1/2 inch at 50 trouble. Imput appreciated !

[MajorMalcontent]

It's not my intention to foment argument, but if it were only an equipment issue, then everyone who owned good equipment would have no problems always shooting very well. The problem is that very few of us are as good at shooting as we like to think we are. Simply putting a good rifle into someone's hands does not make him a good shooter. The shooter with the deepest pockets is not necessarily the best shooter.

To be sure, a Savage barrel is not going to be free of machining inconsistencies. As you look closer and closer, no barrel will be free of them. But to insist from afar that the equipment is at fault and shooter error is not an issue is to make a leap of faith that experience and logic cannot sustain. Inconsistencies exist in all factory barrels, but the inconsistencies themselves are more consistent and produce more predictable results than the human factor.

The errant shots that many call fliers are usually not fliers in the strictest sense because they were the product of human error in hold, tension, torque, breathing, trigger control, wind reading (if applicable), among other factors rather than inconsistent ammunition or a sudden manifestation of issues arising from a less-than-custom-made barrel. The errant shots are errant because the human shooter is inconsistent much more often than the equipment. The equipment surely does not change from shot to shot, but the shooter himself can and very often does -- even if it is so imperceptible that the shooter can swear that he did exactly as he did before. The human factor is inescapable, as we are rarely the shooting machines of our imagination.

An excellent post, sir. I am inclined to agree with you, particularly your statement that the inconsistencies in barrels are pretty much consistent. I think we overestimate our shooting abilities to be one of or the most consistent factor in the whole accuracy equation.

Some pretty elaborate explanations seem to develop to explain anomolies, when we really have no empirical method to measure the human's consistency. An unlimited class rifle with a solenoid actuated trigger would rule out the human element and would be revealing, but none of us have those on this forum that I know of (does CZ make one and if so where can I buy it?). So we can only theorize

 

[MajorMalcontent]

My intention is the same as yours no argument
Your analogy is absolutely the reason that it is called a challenge.To purchase a gun and go to the range shoot 100 200 or a brick or 2 bricks roll up your sleeves and shoot five five shot groups and then decide equipment flaws poor chambers tooling marks crowns,bedding triggers not the shooter must be the equipment shouldn't buy another gun without a personal inspection with a bore scope is really a stretch. A brick of ammo doesn't prove anything with the average sporter.30+ years of shooting will throw a wet blanket on that.The getting in the zone knowing the gun your capabilities and many other variables is just the tip of the iceberg.Those groups are not that easy.To say it will shoot that all day is only a statement.I don't own anything that will shoot it all day,but I have a couple of shooters that have shot 5 5 shot groups.
There have been successful challenges done off sand bags on the hood of a truck.Without match ammo,those shooters have discipline and shooting skills without spending a weeks wages on chasing the rabbit,and the target proves that.

This a cut and paste from another gun group the fellow makes a lot of sense he used a CZ as an example. Lots of stats.

To understand shooter reports and reviews on CZ rifle accuracy you have to understand normal distribution and the concept of standard deviation in three different ways.

First

CZ .22 LRs in general tend to be very accurate by .22 LR Sporter standards and they tend to be quite consistent.

That means that if you take 100 CZ 455 Varmint rifles at random off the production line and shoot them with the same lot of ammo, and collect data on the average group sizes, you'll get a representative distribution of the accuracy of CZ 455 Varmint rifles.

68 of them will have group sizes within +/- 1 standard deviation of the average, 13 of them will fall on the "good" side of that central distribution with groups sizes between 1 and 2 SD better than the mean, while 13 of them will be on the "bad" side of that central distribution with group sizes between1 and SD worse than averages. Finally, you'll have 3 of them on the "great" side of accuracy with group sizes between 2 and 3 SD better than the average, and 3 of them on the "awful" side of average with group sizes between 2 and 3 SD worse than average.

You'll also probably find that compared to, for example, 100 Savage rifles, the distribution in accuracy is narrower with all the rifles shooting groups closer to the average group size, and you'll probably find that average group size is smaller.

Second

Similarly, if you take one CZ 455 and shoot 100 five shot groups at 100 yards, you'll also find a normal distribution in group size. Let's say that the average group size is 1.0" and the SD is .25" That means:

3 groups will fall between .25" and .50"
13 groups will fall between .50" and .75"
68 groups will fall between .75" and 1.25";
13 groups will fall between 1.25" and 1.50"
3 groups will fall between 1.50" and 1.75"

Third

If you insist on a rifle demonstrating a level of accuracy at the 99% confidence level, then the above CZ 455 that shot the 100 groups is only a 1.75 MOA rifle.

If you are ok with the rifle demonstrating accuracy at the 95% confidence level then it's a 1.5 MOA rifle.

If you're ok with the rifle demonstrating accuracy at the 68% confidence level than it's a 1.25 MOA rifle.

If you're ok with the average accuracy then it's a 1 MOA rifle.

-----

All three are good things to understand as:

1. Sooner or later you'll find someone who shoots one or maybe even two of those .25 to .50" groups at 100 yards and claim their CZ 755 is a 1/2 MOA or even 1/4 MOA rifle. You need to understand why it probably isn't, even if he doesn't.

2. Even though CZ's tend to be pretty consistent, they are not all the same. The odds of getting a "good" versus "bad" CZ 455 follows the same laws of probability and in broad brush strokes, 68 out of 100 will shoot "average", 16 will shoot better than average and 16 will shoot worse than average.

3. CZ's on average are a) a lot more accurate than most sporters and b) the difference between a good and a bad CZ are a lot less than with most other rifles, and combined with a good average overall it means a bad CZ is still likely to shoot better than an average or above average .22 LR Sporter made by most other companies.

Love it! A reasonable view...you don't see these that often on the interwebs.

 

[MajorMalcontent]

This explanation seeks to eliminate the shooter from the equation, to reduce the human factor in shooting accuracy to irrelevancy. As such it does a disservice to shooters who understand the role they play in the results they achieve. It also may serve to alleviate disappointment by casting the blame for unsatisfactory results on equipment alone.

I offer as an example, warts and all, two sets of targets I shot this morning with rifles that can and do shoot well -- but they do not shoot themselves. These targets are not cherry-picked for either accuracy or inaccuracy, and certainly not as illustrations of equipment that is to blame. I shot 200 rounds of SK Standard Plus, no "warm up" shots were taken, and the scopes were not adjusted at any time. The rifles were not cleaned prior to shooting, with both having something in the range of a brick through them since their last cleaning. The first two targets are with a Walther KKM, the second with an Anschutz MS R.



These targets show quite clearly the results of the human factor.

Another very revealing post. On the target above, the human element is very clearly illustrated when looking at the groups on bulls 5 and 6. They are both very respectable groups in their own right, but the centre of the point of impact has clearly shifted to the left (I'm assuming you were aiming at the bullseye in both cases) by what appears to be half an inch or so. This obviously can't be attributed to a tipping point in fouling or anything else other than the fact that something has changed in how you, the shooter, were interacting with the rifle. I think this very clearly illustrates that you were a major factor in the results: same rifle, same ammunition, same lot (presumably), same bench configuration, same environment, groups fired within minutes of each other (presumably), same shooter and yet centre of impact for five shots has moved to the left of the five previous shots. I'm also going to assume you didn't have a 50 shot magazine and possibly reloaded a magazine (or switched mags) between groups 5 and 6 which would have required you to disengage from the rifle and then reposition yourself for the 6th group. Hmmm.

Very good, grauhanen.

 

[RabidM4U5]

An excellent post, sir. I am inclined to agree with you, particularly your statement that the inconsistencies in barrels are pretty much consistent

Nope. In the entire life of a barrel no two bullets experience the exact same bore conditions. Shot one clean bore is different than shot 500 clean bore than shot 1000 clean bore ad infinitum. Why are the clean bore shots not the same? Wear has occurred in the course of shooting since the previous cleaning. The imperfections are not as sharp or rough as they were before, they will not grab at the bullet the same as they did earlier in the barrel life. The throat wears and creeps forward, bullet/chamber interaction has changed. The fouling deposited by one shot changes the fouling deposited on the next shot ad infinitum. The more severe the tool marks/imperfections, the less consistent the rifle will be.

If you think otherwise please feel free to inform all the custom barrel makers that they are wasting their time lapping out the tool marks. I'd love to hear their responses to you.

Another very revealing post. On the target above, the human element is very clearly illustrated when looking at the groups on bulls 5 and 6. They are both very respectable groups in their own right, but the centre of the point of impact has clearly shifted to the left (I'm assuming you were aiming at the bullseye in both cases) by what appears to be half an inch or so.

All this indicates is that Mr. Grauhanen has not perfected the art of maintaining or compensating for POI shift between bulls. His technique and consistency at each bull is evidently very good since even though the POI has shifted the POI is maintained throughout the grouping. All that the group shooter cares about is that the shot group is tight. This shifting is something that only a benchrest bullseye shooter will be concerned about improving. They of course deploy special one piece rests to mitigate this factor as well as taking detailed notes on POI shift and either adjusting POA or scope settings to compensate. Such discussion is beyond the scope of gross shot dispersion witnessed on a single group, which is the OP's concern.

To slide the rear bag over to aim at the extreme opposite side of the target and change it's position on the rear stock to tilt the rifle down to aim at the next lower row is an obviously major change in setup, POI shift should be no great surprise. If you maintain this new setup and shoot a tight group and all you desire is such a group, mission accomplished no?

If I am shooting with a front sand bag vs. the Caldwell Rock rest, and the bag settles lower and lower shot to shot forcing me to compensate for the vertical POA shift by moving the rear bag position on the stock, how in the world am I still shooting such tight groups consistently??? I'm also tugging it left and right to re-center on the bull or canting the rifle to aim at the bull again. My setup isn't precisely the same shot to shot!! EEEGADS!! The human factor here just isn't that significant! Maybe if I was more robotic in my setup I could shave 0.1" off my groups

 

[grauhanen]

Nope. In the entire life of a barrel no two bullets experience the exact same bore conditions. Shot one clean bore is different than shot 500 clean bore than shot 1000 clean bore ad infinitum. Why are the clean bore shots not the same? Wear has occurred in the course of shooting since the previous cleaning. The imperfections are not as sharp or rough as they were before, they will not grab at the bullet the same as they did earlier in the barrel life. The throat wears and creeps forward, bullet/chamber interaction has changed. The fouling deposited by one shot changes the fouling deposited on the next shot ad infinitum. The more severe the tool marks/imperfections, the less consistent the rifle will be.

When shooting targets, it is axiomatic that they are shot progressively, one after another, with the result that changes within the bore are gradual and undramatic. The greatest change occurs between the first shot and those that immediately follow. Shots number 50 to 75 should be as consistent as shots 75 to 100 and so on, with only a gradual change occurring as the number of shots gradually increases.

A rifle with a consistent flaw will be more consistent than one with an inconsistent flaw. That is why human input is so inescapably important in the results obtained when shooting.

EEEGADS!! The human factor here just isn't that significant! Maybe if I was more robotic in my setup I could shave 0.1" off my groups

The most predictable aspect of shooting for most mere mortals is that the shooter behind the trigger is the most inconsistent and therefore unpredictable part of the shooting equation. To argue that the human factor is insignificant is to misunderstand the relationship between the shooter, the rifle, and the results. To be a living rail gun is to be the apotheosis of shooting with a sporter rifle.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

On to Center-X now performance is pretty consistent and this is about all that can be expected out of the rifle. The last group of 0.118" was nice, bore conditions stayed consistent for the group.



To the OP if you can replicate my target results with your Savage, you're doing as well as you can with the rifle, and 5 in a row WILL happen somewhere in one of those targets if you keep at it and it won't take X-act or any crazy expensive ammo..

This group, the center x. It what I encounter all day long. (minus the .118)

Keep in mind I'm using a bushnell 3x9. The cross hair covers my group. I just keep it where its at until 5 rounds shot. Mind you my crosshairs are bang on my zero. It looks like you may keep yours off zero to have the group not wreck the targets "cross hairs". A little trick I read about on here and tried, as this doubles as a hunting rifle though I keep it "properly" on zero.

I may have to pick up a 4x12 fine cross hair optic. (this rifle isn't dedicated to the range, its a tree rat blaster also so I cant drop huge magnification on it)

 

[Jay]

Sell it to me for $50 shipped, 4 out of 5 groundhogs will be dead, 1 will be... Lucky?

Chuckle!

Cheers
Jay

 

[Canadiankeeper]

Sell it to me for $50 shipped, 4 out of 5 groundhogs will be dead, 1 will be... Lucky?

Chuckle!

Cheers
Jay

only an approx! I'm sure 5/5 will be dead or at least 4/5 dead 1/5 mortally wounded.

End of the day its still my tree rat gun. I may have to spend some $$$ on a new rifle if the better ammo doesn't turn out! Lol

You remind me of one of my main range buddies. Says I "Care to much" and he would be happy hahah.

 

[RabidM4U5]

When shooting targets, it is axiomatic that they are shot progressively, one after another, with the result that changes within the bore are gradual and undramatic. The greatest change occurs between the first shot and those that immediately follow. Shots number 50 to 75 should be as consistent as shots 75 to 100 and so on, with only a gradual change occurring as the number of shots gradually increases.

Gradual/consistent fouling is the goal custom barrel makers strive for when lapping out tool marks in their barrels in addition to a consistent bore diameter. A very rough bore grabs significant fouling from a single shot. The property of the soft metals we shoot though our barrels is that they readily stick to each other under the intense heat and friction. Once a large fouling deposit takes hold, it grows dramatically every shot and significantly affects the rifles performance.

To quote from an article on barrel fouling from Lilja's website "Fred makes some important observations and distinctions between true high-quality custom barrels and production barrels. I liked and agreed with his comment that ” . . . in poor quality, mass-produced barrels, that build up thick, rough fouling and shoot poorly, every shot is a flier.” One of the big differences between these barrels is the internal finish. A rough barrel is going to foul" http://riflebarrels.com/barrel-fouling/

A rifle with a consistent flaw will be more consistent than one with an inconsistent flaw.

All flaws in a barrel are consistent, as wear in a .22 occurs gradually. The effects of fouling build up on accuracy can be very sudden and dramatic, this is readily observed in center fire rifles and I can show you a rifle shooting 0.5" at 100 yards one group then 2.8" the very next. In my rimfire experience, I observe the effects of fouling to be cyclical in nature, assuming a clean barrel to begin a session. Severe build up increases the best group size that can be shot. Any given shot may produce a flier, then the rifle may settle down and shoot a good group, or two or many, then cough up another flier at random. Is it not clear in my targets that the rifle with the superior bore finish produce less frequent fliers, and the fliers produced are less severe in dispersion?

The most predictable aspect of shooting for most mere mortals is that the shooter behind the trigger is the most inconsistent and therefore unpredictable part of the shooting equation. To argue that the human factor is insignificant is to misunderstand the relationship between the shooter, the rifle, and the results. To be a living rail gun is to be the apotheosis of shooting with a sporter rifle.

The whole point of benchrest shooting is to reduce the human influence as much as possible. Free recoiling with pinch trigger technique, there is not much effect you are going to have on the rifle. I just do not observe any significant influence of the shooter from a bench rest. If you are very shaky, you are wavering what, 1/4" around the bull at most? Your max group will be 0.25" if your rifle is a laser beam. Say it's a 0.2" gun, ok 0.45" group size. No real excuse for going above 1/2" and certainly not 3/4" - 1". I have a hard time believing a good shooter is at fault for groups 3/4" and up.

I see equipment as being the dominant factor in rimfire accuracy from a bench.

This group, the center x. It what I encounter all day long. (minus the .118)

Keep in mind I'm using a bushnell 3x9. The cross hair covers my group. I just keep it where its at until 5 rounds shot. Mind you my crosshairs are bang on my zero. It looks like you may keep yours off zero to have the group not wreck the targets "cross hairs". A little trick I read about on here and tried, as this doubles as a hunting rifle though I keep it "properly" on zero.

I may have to pick up a 4x12 fine cross hair optic. (this rifle isn't dedicated to the range, its a tree rat blaster also so I cant drop huge magnification on it)

Do you have a higher power scope on another rifle right now? Maybe just temporarily swap them while you shoot the challenge, I play musical scopes all the time. It's certainly doable with 9x, but that extra edge never hurts Target style helps you keep consistent aim with 9x. I like the 100 yard precision targets I got from bass pro. You could also make your own, draw some nice big crosshairs with a fat tip chisel marker, it works out pretty good with the crosshair coverage from your scope, line up the horizontal and vertical even if your center point gets shot out. You could also dial your scope over a few clicks while target shooting then just dial it back the same amount when done to keep your hunting zero.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

Do you have a higher power scope on another rifle right now? Maybe just temporarily swap them while you shoot the challenge, I play musical scopes all the time. It's certainly doable with 9x, but that extra edge never hurts Target style helps you keep consistent aim with 9x. I like the 100 yard precision targets I got from bass pro. You could also make your own, draw some nice big crosshairs with a fat tip chisel marker, it works out pretty good with the crosshair coverage from your scope, line up the horizontal and vertical even if your center point gets shot out. You could also dial your scope over a few clicks while target shooting then just dial it back the same amount when done to keep your hunting zero.

I do, I don't like to mess with my rig once I get it setup though. Get it set up, fit to me and then Loctite it all down and know that on "bad days" it truly is me. Not a wiggly part, over tighten/damaged optic (small chance as I use a torque wrench).

I may just have to order another optic. I have taken a recent liking to the fixed 10 powers. The Bushnell elite 10x fixed I picked up recently has SUPER clear glass, a very fine mill dot reticle that isn't to busy or full. The added durability and positive clicks is a huge up grade also. Easily keeps up with optics x3 its price.

 

[grauhanen]

To quote from an article on barrel fouling from Lilja's website "Fred makes some important observations and distinctions between true high-quality custom barrels and production barrels. I liked and agreed with his comment that ” . . . in poor quality, mass-produced barrels, that build up thick, rough fouling and shoot poorly, every shot is a flier.” One of the big differences between these barrels is the internal finish. A rough barrel is going to foul" http://riflebarrels.com/barrel-fouling/



The whole point of benchrest shooting is to reduce the human influence as much as possible. Free recoiling with pinch trigger technique, there is not much effect you are going to have on the rifle. I just do not observe any significant influence of the shooter from a bench rest. If you are very shaky, you are wavering what, 1/4" around the bull at most? Your max group will be 0.25" if your rifle is a laser beam. Say it's a 0.2" gun, ok 0.45" group size. No real excuse for going above 1/2" and certainly not 3/4" - 1". I have a hard time believing a good shooter is at fault for groups 3/4" and up.

I see equipment as being the dominant factor in rimfire accuracy from a bench.

Fred Barker was writing about CF barrels, if that matters (I don't know as I don't shoot them at this time). He refers to "poor quality, mass produced barrels" from which "every shot is a flier". He is not referring to Anschutz rimfire barrels or others of similar quality. But it is axiomatic that a mass produced barrel such as those typically found on a Savage (or a CZ for that matter) will be inconsistent in accuracy. That is why CZ makes no accuracy guarantee, unlike Cooper and Sako, which can with their rimfire rifles.

It is important to keep in mind that few or none of us who are posting and asking questions on this forum are benchrest shooters in the sense implied in the penultimate paragraph. We cannot eliminate the human influence to a significant degree because we are shooting sporter rifles on rests that those shooting custom BR rigs would not deign to use. The point of "benchrest shooting" for those of us who do not have custom BR equipment is maximize what we can get out of the equipment that we have. The trinity of shooter, equipment, and ammo may vary in its proportions, but it is irreducibly a three-part formula that cannot be altered by wishful thinking.

If it were otherwise, almost everyone owning a decent sporter rifle could claim that his rifle can meet with ease the five groups of five shots in half-an-inch challenge. But that doesn't happen because it is not that simple. It takes time to learn a particular rifle. They are not all the same. Even two individual rifles of the same model may not react the same way. They may have to be held differently and they may respond unequally to different grips, different pressures.

The bottom line is that if a shooter is using a sporter rifle that is not designed for benchrest shooting it is impossible to eliminate the human factor. Equipment may become the overriding factor in "real" BR shooting, but not for those of us who are usually posting here.

I think my contribution to this discussion has now run its course. If anyone else has anything to say, I think it would be welcomed.

 

[r204]

I had the same issues as you with my MKII when I first bought it. What I did to greatly improve it was I bedded the action and recoil lug with accuglass, I did not bed the barrel at all. I then installed a custom bottom metal that I had made up for it. It is made of 1/8" stainless steel and is very ridgit and does not bend like the factory tin bottom metal. I then played with the action screw torque and found that my rifle shot best with 16 inch pounds of torque. My rifle accually shoots better with CCI standard and mini mags than it does with the more expensive stuff like SK standard plus or the Eley stuff I tried. PM me if your interested in one of my bottom metals.

 

[RabidM4U5]

Fred Barker was writing about CF barrels, if that matters (I don't know as I don't shoot them at this time). He refers to "poor quality, mass produced barrels" from which "every shot is a flier". He is not referring to Anschutz rimfire barrels or others of similar quality. But it is axiomatic that a mass produced barrel such as those typically found on a Savage (or a CZ for that matter) will be inconsistent in accuracy. That is why CZ makes no accuracy guarantee, unlike Cooper and Sako, which can with their rimfire rifles.

Center fire throws another variable into the mix, copper jacketed bullets. A metal with different properties than the soft lead we shoot in rimfire. The effects of rough barrel finish, fouling and accuracy between the two are still analogous. It is not to say a rough rimfire barrel will never shoot a tight group, they can and do. The consistency in which they can achieve this though is greatly diminished and this is no fault of the shooter. There is good reason why the successful list of the 1/2" challenge is lined mostly with high quality rifles, it is much more difficult to string together 25 shots in a row without a flier from a lesser quality production grade barrel. I'm sure a great many shooters with their Savage and CZ rifles are frustrated in their attempts, constantly plagued by the "flier or two" that ruined just one of their groups. They pull their hair out trying to figure out what they're doing wrong "if only I was a better shooter" they tell themselves. What would happen if you gave them one of djdilliodon's Benchmark builds? I'd surmise instant success

It is important to keep in mind that few or none of us who are posting and asking questions on this forum are benchrest shooters in the sense implied in the penultimate paragraph. We cannot eliminate the human influence to a significant degree because we are shooting sporter rifles on rests that those shooting custom BR rigs would not deign to use. The point of "benchrest shooting" for those of us who do not have custom BR equipment is maximize what we can get out of the equipment that we have. The trinity of shooter, equipment, and ammo may vary in its proportions, but it is irreducibly a three-part formula that cannot be altered by wishful thinking.

When you consider the solid front rest and rear bag setup both you and I deploy it is the next best thing to a specialty bench rig. I maintain that from such a setup you'd have to do something really hamfisted as a shooter to knock shots out to 3/4" at 50 yards, such groupings are an indication of equipment issues. Subtle shooter influence is just that, subtle. Poor technique on a group is the reason you shot 0.4" instead of 0.3" like the rifle is capable of. Check out the post by Mr. DJ where his wife was shooting one of his rifles "poorly". Even as such, 1/2" challenge would have been easily beat. Net improvement by having DJ himself shoot: 0.1"-0.2". You grossly overstate the shooter influence from a solid setup. I am of course assuming you don't include people who do such stupid things as rest the barrel itself on a 2x4 while shooting when discussing "the human factor" as such gross incompetence has no place in this discussion.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631241&page=4

My absolute point in all of this is: Solid rest + decent shooter skills + good equipment = challenge success. 3/4"++ groups? Equipment issue.

 

[savagecanuck]

Center fire throws another variable into the mix, copper jacketed bullets. A metal with different properties than the soft lead we shoot in rimfire. The effects of rough barrel finish, fouling and accuracy between the two are still analogous. It is not to say a rough rimfire barrel will never shoot a tight group, they can and do. The consistency in which they can achieve this though is greatly diminished and this is no fault of the shooter. There is good reason why the successful list of the 1/2" challenge is lined mostly with high quality rifles, it is much more difficult to string together 25 shots in a row without a flier from a lesser quality production grade barrel. I'm sure a great many shooters with their Savage and CZ rifles are frustrated in their attempts, constantly plagued by the "flier or two" that ruined just one of their groups. They pull their hair out trying to figure out what they're doing wrong "if only I was a better shooter" they tell themselves. What would happen if you gave them one of djdilliodon's Benchmark builds? I'd surmise instant success



When you consider the solid front rest and rear bag setup both you and I deploy it is the next best thing to a specialty bench rig. I maintain that from such a setup you'd have to do something really hamfisted as a shooter to knock shots out to 3/4" at 50 yards, such groupings are an indication of equipment issues. Subtle shooter influence is just that, subtle. Poor technique on a group is the reason you shot 0.4" instead of 0.3" like the rifle is capable of. Check out the post by Mr. DJ where his wife was shooting one of his rifles "poorly". Even as such, 1/2" challenge would have been easily beat. Net improvement by having DJ himself shoot: 0.1"-0.2". You grossly overstate the shooter influence from a solid setup. I am of course assuming you don't include people who do such stupid things as rest the barrel itself on a 2x4 while shooting when discussing "the human factor" as such gross incompetence has no place in this discussion.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631241&page=4

My absolute point in all of this is: Solid rest + decent shooter skills + good equipment = challenge success. 3/4"++ groups? Equipment issue.

100 %agree. Like I stated before I know I can shoot and struggled to get under a half inch consistently with 2 savages, then 2 c, s. Now that I have 2 anschutzs. I can shoot a higher percentage of groups under a half inch. Last weekend I shot 25groups testing ammo in my new mpr and 17 out of 25 we're under a half inch. That would never happen with my old equipment.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

One of my old savage 17hmrs


One of my old CZ Canadians 22lr



Both rifles had 100 buck bushnell 3x9's on em. Just like my current rifle.


I'm going to hopefully get out sat or sunday this weekend and try again... I will take pictures.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

Ok, some closure for this thread and for myself... Maybe some of you guys also.

I have come to terms with this gun will not make the challenge... It is a good shooter, a great trainer rifle.

I have tried almost every ammo on the market, it has been months of me trying to get this rifle to nail this challenge but it simply cant.

So, shes a cool plinker/trainer(ish) rifle. Here is a pic of the perp.

May have to buy another CZ now though haahah

EDIT KEEP SCROLLING, I HAVENT GIVEN UP! I'm very close!

 

[savagecanuck]

Ok, some closure for this thread and for myself... Maybe some of you guys also.

I have come to terms with this gun will not make the challenge... It is a good shooter, a great trainer rifle.

I have tried almost every ammo on the market, it has been months of me trying to get this rifle to nail this challenge but it simply cant.

So, shes a cool plinker/trainer(ish) rifle. Here is a pic of the perp.

May have to buy another CZ now though haahah

There are a couple of 64 action Annies on the ee for around $700.Those would be my choice for something capable of the challenge.

 

[manitou210]

Had a friend with same problem would only shoot CCI mini mags nothing else worked even high-end midas + 10x etc
scoped barrel 3.5 " no riffling sent back to Savage they replaced barrel, he then sold it, Savage quality control not good

 

[BernieL]

There is a very good article on the 10/22 site by a well known gunsmith. I forget the name.
It basically said that modern plated 22 ammo was designed for mass produced barrels that have rough finishes.
The copper plating allows them to go longer between cleanings before fowling the rifling. This would happen much sooner with lead bullets. The down side is the plating on the bullets is very difficult if not impossible to get evenly distributed on the lead core.
Match bullets are pure lead designed for polished or lapped target barrels. These barrels will not lead fowl as quickly as a mass produced rough finished barrel.
This completely agrees with the statement of finding the ammo your 22 prefers.
It's my opinion that the machining quality out there is getting better and better all the time.
Which is why "some " of the low end rifles are very accurate because they were designed and tested for today's plated cheaper ammo.

 

[Brocolt]

I had the same issues as you with my MKII when I first bought it. What I did to greatly improve it was I bedded the action and recoil lug with accuglass, I did not bed the barrel at all. I then installed a custom bottom metal that I had made up for it. It is made of 1/8" stainless steel and is very ridgit and does not bend like the factory tin bottom metal. I then played with the action screw torque and found that my rifle shot best with 16 inch pounds of torque. My rifle accually shoots better with CCI standard and mini mags than it does with the more expensive stuff like SK standard plus or the Eley stuff I tried. PM me if your interested in one of my bottom metals.

what did you use for a torque tool, I have been looking for one to do action screws & rings screws.