Forum shooting challenge: The under 500 500

[Ultimitsu]

You wrote all that when 1/4moa is completely irrelevant? Note the difference below.

I do not quite understand your reply. My point is that there is only quite limited amount work you can do to improve a rifle. Much of what could have been negatively affecting a rifle's accuracy cannot be fixed by a user (or even a gun smith). It has nothing to do with 1/4 MOA. You can easily have a 4 MOA gun which, after bedding, re-crowning and load development, still does 3 MOA.

Again, you seem to have drifted off topic. No one says you can't shoot your own 1MOA rifle. Just not in this contest. It appears you are simply not a contender. Rocky was a contender.

My point was simply that doing a lot of load development and reloading for an inaccurate 500 dollar rifle makes little sense.

The point of this challenge is essentially to prove that a cheap rifle can still shoot well, is it not? My point is that if it cost 10 hours of time and $200 of ammo to develop the right load just to make the old 500 dollar rifle to shoot 1 MOA, and from there to maintain 1 MOA you will always have to reload, then it becomes an expensive rifle (totally fine if the goal was to make this particular old rifle shoot for sentimental or nostalgia values). A brand new 1300 rifle that shoots factory ammo 1 MOA arguably makes better economic sense.

If a person did not already start with an accurate rifle that only cost 500 from some distant past, there are only three ways to succeed this challenge:

1. bargain ruthlessly and shamelessly, pay 500 dollars for a rifle with known accuracy that simply is worth more.

2. draw of luck, keep buying 500 dollar rifles until you hit one that is actually quite accurate and sold by an unsuspecting owner - which can happen with estate sales.

3. buy an average 500 dollar rifle and then spend a lot of time rework every part of the rifle: rework the trigger, true the action, lap the barrel, adjust head space (on top of re-crowning, bedding, load developments). Basically the sort of work usually only gunsmith can do properly. In my view unless luck is on your side even with all that work done you may not get a 1 MOA gun.

I have read a lot of accurazing stories and commentary in RimfireCentral about people's journey in accurasing their rifles. The general consensus is pretty much that the time and money spent improving a low end rifle is just not worth it. The only accurazing step that will give you some guaranteed gain (for a low end rifle) is barrel upgrade.

[Tussock]

@Ultimitsu why did you even post that? All the stuff you keep saying about what people and rifles will do, you are making up. This is not Rimfire central.

These rifles areare not junk. They are old, but they were mostly hand made by craftsman. More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire.

I'm going to be gentle here if I can. Most of what you learned on Rimfire central was a form of cosplay. That stuff is all make believe. Like fairies and unicorns. It's real, but it exists only in the hearts and minds of Rimfire central members. It is really not appropriate to mention it outside Rimfire central.

[Ultimitsu]

@Ultimitsu why did you even post that? All the stuff you keep saying about what people and rifles will do, you are making up. This is not Rimfire central.

These rifles areare not junk. They are old, but they were mostly hand made by craftsman. More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire.

I'm going to be gentle here if I can. Most of what you learned on Rimfire central was a form of cosplay. That stuff is all make believe. Like fairies and unicorns. It's real, but it exists only in the hearts and minds of Rimfire central members. It is really not appropriate to mention it outside Rimfire central.

I am not sure why you would rubbish Rimfire Central. Look at the size:
* This forum - Threads: 47,083, Posts: 782,521, Members: 7,998
* Rimfire Central - Threads: 473,223, Posts: 5,000,803, Members: 154,084

Rimfire Central is generally speaking a very respected forum, well run and well moderated. I mention RC because the RC has a lot of people tinkering with rifles about the price range referred to in this thread. If you go to Snipers Hide - a long ranger shooter forum - people there tend to talk about 5k rifles and 5k scopes.

I am not sure why you think somehow centre fire rifles are "mostly hand made by craftsman" with "More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire." The average rimfire that people over at RC play with are CZ and Ruger, they both between 600 to 900 here in NZ. many people there have been long term Anschutz class users.

Check out a review for a typical low-end centre fire gun, the infamous Remington 770: https://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle...on-770-review/

Yeah.. I think CS 453 has more work gone into its trigger than Remington has put into the whole gun.

[ChrisW]

I am not sure why you would rubbish Rimfire Central. Look at the size:
* This forum - Threads: 47,083, Posts: 782,521, Members: 7,998
* Rimfire Central - Threads: 473,223, Posts: 5,000,803, Members: 154,084

Rimfire Central is generally speaking a very respected forum, well run and well moderated. I mention RC because the RC has a lot of people tinkering with rifles about the price range referred to in this thread. If you go to Snipers Hide - a long ranger shooter forum - people there tend to talk about 5k rifles and 5k scopes.

I am not sure why you think somehow centre fire rifles are "mostly hand made by craftsman" with "More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire." The average rimfire that people over at RC play with are CZ and Ruger, they both between 600 to 900 here in NZ. many people there have been long term Anschutz class users.

Check out a review for a typical low-end centre fire gun, the infamous Remington 770: https://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle...on-770-review/

Yeah.. I think CS 453 has more work gone into its trigger than Remington has put into the whole gun.

I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun.
For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.

[gadgetman]

I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun.
For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.

An early 1900s $400 sporterised swedish mauser is going to be head and shoulders above a more modern, low end $400 rifle that's a couple years old (eg used remington 770 or any other entry level rifle that's a few years old). The swede will have been made by craftsman, with parts individually fitted, all very high quality solid steel. Often each part is serialised to the rifle and stamped with an acceptance mark after its been (manually) fitted by said craftsman. Often multiple generations of craftsmen would continue the work of their fathers before them - they took pride in their work and it was more than a transitional job & that can be seen in the quality and finish of old rifles.
Whereas a Remington 770 or other entry level "modern" rifle (basically anything "modern" you can buy for $400) is thrown together with any manor of modern cost cutting. Flimsy plastic stocks, pressed in barrels, plastic parts everywhere possible, the cheapest labor you can find. (Iv used a $400 value for the rifle to allow some money for a cheap scope)

Personally im expecting to see an early 1900s rifle, probably a swede in 6.5x55 take the prize.

Though there are also some pretty good budget rifles around that could do it too. The likes of the Savage Axis are known for being quite basic but nonetheless showing the typical accuracy of its more expensive stable mates. A couple of years ago you would also have been able to pick up the likes of a Howa 1500 or Marlin M?7 for around $400 if you were patient. I think this challenge may have an impact in the market in this price bracket now.

I'm still keen to have a crack at this, though with my skill level I'd never be a contender to win.

[Ultimitsu]

I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun.
For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.

An early 1900s $400 sporterised swedish mauser is going to be head and shoulders above a more modern, low end $400 rifle that's a couple years old (eg used remington 770 or any other entry level rifle that's a few years old). The swede will have been made by craftsman, with parts individually fitted, all very high quality solid steel. Often each part is serialised to the rifle and stamped with an acceptance mark after its been (manually) fitted by said craftsman. Often multiple generations of craftsmen would continue the work of their fathers before them - they took pride in their work and it was more than a transitional job & that can be seen in the quality and finish of old rifles.
Whereas a Remington 770 or other entry level "modern" rifle (basically anything "modern" you can buy for $400) is thrown together with any manor of modern cost cutting. Flimsy plastic stocks, pressed in barrels, plastic parts everywhere possible, the cheapest labor you can find. (Iv used a $400 value for the rifle to allow some money for a cheap scope)

Personally im expecting to see an early 1900s rifle, probably a swede in 6.5x55 take the prize.

Not that you are wrong, but I think "old rifles" is too generic a term that does not really mean anything more than rifles that are just old.

Sure, there are high end rifles from 60 years ago surviving to this day. But there are also many and many low end rifles from early to mid 20th century still floating around. A lot of the WWII rifles were sportised and many were not craftsmans' work, and were definitely mass produced to be able to hit man sized target at about 200m.

I used to check out guns at Will's fishing and hunting before he moved to west Auckland. He had a fair selection of old guns. From memory anything decent commanded a nice price tag. Will is certainly a guy that knows his old gun trading business.

High end old rifles that still have good bore and rifling, and in generally good condition are not cheap. Unless you buy from an unaware estate executor, most people know what their guns' worth. Try buy an 1970s Anschutz 54 rimfire, see how likely it is to get it under 500.

Last year a forumer bought an 1990s Anshutz 54 MSR, I think he paid about 2000.

[Marty Henry]

I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun.
For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.

I must see if my nephew wants to sell his 770, its not as bad as the review rifles and is actually scarry accurate. At least with the nikko scope he has on it I could see the target properly.

[gadgetman]

3. buy an average 500 dollar rifle and then spend a lot of time rework every part of the rifle: rework the trigger, true the action, lap the barrel, adjust head space (on top of re-crowning, bedding, load developments). Basically the sort of work usually only gunsmith can do properly. In my view unless luck is on your side even with all that work done you may not get a 1 MOA gun.

I've done this with a couple $450 rifles. One currently shoots consistent 13mm three shot groups at 100m, same pattern/position. Unfortunately it is only a 223 and non dialling scope.