Inherently accurate (and inaccurate) bolt action hunting rifles, what are they?

Royzo said:
There is no comparison between range shooting and hunting.
Click to expand...

Yes, but one usually precedes the other. And a common formula for success is very often with the two deeply entwined together.
Those that sight in their rifles pre-season are more apt to bring home the venison, so to speak.

The only variables should be unknown shooting position and a brief window of engagement.
 
I appreciate the comments suggesting that in real hunting conditions, there are so many other factors that out of the box accuracy may not matter that much. I agree with that comment, but for a lot of folks who like me regularly take their hunting rifles to the range it matters.

Is Tikka's reputation for out of the box accuracy unreal? If it is real, I am curious to know why is that (technically and mechanically speaking)? I have also boresighted a few Savages for friends and I have noticed that all 110 based savages, as ugly and cheap as they maybe, shoot very well out of the box. Not the same experience with two rifles of another brand (more expensive) which frustrated me to no end. Remember, same operator.

So, who is man enough to name some of the "inaccurate" out of the box rifles and take a guaranteed!:D beating for it?
 
Royzo said:
There is no comparison between range shooting and hunting.
Click to expand...

That is what the people at the range that can't seem to hit the target with any consistency always seem to be saying. They can't hit what they aim at at the range, but they claim to be great shots on game animals.:)
 
I'd sooner hunt with a Mosin or SKS then an Enfield.
And yes I have owned several examples of all three.

But I'm rather happy that we have the option of modern budget hunting rifles.
 
Not fair to compare Mil. surplus rifles (and older hunting rifles) with the present day hunting rifles. Let's keep it limited to the modern day scoped hunting rifles like Remington 700, Savage 11/111, Tikka 3, Ruger Hawkeye....etc. You know, the ones that are likely to be purchased new by today's hunters at a gun store.
 
Brutus said:
^I am going to be the first to pose the thought here, that the SKS carbine from various former Soviet Bloc countries often deserves this category.

steel helmet on tight......
Click to expand...

Come on; go big or go home, personal fave to watch the dust fly...Lee Enfield No.5 e.i. Jungle Carbine!
cou:
 
Milsurps are not necessarily inaccurate. I have a P14 that is a consistent 1½ moa shooter with 3 different loads, and occasionally turns in a group under 1 moa.

I will hunt this rifle any day, and know that it will get the job done.

It all boils down to what any one shooter is content with.

Regards, Dave.
 
I agree with Eagleye regarding milsurps. My shooting buddy, Machman, has an accurized Chinese-made 'M14' that shoots MOA with iron sights every day of every week.

As for my rifles, well my old (c. 1980) Sako Aii Forester in .243 wants to place bullets in the same hole at 100 yds. - [it's both mint and stock].
In fact, that Sako easily outshot my fancy Remy M700 7-08 with the custom barrel which was MOA but only just - [as a result, the Remy has been sold].
My Ruger M77 Hawkeye RSI is at least a 1.5 MOA shooter .. and it has an 18 inch barrel with a full stock - [so no complaints there].
My most recent acquisition, a Kimber Montana M84 in .243, is getting tighter and tighter groups - [as I get used to shooting a mountain rifle].

I suspect that, these days: [1] most factory rifles have MOA potential, and [2] almost all are potentially more accurate than most of the owners squeezing the trigger.
And that reminds me of what my dad used to say .. "a poor workman invariably blames his tools". lol.
 
I think we get to caught up in shooting tiny groups at the range, as has been pointed out shooting off sand bags at range and shooting off hand at a deer running through the bush at warp two are two different shooting worlds.
My thoughts although have always been that if the rifle is properly sighted and shooting as accurately I can get it at the range then when I get in the field I have the right tool in hand to place the bullet were needed, if I miss then it's my fault not the rifles.
That being said I have three M-70's and one Kimber 8400. The Kimber being the least accurate at the range as it's groups a consistant 1.5" to 2" groups. The M-70's 1" to 1.5". I was always a bit disappointed in the Kimbers performance but for shooting at deer, moose, and whatever at 100yds and under, that type of rifle accuracy is more than acceptable as I am not sniping at game hundreds of yards off. Ontario doesn't give many opportunities for that. The Kimber has taken more game than the others as it seems to be my lucky rifle, when I carry it I seem to see more game. Plus it never fails to go bang and do it's job, so what more can a fella ask for. But I have a long time love for Win. M-70's so that's what get used most these days.
Over the years I have fired a lot of bullets off sand bags on ranges with my rifles and other peoples. I am not the best rifleman at the range but I am not the worst either. The very best group I ever got was with one of my older M-70 push feeds in 30-06 in the early 80's. Three shot's one little clover leaf hole at 100 yds. Never done it again with that rifle or any other in any calibre. It was just one of those times when everything worked perfectly I guess. So I agree with Eagle Eye that all these out of the box rifles that shoot sub MOA groups all day long everyday are questionable in there existence, and if they do there is dam few guys around that can make them perform to that standard consistently. And for the average guy going hunting it is just not necessary anyways.
 
Home3 said:
Which line of rifles/brands tend to be more accurate out of box? Which ones not? Why is that? Is it always the design, or built and other factors are involved? Funny thing, it doesn't seem to be directly related to their price range. Some $300 rifles have a better reputation for accuracy than some more expensive guns. Remember Stevens 200?

I am thinking bolt action, center fire hunting guns, being sold right now to keep it fair.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion that manufacturers that guarantee some form of accuracy out of the box have a better product - simply because they stand behind them. I know that most of my rifles shoot better than I do. Now if you'll excuse me I have to spend my weekend up here contemplating how accurate my rifle is:

 
Eagleye said:
The problem with many who post is: They actually shot 1, 2 or possibly 3 groups that were sub-moa....then they declare immediately that they possess a sub-moa rifle.

IMHO, That is not what describes a sub-moa rifle. If they shot 25 consecutive groups that were under 1 moa, then I might be inclined to believe that they have a sub-moa rifle.

As far as factory hunting rifles go, such a rifle is actually rather rare!! If you have one, you should never sell it, because it may be a long time before you find one again.



I have a 338 Win Mag [a Ruger 77 Mk 2] that quite frequently delights me with a group under 1", but I cannot classify it as a sub-moa rifle, since it will shoot 1.25 moa groups with the same loads, often on the same day.

Sadly, in the internet, it is easy to pad the truth, since no real checks and balances exist. But seasoned shooters can often pick the imagination from the reality, lol.

Regards, Dave.
Click to expand...

Yep I think you totally hit the nail on the head on with that.I could not agree more.
 
coleman1495 said:
Yep I think you totally hit the nail on the head on with that.I could not agree more.
Click to expand...

Don't think I've ever shot 25 consecutive groups with anything. Usually I'll send a flyer down range once in a while. Like my Sako 85 LH Hunter in 30-06 though. It was very accurate right out of the box. Also, surprisingly, like my 10/22 Takedown up closer. It's got a few little new bits but VERY accurate.
 
Eagleye said:
Sadly, in the internet, it is easy to pad the truth, since no real checks and balances exist. But seasoned shooters can often pick the imagination from the reality, lol.

Regards, Dave.
Click to expand...

Yes Dave, and I will guess that you and I are about on an equal at this picking!

Bruce
 
Dave / Bruce... with all due respect, rifle manufacturing has come a long way in the last 20 years and it is indeed possible to make a more accurate out of the box rifle on the cheap than ever before.... there is no denying that.... it is simply a fact....

That being said, I also shudder at people that consider themselves "moa shooters".... with the advent of better technology came the internet as well.... a forum where everyone shoots moa to strangers that will never see them shoot and where everyone is "so much cooler online".....

I shoot and have shot enough to know an I accurate rifle when I see one.... and I would suggest that most times this is due to how the rifle fits me and not manufacturing tolerances... in fact, the most accurate (to me) rifle I ever owned was a cheap handi.....

I am not ashamed to admit that my personal limit is 300 yards with a rifle I am familiar with and I require confidence in knowing that I could attain a 4 inch group well rested in a hunting position using that rifle.

For example, the weatherby vanguard is well regarded... but I cant even be confident in a 6 or to be honest 8 inch group with one at 300.... they just don't fit me right..... I wont be online saying weatherby is useless or junk.... but I do advocate a well fitted rifle to each shooter....

My one concern with the attitude towards modern rifles is the lack of desire for quality when an axis is "good enough".... I PERSONALLLY focus on two actions for the most part.... one being pre marlin rems and the other being ruger m77.... the rifles fit, the actions are robust and reliable and I am personally confident that they can deliver within my self imposed limit...

I will never rely on modern technology to make up for my own inadequacies... its a recipe for disaster
 
My Remington Model 700 ADL 243 was drop-dead accurate right out of the box when I got it in 1976. Of course I had 23-year-old eyes at the time, but even with iron sights, it was deadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom