Are rifles getting better?

longlowdog

Well-Known Member
Do folk think that the proliferation of custom gunmakers offering bughole accuracy is forcing mainstream manufacturers to offer more accurate rifles to the public or is it just something simple like higher manufacturing standards being made ecconomical by the likes of cad-cam machinery.
15 years ago groups of 1.5'' to 2'' were considered perfectly acceptable in rifle reviews, now no-one gets excited unless a rifle shoots sub 1'' 5 shot groups.
What do folk think?
Are we any better off than we were?
 
it's true that manufacturing techniques are constantly getting better and cheaper. The thing is unless your target shooting sub 1" while desireable isnt really all that necessary. Sub three inch, heart/lung = a dead deer!
 
it's true that manufacturing techniques are constantly getting better and cheaper. The thing is unless your target shooting sub 1" while desireable isnt really all that necessary. Sub three inch, heart/lung = a dead deer!

I cannot agree with this statement. If you are already at best getting 3'' groups at presumably 100yds you already have a depleted margin of error. If you start pushing your shots out to 200-250yds what has your group stretched to then? Certainly of a size that you could not possibly be certain of striking in a vital area.

Everything else we tack onto our gun, moderators that help reduce recoil and therefore a possible flinch, bipods to assure a good rest and quality optics are only part of it.

In my mind if I am shooting 1/2'' groups at 100yds then there is nothing left to chance at greater distance. It is as they say, down to me.
 
I wonder whether it's the rifles getting better, or just that we expect better accuracy and strive harder to get it?

I have one deer rifle rifle which I bought new, and one old one, about 20 years old.

Both shoot 1" groups (or a little less) at 100yds quite happily, but only with the ammunition they like; and it took some testing to find what that ammunition was.
It struck me that formerly, one might just have bought a packet of what was available and zeroed with it: if the groups were 2" or so, that was that.
 
Last edited:
The bullets are better now than they used to be :D. However I am not so sure about the rifles :-|. There is a lot of cost cutting done in their production now.
 
I cannot agree with this statement. If you are already at best getting 3'' groups at presumably 100yds you already have a depleted margin of error. If you start pushing your shots out to 200-250yds what has your group stretched to then? Certainly of a size that you could not possibly be certain of striking in a vital area.

Everything else we tack onto our gun, moderators that help reduce recoil and therefore a possible flinch, bipods to assure a good rest and quality optics are only part of it.

In my mind if I am shooting 1/2'' groups at 100yds then there is nothing left to chance at greater distance. It is as they say, down to me.

Although this may be the ideal, I believe the reality is that even if you shoot 1/2" groups when zeroing /practising with your rifle the chances of you replicating the shooting conditions in the field are virtually non existent. You will not have the luxury of a shooting bench / comfortable position to make the shot, you will be shooting off sticks , leaning against a tree, offhand whatever position presents itself at the time. Of course the opportunity to take the shot off a substantial rest will present itself, but it is not the norm, so it is not unreasonable to expect your groups to grow, therefore the thing to do is practise regularly off sticks etc.

Back to the original question are modern guns more accurate? I believe they are more accurate but I would not like to comment about whether the quality has improved or not, that I believe is a separate question

John
 
Hi
Whether rifles are more accurate I’m not sure, but I do believe that what you feed and the person using it is the biggest variable,
I had some factory rounds that did reasonable groups and some reloaded rounds,
I shot the factory rounds then followed with the homeloads letting the barrels cool time between each shot, and I tried to maintain the exactly same set up position every time.
The group from the factory were ok with the homeloads much much tighter,
The point I’m trying to make is that some people may think that there rifle is not as accurate as it should be but the ammo you feed or the person using could be a bigger factor then you may first realise.

Smithy
 
Better bullets certainly have a lot to do with improved accuracy, factory ammo is also a lot better than 10 or 20 years ago. My 22/250 will shoot Hornady factory 50gr Vmax into about .4-.5"

My view on most modern factory rifles is that the barrel and action aren't too bad, and generally can be made to shoot quite well.

The problem with most rifles is that the stock, magazine, trigger etc are f**king rubbish. Look at the Steyr Mannlicher Prohunter, a really good rifle let down by a rubbish stock. The wooden stocked Mannlicher Classics are actually really nice rifles.
 
Although this may be the ideal, I believe the reality is that even if you shoot 1/2" groups when zeroing /practising with your rifle the chances of you replicating the shooting conditions in the field are virtually non existent. You will not have the luxury of a shooting bench / comfortable position to make the shot, you will be shooting off sticks , leaning against a tree, offhand whatever position presents itself at the time. Of course the opportunity to take the shot off a substantial rest will present itself, but it is not the norm, so it is not unreasonable to expect your groups to grow, therefore the thing to do is practise regularly off sticks etc.

John

Yep, I agree. hence the comment regarding 'if the rifle is accurate' the rest is down to me, which includes finding a rest, judging wind etc. What I don't want is having to work out all the other elements as well as contend with a rifle shooting at best 3'' groups at 100yds.

If rifles are now shooting tighter groups as the original post suggests, even if some disagree it is necessary, it surely still has to be a good thing. I cannot think of anything negative regarding that. So therefore we must be better off.
 
Yep, I agree. hence the comment regarding 'if the rifle is accurate' the rest is down to me, which includes finding a rest, judging wind etc. What I don't want is having to work out all the other elements as well as contend with a rifle shooting at best 3'' groups at 100yds.

If rifles are now shooting tighter groups as the original post suggests, even if some disagree it is necessary, it surely still has to be a good thing. I cannot think of anything negative regarding that. So therefore we must be better off.

I am not all together sure, if rifles are more accurate or not now than they were maybe they are but in general the build quality is not so good, why are so many of us having actions floated and bedded, if the rifle was built properly to begin with there would be no need, same thing with synthetic stocks fitted to make a better rifle , no they are fitted to make a cheaper to produce rifle, while I agree that there are good synthetic stock, a lot of them are rubbish.

I agree that we want as tight groups as we can get, and one hole accuracy is nice if we are truthful how many of us can shoot that well regardless of how accurate the rifle is, I know that I can't, we are stalkers not target shooters
so our shots are taken from all different positions and distances, so can never expect to get the same results in the field as on a target, if you can place all your shots from any position prone kneeling sitting of sticks etc. at all distances out to 200 yards or a little bit more into a tea plate sized target thats all you need.

I am not the best shot in the world, but will shoot confidently out to 300 yards from a prone position, would never take a shot at a deer at that distance, unless it was wounded, 200 yards maximum and prefer to get closer than that.

Kneeling sitting or of sticks I limit myself to a 100 yards further than that its a prone shot, if thats not possible its a case of try and get closer

everybody's capability's are different, I know my limitations, as should everyone.
 
I am not all together sure, if rifles are more accurate or not now than they were maybe they are but in general the build quality is not so good, why are so many of us having actions floated and bedded, if the rifle was built properly to begin with there would be no need, same thing with synthetic stocks fitted to make a better rifle , no they are fitted to make a cheaper to produce rifle, while I agree that there are good synthetic stock, a lot of them are rubbish.

When Sako first produces the 75 series I bought a .243 heavy barrel with a wooden stock. The rifle was perhaps a year old and whilst jumping over a small fence the rifle slipped off my shoulder and swung forward on the sling causing me to kick the recoil pad as I stepped forward. The stock cracked from about the bolt recess down the pistol grip to the rear bolt on the trigger guard. The impact whilst not gentle was not that severe to have caused this damage.

On returning it to the shop the feedback I got a week or so later from the importers was that because of the demand for the rifles by customers, it was suggested that properly seasoned and prepared wood was not always being used, hence the weakness in my stock. There had apparantly been a lot of similar returns. I cannot argue either way with this suggestion but perhaps the demand for some of the more popular weapons may have a baring on the care taken in production nowadays??
 
The manufacturing costs of 'factory rifles' may well be reduced and they'll claim tighter tolerances due to computer aided manufacturing processes, but don't forget that they are also economising with the manufacturing materials. High quality steels, alloys and plastics have never been more expensive.
We were taught in engineering school that when all else fails and that everything else has been cut to the bone, you can always make huge savings by dropping the quality and qhantity of materials used.

Yes i may be a trained aeronautical engineer, but i'd much rather use an older rifle which was manufactured and assembled by a craftsman who had gained his knowledge and skills through a lengthy training system than a new rifle assembled by a fitter who's rarely concerned with fit, finish and quality.
 
I am not a fan of modern, new rifles as a rule. I hate plastic stocks and rough actions. A few weeks ago, however, I shot a Marlin XR-7 bolt action. It reminded me of a Howa/Savage/ Remington hybrid with a Savage Accu-Trigger. It was a .270 and while stuck in a plastic winter-camo stock, I couldn't help but like it. It was smooth, well finished, had a good trigger, and shot factory Remington 150's into 1" at 100M over the hood of a pick-up truck. The stock was light synthetic but had no flex at all and was well designed. The trigger was good enough to use off hand without trouble, too. Retail here is $399.

So. At least someone has gotten an inexpensive rifle right.~Muir
 
Muir,
I think you are just making all of us on this side of the 'pond' jealous. $400 =c.£260 and that's what we pay for a basic Bruno/C.Z 22r.f. Centre fires start around £600 x $1.6/£=$960 new for Howa's, Tikka's etc through to £1800 for Sauer and on to £6000 for a Callum Ferguson Hunter and that's before we get to the English full house Holland and Holland etc for which a mortgage must be taken on your home if you don't have a spare kidney to sell.
I would like to think that customer pressure is forcing constantly improving rifles to be released. As someone with a passion for accuracy I would find it more reasuring to know that the 'nut behind the bolt' was to blame rather than the rifle. I can practise or accept my limitations but I would be mighty disappointed having spent $2000 to feel that I could ever 'outshoot' the rifle.
 
I think they are generally getting better.
The steels are better than they used to be, less faults in the materials. CNC machining lead to more accurate parts, parts are much more likely to fit. Lets face it, the old tradition of fitting parts via hand work is only because measurements were off. What would someone say if the mechanic around the corner would need to "fit" via recutting threads or so an oil filter to your car when changing??? In the car industry this "fitting" is gone with most of the car makers that believed in it.
Other points in modern rifles are certainly a step backwards, the injection moulded plastic stocks for example are not only ugly but also in almost all points the wrong material choice for a stock. Modern Walnut stock don't seem to be finished with as much love as they used to be.
For the purpose of a rifle modern composite stocks are a huge step forward. If done right they can be stiffer, stronger and lighter than any wood and are not weather sensitive. Some hunters are maybe one of the few left who hold onto their traditional materials. In other sports people got used to using composites, like tennis, skiing, fishing, even bow hunting.

Another point that is negative for most of us are the extra hard triggers that are used in modern rifles to make some lawyer happy.
Might be a good thing for first timers shooting but certainly not for the experienced.

edi
 
Last edited:
Muir,
I think you are just making all of us on this side of the 'pond' jealous. $400 =c.£260 and that's what we pay for a basic Bruno/C.Z 22r.f. Centre fires start around £600 x $1.6/£=$960 new for Howa's, Tikka's etc through to £1800 for Sauer and on to £6000 for a Callum Ferguson Hunter and that's before we get to the English full house Holland and Holland etc for which a mortgage must be taken on your home if you don't have a spare kidney to sell.
I would like to think that customer pressure is forcing constantly improving rifles to be released. As someone with a passion for accuracy I would find it more reasuring to know that the 'nut behind the bolt' was to blame rather than the rifle. I can practise or accept my limitations but I would be mighty disappointed having spent $2000 to feel that I could ever 'outshoot' the rifle.

Sorry about that! I keep forgetting that even common guns are pretty expensive in the UK... tho in fairness, you guys can buy rifles there that we seldom see here!

Edi: While many shops have converted to CNC machinery, many here have not. Remington is using 50 year old machinery for much of their production. I believe Marlin and Winchester were doing the same before their reorganization. A friend of mine was a production manager at Colt Firearms in Hartford Connecticut and he told me that much of their equipment dated to the early 1900's and was held together by bands of strap-iron and shim-stock. Savage, though, has gone to CNC for much of their machining. ~Muir
 
Sorry about that! I keep forgetting that even common guns are pretty expensive in the UK... tho in fairness, you guys can buy rifles there that we seldom see here! ~Muir

What's that you're saying. Do you think European guns have something special about them? :D Actually I happen to think that new guns these days are very rarely as well made as in former times. I did my gun buying as a younger man and I'm glad. My only concession to modernity is to put new custom manufactured, cut-rifled, stainless barrels on my old Sakos, but no shorties mindyou.
 
Nothing special, just a bit of an exotic. Remember that we couldn't get any Soviet Bloc guns for a very long time to to political legislation... CZ and BRNO rifles were exceptionally rare for a long time. I had to pay havoc to get my old Brno back in 1981 (it was old then) but I had to find one that was in country before the Ban on SoVBloc guns took effect. Other guns like Steyrs and Parker Hales were around, just not readily available.~Muir
 
IMHO I think there have always been good and bad rifles, shotguns or whatever. Given the mists of time the bad stuff gets forgotten about. There are some pretty good reasonably priced rifles out there - eg Howa's etc, where as I do feel that the likes of the Tikka's / Sakos with a greater use of plastics etc are not as nice as older models, but then they are still priced pretty reasonably. I would rather the manufacture put his money into the bits that really count - ie decent barrel, bolt and trigger and use synthetics for stock / bolt shrouds etc than putting the money into cheap walnut etc.

But then I would much rather spend my money on a higher quality rifle, and would prefer to by a good 2nd hand rifle with top quality scope than new.

What definatly has improved are the quality of Optics - top end German / Austrian are simply fantastic, and even pretty budget priced stuff have much better optics than budget end stuff of 20 years ago
 
Cant remember who said on a thread here before that a rifle used to cost a months wages.

Now they are turning them out for a lot less than that but people still complain that they arent made with the same expensive parts. How would people really feel if the entry level guns were the sakos etc and that was the cheapest you can go.

Today, in all areas, people seem to want the good stuff but they dont want to pay. That includes me, hence shopping around for a second hand Sako / Tikka 695

Dan
 
Back
Top