Best starting point for an accurate rifle.

[tacfoley]

Have a look here for another view of a K31 with scope....

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6888179#post6888179

Mind you, that 1/2" MOA has eluded me so far - many a modern out of the box gun with a 'whoopee' cosmic-power telescopic sights on it, bipod, butt-spike and match-grade ammunition can't hack that little figure either, so my view [worth nothing] is that you're trying to herd cats here.

Lots of luck trying though.

tac

 

[purple]

Some of us have been down this road before and some are still on it. Military rifles just weren't designed or built to attain sub-MOA accuracy. MOA is about the best you can expect from them with well crafted handloads. Looking for more is like going to the carnival and trying to shoot one of those basketballs thru a hoop that is about the same size as the ball. Sometimes you get lucky and might be surprised by a .3 MOA group, but put this down to random bullet dispersion and nothing more. The accuracy standard for the No4 Mk1 T sniper rifle was 3MOA, although a good one will do better than that.

The CG 63 or one of the Swede Mausers with diopter sights can be very accurate, but they aren't stock MILSURP rifles and must therefore be excluded from this discussion. The M1903 Springfield is a typical MILSURP which is well regarded for accuracy with the standard .30-06 chambering. I've done a lot of shooting with a number of them in my own quest for accuracy. This has involved handloads and re-working the rifles to spec so as to ensure that stock bedding, sights, and trigger pull are to military specs. I don't portray myself as anything more than a gun plumber/handloader/shooter with average skills. No doubt others might do a little better with the same pieces. Here are some results from my range log. Most loads employ 155,168 and 173 gr match bullets in military cases sorted by weight and firing cycles with uniform trim length, flash holes deburred, and primer pockets uniformed. Most cases were necksized with a Lee Collet die.

1. Average size of best repeatable 100 yd handloads from 3 rifles in stock configuration using the aperture sight in the rear sight leaf; 1.49", 1.5", 1.22", 1.49", 1.28", 1.22". 2 rifles were fitted with new military barrels and the third barrel gauged near new.

2. Average size of best repeatable handloads in a M1903A4 sniper rifle with a Lyman Alaskan 2.5X scope with post and xhair reticle with the post subtending 4" @ 100 yds; 1.41" and 1.46". This rifle is fitted with a 2 groove military barrel with minimal wear.

3. To illustrate the accuracy gain with modern higher power optics, I also shoot a M1903 sporter with a Burris 6x scope and a new military barrel. This rifle is bedded in a sporter stock with a standard 2 stage trigger and free floating barrel whereas the military configuration specifies 5-7 lbs barrel pressure at the forend tip. My best 150, 165, and 180gr hunting handloads in this rifle average 1", 1.17" and .86" respectively.

As mentioned previously, one is clearly fishing in the wrong pond with an expectation of repeatable sub-MOA accuracy from any stock MILSURP bolt rifle. These rifles designed to function reliably in combat conditions and were expected to hit man-sized targets with mass produced ammo at ranges up to 600 yds. Nothing more should be expected from them-although it is always fun to try.

 

[buffdog]

Something like this should come close. A Swedish m/96 Mauser Hemvarnet Prize Rifle, that with a bit of tuning will shoot right up there with a CG-63.
.

.
With over 55 years of shooting Military Rifles, I do think, however, that the OPs expectations of .2 MOA are quite unrealistic. Also, he has absolutely no idea of some of the people who have tried to give him an honest answer really are, and what they have accomplished in actual use on the range, in the field, and at the reloading bench.

To call SMELLIE an "F Class Shooter" is probably one of the worst insults he has ever had. SMELLIE is an ex-newspaper editor, has visited the Pattern Room and while there wrote a Manual for the earliest Maxim machine gun from his notes, and his name is acknowledged in "Cartridges of the World" as a contributor. His University Thesis on Military Small Arms is still quoted and he is recognized as an Expert in both the handling and knowledge of the Lee Enfield system, the Ross Rifle and the Maxim Machine Gun.

His Mentor and Shooting partner was five times Member of Canada's Bisley Team, and three times Captain of the Team.

I have not personally met PURPLE, but I have been told by a very accomplished rifleman of him as being one of the best long range rifle shots in Canada, out to 1000 yards with a Military Rifle. That alone would want me to keep my head down if he was on the opposite side of the fence.

My shooting partner when I was younger was an retired British Sergeant-Major, who just happened to be an Instructor at the School of Musketry in Hythe, England. I have shot Service Rifle at the Nationals at Camp Perry, where those wicked fishtailing winds come off Lake Erie, and I did fairly respectaly there.

So I guess I am now wondering if our Education System has really improved that much. We have someone with 31 whole posts putting down people who have been there, done that, and got the T-shirt for it, with experience gained over decades of time.

Some people on these Forums have highly inflated opinions of themselves, and make sure they express those opinions. Others quietly go along and do whatever is required, helping other people along the way, and really do not need to talk about their accomplishments, real or otherwise, because their actions speak for themselves.

Out here on the Prairies, when referring to some types of people, we have a saying that is sometimes appropriate: "All hat and no cows."
.

 

[TCBF]

A service rifle is a club. It is more advanced than a caveman's club in that it has a hole in it drilled lengthwise to aid in the reasonably accurate projection of small projectiles. I won't get into bayonets.

With a milsurp, we should be thankful for what we receive.

We should also remember that service ammunition was designed for universal service: that Mk VII Z Ball Cartridge was designed to be shot from sea-level to high mountains, and in deserts, jungles and temperate grasslands and forests, and even the high arctic. Think of that next time some 21st century reloader poo-poos 'military' ammunition!

 

[Lee Enfield]

I want an old bolt action rifle I can shoot mid-range competitions with. (100-300m)

I'd like it to be accurate to 1/4 or 1/3 MOA.

What is the best rifle to start with?

I have average gunsmithing skills and above average reloading skills.

I don't care if it's possible, I'll have fun trying.

Thanks.

I'm sorry, but even modern custom built target rifles with custom built actions have trouble accomplishing what your criteria is.

 

[Cmiller82]

Let's break this down...

With over 55 years of shooting Military Rifles, I do think, however, that the OPs expectations of .2 MOA are quite unrealistic.

I know it's unrealistic, but it's a goal. If I never get there, fine. But if I set a realistic goal of .5 MOA, and the rifle is capable of better, I would never know.

Also, he has absolutely no idea of some of the people who have tried to give him an honest answer really are, and what they have accomplished in actual use on the range, in the field, and at the reloading bench.

This is the internet, of course I don't know who these people are, they all have aliases. You also do not know who I am.

To call SMELLIE an "F Class Shooter" is probably one of the worst insults he has ever had.

First, I did not call him an F-Class shooter. I was a generic remark meant at correcting me from calling 100m-300m "Mid-Rangle".

Off an a tangent a little, why is calling anyone an F-Class shooter an insult?

SMELLIE is an ex-newspaper editor, has visited the Pattern Room and while there wrote a Manual for the earliest Maxim machine gun from his notes, and his name is acknowledged in "Cartridges of the World" as a contributor. His University Thesis on Military Small Arms is still quoted and he is recognized as an Expert in both the handling and knowledge of the Lee Enfield system, the Ross Rifle and the Maxim Machine Gun.

His Mentor and Shooting partner was five times Member of Canada's Bisley Team, and three times Captain of the Team.

Again, it's the internet, there is no sign above his head with these impressive accomplishments. Just an alias of "SMELLIE"...

I have not personally met PURPLE, but I have been told by a very accomplished rifleman of him as being one of the best long range rifle shots in Canada, out to 1000 yards with a Military Rifle. That alone would want me to keep my head down if he was on the opposite side of the fence.

My shooting partner when I was younger was an retired British Sergeant-Major, who just happened to be an Instructor at the School of Musketry in Hythe, England. I have shot Service Rifle at the Nationals at Camp Perry, where those wicked fishtailing winds come off Lake Erie, and I did fairly respectaly there.

Some people on these Forums have highly inflated opinions of themselves, and make sure they express those opinions. Others quietly go along and do whatever is required, helping other people along the way, and really do not need to talk about their accomplishments, real or otherwise, because their actions speak for themselves.

Out here on the Prairies, when referring to some types of people, we have a saying that is sometimes appropriate: "All hat and no cows."

To sum it up, I just want to thank everyone for their opinions and contributions to the thread.

If I offended anyone it was not intentional.

It was this post that prompted my post in the first place:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719488


Live and learn...

 

[J996]

96 Swede or K31.

 

[Cmiller82]

Duh.... SMLE.... SMELLIE... forehead slap.

A clever name is only as clever as the person reading it.

 

[purple]

.

I have not personally met PURPLE, but I have been told by a very accomplished rifleman of him as being one of the best long range rifle shots in Canada, out to 1000 yards with a Military Rifle. That alone would want me to keep my head down if he was on the opposite side of the fence.

I think I'd better dispell any myths that may exist about my shooting skills before this takes on a life of it's own. You know how it can be on the internet; one week you buy an M14 clone and the next you are getting itty-bitty .5 MOA groups with it using MILSURP ammo.

I've never professed to be anything more than an average rifleshot. I had a full and satisfying 32 year military career which involved quite a lot of shooting, incl being on several rifle teams. I also managed to qualify with every piece that was issued to me. I never went to Bisley or shot for the Queen's Medal either. I've shot on a lot of the military ranges in the country, plus some in the US and elsewhere and learned from these experiences. I even got to be a target once, and thanked God that the bugger on the other end never learned how to lead a moving target from growing up hunting ducks and geese on the prairies. I've also done a lot of hunting, reloading and re-working of various rifles over the years. Generally I manage to hit more often than I miss, but don't take anything for granted. That means keeping my rifles in the best possible condition, using proven handloads, and using fieldcraft to shorten the distance when hunting. One thing that I have benefitted from, even during those dark pre-internet years, was my contacts with a number of very fine target and hunting shots and I was always happy to soak up what they had to say.

My medals, promotions, etc. are in the rearview mirror now, so my ego doesn't need to be plumped by telling tales of medals won, bars cleared, virgins deflowered, revolutions quelled, or regular 500 yd heart shots on running deer.
Back on topic. I've provided some comments and factual results based on my own fairly extensive experience with MILSURP rifles. I am happy to see others break a new trail here and report back with their own findings. The quest for accuracy never ends, and there is no pre-determined recipe for it.

 

[desporterizer]

I could stand to hear some tales of deflowered virgins.

 

[purple]

It's my firm belief that virgins are about as abundant as .5 MOA capable MILSURPs nowadays.

Just think about how profoundly disappointed those Islamic suicide bombers must be when they finally get to their destination and try to claim their promised quota of virgins. All they are likely to find are the very fast, very ugly or very re-cycled ones.

 

[twosteam]

I could stand to hear some tales of deflowered virgins.

What is this fascination with virgins?
Guys, Guys, Guys!

It's my firm belief that virgins are about as abundant as .5 MOA capable MILSURPs nowadays.

 

[buffdog]

It's my firm belief that virgins are about as abundant as .5 MOA capable MILSURPs nowadays.

Well said. I guess we are going to have to add a good sense of humor to your other attirbutes.

Todays level of accuracy for rifles was something we only dreamed about fifty years ago. Back in the 1960s I had a chance to tour the Remington Factory, and the standard for a hunting rifle was two minutes of accuracy for five rounds from a rest. The occasional rifles that grouped in the one inch range, depending upon calibre required, ended up going to Remington's Custom Gun Shop, where they were dolled up and sold at much higher prices.

What today's Minute-of-Angle younger shooters think is the Norm was arrived at by the same people who are the older shooters today, by trial-and-error and experimentation. The evolution of telescopic sights is an example, and even the cheapest Wal-Mart Special is probably a better scope than what we had in the late 50s and early 60s. Reloading tool and methods, bedding and bedding compounds, and top quality ammunition components today are light years above what we intitially had to work with. I had Seely Masker make me a set of reloading tools in .308 Winchester for ONE particular rifle, and only that one rifle gets loads made with those tools when I want to go play.

And the same "old farts" that are still alive today, who are trying to give the best advice they can on the subject, are the ones who got us to this point. It might be a good idea to really listen to what they are saying.

A good point was brought up about the purpose of Military Rifles and ammunition, that is, to hit a fairly large target, the human body. A military rifle that shoots into one minute-of-angle will keep its rounds into the X ring of almost any reasonable target (V rings for Americans), except maybe the Olympic targets. The big thing is consistency, where the rifle shoots to a reasonable level of accuracy, day-after-day, under all weather conditions, and stays that way.

I have over 25 Swedish Model 96 Mauser FSR rifles, with diopter sights on them; one of the finest made Military rifles in the world, BUT, there is only about FOUR that will give that consistent level of accuracy that I could count on and would use for shooting on the Target Range.
.

 

[Ganderite]

I posted this on another thread. I think it fits here, too.

Out of the box, under 2" is good. Then clean up the barrel channel, bed the action. That shouldm get you in the 1.00 to 1.5" range.

Then develop a good handload for it. That should get you around 1".

Some rifles have good barrels and even bolt contact, etc. and will do better.

Don't confuse the bragging on here to the average rifle in the real world.