hometheaterman

What's decent groups to you all? The reason I say that is I think everyone just has different standards of what's okay when it comes to accuracy. I've had several people that have shot my gun with the ammo it likes, and say it shoots fine. However, imo those groups are still horrible. To me anything over 1" groups at 100 yards is pretty crappy. 2" is just horrible. Is it fine for deer hunting? Sure, but it's still not good. That's why I point out the BAR's lack of accuracy as I don't want someone thinking he is getting a rifle that will shoot .5" groups when most won't. Most posters I see asking about the BAR's ask how the accuracy is, so it's something they are curious about. I'm curious to know what the groups measured out to for you though? Got any pictures of the targets? I'm also curious to hear what groups you got with a 742?

hometheaterman

I trash the Leupold VX-I and Rifleman line as well, they are crap. They are comparable to a Simmons, Bushnell, etc. Or at least the ones I've had were. Yet they cost about 7 times as much. Even the majority of Leupold fan's I've talked to including Big Country say they aren't that great. Most of the Leupold fans try to say how it's a cheap scope so you can't expect but so much, but at $210-300, they aren't super cheap and you should get much better quality than a $30 Simmons would give you.

Now the Leupold VX-II and above I've never trashed as they are decent scopes. The problem with them is you can get much better glass from other companies for cheaper. While the VX-II and above are fine scopes, I just like to get the most for my money and you can't do that with a Leupold no matter what line.

What ever changing stories do I have? Other than the fact that, I've owned a couple more Leupolds after my first one, and all of them have been about the same. So when I post the number of how many I've owned it's gone up.

As for Remington, It's not that I don't like some Remington products either. It's just not all of them are great. The newer ones in particular have a lot of quality control issues. Read some gun forums, and you will see it's not just me complaining of this. I've had first hand experience with this, as well as with the lower priced Leupolds. I've also got friends that have had the same issues, but it's not like I haven't experienced them too. A brand new gun regardless of price should not need work out of the box. The older Remingtons for the most part are great. However, there are a few like the 740 and 742 that do have design flaws. If you like yours and it works for you keep shooting it and act like they don't ever have the issues with the receiver rails if you want. Not my problem. Just don't tell a guy that's trying to learn about different guns and trying to decide on what he wants a bunch of lies about them. Lots of them still work fine, but it's something if buying one that you need to check out very carefully. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying they are horrible.

As far as Remingtons, that are good, I honestly don't think you can beat the old 1100 Magnums if you want a great buckshot gun, the old Remington Speedmaster .22's were great, the older 700's were great, the older 870 Wingmasters were great. The 7400 might not be the most accurate but they are pretty good hunting guns. The old 760's and 7600's are great. There are a ton of great guns that Remington's made over the years. So it's not that I'm bashing Remington as a whole. It's a few models in the past they've made that aren't good designs. Then they have quite a issue with quality control now. Read up on the chamber issues on the 870 Expresses, or the bolt handles breaking off of the new 700's. In general I think Remington has taken a huge step downhill since they got bought out Cerberus, but I know a ton of you will disagree with me just because you all like to do that.

I myself as well as many of my friends, have used products that have performed amazingly. I don't hesitate to recommend them, or tell my experiences with them either. So it's not that I have bad luck or problems with everything like you all seem to think. If a posters ask's about the products that I've had great luck with, I'll tell them. If they ask about one I've had bad luck with, I'll tell them too.

I'm just curious as to what I've said that's so full of it? I'd also like to start seeing some targets from these semi auto's with pictures of the groups measured out, since you guys are getting such good groups with them.

Mojotex

Browning BAR. New one will bust your $500, but might be able to locate a good used one. Suggest 308 Win.

sconnyhunter

We're deer hunters so to us, 1.5" is reasonable. The BAR's both held inside that. My 742 was a little outside that. Currently I shoot a 7mm Rem Mag Ruger that consistently shoots 1" and less.

I have never taken photos of any target I have shot at, except the ones I put in the freezer.
As I have never felt the need to prove my accuracy to any one but myself.
Next time I go to the range I'll photograph the target just for you.

hometheaterman

Well there you go. Your 742 was outside of that. To me anything over 1.5" is not reasonable. I know quite a few guys that this wouldn't be reasonable to also. At the same time I know guys that this would be fine to. So maybe when people ask about accuracy of certain guns maybe you should post what size groups you are getting like I do, so that they know what to expect. Not just telling them that they are accurate as it seems we all have a different opinion of what accurate is. I think that's the main problem. I'm sure some of us have rifles that are more accurate than others even of the same model, but more so, I think we all just have different expectations of what being accurate is.

sconnyhunter

So basically your saying that unless its gonna win a competition its not fit to hunt with. Is that it? 1.75" (742), is not at all unreasonable for a hunting rifle. By any ones standards.
We're not shooting at Wimbledon here. These ain't 1000 yard competition weapons, they're hunting rifle's.

hometheaterman

No, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that if it doesn't shoot 1" or better I'm not happy with it. That's not saying others aren't going to be. In this case, the OP may not have asked how the accuracy is, but in a lot of the cases of guys asking about these guns they want to know how the accuracy is. Even if they don't I feel they should know. If they see posts saying they shoot 1.5-3" groups and they are happy with that, then that's fine. They know up front what they are getting. Some may not be fine with that. That's why I feel it's important to tell them what size groups to expect. I usually add in there on my posts that I don't find those groups to be very accurate. Maybe I should quit adding that.

Saying these things are plenty accurate isn't the best thing to say either imo as to me 1" is plenty accurate. Anything over 1" is not what I'd want. If you have a gun that shoots 2" at 100 yards, that's approximately 4" groups at 200 yards, and so on. If you are shooting at 4-500 yards, that's big enough groups to miss a deer completely.

TUK101

I owned a Remington 760 in 30.06 and it shot well. Not an absolute tack driver, but it shot where you pointed it. I never shot a deer with it since I got rid of it since it didn't pack as well as I had hoped after 2 shoulder surgeries and some herniated discs in my back and neck but it was a pretty nice gun.

35REM180grFP

the only thing i don't like about my BAR . is the action slamming forward in the morning. when i can load.

GRIZZLYMAN

I haven't hung around this forum much, but I beginning to see what you mean. That is why I discount what some people say on different forums just from a "I know better than you, because I spend a lot of time on the internet" attitude. Usually it is pretty easy to spot those people. I know what works for me, and I guess that is what counts.