Guys,

In todays world of rifles, most guys are not happy unless thier rifles produce 1 or 1/2 moa at 100 yards (ok, i'm one of them as well). It seems that even 1 & 1/2 moa rifles are getting less and less tolerated. So, what was the usual accuracy during the 50's & 60's for any reasonable bolt action rifle and what was most hunters expectations?

Seems to me that my model 94 30-30 would keep 'em in 4" or so at 100 yards back then. Could have been the gun or the shooter though. Moot point; I never shot deer that far away.

As I recall for my .270 shooting 5 shot groups I was always happy when I kept them all on the paper plate just above center following O'connor' recomendation. Ammo was too costly and reloading was for the old guys at the gunshop.
Frank

My dad bought a much used Savage Model 219 (break-over single-shot)rifle in .22 Hornet for me when I was in the 8th grade (1962). We put a cheapo Weaver 4X rimfire scope on it using a side-mount and the existing screw holes on the barrel. It was a inexpensive rifle but would shoot 1-inch groups at 100 yards with the 45-grain factory loads which the local hardware sold me for 14 cents each. The summer after getting out of the 8th grade (1963) I worked lifting hay bales and bought a new Savage Model 99E in .243 Winchester and put a used Weaver K4 scope on it. I think it was good for about 1.5 MOA on a good day and did not have as flat a trajectory as advertised so the next summer (1964) I got rid of it and got a Weatherby barreled action in 7 MM Wea and had a gunsmith put a Fajen stock on it (glass bedded). I could not afford the whole rifle with the factory stock, but had a 2-7X Leupold scope on it. The first group fired from it was 4 shots at 120 yards and the center-to-center span was 0.6-inch or slightly less (0.5 MOA). I still have the target. With Hornaday bullets and the proper powder it would always group 1.0-MOA or better until the throat started eroding a few years later.

Back in the 50s I shot a good number of M99 Savages and they were mostly 2"-2.5" rifles.

Also shot (rag)M70s and they were about 1.75", occasional 1.25" 3-shot groups, and an occasional 1", but basically 1.75".

When I got into the 60s things had progressed a bit with both rifles and components. Remington rifles were solid 1.25"-1.5" with the right components. Occasional 1" groups also, but not enough to call them 1" rifles.

Tried a good many Rugers in the 70s and they were about like the Remington rifles of the 60s. Good solid rifles with the Bores slightly oversize which allowed for some very robust and yet Safe Loads.

In the 80s, Ruger decided to make their Triggers non-adjustable. So, back to the Remington rifles which were now pretty much 1" rifles.

Today, with all the advancements in manufacturing and components, the factory rifles and components are the best ever made. There are still occasional tweaks needed to make them shoot to their full potential, but they are much more accurate than the older stuff - as a group.

Hot Core is right rifles today are generaly more accurate then rifles of the 50-60s not that some of them were not accurate.

Good old Jack O Conner said a rifle that would shoot under 1 inch was someting to behold.

Better barrels, better machineing,better scopes, better bullets all add up to more accurate rifles today then decades ago.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Hot Core is right rifles today are generaly more accurate then rifles of the 50-60s not that some of them were not accurate.

Good old Jack O Conner said a rifle that would shoot under 1 inch was someting to behold.

Better barrels, better machineing,better scopes, better bullets all add up to more accurate rifles today then decades ago.

Also bullet concentricy has improved dramaticaly

Here's a pic of a target I've posted on AR before but seems appropriate to this thread, too:



1941 M70 Winchester with today's Win factory ammo that is similar to that when the rifle was new.

I've noticed that post internet rifles shoot better than those previous to the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I've noticed that post internet rifles shoot better than those previous to the internet.

Why do you think that is?

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
Here's a pic of a target I've posted on AR before but seems appropriate to this thread, too:



1941 M70 Winchester with today's Win factory ammo that is similar to that when the rifle was new.

Good shooting..Factory ammo is very accurate today

In the early days it was hit or miss on whether you got a "good" barrel or not, nowdays, with the air gauge barrels that variable no longer comes into play. Harry Pope was one of the very early, really good barrel makers, also PO Ackley, Sharon, Apex, & Bliss Titus, now there are dozens of them. Douglas, Shilen & Hart led the way.
So you take a premium air guage barrel, place it in a fiberglass stock with an aluminum bedding block inside (or pillars) blue print the Remington action, feed it a good diet of match grade bullets & it will shoot one hole groups, it will even do it with hunting type bullets.

Dick

quote:

Originally posted by kiwiwildcat:
Guys,

In todays world of rifles, most guys are not happy unless thier rifles produce 1 or 1/2 moa at 100 yards (ok, i'm one of them as well). It seems that even 1 & 1/2 moa rifles are getting less and less tolerated. So, what was the usual accuracy during the 50's & '60s for any reasonable bolt action rifle and what was most hunters expectations?

First, it is impossible to know what most hunter's expectations were. Without a tool such as the internet to poll them with, there was no valid way to even get a confident feel for that.

We do have the writings of many well-known shooters from back then, but those were highly skilled folks, usually with a good deal of money, or a job which required them to learn a lot about shooting, and their views probably don't represent accurately what most folks found acceptable.

People back then were a lot like people today. They tended to fool themselves and rationalize their failures an awfully lot. (Failure, though, is not a bad thing. As long as we survive it, it is a GOOD thing. It's how we learn what works for us and what doesn't.)
So, back in those days you were reading fantasies and/or brags where a guy would say..."...and my rifle will shoot MOA all day long, as long as I do my part."

But experienced shooters knew that there was essentially 80-90% B.S. in the majority of such claims...not all claims, but the majority. A lot like today and the internet, only today it is "1/4" all day long if I do my part..."

Anyhow, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you get books such as Townsend Whelen's "Mister Rifleman" and read them from cover to cover, three times each.

"Townie", as his friends called him, was a very experienced North American and Central American (Panama) hunter, winner of the Leech Cup and second in the Wimbledon at Camp Perry, co-inventor of the .22 Hornet, close friend of WDM Bell, Seymour Griffen(SP?), James Howe, and many, many other famous riflemen. And at one time, commander of Springfield Armory (of '03 Springfield rifle manufacturing fame).

In commenting on his own favourite rifles, one of the '06s he used for hunting A LOT, he described as sufficiently accurate for hunting anything anywhere on earth at any distance a person could reliably expect to humanely kill. How accurate was it? 2-1/2 MOA, which he commented was as good as anyone could reasonably hope to shoot in field positions and conditions.

Incidentally, Townie was also a close friend of Mr. Donaldson, the inventor of the .219 Donaldson Wasp, and of Mr. Walker, inventor of the .222 Remington. He shot with and against both of them, (and Sam Wilson - L.E. Wilson Co. founder, Hervey Lovell - 2R Lovell cartridge fame), and others) in the early benchrest matches (at Johnstown IIRC) and won several of the early benchrest matches held there. Not the overall aggregates, but individual matches.

So, my guess? Even in the late 60s, most shooters expected to buy a rifle which would hit a deer "somewhere" at 150 "hunter's yards" (about 65 to 85 Imperial yards). But as they were descendents of the same folks who slaughtered millions of buffalo and just walked away from all the meat, which was left to rot, they often took shots at game as far away as they could see it. Sometimes they were lucky and the animal was unlucky, both at the same time.

If they were competitive big-bore shooters, they HOPED to buy a rifle they could eventually modify a bit and develop loads for which would stay consistently in the 5" bullseye at 200 yards. (There's that 2-1/2 MOA again, folks.) If it would put half its shots in the (then) 18" bullseye at 1,000 yards, for a score of 90 in a 20-shot effort such as shot in matches like the Wimbledon, they thought that was exceeding good for a hunting rifle. For matches by then, though, they were expecting their 14 pound bull guns in .300 H&H to actually be capable of holding all 20 shots in the 18" bull.

Incidentally, my experience tells me many of their factory-stock rifles would shoot as well as, or better than, most of our un-tweaked factory rifles today. It is the knowledge of HOW to shoot, how to accurize and, especially, the quality of the powders and load components, bullets in particular, which has allowed us to make great leaps forward in our accuracy today.

But to expect today's factory rifles to be better than 2-1/2 MOA performers at 200 yards...? Well, perhaps, but not a LOT better as they come from the factory and in the typical shooter's hands.

There are lots of good books on the history of shooting in the U.S. out there folks. It would possibly make us all better consumers and better shots if we read more of them, more often.

Best wishes,

AC

My first big game rifle, in 1960, was Rem m760 in 30-06. The trigger was like pulling a grappling hook through boulders, and the shots would walk up 6" at 100 yards for five shots. I would guess that it was a 2-3" rifle for the first couple of shots. I did kill my first deer with it, though. I think the average hunter then, with an average bolt action, would have been lucky to get 3" groups. Some did better, but I'm taling about average. Very few hunters knew anything about proper bench testing, basic shooting skills, etc. Fewer still knew much about accuracy reloading.

Here in the UK Parker-Hale warranted that their "hunting" rifles would shoot under 3" at 100 yards using Norma factory ammunition.

Even today if you go and "hunt" on a pay-by-the-day hunting area in the UK the "guide" will expect you and your rifle ONLY to be able to demonstrate that you can put three shots into a 4" diameter bullseye at 100 yards.