Almost every 'Rifle - For Sale' ad states that the rifle is accurate and people go to great depths to keep it as accurate as possible. Unless competing at a professional level, I am of the opinion that most rifles used for stalking is more than capable for its intended purpose and its mostly the user who is at fault. So it got me thinking as to the other extreme, ie what do people consider to be an inaccurate rifle? Have you had one before and what did you do with it? What was the most common fix such as a change in scope or ammo or maybe a visit to the gunsmith to get some tweaks done.
And if you had an inaccurate rifle, would you sell it or scrap it or something else?
Some very good questions there. Totally agree we’re spoiled for choice now with relatively cheap guns available off the shelf being capable of sub MOA. Bearing in mind that for the most respected service weapons of WWII, (Kar98’s, Moisins, LE Mk4’s, etc ) on which lives really depended, 4MOA was considered an accurate rifle.
And yes, it’s immensely satisfying to settle down on a bench and punch out those clover leaves at 100m in ideal conditions.
Capable is a very relevant word though, very dependant on the shooter and the circumstances, and accurate even more subjective. For example I have two 308s. One is a modern polymer stocked job, easily capable of sub 0.5moa accuracy off the bench, but loaded down with a bipod, big scope and a mod, weighs a bloody ton.
My other is a single shot feather light break-action thing with open sights, with which I’m lucky to get 3moa. But at realistic woodland stalking distances, or at least realistic to me, that’s always within a minute of deer. And being so light I can carry it all day without fatigue, hold it steady with minimal support and enjoy the satisfaction of stalking well. Which for me is more gratifying than slotting a beast at 600 yards. And I love the look of the gun.