Nosler 48 Heritage 7-08 Final Report

[walkinhorseman]

To close on my review, I would like to report the accuracy and final evaluation of the Nosler 48 Heritage 7-08.

Attached are four targets which are representative of the precision that I was able to achieve with this rifle. Note that the test distance was 110 or 114 yards. These are all five shot groups. I require my hunting rifles to produce less than a MOA for 5 consecutive shots. Three shot groups ARE NOT statistically representative of a rifles true precision. Neither is a single group during one range session. Those shooters that live by the three shot group may very likely be making decisions on precision and accuracy which are not credible. Three shot groups have some utility on initial OCW and seating depth tests but those initial test findings should be verified with multiple 5 shot groups to gain statistical confidence in the load. If you are convinced that 3-shot groups are more applicable to a sporting rifle, then a sampling of 10 separate groups should be taken and averaged. Brian Litz has some writings on “Dispersion” in Modern Advancements Volume II that supports my opinion. I rather imagine that my three group statement will not be well received. It is not intended to set off a firestorm of retorts as much as to suggest to shooters to better evaluate their data.

http://bisonballistics.com/articles/opt ... for-rifles

This load chronographed at 2800 fps. My initial development was with the 140 grain Ballistic Tip and I simply substituted the AccuBond to verify its’ precision. Frankly, these two bullets will probably be adequate for my purposes for this rifle. I may work with the Barnes TSX 140 grain. But for now, this rifle is good to go. I’ll take a 140 at 2800 with reliable MOA precision any day.
The performance of this rifle meets my expectations. General workmanship is excellent. I have two remaining criticisms at this point. The first is the rough chamber shoulder. It appears that the reamer in the shoulder section was not sharp or chips accumulated in this area to cut a shoulder that produces rings on the fired cases. I did check the headspace and it is in spec. This defect is not a functional issue and since this is a hunting rifle, I’ll live with it.

The trigger system still remains a disappointment for me. When received, it broke at 3.5# and had a lot of creep, exhibiting a long rough travel before breaking. This rifle has the Rifle Basics trigger with a 2-position safety, which does not lock the bolt. I was able to adjust it down to 2.5# and reduce the amount of travel, however, it remains rough with a lot of creep.
Any rifle that is carried in the field needs to have a bolt lock safety. I can deal with a two-position safety but it must lock the bolt. I guess if you hunt from a stand or carry with an empty chamber, it doesn’t matter. But for my style of hunting, it becomes a reliability issue with the bolt becoming inadvertently opened while carrying in a sling.

I did call Nosler Customer Service. They were willing to install the Timney with the 3-position safety for $200. That is basically the cost of trigger and return shipping. With my shipping costs, the conversion would be ~$260 for a trigger that sells for $130. Timney would not sell me the trigger as they have a proprietary agreement with Nosler and won’t sell it to the consumer. Damn the lawyers. I recently purchased a Tikka T3 Lite for $549 that has a two position BOLT LOCK SAFETY and a much crisper factory trigger. The 3-position Timney should be the standard trigger for the Nosler 48. The action body and bolt are machined for the locking blade. I don’t see this as a cost issue, but rather as a holdback by Nosler for their Custom Models.

I still hold the Sako L-Series and A-Series as my gold standard for a hunting rifle. The flat bottomed action with integral recoil lug, integral dovetail scope bases, excellent adjustable triggers, bolt lock safety, and reliably excellent barrels were their hallmark. The only two areas that Nosler needs to improve the Model 48 are the trigger/safety systems and integral mount bases, most likely the Weaver style to be current with modern trends. One leg up on the old Sakos for the 48 is the modern Cerakote finish vs standard bluing.

By and large, I am very satisfied with the Nosler 48 Heritage. It is a very pleasing rifle. The Nosler 48 is not perfect, however it very well may be the best dollar value out there in a consumer level classic hunting rifle. It has many of the best functional and esthetic design features that are desirable in a good hunting rifle.

 

[SJB358]

That's excellent shooting. I agree about the safety. One of the reasons I've not gotten a Nosler. Great report.

How's the weight all set up for hunting?

 

[gbflyer]

Looks like a keeper. What are you hunting that you find yourself taking 5 consecutive shots at? Hogs?

 

[walkinhorseman]

SJB358: The rifle weighs 8#2oz with a Leupold 2.5x8 in Talleys. I keep looking at the Outfitter in 338 WM. That barrel length for the 338 is ideal IMHO. The two factors holding me back are the trigger and the mounts. Nosler uses the Rem 700 footprint bases with 6-48's. H-S precision also uses Rem base however they open the up for 8-40's. With heavy recoiling rifles, that is a better solution. Of course, integral dovetails eliminate this problem. I pretty much have crossed Sako off my list because of their action re-design for the post-A-series where they use a recoil plate sandwiched between the action and the stock in lieu of a broad integral lug.

gbflyer: The rifle's intended purpose is deer. Seldom do I take more than one shot on game. I just want to know that my rifle/load with shoot where I point it with a 100% confidence level. Apparently you haven't grasped my point about valid statistics for load development. If you look at my groups, there are three shot clusters that would be "wallet" groups for some. It would benefit you to use the following link to understand my methods.
http://bisonballistics.com/articles/opt ... for-rifles

 

[gbflyer]

I get it. Most of us commonly make assumptions about others level of experience. Your method of evaluating true accuracy potential is very well thought out.

Confidence in one's hunting weapon comes in many forms. If it takes 5 in less than MOA for you, then by all means please do it that way. There are hunters who are lucky to put 3 in a pie plate at 100 and can do the same at 400 on game resting on a rock. Pretty hard to tell a guy he's doing it all wrong with a punched tag in his hand.

If I were selling bullets and ballistics calculators as Bison is, I'd be a strong advocate for more shots down range too.

Again, good shooting. I didn't see what your setup is. Bench rest on bags, lead sled, or?

 

[Anonymous]

Pretty hard to tell a guy he's doing it all wrong with a punched tag in his hand.

There is that... I've always been more interested in what the rifle will do from a field position than the bench. I agree that statistical methods from a bench/bags/lead sled/etc. do a great deal to evaluate the potential of the rifle and ammunition, it doesn't always correlate to good shooting in the field though.

It certainly doesn't hurt to have a rifle capable of 5 in one MOA, but if a guy can't get in a good prone or looped sitting position with it- in open country it might be all for naught. I shot a friend's chassis gun- wonderfully accurate but it was a struggle to shoot accurately anywhere but from a bench. It would have taken a lot of modification for me to pack it into the mountains.

 

[walkinhorseman]

Testing for all of my sporting rifles is done from the bench, supported by a front tripod rest that has a leather sand filled bag. The buttstock is supported by a rear bag filled with sand. I wear a rifle shooters coat for several reasons. It provides stability and support behind the rifle and additional padding for recoil abatement. I don’t own a lead sled or any of the miriad of mechanical support rests sold today. I test calibers from 22 LR through the 338 Win Mag and 45-70 with this method. The front rest is positioned under the chamber section of the rifle, just forward of the front action screw. I place the rear bag as far to the toe of the stock as the rear sling swivel allows. My cheek weld is firm, as is my grip with the trigger hand. The key is consistency in cheek pressure, grip pressure and bag position.

The lead sled and other hard mechanical fixtures do not provide the same dampening to the rifle vibrational patterns that a good set of sand bags do. Where does the recoil energy go if the butt is not able to move rearward, as the rifle does when it is held. Simple shot bags filled with sand, Bulls’ bags, or sand filled leather bags are a better support medium for rifle testing than a lead sled. Better results will be achieved by shooting over a sand filled support medium. Sporting rifles need to be held. Bench Rest rifles are designed to be shot free-recoil and they are permitted to move under recoil.

Bi-Pods, the only rifle that I own that has a bi-pod attached is my F-T/R match rifle. IMHO bipods are useless weight on a rifle that is to be carried. My Hunting rifles are fitted with QD swivels that typically attach a 1” sling strap. Early on, I used a military style 1” sling for hunting deer. The military style slings were used on my walk-around groundhog rifles. I abandoned the extra weight on deer rifles, as a properly adjusted hasty sling works great and doesn’t add as much to the carry weight. I am never without a walking stick in the field. That is a simple staff that is cut from a beech sapling at eye height to serve as a binocular monopod, as well as a third leg and support in the sitting and offhand positions when a tree may not be handy.

There is no magic in how I test a rifle. It takes a lot of trigger time to maintain proficiency. I have my good days and bad days at the bench. It is not easy. Effective testing just requires rigor, focus and good record keeping. I use wind flags, often taking several hours to get 20 shots on target. For light barreled sporters, I set a stop watch and shoot the first three shots with two minute intervals between shots. I cool the rifle barrel for 10 minutes and then shoot the last two shots of the 5-shot string, slowly. Hopefully, conditions will hold for the entire group. It takes a lot of discipline and patience to test in this manner. If I ever hit the LOTTO, building a tunnel would be first on my list.

Did any of you ever question why the NRA standard for rifle accuracy testing is 5 consecutive 5-shot groups at 100 yards? For years I read the Rifleman test reports and always noted that their group sizes were orders of magnitude larger than those being reported by the gun scribes at Guns & Ammo and Shooting times. It’s much more politically expedient to take 30 shots and shoot 10 three shot groups, cherry picking the best few to report on.

Not all shooters care to engage their sport with an engineering approach. Some are perfectly satisfied with three shots in a pie plate at 50 yards if it brings home the bacon. Each to his own. All of this fun at the reloading bench and shooting bench is just preparation for the field.

 

[SJB358]

Makes sense to me. I don't actually wait between shots any longer. I wanna know what 3 shots will do out of my rifles when they are fired three times in a row. I agree with shooting more rounds to see how it really groups, but overall, i shoot more 3 shot groups just because I don't like a scalding hot barrel and most of mine are fairly large magnums.

I do agree with your benchrest technique. I use much the same thing, but just a bulls bag in the front centered on the action screw.

 

[gbflyer]

I like the rifle rest also. I tried to master the bipod from the bench but I can't seem to get it loaded consistently. Went back to my 25 year old RW Hart front rifle rest and watched the group sizes decrease. It's a pain to tote another some - odd #20 of crap, but it's much more repeatable.

 

[444Matt]

Testing for all of my sporting rifles is done from the bench, supported by a front tripod rest that has a leather sand filled bag. The buttstock is supported by a rear bag filled with sand. I wear a rifle shooters coat for several reasons. It provides stability and support behind the rifle and additional padding for recoil abatement. I don’t own a lead sled or any of the miriad of mechanical support rests sold today. I test calibers from 22 LR through the 338 Win Mag and 45-70 with this method. The front rest is positioned under the chamber section of the rifle, just forward of the front action screw. I place the rear bag as far to the toe of the stock as the rear sling swivel allows. My cheek weld is firm, as is my grip with the trigger hand. The key is consistency in cheek pressure, grip pressure and bag position.

The lead sled and other hard mechanical fixtures do not provide the same dampening to the rifle vibrational patterns that a good set of sand bags do. Where does the recoil energy go if the butt is not able to move rearward, as the rifle does when it is held. Simple shot bags filled with sand, Bulls’ bags, or sand filled leather bags are a better support medium for rifle testing than a lead sled. Better results will be achieved by shooting over a sand filled support medium. Sporting rifles need to be held. Bench Rest rifles are designed to be shot free-recoil and they are permitted to move under recoil.

Bi-Pods, the only rifle that I own that has a bi-pod attached is my F-T/R match rifle. IMHO bipods are useless weight on a rifle that is to be carried. My Hunting rifles are fitted with QD swivels that typically attach a 1” sling strap. Early on, I used a military style 1” sling for hunting deer. The military style slings were used on my walk-around groundhog rifles. I abandoned the extra weight on deer rifles, as a properly adjusted hasty sling works great and doesn’t add as much to the carry weight. I am never without a walking stick in the field. That is a simple staff that is cut from a beech sapling at eye height to serve as a binocular monopod, as well as a third leg and support in the sitting and offhand positions when a tree may not be handy.

There is no magic in how I test a rifle. It takes a lot of trigger time to maintain proficiency. I have my good days and bad days at the bench. It is not easy. Effective testing just requires rigor, focus and good record keeping. I use wind flags, often taking several hours to get 20 shots on target. For light barreled sporters, I set a stop watch and shoot the first three shots with two minute intervals between shots. I cool the rifle barrel for 10 minutes and then shoot the last two shots of the 5-shot string, slowly. Hopefully, conditions will hold for the entire group. It takes a lot of discipline and patience to test in this manner. If I ever hit the LOTTO, building a tunnel would be first on my list.

Did any of you ever question why the NRA standard for rifle accuracy testing is 5 consecutive 5-shot groups at 100 yards? For years I read the Rifleman test reports and always noted that their group sizes were orders of magnitude larger than those being reported by the gun scribes at Guns & Ammo and Shooting times. It’s much more politically expedient to take 30 shots and shoot 10 three shot groups, cherry picking the best few to report on.

Not all shooters care to engage their sport with an engineering approach. Some are perfectly satisfied with three shots in a pie plate at 50 yards if it brings home the bacon. Each to his own. All of this fun at the reloading bench and shooting bench is just preparation for the field.

I like that tripod sand bag rest, do you a link to where you got it from?

 

[walkinhorseman]

That is a Wichita rest that is no longer made. Probably the closest today is the Hart JB100.