more gun or more glass?

[Rman]

Competitive for what? How accurate do you consider competitive and for what discipline?

They are a 0.5 moa or better rifle same as the AI's and that is from a bipod. I have used TRG's and own its British counterpart (AI) and it shoots in the .300-.400 range consistently with handloads (5 rounds), the Sako is no different with a developed handload. Both have been around for decades and their accuracy is well known so I don't know where you are coming from with your statements.

They were never intended for F-class but they are certainly competitive for PR matches. The AI has even been used to set 600 yard benchrest records (Darrel Evans UK).

Wow. Listen. I own two of them. Do you own one?
.5 MOA won't win an F-Class match, or pretty much any other type of match. Precision Rifle matches? You don't even see them there that often either.
AI is no different. You do know that Darrel Evans did not take an AI rifle out of the box, and set the record with it?
My statements are very well founded. They are not a competitive grade target rifle. That is not their intended use. Why is this so hard to figure out?

R.

 

[Rman]

Define competitive grade.

.250 moa or better would be a good start. As we all should know, it would vary on the competion, like F-class, and who showed up to that particular shoot, and with what rifle.
Look at some match results, how many TRG's do you see there?

Again, it is a great rifle for its intended purpose. It isn't a competion match rifle. If it was, then it wouldn't be great for it's intended purpose.

R.

 

[J996]

Wow. Listen. I own two of them. Do you own one?
.5 MOA won't win an F-Class match, or pretty much any other type of match. Precision Rifle matches? You don't even see them there that often either.
AI is no different.
My statements are very well founded. They are not a competitive grade target rifle. That is not their intended use. Why is this so hard to figure out?

R.

Well thank you for clarifying. If F-class accuracy is what you consider precision, then I agree they are not an F class rifle. Outside of F-class, few people are able to shoot better than 0.5 moa and these guns are more accurate than the vast majority of shooters.

As far as PR matches go yes I do see TRG's there and the people that use them do very well. I would not want to use an F-class rifle for a PR match. A .25 moa capable stick won't matter in positional shooting with snaps and movers and it would truly be a pig. Quick reloads would also be problematic.

It seems we have different ideas of what defines a precision rifle , I'm thinking tactical rifles and you F-Class (two very different things of course).

The AI Darrel Evans used had a custom barrel in 6.5X47 Lapua, a front sled and bag rider added to the stock. Again not what it was designed for but he made it work which I found impressive.

 

[ntm]

That's funny the TRG's that I have shot or observed others shoot were all tack drivers.

I'd agree, they're almost too easy to shoot well with. Most trg22's I've tried were in the .250 range with handloads.
Hell, my out of the box tikka sporter in 6.5x55 easily outshoots my old trued up, bedded, Remington action, 308 with a shilen barrel.

 

[caramel]

My TRG-22 is an easy .5 MOA with quality factory ammo, i did not really shot it much, since i bought a Steyr Mannlicher SSG 69 ll almost a the same time, i was prefering my Steyr overall...
This winter i might take the green phosphate 308 out of the safe, work a load and give it a fair chance, this rig was real expensive, think a bipod was 400.00... JP.

 

[kombayotch]

I'll never understand why people want to put target scopes on tactical rifles and/or use them as target rifles. Rifles like AIs, TRG and the like were designed as tactical rifles. They were not designed for F-Class or other clean range shooting. They were intended to be accurate enough for their use and reliable in adverse field conditions. They have tolerances that allow them to be reliable in dust and dirt, in situations that would cause tight target actions to bind and target triggers to fail. You pay a price for that, which is not being able to shoot as tiny a group as a purpose built target rifle can shoot. But for practical shooting, the tiny difference in grouping capability (read 0.1's of an MOA) is as meaningless.

 

[Rman]

"Well thank you for clarifying. If F-class accuracy is what you consider precision, then I agree they are not an F class rifle. Outside of F-class, few people are able to shoot better than 0.5 moa and these guns are more accurate than the vast majority of shooters.

As far as PR matches go yes I do see TRG's there and the people that use them do very well. I would not want to use an F-class rifle for a PR match. A .25 moa capable stick won't matter in positional shooting with snaps and movers and it would truly be a pig. Quick reloads would also be problematic.

It seems we have different ideas of what defines a precision rifle , I'm thinking tactical rifles and you F-Class (two very different things of course).

The AI Darrel Evans used had a custom barrel in 6.5X47 Lapua, a front sled and bag rider added to the stock. Again not what it was designed for but he made it work which I found impressive."

It isn't what I would consider precision at all, but it would be have been the most likley match to find that rifle at.
A PR match is more better suited to the rifles capabilities, as you are counting hits, not measuring MOA.
I did try and make myself clear as to what the rifles capabilities were, and suggested that it would not be a great choice for MOA measured target shooting.

The post above also addresses this.

R.

 

[J996]

It isn't what I would consider precision at all, but it would be the most likley match to find that rifle at?
A PR match is more better suited to the rifles capabilities, as you are counting hits, not measuring MOA.
Do you see TRG's win at these PR matches? And which PR matches are you attending?

R.

A precision rifle (PR) match as I know it is something along the lines of what the BCRA puts on. http://bcprecisionrifle.com/Home.html
There are single indicated prone stages for V bull but at least half of it is positional shooting including timed exposures of snaps and movers.

Like I said it seems we have different trains of thought on what defines precision, I'm thinking tactical rifles and you F-Class (two very different things of course). If you had said .250 moa initially we would not still be discussing the TRG. My interpretation of your initial post was that the TRG is not in the same league as a smith'd up remmy (which it is) however on par with a rifle built to be competitive in F-class it is not ( two different animals).

 

[dizzy]

Best bang for your buck is a tikka tac, sporter, or varmint. I've seen outstanding accuracy with all three. Vastly superior to any of the savages and Remington's I've owned (fcp-sr, pc 10, rem 5r mil, aac sd, etc.).
The sporter and tikka tac are 1/3 moa rifles, consistently.
Top that with a sightron s3, the best glass for the money, and you'll have something that is on the same level as most customs/ai/trg's for a fraction of the price.

This is exactly what I was going to recommend and is exactly what you are thinking, judging by your OP. Falls within your budget, can drop into a cadex chasis, and you won't need to updgrade anything for a long time.

 

[dizzy]

If it can't "hang" with, or out shoot a production line TRG, then I suggest you speak to your smith about what he is doing to your Rem 700 action. I currently own two TRG's. They are great rifles.
A TRG would not outshoot any of the R700 customs I know. You would loose. All day.
If they were as great as you think, then they would be used in target competions. They are not, and if they are, they aren't winning.
I never said they were junk, I never said that they don't do well at what they they are designed for. They do.
I did say that they are not a competion grade target rifle, because they aren't. To buy one for that purpose would not be a great decision.

R.

R, what TRG's do well that Rem's don't is shoot a wide variety of factory ammo much more consistently. If you dial in a Rem, you really have to dial in the ammo, and stick with that particular ammo if you want accuracy. Like most customs they are ammo specific where a TRG is not. A TRG is a sub moa rifle out of the box, and is well respected for its consistency and stellar accuracy. For anyone wanting an incredibly accurate factory rifle, a TRG is hard to beat. For ammo nuts who want to dial in a rifle to pure precision for competitions where winners and losers are separated by a frogs hair a TRG is frustrating. For the OP a TRG would be a much better choice.

 

[ntm]

For the OP a TRG would be a much better choice.

And to move that line of thinking further, a tikka tac or varmint in a chassis of your choice will shoot 99% of what a trg will for less bucks.
You get an infinitely more rigid, and smooth, action than any blueprinted rem 700, to build off of should you want to swap barrels down the road.

 

[Rman]

R, what TRG's do well that Rem's don't is shoot a wide variety of factory ammo much more consistently. If you dial in a Rem, you really have to dial in the ammo, and stick with that particular ammo if you want accuracy. Like most customs they are ammo specific where a TRG is not. A TRG is a sub moa rifle out of the box, and is well respected for its consistency and stellar accuracy. For anyone wanting an incredibly accurate factory rifle, a TRG is hard to beat. For ammo nuts who want to dial in a rifle to pure precision for competitions where winners and losers are separated by a frogs hair a TRG is frustrating. For the OP a TRG would be a much better choice.

I think we have kind of beaten this to death.
I am very well aware of what TRG's are good for, and what their capabilities and limitations are.
Part of obtaining accuracy is dialing in loads. To try and obtain accuracy without handloads is kind of silly, and very limiting.
Most any rifle these days will shoot sub MOA from the box, with a little attention.
I would come up very, very short in saying that a TRG an incredibly accurate factory rifle, becuase, obviously, I don't think it is! Then again, as we have seen, everyone has very different expectations of what accuracy is.

It is my very strong belief, that the OP would do very well with any rifle that has plenty of accesories for it, well priced, easily modified/upgraded, and since the question was about the scope, buy the best possible glass he can afford without compromise.

R.

 

[J996]

To the OP.


To get us back on topic after going on a detour (partially my fault) in your search for a rifle, don’t get too hung up on all this talk of 0.5 and .25 moa.
As many others have said many of the rifles available are capable of 0.5 moa out of the box or close to it with a bit of load development.

As far as tactical and varmint rifles go 0.5 moa accuracy is more than most shooters can make use of, especially from a bipod or shooting targets or varmints in the field.
Now with the exception of bench rest shooters with purpose built bench rest guns, where the name of the game is to shoot the smallest group possible, there will be guys that claim their tactical/varmint rig shoots .25 moa groups and so on.

That is almost always a load of bull for the following reasons:

One – Three shots is not a group.
Two – Just because one out of ten groups measured in the mid .200’s does not mean it is now a .25 moa rifle.

Even if it was that accurate consistently, it is only as good as the guy using it. Unless you plan on winning bench rest tourneys, if it groups ½” at 100 yards that is plenty good for punching paper, varminting or local comps.

 

[caramel]

To the OP.


To get us back on topic after going on a detour (partially my fault) in your search for a rifle, don’t get too hung up on all this talk of 0.5 and .25 moa.
As many others have said many of the rifles available are capable of 0.5 moa out of the box or close to it with a bit of load development.

As far as tactical and varmint rifles go 0.5 moa accuracy is more than most shooters can make use of, especially from a bipod or shooting targets or varmints in the field.
Now with the exception of bench rest shooters with purpose built bench rest guns, where the name of the game is to shoot the smallest group possible, there will be guys that claim their tactical/varmint rig shoots .25 moa groups and so on.

That is almost always a load of bull for the following reasons:

One – Three shots is not a group.
Two – Just because one out of ten groups measured in the mid .200’s does not mean it is now a .25 moa rifle.

Even if it was that accurate consistently, it is only as good as the guy using it. Unless you plan on winning bench rest tourneys, if it groups ½” at 100 yards that is plenty good for punching paper, varminting or local comps.

You are right, but shooting extra small groups have a super therapeutic effect of making me feel good, not that it matter on the actual target, so the purpose of shooting the smallest possible groups is important... JP.

 

[J996]

You are right, but shooting extra small groups have a super therapeutic effect of making me feel good, not that it matter on the actual target, so the purpose of shooting the smallest possible groups is important... JP.

Hey I get a big smile too when the bullets stack on top of one another, I'm just saying its a unicorn in a herd of mustangs

As for the interweb, we don't parade those mustangs as much as we do the unicorns.

 

[krausb]

Best bang for your buck is a tikka tac, sporter, or varmint. I've seen outstanding accuracy with all three. Vastly superior to any of the savages and Remington's I've owned (fcp-sr, pc 10, rem 5r mil, aac sd, etc.).
The sporter and tikka tac are 1/3 moa rifles, consistently.
Top that with a sightron s3, the best glass for the money, and you'll have something that is on the same level as most customs/ai/trg's for a fraction of the price.

This is exactly what I was going to recommend and is exactly what you are thinking, judging by your OP. Falls within your budget, can drop into a cadex chasis, and you won't need to updgrade anything for a long time.

And to move that line of thinking further, a tikka tac or varmint in a chassis of your choice will shoot 99% of what a trg will for less bucks.
You get an infinitely more rigid, and smooth, action than any blueprinted rem 700, to build off of should you want to swap barrels down the road.

To the OP.


To get us back on topic after going on a detour (partially my fault) in your search for a rifle, don’t get too hung up on all this talk of 0.5 and .25 moa.
As many others have said many of the rifles available are capable of 0.5 moa out of the box or close to it with a bit of load development.

As far as tactical and varmint rifles go 0.5 moa accuracy is more than most shooters can make use of, especially from a bipod or shooting targets or varmints in the field.
Now with the exception of bench rest shooters with purpose built bench rest guns, where the name of the game is to shoot the smallest group possible, there will be guys that claim their tactical/varmint rig shoots .25 moa groups and so on.

That is almost always a load of bull for the following reasons:

One – Three shots is not a group.
Two – Just because one out of ten groups measured in the mid .200’s does not mean it is now a .25 moa rifle.

Even if it was that accurate consistently, it is only as good as the guy using it. Unless you plan on winning bench rest tourneys, if it groups ½” at 100 yards that is plenty good for punching paper, varminting or local comps.

Thanks guys! Over the last several days of posting in this thread I think we drifted a bit from the scope (pun very much intended) of my original question. I am very much looking for a tactical/precision style rig. Shooting in the dirt from a bipod (or occasionally lying on the roof of my jeep in a crowded gopher patch) will be the most common shooting I will do. So thanks to all of the great info here, I can see that a bench-rest gun is not really the direction for me. I think all I need is sub-MOA accuracy for now. Maybe down the road I'll strive for unicorn-level accuracy, but for now sub-MOA will still be way better than I can shoot.

I like the suggestions that, straight out of the box, the Tikkas may be the best way to go. It does seem to git the bill for what I want. Plus, I am leaning toward starting off with a varmint sniping set up with a .223 mounted in a Cadex chassis with a nice Sightron S III mounted on top.... Then get a larger caliber rig next year and head up to Rob Furlong's school for a marksmanship course!

 

[twistedbrilliance]

I was pondering away the same decisions the op is looking at. I started with a rem 700 but when the savage 10tr came out I quickly sold the remington and ordered the savage. I sold off the stock and magazine and ordered myself a Cadex chassis a few magazines for it and a Sightron SIIISS 6-24 LRMOA scope. I have all the equipment I need to reload for it and my other rifles. I am very happy with how my project turned out.

 

[krausb]

twisted brilliance just reminded me that I keep forgetting about reloading equipment. Any recommendations? Like the scope debate, I think it is probably worth investing in quality reloading equipment up front rather than buying OK equipment for now and upgrading later on....

 

[caramel]

twisted brilliance just reminded me that I keep forgetting about reloading equipment. Any recommendations? Like the scope debate, I think it is probably worth investing in quality reloading equipment up front rather than buying OK equipment for now and upgrading later on....

I started with Lee kit, i was not long, i switched to Dillon stuff, i like it very much... JP.

 

[krausb]

Thanks JP. Do you load for your precision guns with your Dillon? I was always under the assumption that a single stage press is the way to go for precision rifle work.