As there is no "Nostalgia" forum this seems like maybe the most appropriate spot for this post..

For all the shooters under 70 years old. here's a reminder that real group accuracy didn't begin with modern custom actions, fancy rests, and the 6 PPC cartridge.

49 years ago, at the 10th Annual National Benchrest Championships held just east of Dubois, PA, the results looked like this:

Range 100 Yards, 5-SHOT GROUPS, winning groups shooters & sizes...
Match 1 - Al Parker - .173"
" 2 - Ed McNally - .168"
" 3 - Clyde Hart - .0745" (Match 3 was a "special" match, where all competitors HAD to fire only Speer brand bullets supplied by Vernon Speer, who was also a competitor there.)

Range 100 Yards 10-SHOT GROUPS
Match 1 - Omar Rinehart - .239"
" 2 - Omar Rinehart - .297"
" 3 - Omar Rinehart - .254"
" 4 - Harold Zeiser - .262"
" 5 - Warren Page - - .281"(He was the famous gun writer & "father" of the .243 Winchester cartridge...originally called the .240 Page Super-Pooper, believe it or not.)

In the five 200 yard TEN-SHOT GROUP matches, actual winning group sizes (measured in inches, NOT MOA) were from .625" to .925". The winning aggregate at 200 yards was .5124 MOA.

Most interesting to me were the 300 METER 10-SHOT GROUP matches. There the actual winning group sizes in inches, not MOA, ranged from .930" to 1.732", with the winning aggregate at 300 meters measuring .5502 MOA. Not too shabby for 10-SHOT GROUPS at approximately 330 YARDS!!

The cartridges? Six competitors used 6 m/m's, but none of them won anything. The match winners used either the then relatively new .222 Remington, or the .219 Donaldson Wasp.

The most popular action of the shooters (137 shooters in all)? 56 used Mauser actions. As to scopes, 79 had Unertl scopes mounted on their rifle barrels, and 112 used either either Hart or Douglas barrels.

Interesting to think about, isn't it?

REcently posted on another forum:
"I have records showing that on May 21, 1978, Bud Welsh shot a 200 yard 10 shot group of .521" in an ASSRA match at Alabama N.Y.."

The rifle was a .32-40 Highwall. This was with lead bullets.

Brent

Yep, and everything accomplished by the 'smiths and riflemen back in the day was almost primitive when compared to the high technology seen in todays shooting world. A Mauser actioned rifle in today's bechrest world? I can hear the youngsters laughing now. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked by young shooters at the local range when shooting a Krag, Springfield, or Mauser "what kind of gun is that?" And I reply "Well young man, first off it's a rifle, not a gun..." That's when I get "the look".

Craigster, some of use consider ANY bolt action hopelessly modern.

Brent

When I started shooting IBS Hunter Class matches, in the 80's, I got many strange looks and a few good hearted chuckles concerning my Pre 64 Win. M70 in 308.

Yeh, it's kinda funny how people forget that equipment is not the major part of the equation. The shooter is the primary ingredient when making "accurate stew", isn't it?

As a further example, we all know people who tell us you can't really shoot well unless the scope is made so that both the mounts are on the action, because if one mount is on the barrel, when the barrrel heats things go to pot, etc., etc. And that it is crucial to have the best modern scopes with 1/8th minute adjustments, etc.

Well, in the match results posted above, ALL of the top 20 finishers in the Grand Aggregate used either Lyman Super-Targetspots, Unertl, Fecker, or Litschert scopes...all 20 of which were mounted at least partly on the barrels.

quote:

56 used Mauser actions

But Mausers aren't accurate enough for a big game rifle At least that's what I've heard around here!

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:

quote:

56 used Mauser actions

But Mausers aren't accurate enough for a big game rifle At least that's what I've heard around here!

Yeah, I heard that too. Methinks I'll just keep on hunting with my totally inaccurate Mausers.
Paul B.

bingo! buying and messing with equipment is fun but the human element is by far the most important element in any shooting done from field positions. In the hunting fields lots of practical shooting practice and knowledge of the animals anatomy will work wonders even with archaic equipment.

quote:

Originally posted by els:
bingo! buying and messing with equipment is fun but the human element is by far the most important element in any shooting done from field positions. In the hunting fields lots of practical shooting practice and knowledge of the animals anatomy will work wonders even with archaic equipment.

That's true even in benchrest matches at the Super Shoot level. The primary difference between winners and also-rans at even the highest level of benchrest is not equipment, but the ability to read wind and time their shots.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Yeh, it's kinda funny how people forget that equipment is not the major part of the equation. The shooter is the primary ingredient when making "accurate stew", isn't it?...

Hey AC, Not sure I agree with that.

1. You can take an Expert Marksman and give him a so-so rifle with a so-so load and he can't win.

2. You can take a so-so Marksman and give him the best rifle possible and the best load possible and he can't win.

3. And you can take a whole herd of Expert Marksmen, give them the finest rifles and best loads and some of them will still do poorly on a given day.

I'd say it takes #3, high concentration, excellent focus, and with a bit of luck tossed in.
---

By the way, AMAZING groups for way back then. Sure not "normal" for the rifles of that Era.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Yeh, it's kinda funny how people forget that equipment is not the major part of the equation. The shooter is the primary ingredient when making "accurate stew", isn't it?...

Hey AC, Not sure I agree with that.

1. You can take an Expert Marksman and give him a so-so rifle with a so-so load and he can't win.

2. You can take a so-so Marksman and give him the best rifle possible and the best load possible and he can't win.

3. And you can take a whole herd of Expert Marksmen, give them the finest rifles and best loads and some of them will still do poorly on a given day.

I'd say it takes #3, high concentration, excellent focus, and with a bit of luck tossed in.
---

By the way, AMAZING groups for way back then. Sure not "normal" for the rifles of that Era.

Actually, Hotcore, I do not fully agree with all that you state, either.

An expert rifleman may not win with a shabby rifle, but with a much less than "state of the art" firearm, he can still often win. I have both seen it done and done it...and I'm not sure I can be called an "expert". I do agree that a shabby marksman can't win except very rarely by pure luck, even with the very best equipment.

Unfortunately all too often, top equipment hurts the poor marksman, rather than helps him. How? Because he may think he can substitute equipment for skill, and therefore doesn't work hard enough or long enough to learn how to shoot really well.

Even the best marksmen don't get "in the zone" every day they compete but when they are, then with just acceptably decent equipment they will shoot the socks off of the fella who depends on having the latest and greatest fad gadget or highest dollar super action as his edge.

I also disagree that those groups were truly exceptional for the day. A review of schutzen shooting during the days before WW I will show truly amazing groups shot at 40 rods (220 yards) with cast bullets, from both offhand and "muzzle & elbow" rests. But at that time shooting WAS truly our national sport, and shooters got about the same attention and admiration as rock stars do today. So there was a lot of incentive to learn to shoot well.

Anyway, when the groups above were fired they were like any other competition groups...some were very good, others were good but not as good as the same shooter and the same equipment had done before in practice sessions....and some (of course) were poor and did not win anything. The important point is that the older designs, assembled with skill by craftsmen, and fired by good shooters, were as capable then as now of producing accuracy equal to any current real-world need.

"Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless." and, without good ammunition, we, me and my rifle, are fu*cked! Ain't that about right HC?

Hey malm, I'll have to be careful in my response, or we could both be tossed off the Board - if you know what I mean.

With that in mind - YES!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
...I also disagree that those groups were truly exceptional for the day. A review of schutzen shooting during the days before WW I will show truly amazing groups shot at 40 rods (220 yards) with cast bullets, from both offhand and "muzzle & elbow" rests. But at that time shooting WAS truly our national sport, and shooters got about the same attention and admiration as rock stars do today. So there was a lot of incentive to learn to shoot well....

Hey AC, It is obvious from that portion of your response that I did not convey my thoughts properly when I said, "By the way, AMAZING groups for way back then. Sure not "normal" for the rifles of that Era."

I was off the Match Rifles(which wasn't clear at all) and thinking of regular old hunting rifles of that time period.

I have had too many OLD rifles, including lever actions that would outshoot almost every new factory rifle made today. You have to spend many big bucks today to equal a $30 rifle made long ago.
Most old military mausers will still outshoot the new ones.

When you control all of the variables involved with shooting small groups you shoot will shoot small groups. It's a game of variables and controlling variables. 137 rifles 56 of which where Mausers, groups from .930 to 1.732 .
Not too shabby considering a Mauser or a m-70 has the lock time of a swinging barn door when compared to currently available BR actions. The pioneers of BR did not have super fast lock time actions and had to concentrate more for good follow thru. Modern equipent just makes that job easier.
Timan

The finest equipment is part of the equation for competing at that level.

Notice Clyde Hart's name in the winners above. He started a little barrel company.

quote:

Originally posted by yeti:
The finest equipment is part of the equation for competing at that level.

Notice Clyde Hart's name in the winners above. He started a little barrel company.

Yes, as you will no doubt note if you read the original post again, I listed his barrels as being one of the dominant brands in the 49-year-old results quoted. So what has changed there?

There is no doubt that good equipment is necessary. It does NOT have to be the latest on the market, or the most expensive, however. Many people believe they can buy accurate shooting off the shelf like a commodity. Not so.

And, unless one's mania is only to win, rather than to just shoot nice., truly accurate groups, always buying the latest geegaw is a will-of-the-wisp not worth chasing in most people's eyes. I will tell you this...if most benchresters spent half as much time and money on practice as they do on gadgets, the average accuracy of the whole group would increase dramatically.

Equipment good enough to win has been out there for many years. Crafstmen good enough to build winnuing rifles have been there, too. So have good shooters.

So, what was the topic here originally? This whole thread was to point out that real accuracy is not new. It was NOT to say that junky equipment is as useful as good precision equipment. Only a fool would think so.

BUT, and I'll say this again....a skilled shooter with equipment from many years ago can and will beat the socks off of those modern shooters who just try to buy their way into the winner's circle by buying the latest, most hyped, "in thing"..

All the benchrest shooters I know practice an order of magnitude more than any hunter I know. In fact, I would say that competitors of any flavor shoot a whole more on average than those that shoot just to hunt.

Brent

I don't think the original post concerned the fabulous bench rest rifles and calibers of today. But how good some of the old actions were able to shoot without one being rich. Some bench shooters spend my whole years earnings on a gun today but a good mauser action and a good barrel will stand toe to toe with any new one in the right hands. Accuracy in the average rifle has gone into a decline when it became more profitable to make them faster and cheaper. Savage has maintained a good level of accuracy but many companies have not.
I have had Marlin lever action .22's that would shoot consistant 3/4" groups at 100 yd's. Find me an AVERAGE .22 that will do that today. My pre 64 Winchester 70 in .220 swift has shot 5 shot 1/4" groups at 350 yd's and my Remington .222 would do the same at 250 yd's. Find me an AVERAGE rifle that will do that today. What it amounts to is that to be competitive today, you need MONEY. Or maybe an old rifle!
The strange thing is that the old records are not being bettered by much, if at all, even with $800 actions and new calibers.
Even a lot of new scopes today suck. How many have you seen that will follow 1/4" at 100 yd's? Most are hit and miss and take 50 shots to get in center. Spend $500 to $1000 for a scope and you might be OK. The rest of us take the scraps. I for one, miss the good old days.

I think a lot of it has to do with how much a person can spend! just cause you bought a $1200 action does not mean you can shoot, you have to know what your doing first and have the skills in your brain. I also get some funny looks when I go shoot LR, me and my ugly ol' Mauser action built rifle and then all of these high dollar precision actions but it's really amazing how many folks after a little time shooting start asking about my ol' ugly Mauser. A good smith can put together a great rifle if they know what they are doing! all I can say is that I have a pretty good smith. Later,

Kirk

19th century firearms were not any cheaper than 21st century firearms of similar quality once you correct for inflation.

Brent

There isn't much point in pursuing this much farther.

This thread is NOT about trhe buying power of today's or yesterday's dollar. It is NOT about comparing hunters to benchresters. It is NOT about all the rationalizations folks use to justify spending their money on shooting gadgets.

Like the topic heading says, it IS about whether little tiny groups are the result of recent developments (i.e., are a "new" thing developed only with the advent of today's knowledge and equipment).

The fact is, such groups are NOT a new thing. Shooters in the 50's could shoot groups in the .0.0's and the 0.1's, with the equipment and skills they had then. A good shooter still could, given the same equipment.

It is obvious many don't want to believe that, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him....

From that, everyone can reach their own conclusions and spend their money on any danged thing they want.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
... Some bench shooters spend my whole years earnings on a gun today but a good mauser action and a good barrel will stand toe to toe with any new one in the right hands. Accuracy in the average rifle has gone into a decline when it became more profitable to make them faster and cheaper. Savage has maintained a good level of accuracy but many companies have not.

Hey AC, Do you agree with these thoughts?

quote:

I have had Marlin lever action .22's that would shoot consistant 3/4" groups at 100 yd's. Find me an AVERAGE .22 that will do that today. My pre 64 Winchester 70 in .220 swift has shot 5 shot 1/4" groups at 350 yd's and my Remington .222 would do the same at 250 yd's. Find me an AVERAGE rifle that will do that today.

I'll just skip on past that.

quote:

What it amounts to is that to be competitive today, you need MONEY. Or maybe an old rifle!...

Does anyone "agree" that if you want to have the best possible accuracy that you are better off to start with an "old rifle"?

You know the kind, one off the Used Gun Rack that was made 50 years or more ago.

By the way AC, do you only see those "old rifles" used in competition today?
---

I guess having lived through those "old times" and getting first-hand knowledge of those "old rifles" with those "old cases, primers, powders and bullets" has left a very different impression in my mind of the accuracy difference between them and the typical out of the box rifle is today with current components.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
I guess having lived through those "old times" ... has left a very different impression in my mind...

Ditto. Many of us who "lived through those "old times"" tend to forget that the good old days were actually the bad old days in many ways. Almost everything today is better, in almost every way.

In the benchrest game of yesteryear (which seems to be the paradigm of this thread) it was rare for anything other than a 22 caliber barrel to win, place or show. Why? Even the best of the custom barrel makers (read Hart) could make only 224 barrels capable of winning. It hasn't been mentioned here that many, if not most, of the Mauser actions used in the classic benchrest era had been single-shotted and bridged, sleeved or otherwise stiffened, speedlocked and custom triggers installed, and so forth. Ditto bullets, which were pretty much a 'roll your own' proposition. One wonders what one of the old-timers would have given to get his hands on a Nesika action and synthetic stock.

And the benchrest achievements of those days were hardly representative of what the real world of riflery was like. As a boy I once watched Paul Gottshall (sp?), using his own hand-made bullets, put 10 consecutive shots from a stick-stock M70 257 Roberts into a 100 yard group that could be covered with a dime. But the actual owner of that rifle could get it to shoot no better than about ‘minute of apple’ with factory cartridges and about half that with his own handloads using the then-available commercial bullets.

Gottshall, a contemporary of the benchrest greats listed by Canuck, was one of the best of the early 'precision shooters', a one-time multiple record holder who is in the Benchrest Hall of Fame. But his records have long since been eclipsed. I just looked at the NBRSA records (as of 2003). A quick scan indicated the oldest were from the early 1970’s or so, with many dating 2000 or later.

Nostalgia is wonderful. But times change, and if we can't expect something better with experience and better hardware, we are a very sorry lot indeed. You want the ‘good old days’? Well, these are the good old days!

An interesting commentary, but off subject. No one was saying they wanted the old days back. What was being said was that the technology was there for those who knew how to use it, and cared to do so, to fire tiny groups.

It is, of course, true that in those days Benchrest shooting was not as popular as it is now. So not as many folks did it, and not as many folks were aware of the possibilities.

As to bullet quality, of course it is better now (at least some of them are better), but not astoundingly so. If you re-read the match results I posted, the smallest group, the one Shot by Clyde Hart in the 0.0's, was shot with Speer bullets. That was a promotional match, promoting the sale of those bullets to the general public...to whom they definitely WERE available.

As to the records, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall Pat McMillan firing the all-time smallest 5-shot 100-yard group, which was first measured as O.000", in the early 1970's. Afterward, it was officially recorded as somewhat larger than that, but there was considerable debate at the time as to whether the group actually was larger than 0.000 when fired, or only after being measured several times (and possibly plugged?).

It doesn't matter either way. The date when fired was a long time ago...more than 20 years ago, possibly more than 30. I don't recall the exact date and don't need to know...I do DO know it was not a recent development.

It is also natural that as time has passed, the records would get smaller. The same happens all the time in all the events in Track, but humans haven't grown more, better designed, or modified feet or legs. If enough people compete long enough, records are bound to fall rather regularly.

The point was and still is, that groups in the 0.0's and 0.1's were possible and were actually being shot 49 years ago.

Hotcore - Sorry I didn't respond to you sooner...spent the day at the range yesterday and missed your post. Will try to answer as best I can now before I go out to feed the animals...

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
... Some bench shooters spend my whole years earnings on a gun today but a good mauser action and a good barrel will stand toe to toe with any new one in the right hands. Accuracy in the average rifle has gone into a decline when it became more profitable to make them faster and cheaper. Savage has maintained a good level of accuracy but many companies have not.

Hey AC, Do you agree with these thoughts?


HotCore, I sorta do agree, but I mostly don't. While it is true that a Mauser action can be made to shoot as well as ANY current custom BR action, it would likely cost even more money than the custom action by the time it was finished, and it likely wouldn't be recognizable as a Mauser when completed. Now, for some other kinds of competition than benchrest, I might agree more. But in-so-much as I was originally posting about small groups being possible, it really doesn't matter if I agree with that.
Thing is, small groups have long been possible and were being shot many years ago.
-----------------------------

quote:

I have had Marlin lever action .22's that would shoot consistant 3/4" groups at 100 yd's. Find me an AVERAGE .22 that will do that today. My pre 64 Winchester 70 in .220 swift has shot 5 shot 1/4" groups at 350 yd's and my Remington .222 would do the same at 250 yd's. Find me an AVERAGE rifle that will do that today.

I'll just skip on past that.

quote:

What it amounts to is that to be competitive today, you need MONEY. Or maybe an old rifle!...

Does anyone "agree" that if you want to have the best possible accuracy that you are better off to start with an "old rifle"?

You know the kind, one off the Used Gun Rack that was made 50 years or more ago.

By the way AC, do you only see those "old rifles" used in competition today?


No, HotCore, I don't, and I wasn't trying to say the best old BR rifles are more accurate than the best of the new ones. I think the older SPORTER rifles from the big companies were often more accurate than today's large volume produced sporter rifles, but suspect that is because quality control at the volume producers has taken a major nose-dive over the last 20 or 30 years, particularly the last 10 years.
-------------------------------------------
---

I guess having lived through those "old times" and getting first-hand knowledge of those "old rifles" with those "old cases, primers, powders and bullets" has left a very different impression in my mind of the accuracy difference between them and the typical out of the box rifle is today with current components.

HotCore, I can appreciate what you are saying in your last paragaph, However, I don't find the best of the current stuff much better, if any, than the best of the old stuff. What I do find is that shooters are better informed, and generally better understand how to make accurate ammo, how to use the current scopes, how to deal with bedding problems, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean that current technology has provided better accuracy for us. To me it means that shooters are shooting better because they are better applying both themselves and the long available technology. And, yes, demanding that the bullet makers do things which they long ignored, but which have been available technology for many, many years.

Do you particularly disagree with that?

Best wishes,

AC

JMHO,

50 years ago there were a few people that could take the existing technology and make it perform to outstanding levels (ie. groups in the 0.1" range)

Today there are a few hundred to a few thousand people who can do it.

If Teddy Roosevelt were around, he would admit that we all but lost the Spanish-American War because of the accuracy and superior range of the 7X57.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
JMHO,

50 years ago there were a few people that could take the existing technology and make it perform to outstanding levels (ie. groups in the 0.1" range)

Today there are a few hundred to a few thousand people who can do it.

I think that is an excellent point, Fjold, and it is close to the heart of why I made the original post. The technology has been around for a long time. It is the shooter population which has really changed. More and more individuals have learned what the long-existing technolgoy can do, and how to do it.

Hey Meplat(Jim), I do believe you and I are thinking along similar lines of experience.

Nice well thought out post.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Today there are a few hundred to a few thousand people who can do it.

Not only is there a 10 fold number of people that can do it, there is a 10 fold increase in the number of people period. Maybe the percentage is the same.

Brent

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Hotcore - Sorry I didn't respond to you sooner...spent the day at the range yesterday and missed your post.

Hey AC, Not a problem at all. Glad to hear you got some Trigger Time. I need a bunch

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
... Some bench shooters spend my whole years earnings on a gun today but a good mauser action and a good barrel will stand toe to toe with any new one in the right hands. Accuracy in the average rifle has gone into a decline when it became more profitable to make them faster and cheaper. Savage has maintained a good level of accuracy but many companies have not.

Hey AC, Do you agree with these thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
HotCore, I sorta do agree, but I mostly don't. While it is true that a Mauser action can be made to shoot as well as ANY current custom BR action, it would likely cost even more money than the custom action by the time it was finished, and it likely wouldn't be recognizable as a Mauser when completed.

I can agree with that. Why anyone would want to stick that amount of money into an "old rifle" escapes me.

Especially since we typically have no idea at all what kind of Pressures and Cumulative Metal Fatigue an "old rifle" has been subjected to.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
By the way AC, do you only see those "old rifles" used in competition today?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
No, HotCore, I don't, and I wasn't trying to say the best old BR rifles are more accurate than the best of the new ones.

I didn't think you were.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I think the older SPORTER rifles from the big companies were often more accurate than today's large volume produced sporter rifles, but suspect that is because quality control at the volume producers has taken a major nose-dive over the last 20 or 30 years, particularly the last 10 years.

Now that is interesting to me because my experience has been just the opposite.

I'd guess I've bought or swapped 5-8 rifles during that time and have been happy with all of them, except for one. That one sure was a looker, but it did have a problem I just didn't want to mess with. Traded it in on a new "Made in USA" Weatherby Ultra-Lightweight and it has been typical of all the other "new" rifles I've bought during those 10 years. Easy to find accurate Loads for and has been totally reliable since day-1.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
I guess having lived through those "old times" and getting first-hand knowledge of those "old rifles" with those "old cases, primers, powders and bullets" has left a very different impression in my mind of the accuracy difference between them and the typical out of the box rifle is today with current components.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
HotCore, I can appreciate what you are saying in your last paragaph, However, I don't find the best of the current stuff much better, if any, than the best of the old stuff. What I do find is that shooters are better informed, and generally better understand how to make accurate ammo, how to use the current scopes, how to deal with bedding problems, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean that current technology has provided better accuracy for us. To me it means that shooters are shooting better because they are better applying both themselves and the long available technology. And, yes, demanding that the bullet makers do things which they long ignored, but which have been available technology for many, many years.

Do you particularly disagree with that?

Apparently our first-hand experience is "just different". Here we are thinking of a specific situation (old rifles accuracy) and we are coming to different conclusions. I'm not arguing with you, since I believe you are making your comments based on what you have actually seen. Same for me, but I(and perhaps Meplat) are just seeing things differently.

When I can find someone I disagree with that I respect, I really like to try and find out why we think differently. Not to be argumentative, simply to see if that person knows something "I missed".

I had a bunch of Pre-64 M70s and a lot of my Elders had them. A bunch of the Elders also enjoyed the old Surplus Mausers for spinning on new barrels simply because they were so inexpensive back then.

The only problem I have is remembering all the multitudes of "changing" accuracy problems with them. As the years passed, in my mind, I was ALWAYS able to buy a "new rifle" that was more accurate than the previous rifles I had. And for me, that trend has continued forward until the present time.

Maybe it is because of the number of rifles I've had and the number I had access to that created this difference, I don't know. I only know I'd rather have the rifles I currently own than ANY I've ever had in the past.

Best of luck to you.
---

Anyone else think the "old rifles" are more accurate than the "new rifles"?

Hotcore, you are right, everyone is a product of their experiences, both first-hand and second-hand. (Or actual and vicarious, however one wants to put it.) Every individual has a somewhat different mix of experiences & opinions if he lives long enough.

I have owned maybe a thousand personal guns in my lifetime, and shot every one of them. I still have over 150. At times I've collected commercial Mausers, Mannlicher/Schoenauers, Dan'l Frasers of all ilk, English single-shots, double rifles from all over, and so on. I've been a high-power Palma Team Member, a winning benchrest competitor (and a losing benchrest competitor too - Grin), a member of the Stanford varisty pistol team, a cop, a soldier, a machinist, a gun shop owner, a licensed guide, an avid varmint shooter, and a bunch of other stuff related to shooting. So what I've experienced has indeed formed my opinions. That doesn't necessarily make any of them correct, but it does make them mine.

Basically, my experience is that I had factory sporter rifles in the 50's that would easily hold inch or under groups. And in those days, we commonly shot 10-shot groups. Not every factory rifle would do that, but lots would, if you held your tongue just right.

I also had custom built rifles by people like Pfeifer, Buhmiller, Marquart (who was my elk-hunting buddy), Mills, Guymon, Titus, Morgan, Ackley, and so on. All were capable of making very good rifles.

None the less, I am NOT bad-mouthing modern rifles. I do think there are a lot of quality issues with the ones of more recent years, based on what I have seen at the range every week for the past 16 years of being Range Officer at our local rather large club, and being match director in a heap of matches. (Right now we have well over 1,000 members...in over 650 "family" memberships).

Still, with the correction of items that quality control missed, that is, by doing a through check and tuning up, modern rifles do shoot very well indeed. Some shoot great right out of the box. So did a lot of the older ones.

At the same time, I see no good business sense to the cartridge of the month club approach, or to deluging the market with a continuous stream of new gimcracks. I think both the shooters and the companies would be better served if they reduced their offerings and put more effort into providing high quality goods, on time, and under full warranty, as a priority.

None of that is really relevant to what this thread was about, though. My post really served to ask a question for the purpose of edging foilks into thinking a bit about what we have accuracy-wise, what we need, and how they want to set their own priorites in shooting. It was also intended to help the younger shooters realize they don't have to have every super-dooper hot-dog item that someone wants to flog to them, in order to get really small groups.

I hope it has done that.

Hey AC, Seems to be a bit of "rookie" experience in your background.

It would be difficult to top that background for most people anywhere. Probably why I value your opinion.

I also understand the concern for "higher Quality" products. I do like to get my moneys worth as well.
---

It did surprise me that the "old" Speer bullets shot that well in the Match you mentioned in the initial post. Amazing.
---

Still looking for the "Calibration Ammo" article in the NRA American Hunter.

Best of luck to you.

HC -

Wouldn't be surpris3ed if the author of that column ran into a little creative censorship in trying to print your question re "calibration ammo".

There are possibly too any lawyers and fatted calves/sacred cows in the publisher's entourage to make 100% journalistic freedom feasiible. Plus, I can see where some advertisers might get annoyed, and as you and I might susupect, it is possible they have more influence than the interests of the public.

If that makes me sound cynical, it's only because I am.

The author has been ill for the past few months, but not so ill he can't type. Next time I see him, I'll ask him what's up. I no longer subscribe to that magazine anyway, as it really isn't that useful to me. So, will see what I can find out for youl but can't promise he'll tell me anything.

Best wishes,

AC

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
...If that makes me sound cynical, it's only because I am....

Hey AC, Looks like we both have that trait.

Doesn't really help me, because I've no desire to toss money at a HSGS. Just thinking of the other folks that really don't understand why they could get themselves into Pressure way over their head and think they are SAFE.

Tell him I hope he gets to feeling better whether he gets a chance to write the article or not.

Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills.

HC -

i'm sure he has already written and submitted it. What I am not sure of is whether he will get it past the editorial cops & actually into print.

I'll tell him you sent your best wishes. He has a very severe, very long term sinus infection that may result in surgery to his sinuses.....that's the next step if the current extended anti-biotic regimen doesn't work out.

He was commander of an Army Special Forces Company in The 'Nam, got exposed to nasty chemicals and all kinds of other rot, and has never been the same since........ So now he earns a few peanuts as a gun-cribbler and as an expert consultanr to BATF.

Take Care......

AC

Some of you can slip over my results with the pre 64 model 70, .220 swift, but it is true and I did it more then once. I killed chucks past 600 yd's with the rifle. It was glass bedded, free floated and I worked over the trigger. It also wore a B&L Balvar 24 scope. The scope cost more then the rifle!
The thing about the gun was that it shot very poor at 100 yd's, groups sucked and if I would have just shot that distance and not seen what it would do when the bullet went to "sleep", I would have sold the thing. I used the 60 gr Hornady but do not remember the powder or charge. 4064 sticks in my mind. I sold it when I lost all the fields I used to shoot.
When talking about benchrest shooting and old actions and rifles, we have to leave out the 15# barrel and action and the railroad tie stock that doesn't resemble anything that can be carried.
I still say the old barrels showed more accuracy and care in manufacture then the new factory barrels. Why does everyone have actions reworked and custom barrels installed for accuracy? Why doesn't every factory rifle shoot 1/2" or less, out of the box. I have a 1919 Swedish 6.5X55 that will hold 1/2" and the bore is pitted!
Take the Ruger 77! One is fantastic and the next off the line barely hits paper. Barrels are not wasted, only a hunting rifle, the boob buying it will never know the difference!
You have to spend thousands for a custom rifle that shoots good today.
Yes, factory ammo is better then it ever was but you still will have a hard time beating a Hornady bullet.