AK?

Explain why the Rem 700 "safety" has often functioned as an auxiliary trigger, and how that is an improvement? Explain how the brazed on bolt handle that has repeatedly fallen off in the field is superior? Explain how the requirement for specialized tools to dissasemble the bolt is superior?

Show a scientific test that has proven the M700 produces signifigantly superiour accuracy. Make it fair, take 5 M700's, and 5 M70's off the rack, pick 3 boxes of factory fodder, and compare max/min and average groups, and exactly how superiour is that accuracy.

For off the shelf rifles, there really isn't much difference between savage, ruger, win or rem. If one is only capable of measuring the quality of a hunting arm based on the potential for mechanical accuracy, then the M700 seems to be the only answer. If one is willing to consider that there is more to hunting and hunting rifles then mechanical accuracy, then a whole lot of other issues are addressed, and a totally different conclusion is reached.

I bought into the Remington ad campaign a long time ago, and then I bought into the so-called benchrest advantage of the Model 700 as well and invested in a couple of famous-maker custom "beanfield" rifles based on Model 700 actions. I've owned so many Model 700s over the years that most people simply wouldn't believe the number, and yes, most of them were very good rifles.

About nine years ago, I met a custom riflemaker at SCI's annual convention who was turning out high-performance custom rifles on the then newly-reintroduced controlled-feed Model 70 actions. This guy was a national award winner in high-power competitions (military as well as civilian awards) and he was a true devotee of the Model 70. I was at the height of my Model 700/beanfield phase at the time, but I took a hunch and ordered a rifle from this man based on a CRF Model 70 action.

That rifle changed my mind forever about what sort of accuracy one can expect out of rifles based on Model 70 actions, and all of my subsequent experiences have only served to underscore the truth that a Model 70-based rifle can produce groups every bit as good for any hunting purpose as a Model 700 can, plus feed and function better. After all, the same action blueprinting, premium rebarreling, and other refinments can be applied to the Model 70 as to the Model 700, for Pete's sake.....

Here are a few groups that were produced by my new (one year-old) Model 70 in .300 Win. Mag. built by D'Arcy Echols. Five shot groups at 100 yds.: 180 gr. Nosler Partition Protected Point- .495 & .594",180 gr. Hornady .623", 180 gr. Speer Grand Slam- .614", 180 gr. Nosler Partition- .362" & .294".......etc.

"Benchrest advantage" for the Model 700? Maybe for varmints or for benchrest shooting, but for hunting rifles, it's a completely moot point.

AD

The Rem 700 has some basic advantages
that have meant it was and is used for
bench guns.

Firstly, the round reciever is
much better for "glue in" than the
square type actions. Round receivers are
far easier to un glue.

The round reciver also suits
sleeving the action.

The Rem receiver is also lighter
than the Model 70.

Next, the Rem trigger mounting
system allows you to drop
the trigger out without
having to take the rifle apart.

Custom actions like Stolle
do away with the extractor
and also the wide locking
lugs of Rem 700s.
Those wide Rem700 lugs
greatly reduce cam forward
and primary extraction.

Also, some some individual
Rem 700s cause the extractor
to hang a bit low which in
turn makes it resist
bolt closing and in the
process shaves off brass.

Thus Sako extractors
are fitted to them.

My experience has been
if the action is bedded
rather than being a "glue in"
and for larger calibers
such as 270 and up
the Model 70 will prove superior
in the accuracy department. But the difference is small and
you need to see it
over several diffent rifles.

BUT, a bedding job just
can't quite equal
a "glue in" for
longer term consistency.

Perhaps more importantly,
a "glue in" allows
a very light hollow stock to be
used which then allows a
heavier barrel for a given all
up weight.

For extreme accuracy
switch barrel hunting
style rifles the Rem 700
needs a pinned recoil lug.

No problem there
with a Model 70.

Gunsmiths tend to be
more set up for
Rem 700 but this exposes
another myth.

I can absolutely guarantee
you that an action that has not been
accurised or "trued"
when fitted a with a top barrel
and with no bedding,
scope or mount problems
and with the right load,
will deliver about
nearly 100% of the
accuracy potential
of the barrel.

Of course I am assuming that
the action does not have
a particular problem.

To give you an idea consider
this if you will:

A Light Varmint bench gun
in 6mm PPC with 36X Leupold
will be doing OK
to average .25"
at 100 yards.

A Light Varmint barrel
chambered in 270
with a standard JGS reamer
and fitted to
a Model 70 or Rem 700,
neither "trued" but
with 2 ounce trigger
and 6X Leupold
will hold under.5"
at 100 yards.

I am talking about averaging .5"
Most shooters would (and do) rate
such a rifle as shootings .2s
But that is not average.

That is loading with
standard dies and full length
sizing so there is around .003"
headspace.

Mike

These are the people I want making my guns!

[This message has been edited by Buell (edited 01-25-2002).]

How about debating the finer points of the Sako Model 75 vs. the Springfield '03. Or perhaps a Ruger M77 (tang safety) vs. a Japanese Arisaka. Or an Ed Brown or McMillan Bros. action vs. a Savage Model 20?

You know, just for a little variety?

[This message has been edited by Jim in Idaho (edited 01-25-2002).]