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

Sako

SAKO Finnlight 300 Winmag
SAKO Finnwolf 308 ( not a bolt, I know)
SAKO older model 308 Mannlicher
SAKO older model DeLuxe Finnbear 30'06

All 1" or so 5 shot groups at 100 meters factory ammo. They are so accurate as to be almost boring.
 
A Sako 75 Varminter 6ppc, Sako A1 222 Sporter, an old Savage 110 in 7Mag and a Ruger #1 in 300 WM have been the best "out of the box" accurate rifles I've owned. I have a Sako Vixen single shot in 22 PPC waiting for me in the mail when I get home and I have the feeling it will be a very accurate rifle. God I hope so.

The worst and truly the most disappointing lately has been my Rem 700 in 257 Weatherby. It keeps me up at nights.

If I was buying a budget rifle today I'd go with a Savage. I've never owned a Savage in any model or caliber that didn't shoot exceptionally well.
 
Last edited:
Times have changed, 40 yrs. ago most any European guns shot great. North American guns were well over 1 1/2 or 2". Now many guns have the ability to put most shells under the 1 1/2 group. To have a sub MOA gun-you must have a sub MOA shooter. This is seldom the case. A 4" group in a 94 30-30 is still a working gun to 100yds. Most guys I see that come to the range only at hunting season could not shoot a sub target even if there rifle could! I like my Ruger 77s and my Rem.700s all will do sub moa. This comes into effect when you have a coyote catching mice out 500yds in the field. If I did not work at getting a sub shooting rifle at the range, how could I expect to hit at 500. If a white tail is at 300 and I don't know where I need to aim because I did not shoot at any thing more than a 5 gal pail at about 100 yds. The end result is predictable. The other big thing about shooting in the field is knowing how far something is. At 400 yds. +- 50 yds. is a miss. Shooter accuracy is the limiting factor more often than the gun. This is JMHO. Aj
 
Brutus said:
500 meters on an exposed coyote could be done with most bolt action rifles along with the right varmint cartridge and the shooter in a steady position.

Not really a great example to use here.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that, 500 is pretty far in my books. I've probably missed more coyotes than I've hit at that range, but it's not the rifle, it's me. They don't stand around like a metal gong and they tend to stay away from benches and rests.
 
bearkilr said:
Not sure about that, 500 is pretty far in my books. I've probably missed more coyotes than I've hit at that range, but it's not the rifle, it's me. They don't stand around like a metal gong and they tend to stay away from benches and rests.
Click to expand...

I just was trying to point out that when most of us choose varmint rifles they tend to have inherent advantages more so then any other hunting rifles:
-smaller calibre and higher velocity bullets resulting in a flatter trajectory
-less perceived recoil
-optics usually of higher power
 
I recently purchased a Thompson Center Icon Classic in 30-06 that is way more accurate than I am. I wish they still made them because I would love to get one in 223 or 22-250.
 
As far as the comments on the Rem 760/7600 shooting well, I wonder. I've been shooting for 27 years or so, and have the attention span of a goldfish, so I've played with a lot of rifles, mostly lower to mid priced. I once had a Crossman 2200 pump air rifle in .22 cal, and I hunted like mad with it. I shot a grasshoppers' head off, I once shot the head off a snake that was floating in a creek, I shot salamanders on the creek, and birds out to 35 yards. I basically never missed with this thing, and it was with open sights only. I tried to benchrest it, and was greeted with a 10" group at 20 feet! It seems that many guns can be very, very picky about how they are held when shot. I wonder if those crazy old Remington pumps might just need to be held offhand, so that they aren't really able to show how good they are off the bench? Just wondering . . .
 
Over the past 20 years or so I've bought, sold or traded about 70 rifles. In doing so I've become less and less convinced about inherent accuracy being better from one brand to another although I'm sure to some extent there are differences. Supposing that a rifle has a good bore and good bedding modern factory rifles just seem to shoot well regardless of brand. To know how well a rifle will shoot I would ask the rifle by shooting rather than worrying about brand.

Right now I have three .30-06 rifles and all are sub-MOA. Now in fairness if I've gotten rid of several dozen rifles over the years it was often the less accurate ones. The ones I have now are exceptional rifles. Now here is something interesting, of those three .30-06s I mention, one is a Cooper, another is a Ruger 77 RLS (ultralight) and the third one is JC Higgins FN Mauser. The Cooper is clearly the most accurate but the others are quite impressive in their own right especially considering the thin barrel of the Ruger. Rugers get bashed a lot as inaccurate but my experiences are very positive and supposedly Mausers don't make great precision rifles because the lock time is so slow. Could have fooled me. Along the way I also owned a Marlin 1895 that when I fired the first four three shots groups not one had gone over 7/8". Use good handloads and ask the rifle, it might surprise you.

As for range time versus hunting, there is of course more to the story. Of my .30-06s the Ruger is the one I've owned longest, shot the most and hunted with the most. I value it greatly because it is a very "honest" rifle. The first round always goes where it should no matter what, even from a freshly cleaned or fouled bore. The others may be just as good but I haven't done the volume of shooting required to have the same confidence yet. I should also mention that this summer I took the Mauser out of the stock to adjust the trigger and when I reassembled it and went to the range it was shooting to exactly same point of impact as before. Good bedding matters far more than most people realize as many rifles are not so consistent.

So for my brand experience, the two least accurate scoped rifles I've owned have been a Remington 700 and a Ruger 77 Hawkeye. I couldn't get either to shoot under 1.5" ever, no matter what I tried. The best that I have owned have been the .30-06 rifles mentioned above along with a Remington 700 .35 Whelen, a couple Ruger #1s and an old Savage 110 .308.
 
gabrielguitars said:
As far as the comments on the Rem 760/7600 shooting well, I wonder. I've been shooting for 27 years or so, and have the attention span of a goldfish, so I've played with a lot of rifles, mostly lower to mid priced. I once had a Crossman 2200 pump air rifle in .22 cal, and I hunted like mad with it. I shot a grasshoppers' head off, I once shot the head off a snake that was floating in a creek, I shot salamanders on the creek, and birds out to 35 yards. I basically never missed with this thing, and it was with open sights only. I tried to benchrest it, and was greeted with a 10" group at 20 feet! It seems that many guns can be very, very picky about how they are held when shot. I wonder if those crazy old Remington pumps might just need to be held offhand, so that they aren't really able to show how good they are off the bench? Just wondering . . .
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense in my own previous example. Running boar match is shot standing up, unsupported-offhand.
 
Brutus said:
That makes perfect sense in my own previous example. Running boar match is shot standing up, unsupported-offhand.
Click to expand...

I agree that that likely is a major reason why they get a bad rap from some. I have only owned 2 .. a 7600 and a 7615. The 7600 in Whelen shoots very well and is very consistent on POI year after year. I get the impression so far that the 7615 could be the same with the right ammo.
 
It would make sense that a 7600 would not shoot overly well bench rested... the forestick is bound to have some play and movement, even if it is just a little flexing of the action bars....
 
I don't know that any commercial factory sporting/hunting rifle that is "inherently" more or less accurate than any other when you compare apples to apples. If you want to compare dissimilar rifles - using different cartridges, different barrel contours, different sighting equipment - then it's easy to think of differences. But that wasn't the OP's question.
 
Last edited:
Love them or hate them, I'd say Savages are high on the list if not at the top in a pure accuracy comparison of "average" priced hunting rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom