new to rifle reloading need advice
05-29-2015, 11:11 AM
#31
Spike
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 18
Yeah I have to agree on the issue of accuracy in old guns, some old rifles are every bit as accurate as off the shelf rifles today. A friend of mine has a 1979 Browning BBR and it is Sub-MOA easly, first handload I tried for it came in under 3/4" @100yd, it is as accurate as any of my modern rifles except for my freakish Tikka T3. Another good example of some VERY old rifles that are super accurate are the old 96 Mausers, over 100 years old as as long as your bore is not shot out they will hang with modern rifles.
Last edited by Kachok; 05-29-2015 at 11:16 AM.
05-29-2015, 12:30 PM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
The point is not what the rifles are capable of under current ideal circumstances, but rather what the shooter's expectations are. Today we snub our noses at any rifle that will not do 1 MOA or better and cars that won't run 200,000 miles without a major repair. In 1958, we were happy with 2-3 MOA rifles and cars that got 100,000 miles. Perhaps were were not so good shots back then, but, on the whole were probably better hunters. I'm well aware of the ammo low expectations for ammo back then and how many old rifles with carefully tweaked handloads will shoot far better than was conceivable when they were made. And I'm familiar with the hand-crafted Sniper SMLE's. What I'm trying to do is bridge gap between the proverbial minute-of-pie plate with the 700 yd deer. Both have their points and both have their limitations.
It reminds me of a weapons system that I worked on decades ago. It was capable of repeatedly placing a projectile within 25 meters of its target post at a distance of over 1000km.This is decades before laser targeting or GPS. These anecdotal stories were confirmed by my uncle, who worked on the system design, I found out years later. I don't know how that works out in MOA, but I'll bet it's not much. I appreciate that kind of precision. But when one considers that the Army was having me put a 145 kiloton nuclear warhead on it, I had to ask the pie plate question. The dissonance of the whole thing still makes me laugh. The older I get, the more I laugh.
It reminds me of a weapons system that I worked on decades ago. It was capable of repeatedly placing a projectile within 25 meters of its target post at a distance of over 1000km.This is decades before laser targeting or GPS. These anecdotal stories were confirmed by my uncle, who worked on the system design, I found out years later. I don't know how that works out in MOA, but I'll bet it's not much. I appreciate that kind of precision. But when one considers that the Army was having me put a 145 kiloton nuclear warhead on it, I had to ask the pie plate question. The dissonance of the whole thing still makes me laugh. The older I get, the more I laugh.
You are correct in the fact that computer aided design and operations has helped the quality of shooting. But incorrect in the reason. It helped in AMMO production being 100 times more consistent. Better quality weight, better quality sizing of the powder for consistent burn rate, everything. And it could still use a LOT more refinement of consistency. Which is why I STILL roll my own. As far as the rifles go, they aided in lowering production costs which allows for nicer rifles that can be afforded by the masses. Hell even the cheap Savage models are pretty darn good shooters right out of the box. But the quality, in my opinion, isn't any better at all. Just cheaper to make nowadays.
05-29-2015, 12:55 PM
#33
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,780
Older rifles were more of a "hit or miss" proposition than most of the more modern models. Some did shoot very well but finding a really good shooter was not always easy. The best thing about the older models was the fit, finish, and the quality of the wood. My first big game rifle was a fabled "pre-64" M70. It was a beautiful (to me) hunting rifle but it certainly was not a "all day MOA" rifle. I was involved in competitive benchrest shooting so I did have some idea of how to develop loads.
Everyone seems to have a favorite three shot group that they shot once and cut out for display but the occasional good group does not really mean that the rifle is a good consistent shooter.
Everyone seems to have a favorite three shot group that they shot once and cut out for display but the occasional good group does not really mean that the rifle is a good consistent shooter.
05-30-2015, 05:40 PM
#34
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
Older rifles were more of a "hit or miss" proposition than most of the more modern models. Some did shoot very well but finding a really good shooter was not always easy. The best thing about the older models was the fit, finish, and the quality of the wood. My first big game rifle was a fabled "pre-64" M70. It was a beautiful (to me) hunting rifle but it certainly was not a "all day MOA" rifle. I was involved in competitive benchrest shooting so I did have some idea of how to develop loads.
Everyone seems to have a favorite three shot group that they shot once and cut out for display but the occasional good group does not really mean that the rifle is a good consistent shooter.
Everyone seems to have a favorite three shot group that they shot once and cut out for display but the occasional good group does not really mean that the rifle is a good consistent shooter.
05-30-2015, 08:07 PM
#35
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Count me in as one that got a good pre 64 Model 70 passed to me some time ago by my Dad. It will consistently put them all under MOA with 150 grain Hornady Interlocks and it's my go to rifle when I head for Wyoming every Fall for deer and/or elk. All it's ever had done to it was the trigger worked down to about 2-2 1/2# to bring the groups down to what I mentioned.
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 05-30-2015 at 08:12 PM. Reason: Spelling
