Bolt actionwhat should I get (Controlled feed)?

ben hunchak said:
You can't go wrong with any of those guns, I'd look around for a used Featherweight model 70 if it were me.
Click to expand...

The featherweights are awesome beautiful guns, I'll give you that. I've owned them in 30-06, .270 and .257 Rob. None would come up to 1 moa standards except for the . 257 Rob. I attribute it to the pencil thin barrel that the .270 adn .30 bore would take too much out of the bore and make thme too "whippy" The .257 was somewhat acceptable, but if you take bore out such a thin barrel, then accuracy looses. Not something I would recommend if accuracy is high up on demands. :)
 
My 06 Featherweight has been one of my more consistently accurate guns, usually hovering around .75" with 180s, so I would definately not shy away from a nice Featherweight if you find one at a reasonable price, and they are one of the nicest handling hunting arms around.
 
gitrdun said:
The featherweights are awesome beautiful guns, I'll give you that. I've owned them in 30-06, .270 and .257 Rob. None would come up to 1 moa standards except for the . 257 Rob. I attribute it to the pencil thin barrel that the .270 adn .30 bore would take too much out of the bore and make thme too "whippy" The .257 was somewhat acceptable, but if you take bore out such a thin barrel, then accuracy looses. Not something I would recommend if accuracy is high up on demands. :)
Click to expand...

My 6.5x55 Featherweight is a consistent 1" or less performer, barrel cold or hot. Had the same experience with my (ex-) featherweights in .308 and .223 as well. BUT, in all cases I needed to have some wood taken out to keep the barrel from rubbing against high points in the channel. Once they were 'floated, it was off to the races. YMMV of course, but I've always been impressed with them.
 
The Savages and Mossberg package kits are the best day to day hunting packages, for the once-a-year Babilizer. They will often give 1 MOA "as-found", but if you are going for hunting accuracy, remember that anything over 2 MOA is gilding the lily.

I will trade absolute reliability for that extra bit of accuracy every time, in a hunting rifle. It has become fashionable to equate sub MOA accuracy with a good hunting rifle, and it just ain't so!
 
oldbadger said:
The Savages and Mossberg package kits are the best day to day hunting packages, for the once-a-year Babilizer. They will often give 1 MOA "as-found", but if you are going for hunting accuracy, remember that anything over 2 MOA is gilding the lily.

I will trade absolute reliability for that extra bit of accuracy every time, in a hunting rifle. It has become fashionable to equate sub MOA accuracy with a good hunting rifle, and it just ain't so!
Click to expand...

X2! Couldn't have said it better myself, and now I don't need to try.
 
I can see where a CRF might be a good idea for big and nasty stuff, but for a rifle that's only for deer or moose I wouldn't count out an accurate push feed as an option.


.
 
I will trade absolute reliability for that extra bit of accuracy every time, in a hunting rifle. It has become fashionable to equate sub MOA accuracy with a good hunting rifle, and it just ain't so!
Click to expand...


Why settle for one or the other? Lots of great rifles offering both these days. Truthfully, I'd sell a 2 MOA rifle so fast that it would make your head spin. To me, that's totally unacceptable accuracy. I'm not big on possibly being out 6" at 300 yards. On an antelope or sheep that could mean the difference between a kill and wounding. Inside 150 yards 2 MOA might cut it but not for a long-range gun.
 
I havent' seen the new Mdl 70's yet.

If I as looking for a new CRF rifle right now, it would be a Kimber. I far prefer the CRF for all types of hunting, dangerous game or not.
 
After owning a mauser (Daly, Mark X, Interarm, Husquavarna), 3 Winchester CRFs, a ruger and a Kimber, well, I just bought another Kimber. Fit, finish, quality, and cool all make this the best production CRF. Thats just an opinion though.:wave:
 
Has anyone had any warranty issues with Kimber? I've heard from three people that had problems that you are pretty much on your own if you live in Canada.
 
sheephunter said:
Why settle for one or the other? Lots of great rifles offering both these days. Truthfully, I'd sell a 2 MOA rifle so fast that it would make your head spin. To me, that's totally unacceptable accuracy. I'm not big on possibly being out 6" at 300 yards. On an antelope or sheep that could mean the difference between a kill and wounding. Inside 150 yards 2 MOA might cut it but not for a long-range gun.
Click to expand...

You happen to be a little off on this comment (this isn't a show up the gun writer post, I just don't want people to be mislead). A 2 MOA rifle will likley make a 6" group at 300yds yes. But the bullet is actually landing a maximum of 3" from point of aim. That is actually much more than adequately accurate out to 400yds, as the smaller deer of canada have a 10" kill zone. I used a 300WSM in a Model 70 Featherweight SS to kill a Muledeer on the prairies two years ago at 444yds. I smashed his shoulder ball and took the heart out perfectly, as I was expecting. The rifle was only doing 1.5-2 MOA with the 168 TSX's I was using. My moose at 250yds found heart and lungs easily too.
Would I prefer to have a more accurate rifle, yes, and I own more accurate rifles (that one later printed .75-1" with 180 Sierras), but I knew that the accuracy the rifle showed would do well for the job at hand.
Out to 150yds I would be happy to use a 4 MOA rifle without a flinch (though I still loath the SKS:mad:
If a person is making a consistent average of 1.50-2 MOA with a rifle and they like the rifle (it fits, points and feels like a hot blond on a Satruday night) then go hunting. It'll do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's assuming that your first shot hits dead centre and your next two hit three inches either side. Vertical stringing is a far greater culprit when groups open up and in that case it is quite possible that your first and second shot could indeed be 6 inches apart. In a perfect world, a six inch group would revolve three inches around a centre point but sadly that's not the way inaccurate rifles shoot. One shot at centre and two shots side by side but six inches away is still a six inch group just as one shot in the centre with a shot three inches either side of it is. No matter how you look at it, you have two shots 6" apart and there's no saying that they are revolving 3" around a central point or which shots they were in sequence......all you know is that you are throwing a 6" group with no predictability. I like my shots to land a little closer to POA. For your theory to work, the first shot needs to hit POA exactly which is highly doubtful with a 2MOA rifle.

Your other assumption is that the shooter can, under field conditions, shoot the same type groups as off bags or a rest at the range......but most cannot which maginifies that 6" group considerably further easily throwing you outside that magic 10" kill zone.

Your thoughts about groups are indeed a common misconception but a misconception no less.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
That's assuming that your first shot hits dead centre and your next two hit three inches either side.
Click to expand...

I for one would think that if my first shot hit dead centre to point of aim, as you want me to assume for your example, then it wouldn't really matter too much as to where the next two or three shots may or may not land as they wouldn't be necessary now would they?

We are talking hunting not target shooting...
 
Last edited:
Legs in the Air said:
I for one would think that if my first shot hit dead centre to point of aim, as you want me to assume for your example, then it wouldn't really matter too much as to where the next two or three shots may or may not land as they wouldn't be necessary now would they?

We are talking hunting not target shooting...
Click to expand...

I only want you to assume that if you buy into 338's theory which I don't. Reread, what I wrote....I said you'd have to assume it hit POA for the three inch scenario to work. It's been my experience that that is not the case with a 2MOA gun and that it can hit anywhere within 2" of POA at 100 yards or 6" at 300 yards on the first shot. I could care less about the second and third shots either but I damn sure want that first shot within an inch or less of POA....and a 2MOA gun won't do that by definition.

As we are talking hunting, I think it far more important to be accurate...I've yet to see a wounded piece of paper run away.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
As we are talking hunting, I think it far more important to be accurate...I've yet to see a wounded piece of paper run away.
Click to expand...

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm all for accuracy, the more the better......to a point.

The point is of course to have your bullet land within the kill zone which for sake of argument is a 10 inch diameter circle on the vitals of a whitetail. So at three hundred yards a 2moa level of accuracy would not cut it, it may very well land 6" away from point of aim, out of the killzone.

However a 1.5moa should theoretically put you inside that 10" ring even at 300 yards so this level should be considered good enough for three hundred and in, agreed?
 
Pretty tough to find a 2MOA bolt action these days anyway. :p

I'm sure it happens, but thinking of the 50 or so bolt action rifles that I've owned/loaded for over the last few years, I can't think of one that wouldn't do 1MOA with minimal work.;)

Now..accuracy and reliability. I agree, we can have both. There is a certian point when some hunters get carried away with accuracy, and forget abotu reliability though.Usually it is when they determine the worth of a rifle by examining groups, and ignore how the other functions of the rifle are. Stevens 200 rifles pop to mind immediately. Great value, great accuracy- But not what I'd take on a remote hunt, due to reliability issues..
 
Last edited:
Gatehouse said:
Pretty tough to find a 2MOA bolt action these days anyway. :p

I'm sure it happens, but thinking of the 50 or so bolt action rifles that I've owned/loaded for over the last few years, I can't think of one that wouldn't do 1MOA with minimal work.;)

Now..accuracy and reliability. I agree, we can have both. There is a certian point when some hunters get carried away with accuracy, and forget abotu reliability though.Usually it is when they determine the worth of a rifle by examining groups, and ignore how the other functions of the rifle are. Stevens 200 rifles pop to mind immediately. Great value, great accuracy- But not what I'd take on a remote hunt, due to reliability issues..
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom