Single shots. Why?

tdokya, I think those 1/10th to 4/10ths inch, 100-yard groups you mention are the smallest shot; right? Any rifle can do that once in a (great) while. I think your rifles shoot bigger groups; what sizes are the largest of each rifle mentioned?
Click to expand...

Why the hostility, Bart?

Just because the guy says his barrels can shoot, doesn't mean you have to challenge him, or claim that the groups were a fluke that the universe accidentally let slip through.

tdoyka has been a member here for a little while, but is actually more active on some other firearms-based forums. He's a good guy. He isn't a mall ninja. And doesn't make claims that he can't back up.


I know you have a personal hatred of people that shoot 3-shot groups. I generally agree that, statistically, a 3-shot group isn't very useful. But, if the rifle consistently prints the same little 3-shot groups, it is indicative of the overall aggregate (or a 10+ shot group) being just as good.

The bottom line is:
If the barrel can shoot, the barrel can shoot. ...And there are more people in this world, besides you and your friends, that are capable of shooting 0.4s or better with their firearms.
 
James, this is it all wrapped up in a box with a bow on it.

I take away from this that in that latter category it seems that weight and OAL to barrel length ratio is the best aspect of single shots.
Click to expand...

There really aren't any significant differences/benefits from ordinary bolts to equivalent single shots, other than the action length, rifle length, and magazine capacity (or lack of.) Some singles don't allow rimless cartridges.

There are so many little petty differences, but it almost all comes down to personal preference to style, shorter action, (the martini doesn't really qualify, nor, I guess, the rollig block?) lighter weight, etc. You can still make a quality single shot perform up to a high level of accuracy that will rival but maybe not beat, almost any bolt rifle of similar quality.

It's not fair to compare a beautiful $1,500 ruger with AA grade walnut, gloss blue, and fine checkering to a custom built bolt that was accurized, pillar bedded, and heavy barrel, but without a penny spent on aesthetics, so it could come in at the same price, yet look like a war club. It's also not fair to compare the accuracy of a #1 to an AR rifle that cost $1,000 just to buy, and then has another $1,000 worth of rails, lights, flash suppressors, custom hardware and so forth. we gotta compare apples to apples.

a bolt can be tuned to greater accuracy, there is no doubting that, as when you go to a genuine match when you have people measuring 1,000 yard groups with calipers, you will not find any unusual rifles competing with the bolt guns.

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned, at least in my recall, was the single shot match or varmint rifle. Plenty of top, really top grade bolt rifles have no magazine cut, to make the action area stronger and more resistant to change or harmonic imbalance. They are literally single shots, but not literally classic single shots, as we are discussing.

These also should be left out of the discussion, I guess, because it's not fair to once again compare an apple to an orange. but, someone could drag out the argument that a single shot by mcmillan or others, made for popping prairie dogs at 500 yards, could be compared to a magazine version of a bolt rifle.

Gotta avoid those ideas.;)
 
"That was before the rifle was redesigned with a floated barrel. the forend used to be attached to the barrel and now it is attached to a rod and then the action."

AFAIK, the forearm has always been attached to the hanger. I've looked at an awful lot of Ruger #1's and I've never seen one that didn't have a hanger. The have been some guns that were altered by there owner so that the forearm was attached to the barrel so that the hanger wasn't used anymore other that to house the mainspring but coming from the factory with the forearm mounted to the barrel? I don't think so. Even the Browning B78 uses a hangedr to attach the forearm. Can't say about the Browning B85 as I don't have on to take apart and see but I would guess it too uses a hanger.
Some Ruger #1's are very accurate. My #1V in .223 Rem. is a consistant half inch gun. Seems like any of the smaller bored #1B's can be very accurate. Mine in 6MM Rem and .257 Robt. both shoot in the .50 to .75" range all day load depending on how well I'm shooting on any particular day. I also have a couple that I've never been able to get to shoot decent groups. Some shot well after a bit of tinkering.
Doesn't make much difference, Seems Ruger is only making them in limited edition in ceratian calibers anyway so if someone wants one it looks like the used market is the way to go. :(
Paul B.
 
If I live long enough to have my later years I may well start trading/selling guns off and set up a battery of TC Encores or Contenders. Keeping many of the same chamberings just shifting them to the break open TC's. For some reason I like the idea of having a few and simply rotating a different barrel/scope into the frame and going hunting depending upon my mood. Light, short for barrell length and well I just like the looks.
 
I suppose single shots would potentially make good what people call "survival rifles". Fold down small, lighter, but can still hold a punchy calibre.
 
Paul b, maybe I am remembering it wrong, but as has been said, there were complaints of inaccuracy. What I remember is that there was a problem with forend, or hanger, that allowed the rifle to scatter and string shots.

If it was floated in the beginning, maybe they added a device that functions like the bump at the end of a normal stock, that dampens the vibration. Free floated barrels can be inaccurate unless they are heavy enough to dampen vibration. Free floated sporter weight are usually improved by a small bit of pressure that will remain consistent from shot to shot, hence they leave a tiny bit of pressure at the very top, at the end of a stock, on most full length stocks.

If you have seen ruger rifles that go back to the very first release, instead of just 30 years old or so, and there are no differences, I guess you are right.

In any case, I may be misremembering exactly what was done. I do know that ruger released a "fix" that was supposed to enhance the accuracy and minimize the scatter and large groups that people complained about.
 
thank you frankenmauser. i won't tell him about the '06 in savage that wouldn't shot a bleeping handload for bleep. but it would shoot a factory 180gr remington rn at 1/2-3/4" . i had to sell that one to keep peace in my mind!!!!:p
 
I've been looking for a single shot rifle for my grandson for only one reason. It is the only one allowed in the Boy Scouts. He gets my Henry lever action 22 if he makes Eagle Scout. He says he will do it.
 
I can't verify the accuracy of this, but the "urban legend" back in the day was that Ruger didn't put as much money into the No.1 barrels as they did the rest of the rifle. I've even heard that the early production years used barrels from "someone else".

Also heard how, the "fix" was Ruger making their own barrels, and doing it well. Not sure when they switched.

Personally, I'm not really concerned with group size shooting a single shot rifle. I always get a one hole group, and then reload the rifle.:D
 
I've been looking for a single shot rifle for my grandson for only one reason. It is the only one allowed in the Boy Scouts. He gets my Henry lever action 22 if he makes Eagle Scout. He says he will do it.
Click to expand...

Henry makes singles, don't they?

I'd suggest looking at the used market, unless you're really wanting a new one.
 
tdokya, I don't hate you. Some folks are a poor judge of one's character.

That aside, while your three groups are fairly close to each other in size, I find it more realistic to judge accuracy where all shots can be expected to land, not just a few. Which means if the 9-shot composite is .4, or even .5 inch, that's really good for any single-shot actioned rifle.

If one checks the benchrest aggregate records, they should learn that the more shots fired, the bigger the average, as well as their composite, is. Finding that least accurate round in the box may take a while to uncover. But it's still there waiting to be shot.

Brian mentioned that free floated barrels can be inaccurate unless they are heavy enough to dampen vibration. I don't understand the reasoning behind that. What's wrong with barrels vibrating? Each one vibrates at its own resonant frequency and its harmonics (along with the action it's in) for every shot fired; it never changes. The amplitude will change with the load; more for heavy ones, less for light ones. The direction changes with how the case head impact on the bolt face changes from shot to shot; typically at right angles to the two bolt lug axis. The more locking lugs there are, the less it is.

Brian also mentions free floated sporter weight are usually improved by a small bit of pressure that will remain consistent from shot to shot, hence they leave a tiny bit of pressure at the very top, at the end of a stock, on most full length stocks. The problem with that is, that pressure is never the same all the time. It varies in is axis by how the rifle held and supported, in amount by the external forces put on the rifle as it's held. If accuracy's all things being repeatable from shot to shot, having a stock's fore end touching the barrel won't let that happen. Fore end's bend from external pressure, so they need clearance to the barrel to allow for it. Single-shot rifle fore ends not touching their barrel's a good thing and was done for these reasons.

I've never seen any accuracy difference between sporter weight barrels and heavier, thicker ones if they're properly fit to the receiver. If one compares how stiff sporter weight barrels are compared to those heavier and thicker varmint and target ones, they'll see many of them are just as stiff. Others will be stiffer.
 
Last edited:
Bart, you just don't seem to know the facts, then. Barrels are heavier in match and accuracy rifles. Look around. Top bench rest barrels have been made up to nearly 2" in diameter. The fluted barrel is used for several purposes, but the key reason for a fluted barrel is to create a fin that stiffens the barrel almost as well as a full heavy barrel while reducing weight.

the resonance/vibration never changes? are you sure? a bullet is thrown out of a barrel at maybe 3-4,000. It's a well known fact that a typical round of shots can vary in velocity up to 100 or more FPS, don't you think that this may affect the actual point of bullet exit? it does. You are simply overestimating how consistent and perfect that vibration is, assuming that the entire action, barrel, mounting, deadens vibration exactly in the same manner.

I have no idea where you got the idea that a two lug bolt is inaccurate, and having more lugs make it better. I don't believe that the firearms designers and manufacturers agree. Not at all. Blueprinted actions are especially perfect, and adding other bolts is unnecessary.

I don't know why you believe that a narrow, tapered sporter barrel of a pound or so weight will be as stiff, or stiffer, than a 1.5 inch diameter untapered, solid steel rod. That just violates every physical law as I know them. If nothing else, the extra mass allows the energy of the shot to be more widely distributed, minimizing the force exerted on lower mass segments. That is exactly why the barrels are tapered; the concussion and pressure of the charge igniting and starting the bullet down the barrel deserves heavier steel, and at the muzzle, the barrel can be allowed a little less steel.

A barrel will vibrate generally at a rate of less than 100 hz. this leaves plenty of room for the vibration to affect variations in muzzle velocity.

Vibration is such a variable and a problem that many bench rest shooters no longer even hold their rifles, because they don't want their position and hold to interfere. they put together sleds to hold it, and pull the trigger by a finger.

Regarding the stock pads, it is true. A fact. By pressing in a little in the middle of the barrel it dampens the vibration a bit. Try getting a tuning fork, a genuine vibration generator, and sticking your finger on a vibrating tuning fork. Listen to the vibrations muffle and die.

I just don't know how to reply to the rest of it. If it wasn't effective, putting a bump on the bottom of the stock on a pencil thin barrel, tens of thousands of people would not have been reporting it for the last half century, and the gun makers would not have been wasting the effort to do it. If skinny, free floated barrels were just as good as heavy free floated barrels, NOBODY would add weight and expense to the barrel. You talk about bench rest. Look at the guns. Pillar bedded on composite with free heavy barrels, and every possible tweak made to reduce vibration and flexing, and to achieve consistency of vibration. Why? because there is no way on God's earth that we can just assemble a machine that will be capable of having a powder charge blast a bullet out the end, without having vibration that will have an impact on accuracy and consistently.

There are literally hundreds of resources online that discuss accuracy improvement by improving vibration and consistency of the same. Go ahead and look them up, and you won't regret it.

BTW, I use 5 shot groups, and yes, they are never as small as my 3 shot groups, but since I've not fired in competition since I routinely lost my shirt time after time as a kid, I really don't care about it. I shoot well enough and I compete with myself. No trophies, but the really impressive targets are put on a wall for a few weeks.
 
Brian, I know the facts. Learned them from people smarter than I am after I had the same beliefs you put in print. I'll mention one.

Two Brits proved about 1970 that 4-lug bolt actions shot ammo more accurate than 2-lug ones. An American then proved 2-lug actions with bolt lugs in battery on the vertical axis strung shots horizontally. Which led to the best single shot bolt actions for competition to have 3 or 4 lugs. The difference is easier to see when new cases are used. Both M1 and M14 match grade service rifles have demonstrated shot stringing from 7 to 1 o'clock with the best precision reloaded cases possible; that's at right angles to their bolt lug lockup axis.

I'm not aware of any 2" thick long barrels shooting any more accurate than one of the same length tapering from 1.2" diameter at the receiver for 2", then tapering to 1" diameter over the next 2" then down to .8" for the last 25" to the muzzle. The best of both shoot under 6/10 MOA at the longer ranges. Whippy barrels can make ammo with big velocity spreads shoot very accurate at longer ranges.

Ask a mechanical engineer doing vibration studies to calculate the resonant frequencies of two 30 caliber barrels; one a 22" 2.1 pound featherweight and one a 26" 4.4 pound varmint weight. I did that and they were all equal; same resonant frequency about 63.81 Hz with an insignificant .11 Hz spread. A thicker and heavier 28" target one had the same numbers.

Most interesting is your remark that a barrel resonant frequency effects muzzle velocity. Do those with higher resonant frequencies (stiffer) shoot bullets out faster? If so, then would shortening a barrel to make it stiffer would make it have higher muzzle velocities with the same load?
 
Last edited:
I've got couple Ruger #1 that are pretty accurate 6ppc,22Br and 30-338mag. The 6ppc chamber is cut from same reamer used on my BR rifles and 22BR is also tight neck rifle both have single set trigger. I did put a 1/12 twist 30-338mag.

The Ruger 6ppc by design is not a bench rifle but fun to shoot.
 
I learned how to shot on an old single shot 22 bolt action. Taught me to make each round count. Now that I'm a fairly proficient shooter, I don't load a single round very often; typically only when I'm sighting in a new firearm or scope.
 
I think if all three 3-shot groups' shot holes were plotted relative to the point of aim, that 9-shot composite would be about .4 inch or bigger.
Click to expand...
When has that ever been a consideration when discussing "group size"?

That only matters if scoring a target for "accuracy"
 
When high levels of statistical significance is needed to determine where all fired shots will fall. Few, if any, holders of 5-shot group records also hold any 10-shot aggregate records. The largest group in aggregate scores is larger than the average used for its value.

The more shots fired makes the group get bigger. Shoot 2-shot groups all the time and the odds of getting smallest ones gets better. Sometimes it takes several shots before the least accurate ones in your ammo box are fired.

It also depends on what means accuracy; how close a few shots come to the point of aim or how far you'll miss it at most. When one realizes that the smallest groups happen when all the variables cancel each other out in all directons, or everything is perfect and has no variables, how do they tell which one made that tiny group?
 
Last edited:
Can anyone say... Thread-jack.
Click to expand...

That made me chuckle resulting in a small, yet potent, volume of beer making it into my nasal cavity.

Yes, it is a bit off topic, but its still knowledge being imparted so I'm reading with interest. Most of it is chinese to me, but I may get to grips with it. Hope dies last!
 
Bart, I want to see some documentation before I am going to discard the amassed information of decades of firearm engineering that I have learned about.

And BTW, I never said a thing about vibration causing "bullets to shoot out faster."

A barrel will vibrate generally at a rate of less than 100 hz. this leaves plenty of room for the vibration to affect variations in muzzle velocity.
Click to expand...

if you misunderstood this, it means that with variations in velocity of up to 1% or even higher, as poorly manufactured ammo would do, a vibration of appr 100 Hz would still allow for inconsistencies in the wave when the bullet actually leaves the barrel. Commonly believed to be a source of inaccuracy when certain loads are ineffective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top