doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com A question about and article

Read an article comparing 11 rifles, each shot at 100 yards for best group.

The results: Best group; average group
Weatherby Vanguard; .117; .398
Thompson Center Icon; .488; .533
Savage Model 14; .462; .572
Kenny Jarrett modified Remington 700; .566; .618
Sako A7; .564; .682
Browning X-Bolt; .639; .719
Marlin XL7; .668; .907
Mossberg 464; .951; 1.105
Smith & Wesson I-Bolt; .865; 1.360
Remington 700 LSS; 1.313; 1.415
Winchester M70; 1.022; 1.506

Knowing that every rifle is an individual and that particular Vanguard shot exceptionally well but the author went on to state "Well the Model 70 is just that a Model 70" what did he mean by that comment? Is it that the Model 70 is old school compared to todays rifles??

Probably. What M70 did he shoot, a new one made by FN, an older one made in New Haven, a pre-64? What caliber?

Rob all the same caliber, not, of course, a Weatherby caliber, but a new M70.

Before I put my 2 cents in please, all M70 FANATICS do not attack this statement as I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE MEANT! I love M70's...I have a beautiful one, a 1961 featherweight model built at Griffin and Howe. I "think" however what he was saying was, that Model 70's being built on what was basically a mauser type action have never been famous for sub m.o.a. accuracy out of the box. It was the "RIFLEMAN'S RIFLE" NOT THE TARGETSHOOTER'S RIFLE! This is why the M700 Remington took such a foothold when it came out...accuracy. I personally thought the 700 Remington's looked cheap next to a M70 Winchester but boy those Remingon's could shoot! Model 70's could be made to shoot when tweaked by either careful bedding, glassbedding etc. but out of the box, however it was a hunting rifle not known for gilt edged accuracy. Just my thoughts FWIW Jerry

The article is at:

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=269646547&o=int&prev=sub&p=61

Bruce

Well, rifles and shotguns are completely different animals, you can argue till you're blue in the face over which shotgun throws the better pattern, an abstract argument if there ever was one.
A rifle's accuracy is measurable and precise.
You have to admit that Vanguard was lovin whatever rounds it was being fed.
But that comment was complete unnecessary as the Model 70 probably needed a little more tweaking to maybe be as accurate as the Vanguard. And that is what should have been a follow up article by the author. What does it take to get the others as accurate as the Vanguard if it is possible.
Thanks Gentlemen for the comments.

For out of the box, I am surprised about the Sako, my experience has always been they are normally the best!

Craig

I'm possibly missing something, but it doesn't appear to be much of a statistically valid test. Four different calibers (including the .338RUM - who would expect that to match a .270 or a .308?) and no attempt to deal with manufacturers' tolerances or the known tendency of rifles to prefer some manufacturers' ammo over others. Plus, no description of how the rifles were rested or whether called flyers were included or excluded. It's a lot more a "I shot all these rifles and I [underline the I] got the best result with this one this time [underline the this time]."

Reminds me why the only articles I read in the gun rags are about historical items.

Can we expect anything else? Yet he feels compelled to trash the Winchester as if he did any real testing of these rifles.
My feelings after sitting on a jury trail concerning a shooting with a high powered hunting rifle is that rifles are so individualistic that even with more testing controls all you could really say is that particular Vanguard serial number 3XX,XXX shot better than that particular Sako serial number 4XX,XXX with that grain of bullet at that caliber.
Who's to say that Sako serial number 5XX,XXX could shot the rings out of Vanguard serial number 6XX,XXX???

I agree with those who said this does not appear to be much of a valid test. Compare the subject work with Steven Boelter's (2005) "The Rifleman's Guide to Rimfire Ammunition". Boelter used 8 or 10 rifles and shot up more than 32,000 rounds of ammunition. And some of his work has been criticized as incomplete. Boelter's coverage of 22 Shorts was minimal. I'm playing with an evaluation of Shorts. Have shot up 5,000 rounds in 4 rifles so far and I'm just getting started.