Folks,

I got here this nice VZ24 action and I am looking to build a medium to heavy barrelled 25-06 on it. This is for Hunting Rifle Competition here in South Africa.

Some questions:

Can a 1/4 MOA rifle be built on such an action?

What are the drawbacks to using such an action?

I am thinking locktime must be one, but I will fix that with a Speedlock pin and spring.
Trigger is sorted, I got a Timney. Have a Gentry 3-pos as well.

What about the bedding? Is there an inherent problem because it cannot be "pillar bedded" in the generally accepted definition of the term?

Has anyone repositioned the front action screw to the rear so that it screws into the action flat behind the recoil lug (a la M70) thereby allowing you to pillar bed it conventionally? It means modifying the bottom metal too but not a big deal.

What else would you do to the action? Square-ing the bolt face is standard Mauser treatment with the smith I use and he is durn good.

Cheers

pete

Well, I am certainly no expert on building 1/4 MOA hunting rifles. Heck, I couldn't shoot that well if I owned one. But in answer to your question, based on much of what I have read here on AR, I have a feeling that one hell of a lot of it has to do with the quality of the barrel you use, and even more is the quality of the work in installing that barrel on the action and cutting a proper chamber and throat.

To me the statement: 1/4" MOA hunting rifle is an oxymoron.

While there are some very fine hunting bullets available I doubt that any of them are up to the task of benchrest shooting.

I have no doubt that your "smith" is a highly skilled and talented person but there's a reason one don't find Mausers at benchrest shoots and I doubt seriously that it's the right tool for the task.

You might learn some tricks on a benchrest forum and I'd advise you look there as well as here.

I'll be cheeering for you as I'd love to know someone has turned a mauser into a 1/4 MOA hunting rifle....it'll set a new standard for many of us to shoot for.

Pete, repeatable 1/4 accuracy in any rifle is very tough to achieve and requires among other things, a rifle that is precisely aligned from end to end which is why the Remington bolt and action is the desired design for this type of work. A cylindrical action and straight bolt is so much easier to align than one with complex angles.

That said, I have a target on the wall of my shop where I shot a true, dime size group, with a damned near stock, Mark X Mauser in 270 Win, years ago. That rifle with it's particular load was phenominally accurate, but, it wasn't consistant. I could not count on it to deliver such groups with any regularity and so I sold it to a friend who's not quite as retarded as me.

While it is fairly easy to achieve consistant sub MOA groups from a Mauser, the precision required to deliver consistant 1/4 inch accuracy from a Mauser isn't very realistic.

Pete, 1/4 MOA is an awful lot to ask from a Mauser platform! Now, I don't know how you define "1/4 MOA" - i.e. how many shots in a group, distance shot, and whether the 1/4 MOA must just be obtained once in a lifetime, or whether your gun must agg 1/4 MOA. The latter would put it squarely in the running as a BR rifle, and believe me, a Mauser is not the platform for a BR rifle. A Mauser in general has neither the lock time, the stiffness, the dimensional integrity nor the trigger (even a Timney) to turn it into a serious competition rifle.

Btw, why the .25-06?? For a competition rifle, this does not seem a very sensible cartridge. Primarily because it is going to burn out your barrels in a surprisingly short time. Secondly, good "match type" bullets are few and far between in cal .257. Finally, you have to think hard about whether as much recoil as a .25-06 generates will be acceptable to you in a competition situation.

Typical choices for accuracy cartridges would include .222 Rem, .223 Rem, 6mmPPC, 6mmBR, 6.5-284, 6.5x55 and .308 Win. Either would be a much better choice than the .25-06, at least for the kind of competitions shot in Europe and the US. I don't know what components would be available to you in SA, and naturally the exact rules and conditions for your competition come into the picture as well when choosing a specific cartridge.

- mike

I think the consensus is that 1/4 MOA is too much to ask of a Mauser. So that begs the question what is the best possible 1/2 MOA, 3/4 MOA??

That's fair, I have a Rem M700 ADL in 270 Win I can tear down.

The rifle won't actually be used for hunting but for shooting at life size animal targets. So it will be fed Matchkings and such-like. Really a heavy barrelled target rifle with a hunting stock and bad-ass optics.

Why 25-06? Well the range of the targets is unknown (may not use an RF) so you must make a best guess and rely on a trajectory that is as flat as you can make it. 100gr HPBT MK in 25-06 fits the bill nicely.

Recoil is not an issue for me. A Comp is 30 rounds, over the whole day.

Thanks all for the input.

Cheers

pete

quote:

Pete, 1/4 MOA is an awful lot to ask from a Mauser platform

To be honest a true 1/4MOA rifle is hard to achieve on just about any platform. Sure you might get a 1/2 rifle with all things right that will give you a 1/4 group once in a while.

The longer 06 cases in theory are not going to give you the accuracy of the shorter fatter cases. There is a reason most of the benchrest shooters go for the 6mmPPC or 6mmBR.

Pete, anytime I can get honest consistent MOA out of a rifle I'm thrilled. I've owned a lot of rifles and I've owed a few rifles that would shoot 1/4 moa on occasion, but never consistently. I've owned two that I honestly think were consistent 1/2 MOA rifles, but I usually did something that would mess that record up. If I own a gun that'll group 3 shots into less than 1" at 100yds every time I do my part, I have complete confidence that rifle will hit anything I point it at in the field as long as I hold up my end of the bargain. Truth be known, you really don't even need that level of accuracy.

Terry

“Internet-Groups†not withstanding, you will probably have as much luck finding a consistent ¼ MOA rifle as you will in findng a consistent ¼ MOA shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
“Internet-Groups†not withstanding, you will probably have as much luck finding a consistent ¼ MOA rifle as you will in findng a consistent ¼ MOA shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
“Internet-Groups†not withstanding, you will probably have as much luck finding a consistent ¼ MOA rifle as you will in findng a consistent ¼ MOA shooter.

Ain't that the truth!!!!!

It seems we have a lot of folks that really want their hunting rifles to be benchrest rifles.....but don't want to buils benchrest rifles.

You can tell them as they're the ones posting about runout, distance to lands, weighing cases, uniforming pockets, deburring flash holes, and other things that oftem times are pure emotional issues to a hunting rifle.

I remember a statement from Layne Simpson that I thought was hitting the proverbial nail on the head...essentially: "turning necks may improve accuracy but only for shooters that are already shooting 1/2" groups." What accuracy there in that statement.!!!!!

For those that want to make their 300 mag hunting rifle shoot under 1 MOA...I'm all for you but in the net result you must understand that the hunting rifle that actually can shoot 1/4" groups isn't a better hunting rifle than one that actually shoots 1.25" groups.

I guess if a guy is hunting bubble bees then 1/4 MOA might be a necessity!

VAPO

I don't know if I would go along with the statement "isn't a better". After all, isn't the goal of any weapon to place the blow exactly where one wants it. If I had my druthers, I would certainly want a more accurate rifle than not, and I would definitely want one that shoots 1/4" over one that shoots 1 1/2 inch, even though I couldn't take advantage of it by my poor shooting abilities. Kinda like I would rather have a Mercedez Benz than a Chevy Corvair even though both are goona get me to the same place eventually in spite of my poor driving abilities.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
VAPO

I don't know if I would go along with the statement "isn't a better". After all, isn't the goal of any weapon to place the blow exactly where one wants it. If I had my druthers, I would certainly want a more accurate rifle than not, and I would definitely want one that shoots 1/4" over one that shoots 1 1/2 inch, even though I couldn't take advantage of it by my poor shooting abilities. Kinda like I would rather have a Mercedez Benz than a Chevy Corvair even though both are goona get me to the same place eventually in spite of my poor driving abilities.

Actually the goal of a weapon is to put the bullet where the sights are pointing when the trigger is pulled. How many people do you know that can hold their sights inside a ¼ inch circle at 100 yards...without any movement? I’m talking about field shooting positions that would be normal for the type of game you are hunting with a large caliber weapon.

Rick

would not one put the sights where one wants the blow to land before pulling the trigger?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Rick

would not one put the sights where one wants the blow to land before pulling the trigger?

That’s the entire point! Can you place your sights inside of a ¼ inch circle at 100 yards, and keep them there without movement, while you pull the trigger? And were the sights still inside that ¼ inch circle as the bullet left the barrel?

Not from a bench rest platform, from a field position you would be able to assume while hunting.

quote:

many people do you know that can hold their sights inside a ¼ inch circle at 100 yards

Few years ago when I was shooting a lot I had several rifles that could give me 1/2" 3 shot groups maybe 3 out of 5. So I got the wildhair that hey benchrest couldn't be that hard. So several $1000 later I had a nice heavy rifle that I could on a GOOD day get 1/4" 5 shot groups 2 out of 5 times. Even with a heavy rifle looking through a high magnification scope it is hard to keep the crosshairs on a 1/4" point.

So I sold the benchrest stuff. Decided that on my hunting rifles sub MOA was fine and if once in a while they gave me 1/2MOA those would be the targets I kept.

LOL what I really want is one that just puts the bullet "through the lungs please", even if I FUBAR the shot, that's what I want. Laser guided bullets anyone?

Baring that I'll take one that puts the bullet on the crosshairs when the trigger is pulled.

If you and your rifle can consistently hit paper plates out to 200 or 300 yards, off-hand or from a hasty rest, you and your rifle are damned good IMO.

To be fair to Pete Millan, he has been subject to "accuracy inflation" on the Internet. This site (and others, I'm sure) offers an excellent platform for accuracy claims of the wildest sort. 1/2" accuracy is about the minimum any AR member with respect for himself will admit to. It becomes a number game very quickly, poster A gets 1/2" groups, so surely poster B must be able to report 2/5" etc etc. Inflation is rampant.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
VAPO

I don't know if I would go along with the statement "isn't a better". After all, isn't the goal of any weapon to place the blow exactly where one wants it. If I had my druthers, I would certainly want a more accurate rifle than not, and I would definitely want one that shoots 1/4" over one that shoots 1 1/2 inch, even though I couldn't take advantage of it by my poor shooting abilities. Kinda like I would rather have a Mercedez Benz than a Chevy Corvair even though both are goona get me to the same place eventually in spite of my poor driving abilities.

No disagreement here at all. It's just that I have never found a bench out hunting to shoot from. Usually I lean against a tree for a steady shot. Often I wind up shooting at a running target.....(especially hunting deer here in Wisconsin) or shooting over sticks somewhere.

I assure you that (first of all) that 1/4" gun is purely academic in the field and is also purely a figment of the internet imagination......it never existed in the first place.

In my own experience the 1/2" three shot groups I've shot are rarely followed up with another one and in the end these rifles shoot routinely a bit over one inch and I'm delighted with them. I'm convinced that most of the (so called) 1/2" groups posted on the internet cannot be duplicated when someone is standing there and watching.

I had a friend that boasted of his ability to hit a nickel at 300 yards and after finally hearing it too many times I challenged him to show me and at the range he couldn't even show a 3" group.

For all the folks that think they need to shoot 1/2" groups because everyone else is doing it.....get real....it's 99% BS.

For those that now want to shoot 1/4" groups.....you really need to become a benchrest shooter and go the whole hog in that direction.

Philosoficaly question ?
What rifle is the most accurate ?

1: Shoots the following groups 3 shot 100m
gr 1-- 1/4"
gr 2-- 2"
gr 3-- ½"
gr 4-- 1½"
gr 5-- 1"

2: Shoots the following groups 3 shot 100m
gr 1--3/4"
gr 2--3/4"
gr 3--½"
gr 4--3/4"
gr 5-- ½"

Jorgen, It's been a very long time since I've taken the classes in Statistics and I'll venture a guess that there's not sufficient evidence to say one is better than the other. As a matter of fact they could have been shot from the very same rifle.

To honestly say one is better than the other I'd like to see a statistically valid number of observations.....and I'll go out on a limb and say nine (9) is the number I'm looking for.

Clearly the standard deviation of the second group is better and therefore more valid of it's true ability.

That said, I'm still looking for more evidence.

This is nothing more than my opinion, but to me “accuracy†and “precision†are not necessarily the same thing.

Accuracy, to me, is where your first shot goes in relation to where you were aiming. If I want to check accuracy I aim and fire one shot and I measure the distance from my POA to the center of the actual POI and that tells me what I want to know as far as the practical accuracy of me and my rifle are concerned.

Also, what you can shoot from a bench with all the time in the world at a known distance target is seldom what you can do in the field at a running (or even browsing) deer at a distance that you may have to guess at in the blink of an eye.

It is also foolish (as well as incorrect) to assume that because you and your rifle can shoot ¼ inch groups (or any other size) at 100 yards that the MOA sizing of that group will remain the same at farther distances.

It has been my experience that even factory rifles come out of the box with far more inherent accuracy than the vast majority of people are capable of taking advantage of when hunting. Of course there are exceptions to both the rifles and the people, but they are truly exceptions and not the norm.

I look at it this way, the more a person can do to better themselves and increase their accuracy, the better the odds for a successful shot. Regardless of the rifle, or, type of game being hunted, there is nothing wrong with a person looking to achieve the most accuracy he can get from his rifle, his handloads, or, himself.

So what if if a person isn't capable of holding their crosshairs on the proverbial 1/4 minute spot? Maybe with a gun that, under ideal conditions, is capable of sub 1/2 minute groups, that person may have the drive necessary to work to bring his shooting skills and his loads forward to meet the challenge.

Not everybody on this forum hunts. I would imagine a lot of folks here just like to shoot. If a person wants, and can afford a gun that shoots better than they are capable of shooting, then who are we to tell them otherwise?

I don’t think anyone is saying that a guy shouldn’t strive to make himself and his rifle as accurate as possible...but people feeling like they and their equipment are sub-standard if they can’t put all the rounds in one hole everytime is utterly ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
It's just that I have never found a bench out hunting to shoot from. Usually I lean against a tree for a steady shot. Often I wind up shooting at a running target.....(especially hunting deer here in Wisconsin) or shooting over sticks somewhere.

BINGO! Nowhere is the accuracy of the shooter, rifle or ammo more necessary, than when one's crosshairs are wobbling on a target. When that wobbly ol' crosshair is dancing across the kill zone, you need a gun that is capable of putting it's bullet exactly where the crosshairs are when the triggers pulled.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Millan:
...This is for Hunting Rifle Competition...

Hey Pete, At the risk of changing the direction of the discussion "back to" your original question, I'd recommend you leave your current Remington alone.

Take the VZ24 and swap it in on ANY "V-Series" Remington. And if you are serious about wanting to get to the point you can win some of those matches, get it chambered in 308Win.

Tune the fastest lock time, SAFEST and overall very best factory Trigger ever made to a nice crisp release and put Burris Signature Rings and Bases on the rifle.

Mount a HIGH Power scope on it. The higher the power, the more you will be able to see how your "steadiness" improves as you send thousands of bullets down range.

Moly Coat your own 168gr Sierra MatchKings by peening it into the surface with Steel BBs in a Tumbler. Then give them a coat of Carnuba wax.

Buy 500-1000 Cases, Match Prep them, weight sort them, use BR Primers, starting Loads of H-380 and Seat the MatchKings 0.005"-0.010" Into-the-Lands.

Your biggest concern will be if you want a Bull Barrel. If you will be doing a lot of Off-Hand shooting in your Competition, you might want to shorten the Bull Barrel a bit, or go with a slightly lighter barrel to start with.

"Wear out" 2-3 barrels and use a better barrel each time you replace the old one. By then you should be doing right well in the "Competition".

I have a 257RAI VZ24 Lothar Walther light varmint barrel that will shoot under 1" 5 shot group @ 100M with 72 gr Berger or 75 gr Vmax with any seating depth and any reasonable powder charge. The last group at the range was .4 moa 5 shot, and that takes a low wind day to get that kind of group.

Hotcore,

The top people in the competition (SAHRSA South African Hunting Rifle Shooting Association) do just what you describe.

They load Match ammunition in medium to heavy target rifles. Typical calibre is 25-06 or 243 Win. There is a description and discussion of the SAHRSA competition format in the Medium Calibre Rifle forum about a month back.

The competition is designed so that any rifle capable of 1 MOA can compete, but human nature being what it is you WANT the security of an accurate rifle capable of at least 1/2 that.

The Springbok head scoring zone (30 points) is only 4" deep and broad and at 300m is awful small. It also sits right next to a -15 scoring zone (the snout of the springbok) so you want to be sure that a shot does not stray into that zone because of "inaccuracy" if a shot does go in there you want to know it was you the shooter who put it there, or the conditions, not the rifle.

Anyway, good input and discussions, Thanks everyone.

Cheers

pete

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Millan:
... Typical calibre is 25-06 or 243 Win.

Hey Pete, I've found the 243Win to be "easier" to develop a consistantly accurate load for than a 25-06. But a 25-06 can be made to shoot well enough to make a 4" at 300m accuracy requirement.

And yes indeed, it sure does look small from 300m away. I can see where that -15 zone would be quite an incentive to keep them where you want them.

There are lots of accurate, or potentially accurate, cartridges that would work for you. The 308Win is just one of the easier ones to develop a load for and it won't fatigue your mental concentration when competing.

As seriously as I can say this, if you do what I mentioned in my first post, the "limiting factor" will simply be how much Trigger Time you invest into the quest.

Best of luck to you.

HotCore makes a great point when he speaks of “trigger time.â€

IMO, the money and time spent on actual shooting practice is normally far better spent than money/time used in trying to make your rifle more accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
IMO, the money and time spent on actual shooting practice is normally far better spent than money/time used in trying to make your rifle more accurate.

To a point, but, how is a person going to know if his/her shooting technique is correct or working if the weapon they are using isn't capable of delivering the results. Remember the old Marine Corps saying: "Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect".

quote:

Originally posted by malm:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
IMO, the money and time spent on actual shooting practice is normally far better spent than money/time used in trying to make your rifle more accurate.

To a point, but, how is a person going to know if his/her shooting technique is correct or working if the weapon they are using isn't capable of delivering the results. Remember the old Marine Corps saying: "Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect".

Spoken like a true lover of customers who want all this stuff done to their rifles!

Actually the way I recall it, it was “Practice makes Permanent...NOT Perfect.â€

So, are you saying that any rifle that won’t consistently shoot ¼ inch groups at 100 yards isn’t capable of delivering results?

Listen, I am all for making your equipment the best it can be...but as I said before, expectations should have some basis in reality, and IMO a person expecting consistent ¼ MOA accuracy is living in a dream world. Variations in ammunition alone prevents that kind of consistent accuracy even from a machine rest, let alone from a rifle held and fired by a human being.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Spoken like a true lover of customers who want all this stuff done to their rifles!

quote:

So, are you saying that any rifle that won’t consistently shoot ¼ inch groups at 100 yards isn’t capable of delivering results?

Are you sure you ain't related to my ex? You read just like her.

No where did I say that a gun has to shoot 1/4 inch to be considered accurate, or, to deliver results. What I said, if you will go back up and read what I actually wrote, was "While it is fairly easy to achieve consistant sub MOA groups from a Mauser, the precision required to deliver consistant 1/4 inch accuracy from a Mauser isn't very realistic."

Remember, the topic of this discussion is about a fellow named Pete, wanting to know if his Mauser would be capable of 1/4 MOA accuracy. The discussion deteriorated long before it came back to me.

“To a point, but, how is a person going to know if his/her shooting technique is correct or working if the weapon they are using isn't capable of delivering the results.†[Quote from malm]

Remember...this discussion is about a guy named Pete and his quest to get ¼ MOA accuracy from his rifle. If that is his criteria for accuracy (which is what he said it was), and you state: how is he going know if his shooting technique is correct unless his rifle is capbale of “delivering the goods†then isn’t it logical to assume that in the context of the discussion “the goods†that the rifle must deliever would be ¼ MOA accuracy?

You know, at our last family reunion, your ex told me you had this problem with logic!

NEXT!

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
NEXT!

Now for the $64,000.00 question...since old Pete is in S.A. and so far from the equator does that make it harder or easier for him the calculate trajectory at long range for those ¼ MOA groups?????????? Just kidding, please don’t even start on that one!

There's only one way to round this one off....

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Millan:
There's only one way to round this one off....

Now let that be a lesson! and, the end!