stubblejumper

The original post did not include any stipulations as to price.It also did not mention "average bolt rifle" or "average semi auto".But if you want to add the terms "average" let us test the remington 700 against the remington 7400,or the ruger 77 against the mini 14,or the browning a-bolt against the BAR.Those are all average rifles.The only average rifles to have accuracy guarantees are the vanguard and the tikka both of which are very reasonably priced bolt actions.

newguy23

Hunting semi-auto rifles are not that accurate, I will give you that. I guess if we are talking hunting guns I will conceed that the bolts are more accurate than the semi-autos. But that is where the comparison ends. I forget we are on a HuntingBBS sometimes.

But my other arguments still holds.

primetimearcher

I'm talking about hunting rifles not comperition rifles. Should have been clear about that.

newguy23

Then I would definately go with a bolt. As for the most accurate bolt action guns I have seen I would put my money on the Sako or modify a Rem 700.

Carpmaster

Hunting rifles.....the bolt for sure in most all cases! There might be a rarity, but the bolt will provide better results.

Slamfire

Unless you plan on hunting small game or varmints at long range you don't need accuracy finer than 2 or 3 moa.

stubblejumper

The more accurate that your gun is the more error that you can make and still make a clean kill.A 3MOA gun is going to shoot 9" groups at 300 yards which means that the shooter is allowed no error at all to consistantly hit the kill zone on a deer at 300 yards.I find that shooting under field conditions usually roughly doubles a persons group sizes so a 3MOA gun is not even accurate enough for reliable kills at 200 yards under hunting conditions.

Briman

Newguy23- if you think a .223 bolt action couldn't be built for less money than what your AR cost and be more accurate at the same time, I'd like to have what you're smoking.

newguy23

I have an AR guaranteed from the manufacturer at 3/4 moa... It shoots significantly under that... It cost $850... You tell me what bolt can compete with that... I would love to buy one!

driftrider

Guarantees and reality are two different things. RRA puts a guarantee on their rifles because they know that the type of person who buys a match grade AR won't buy it unless it without one. It's kind of like how people with a migraine headache won't buy Excedrine, but they will buy Excedrine Migraine because it says "migraine" on the bottle, even though the two are EXACTLY the same thing ingredient wise.

The people who buy bolt action rifles for hunting care more about the cost, and accept a lack of guaranteed accuracy because they know that the rifle will shoot good enough to get the job done on big game, but the lack of an accuracy guarantee doesn't mean that a rifle is incapable of shooting as well as one with an accuracy guarantee. Most custom riflesmiths, who build rifles that cost more than yours, do not "guarantee" any level of accuracy, but the benchrest rifles they build will outshoot your RRA AR every day of the week without exception. The reason that they don't guarantee accuracy is that they can't control the circumstances in which the rifle is shot, nor can they afford the cost of returned rifles because the first group someone fires from it isn't below that mark. RRA can afford to eat the cost of a few returned rifles, even is the circumstances of the return are suspect, a one man custom gunsmithing operation can't.

I'd also ask you how much your RRA AR cost you? I'm betting it was close to $1000, or a touch more, to be guaranteed to barily shoot 3/4MOA. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I have a Ruger M77VT that will easily maintain a 3/4MOA aggregate. It cost me half what your rifle did, and wasn't guaranteed to do any more than safely make a .224 caliber bullet go downrange really fast. You're too hung up on the guarantee, and don't see that there are a great many bolt action rifles that easily meet or exceed the accuracy your rifle can hope to achieve that cost the same or less.

And as others have already pointed out, the "experts" you site as being the definitive authority on all things firearms related have bosses and have to feed their families too, which means that they will talk up anything their editor tells them too to sell magazines (and advertising). It's funny how for every one "expert" that talks up one thing, there is another "expert" that says the opposite with equally impressive credentials. Ever heard ot Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor? Both where very experienced "experts" that endorsed two totally opposite schools of thought. Articles in gun rags are best read with a critical eye.

Mike