Bert H. said

Zebulon said
In Texas, where everything is bigger, a measured 300 yards magically becomes 600 yards.  
I am not one to question anyone's shooting skills but I know from the experience of using a laser rangefinder to set up target frames for my fellow hunters on a previous West Texas lease, that even our most experienced members questioned the accuracy of my rangefinder when seeing just what a target at 300 yards really looks like. 
The fascination with the inherent accuracy of game (not varmint) rifles has increased inversely with decreased game hunting opportunities. Perhaps that is not a cause and effect relationship but I think it is. 
The late Jack O'Connor addressed the needed accuracy of big game (deer and larger) rifles more than once in print. He once averaged the benchrested accuracy of his various rifles - those he used Worldwide - made up by the best custom gunmakers in America. The average was around 1.5 MOA, varying between 1.25 to 1.75.  He had another time remarked that 2 MOA was sufficient for sheep hunting.  This from probably the most experienced and successful sheep hunter who has ever lived. 
The late Col. Charles Askins, Jr., another big game hunter of rare experience, late in life wrote bluntly (as he was so inclined) that 300 yards was "just one hell of a long way" to be shooting at an unwounded game animal. 
A good test for suitability of rifle and hunter, for anyone with access to vast open spaces, is to set up an 8" pie plate cover and shoot at it from seated or prone, sling allowed but unrested.  I suspect the measured successful distances would shrink significantly for most hunters.  
I'm all for long range shooting as long as the target doesn't bleed. 
  

This was my latest range result (just last week), shooting my Remington Model 700 BDL Heavy Varmint rifle chambered for 222 Rem Mag.

My best load was 24.2 grains of IMR 4198 under a 40 grain Hornady V-max bullet, velocity 3,790 fps.  I have the rifle sighted for 250-yds, allowing me a put the cross hairs on the "X" out to 300-yds.  I laddered my loads from 23.5 grains up to 24.2
I managed a 5-shot group of .67" with the 24.2 grain load and am happy with it.

You have one of most accurate full production varmint rifles ever made - the 700V - in one of the best all-around factory varmint cartridges ever offered. Period. It will do 95% of everything a varmint rig needs to do,  without the barrel wear of a 22-250 or a Swift. A late good friend of mine had one - an early one with impressed checkering -- and it was death on prairie dogs at 300 yards and well beyond, given reasonable wind conditions.  Remington in the Sixties really was at the top of its game. Their gun and ammunition design engineers were avid benchrest shooters and it showed. 

Zebulon said
In Texas, where everything is bigger, a measured 300 yards magically becomes 600 yards.  
I am not one to question anyone's shooting skills but I know from the experience of using a laser rangefinder to set up target frames for my fellow hunters on a previous West Texas lease, that even our most experienced members questioned the accuracy of my rangefinder when seeing just what a target at 300 yards really looks like. 
The fascination with the inherent accuracy of game (not varmint) rifles has increased inversely with decreased game hunting opportunities. Perhaps that is not a cause and effect relationship but I think it is. 
The late Jack O'Connor addressed the needed accuracy of big game (deer and larger) rifles more than once in print. He once averaged the benchrested accuracy of his various rifles - those he used Worldwide - made up by the best custom gunmakers in America. The average was around 1.5 MOA, varying between 1.25 to 1.75.  He had another time remarked that 2 MOA was sufficient for sheep hunting.  This from probably the most experienced and successful sheep hunter who has ever lived. 
The late Col. Charles Askins, Jr., another big game hunter of rare experience, late in life wrote bluntly (as he was so inclined) that 300 yards was "just one hell of a long way" to be shooting at an unwounded game animal. 
A good test for suitability of rifle and hunter, for anyone with access to vast open spaces, is to set up an 8" pie plate cover and shoot at it from seated or prone, sling allowed but unrested.  I suspect the measured successful distances would shrink significantly for most hunters.  
I'm all for long range shooting as long as the target doesn't bleed. 
  

This was my latest range result (just last week), shooting my Remington Model 700 BDL Heavy Varmint rifle chambered for 222 Rem Mag.

My best load was 24.2 grains of IMR 4198 under a 40 grain Hornady V-max bullet, velocity 3,790 fps.  I have the rifle sighted for 250-yds, allowing me a put the cross hairs on the "X" out to 300-yds.  I laddered my loads from 23.5 grains up to 24.2

I managed a 5-shot group of .67" with the 24.2 grain load and am happy with it.

If I get to decide what caliber of the 2000 rifles my employer is going to eat if they don't sell, the .228 Ardvaark is unlikely to make the cut. Nobody gets fired for choosing the 6.5 Creedmore. 

Bert H. said

steve004 said

Chuck said

steve004 said

 

Bert -  I have read your article a couple of times.  It is an impressive number and variety of chamberings.  It does seem that the Ruger single-shot is slowly catching up.
  

No way, it will never happen.
  

Well, the Ruger is supposedly over 70 and the Winchester single-shot is at 91?  Only 20 or so to go, but I have to admit it's difficult for me to imagine what 20 additional cartridges oculd be....
Ok, maybe not that hard at all. I'll start my list: .280 Ross, .300 Savage, .32-40, .32 Special, .33 WCF, 22 High Power, .25-35 WCF, .303 Savage, .35 WCF, .45-60, .45-75, .45-90, .50-95, .50-110-300.  (I could easily keep going).
  

98 is the number for the Winchester Single Shot.
  

Ok... Ruger has a bit further to go than I thought.  To start with, I'll add the .32-40 Bullard to my suggestion list.

Mike

I am not one to question anyone's shooting skills but I know from the experience of using a laser rangefinder to set up target frames for my fellow hunters on a previous West Texas lease, that even our most experienced members questioned the accuracy of my rangefinder when seeing just what a target at 300 yards really looks like. 

The fascination with the inherent accuracy of game (not varmint) rifles has increased inversely with decreased game hunting opportunities. Perhaps that is not a cause and effect relationship but I think it is. 

The late Jack O'Connor addressed the needed accuracy of big game (deer and larger) rifles more than once in print. He once averaged the benchrested accuracy of his various rifles - those he used Worldwide - made up by the best custom gunmakers in America. The average was around 1.5 MOA, varying between 1.25 to 1.75.  He had another time remarked that 2 MOA was sufficient for sheep hunting.  This from probably the most experienced and successful sheep hunter who has ever lived. 

The late Col. Charles Askins, Jr., another big game hunter of rare experience, late in life wrote bluntly (as he was so inclined) that 300 yards was "just one hell of a long way" to be shooting at an unwounded game animal. 

A good test for suitability of rifle and hunter, for anyone with access to vast open spaces, is to set up an 8" pie plate cover and shoot at it from seated or prone, sling allowed but unrested.  I suspect the measured successful distances would shrink significantly for most hunters.  

I'm all for long range shooting as long as the target doesn't bleed. 

TXGunNut said

The question comes to mind; why build MOA hunting rifles when very few hunters are capable of true MOA groups? The 77 above consistently shoots 2" or a little over with ammo it likes but my brother has killed more deer and hogs with it than with both his M70's combined due to a run of bad weather last several years. He has a Kawasaki Mule and rain gear and he isn't afraid to use them. This ugly M77 handles and shoots better than most folks can shoot and it keeps a couple of beautiful Winchesters looking new. It also likes the same ammo the Winchesters like and has similar optics so it's an easy switch when Mother Nature has a hissy on a hunt weekend. 
 
Mike
  

It doesn't as long as you don't shoot at something small or the animal is not more that 2 to 3 hundred yards away.  A 1 MOA gun doesn't always shoot 3" groups at 300 yds.  It is often worse. And if your aim is off who knows.   Small groups will raise your chances that you might actually hit where you are aiming. 

The question comes to mind; why build MOA hunting rifles when very few hunters are capable of true MOA groups? The 77 above consistently shoots 2" or a little over with ammo it likes but my brother has killed more deer and hogs with it than with both his M70's combined due to a run of bad weather last several years. He has a Kawasaki Mule and rain gear and he isn't afraid to use them. This ugly M77 handles and shoots better than most folks can shoot and it keeps a couple of beautiful Winchesters looking new. It also likes the same ammo the Winchesters like and has similar optics so it's an easy switch when Mother Nature has a hissy on a hunt weekend. 

Mike

Bert H. said

98 is the number for the Winchester Single Shot.
  

How many of these were built during the production of the original 1885's?  Or Winchester was still the original company.  I might have to update my list.

The Ruger 77 is capable of excellent varmint accuracy in its heavy barreled version. I had one in 25-06 that was a half minute rifle. It was never designed nor intended for benchrest competition. Neither was the pre-64 Winchester Model 70 even in its target versions. Both were and still can be competitive in traditional High Power competition because there a shooter's relative skill is paramount.  Both were and are primarily hunting rifles. 

The same is true to an even greater degree of the #1.  It is a hunter's rifle, more than adequately accurate for that purpose. The heavy barreled Swift and 22-250 versions can be made to shoot with sufficient accuracy to kill varmints at extended ranges but varmint hunters who buy them do so because they like the rifle, not because it's the instrument best suited to the purpose. 

Bill Ruger was far more concerned with style amd functionality than making tiny groups on paper. He saw his rifles from a hunter's perspective but with a connoisseurs eye for tradition, line and beauty. 

I'm not sure all of you really get how outrageous and unconventional WBR was in hiring an outsider to design his stocks. The industry took it as an insult. And 1966 industry pundits laughed behind his back at the notion of a single shot rifle selling at all. 

Sturm Ruger is the now the largest American maker of firearms. It has in the past been given and declined the opportunity to buy the gunmaking operations of Winchester, Remington, Savage, Colt, and Smith &Wesson. Of course it has bought Marlin. 

That the company doesn't hang its head in shame for not fielding contraptions whose sole purpose is to shoot 1000 yard targets off a tripod, is unsurprising. Those who delight in such creations should not wonder at Ruger's absence from their games. 

What Sturm Ruger did do is lead mythe way back to handsome hunting rifles by showing its competitors how to make them profitably. It's my opinion the current Winchester Model 70 Super Grade, for all its reported manufacturing flaws, would not exist today in the absence of Bill Ruger. Nor would the 9422 or any of the Browning reproductions of the Models 1886, 1892, 1894, 1895, 52 Sporting, 53, 65, 12 and 42. Browning and FN were encouraged by Sturm Ruger's success and profited from it. Large corporations are not innovators, although they may have once been when smaller. 

So, I don't collect Rugers.but the #1 and 77 African I own are not for sale. 

steve004 said

Chuck said

steve004 said

 

Bert -  I have read your article a couple of times.  It is an impressive number and variety of chamberings.  It does seem that the Ruger single-shot is slowly catching up.
  

No way, it will never happen.
  

Well, the Ruger is supposedly over 70 and the Winchester single-shot is at 91?  Only 20 or so to go, but I have to admit it's difficult for me to imagine what 20 additional cartridges oculd be....
Ok, maybe not that hard at all. I'll start my list: .280 Ross, .300 Savage, .32-40, .32 Special, .33 WCF, 22 High Power, .25-35 WCF, .303 Savage, .35 WCF, .45-60, .45-75, .45-90, .50-95, .50-110-300.  (I could easily keep going).
  

98 is the number for the Winchester Single Shot.

Chuck said

steve004 said

 

Bert -  I have read your article a couple of times.  It is an impressive number and variety of chamberings.  It does seem that the Ruger single-shot is slowly catching up.
  

No way, it will never happen.
  

Well, the Ruger is supposedly over 70 and the Winchester single-shot is at 91?  Only 20 or so to go, but I have to admit it's difficult for me to imagine what 20 additional cartridges oculd be....

Ok, maybe not that hard at all. I'll start my list: .280 Ross, .300 Savage, .32-40, .32 Special, .33 WCF, 22 High Power, .25-35 WCF, .303 Savage, .35 WCF, .45-60, .45-75, .45-90, .50-95, .50-110-300.  (I could easily keep going).