The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing What makes a rifle accurate?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| What makes a rifle accurate? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
I was wondering, what makes the out of the box rifle today, or mildly tweaked hunting rifle, so much more accurate than the out of the box rifle of 50-75 years ago (or are they?)? We certainly seem to expect better accuracy today. Better barrels, bedding, optics, ammo quality? | ||
|
| one of us |
I'd hazard a guess and say that today's rifles are at least if not more accurate than those of so many years ago because the processes by which they are made nowadays are controlled by computers. Once a CNC machine has been properly programmed and the parts produced measured and checked against the drawings, every part later produced will match the originals to the umpteenth degree until the tools begin to dull. Because QC testing is on-going, the produced parts never get very far from the design specs before the tools are replaced with sharp ones and beautiful reproductions of the master are once again flowing from the factory to you. Modern alloys allow tighter tolerances, too. Let's not forget that today's consumer has a multiplicity of choices and a vote with a dollar is well-heard by the manufacturers. To keep your business, they are going to try to produce a better rifle at a lower cost this year then last year. A bad product review in a magazine or negative word of mouth by a sufficient number of buyers can cripple a company or take a model off the shelves. It all adds up to the consumer being the winner in the long run. We also cannot diminish the improvements in bullets and powders. They contribute to accuracy as much as actions, stocks and barrels. | |||
|
One of Us |
I have a M-92 Winchester made in 1917 and one made in 2002 and can tell no difference in accuracy. I have a new M-70 Winchester in .30-06 and have fired several 03-A3 and 1917 Enfields (after a little bedding work) and find no significant differences. I doubt that Today's 700 Remington is any more accurate than the M-721 I have now (made in the '50s)......and of course it's been bedded but not rebarreled. I bought a M-70 in .225 cal in 1965 and the M-70 I have today in .22-250 don't shoot better.....both are excellent shooters BTW. I'd back up a bit before I said that rifles are more accurate today than yesterday....... | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I am sorry but if you are talking about major manufactures like Remington, Winchester, Browning, Marlin and a few others, every single sentence, EVERY SINGLE SENTANCE I have quoted couldn�t be further from the truth. | |||
|
| one of us |
The reason that we are getting and/or expecting better accuracy now is the quality of bullets that we have available. Rifles may be somewhat improved but nowhere near as much as bullets have. Even today's hunting bullets can be expected to give accuracy that yesterday's match bullets didn't always deliver......DJ | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, for what it's worth, I don't think you can say any one thing has made rifles more accurate. It's the combination of several things, that when added up bring a 2 MOA factory rifle down to 1 MOA. Glass is much better, even the low end stuff. Newer powders that the factories are using tend to be more suitable for the cartridge they are loading for. As mentioned before, bullets have come a long way too. I also have to disagree with smallfry on this one. Aside from handmade rifles, you'll have to prove to me that the processes used today (computers for the machining, computers for the quality control, etc.) aren't any better than those used 50 years ago. There aren't too many things made nowadays that haven't gotten better as a result of technology. How many major manufacturers in the 1950's held their barrels to the tolerances seen today? I don't know for sure, but I would venture to guess very few. That's just my opinion though. | |||
|
| one of us |
Like djpaintless said its the ammo. I have guns older than 50 years and they shoot as good as my new ones. If I use 40 year old factory ammo in them they don't shoot so hot. As far as rifle quality is concerened I'd have to say the older ones were kept to a higher standard, they were actually handled by skilled people during manufacture. Comparing my real pre-64's to the new pseudo pre-64's there is no comparison, the new ones have many more shortcuts and stamped or cast parts in the manufacture. Comparing my 721 to the newer 700's I see much better machining in the old ones. With todays technology they should be better. CNC machining is great but it's only as good as the person programming it and things can be out of whack right from the start if no one is inspecting the results and many bad ones can go out before they are caught. Besides, the tolerance window the factory allows is too great. How do they get scope mount holes out of line, someone wasn't paying attention or programmed wrong, happens all the time, thats why most scope mounts have windage adjustment in the rear base and you can turn the front one to align it, they never would have come up with them if every gun was straight. Why does one bolt lug touch and the other dosen't, because their allowable tolerances are too big along with they never got it squared up to start with. Thats how they can produce a rifle that shoots good enough and sometimes great for less than a $1000. If you wanted perfection from a factory rifle they could do it, for about the same price as a custom maker charges. | |||
|
| one of us |
Keep the posts comm'in on this thread, I know there are more of you out there.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Single biggest factor, the shooter, everything else is a distant second. | |||
|
One of Us |
I was agreeing with the first post and then caught myself agreeing with the forth. I think 50-100 years ago it took a lot longer to make an accurate gun. CNC offers repeatability. Not necessarily better accuracy (machine wise). I think we (Winchester, Marlin, Remington, Colt...) can make identical guns MUCH faster, and if needed could make better guns as well. But some people on this board like myself, with my 1.5 MOA, $350 Japanese Weatherby, would not spend double the money for an additional .25 MOA, or triple for another 0.5 MOA. It's the cost of quality. People are doing their PHD on it. People that need or want that level are buying guns that do just that... and are parting with that level of cash. I do fully agree with Howard tho' Seat time is the key | |||
|
| one of us |
Better ammo, mostly bullet quality. | |||
|
| new member |
I think ON AVERAGE a moderately priced gun today is a bit more accurate than they used to be, but I think modern ammo is a bigger factor. My .02 | |||
|
one of us |
I think it is a combination of several things. Most of them mentioned here. But I think the biggest thing is consistency. I'm am sure many rifles made 50 years ago are quite a bit more accurate than rifles made today. But the deviation was probably higher on rifles made 50 years ago. I don't have any proof top back this up, but quality control has come a long way in 50 years. ISO 9000 what???? Quality control, CNC, triggers, bullets have all been mentioned, but stocks have a big reason for this also. Many factory stocks on rifles today are so well constucted, and are made to such tight tolerances, no bedding is required. Not that they can't be but I would be willing to bet MOST rifles actions fit MUCH better into stocks today than they did 50 years ago.......factory rifles that is. I could be wrong but I don't know many rifles made 50 years ago that couldn't be improved by being bedded. You just can't argue with technology it has come a long way. But there is something that can offset any technology, and that is the bottom line. Sometimes the advancements in technology can be wiped out by the bean counting MBA (no offense to any) mentality, where profit is the most important thing.  | |||
|
| one of us |
I think it's primarily the quality of the bullets on the market. I have a 1948 M70 in 30-06 and back in 48, if you had a rifle back then that shot under a MOA it was a considered a rarity. I can can take this same rifle out to the range and punch 3 shot 3/4" groups at will. That's my one and only data point to offer. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think that the quality of ammo is the largest factor. IMHO technogoly is offset by the small profit margins in the manufacturering process | |||
|
| one of us |
Quality control is only as good as management allows it to be. If the tolerances are relaxed to allow cheaper manufacture, poorer quality parts still pass inspection. Also, ISO 9000 has nothing to do with how good a part is built, just that all standards in effect in the manuals were followed in the manufacture of the part. You only have to document everything you do to make the part. You can build ISO 9000 approved lead fishing bobbers! In general, "Say what you do, and do what you say" is the rules for writing manuals to pass ISO 9000 surveys. If the manual is written that you inspect every 1000th part, and you do at least that many, you are in compliance. Sick of writting manuals Steve | |||
|
| one of us |
In the broad sweep of things I'd say overall quality of firearms is higher than ever. The quality available from custom gun builders is extraordinary in my view. I agree that ammo quality is up as well, but the thing that has made the biggest difference in my eye is bullet quality. Any gun will shoot a poor bullet poorly, average guns shoot quality bullets very well. I a lot of 'very well' these days. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ISO is nothing but increased cost imposed by the Company's leadership because they don't have a clue about their operations. It's pure political bull$hit | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: very very true...all ISO confirms is that you define your procedures and follow them...if your procedure produces a lousy product so be it, as long as you follow the procedure. | |||
|
| one of us |
I agree that ISO is bullshit, I was just trying to make a point that quality control processes are in place now that didn't exist 50 years ago. I have a friend who's father owns a Flange manufacturing business. When he first started he had never heard of an MTR. He said they were rarely if ever required. Now he says they are pretty much standard requirements for every order. Why is that? It is because procedures have been put into place so that compaines have better control of the materials they are getting, and that's just a small part. I completely agree that quality control is only as good as management allows, all I am saying is that it is much more prevalent today than it was 50 years ago. At least it is in my opinion. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm pretty sure that it is a combination of the factors you all have mentioned, but I can tell you from emperical evidence that the bullets are a major factor. I was out of handloading for about 30 years. I don't know why, but it just seemed that there was never enough time to get it done. I didn't shoot as much, and when I did, it was mainly with factory ammo. When I picked it up again, I still had several thousand old bullets from around the 1970 era. When I bought new ones, becuse some bullets I wanted didn't exist then, I started seeing major improvement in groups out of the same guns and with the same powders. Some fairly careful testing on my part has shown that my grops with new bullets are, on average, about 25% better. | |||
|
| one of us |
Not sure if the new ones are really any better than the old ones. My old rifles from a M1896 Springfield, now long gone, to a little Winchester M1904 22 all shot, on average as well as the newer rifles I have seen at shooting ranges. I would have to agree that ammunition is more than likely the single biggest factor. Perhaps this is due to the newer ammunition designs all be "improved".  ASS_CLOWN | |||
|
| one of us |
jlongo, I like it when people have hard evidence to prove a theory I had...  ....DJ | |||
|
| one of us |
Couldnt agree with SMALLFRY more. With modern tooling, CNC, steels etc what has changed is manufactures lacking any excuse to let the frequent dogs slip out to the public made even more inexcusable by their lack of support in most cases. | |||
|
| one of us |
Two comments, controversial, I'm sure: Barrel straightness does not seem to matter much. I know a fellow who has experimented with bent barrels, including one that you almost could not see through. His report is that they seem to shoot just fine. Apparently all that matters is that the last couple of inches are straight. ISO 9000, correctly done, is a really great system. Most implementations go somehow horribly wrong. If you are spending half your time documenting your process, there is no doubt you are in one of the horribly wrong ones. Perhaps, through some odd quirk of fate, you really are living in a Dilbert cartoon. In that case, the jabs at ISO are well deserved. The emphasis on process documentation has shifted... been gone for four years. The new standard requires that you measure your situation, and that you analyze the data. It requires that you make constant progress toward greater customer satisfaction. Yes, you can make crap, and be compliant, but you have to show that it is less crappy than last year. | |||
|
| One of Us |
denton Quote: Friend.....let me quote a dear (departed) friend that I worked with years ago: "Quality is a direct reflection on the character of the management staff." Since then I have learned that Safety is the same thing!!!!! With all due respect to your learning and many contributions to this forum.....and I've enjoyed them immensely.....and will continue to do so.....ISO is one of the worst things ever to come down the pike for quality.....It takes the responsibility away from management. | |||
|
| one of us |
I've been mulling this over a bit and something has bugged me about the post title... I think we're backing into this'n, sorta... All rifles/handguns want to be accurate. They are born in their designers imagination able to shoot zeros off the bench, never wear out, etc, etc, and so forth. Better said is the question, "How do you make a good gun bad?" Here's some of my short list....... Bad bore dimensions, rough finish, bad crown, non-concentric chamber, poor headspace, long leade, barrel threads not square. Bolt lugs not square, bolt face not square, poor firing pin strike. Poor bedding, no bedding, warped stock, poor fit. Bad trigger, bad glass or irons, nervous shooter, winded shooter, scared shooter, shooter with a flinch. Bad bullets, poor load, poor neck tension, run out, OAL, primers, powder, wind, earthquakes, tsunamis.... So, all you fellas that actually hit something last time you yanked the trigger, I am astounded at your skill and good fortune! And your gunsmiths are geniuses!  | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I could not agree more. Whatever work you do, bears your signature. The signature of a good manager is a good organization, good products, and customer satisfaction. And the signature of a poor manager is... well ... the more common result. ISO is like a lot of other things: A fool with a tool is still a fool, only more dangerous. I feel badly that you, and many others, have obviously been subjected to some of the less enlightened versions. Nobody should be spending huge blocks of time documenting processes. Managers who do that deserive the mocking they get in the Dilbert cartoons. That is NOT the core of good ISO. The core of good ISO is constantly improving your processes, to create a competitive advantage, i.e., better customer satisfaction, better quality, better customer service. | |||
|
| one of us |
Denton I sure wish our Boeing rep could hear you. The shop I work in is a small aircraft machine shop. The owner-manager sits 3 feet from me(engineer/cnc programmer). Most projects are discussed in some detail, between sending programs to machines, answering questions about setups, tools, material deliveries, supply orders, and generaly putting out "fires" on the floor. Our rep, is having a fit because we've not "documented" our production meetings, with full staff in attendance. Everything must be modeled after the way Boeing does it, never mind that there's only 12 people in the whole organization, and everyone wears many hats. Got to be "efficient" like Boeing! He doesn't take it too well when I ask him why they have to buy parts from us inefficient small guys to be able to sell a plane at an acceptable price. By the way we are compliant to AS9102 rev b (I think I got the # right-crs again). In the last two years we have had to hire to people to keep up with the required paperwork. Not paperwork required by us, but by this reps interpretation of requirements. We don't meet his wishes, we don't sell to Boeing. We have had quality and delivery ratings of over 99.8% for the last 10 years, so it's not like we were a troublesome supplier. Sorry to hijack the thread, but trying to force the management practices of a huge company on a small one is asinine. | |||
|
| one of us |
You can be completely compliant, with work instructions, kept in pencil, by the workers at the station. I can point you to a place at Thiokol, making rocket motors, under a highly controlled government contract, where exactly that is done. Excuse the "vent", but: If quality is done right, it greatly improves quality, drives down cost, improves customer satisfaction, and improves the workplace. Quality is like sex. If you think it is a PIA, you are doing it wrong. | |||
|
| one of us |
Denton, sorry for the rant. Been a long frustrating day. Your getting in on the tail end of a long "battle" that has nearly turned personal. I have no doubt that the system could be more acceptable, if ego and personal "interpretatin" were dispenced with. I'm not sure you understood that the "rep" I was talking about doesn't work for our company, but for the big boys. It gets a little old when every few months theres a new "flavor of the month" requirement that will be stressed for a while, then on to the next. Especially when talking to other plants around the country that don't have a clue what the guy is pushing. All selling to the same "big guy", just different customer rep. Much of our production is small clips and shim type parts. 30 seconds to a minute cycle times are not unusual. We don't have a seperate deburr dept. so the operator has to detail his own parts, measure them and keep the machine, or machines running. Not a lot of time for spc type record keeping. Lots of runs of 15-20 parts these days too. Not smart enough to see what spc records will tell me about tool wear, machine changes, ect. when the run is done, and the machine is setup on a different part with different tooling before significant data is recorded. Again, not trying to pick a fight at all, just tired of having requirements that don't fit the situation rammed down my throat, and hearing all about how were equal partners in this. Oh, and we need a 3-5% reduction in your shop price next year, even though you were low bidder for the contract. | |||
|
| one of us |
Oh I hear your pain, absolutely. I'm a partner in a company that does six sigma and lean, and we see bad examples like that all the time. Here's your return mantra: If I can show you that our processes are stable and predictable, and capable of meeting requirements, and that they are controlled, why do you care about anything else? If we do that, and meet price, what else do you really care about? If you can get that agreement, the rest is duck soup... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: I think we got a bullseye here. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think the major reason rifles are more accurate today is the internet. It allows everyone to shoot the balls off a fruit fly at 400 yards in a hurricane Merry Christmas, Jeff | |||
|
| one of us |
Only if you survive the Tsusami. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Quote: AMEN fellah.... Back in the 60s Sierra offered a lepel badge to anyone that could shoot 10 shots inside a 1" group at 100 yards. I forget the documentation required but as IIRC you had to send them the target signed by an NRA member to get the award. I seriously doubt that even one in ten 1/2 MOA shooters today can meet that standard......bench rest shooters exempted.... | |||
|
| one of us |
What makes a rifle accurate? The shooter! I think even if you never shot before,if you really put yourself to it,in about three years time you could break every record there ever was! | |||
|
| one of us |
"shoot the balls off a fruit fly at 400 yards in a hurricane" With your Great Great Granddaddy�s flintlock. | |||
|
| one of us |
The primary improvement is in the ammunition: bullets, primers, powders and cases. In bullets, several of the manufacturers have those clever little machines that use sonar to find voids in the bullets. This means more concentrically balanced bullets that fly straighter. This was once done only by rich bench rest shooters. Now, you can get this advantage with factory bullets! Federal spend a lot of money to improve its primer technology. Today, we have the best primers ever, to include FC, WW and Rem. The same improvements we've seen in bullets and primers have come to cases and powders, together with improved presses and dies. In sum, we have more concentric, more uniform ammo. This is what has improved out of the box factory accuracyof rifles. It certainly isn't ISO standards or the triggers made to standards of the ABA (American Bar Association)! Ku-dude | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia