I've been following the discussion about truing the Mauser action, and find it interesting. I have always accepted as fact that the Mauser action is not as inherently accurate as the Rem 700, for example. It was mostly intuition, since I don't know all the reasons. I know more now that I did.

For a long time I have been curious about the concept of inherentily accurate actions, but didn't know how to form a question. So, I'll try now.

Apparantly the 700 is considered an accuracy enhancing action, since it has been cloned so much, and so many custom rifles have proven results. I'm not really referring to competition rifles, but not excluding them either. I'm mostly talking about these highly accurate hunting rifles folks are making out of the various 700 clones and the trued 700s.

I can see that perhaps the round receiver has some advantages, but I'm not sure why. I always presumed the receiver was round simply because it is cheaper to make that way, and that is the only reason Remington chose to do it that way, which IMO is consistant with all other engineering aspects of the action. Maybe there's more to it?

So, for sake of discussion, perhaps some of you knowledgable fellows could explain why an action as shown below in pictures could not be tweeked up to the same level of accuracy as a 700, considering only the action, and all other aspects such as barrel quality assumed to be the same what ever action is used.

This action is forged, then milled. The bottom is flat for it's entire length, so it provides a solid foundation for glass bedding. The action is also very beefy, thus it seems that it would be very rigid for a sporter too.

Remington is the largest rifle manufacturer in the US, americans prefer to buy american rifles so that why its used most. In Sweden most custom rifles are Husqvarna 1900 a Swedish made one.
http://www.vovapen.com/

Tikka rifles has more inherent precision cause the small ejektion port and are poplular to buid from to but hasn`t as many custom parts as rem 700.

Get a copy of "Rifle Accuraxcy Facts" by Vaughn.
The issue is how the action/barrel flex during
firing. Most of it in non-obvious.
Good luck!

Don't forget about "Lock Time".

quote:

Originally posted by hawkins:
Get a copy of "Rifle Accuraxcy Facts" by Vaughn.
The issue is how the action/barrel flex during
firing. Most of it in non-obvious.
Good luck!

I consider this book to be required reading for anyone trying to investigate or even debate this subject. The book is laid out logically, it's not too thick and the language is easy to understand. Vaughn is a practical man and an enthusiastic Benchrest shooter as well as a retired scientist and it shows in his experiments and writing. I recommend this book very highly; the info in it is not necessarily written in stone but it's the best and most understandable book on the subject that I've ever read or even heard of.
Regards, Joe

Position of the front action screw, dead centre in the bedding platform.

Biggest recoil lug in the business and with more stock material behind the recoil lug.

Tang sits on top of stock.

M70 has all of that as well. But the Rem 700 has a couple of othe features.

1) The round bottom action makes it easier to get "glue ins" apart

2) The the trigger on the Rem 700 can be removed without taking the rifle apart. (Needs two small holes either side of the stock). This is important for glue ins.

All of the above makes the action a popular choice and from there flows the bits and pieces you can buy.

Actions like the Rem 700 (and M70) with their bedding configuration do not require the first inch or so of the barrel to be bedded and this is what you want for a switch barrel gun and accuracy in general.

It's fairly evident that round actions are noticably more inherently accurate than their counterparts. A moment's consideration and comparison of the major manufacturers' low-end products and their factory-accuracy levels will soon show that Remington and Savage will consistently shoot just as well as and usually lots better than their flat-bottomed competition from Ruger, Winchester and the like. Sure, some individual rifles are super-accurate but on the average the round ones will shoot LOTS better.

These low-end rifles are all fairly close in price and have been that way for decades now. IMO we can assume that the manufacturers have all used roughly the same quality-level barrels and other components as their competition over the years, the supposition being based upon the price level and QC constraints of the market.

If the barrels (and presumably the other components as well) are basically equal or close to it, then why do certain brands have a consistently-better accuracy rep, over the last 50 years?

Gotta be something about the basic design differences, something that hasn't changed over the last 50 years and is still different from the competition even now.

IMO it's the round shape of the receiver.

The only other difference shared by the 2 winners and not by the others is their separate bolt heads, and IMO the Remington isn't really separate any longer once it's brazed together. Sure, the joint still has some flex but it's minimal.

So I keep coming back to the round shape. And the argument is reinforced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Benchrest winners have also used round actions.
JMOFWIW, regards, Joe

Keep in mind this is only opinion.
And I need to explain something before I get to deep into this. My opinion on how accurate is accurate is relative. But for the sake of this discussion I'll say 1/2 MOA would be the gold standard and 3/4 MOA would be about average for a precision tuned rifle. I'm leaving out bench rest accuracy levels due to the fact that it is a highly specialized art based on sound scientific data. But the vast majority don't shoot bench rest. And I feel it skews the accuracy debate.

I firmly believe that any good action design (Mauser based) i.e. M70, M77, M700, M98, We'll even include the enfield 1917 and the P14 along with the 1903 just to include just about everyone, Is capable of MOA accuracy or better as long as the actions are compared on a level playing field. Meaning take all those WWI/ WWII actions and have them Blueprinted to as near perfect alignment and concentricity and possible.

That said there are thing going on inside the steel of an action that are not visible to the necked eye and the M98 design is not conducive to even flowing stress patterns.
Lock time is an issue as well but that can be fixed even on the M98, throwing practicality to the wind of course.

My feeling on the Rem 700 is this. I believe it was designed as a production rifle action that would be easier to manufacture then the M70 or a 98 style action with a flat bottom receiver and integral feed rails. That in itself is probably the biggest reason for the near failure of Winchester and the domination of market share by Remington. Good advertising doesn't hurt either.

That said Remington for whatever reason struck gold on that design and the 40XB. They are in my opinion the most accurate factory built rifles on the market today. It is most likely due to the lack of asymmetry in the design. It handles stress very well and is a very balanced action.

Outside of that you are now talking barrels and stock engagement and that is just entirely to many variables.

For the sake of discussion I'd like to see a loading company shoot a universal receiver for accuracy.

I still say it all comes down to what you intend to do with the rifle and accuracy is a relative term

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
this is only opinion.

for the sake of this discussion I'll say 1/2 MOA would be the gold standard and 3/4 MOA would be about average for a precision tuned rifle.

I'm leaving out bench rest accuracy levels due to the fact that it is a highly specialized art based on sound scientific data. But the vast majority don't shoot bench rest. And I feel it skews the accuracy debate.

I firmly believe that any good action design (Mauser based) --- Is capable of MOA accuracy or better --- take all those WWI/ WWII actions and have them Blueprinted to as near perfect alignment and concentricity and possible.

My feeling on the Rem 700 is this. I believe it was designed as a production rifle action that would be easier to manufacture then the M70 or a 98 style action with a flat bottom receiver and integral feed rails. That in itself is probably the biggest reason for the near failure of Winchester and the domination of market share by Remington. Good advertising doesn't hurt either.

That said Remington for whatever reason struck gold on that design and the 40XB. It handles stress very well and is a very balanced action.

Outside of that you are now talking barrels and stock engagement and that is just entirely to many variables.

I still say it all comes down to what you intend to do with the rifle and accuracy is a relative term

I'm glad you decided to exclude the BR actions, and benchrest shooting. After thinking about it, that whole topic has little relevancy to an accurate and useful hunting rifle. There are many examples - weight for one, and no one in his right mind would glue an action into the stock on a hunting type rifle.

You said the thing about the Remington actions well, and it reflects my opinion as well. They were going cheap and just lucked out. It happens.

My questions and interests are with those hunting rifles that squeeze out the best accuracy. Some of the examples I've seen here on AR lately are custom rifles built on some of the Rem 700 clones.

However, I do agree and understand the relative accuracy thing. For example, I have more than one rifle right now that I'm sure are capable of shooting better groups than I can shoot. It could be proven by someone with steadier technique than I have. BTW, I don't own any Remington rifles or clones.

So, as a practical matter, when I start getting consistant groups with any rifle that are less than an inch, I start feeling pretty good about that rifle. Lately, it has come to my attention on more than one rifle, that to start cutting clover leafs, I have to switch to match bullets -- just for the satisfaction of small group on paper to prove to myself the rifle can do it. At least one exception to the match bullet and accuracy has been with the use of TSX bullets.

KB

The success of the round Remington actions had a number of causes.

1. For years the 722 & 700 had by far the most accurate cartridge in a factory round - The .222

2. The Remington was a bit less expensive than Winchester and Ruger did not have the M77.

3. The Remington M700 had an excelelnt trigger that was easy to tune.

4. The round Remington did not need a lot of stiffness to be accurate with the .222.

5. As accuracy demands for a stiffer action increased the 40X was available as a factory offering. It premium features were single shot stiffness, upgraded heavier barrels and an even better 3 lever trigger.

6. For those that did not invest in a 40X or the later 40XBR it was a simple matter to sleeve the M700 receiver to make it stiffer.
Then add the barrel and trigger of your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
Position of the front action screw, dead centre in the bedding platform.

Biggest recoil lug in the business and with more stock material behind the recoil lug.

Tang sits on top of stock.

M70 has all of that as well. But the Rem 700 has a couple of othe features.

1) The round bottom action makes it easier to get "glue ins" apart

2) The the trigger on the Rem 700 can be removed without taking the rifle apart. (Needs two small holes either side of the stock). This is important for glue ins.

All of the above makes the action a popular choice and from there flows the bits and pieces you can buy.

Actions like the Rem 700 (and M70) with their bedding configuration do not require the first inch or so of the barrel to be bedded and this is what you want for a switch barrel gun and accuracy in general.

Here are some examples of BR actions that are not round bottomed:
http://www.nesika.com/Merchant...Code=Classic-Actions

http://www.kelbly.com/actions.html

http://www.pacifictoolandgauge.../parts/remington.htm

PTG makes a sleeve - scroll down.

As said above, IMO the discussion or consideration of glue-ins is too specalized for my mind to deal with in consideration of a hunting or field use type rifle.

The first three things you mentioned: Position of the front action screw, large recoil lug, and tang - wide and on top of stock --- all those features are present in the action shown in my initial post:



Although I suspect the recoil lug on the Tikka to be adequate, since the front guard screw goes through a large "L" shaped plate imbedded into the stock, a recoil lug like that of the Rem 700 or Savage (and others) could be added in between the barrel and receiver with little work.

Although all my hunting rifles that I now own are bedded in the area behind and in front of the recoil lug area, plus two or three inches of the barrel shank, plus some support of the tang, I can see how bedding the action only could be better -- with the right action. Somehow I think this Tikka action is stiff enough to support being bedded only in the action area, with a completely free-floating barrel.

KB

I don't think round has anything to do with it. I believe at this time most BR records are shot with the Stolle Panda. It is a flat bottom action with I believe a 5 side profile above the stock line. Bat and Stiller make receivers that are not round.
Butch

Kabluewy,

I think the action in your photograph would have very competitive in the the 1960s. In a solid bottom single shot version with would have been excellent. Once the round action got a foot hold just being round and easy to sleeve gave it a big advantage for a bench rest rifle. For a number of years the top dog was the XP-100 action.
The XP-100 action was short, stiff, round and relatively cheap. It was even more formidable with a heavy sleeve over it.

Kabluewy,
You could have left out the Nesika. You will hardly ever see one at a match and the sleeves over a Remington are heavy and haven't been used in many years.
Butch

Thanks Butch. It and the sleeve were shown to encourage discussion and learning, not to prove anything.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


As said above, IMO the discussion or consideration of glue-ins is too specalized for my mind to deal with in consideration of a hunting or field use type rifle.

The first three things you mentioned: Position of the front action screw, large recoil lug, and tang - wide and on top of stock --- all those features are present in the action shown in my initial post:

Basically it comes down to how easy it is do. You Tikka has no recoil lug as such. Of course you can stick something like a Rem washer lug between the barrel and action. But with Re 700 it is already there and easy to get after market surface ground lugs.

Scope mounts. Any and all bases fit a Rem 700.

Trigger. Jewell.

Misc: If you fiddle in this area of guns then you tend to hang out with other blokes who do the same. This leads to swapping stuff etc.

As a side note< I don;t think the round bottom has any accuracy advantages, at least in theory. However, it is a fucking lot easier to get a round bottom "glue in" apart. Round bottoms are also easier and quicker to bed. Thus if the bedding job does not feel tight, I just do it again. The round bottom is also good with bedding in terms of release agent. For rem 700 I use a mould release and polish it. But an M70 can be very hard to pull apart when the release agent is polished to a film that is finger print thick and if a wood stock is involved.......

But getting bits and pieces etc is a major aspect. For example, I don't know anyone who has Tikka stocks, triggers and so on. Thus Rem 700 is just simpler.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Kabluewy,

I think the action in your photograph would have very competitive in the the 1960s. In a solid bottom single shot version with would have been excellent.

In consideration of "hunting" type rifles, which are generally repeaters, the way the Tikka action is made, with the magazine being single stack, and feeding is off the lips of the magazine, straight feed, the side rails are very thick, compared to actions with staggered magazine where feeding is dependent on the rails guide the cartridge into the breech.

For a repeater, the action just looks to be stiff to me.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
Basically it comes down to how easy it is do. You Tikka has no recoil lug as such. Of course you can stick something like a Rem washer lug between the barrel and action. But with Re 700 it is already there and easy to get after market surface ground lugs.

Scope mounts. Any and all bases fit a Rem 700.

Trigger. Jewell.

Misc: If you fiddle in this area of guns then you tend to hang out with other blokes who do the same. This leads to swapping stuff etc.

As a side note< I don;t think the round bottom has any accuracy advantages, at least in theory.
The round bottom is also good with bedding in terms of release agent. For rem 700 I use a mould release and polish it.

But getting bits and pieces etc is a major aspect. For example, I don't know anyone who has Tikka stocks, triggers and so on. Thus Rem 700 is just simpler.

Yes, agreed and understood.

One thing - I think we have a different definition of "glue-in". I see it as permanent, otherwise there would be no need for consideration of how to remove the trigger while the action is still inside the stock. Apparantly you are just talking about glass bedding - with release agent to enable removal of the barreled action from the stock.

I do see that conceptually the round bottom is easier to glass bed. There is little doubt about the 700 being simpler in many respects, and availability of parts is enormous. Just look at PTG web site alone.

Some more points - I was surprised to find a variety of bases and ring combos available for the Tikka - plenty of options. The trigger on the Tikka does not need replacing. It is one of the best factory triggers I've used. Perhaps the old Sako trigger, and maybe the new ones, are better. Once the action, barrel, stock, etc., is together, there is nothing to swap - just shoot.

About the stock - the factory synthetic stock for the Tikka 695 is plenty adequate - stiff, quiet, and fits. It's hard to expect more form a stock. However, McMillan Hunter style stock and their Sako American Classic will work fine on the Tikka 695, (I know because I asked) which as we all know is a plenty adequate hunting stock, which can be bedded in as best as is possible compared with any hunting type stock.

KB

KB,
I understand what you are saying. Shape and recoil lugs have nothing to do with it. I think you have to look at the design of the fire control system, firing pin fall distance, trigger or available triggers.
An old automotive engineer told me many years ago, if they sold as many Studebakers as they have Chevs you would see a lot of stuff for the Studie motors and a bunch of them in street rods. If they are not popular you won't find many aftermarket parts.
A lot of the accuracy items are based around the Remington design. A BR rifle needs a stiff heavy barrel. Other than the Remington type the others receivers are too heavy. That being the case you have to use lighter barrels and also a lighter scope to use other receivers.
I know you said hunting rifles, but what works in BR spills over to your hunting rifles.
Butch

quote:

One thing - I think we have a different definition of "glue-in". I see it as permanent, otherwise there would be no need for consideration of how to remove the trigger while the action is still inside the stock. Apparantly you are just talking about glass bedding - with release agent to enable removal of the barreled action from the stock.

By "glue in" I mean glued , that is, no release agent. Originally "glue ins" were done so as you use light hollow stock because you could "clamp" the barreled action to floor plate because the stock would be crushed. Glue ins are usually, but not always, done without a recoil lug.

Where "glue ins" are very good is if the rifle shoot first time out it will continue that way bit that does always happen with bedding.

quote:

Some more points - I was surprised to find a variety of bases and ring combos available for the Tikka - plenty of options.

I am sure they are. But you see my point that with Rem 700 other people you know have a box full of mounts etc. Again, it is just easier.

quote:

The trigger on the Tikka does not need replacing. It is one of the best factory triggers I've used.

Have you ever used a Jewell three lever trigger. Externally adjustable for weight of pull and sear engagement. They come with three different springs. One allows adjustment from 2 ounces to clode to a pound. One allows from 6 or 7 ounces to about 2 pound and the last is from about a pound to 3 or 4 pound.

Now you could say that is not needed but it is easy to have it and nothing is lost.



.

KB

Sometimes the Rem 700 is likened to a small block Chev.

In Australia and I imagine America would be similar, let's say you want to make a real fast speedboat. To be sure there will be engines from Mercedes etc that are bette than a Chev or Ford. But you have to have the marine conversion gear etc. Also, about anything you can think of to try you can guarantee someone has tried it with a Chev V8.

OK Butch and Mike, and all, I'm having fun and learning something from this discussion/debate with you. I hope you are having fun too.

Perhaps for me this is mostly about how far I will go to avoid owning anything to do with the Rem 700.

So, hypothetically, suppose I somehow stooped low enough to own a 700 or clone. Some of the things I would want to do with it are: Three-position safety, Sako extractor, new trigger, lapped and squared and true the action, maybe replace the bolt and handle with PTG parts, steel bottom metal, better barrel, better stock, and maybe more. Cha-ching $$ big time. Or maybe simply buy a cloone to start with, still lots of money in the finished rifle.

And the ironic part is that I probably couldn't ever shoot as well as such a rifle is capable of shooting.

So by chance I acquired this Tikka 695 and started really looking at it, and oh crap - started thinking about possibilities.

For starters, I checked the lug contact inside the receiver, by using a black magic marker on the lug contact surface, then working the bolt. The darn thing seems to have good contact with both lugs.

Low and behold, it already has a Sako type extractor, and although the safety is two-position, it locks the bolt down when on safe. Although not up to real comparison with the class of the Jewell, the factory trigger is more than adequate for a hunting rifle - very crisp, and adjustable for weight of pull - mine is set at about 2 1/2 lbs now, which is as light as I want to go.

Although the bottom metal is mostly not metal, it's light, which means the weight is in the receiver. And I like the factory stock. Also, I like the bolt handle, the way it feels and looks, and I like the way the bolt is so smooth.

So, I'm thinking there's very little to change or tweek on this rifle to get it to shoot far better than my capabilities. As it is right now, I haven't finished testing it to know what it can do with no tweeking. I did shoot it with some Sierra match bullets, and got excellent accuracy, but so far I haven't been able to repeat that with the hunting bullets I've tried so far.

KB

KB

If you are talking about doing something with an existing rifle then the Tikka will be fine. It is when it starts to become more serious and more than one rifle. That's when "averages" start to show up.

A bit like calibres. If you had a bench gun made in a PPC and another in a 222, you would not want make a bet on which was the best. But do 10 of them.....

But at the end of the day if you get serious with accuracy you get to know like minded shooters, gunsmith and so on and Rem 700 is the king or something like Stiller, which as you probably know is basically a nicer version of the Rem 700.

If you only develop the Tikka with what it has then no problem. But once you start to spend money on things like a match barrel, perhaps a different stock etc. that's when you need to consider something like a Rem 700 as the basis.

Edit: And after you have had lots of Rem 700s you longer care about the fucked up bottom metal and the riveted in extractor on the magnums and some 30-06 actions.

KB,
I think you already had your mind made up. Your Sako will probably shoot better than you can. It should make you a good hunting rifle.
Butch

Butch,
Yea, you're right - I did have my mind made up about the Rem 700, but it's still fun to reconsider, to see if I missed something.

I don't have my mind made up about this Tikka, because I don't know enough about it yet, theoretically or practically. It's just interesting for thought and comparisons. The most significant thing, for comparison, is the round reciever and bottom of the 700, vs the flat sided and bottom of the Tikka.

Obviously in any conversation about accurate hunting rifles, the 700 and clones has to be included because it is such a standard which most can identify with and compare to.

So far I've learned a few things from this conversation. Hopefully, all that is background, and the good part is yet to come, and there more to consider and learn.

For examples:
I can envision that it is probably easier to square (or check the square) the face of a 700 action, because its round. I'm wondering how difficult and how precise a gunsmith can square (or check the square) of the face of the Tikka action, since it's obviously not round.

I can look inside the action and see that the breech end of the barrel doesn't butt up against anything inside. So, apparantly the squareness of the barrel alignment depends on the threads, and the mate of the barrel shoulder to the face of the receiver. Please correct me if I'm wrong or miss something. So, my question about this is how difficult is it to square everything, or at least check the squareness of the threads, both action and barrel, on this rifle?

So for further discussion -- since I would think that in order to do the above, the barrel will need to be pulled. My question is how difficult would it be to install a 700 type recoil lug between the barrel and receiver? Imbedded in that question is the presumption that the lug would be on the barrel, rather than milled back onto the receiver.

One tidbit of info - I noticed that this chamber has a very short throat. I found that I had to seat the bullets slightly deeper than normal to get the bolt to close. So, probably that means to me that if any trueing work was done, then running a reamer in is probably a good idea anyway.

KB

A lot of the reason the M700 is popular for accuracy is just basic economics and less to do with any great technical advantage.
It is round and easy for non-production types to work on them at home or in one machine gun shops.
From this basis it has killed off most of its competitors about 2 or 3 decades a go. For everyone that has their mind made up against the M700 there are thousands that will consider nothing else except what the guy on the next bench has and that is a M700 type action or some other round clone.
To the extent that BR is an equipment and money race the round receiver M700 types go further with your time and money.

SR4759,
I don't mean to be argumentative, just for the sake of argument, nor do I mean to shut down input, conversation, ideas, and debate.

I suppose, the bottom line reason for my inquiry is to figure out of this Tikka action is worth worrying about tweeking. I have wanted a precise action/barrel/stock for a long time, but frankly I dispise the 700 so much that I'm not going to put the money into one or a clone. So, that leaves me with considering alternatives, or forget it. I have several CZ 550s, which I'm happy with for pure hunting rifles, and for CRF/Mauser type actions. So, I'm looking for something different, and think maybe this Tikka is an opportunity.

I don't mind the push feed, or the synthetic trigger guard, or the detach mag, etc.

So, addressing your points:
Basic economics - I would have a lot more money in a properly done up 700 or clone than I think I'll have in this 695 - tweeked.

Technical advantage - I'm curious about that, but advantage applies in two ways - better end result, and cost to get there. The better end result may be subjective, and not actually measurable, but most likely the cost to get there is measurable.

Non-production types - any gunsmithing work I have done will be hired, either way. Small shop = ok by me.

Competitors, next bench, etc. is not relevant to me, since I'm not competeing, and I haven't worried about what 700 owners in paticular, thought or think for many years. Their compromises tell me what I need to know.

Again, BR, money race, winning means practically nothing to me. Time and money means something, so I don't want to waste time or money on a project that is flawed from the beginning. For example, I can pretty well predict the outcome of having a CZ 550 tweeked, and know that I'll most likely be satisfied, and also that I'll be able to tell a difference in the before and after, retaining the factory barrel. I know that just skillfully glass bedding the action will make a noticable difference, and trueing a fresh action and a new custom barrel also produces results that can be noticed, compared to an out-of-the-box rifle. I don't know that for sure with this Tikka.

So that's why I'm inquiring, and asking the machine shop type questions in my preceeding post. I'm past the point of 700 ownership, and my questions relate to a viable substitute - as a hunting rifle.

I may be willing to put some money into the Tikka, for trueing type work, retaining existing parts and barrel, maybe adding a recoil lug, and chamber clean-up afterwards, just to see what is possible, but before doing that, I'll have to have a conversation with a gunsmith who is qualified to evaluate the situation to consider feasibility/cost/outcome. There are qualified gunsmiths here, and I'm hopeing to hear from them.

I think it's unfortunate in a way that conversations like this become diffused and diverted with the overwhelming comparison with the 700.

It's ok to compare, but hopefully the conversation doesn't stop there. That's all generic, and I want to read some specifics about what it will take and what it will cost and the probable outcome of trueing this barreled action.

I think what I'm talking about is mostly shop and machine/set-up time. The only part that may be needed is a Rem type recoil lug, but I think one of the pre-made pieces from Brownells, at about $30, will do the trick. Glass bedding should be rather standard procedure, and is mostly time as well.

Regards,
KB

If you want to consuolt with someone about Tikka rifles and accuracy potential, I suggest MT Guns (www.mtguns.com). They have been building target rifles using Tikka actions and componants for some time now, and as far as I know, do excellent work.

They converted one of my pre-64 Winchester Model 70 target rifles to use Tikka magazines, so that I could shoot across the course with a scope, and the conversion was quite successful.

Mac Tilton is a good fellow to deal with.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
A lot of the reason the M700 is popular for accuracy is just basic economics and less to do with any great technical advantage.
It is round and easy for non-production types to work on them at home or in one machine gun shops.
From this basis it has killed off most of its competitors about 2 or 3 decades a go. For everyone that has their mind made up against the M700 there are thousands that will consider nothing else except what the guy on the next bench has and that is a M700 type action or some other round clone.
To the extent that BR is an equipment and money race the round receiver M700 types go further with your time and money.

Do I understand this post to postulate that if the same amount of money, time, and work were done to say a Rem. 700 and a Model 70 the differences in accuracy would be nil?

I'll butt in Kevin, yes, I believe it would work. It may end up being a different animal once they are through with it though.
Butch

Honnestly you can't compare a Remmington 700 to a Tikka action accuractwise.
The tikka is born in a totally different league.
You have to spend the price of 3 tikka's on a Remmington (Hardly Ableson) action, just to make it match a standard unaltered hunting Tikka.
The best you can say about a Remmington action, is that you can replace all parts with unoriginal parts, and make it just as good as a standard Tikka. This allowes you or your gunsmith to act like a miraclemann. Whatever you do to a Remmington, will make it noticable better.

One thing i learned about you americans, is that you thinks diferently. I once gave my brother in law a rifle(he is american). After some time i asked him about if he liked the rifle. The only comment was that it was the most boring rifle he ever owned. I asked him why, and he answered: It woorked right out of the box, and I have only loadet 2 different loads for it, and it shot 5 round groups under .3" with both loads. The one i'we used hunting deer, coyotes, and hogs. They have all dropped instantly form the first round. SO PLEASE tell mee, what excuse shall i give your nagging sister, when shee wants me to do the disches, or fix the house. Before i could always come up with explanations like, i have to do some testloads, or some testshooting, or buying acessories to make my old rifles work

Now that preceeding post is a treasure.

A similar thing happened with the last CZ 550 I had bedded. I guessed at which bullet would probably work best, considering the twist rate, throat, etc. and loaded up some handloads with what I figured would be the optimum powder charge, went to the range, and got 3/4" groups. Just where is the challange in that?

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
A lot of the reason the M700 is popular for accuracy is just basic economics and less to do with any great technical advantage.
It is round and easy for non-production types to work on them at home or in one machine gun shops.
From this basis it has killed off most of its competitors about 2 or 3 decades a go. For everyone that has their mind made up against the M700 there are thousands that will consider nothing else except what the guy on the next bench has and that is a M700 type action or some other round clone.
To the extent that BR is an equipment and money race the round receiver M700 types go further with your time and money.

Do I understand this post to postulate that if the same amount of money, time, and work were done to say a Rem. 700 and a Model 70 the differences in accuracy would be nil?

No exactly the opposite.

Money, time, and work are all the same thing.
It would take more time money and work to make the M70 as competitor if it is even possible.

quote:

SR4759,
I don't mean to be argumentative, just for the sake of argument, nor do I mean to shut down input, conversation, ideas, and debate.

I suppose, the bottom line reason for my inquiry is to figure out of this Tikka action is worth worrying about tweeking. I have wanted a precise action/barrel/stock for a long time, but frankly I dispise the 700 so much that I'm not going to put the money into one or a clone. So, that leaves me with considering alternatives, or forget it. I have several CZ 550s, which I'm happy with for pure hunting rifles, and for CRF/Mauser type actions. So, I'm looking for something different, and think maybe this Tikka is an opportunity.

Not taken as being argumentative.
Maybe I was being argumentative. I was commenting on the rut that competitive shooting sports create. I think after 40 years or 50 years of messing with the same old actions they would get bored. I know I do.

quote:

jørgen

I think your bro in law just told you your way of life is boring.

The bolt and actually the boltface/lugs of the bolt hold the cartridge in the chamber.

The mating of the the threads between barrel and the receiver hold the barrel to the action.

The internal dimensions of the receiver hold the bolt in place.

Can someone please explain how in the f*ck the external shape of the action can make it inherently more accurate

Only if you are splitting hairs.

It the same argument that the shape of the case contributes to accuracy.

It may and it may not but I believe that there are more significant variables to worry about.

The shape of the action determines how the action handles the stresses of firing. If it is a miss shapened action it may move in unintended way during firing. kinking or unkinking the action flexing the bolt ect.

It may in fact contribute to accuracy but I really believe it is one of those unmeasurable variable due to the fact that there is so much else going on when the rifle is fired not to mention all the other variables that come in to play.

If it could be measured it would be next to nothing compared to all the other variables involved

Inherently accurate actions are a waste of time. Spend your time and money making yourself a better shot. THAT will give you measurable results in the field.

I sure like Jargen and bow to his knowledge but I do detect a bit of bias and perhaps also a bit of used car salesmen every time the subject of European vs American rifles come up.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Can someone please explain how in the f*ck the external shape of the action can make it inherently more accurate

Harold Vaughn, in his book Rifle Accuracy Facts, addresses the question of receiver symmetry and the 'balance' of vibratory forces acting on the receiver and receiver/barrel interface when the rifle is fired. By using accellerometers he quantified the data and untimately showed that the IMbalance of vibration could be reduced/improved by changing the actual shape of the receiver. The reduced movement after the shape change, as shown by the instrumentation, was also shown by actual shooting to result in smaller groups on the target.

Vaughn discusses this receiver symmetry question clearly and describes his thought processes and his alterations to the rifle so that things are easy for the reader to follow. This is only one area where Vaughn's book is truly enlightening to the student of rifle accuracy. I recommend it very highly.
Regards, Joe