I would guess that the Mc Millan fitted your frame much better. I loath shooting a friends 7mm Rem mag in his model 700bdl, His son has a Ruger of the same chambering that is much more tolerable for me.many years ago I had a BSA majestic in .270 ( no mod) It was accurate and devastating on Red and Roe
but it Kicked like a mule and didn’t like Roe - short story
i gave it to a deer farm in Battle Nr Hastings
swearing blind I’d never have another
last year at bisley a friend of mine had a McMillan rifle in .270 and it was like shooting a .243 Very very accurate and easy on the shoulder - what a difference- if it wasn’t for the fact of no room in the now bursting gun safes I would have probably
have one now. Really impressed with it. But yer can’t have them all.
Inherently accurate calubres?
- Thread starter finnbear270
- Start date
Really, show us some 100 yard groups then?
I've heard of them. Aren't they the rifles people shoot while wearing a loden trilby with a feather in the hat-band...?
Yep that describes me to a tee, but don't forget the leather breeks and the Loden cloak.
Overlay
Well-Known Member
Yep that describes me to a tee, but don't forget the leather breeks and the Loden cloak.
PomPom hats are voque at the moment apparently
I bought a Mauser that someone had rebarreled to 308. I wanted to 'work up' cast bullet loads at highway speeds. I loaded a 188 grain bullet at 2400 fps and shot them into a bug hole at 100M. Switched bullets to a 168 grain RCBS bullet and did it again. Every cast bullet I tried shot under MOA. I finally traded it off because it wasn't enough of a challenge to reload for. (Young) ( Stupid.)
Never has a 308 that wouldn't shoot. ~Muir
I have got a Brno ZZK that’s over 40 years old in 270 win that cost me £75 that shoots cloverleaf all day long no matter what you feed it.
in fact it’s more accurate than most of the experience continental rifles i have seen shoot.
also my ruger M77 another rifle that shoots 1 hole groups if I do my bit.
there are a lot of cheap and unfashionable rifles out there that’s are more accurate than most modern rifles.
many bargains to be had that’s for sure.
in fact it’s more accurate than most of the experience continental rifles i have seen shoot.
also my ruger M77 another rifle that shoots 1 hole groups if I do my bit.
there are a lot of cheap and unfashionable rifles out there that’s are more accurate than most modern rifles.
many bargains to be had that’s for sure.
There's so many variables. I suppose if you really want to push accuracy, then you've got to think big. A .22lr will be accurate by all means over a certain distance. The same with a .17hmr over a longer distance. Even better will be a small centrefire. And so it goes on.
So, depending on your criteria, a naval gun or some field artillery that can lob a round onto a target some 20 miles away or more is therefore more accurate. So it all depends on your definition of accuracy. A rabbit 20 yards away, a deer 100 yards away, an insurgent a mile away or some enemy target 20 miles over the horizon. But of course that naval gun would be useless at the 20 yard rabbit. As would the .22 over 20 miles. So to correctly measure accuracy, first of all you've got to set parameters. The other thing to consider is how you measure accuracy. Hitting a bull at 100 yards, or taking out 20 of Napoleon's Grand Army with some canister shot. Which is more accurate?
Of course there are many factors that affect accuracy. Manufacturing tolerances of all the equipment you use is up there as is the effectiveness of design, of rifle, ammunition and the other components. You could argue that rifles have all been pretty accurate since the introduction of rifling although tolerances and therefore accuracy has improved over the intervening years. Consider a .303 rifle (in good condition) and compare it to a modern equivalent. The modern rifle will inevitably be better, but really by not that much. But no longer do rows of soldiers need to stand opposite each other on a field and take it in turns to try to hit each other as they did with smooth bore long weapons.
The pursuit of accuracy is something a lot of us muse over. We argue over (okay, discuss) the best calibres, rifles, scopes, method of shooting and ammunition, with many loading their own seeking the holy grail of the best round for their choice of rifle. But it's all good fun.
And I'm rambling on again. Coffee time.....
So, depending on your criteria, a naval gun or some field artillery that can lob a round onto a target some 20 miles away or more is therefore more accurate. So it all depends on your definition of accuracy. A rabbit 20 yards away, a deer 100 yards away, an insurgent a mile away or some enemy target 20 miles over the horizon. But of course that naval gun would be useless at the 20 yard rabbit. As would the .22 over 20 miles. So to correctly measure accuracy, first of all you've got to set parameters. The other thing to consider is how you measure accuracy. Hitting a bull at 100 yards, or taking out 20 of Napoleon's Grand Army with some canister shot. Which is more accurate?
Of course there are many factors that affect accuracy. Manufacturing tolerances of all the equipment you use is up there as is the effectiveness of design, of rifle, ammunition and the other components. You could argue that rifles have all been pretty accurate since the introduction of rifling although tolerances and therefore accuracy has improved over the intervening years. Consider a .303 rifle (in good condition) and compare it to a modern equivalent. The modern rifle will inevitably be better, but really by not that much. But no longer do rows of soldiers need to stand opposite each other on a field and take it in turns to try to hit each other as they did with smooth bore long weapons.
The pursuit of accuracy is something a lot of us muse over. We argue over (okay, discuss) the best calibres, rifles, scopes, method of shooting and ammunition, with many loading their own seeking the holy grail of the best round for their choice of rifle. But it's all good fun.
And I'm rambling on again. Coffee time.....
Maybe we should set another SD challenge like the “black dot of doom”....put 5 roofing/felt tacks/clout nails (the 10-13mm head ones) into something and they must be more than 2” apart centre to centre, then take 5 rounds and you can only fire one at each tack from 100 yards (50 yardsfor 22 LR) and see how many out of the 5 drive the tack!
the “Tack driver challenge”
the “Tack driver challenge”
Attachments
Last edited:
Maybe we should set another SD challenge like the “black dot of doom”....put 5 roofing/felt tacks/clout nails (the 10-13mm head ones) into something and they must be more than 2” apart centre to centre, then take 5 rounds and you can only fire one at each tack from 100 yards (50 yardsfor 22 LR) and see how many out of the 5 drive the tack!
the “Tack driver challenge”
Or just drawing pins I suppose...
With regards .22 Rimfire, which many hail as accurate, this snippet from ELEY May prove of interest.
Grouping.
This is the most common method of accuracy testing because it can be done on paper. Here, you can see how that batch of ammo performed when shooting 10 shot groups at 50m. These are measured in inches from outside to outside and use four different barrel types for each test.
However, it is the 200 shot group towards the bottom of the analyser where we can see a truer prediction of performance. Each of the 200 shots taken has an X (windage) and Y (elevation) coordinate which equates to the radial distance of each shot. The radial dispersion is the distance the shot impacted the target from the centre of the bull. The bar chart is the actual test sample. The solid line is the predicted shot dispersion of the entire lot.
At ELEY, we know that every barrel is unique and dozens of factors can affect accuracy. The statistics revealed by the Lot Analyser eliminate any uncertainty and help you choose the best batch of ammunition to suit your shooting needs.
A dime is 17.91mm or 0.705” in diameter and give or take about the same size as a 5 pence piece.
Grouping.
This is the most common method of accuracy testing because it can be done on paper. Here, you can see how that batch of ammo performed when shooting 10 shot groups at 50m. These are measured in inches from outside to outside and use four different barrel types for each test.
However, it is the 200 shot group towards the bottom of the analyser where we can see a truer prediction of performance. Each of the 200 shots taken has an X (windage) and Y (elevation) coordinate which equates to the radial distance of each shot. The radial dispersion is the distance the shot impacted the target from the centre of the bull. The bar chart is the actual test sample. The solid line is the predicted shot dispersion of the entire lot.
At ELEY, we know that every barrel is unique and dozens of factors can affect accuracy. The statistics revealed by the Lot Analyser eliminate any uncertainty and help you choose the best batch of ammunition to suit your shooting needs.
A dime is 17.91mm or 0.705” in diameter and give or take about the same size as a 5 pence piece.
Shouldn’t this be in the “ricochet” thread?Maybe we should set another SD challenge like the “black dot of doom”....put 5 roofing/felt tacks/clout nails (the 10-13mm head ones) into something and they must be more than 2” apart centre to centre, then take 5 rounds and you can only fire one at each tack from 100 yards (50 yardsfor 22 LR) and see how many out of the 5 drive the tack!
the “Tack driver challenge”
K
Depends how good your shooting is..
