HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - new to rifle reloading need advice
View Single Post
Old 05-29-2015 | 12:30 PM
  #32  
super_hunt54's Avatar
super_hunt54
Nontypical Buck
 
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,695
Likes: 1
From: Illinois
Default

Originally Posted by Finepoint
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.
In 58 I was just starting to get serious about shooting and I can tell you that neither my Dad, my Gramps, my Great Gramps, nor I would have accepted a 2-3 MOA rifle. For hunting or anything else but a wall hanger or door stop. Or RR's suggestion of a gate post. We all bought quality rifles and re-loaded our own ammo.

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.
super_hunt54 is offline  
Reply