Budget MOA Rifle

ARQuees write up is very deep grasp of the whole situation.

Again that's why I recommend the Savage 12FV, but in 6.5, its not a barrel burner cartridge, just the opposite. AT $318 I think that is a bargain as it has the more flexible Varmint Contour barrel. The 6.5 is a soft shooter.

At that price you could get a Gun Smith to shorten it and crown it!

Its still the Top Bolt Release which are preferred.

Dicks also has a store only Savage with a shorter but heavier than normal barrel that would make a good target/field gun.
 
If you spend a little more, the T/C Venture is a really nice rifle that doesn't break the bank. Maybe not quite 'budget' though. I have one in .270 and think I'll get another one other .243 or 6.5CM (if they'll make it, I'm expecting they will) .... possibly .308.
 
Last edited:
BTW - I jumped on the 6.5 Creedmoor bandwagon .... and I love it. A very awesome round. I have it in a BA10 Stealth which is also awesome. I want a lighter rifle for so.e competitions though.
 
That MOA 100 yard group may well be over 16" at 300 yards
Hmmmm....for example, what cartridge?
Click to expand...
It's not so much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle's vibrations as the bullet exits the muzzle, potentially inducing a destabilizing effect on the bullet. Sometimes, bullet stability is marginally OK at 100 yards and then that stability decays radically as the range increases. Oftentimes the cure is to free-float the barrel. Yet with load experimentation, one may eventually discover a load that shoots very well without changing the barrel bedding.

The other seemingly odd thing that I have noticed is that with some loads, bullet stability may actually improve with increasing range. Thus, the most promising 100 yard loads may be quite undone at 300 yards, being beaten by another recipe that didn't look so promising at 100 yards. Most rifles probably aren't this way, but some certainly are. It always amazes me that some folks will shoot their targets at 100 yards, then figure they are good to go hunting at longer ranges, taking their accuracy and trajectory on blind faith.
 
It's not so much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle's vibrations as the bullet exits the muzzle, potentially inducing a destabilizing effect on the bullet. Sometimes, bullet stability is marginally OK at 100 yards and then that stability decays radically as the range increases. Oftentimes the cure is to free-float the barrel. Yet with load experimentation, one may eventually discover a load that shoots very well without changing the barrel bedding.

The other seemingly odd thing that I have noticed is that with some loads, bullet stability may actually improve with increasing range. Thus, the most promising 100 yard loads may be quite undone at 300 yards, being beaten by another recipe that didn't look so promising at 100 yards. Most rifles probably aren't this way, but some certainly are. It always amazes me that some folks will shoot their targets at 100 yards, then figure they are good to go hunting at longer ranges, taking their accuracy and trajectory on blind faith.
Click to expand...
If a bullet is inherently unstable for whatever reason--than it's more than likely going to show that at all distances. Now what does happen, though I'm not a real long distance shooter--is that some really high velocity bullet designs needs some reach to fully spin-stabilize in it's trajectory--so I could see for example a load that returns sub MOA at 100 might not be the optimal load for judging how the cartridge will perform at longer distances. Though it may well exist--off the top of my head I can't think of a cartridge combo that could return MOA or better at 100 and go to 5+ MOA at 300 unless it's some short to intermediate range cartridge that loses gas fast??:confused:
 
Well, Stagpanther, first of all, thank your lucky stars that none of your rifles have exhibited this phenomena. Perhaps your rifle(s) have free-floated barrels? But the bullets are reasonably perfect. The actual rifle, (Yes, this is a real rifle), tends to shoot five shot groups of just about any ammo into 1-1/2" at 100 yards, rarely, if ever, better than 1-1/4". I don't think I have ever shot a five shot group with it that was minute-of-angle or less. Yet one of the loads that is merely 1-1/2" at 100 yards, is consistently putting 5 rounds into 2-1/2" and less at 300 yards. Some of the most promising 100 yard loads are extremely disappointing at 300 yards, while several aren't nearly that bad but not great either. It's just finicky about what it likes. It isn't free-floated; I could have it done, but it shoots so well with what it likes that I think I will leave it as it is. I consider it a great rifle; sub-MOA at 300 yards works for me. It's my best rifle. It could be any caliber and any brand of rifle. They all have their quirks and preferences.
 
I was just wondering how a 5 shot group that is MOA at 100 yds "has absolutely nothing to do" with inherent accuracy of a weapon!:D I'm not a long distance shooter--but I have hand-loaded ammo for cartridges like 300 win mag and have observed that the higher-power/velocity combinations do need more distance than 100 yds to indicate the optimal load. I'm also assuming the statement referred to an inherent relationship between distance of target as a function of a projectile's accuracy--assuming the weapon is in good working order.

Not trying to get into a pissing match--I was genuinely curious how that much deviation could happen in an otherwise normally-functioning weapon. I'm no expert--most of what little I know is from screwing things up and then figuring out how to fix them. lol
 
Yeah, of course, I felt you were genuine all along. I only meant that if any given rifle and ammo shoots excellent at 100 yards, that we shouldn't take for granted that the same combination can be counted on to deliver the same excellence way out there without having been proven to do so. I'm not sure what you meant by this:
I'm also assuming the statement referred to an inherent relationship between distance of target as a function of a projectile's accuracy--assuming the weapon is in good working order.
Click to expand...
But when I think of a scoped, bolt-action rifle intended for, let's say, deer and perhaps Elk hunting, I'm thinking that the whole point of selecting such a rifle instead of a lever-action 30-30, for example; is the expectation of useful accuracy at a much, much further distance than what the typical lever-gun can be relied upon. That's where the, " MOA-5-shot groups at 100 yards are absolutely meaningless...." comes into context. A 30-30 carbine that can only do 3 or 4" groups at 100 yards is just as good a deer rifle as any MOA scoped bolt gun if all the shots will be 100 yards or less. So, I just find it humorous that all the gun-magazines test all these new-fangled rifles and scopes and ammo, publishing the results at 100 yards as if it really meant something significant for you to buy that rifle for a Wyoming Pronghorn hunt where you might take a 400 yard shot. I do think that people put way too much emphasis on 100 yard groups when they really ought to shun that addictive bench and learn to shoot from realistic field positions.
 
Over my half century of shooting, I have not yet had a rifle that shot good groups at 100 yards that didn't do well at least out to 300 yards. That said, if I had loaded up bullets that were only marginally stable at 100, results at 300 or more might be dismal. Just load or buy ammo suitable for the twist rate, which probably applies to the 223 more than any other caliber.

To the OP's original question: if I wanted a good shooter at best price, I'd probably buy a RAR, but if I was willing to pay a bit more, I'd most certainly buy a Tikka.
 
Pathfinder45 said:
It's not so much about the cartridge as it is about the rifle's vibrations as the bullet exits the muzzle, potentially inducing a destabilizing effect on the bullet. Sometimes, bullet stability is marginally OK at 100 yards and then that stability decays radically as the range increases. Oftentimes the cure is to free-float the barrel. Yet with load experimentation, one may eventually discover a load that shoots very well without changing the barrel bedding.

The other seemingly odd thing that I have noticed is that with some loads, bullet stability may actually improve with increasing range. Thus, the most promising 100 yard loads may be quite undone at 300 yards, being beaten by another recipe that didn't look so promising at 100 yards. Most rifles probably aren't this way, but some certainly are. It always amazes me that some folks will shoot their targets at 100 yards, then figure they are good to go hunting at longer ranges, taking their accuracy and trajectory on blind faith.
Click to expand...

Guess you've got it figured I do 3 shot group's for testing new loads. But once I think I have a load, I do go to 5 shot group's. Kicker is once that is done, I shoot at longer distance's, usually with a hunting rifle to 200 yds but then I have only shot beyond that a few time's in my life, I do not hunt long range! Once I have the load I want I chronograph it to 350 yds and shoot at the MPBR. If it's on, I shoot some of the other ranges just to check the chronograph reading's. This working up loads with 5 shot group's is for me a waste of bullet's. If the thing won't hold three shots at an inch or under, it's not going to hold five an inch or under! And then, I've found that seldom will a one inch group at 100 yds give me a 2" group at 200 yds. Normally a bit bigger but not so bad I wouldn't hunt with it, as I said, I seldom shoot much past 200 yds at game. Of course predator's and varmint are a different story.

All thins stuff about working up loads in five shot groups is bull, nothing less. Then again once the load is developed, it should be tested at longer range. No question about that. Just that I don't care to waste bullet's shooting more than three shot's when the load with three shot's doesn't do it for me!
 
What about the Bergara HMR?

It's got a 8-900$ street price, lighter than the Ruger Precision Rifle and it can be used for hunting as well. Have seen nothing but good info on all of the Bergara rifle line. Don't own one, but will before the year is out. Only one article is available on all of the FLF articles on this site. Maybe in the ignorance...there really is bliss?
 
A brief interruption from our regularly scheduled programming...

I ordered the rifle and should receive it tomorrow. In addition I picked up 4 different kinds of ammo for it across a variety of bullet weights and companies. Come saturday I'll take it out to the range, sight it in, and see what we can do.

I'm rather curious to see what happens and I'll post the results here.

Now please carry on :)
 
If your results are good there will be a tirade on why you just got lucky and no one should expect that type of result from a budget rifle. Or your testing protocol will be flawed. Or the definition of MOA (which is, from my understanding, a long standing technical definition) will be questioned. The usefulness of MOA will be questioned. Anything to prevent a consideration that rifle manufactures may have found a cost-efficient way to create budget price point rifles that might even be considered in the same breath to have anywhere near the performance of very expensive custom and semi-custom rifles.

Or it will not shoot well and we will hear "I told you so" and people will point out you get what you pay for and ignore the fact that not all expensive rifles shoot well and some need to have loads built for them and tuned.

Its kind of like with pistols. If you buy an expensive pistol and it has several failures in the first 100 rounds you are told you need to break it in for at least 500 rounds. If you buy a cheap pistol you got what you paid for and what did you expect.
 
And you should count your lucky stars the firearm didn't blow up on you.
Click to expand...

And the stock was not from some rare extinct tree that had been preserved under mud in the ocean for centuries after being used to build the English Dreadnought (the 16th century ship not the class of ship) and damaged by a Spanish Galleon. This is bound to create functional and performance issues beyond the looks of the rifle.
 
And the stock was not from some rare extinct tree that had been preserved under mud in the ocean for centuries after being used to build the English Dreadnought (the 16th century ship not the class of ship) and damaged by a Spanish Galleon. This is bound to create functional and performance issues beyond the looks of the rifle.
Click to expand...
Never thought of that--your weapon may in fact be in violation of the endangered species act!
 
Lohman - by gosh, are you suggesting that firearms owners, particularly those on the internet like to complain and even more so, argue? :)

I do think the n=1 here holds true at various levels. Such as shooting a single 3-shot group at MOA doesn't necessarily mean one should expect that level of accuracy most of the time. Now if I shot a half-dozen 3-shot groups and 5 of them are < MOA and the last is 1.25 MOA, then I'm going to be more inclined to believe this rifle is MOA accurate with the given load.

Then again I could do the exact same thing with the same model rifle, identical weather conditions, load, and end up with different results. All of which is understandable given that manufacturing especially for a price point rifle is unlikely to have uniform tolerances across the thousands of samples made from those production lines.

Whatever I do ends up being a single data point but I do think if you get enough single data points you can start speaking with more and more certainty about a given rifle. More and more samples from a finite population give you m ore confidence and certainty in being able to describe the entire population. And looking at other guns, we can see how enough data points out there have told us to for instance, say AK's are not MOA rifles or that a RPR .308 is.

It's going to be fun :)
 
The technical term that I think applies is choice-supportive bias or post-purchase rationalization. Its why you have companies very anxious to get QUICK comments and survey results from customers after purchase. Generally people will attempt to justify their past decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top