Help me improve the accuracy of my Remington 798

I realize that you said this a year ago.....

I am shooting factory Winchester .270 130 grain powerpoint, and have noticed poor consistency. Even to the point that the seating is too far out preventing me from chambering the round.
Click to expand...

.... and it may have changed.

But those 130's would have to be seated REALLY long, or you'd need a really short throat for that to be so ...... what did they measure for OAL, do you suppose?

As for 150's doing better than 130's ..... that was the case in one of my rifles- it has a fairly eroded throat (likely past Bart's 2.3K round limit) .....seating 150's out at max cartridge length seems to work best.
 
It's sad, but some rifle parts fit and quality plus ammo component and assembly combinations, are not capable of shooting under an inch at 100 yards even when the stuff's tested in a machine rest.

After 2000+ rounds with unsuccessful attemps with a .270, I'd start over with at least a new barrel. Then learn how to full length size fired cases minimally so they shoot the right bullets down and out the barrel most consistantly. There's a few small details of reloading fired cases that'll make the difference between 1 MOA and 1/3 MOA at 100 yards; assuming the rifle and shooter are up to it, of course.
 
Having watched a few Mauser 98 type actions in match rifles shooting winning scores with long, heavy totally free floating barrels (no pad under the chamber area), any claim their barrels need that pad carries no credibility.

Such actions used in early bench rest and varmint rifles with heavy barrels touching nothing but the receivers shot under 1/3 moa at short ranges; the best bullets would do back then. All before epoxy bedding; precision receiver fit to wood stocks kept the action in place as they were supported very solid.

While the 98 Mausers were made to let the flat barrel tenon stop against the inside shoulder, they shot more accurate with the receiver face squared up with the barrel thread axis and the barrel shoulder hard against the receiver face with the tenon flat stopping a few thousandths short of the inner shoulder.

I don't know how Remington specs their barrel fit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the details.

I have a couple powders and bullets to test so I'm not spending anymore on that, just plan on saving $600 for a bedding and new barrel.

Not sure which barrel I will go for, I would certainly miss this as my hunting rifle and would hate to carry heavy, but perhaps there is a middle ground. I will also ask about the shoulder contacts with the current free floated stock and pad when I get it threaded.

I'm not looking to compete, just optimize my first few shots.

I will also start shooting from a bag to help discern what's rifle and what's shooter.

.... and it may have changed.

But those 130's would have to be seated REALLY long, or you'd need a really short throat for that to be so ...... what did they measure for OAL, do you suppose?

As for 150's doing better than 130's ..... that was the case in one of my rifles- it has a fairly eroded throat (likely past Bart's 2.3K round limit) .....seating 150's out at max cartridge length seems to work best.
Click to expand...

One measured out to be just over 3.3 while my manual has COL as 3.21
 
Last edited:
About shooting from a bag (with the rifle fore end resting on it) to help discern what's rifle and what's shooter.

If you're holding the rifle against or by you in any way, your own "accuracy" impacts what the rifle and its ammo does. Why else would zeros obtained shooting a bench rested rifle held to a human have different windage settings than when it's shot from prone, sitting or standing? Benchresters producing tiny groups not significantly larger than the bullet's diameter. The only part of the rifle they touch is the lever on its 2-ounce trigger, then it recoils back in free recoil exactly the same for each shot. They know that any more touching of the rifle causes it to not move in recoil repeatably as it slides back in recoil.

Most people shoot a centerfire rifle more accurate by slinging up in prone with a soft bag under the stock fore end and toe, but it takes a little practice to get proficient and repeatable doing it. This minimizes the unrepeatable holding issues us humans have hanging onto a rifle as it rests atop something on a bench. Such prone positions was what is now used in F-class competition.
 
thanks for clarifying
same page but poorly worded.
I figure using a bag will dampen forearm support error compared to the bipods.

I have been previously practicing with bipods since I feel this is more applicable to field use.
 
I have been previously practicing with bipods since I feel this is more applicable to field use.
Click to expand...

If it's the hunting fields you are referring to, IME: the prone position is nearly useless unless you are up on some high ground, because when you get down that low, you can't see much, due to brush/weeds, and even minor dips in what looks to be a flat cornfield become game hiding valleys when your eye is 6 inches off the ground, as opposed to 3 feet.

Add to that to the fact that a folded bi-pod gets snagged up on every little twig and tumble weed on a stalk, and makes swinging on moving game more difficult than it already is .... it's a bad idea on a hunting rifle.

IF you are shooting at game so far out that you might need a shooting aid, then you'll likely have plenty of time to use a military (M1907) style sling, or folding shooting sticks, or both. Neither of those interfere with carrying the rifle or using it for a snap shot.
 
"(M1907) style sling"
Now that is a cool sling.
I will buy one of these very soon. :)

Yeah, one reason I opted for the 6x is being southeast there is a lot of brush and even more up north. Locally I haven't had much snagging, but like to have em just in case or maybe if I'm in the blinds.
 
Yeah, one reason I opted for the 6x is being southeast there is a lot of brush and even more up north. Locally I haven't had much snagging, but like to have em just in case or maybe if I'm in the blinds.
Click to expand...


6X? I started hunting with 6X fixed power scope when I was a kid ...... it made close shots ....... more difficult than they really were. I missed one nice buck because there was a 4 inch tree branch between him and me that did not even show up in the scope...... I have a 3x9 now, and keep it on 3X, most of the time. Like with the shooting aids, if the quarry is so far that I feel the need for any advantage, then there's time to turn it up.... I learned this the hard way, watching over a giant hayfield with the scope turned all the way up to 9X ..... and heard a twig snap behind me ...... and turned my head to catch a buck not 30 feet bheind me. He stepped behind a tree, and I got turned around and got the rifle up ... and had a full field of deer hair .... I dropped it down and found the foreleg and went back up and back a bit ...... it worked that time, but 3X would have made it a whole lot simpler.....

I use a pair of Stoney Point Shooting Stix http://www.chuckhawks.com/steady_stix.htm

...though I have not seen these in a store for a while. maybe they stopped making them?
 
Haha, I took my 3-9x off this rifle.
Having access to a good range and being a passionate shooter I couldn't resist.
Making the 1,000 is on my bucket list now.

I haven't considered the sticks because they're foreign to me, but might look into it.

I put a cap on my collection after me and a buddy bought and traded as many firearms as we could. A pistol, bolt action, semi-auto, and shotgun is all I need.

So I have this evolution...
I could hunt with my semi-auto but prefer my bolt.

Maybe I will compete one day, but after seeing someone shoot a 7" group on the 1,000.
I think it will be wayyy out.
 
So an update. I bought a new barrel but can't find a Smith that can do it. Something about metrics and European threading tpi/pitching or something. Sent it to 4 gunsmiths just to have each one return it saying they can't. Didn't think rebarreling this would be so difficult.
 
The 798 is a '98 Mauser made by Zastava. I would expect it to have Mauser standard threads which are metric but have been cut by any gunsmith worthy of his lathe.
 
Find yourself another gunsmith. That rifle has 1:12 Whitworth threads like almost every other Model 98 Mauser.

Bill Jacobs
 
That rifle has 1:12 Whitworth threads
Click to expand...
That's 12 tpi (threads per inch). I just rebarreled a Zastava Mauser last summer, it's pretty easy. If your so-called smith can't rebarrel a Mauser, what can he do?
 
The Mauser threads are not metric in pitch. They use the old British Whitworth thread, as mentioned by Clemson, so it has a 55° thread profile instead of the 60° profile used most of the time these days. When I was messing with Mausers, I bought a special 55° profile threading tool from Brownell for the barrels. I later concluded I could have worked around it as the lathe's toolpost can be set to angle a 60° threading tool 5° tailward and the top slide under it may be set to the 55° angle, then the 55° threads produced by turning the cross slide in a little at each threading pass until the depth of cut is adequate. You don't get the ideal radiused peaks and valleys of the Whitworth profile without modifying the tip of the threading tool, but you do get something that fits, and it is something any gunsmith with a lathe should be able to do.

Other than that, if you buy your barrel from Douglas, McGowan, Hart, Shaw, they offer rebarreling services to include installation. I'm sure some other brands do as well.
 
While I agree threadform is important, i have a lot of years in the macine trades and some experience with threading tools.
The manufacturing industry uses almost exclusively carbide insert tooling.
Threading tools,too,and I'm sure 55 deg inserts are available.That system has advantages,one being if you chip a tip the replacement insert will be essentially identical.
A disadvantage is the cost of buying the tooling.Figure the lathe tool "bit" around $100 ,plus or minus,and the inserts $10 each,plus or minus.

I've cut a lot of threads with hand ground high speed lathe tools.A "pocket comparator" can be very helpful.Ists sort of a jewelers loupe with scale reticles.A thread gauge and loupe can be used. Final shaping can be done with a hard,fine India stone.
I'd certainly communicate with the number of fine USA barrel makers who can fix you up,but there is one other barrel maker that I might look at the website.
No,I'm not saying its better than the fine American companies! Among those,if you have Kreger,Bartlein,Lilja..I have not been disappointed by Douglas Premium or Criterion. There are oher good ones I have not tried.

But for pre-chambered,pre threaded.contoured Mauser barrels, ten years ago,I got a good price and a nicely machined barrel from Lothar Walther. It might be something to look at.
I would think your smith would have a Mauser receiver mandrel. If he doesn't, I'd buy one from Brownells. You want a skinny facing cut taken off the receiver ring. That surface is the foundation of your barrel/receiver fit. It needs to be square and flat.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
HiBC,

Thanks for the website suggestion. I don't think I've ever looked there before, and they do have some things other barrel makers don't catalog that I recall; polygonal rifled pistol barrel blanks, five chamberings for the M1 Garand, hammer-forged 223 barrels.


Rainydayshooter,

One part of your group size puzzle (though not the whole thing) is you should expect some growth in moa with distance from a rifle, even if it is fired from a machine rest. This is because some portion of the error in the group is due to radial drift way from the mean trajectory path. Because the bullet slows down as it goes downrange, each successive 100 yards will have a longer time of flight than the previous 100 yards, and that gives the drift more time to carry the bullet away from the center of the group.

If you could fire in still, unchanging air from a perfect machine rest and every round departed with the exact same velocity and barrel time, you would expect the following effect from bullet slowing:

attachment.php


Since you don't have still, unchanging air or zero velocity spread, you can expect the increased moa with range to be greater. That table is the minimum expectation.
 

Attachments

  • Group Size With Range 130 grain 270 PP.gif
    Group Size With Range 130 grain 270 PP.gif
    5.1 KB · Views: 103
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top