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

My first rifle and only is a Savage Axis in .223. Bought it used as I didn't want to spend a lot being a new hunter. I shot 4 groups just over MOA with decent hunting rounds at 100yards. No accutrigger on it so I feel it would shoot better with it but really that's pretty good. They have a cheaper scope on them but it does the job. I'm a beginner shooter with maybe 100 rounds under my belt. Is there better rifles, probably. But will it put down a coyote if I do my job, yes.

Trust me though you can't just yell out "Hey coyote, this is a sub-MOA rifle and it will just lay down for you"

My 2 cents are, get a rifle that is comfortable and you work on your accuracy.

Nic
 
Yoteguy902 said:
My first rifle and only is a Savage Axis in .223. Bought it used as I didn't want to spend a lot being a new hunter. I shot 4 groups just over MOA with decent hunting rounds at 100yards. No accutrigger on it so I feel it would shoot better with it but really that's pretty good. They have a cheaper scope on them but it does the job. I'm a beginner shooter with maybe 100 rounds under my belt. Is there better rifles, probably. But will it put down a coyote if I do my job, yes.

Trust me though you can't just yell out "Hey coyote, this is a sub-MOA rifle and it will just lay down for you"

My 2 cents are, get a rifle that is comfortable and you work on your accuracy.

Nic
Click to expand...

Agree on all if you are happy with your axis.... but beware the scope.... when it does fail it may be disastrous for you and your prey..... decent glass is paramount.....
 
I agree that range and game performance are completely different.

Since we often get only a few shots at game each year, the range is how we tune and quantify our equipment and ability. The true measure of success is not if you can shoot tiny groups, it is whether you are eating liver and onions that night. Because of so many variables, ones shooting in the field at game is seldom even half as good as you experience at the range. From a practical view, if one can hit a dinner plate at the distance animals are taken in your terrain, you eat a lot of liver and onions. So if the typical distance is 50 yards i suppose a SKS works;whereas, at 500 yards most "out of the box" rifles need tuning and practice.
 
Hunting accurate is purely subjective, are you on the prairie, in the bush, or shooting across a canyon with a rifle that must be lite for ease of carry?
Dont waste too much time on small groups when your hunting moose in swamp country. However antelope on the prairie will make accuracy pretty important.
Shooting game at long range (over 300 yards) is more about your estimation of that range than the accuracy of your rifle.
 
I have a hunting & TR shooter friend who shoots thousands of rounds every year, he has a few sport shops that get him to sight in rifles every year, has been averaging 100 rifles a year.
This fellow can shoot believe me. I was shooting at Conn-aught at 300 m he fired 15 shots all in a 3" V bull and that is off his elbows no rear bag TR shooting no front rest.
You may not believe this but the most tight grouping Rifle shooting under 1" most the time with factory ammo
Remington 760-7600 pump rifle, the poorest grouping Sako
manitou
 
Most of the common rifles that are manufactured today are junk. Rem, Sav, Win, etc that you buy in the store today are not nearly the quality they once were. It's the luck of the draw if a certain brand will be accurate or not. The $2000 Cooper may not shoot as well as the $300 Savage. The rifle can be put together properly but if the barrel is junk, there is no hope. That goes for full custom guns as well. It comes down to the quality of the barrel. :nest: It's very depressing what's offered on the shelves these days.
 
gabrielguitars said:
The truth is, groups are mostly useless for hunting rifles. They do work to a degree, because they speak to a rifle's consistency. The problem comes in the fact that we don't often shoot 2 or more shots at the same spot when hunting. As I understand it, in Germany, rifles were tested in terms of where the first shot from a cold barrel went, and that would determine whether it was pulled from the line and sent to the snipers. The ultimately impractical true test would be to fire the rifle once at the target, come back the next day and the next, doing the same thing. Were all three days' first and only shots in the same place? If yes, you have a truly worthy hunting arm. I cannot remember the last time I took a second shot at a deer (actually, I do remember borrowing a rifle, and shooting 5 rounds at a buck, as he calmly watched, and then trotted lazily off as I stood dumbfounded, deaf, and disgusted). The good of groups is only that we can hopefully track to some degree the extreme spread of highest/lowest, leftmost/rightmost shots. To the OP, we know certain things that will tend to wreck good accuracy, such as poor bedding, stock flex, stock contact points, poor rifling finish, inaccurate chamber reaming, etc., but there is still a lot of witchery involved. A lot of this may be due to barrel harmonics, and some manufacturers just get it right, it seems. The things that tend to contribute to good accuracy are well known now, so most all manufacturers adhere to them, and overall rifle accuracy seems to be on the rise compared to 100 years ago or so. Add to all this the question of where one draws the line between hunting and live-game target shooting . . . one should always conduct one's game shots to their sphere of comfort between rifle/ammo/accuracy/energy/bullet construction/game position/game size/game construction/shooting position/weather conditions/lighting . . . you get the picture.
Click to expand...

Yuuuuuuuuuuup!!
 
For the youngsters who don't remember his writings, Col Townsend Whelen would fire 20 rounds at a 300 yard target before he stated that a rifle was capable of this, that, or the other thing with respect to accuracy. And that level of accuracy would have to be repeated on demand many times over, if that determination was to stand. That was how the the US military defined accuracy. If Townsend Whelen stated that a hunting rifle would hold 1.5 MOA, that was high praise indeed. Today we'd probably call it a half minute rifle, or at the very least a sub MOA rifle.

But what does the big game hunter need to know about the accuracy of his rifle when its unlikely he can hold 2 MOA under realistic conditions anyway. Well for one thing he must know where his cold bore shot impacts, and determine in that POI is repeatable day in and day out, without deviation. Next he needs to know whether or not his rapidly fired follow up shot lands on top of his cold bore shot, or if a deviation appears. If it deviates, then by how much, and if significant he must decide, if its enough to matter, if its too much to ignore, if his rifle needs bedding work, are the sights about to fall off, or if he should just choose to zero his rifle for the average POI. We would hope, he zeros for the cold bore shot, but mostly we're happy if he even bothers to sight in. After the placement of the first two rounds out of the rifle has been determined to be repeatable, assuming those two shots land in close proximity to one another, and that the bedding of the rifle doesn't need work, and the sights are tight enough for government work, he then needs to think about firing subsequent shots, and consider how barrel heating might change the point of impact. Once upon a time, targets were scored by the length of their shot strings. That is each point of impact was measured from the center of the bull, and a mean score was arrived at by averaging the accumulated length by the number of shots fired. This certainly would be a better measure of hunting accuracy than group size alone, similar to using scoring rings around the bullseye. It also shows if a deviation is likely to occur due to barrel heating.


If the first 2 rounds always land on top of one another, that is the most critical accuracy that can be applied to the big game rifle. If you want to claim sub MOA for such performance I suppose you could, but it doesn't really mean much. Then again, worrying about sub MOA accuracy in a hunting rifle doesn't make much sense anyway. If the third round always impacts within a half minute of the first two, your rifle is a winner, and you should be very confident in it's ability to put the bullet where you determine it should go, based on the limitations of your marksmanship. Should you need to fire 5 rounds in the field, not only are you having a bad day, so is what you're shooting at, which undoubtedly is getting farther away by the second. All the same, it is prudent to see if your group size opens up significantly, over the next couple of rounds, that are fired in quick succession. Once answered, should the occasion arise, you'll have some idea of the extent of the problem, and how to deal with it.
 
While the Rugers got bought up, do we believe they shoot better with a pressure point in the stock or better free floated?

I havea thread in the reloading section on min loads, before I upped the charge weight I felt the new stock may of needed a pressure point as the shots were erratic, then I shot a 1.5inch group with a charge, tried to replicate it today an 1 shot was well out of the 1.5 inch range but im thinking it could of been me.

the next grain up an It shot 3 inch group, im yet to try the full charge of 55gr but will tomorrow..... I just feel its odd that 1 charge weight shot reasonable an the rest Shoithouse! maybe it happens a bit with certain guns an certain components?? would be interested to hear some more experienced opinions on that thread.

RE the Axis. I shot a friends who purchased on a budget.... I put 3 into 1 inch with factory... wow, for a deer rifle it ticks boxes (308)

WL
 
I have seen consistent hunting rifle accuracy right out to 300 yards with four different rifles built by BSA- the Royal in 257 Bob that my son owns is absolutley the most accurate factory hunting rifle I have ever shot in 50 years!
I've also seen some very accurate Winchester featherweights in 308( 3 of them) 7X57, and '06 ( 2 of them)
Cat
 
Inherently accurate -

I've had at least 3 Tikka M-65s, (.270, .30-06 and .338 WM) and all shot extremely well.

I've had (and have) several SAKO L61Rs and a few "A" Series; all shot very well.

Numerous Husqvarna sporters shot very well; not quite as well on average as the SAKOs and Tikkas perhaps, but still very well. I only ever had one .270 that really struggled with accuracy, and it was cured with a bit of stock work, bedding, and a fresh crown. The 'conventional' stocked ones seemed to shoot better than the Mannlicher stocked versions, but I've found that to be generally true across all makes. I'd still take a well used HVA over a new Remchester.

The most surprising were 3 H&R 340s in .30-06 that I bought new in the early '80s (all at the same time) with cracked stocks. After re-stocking, all three literally shot bug holes and were D&Td so identically that the same scope was moved from rifle to rifle and shot to the same point of aim without adjustment. Like a damn fool I sold all three. Being broke will do that to you.

I've had a lifelong love affair with FN Mausers in their many incarnations, especially in the Browning versions - but I will admit they are hit & miss in the accuracy department. Some shoot SO well, while others are merely acceptable. I never had a real dog, but I've only had a handful that really put a smile on your face when you walk down to the target stands.

If you're looking for true inherent accuracy, pick up almost any Model 96 or 38 Swede in 6.5x55 for dirt cheap, and be prepared for a pleasant surprise. Most of them will do an inch with the iron sights!

Inherently Inaccurate -

I've had a quite a few modern Remingtons, Winchesters and Rugers and not one ever shot worth a damn out of the box. They will shoot after some tinkering (or sometimes a lot!), but I've yet to see one that I could call 'inherently accurate'. I still have one Model 7 in .308 that does under an inch but it took re-crowning, bore lapping, and a lot of stock work to get it there. The rest simply got sold off after frustrating the hell out of me.

I've had numerous lever actions (BLRs, BLR-81s, Savage 99s, 94 Winchesters) in all sorts of calibers, but as nice as they are to carry, I have yet to find one that shoots well enough to keep. The sole exception to that is a 9422M, and that one's staying here until I croak. That one does shoot.
 
manitou210 said:
I have a hunting & TR shooter friend who shoots thousands of rounds every year, he has a few sport shops that get him to sight in rifles every year, has been averaging 100 rifles a year.
This fellow can shoot believe me. I was shooting at Conn-aught at 300 m he fired 15 shots all in a 3" V bull and that is off his elbows no rear bag TR shooting no front rest.
You may not believe this but the most tight grouping Rifle shooting under 1" most the time with factory ammo
Remington 760-7600 pump rifle, the poorest grouping Sako
manitou
Click to expand...
I have here in my home a book regarding the Olympic shooting sports written by Colonel Crossman in the 1960s. He said that in some of the last running boar centrefire matches (just rimfire now) two rifles mostly dominated this sport:

-Anschutz bolt action rifle chambered in 22 Hornet
-Remington Model 760 in 222 Remington
 
Brutus said:
I have here in my home a book regarding the Olympic shooting sports written by Colonel Crossman in the 1960s. He said that in some of the last running boar centrefire matches (just rimfire now) two rifles mostly dominated this sport:

-Anschutz bolt action rifle chambered in 22 Hornet
-Remington Model 760 in 222 Remington
Click to expand...

The 760 surprises me.... although I do like them I have never considered them tack drivers....
 
Eagleye said:
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.
Click to expand...

For me, that rifle is my 40 years old Husqvarna 1600 in Swedish Mauser. 4 years of shooting it and I can always put that first, cold barrel 140 grain Hornady Custom exactly where I want it.

I disagree with those who suggest in a real hunting situation it doesn't matter that much. That kind of confidence in your rifle always matters. Why don't we get that kind of confidence in newer rifles, economy or otherwise, given the advancement of technology? I understand Husqvarna 1600's were "economy" rifles of their time!
 
greetings
axis 223 , and marlin xt 22lr wipe shoot repeat as great as the shooter
on the negative choice 10./22 ,m305 i know can be with a lot of mods but he said out of the box
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom