I've seen a few copies of The Accurate Rifle magazine. It seems to be pretty good, but is it worth the money to a hunter interested in accuracy. I know this is subjective, but I just want to know your opinions.

Thanks,
QD

I have been a subscriber since the magazine's inception when it was called "Tactical Shooter". The magazine has gone down hill big time. I like reading Mic McPherson's articles but it seems alot of the article are boring. I will not re-subscribe

Just my opinion.

Jim

338Lapua is not far off. I think they had some articles on the .408 CheyTac not too long ago, and they're doing a few reminiscences on Elmer Keith, but I'm getting less and less impressed by that and PS both. Not that anyone could do it better - I think there's less to write about, now. Hell, Saeed's contest for the field guides stands some chance of producing more good stories than most of the gun rags have.

But it's more fun than reading the newspapers.

I don't care for it anymore. It used to be really good, but the last several months tremendously boring.

I agree with the above post. I wasn't a subscriber, but did have several copies of the old "Tactical Shooter." It was a good magazine.

I guess someone thought "Tactical Shooter" was too politically incorrect, so they changed it to "The Accurate Rifle," and began teaching us math instead of riflery.

All the rocket science they often use to presumably prove a point doesn't mean beans to most readers. And the larger point is that eggheads rarely agree with each other as to why bullet "A" went to point "B", so just because an article looks good on paper, that doesn't mean it provides "accurate" information.

I don't care for the "deductive" reasoning that many gunwriters and authors use to tell us what it takes to make a rifle accurate. This approach fails to take into account all of the exceptions that exist to their theories (and they usually won't even admit that their thoughts are theories!).

I prefer "inductive" reasoning wherein we begin with an accurate rifle that really shouldn't be accurate by all known standards, and see what can really be learned about rifle accuracy.

What I've learned so far:

1. The ammunition is probably 90% of whether a rifle will shoot 1/2 MOA or not. (I consider 1/2 MOA "accurate" for all practical purposes).

2. Custom barrels are usually more accurate than factory barrels.

3. Some factory barrels shoot as good or better than many custom barrels.

4. Glass bedding the action in the recoil lug and tang area is one of the biggest aids to accuracy.

5. Free floating the barrel, to about 2 inches ahead of the chamber, is another big benefit to getting the most out of *most* rifles.

6. It is important that the bolt lugs be lapped evenly.

7. A good trigger is imperative if you want consistently tight groups.

8. A good scope and mounting system is very important for consistency.

9. The shooter is always the weakest link to accuracy. Keeping a record of a rifle's average grouping efforts and assigning that score to the rifle alone is ludicrous, and certainly unfair to the rifle!

10. You don't need to take out a second mortgage to be able to afford an accurate rifle. A properly fed Savage 10FP can shoot 1/4 MOA fairly regularly. The custom's advantages will include a smooter, easier to clean bore, much nicer aesthetics, and better market value (though it would almost certainly liquid out at about the same percentage of its initial cost as the lowly Savage!) But the accuracy advantage that customs used to handily enjoy over factory rifles is no longer there, at least so when considering the Savage line...

My thoughts, my opinions...

Dan Newberry
green 788