Question.

[ShadeTree]

I do a lot of reading. Some of the gun experts act like you're not carrying a proper rifle if the action hasn't been bedded, the barrel free floated, and if you can't find a load that shoots with your bullet seated half a split cat hair whisker behind the lands you've somehow committing a cardinal reloading sin and for sure don't yet belong in the cool kids club.

My question is this, if a factory rifle will shoot sub MOA with the right reloads seated well behind the lands, explain to me the long or short term advantage of any of that?

I'll be honest, I've yet to own a factory rifle I couldn't get to shoot MOA or below with reloads. The only one I never attempted that with was a Savage 99-E in 308 that I shot open sights and just ran factory ammo through it. It was intended for a 75 yd woods gun for deer and performed well for me in that regard. Even upended a flat out running field doe with it on a chest shot at 150 yds. Might of been luck I don't know but I prefer to think of it as calculated expertise. :mrgreen:

I used to own a tang safety Ruger 77 in 25-06 with a bull barrel. That gun with 100 grain BT's and a slightly over max load of 4064 would lay 3 holes touching left to right 3 shot group after 3 shot group if left to cool for a minute in between 3 shot rounds.

The barrel layed against the left side of the forearm up front and would push ever so slightly to the right on successive shots. The experts in the magazines convinced me the barrel needed to be free floated to be right. So I did. Turned my tack driver into a bullet sprayer. Apparently the action could not support that big long bull barrel hanging out there in no man's land with its substantial fire power being generated in the chamber. So I then was forced to attempt a bedding job. Ended up bedding the action as well as giving it some support down the stock. Guess I did okay. The gun once again could accomplish sub MOA and in now a pretty clover leaf pattern, but the bottom line is after all that work it could not shoot as tight a measured group as when it was original.

 

[Vince]

All an expert is is a has been under a lot of pressure.

If it works for you that's all that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elkman]

I have frequently stated here that for a hunting rifle that MOA is far more than necessary. I have owned numerous rifles in my lifetime that shot well with no improvements or modifications. I will say however that the majority of my rifles are "free floated" because I believe that enhances accuracy and helps maintain accuracy after they have been rained/snowed on for days. I also have somewhat of a phobia about changing things, so as Vince says, if it works for you don't touch it.

 

[lefty315]

Since I hunt with all my rifles I don't need 5 shot, 1 hole groups. I figure if I can maintain around an inch at 100 and it carries out to 300 then it's on me to do my part. I love tiny little groups when I can get them but don't believe they are needed.

As far as seating depths go I know some guys want to be .010 off the lands, but to me that's awful close for a hunting gun. I've never measured it but I remember reading that a thick piece of paper is .007 thick. I would rather have a little bit of room and error on the side of always being able to chamber a round.

My Remington 700 ADL in .30-06 shoots .250 off the lands under an inch.

 

[mjcmichigan]

Bottom line. It's a form of fun for me.

I've built bicycles, a house, radio, etc.

I'm OCD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ShadeTree]

I have frequently stated here that for a hunting rifle that MOA is far more than necessary. I have owned numerous rifles in my lifetime that shot well with no improvements or modifications. I will say however that the majority of my rifles are "free floated" because I believe that enhances accuracy and helps maintain accuracy after they have been rained/snowed on for days. I also have somewhat of a phobia about changing things, so as Vince says, if it works for you don't touch it.

Elkman, I am certainly not against free floating a barrel if needed and don't suspect I ever will be, I guess my deal is I would chase those kind of issues if I had a gun that wouldn't cooperate with reloads and I needed to try and find out why. Your rain/snow example on wooden firearms especially, is a good point worth considering.

 

[ShadeTree]

Since I hunt with all my rifles I don't need 5 shot, 1 hole groups. I figure if I can maintain around an inch at 100 and it carries out to 300 then it's on me to do my part. I love tiny little groups when I can get them but don't believe they are needed.

As far as seating depths go I know some guys want to be .010 off the lands, but to me that's awful close for a hunting gun. I've never measured it but I remember reading that a thick piece of paper is .007 thick. I would rather have a little bit of room and error on the side of always being able to chamber a round.

My Remington 700 ADL in .30-06 shoots .250 off the lands under an inch.

Lefty, the last group I shot with a factory model 7 in 6mm measured .690 on 4 shots and 3 shots from that group was under 1/2". Bullet is seated back .105. And you're right, a pair of calibers will hold a piece of standard office paper between the jaws when closed to .004. So just 3 pieces of standard office paper thick is more than some guys are seating their bullets behind the lands with a hunting round. That just doesn't make sense to me? Some carbon build up on the bolt face or a small burr on the head of a cartridge and you've suddenly got a bullet jammed into the lands with pressures spiking way up or a possible stuck bullet in the barrel if you unchamber that round without firing it. Not to mention very real possible feeding issues when you need that next quick shot. Each to their own but I look at function and reliability when hunting. That possible 1/4" tightening of a group because of a bullet seated to optimum depth means nothing to any whitetail walking this earth.

 

[Anonymous]

Some of that line of thinking comes from folks who just can't leave well enough alone... I've been there.

For me- if a rifle shoots to my expectation, it's good enough for it's intended purpose. I also think a lot of folks came of age in the era when factory rifles were simply a lot more abysmal than they are currently.

To be honest- I'm still somewhat amazed at how good modern rifles are...even the cheap ones seem to shoot MOA with regularity. It's not always been that way. Not so long ago a factory gun was where you started work, rarely where you finished and getting there required bedding, floating and a fair measure of luck.

 

[lefty315]

Some of that line of thinking comes from folks who just can't leave well enough alone... I've been there.

For me- if a rifle shoots to my expectation, it's good enough for it's intended purpose. I also think a lot of folks came of age in the era when factory rifles were simply a lot more abysmal than they are currently.

To be honest- I'm still somewhat amazed at how good modern rifles are...even the cheap ones seem to shoot MOA with regularity. It's not always been that way. Not so long ago a factory gun was where you started work, rarely where you finished and getting there required bedding, floating and a fair measure of luck.

Sorta like US built cars were in the late 70's and 80's. People started buying imports because of reliability and longevity. Hunters and shooters started buying guns made overseas because of the same issues and that forced gun manufacturers to step up their game.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorta like US built cars were in the late 70's and 80's. People started buying imports because of reliability and longevity. Hunters and shooters started buying guns made overseas because of the same issues and that forced gun manufacturers to step up their game.

I think a lot of it was the era between production volume increases (WWII) and the widespread adoption of CNC machining. The master gunsmith putting one together butt to muzzle just isn't scalable to the post WWII production demand a lot of makers experienced.

It wasn't until the late 80s/early 90s that CNC really took over and you could both achieve tight/reliable tolerances and high production speed. The intervening 40 years- call it 1947 through 1987 (that's rough guestimation) really saw US manufacturing taking a beating through compound tolerances. Getting a "good one" was largely a matter of luck unless you paid big $$$ for something that someone put together as a one off/custom shop.

A friend of mine back then would typically order three or four identical rifles, keep the best one and sell off the others secondhand. Seems stupid now- but he claimed (and was probably right) that it was cheaper than fixing a bad one out of the box at the gunsmith.

 

[ShadeTree]

I will add in full disclosure that the Ruger mentioned above shot those bullet holes touching with the bullet seated barely off the lands. But that was a varmint gun and at that cartridge length was too long for the magazine and was loaded as a single shot when either shooting ground hogs or paper. Which was 100% completely fine for that purpose. It didn't shoot a whole lot worse with the bullets seated deeper but right behind the lands was where it became a tack driver.

On another note I gave away the load info on that gun when I sold it, but I believe it was loaded with 45 grains of IMR 4064. I bought the gun new I'm guessing in 87 or 88. and that's when I was doing a bunch of reloading with it. The current load data from Nosler shows a max load of 41.5 with that bullet and powder. Something must of changed. I know darn well I wasn't more than a grain or so over max at the time.

 

[lefty315]

A friend of mine back then would typically order three or four identical rifles, keep the best one and sell off the others secondhand. Seems stupid now- but he claimed (and was probably right) that it was cheaper than fixing a bad one out of the box at the gunsmith.

Probably saved a lot of frustration at the bench too!

 

[HTDUCK]

Hunting rifle , I don't want the bullet anywhere near the lands.
I'm more concerned with cold bore zero than what kinda groups it will shoot.
I wanna know exactly where the first round is going at ranges from 50 to 300 yards.
I have some rifles that I was able to achieve this with consistently without doing a thing to them.
2 Tikka's and a MDL 700 ADL in 280, and a Mdl70 in 7STW.

Others, well they had to be caressed a bit with sand paper and epoxy.

Any time I acquire a new rifle I load up some ammo and head to the range with it just like it left the factory. If it shoots MOA , great. If not then the work starts.

 

[OU812]

I've never measured the distance to the lans for any rifle I've owned. Reason is I don't care how close or far I am from the lans as long as the rifle/load shoots well repeatedly. I don't shoot my repeating rifles as a single shot.

As for free floating I tend to like a free floated barrel as I have found better accuracy with the rifles I've owned.

 

[ShadeTree]

Hunting rifle , I don't want the bullet anywhere near the lands.
I'm more concerned with cold bore zero than what kinda groups it will shoot.
I wanna know exactly where the first round is going at ranges from 50 to 300 yards.
I have some rifles that I was able to achieve this with consistently without doing a thing to them.
2 Tikka's and a MDL 700 ADL in 280, and a Mdl70 in 7STW.

Others, well they had to be caressed a bit with sand paper and epoxy.

Any time I acquire a new rifle I load up some ammo and head to the range with it just like it left the factory. If it shoots MOA , great. If not then the work starts.

HT, what would be the problem or fix for a gun that's first shot is off more than acceptable from any repeated shots from then on? Other than the first shot on a squeaky clean barrel. I've noticed a lot of guns will throw off the first shot before the barrel's fouled.

Thanks.

 

[TackDriver284]

I'm more concerned with cold bore zero than what kinda groups it will shoot.
I wanna know exactly where the first round is going at ranges from 50 to 300 yards

I had that issue with the 150 Ballistic Tips over RL 25 in my 7 Mag where the first cold bore round shot an inch to the right and an inch high at 100 yards away from the POI of the 2nd and 3rd round which were touching. Happened each time when the barrel was cold which prompted me to change to 168 VLD ( Hunt ) and it eliminated the problem. Maybe a seating depth change may have fixed it, but never got around to it.

 

[baltz526]

All the "other stuff" is to minimize change, in the platform the barrel sits on. Work up a good load in a factory rifle. Then store that rifle in the safe 1 year, Take it up in elevation 5000' hunt with it 5 days in the snow or rain. Then take a 300 yard shot. I have rifles I prepared for hunting, then worked up loads for 20 years ago. They have never needed scope adjustment. I can take that original box of 50 rounds I made. Shoot it and it is always the same. Because of the preparation for hunting I did before load work.

 

[HTDUCK]

[/quote]

HT, what would be the problem or fix for a gun that's first shot is off more than acceptable from any repeated shots from then on? Other than the first shot on a squeaky clean barrel. I've noticed a lot of guns will throw off the first shot before the barrel's fouled.

Thanks.[/quote]

That depends on the rifle.
A new factory rifle the barrel is not broken in.
Shoot it some more and clean it, at least 30-40 rounds.
Got a creepy 7 lb lawyer trigger? Adjust or replace it.
Stock have a pressure point in it at the front ? I have seen rifles that shoot well like this and some that absolutely didn't.
Try the same load again w varied seating depth.
After that maybe it's time to try another bullet.
If the results don't get better then it gets free floated and bedded.