# Firearms and Shooting > Shooting >  Forum shooting challenge: The under 500 500

## Tussock

Here is the challenge. You must post here the following. 

The purchase of a scope and rifle combination for less than $500
Work done on the rifle after the purchase of the rifle must stay withing the $500 limit
Bedding compound is exempt from this rule
All shots are prone, support may be a bipod or front bag. No bench rests or mechanical rests 

There will be 5 stages as follows:
5 shot 100m group                                    1 point for every 1/4" under 2" 
1 shot @ 200m                                          10" target 2 point for inside the circle 
1 shot @ 300m                                          10" target 3 point for inside the circle
1 shot @ 400m                                          10" target 4 point for inside the circle
1 shot @ 500m                                          10" target 5 point for inside the circle

Perfect score is a 1/4" group and all shots in the circle for 22 points from 9 rounds

Scoring will be based on honor

The prize will be respect

Rifles should be sold for $500 in the buy sell after the event, preferably to beginners (if sold at all) with all data. Should this prove popular it will be run at the next SI LR shoot I run.

----------


## timattalon

I do like the concept.

The way I read it total cost must remain under $500 incl work done.

----------


## 2post

@Dundee will win this with his .22

----------


## Tommy

I like it. All the old swedes will be getting dusted off for this

----------


## Maca49

Extra Points for Black Powder?

----------


## Tussock

> is that $500 for rifle and $500 for work done and what about home gunsmithing as there are one or two on here can do the odd job on firearms.


Nope, must stay under $500 and if you have the workshop skills to go all out in your own shed then that is the idea. I made bedding compound exempt to encourage people to have a go, the rest should not require consumables. 

Less spending, more thinking :Wink:

----------


## Tussock

> Extra Points for Black Powder?


Still 22 points but the prize will be vastly larger

----------


## Dundee

I'm not selling my rifle :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## timattalon

> I'm not selling my rifle


Neither am I if I get accuracy like that.... :Pacman: 

I have a husky that I bought 25 years ago for  $225 (Good ole half price sale at Gun city!!!!) I reckon if I gove the ole girl a bit of practise, I might be in with a shot.....Just need to find somewhere I can push her out to 300m+

----------


## Ultimitsu

I think this is a very interesting concept, but I wonder how practically possible and feasible this is without resorting to secondhand bargain hunting or rifles bought many years ago.

For 500m. 22LR will have to be shot like a mortar, 17hmr is too light, 22mag is better but still too unreliable. Realistically you need to be looking at 223 or 7.62x39. The cheapest 223 is either baikal IZH 18MH or norico bush ranger, both about 450-500. I dont know if you can still find 500 dollar SKS. However, none of these 3 rifles is likely to give you the accuracy needed for this competition. 

This is not to say that you will never find an accurate example. You can, but it comes down largely to luck of draw. there may be one accurate cheap centre fire in every 20. Who is going to go through 20 to find that accurate example?

----------


## Wingman

A quick look on trade me and there are a heap of center fires under $500. My pic would be the PH1200 in  .308 or the 6.5 Caricano that Id rechamber to something that shoots..

----------


## Tussock

> I think this is a very interesting concept, but I wonder how practically possible and feasible this is without resorting to secondhand bargain hunting or rifles bought many years ago.
> 
> For 500m. 22LR will have to be shot like a mortar, 17hmr is too light, 22mag is better but still too unreliable. Realistically you need to be looking at 223 or 7.62x39. The cheapest 223 is either baikal IZH 18MH or norico bush ranger, both about 450-500. I dont know if you can still find 500 dollar SKS. However, none of these 3 rifles is likely to give you the accuracy needed for this competition. 
> 
> This is not to say that you will never find an accurate example. You can, but it comes down largely to luck of draw. there may be one accurate cheap centre fire in every 20. Who is going to go through 20 to find that accurate example?


This can also function as an educational exercise.

----------


## Tussock

> A quick look on trade me and there are a heap of center fires under $500. My pic would be the PH1200 in  .308 or the 6.5 Caricano that Id rechamber to something that shoots..


You have to re-chamber it yourself unless you can squeeze this into the budget. Still if someone re-chambers that 6.5 Caricano then this will get interesting.

----------


## Tussock

Bonus prize for the best hacksaw re-crown.

 @Carlsenhighway

----------


## Wingman

> You have to re-chamber it yourself unless you can squeeze this into the budget. Still if someone re-chambers that 6.5 Caricano then this will get interesting.


If it was local Id grab it to do just that for shits and giggles. I cant be bothered with the police form crap. Any one local got something similar they want to sell me or lend me to "improve" for them?

----------


## Wingman

https://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Lis...?id=1969769834

https://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Lis...?id=1971776127

https://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Lis...?id=1973439218

----------


## Ground Control

> Here is the challenge. You must post here the following. 
> 
> The purchase of a scope and rifle combination for less than $500
> 
> .


Im surprised no one has mentioned the Scope element of this challenge.
You may find a a reasonable rifle for under $500 , but the scope it has on it will probably let down the accuracy more than the half worn out barrel .

----------


## winaa

> Im surprised no one has mentioned the Scope element of this challenge.
> You may find a a reasonable rifle for under $500 , but the scope it has on it will probably let down the accuracy more than the half worn out barrel .


Exactly you basically need to spend $250 and a rifle and $250 on a scope can't see a $400 rifle and a $100 scope working very well.
Good idea and I like the idea of passing it on to new hunter/shooters in the buy-now section but not sure how feasible it will be in the budget given.
Maybe I need to take my blinkers off and think out side the box a bit (homemade aperture sights maybe?)

----------


## ChrisW

Doesn't the 6.5 Carcano have a funny bore diameter, i,e not .264?

----------


## Tentman

A scope is no problem, any old 4x will do, you just need to check it'll adjust and hold a zero.  Heaps on TM for under a hundy.

----------


## ChrisW

Any of these would probably be decent choices. Parker Hale .308 is up there.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...c5f379f7595138

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...c5f379f7595138

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...c5f379f7595138

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...c5f379f7595138

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...c5f379f7595138

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...c5f379f7595138

----------


## Micky Duck

1/4" group with .45 caliber cast slugs driven by home rolled black powder and shotgun bead front with pop rivet rear aperture.......hmmmmm somehow I dont think my chances are very high on this one.....oh did I mention its a sleaved barrel insert LOL.

----------


## Wingman

> Doesn't the 6.5 Carcano have a funny bore diameter, i,e not .264?


Yes it does, anywhere from .267 to .274.. after slugging to get an accurate bore measurement, a suitable lee sizer die on some dirty ol .277 bullets works well to get them shooting like lasers.  .270 Creedmoor anyone?  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Russian 22.

> I think this is a very interesting concept, but I wonder how practically possible and feasible this is without resorting to secondhand bargain hunting or rifles bought many years ago.
> 
> For 500m. 22LR will have to be shot like a mortar, 17hmr is too light, 22mag is better but still too unreliable. Realistically you need to be looking at 223 or 7.62x39. The cheapest 223 is either baikal IZH 18MH or norico bush ranger, both about 450-500. I dont know if you can still find 500 dollar SKS. However, none of these 3 rifles is likely to give you the accuracy needed for this competition. 
> 
> This is not to say that you will never find an accurate example. You can, but it comes down largely to luck of draw. there may be one accurate cheap centre fire in every 20. Who is going to go through 20 to find that accurate example?


I bought a 308 M 98 for 400 with a scope. Its been used on deer out to 400 M.

Doesn't say anything about hand loads either. So with a good load and some of the old sewer pipes cleaned out then I'm sure they'd be accurate enough.

----------


## Tentman

More than half the benefit in an exercise like this is to prove (to ones self at least) that the latest super duper rifle is NOT required to shoot game out past reasonable distances (my personal limit is about 350M on game). 

Does the rifle have to be sold? - I have a very rough (on the outside) M70 6.5x55 that I got for $350 but its promised to another forumite when he finally gets off his arse and gets his FA licence (eh Doug).

----------


## Micky Duck

> Yes it does, anywhere from .267 to .274.. after slugging to get an accurate bore measurement, a suitable lee sizer die on some dirty ol .277 bullets works well to get them shooting like lasers.  .270 Creedmoor anyone?


some of the new pills made for the 6.8 might be worth a crack......lol

----------


## Tussock

> More than half the benefit in an exercise like this is to prove (to ones self at least) that the latest super duper rifle is NOT required to shoot game out past reasonable distances (my personal limit is about 350M on game). 
> 
> Does the rifle have to be sold? - I have a very rough (on the outside) M70 6.5x55 that I got for $350 but its promised to another forumite when he finally gets off his arse and gets his FA licence (eh Doug).


Note is says "if sold at all" in brackets. The idea came form someone saying it cost X dollars to shoot X meters. Lets see if it is true. 




> I bought a 308 M 98 for 400 with a scope. Its been used on deer out to 400 M.
> 
> Doesn't say anything about hand loads either. So with a good load and some of the old sewer pipes cleaned out then I'm sure they'd be accurate enough.


I had one of these too, shot very well with barnaul and terrible with everything else. Something about mill spec ammo. It would work well.

----------


## Tussock

> Bonus prize for the best hacksaw re-crown.
> 
>   @Carlsenhighway


Sorry Carl, whoever you are

 @Carlsen Highway

----------


## Ultimitsu

> I bought a 308 M 98 for 400 with a scope. Its been used on deer out to 400 M.
> 
> Doesn't say anything about hand loads either. So with a good load and some of the old sewer pipes cleaned out then I'm sure they'd be accurate enough.


Sounds great, I am, and others might well be too, interested in how your rifle fare in this challenge.

----------


## Beavis

Damnit my free Marlin .223 would of been perfect for this

----------


## Ultimitsu

> More than half the benefit in an exercise like this is to prove (to ones self at least) that the latest super duper rifle is NOT required to shoot game out past reasonable distances (my personal limit is about 350M on game).


Based on the responses, I think the general sentiment is that you have to do this challenge using a secondhand gun. I have no doubt that one _could_ score a "good enough" hunting gun secondhand. The problem, just as with buying a secondhand car, is that you just don't know what the gun has gone through and if it is accurate. People tend to sell off the less accurate guns in their collection when they down size or need funds for to new toys.

Anyway, this topic is brilliant, it has now generated so much interest. I humbly await for participants proving me being too pessimistic with their plethora of $500 guns that does 1/4 MOA at 100m and 2 MOA at 500m.

----------


## Tussock

I'm challenging Terminator products :Thumbsup: 

Come on @Kiwi Greg you can spend as much as you like on handloading 

I apologize if I bankrupt the company in the pursuit of 22 points :Grin:

----------


## Tussock

> Based on the responses, I think the general sentiment is that you have to do this challenge using a secondhand gun. I have no doubt that one _could_ score a "good enough" hunting gun secondhand. The problem, just as with buying a secondhand car, is that you just don't know what the gun has gone through and if it is accurate. People tend to sell off the less accurate guns in their collection when they down size or need funds for to new toys.
> 
> Anyway, this topic is brilliant, it has now generated so much interest. I humbly await for participants proving me being too pessimistic with their plethora of $500 guns that does 1/4 MOA at 100m and 2 MOA at 500m.


A score of 5 would be respectable = 1.5" @ 100m and the 100m and 200m target. 8 would be a good score if you made the 300m target as well. With handloading and home accurizing and a bit of good old kiwi ingenuity, the top score will be higher. 

A full score of 22 is entirely possible but the 5 shot group is what will make it nearly impossible. It is actually less than MOA. 

A score of 20 will be like a top score in golf. 22 is like hole in one. 

Most of these guns shoot like arse but they can be made to shoot. It is just that the top guys would never bother, right @7mmsaum ?

Thus, the challenge :Grin:

----------


## Russian 22.

> Note is says "if sold at all" in brackets. The idea came form someone saying it cost X dollars to shoot X meters. Lets see if it is true. 
> 
> 
> 
> I had one of these too, shot very well with barnaul and terrible with everything else. Something about mill spec ammo. It would work well.


I haven't gotten around to using any yet. I use Belmont. But may as well give it ago now that I've acquired some sand bags as a proper rest. 




> Sounds great, I am, and others might well be too, interested in how your rifle fare in this challenge.


I will give it a go. I don't have anywhere to shoot to 500 though apart from Clevedon range.

----------


## Rich007

Greg won't be able to cope with not getting 22 points  :Have A Nice Day: 





> I'm challenging Terminator products
> 
> Come on @Kiwi Greg you can spend as much as you like on handloading 
> 
> I apologize if I bankrupt the company in the pursuit of 22 points

----------


## 7mmsaum

> A score of 5 would be respectable = 1.5" @ 100m and the 100m and 200m target. 8 would be a good score if you made the 300m target as well. With handloading and home accurizing and a bit of good old kiwi ingenuity, the top score will be higher. 
> 
> A full score of 22 is entirely possible but the 5 shot group is what will make it nearly impossible. It is actually less than MOA. 
> 
> A score of 20 will be like a top score in golf. 22 is like hole in one. 
> 
> Most of these guns shoot like arse but they can be made to shoot. It is just that the top guys would never bother, right @7mmsaum ?
> 
> Thus, the challenge



What the hang are you roping me into ? 

 :Have A Nice Day:  


I’m buying what ?  And shooting what ? 

Can I use a Sako ?

----------


## Wingman

Im going to attempt it on $300.  Just need to find a suitable action.

----------


## Ground Control

More points for open sights ?

----------


## Tentman

I'd bet an Omark M44 with double aperature sights and anything other than really flogged out barrel will score high teens at the very least in this challenge as long as there is a reasonable shooter behind it.  And you can usually find one for $350-450.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> I'm challenging Terminator products
> 
> Come on @Kiwi Greg you can spend as much as you like on handloading 
> 
> I apologize if I bankrupt the company in the pursuit of 22 points


As I read it a $500 rifle including the scope is a pretty big ask for the task described  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## nor-west

How about a rifle and scope bought for that price in 1974?

----------


## scotty

> Here is the challenge. You must post here the following. 
> 
> The purchase of a scope and rifle combination for less than $500


maybe the emphasis should be on purchase.....
i mean what say you had a scoped tackdriver handed down to you .....you could spend $499 on i dunno fluffy dice.
e.g . i have an 8mm that cost me nothing so i could put a half decent scope on it and still come in under budget  but thats not fair

----------


## 2post

Sorry Dundee your gun is worth much more than $500.00 so you’re out.

----------


## Tussock

> What the hang are you roping me into ? 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Im buying what ?  And shooting what ? 
> 
> Can I use a Sako ?


You can use a Sako if you can get one for less than $500 with optics :Grin:  Ask my wife. I am literally sitting here laughing as I picture you and @Kiwi Greg looking down the barrel of a $400 rifle. Greg might throw up in his mouth a bit and need to go and lie in a pile of 32" premium grade truck axles recover :Grin:  

This is the idea though, so I hope you guys have a go. Get the guys with experience to do what the newbies have to. If it goes well there should be a pile of respectable rifles for all those guys looking for their first bang stick. 

All going well it will be a list of tricks to teach old dogs new tricks. 




> As I read it a $500 rifle including the scope is a pretty big ask for the task described


This is because, as @Rich007 stated, you can only imagine 22 points :Grin:  I would say the record holder will sit in the mid to low teens for a while. 




> How about a rifle and scope bought for that price in 1974?


Can't see why not, but if its obviously too flash we will take the piss. I'm curious to know what $500 bought you in 1974?
 @scotty has a point. 




> maybe the emphasis should be on purchase.....
> i mean what say you had a scoped tackdriver handed down to you .....you could spend $499 on i dunno fluffy dice.
> e.g . i have an 8mm that cost me nothing so i could put a half decent scope on it and still come in under budget  but thats not fair

----------


## Tentman

In 1978 I bought my first centrefire, a Tikka M55 in 308. With a Nikko Sterling Gold Crown 2.5x I had change from $400.  Shot lights out even compared with the best factory sporters money can buy now.  Wish I'd kept it.  

Might change my mind (re the M70 6.5x55) and see if I can use the rifle I bought recently for my son - a Savage 223 with 1:9 barrel, its a blued synthetic and cost me $400.  Fairly ugly but handy enough and it shoots pretty good,  trigger is decent too.  Might have to rescope it as it has a cheapy Minox on it, were they called a ZA ?? But it was $180 as I recall

I've seen these Savage/Stevens rifles embarrass a hell of a lot of the fancy pants/gay boy stuff on range shoots and they work just fine for hunting.

----------


## Sideshow

Might be able to find something for this in this section even at nz dollar rates  :Thumbsup: 
https://auctions.holtsauctioneers.co...=17&index=view

Thinks this might do the trick https://auctions.holtsauctioneers.co...5877&saletype=
Just need to buy it for £80.00 :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Sideshow

https://auctions.holtsauctioneers.co...2961&saletype=
 :Zomg:

----------


## Dundee

Right where do we get started? I have 200 yard and 500 yard set up on farm? Guess we going to need a forum member as a witness?

----------


## nor-west

> You can use a Sako if you can get one for less than $500 with optics Ask my wife. I am literally sitting here laughing as I picture you and @Kiwi Greg looking down the barrel of a $400 rifle. Greg might throw up in his mouth a bit and need to go and lie in a pile of 32" premium grade truck axles recover 
> 
> This is the idea though, so I hope you guys have a go. Get the guys with experience to do what the newbies have to. If it goes well there should be a pile of respectable rifles for all those guys looking for their first bang stick. 
> 
> All going well it will be a list of tricks to teach old dogs new tricks. 
> 
> 
> 
> This is because, as @Rich007 stated, you can only imagine 22 points I would say the record holder will sit in the mid to low teens for a while. 
> ...


Sako 270 finnbear with a 2-7 Leupold scope 2nd hand obviously also a BSA 308 with 2-7 Kahles also not new but could and still shoot shoot very well. Probably a couple of grand for either now so wouldn't be fair really.

----------


## Husky1600

I'm keen - got a Tikka that I bought back in 1976, $415 with scope. Or a Husky 8x57 that I bought recently that shoots amazingly well with an old Kahles 4x I had in the cupboard for a few years. Or a Husky 30.06 that I could fit an Outdoor optics scope that came as part of a deal. Or a Rem 788 in 22.250, with a red dot that I've swapped out for another scope from the cupboard. somebody point me in the right direction and I'll give it an honest attempt .

----------


## Tussock

> Right where do we get started? I have 200 yard and 500 yard set up on farm? Guess we going to need a forum member as a witness?


Note this is an honor based exercise. If you must cheat, you will live and shame and know yourself to be ergi (unmanned) and forfeit any chance of entering Valhalla. If found out a glove will be nailed to the door of the nearest public hall with your name written on it so that all will know that your word is of no value. The knowledge that you deceived your fellow forum members will eat at you night and day and you will be without sleep. Food will lose its flavor. Women will shun you. Children will cry in your presence. The sun will have no warmth. You will be forced to confess your sins to your fellow forum members and trek to Mt Alexander then descend to the North and throw your rifle into Three Duck lake, and thus be cleansed of shame. 

So, probably best to just be honest.

----------


## Tussock

Just draw a 10" circle on a piece of paper and paint it with a spray can. Put a ruler next to it, take a photo and post it here, for each target. 

GPS ranges will be accepted if you don't have a range finder.

----------


## Dundee

> Just draw a 10" circle on a piece of paper and paint it with a spray can. Put a ruler next to it, take a photo and post it here, for each target. 
> 
> GPS ranges will be accepted if you don't have a range finder.


No bugger beleives my range finder or .22 but I'll give it a crack and have witness!

----------


## Tussock

> No bugger beleives my range finder or .22 but I'll give it a crack and have witness!


Better to be safe than sorry :Grin:

----------


## Tussock

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...dce4078abbb266

This may go well below the buy now

----------


## Spudattack

I think you should add a proviso that the Finnish autocross drivers have which is:
If someone offers to buy it from you for $500 you have to sell it to them!

That will take out the I paid $500 for it back in 53 so therefore its eligible, well, it is, as long as you dont mind selling it for $500!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## tiroatedson

....and whats to stop someone selling a rifle to a mate thats a fancy pants rifle/scope combo for five hundy.... I know honour based and all. Quite a curse you put out though Tussock..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Bagheera

You're not talking about hunting rifles are you ?

The most likely gun to score well would be an old fullbore target rifle with aperture sights like the Omark 44 mentioned above or a Parker Hale.

There could also be a few almost unsaleable wildcats around with a huge amount spent on the build, yet virtually zero resale value now, that offer fair accuracy potential if you can handle the reloading set up.

If you allow handloading then the amount spent on that will be more than the rifle.

The requirement for an off the scale pricing really make this complicated and easy to criticise.

I suggest you change the rules to $1000 and must use factory ammo but can use as much as you like setting up practising and in repeated attempts to get a score.  Also tighten up that the targets have to be shot same day and first shot only, a bit like Norway's challenge.  Perhaps require all on one piece of paper like Gimp's challenge.

----------


## Tussock

> The requirement for an off the scale pricing really make this complicated and easy to criticize.


In my long history of sporting events of many kinds, as well as other activities I have yet to find anything people found hard to criticize. 

No, the rule and limitations are clearly stated. If someone wants to spend 6 months and $1000 hand loading .270 bullets into a loosed bored 6.5 they re-chambered on a toolshed lathe in their garage then that should keep us all entertained for a while. 

The prize is respect. If you want to fake your targets I have been clear about the consequences. If you want to do a bogus $500 deal with your mate so you can shoot your $4000 LR rig, then by default, the prize is revoked because there will be no respect on offer. 

If someone buys an old target rifle and uses aperture sights, then that will open a few peoples eyes and is worthy of respect. 

If someone does this with a $300 Marlin .243 or a sporterised M98 .308, they are going to get bonus respect. 

The competition is very tough, and after you sell the rifle again, very cheap. 

This is a bit of fun. Just relax mate :Thumbsup:

----------


## ChrisW

I think its a good idea to make the rule that if you enter, you must be willing to sell the rifle for $500.
If you won't sell it then your entry is invalid. The idea that you can use an expensive rifle that you _somehow_ acquired for cheap / free is imo, not really in the spirit of the competition.

----------


## Tussock

Finnish Autocross of shooting. I think this is sensible. You will end up with a pool of rifles that circulate and it will be all about the shooting just like Finnish autocross is all about the driving. 

Must be a clause so new guys don't lost their prized $400 rifle.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> A score of 5 would be respectable = 1.5" @ 100m and the 100m and 200m target. 8 would be a good score if you made the 300m target as well. With handloading and home accurizing and a bit of good old kiwi ingenuity, the top score will be higher. 
> 
> A full score of 22 is entirely possible but the 5 shot group is what will make it nearly impossible. It is actually less than MOA. 
> 
> A score of 20 will be like a top score in golf. 22 is like hole in one. 
> 
> Most of these guns shoot like arse but they can be made to shoot. It is just that the top guys would never bother, right @7mmsaum ?
> 
> Thus, the challenge


The 5 shot group requires a 1/4 MOA gun. Even expensive custom guns do not guarantee that. see this custom gun maker, only guanrantee 3 shots group  1/4 MOA, and you must use his $4 USD custom ammo.

A consistent 1 MOA gun would get you 18 points, that is pretty good if you can do it in 500. Load development is time consuming and costly. There is a good reason why most people (who have jobs) do not bother do load development unless the gun is worth it in the first place.

Regarding your last point. I suppose people have differing views on whether _"guns shoot like arse" - "can be made to shoot"_. I am not so convinced. Most cheap and inaccurate guns are inherently inaccurate. While you can improve certain aspects to make it shoot a little better such as bedding and re-crowning. You cannot do anything about most aspects of the gun that made it inaccurate, such as - 

* lower quality materials used for the action and barrel, 
* low quality bore and rifling resulting from low quality craftsmanship and tools,
* imprecision of stamped actions, 
* thinly made actions that have higher amount of flex, 
* cheaply joined barrel and action (I remember reading reviews about one Remington rifle which had the barrel pressed into the action), 
* off-centre action and barrel resulting from excess tolerance,
* excess tolerance in the headspace, and
* triggers designed/made to have 6-pound pull with a 3/4 inch of creep and no clear or consistent point of let-off.

And we are not even talking about rifling wear, fouling, pitting, rust and physical damage that comes with age.

(~awaits for someone to tell me that they got a beautiful xxx rifle from 1939 which had stamped action and pressed pencil barrel that had gone through WWII but still shoots like a laser)

----------


## Pete_D

> Finnish Autocross of shooting. I think this is sensible. You will end up with a pool of rifles that circulate and it will be all about the shooting just like Finnish autocross is all about the driving. 
> 
> Must be a clause so new guys don't lost their prized $400 rifle.


Can you come up with a modified scoring system for open sight entry's.

----------


## gadgetman

I'm liking this idea. I have three cheap rifles that all cost me $400-$450. Maybe I could make my own brakes.

The range I shoot at only goes to 100m though.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> I'm liking this idea. I have three cheap rifles that all cost me $400-$450. Maybe I could make my own brakes.
> 
> The range I shoot at only goes to 100m though.


Going to be a cheap scope to go on top then  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## ChrisW

> There is a good reason why most people (who have jobs) do not bother do load development unless the gun is worth it in the first place.


While I mostly agree with your comment, im not so sure about this part. I would argue that most people simply don't reload, and put simply are intimidated by it. The learning curve + the cost barriers to entry put all but the die-hard shooters off.
I think it has nothing to do with being employed or not. My observations are that most people who reload are enthusiasts who probably spend more money on reloading gear, equipment & components, and more time actually shooting than the vast majority of those who don't reload.
Its not a "poor mans" pursuit, its an enthusiasts and perfectionists pursuit.

----------


## gadgetman

> Going to be a cheap scope to go on top then


Two of those were scoped for that price, one a Weaver the other a Tasco something. They hold zero. The other had rings.

I am the ultimate cheap bugger after all.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> While I mostly agree with your comment, im not so sure about this part. I would argue that most people simply don't reload, and put simply are intimidated by it. The learning curve + the cost barriers to entry put all but the die-hard shooters off.
> I think it has nothing to do with being employed or not. My observations are that most people who reload are enthusiasts who probably spend more money on reloading gear, equipment & components, and more time actually shooting than the vast majority of those who don't reload.
> Its not a "poor mans" pursuit, its an enthusiasts and perfectionists pursuit.


I would say that _some_ people "simply don't reload, and put simply are intimidated by it". I also agree that "the learning curve + the cost barriers to entry" stops many. Where we probably differ is that I think for many people, myself included, the time cost of reloading is too high. People who have full time job and a family often have difficulty finding time for their own hobbies. I barely find enough time to shoot. So even if I did reload for my best guns, I will still not reload for a sub-$500 gun that does at best 1 MOA using reloaded ammo. 

I would rather just use gun that shoot 1 MOA with factory ammo - it is not like anyone on this forum dont already have one....

----------


## Tussock

> The 5 shot group requires a 1/4 MOA gun. Even expensive custom guns do not guarantee that. see this custom gun maker, only guanrantee 3 shots group  1/4 MOA, and you must use his $4 USD custom ammo.
> 
> A consistent 1 MOA gun would get you 18 points, that is pretty good if you can do it in 500. Load development is time consuming and costly. There is a good reason why most people (who have jobs) do not bother do load development unless the gun is worth it in the first place.
> 
> Regarding your last point. I suppose people have differing views on whether _"guns shoot like arse" - "can be made to shoot"_. I am not so convinced. Most cheap and inaccurate guns are inherently inaccurate. While you can improve certain aspects to make it shoot a little better such as bedding and re-crowning. You cannot do anything about most aspects of the gun that made it inaccurate, such as - 
> 
> * lower quality materials used for the action and barrel, 
> * low quality bore and rifling resulting from low quality craftsmanship and tools,
> * imprecision of stamped actions, 
> ...


You wrote all that when 1/4moa is completely irrelevant? Note the difference below. 

Finnish Autocross



F1






> Can you come up with a modified scoring system for open sight entry's.


The prize is larger and frankly a second hand target rifle with decent aperture sights beats an old Tasco anyway. 




> Going to be a cheap scope to go on top then


Kiwi Greg you have a ways to go, but you are coming around to the concept :Thumbsup: 




> While I mostly agree with your comment, im not so sure about this part. I would argue that most people simply don't reload, and put simply are intimidated by it. The learning curve + the cost barriers to entry put all but the die-hard shooters off.
> I think it has nothing to do with being employed or not. My observations are that most people who reload are enthusiasts who probably spend more money on reloading gear, equipment & components, and more time actually shooting than the vast majority of those who don't reload.
> Its not a "poor mans" pursuit, its an enthusiasts and perfectionists pursuit.


Started out reloading as a student with a lee kit and free brass and projectiles off the forum. Some old powder (Cooked 2209?) and some fired factory brass with some random projectiles (I have a big bag if someone has calipers) is not expensive right? You are right Chris, it is about range time not money. 




> I would say that _some_ people "simply don't reload, and put simply are intimidated by it". I also agree that "the learning curve + the cost barriers to entry" stops many. Where we probably differ is that I think for many people, myself included, the time cost of reloading is too high. People who have full time job and a family often have difficulty finding time for their own hobbies. I barely find enough time to shoot. So even if I did reload for my best guns, I will still not reload for a sub-$500 gun that does at best 1 MOA using reloaded ammo. 
> 
> I would rather just use gun that shoot 1 MOA with factory ammo - it is not like anyone on this forum dont already have one....


Again, you seem to have drifted off topic. No one says you can't shoot your own 1MOA rifle. Just not in this contest. It appears you are simply not a contender. Rocky was a contender. 

Bonus respect if your preparation is in the form of a montage to Eye of the Tiger 

As this is still a bit of money and rifles are for forced sale in this new Kiwi riflecross event then I suggest teams are acceptable. This opens up the possibility of more backyard gunsmithing. People act like this has never been done before. My first few rifles relied heavily on the generosity and ingenuity of forum members in their sheds and reloading rooms.

----------


## nickbop

What’s the timeline for this? Good idea

----------


## Pete_D

I think the perception of what something costs is evident with buying ammo vs rolling your own. It's like going on a package holiday with all you can eat buffets. You know that you are paying for it somewhere, but the perception is that it's free food and drinks.  :Thumbsup:  Once you have forked out for some reloading components and yes that can get pricey if you wish. You quickly get over that and for a while it feels like free ammo but buying factory ammo, man that "feels" expensive.

----------


## Sideshow

I certainly shoot more since rolling my own! Factory ammo man  :O O:  yep not something you would go shooting every weekend.
When I was home I used to sight in and then the round counts were only for deer. Now its himmm lets See what this recipe dose :Thumbsup:

----------


## Tussock

My reloading gear cost $150 off trademe and I shot a lot of bug holes with the ammo. Say you get the cheapest full metal jacket projectiles imaginable and they are good and long. You can seat them way past mag length and go looking for the lands, then single load the rifle. This is the kind of thing that will get an ancient and possibly weirdly specced old shooter shooting. Load development does not mean expensive components, it means you can tune the components you have.

----------


## Tussock

> What’s the timeline for this? Good idea


Endless. I went out tonight to range up a permanent riflecross course but ran out of light due to doing some work on the way.

All going well we will end up with about 5 or 6 hoary old shooters circulating and have a round at a forum shoot. 
 @Carlsen Highway I want you on my team. I will call windage and elevation. No one shoots a 6lb trigger with a 1/2" of creep better.

----------


## Tentman

Well I cant wait to get home and make a start on at least a couple of possible contenders. 

Dont be put off by those who seek to maintain the snob value of their supposedly finely machined and exquistily finished rifles that may or may not (thats what scares them) shoot MOA.

There are actually very few really low quality centrefire hunting rifles (both Savage and Remmington have managed it in the axis and 783)   and ALL manufacturers rifles follow the laws of statistics, thier accuracy will lie somewhere on a bell curve, a few horrible, most ok and a few exceptional.  All the expensive stuff does is move the curve along a bit.

----------


## Tentman

By "forum shoot" do you mean we going to be able to shoot this at the "Big Bore" shoot??

----------


## timattalon

@Tussock Here is a solution

This competition requires honesty and is there for personal challenge. Here are points to ponder....

-) This competition is a personal  competition. there are no tangible prizes so there should be little or no reason for anyone with the qualities of a real kiwi to need to cheat. (That includes male and female shooters)

-) If anyone feels the need to buy or sell their rifle for more than $500 then that says more about them than anything else that could be written or implied. - If they have to bend or break the rules to show how skilled they are then they clearly already know the truth of the matter.

-) Any cheating on value, range or other dishonest behavior, and all prizes are automatically forfeit. No one else needs to know if their rifle is truly worth the $500 they claim. The fact that they themselves are not worthy of the respect is enough. The shame will burn their souls and f it does not, then they have no soul.

-) Value of any rifle is subjective. My old Husky would be pretty close to $500 give or take if it was to be sold, but as it has been with me over 30 years, it will never be sold as it is worth more to me than it will ever be to anyone else. Many of these rifles are. 

Most importantly this is a proper riflemans challenge and I love it. It sets a personal goal for each shooter to try.It is a test of the skill of the shooter as much as it is the rifle. And a personal test of ones own honest to themselves.

I will be trying this. And mainly to prove to myself that it can be done. Whether anyone else claims it was done with their rifle and wether it is worth more or less, that matters not to me. The only thing that matters is that I know that I can do it myself.

Here is another challenge-) Its called the GOLF challenge. You stand at a range and tee off with a golf ball. The person on the day who can then hit the golf ball at the largest distance wins.  (Do you tee off close to make it easier to hit and risk someone making  a longer shot or do you tee off hard and long and hope that you dont miss?)

----------


## Tussock

> @Tussock Here is a solution
> 
> This competition requires honesty and is there for personal challenge. Here are points to ponder....
> 
> -) This competition is a personal  competition. there are no tangible prizes so there should be little or no reason for anyone with the qualities of a real kiwi to need to cheat. (That includes male and female shooters)
> 
> -) If anyone feels the need to buy or sell their rifle for more than $500 then that says more about them than anything else that could be written or implied. - If they have to bend or break the rules to show how skilled they are then they clearly already know the truth of the matter.
> 
> -) Any cheating on value, range or other dishonest behavior, and all prizes are automatically forfeit. No one else needs to know if their rifle is truly worth the $500 they claim. The fact that they themselves are not worthy of the respect is enough. The shame will burn their souls and f it does not, then they have no soul.
> ...


You might need an actual golf course to see the ball, but I like it. 

Also, your list is excellent. It is a valid point. If you specify your rifle is not for sale, then it is fair to doubt its value is less than $500, but by all means have a go. Where as to truly honor the rules, the rifle scope combo must be permanently for sale for $500, though by gentleman's agreement it should be kept within the pool of competitors. No one buys a Finnish autocross car for their daily driver, they all stay in the racing pool.

----------


## Tussock

> By "forum shoot" do you mean we going to be able to shoot this at the "Big Bore" shoot??


Could do, but that is not my event. I have been out this morning ranging up a fixed range with 15-20 stations :Cool: 

Only found a 100m range so far but it is sweet.

----------


## Carlsen Highway

This is a challenge to all, and I expect it might open a few peoples eyes about where the value lies in a rifle. (Or it might not, we will see...) 

My humble Winchester 70 30-06 was bought for $400 and it might be a contender. But I think a lot of fun would be to dig up something as cheap as you can and make it work. I can see some Swedish Mausers, Mosin Nagants and old .303's showing up. I have a feeling someone it going to surprise us with what SKS can do if you treat it right...

I am in.

----------


## Marty Henry

Put me down for this, it may be open sights unless I figure how to fit a scope to the swede without drilling, tapping or changing the bolt.
Ive hit a figure 11 at 500 metres with it so its a contender.

----------


## Tommy

> This is a challenge to all, and I expect it might open a few peoples eyes about where the value lies in a rifle. (Or it might not, we will see...) 
> 
> My humble Winchester 70 30-06 was bought for $400 and it might be a contender. But I think a lot of fun would be to dig up something as cheap as you can and make it work. I can see some Swedish Mausers, Mosin Nagants and old .303's showing up. I have a feeling someone it going to surprise us with what SKS can do if you treat it right...
> 
> I am in.


Hey, your 'humble' mod 70 30-06 was enough for Messrs Eric England and Carlos Hathcock  :Wink:

----------


## Carlsen Highway

Exactly. I already know it shoots better than the Sako's or the Tikka I used to own. So I've already learned the lesson implicit in this challenge the hard way.

----------


## Tribrit

> For 500m. 22LR will have to be shot like a mortar


I pissed myself at the thought of this

----------


## timattalon

> No bugger beleives my range finder or .22 but I'll give it a crack and have witness!


Its been done before

----------


## Russian 22.

> is there a limit on practice thinking more along the lines of my old mans 8mm mauser would never sell it and I know he wouldn't have paid much for it as it was bought in the days of pounds and pence even though he was offered 5k for it as a collectors item as it has some decoration and stuff inset into stock it has been sporterised. his 303 would sell it if I can get a safety and a couple other things  also neither is scoped so is that any extra points or do we get a bigger target.


 @garyp

----------


## Tussock

There should never be any limit on practice. There are several points to this. One, the true test of any Kiwi is not how he functions with the best gear, but with the worst. Secondly, all these old rifles need cleaned up, polished and put into the hands of people who don't have licenses yet, but should. Excess shiny shit and corporate style marketing by chain stores is stopping people from going hunting. Thirdly it is just good fun. 

My rifle range is going to have a dedicated riflecross course. Anyone who wants to shoot this competition is welcome :Cool:

----------


## ubique

Someone should check this one out, seems pretty much made for this challenge, and an ideal first rifle for someone getting into it - Ruger 77 in 308 with a Leupold M8 all for $550, which you might be able to sweet talk down to $500. I would be all over it like a fat kid on cake if I had any spare coin around. https://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Lis...?id=1975844918

----------


## Tussock

Called Carlsenhighway yesterday at the equivalent of 4am his time. He reminded me this was actually his idea, way back in about 2010. Good things take time. 



Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

----------


## Marty Henry

Ok I had a little practice with the swede yesterday, 5 shots at 100, gave a 4 inch group above the 2 inch circle which is impossible to see with open sights anyhow.
I have a 12 in gong so used that for the other ranges.
200, hit 300, hit 400 miss, miss, hit. No more ammo.
Even painted bright red that gong was hard to see at 400 and is way smaller than the front post, at 500 it will be damn near invisible. Some optics are gonna be needed. It was fun though.
I might try it with something more pricey and scoped next time.

----------


## Husky1600

Somebody want to sell me a scope for under $100? Rifle cost me $385 6 months ago, so with the right scope will be under the $500. BUT, I wont be selling the rifle, like it too much.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> You wrote all that when 1/4moa is completely irrelevant? Note the difference below.


I do not quite understand your reply. My point is that there is only quite limited amount work you can do to improve a rifle. Much of what could have been negatively affecting a rifle's accuracy cannot be fixed by a user (or even a gun smith). It has nothing to do with 1/4 MOA. You can easily have a 4 MOA gun which, after bedding, re-crowning and load development, still does 3 MOA.





> Again, you seem to have drifted off topic. No one says you can't shoot your own 1MOA rifle. Just not in this contest. It appears you are simply not a contender. Rocky was a contender.


My point was simply that doing a lot of load development and reloading for an inaccurate 500 dollar rifle makes little sense.

The point of this challenge is essentially to prove that a cheap rifle can still shoot well, is it not? My point is that if it cost 10 hours of time and $200 of ammo to develop the right load just to make the old 500 dollar rifle to shoot 1 MOA, and from there to maintain 1 MOA you will always have to reload, then it becomes an expensive rifle (totally fine if the goal was to make this particular old rifle shoot for sentimental or nostalgia values). A brand new 1300 rifle that shoots factory ammo 1 MOA arguably makes better economic sense.

If a person did not already start with an accurate rifle that only cost 500 from some distant past, there are only three ways to succeed this challenge:

1. bargain ruthlessly and shamelessly, pay 500 dollars for a rifle with known accuracy that simply is worth more.

2. draw of luck, keep buying 500 dollar rifles until you hit one that is actually quite accurate and sold by an unsuspecting owner - which can happen with estate sales.

3. buy an average 500 dollar rifle and then spend a lot of time rework every part of the rifle: rework the trigger, true the action, lap the barrel, adjust head space (on top of re-crowning, bedding, load developments). Basically the sort of work usually only gunsmith can do properly. In my view unless luck is on your side even with all that work done you may not get a 1 MOA gun. 

I have read a lot of accurazing stories and commentary in RimfireCentral about people's journey in accurasing their rifles. The general consensus is pretty much that the time and money spent improving a low end rifle is just not worth it. The only accurazing step that will give you some guaranteed gain (for a low end rifle) is barrel upgrade.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> Somebody want to sell me a scope for under $100? Rifle cost me $385 6 months ago, so with the right scope will be under the $500. BUT, I wont be selling the rifle, like it too much.


Depending on what you want, a lot of people would be willing to just give you a 4x if that is all you need. A OK 3-9x40, such as low-mid end Hawke or Nikko Stirlling can be had for 100 if you look around. They are usually dependable enough with nothing else going for them. Just stay away from Ranger.

----------


## Tussock

@Ultimitsu why did you even post that? All the stuff you keep saying about what people and rifles will do, you are making up. This is not Rimfire central. 

These rifles areare not junk.  They are old, but they were mostly hand made by craftsman. More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire. 

I'm going to be gentle here if I can. Most of what you learned on Rimfire central was a form of cosplay. That stuff is all make believe. Like fairies and unicorns. It's real,  but it exists only in the hearts and minds of Rimfire central members. It is really not appropriate to mention it outside Rimfire central.

----------


## Tussock

You get a score of 5 then. 

Simple rule. To be champ you must officially enter and your rifle is for sale to others who have officially entered. Rifle trading will be in person at the end of official events.

If you just want to shoot your cheapest rifle and post a score do that.

----------


## gadgetman

> 3. buy an average 500 dollar rifle and then spend a lot of time rework every part of the rifle: rework the trigger, true the action, lap the barrel, adjust head space (on top of re-crowning, bedding, load developments). Basically the sort of work usually only gunsmith can do properly. In my view unless luck is on your side even with all that work done you may not get a 1 MOA gun.


I've done this with a couple $450 rifles. One currently shoots consistent 13mm three shot groups at 100m, same pattern/position. Unfortunately it is only a 223 and non dialling scope.

----------


## Tussock

> Ok I had a little practice with the swede yesterday, 5 shots at 100, gave a 4 inch group above the 2 inch circle which is impossible to see with open sights anyhow.
> I have a 12 in gong so used that for the other ranges.
> 200, hit 300, hit 400 miss, miss, hit. No more ammo.
> Even painted bright red that gong was hard to see at 400 and is way smaller than the front post, at 500 it will be damn near invisible. Some optics are gonna be needed. It was fun though.
> I might try it with something more pricey and scoped next time.


This should explain the point of this exercise. A 4" group at 100m with open sights, unable to see the 400m target, but dead deer all the way to 300m
  @Ultimitsu stop fixating on 1/4 or MOA in general. You realize a 2MOA rifle will score 19 in this competition while a 1/4MOA rifle only gets 22?  :Wink:

----------


## Tentman

All this challenge requires is to have a go within the rules.  

If you are a consistent shooter and have a good knowlege of ballistics  (and understand basic statistics) a good score is possible with a rifle of ordinary hunting accuracy -  I like about 40mm at 100M) .  My F class rifle will group at 10mm at 100M but a first shot hit at a 10" target at 400 is not much less likey than if I was using a hunting rifle.   Try doing a bit of stats learning of you don't understand that.

----------


## Pete_D

> This should explain the point of this exercise. A 4" group at 100m with open sights, unable to see the 400m target, but dead deer all the way to 300m
>   @Ultimitsu stop fixating on 1/4 or MOA in general. You realize a 2MOA rifle will score 19 in this competition while a 1/4MOA rifle only gets 22?


Sorry maths is not my strong point  :Have A Nice Day:  - I re-read the scoring system and is the:
"5 shot 100m group 1 point for every 1/4" under 2" 
Is that 1 point awarded for each shot under 2 inches or the whole 5 shot group ? Just wondered since you said a 2 MOA gun scores 19 and I make it 15 ?

----------


## gadgetman

> Sorry maths is not my strong point  - I re-read the scoring system and is the:
> "5 shot 100m group 1 point for every 1/4" under 2" 
> Is that 1 point awarded for each shot under 2 inches or the whole 5 shot group ? Just wondered since you said a 2 MOA gun scores 19 and I make it 15 ?


And 2moa at 100m is 2.29"/58.2mm.

1moa @ 100y = 1.047"

1y = 0.9411m

----------


## Tussock

> Sorry maths is not my strong point  - I re-read the scoring system and is the:
> "5 shot 100m group 1 point for every 1/4" under 2" 
> Is that 1 point awarded for each shot under 2 inches or the whole 5 shot group ? Just wondered since you said a 2 MOA gun scores 19 and I make it 15 ?


It is 15. This is what happens when I do math in my head while assembling irrigation parts at the same time :Grin:  I don't add good.

----------


## Pete_D

> It is 15. This is what happens when I do math in my head while assembling irrigation parts at the same time.


You should worry if I'm better than Maths than you ! it must have been the number of fingers I had available at the keyboard vs you  :Thumbsup: .

----------


## Tussock

> You should worry if I'm better than Maths than you ! it must have been the number of fingers I had available at the keyboard vs you .


Everything I do is in a math heavy field but I could not work at a dairy because I can't make change :Grin:

----------


## Tentman

All this challenge requires is to have a go within the rules.  

If you are a consistent shooter and have a good knowlege of ballistics  (and understand basic statistics) a good score is possible with a rifle of ordinary hunting accuracy -  I like about 40mm at 100M) .  My F class rifle will group at 10mm at 100M but a first shot hit at a 10" target at 400 is not much less likey than if I was using a hunting rifle.   Try doing a bit of stats learning of you don't understand that.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> @Ultimitsu why did you even post that? All the stuff you keep saying about what people and rifles will do, you are making up. This is not Rimfire central. 
> 
> These rifles areare not junk.  They are old, but they were mostly hand made by craftsman. More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire. 
> 
> I'm going to be gentle here if I can. Most of what you learned on Rimfire central was a form of cosplay. That stuff is all make believe. Like fairies and unicorns. It's real,  but it exists only in the hearts and minds of Rimfire central members. It is really not appropriate to mention it outside Rimfire central.


I am not sure why you would rubbish Rimfire Central. Look at the size:
* This forum -          Threads: 47,083,  Posts: 782,521,  Members: 7,998  
* Rimfire Central  -  Threads: 473,223, Posts: 5,000,803, Members: 154,084

Rimfire Central is generally speaking a very respected forum, well run and well moderated. I mention RC because the RC has a lot of people tinkering with rifles about the price range referred to in this thread. If you go to Snipers Hide - a long ranger shooter forum - people there tend to talk about 5k rifles and 5k scopes.

I am not sure why you think somehow centre fire rifles are "mostly hand made by craftsman" with "More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire." The average rimfire that people over at RC play with are CZ and Ruger, they both between 600 to 900 here in NZ. many people there have been long term Anschutz class users.

Check out a review for a typical low-end centre fire gun, the infamous Remington 770:  https://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle...on-770-review/

Yeah.. I think CS 453 has more work gone into its trigger than Remington has put into the whole gun.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> @Ultimitsu stop fixating on 1/4 or MOA in general. You realize a 2MOA rifle will score 19 in this competition while a 1/4MOA rifle only gets 22?


I am not "fixated" on 1/4 MOA, my last few posts deal with 1 MOA rifle.

Actually I am not convinced that if a rifle does 2 MOA at 100, it will reliably do 2 MOA at 500. the bullet is likely to be tumbling a bit therefore far more likely to fare worse at 500. 

But even if we ignore that cynicism, sure a 2 MOA rifle may do 15, the point of participating a challenge would still be winning it. Otherwise we could say a 3 MOA rifle would still score 5. But who wants to spend 500 for a challenge to have a 3 MOA gun?

----------


## ChrisW

> I am not sure why you would rubbish Rimfire Central. Look at the size:
> * This forum -          Threads: 47,083,  Posts: 782,521,  Members: 7,998  
> * Rimfire Central  -  Threads: 473,223, Posts: 5,000,803, Members: 154,084
> 
> Rimfire Central is generally speaking a very respected forum, well run and well moderated. I mention RC because the RC has a lot of people tinkering with rifles about the price range referred to in this thread. If you go to Snipers Hide - a long ranger shooter forum - people there tend to talk about 5k rifles and 5k scopes.
> 
> I am not sure why you think somehow centre fire rifles are "mostly hand made by craftsman" with "More work went into the bolt than your average rimfire." The average rimfire that people over at RC play with are CZ and Ruger, they both between 600 to 900 here in NZ. many people there have been long term Anschutz class users.
> 
> Check out a review for a typical low-end centre fire gun, the infamous Remington 770:  https://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle...on-770-review/
> ...


I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun. 
For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.

----------


## gadgetman

> I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun. 
> For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.
> 
> An early 1900s $400 sporterised swedish mauser is going to be head and shoulders above a more modern, low end $400 rifle that's a couple years old (eg used remington 770 or any other entry level rifle that's a few years old). The swede will have been made by craftsman, with parts individually fitted, all very high quality solid steel. Often each part is serialised to the rifle and stamped with an acceptance mark after its been (manually) fitted by said craftsman. Often multiple generations of craftsmen would continue the work of their fathers before them - they took pride in their work and it was more than a transitional job & that can be seen in the quality and finish of old rifles. 
> Whereas a Remington 770 or other entry level "modern" rifle (basically anything "modern" you can buy for $400) is thrown together with any manor of modern cost cutting. Flimsy plastic stocks, pressed in barrels, plastic parts everywhere possible, the cheapest labor you can find.  (Iv used a $400 value for the rifle to allow some money for a cheap scope)
> 
> Personally im expecting to see an early 1900s rifle, probably a swede in 6.5x55 take the prize.


Though there are also some pretty good budget rifles around that could do it too. The likes of the Savage Axis are known for being quite basic but nonetheless showing the typical accuracy of its more expensive stable mates. A couple of years ago you would also have been able to pick up the likes of a Howa 1500 or Marlin M?7 for around $400 if you were patient. I think this challenge may have an impact in the market in this price bracket now.

I'm still keen to have a crack at this, though with my skill level I'd never be a contender to win.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun. 
> For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.
> 
> An early 1900s $400 sporterised swedish mauser is going to be head and shoulders above a more modern, low end $400 rifle that's a couple years old (eg used remington 770 or any other entry level rifle that's a few years old). The swede will have been made by craftsman, with parts individually fitted, all very high quality solid steel. Often each part is serialised to the rifle and stamped with an acceptance mark after its been (manually) fitted by said craftsman. Often multiple generations of craftsmen would continue the work of their fathers before them - they took pride in their work and it was more than a transitional job & that can be seen in the quality and finish of old rifles. 
> Whereas a Remington 770 or other entry level "modern" rifle (basically anything "modern" you can buy for $400) is thrown together with any manor of modern cost cutting. Flimsy plastic stocks, pressed in barrels, plastic parts everywhere possible, the cheapest labor you can find.  (Iv used a $400 value for the rifle to allow some money for a cheap scope)
> 
> Personally im expecting to see an early 1900s rifle, probably a swede in 6.5x55 take the prize.


Not that you are wrong, but I think "old rifles" is too generic a term that does not really mean anything more than rifles that are just old.

Sure, there are high end rifles from 60 years ago surviving to this day. But there are also many and many low end rifles from early to mid 20th century still floating around. A lot of the WWII rifles were sportised and many were not craftsmans' work, and were definitely mass produced to be able to hit man sized target at about 200m.

I used to check out guns at Will's fishing and hunting before he moved to west Auckland. He had a fair selection of old guns. From memory anything decent commanded a nice price tag. Will is certainly a guy that knows his old gun trading business.

High end old rifles that still have good bore and rifling, and in generally good condition are not cheap. Unless you buy from an unaware estate executor, most people know what their guns' worth. Try buy an 1970s Anschutz 54 _rimfire_, see how likely it is to get it under 500.

Last year a forumer bought an 1990s Anshutz 54 MSR, I think he paid about 2000.

----------


## Pete_D

I think if everyone who's following this actually manages to give it a go time will tell what works and what doesn't. Should be a bit of fun either way and motivation to prove each other right or wrong. I still think we need a open sights modified scoring system....Please..... :Thumbsup:

----------


## faregame

> Actually I am not convinced that if a rifle does 2 MOA at 100, it will reliably do 2 MOA at 500. the bullet is likely to be
>  tumbling a bit therefore far more likely to fare worse at 500.


Why would it be tumbling?

----------


## Tussock

@Ultimitsu Anschutz are nice rifles. Regardless, you are babbling nonsense all over out shooting challenge. You need to buy a $500 centerfire and start learning.

----------


## Marty Henry

> I think the point being made re the "mostly hand made by craftsman" comment is that most of the rifles that will be real contenders in this event will be old guns, that date back to a time where each rifle had a much higher degree of manual machining, hand fitting, and workmanship put into it. As such many of these now cheap, old rifles have a much higher degree of craftsmanship and quality then would be found on a comparably priced new-ish gun. 
> For say, $400, you can either buy a high quality old gun, or a low quality new gun. IMO, the high quality old gun has much more potential.


I must see if my nephew wants to sell his 770, its not as bad as the review rifles and is actually scarry accurate. At least with the nikko scope he has on it I could see the target properly.

----------


## gimp

Buy now this and you'll be away

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...e83ce19b83542b

----------


## rossi.45

so what are you trying to achieve here  . . . to get newbies into deer, target, varmint, service rifle shooting, with some of the choices put up its unclear

----------


## Tussock

> so what are you trying to achieve here  . . . to get newbies into deer, target, varmint, service rifle shooting, with some of the choices put up its unclear


Not quite sure what you mean. The angles people come up with to confuse the issue surprise me. I'm trying to get people who find this amusing to have a go for amusement. The 10" target is a dead deer if shot placement is correct, though this is something of a side issue. 

Not referring to you here @rossi.45 but I can't understand why some people get so bent out of shape about competition. This is why I liked racing. In a race, someone is slightly ahead of someone else they win. You avoid having armies of bush lawyers trying to elevate their self esteem by re-interpretation of the rules. 

Try hit the targets. Try get a score. Try to enjoy it.

----------


## Tussock

More importantly, to me anyway, what price will people put on a 1.5-5 power Leopold V-X111? If I don't use the Loopy, this is my rifle. 

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....-%24900-48744/

$450? I have one vote at $450 from the sale thread. Leaves me $50 for a scope. 

Were my old 4x32 Nikon be valued at $50 I am away. More for the scope or less for the rifle and I am on open sights :Grin:

----------


## Carlsen Highway

Ultimitsu, I bought this for $500. And many others like it that would shoot nearly as well, old BSA's and old Brno's. 

It will shoot anything I load for it into an inch. I cannot get it to shoot badly. I have fucking tried. I just put it into a different stock and it still shoots as well. I am at my wits end.

The 40 year old scope I put on it puts it $100 over the entry minimum, but I bet I could beat you with it at 500 metres using its open sights. I throw down my challenge.

----------


## Tussock

Rather than risk cursing myself, I will shoot my new BSA open sights as well.

----------


## Tussock

I'm of the opinion my VX-111 is worth $500 after looking around. This may allow me to use my old Nikon 4x32 without voiding my masculinity. I may just shoot it scoped and open sights.

----------


## Tussock

@Ultimitsu you have been challenged :Grin: 

Here is a rifle for you, this thing could win. The Savage 30-06 which has been reduced to $400

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....-rifles-48632/

----------


## gadgetman

Can't make my mind up. Have the Savage 308 with Weaver 4x at $400 or the Zastava 7mmRM at $450 unscoped. Both threaded. I could knock up my own brake. I have a Pentax scope I was given. Have a couple of other scopes I paid. $50 for.

----------


## Tussock

> Can't make my mind up. Have the Savage 308 with Weaver 4x at $400 or the Zastava 7mmRM at $450 unscoped. Both threaded. I could knock up my own brake. I have a Pentax scope I was given. Have a couple of other scopes I paid. $50 for.


Go 7mm Rem Mag with open sights :Cool:

----------


## gadgetman

> Go 7mm Rem Mag with open sights


Doesn't have any, unless I make something. Eyes are suffering short arm syndrome nowadays too. Though making something would be fun. I just love to tinker.

----------


## Tussock

> Doesn't have any, unless I make something. Eyes are suffering short arm syndrome nowadays too. Though making something would be fun. I just love to tinker.


I just found a set off a BSA about 10 minutes ago.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> Ultimitsu, I bought this for $500. And many others like it that would shoot nearly as well, old BSA's and old Brno's. 
> 
> It will shoot anything I load for it into an inch. I cannot get it to shoot badly. I have fucking tried. I just put it into a different stock and it still shoots as well. I am at my wits end.
> 
> The 40 year old scope I put on it puts it $100 over the entry minimum, but I bet I could beat you with it at 500 metres using its open sights. I throw down my challenge.


Hi Carlsen,

Well done, that is a good looking rifle for 500. Looking forward to see your score. 

Your challenge is flattering. But, no, I do not have 500 bucks to throw around for this challenge. In any event my view has been explained well enough - 

"If a person did not already start with an accurate rifle that only cost 500 from some distant past, there are only three ways to succeed this challenge:

1. bargain ruthlessly and shamelessly, pay 500 dollars for a rifle with known accuracy that simply is worth more.

2. draw of luck, keep buying 500 dollar rifles until you hit one that is actually quite accurate and sold by an unsuspecting owner - which can happen with estate sales.

3. buy an average 500 dollar rifle and then spend a lot of time rework every part of the rifle: rework the trigger, true the action, lap the barrel, adjust head space (on top of re-crowning, bedding, load developments). Basically the sort of work usually only gunsmith can do properly. In my view unless luck is on your side even with all that work done you may not get a 1 MOA gun. "

I do not have a 500 dollar gun that was bought long ago, I know of no one I can haggle ruthlessly and get a good gun for under 500. I never had the luck when buying something blind secondhand. I almost certainly do not have the time to tinker a gun to make it shoot better.

But I am happy that your gun is doing well. I will watch this how challenge develops with interest. Happy shooting.

----------


## Tussock

> Hi Carlsen,
> 
> Well done, that is a good looking rifle for 500. Looking forward to see your score. 
> 
> Your challenge is flattering. But, no, I do not have 500 bucks to throw around for this challenge. In any event my view has been explained well enough - 
> 
> "If a person did not already start with an accurate rifle that only cost 500 from some distant past, there are only three ways to succeed this challenge:
> 
> 1. bargain ruthlessly and shamelessly, pay 500 dollars for a rifle with known accuracy that simply is worth more.
> ...


Another point of this exercise is to dispel the misconceptions you listed above.

----------


## Ultimitsu

> Another point of this exercise is to dispel the misconceptions you listed above.


I am always happy to be proven wrong.

----------


## Tussock

> I am always happy to be proven wrong.


You actually never had a point. You said $500 guns were so bad they could not win a $500 gun contest where the prize is respect, which makes zero sense

----------


## gadgetman

> Hi Carlsen,
> 
> Well done, that is a good looking rifle for 500. Looking forward to see your score. 
> 
> Your challenge is flattering. But, no, I do not have 500 bucks to throw around for this challenge. In any event my view has been explained well enough - 
> 
> "If a person did not already start with an accurate rifle that only cost 500 from some distant past, there are only three ways to succeed this challenge:
> 
> 1. bargain ruthlessly and shamelessly, pay 500 dollars for a rifle with known accuracy that simply is worth more.
> ...


The whole point of the challenge is more to challenge yourself. I have no doubt from my past purchases that it can be done and intend to give it a nudge. I don't expect to win, but I expect to challenge myself to do what I can with some modest gear. It just sounds like fun.

Reminds me of a Bathurst race back in the days of all comers. One team took a humble Corolla off the showroom floor on Thursday, made slight changes to car, put on suitable tyres and got third or fourth overall.

----------


## 2post

> Hi Carlsen,
> 
> Well done, that is a good looking rifle for 500. Looking forward to see your score. 
> 
> Your challenge is flattering. But, no, I do not have 500 bucks to throw around for this challenge. In any event my view has been explained well enough - 
> 
> "If a person did not already start with an accurate rifle that only cost 500 from some distant past, there are only three ways to succeed this challenge:
> 
> 1. bargain ruthlessly and shamelessly, pay 500 dollars for a rifle with known accuracy that simply is worth more.
> ...


Give the challenge a go with a $2000 rifle and post your score, then we can see if we can beat it with  $500 rifle, it’s just a fun challenge!

----------


## trooper90

The biggest challenge beyond hitting the 400,500m targets will be finding an area over 200m to shoot on

Sent from my HP 8 using Tapatalk

----------


## Marty Henry

The prize is respect, well I already respect the target and wonder how it always managed to be in a different place to my shots last week. Tomorrows another day, new ammo, a diopter to put on my glasses, and a can of the most fluro paint I could find.
Hope springs eternal. Is there any limot to the number of attempts you can have?

----------


## scotty

> Reminds me of a Bathurst race back in the days of all comers. One team took a humble Corolla off the showroom floor on Thursday, made slight changes to car, put on suitable tyres and got third or fourth overall.


that all changed when the aussies realised they couldnt compete with the turbo nissans and volvos....my uncle (neil lowe,  privateer) got a third placing at bathurst in a bmw back in the day ....early eighties i think . on the podium he said " just shows kiwis can fly" ....... opened the door for a lot of kiwi drivers. he went on to work for both dick johnson and peter brock

----------


## nance

Really like the idea of the Under 500 500 and tempted to give it a go myself however I need to familiarise myself with my rifle first at those distances, then again...... 

Anyway, whether this would work for anyone in the big smoke for the challenge.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...a2b01d843f1787

----------


## trooper90

Bump did this go ahead seemed like a good idea

----------


## Sako851

Yeah we should make this happen

----------


## Ultimitsu

This is an ongoing challenge, I don't think it was meant to be an event where everyone shows up with their 500 dollar gun and see what wins. If you acquired a 500 dollar gun and want to give this a go, then just go do it and post your results.

----------


## Tussock

I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted. 

It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle. 

So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically. 

This has been a very worthy exercise. 

First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m

Care to explain that one @Ultimitsu ?

Why would a rifle shoot twice as well at range,  while using reticle hold? The reticle is a plain reticle on 9 power. 

That means that holding over on a plain reticle has better accuracy and precision than my range groups holding on the dot. 

I know the answer. 

This is a fun challenge. I have a slick rifle in the cupboard, all I need is a reliable $50 scope and all it has to do is hold a zero. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

----------


## jackson21

> I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted. 
> 
> It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle. 
> 
> So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically. 
> 
> This has been a very worthy exercise. 
> 
> First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m
> ...


Funny you say that my MOA groups on my 22 250 seem to get better at 200m than 100m, I've just put it down to outlier data from my shooting as technically seems impossible?

----------


## LRP

> I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted. 
> 
> It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle. 
> 
> So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically. 
> 
> This has been a very worthy exercise. 
> 
> First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m
> ...


The suspense is killing me ! Please explain ?

----------


## Friwi

Aim small miss small

----------


## Tussock

Below is a bit of Tussock theorizing. Please keep nickers twist free if you don't agree :Wink: 

Trigger pull and follow through @R93. I have two for this rifle. One when I am shooting for a group at 100m and one when I am shooting with hold over and at greater ranges. 
When I add the element of holding over my trigger pull becomes sub-conscious. I shoot off a backpack like on a field rest. Lock time and follow through are a big deal when shooting from field rests because you have a lot more opportunity to move the rifle between the trigger breaking and the projectile departing the end of the barrel. The trigger breaks, firing pin moves forward and hits firing pin, primer goes, powder goes, projectile departs barrel. It is not instant. 

When you have a rifle set up rock solid on a bench, it moves in a very controlled way. You could have a very long slow lock time and still shoot well because there is no movement in the rifle as the above sequence takes place. 

You will note some characters on this forum shoot bug holes off a backpack in a paddock. Not many, but it can be done. More might do it if there was a reason to try. 

When you shoot in the field, it is less about that flawless trigger break on a stable rifle, and more about synchronizing the trigger break with the moment you bring your body to absolute stillness, while the cross hairs are where you want them.  

The better follow through comes from being more deliberate with each shot. When I shoot a group at 100m I can see each round hit the paper and for me, the pressure builds not to blow the group out and it is a distraction. This alone can mean your groups tighten up when you shoot further out. 

This is why as an exercise, I think you should shoot at a single point, one shot, one target. To get a group equivalent measure the difference between the point of impact and the point of aim. I'm trying to factor this tension build effect out of my shooting. 

What Friwi said is important. I have been doing this in 50 round sessions and I come back to 100m from time to time. Going back to 100m feels like driving in a car at 100ks an hour right after you have been going 200ks. 100m suddenly seems very close. 

I'm very interested in lock time now. I think the ammo I am using has slow primers or the rifle has long lock time. As I get 3-4 missfires a box there is something up. I increasingly felt with the rifle every time I felt a really sweet shot, it went where I wanted and every flier I pulled. The better it felt, the closer to the point of impact. This is not how it feels with an inherently inaccurate rifle. It feels like things are random. With this Sauer it feels like it is very easy to shoot 1" and very hard, but possible, to do better. 

If my theory is correct, then once I have churned through the next 150 rounds currently sitting in my range bag, I should be able to synchronize my trigger break, reticle hold and moment of stillness and tighten my groups up significantly. 

The accuracy of the reticle hold is brain magic usually reserved for open sights. Your brain is wired for projectile weapons and has an inbuilt ballistics calculator. Scopes etc get in the way to a degree. I'm not sure if my ability to visualize a point on the cross hairs in precisely the right spot it common, as I spent a few years of my life looking down a microscope measuring things with a reticle. I assume anyone can do it. 

The hold over off a plain reticle actually has about ten fold increase in accuracy and precision over how the rifle groups. Your brain clearly has a nack for this. It is basically just image retention.

----------


## LRP

Well thank the lord Tussock : I thought u were going to roll out the "bullets go to sleep" theory !

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Well thank the lord Tussock : I thought u were going to roll out the "*bullets go to sleep*" theory !


Some do  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## LRP

So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?

----------


## Tussock

> So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?


I could have summarised the whole thing with "I shoot badly when I can see the group forming with this rifle".

----------


## Tussock

> So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?


You have it a little backward. Why do I care about separating variables? This is the great conceit of science. You isolate variables in order to talk about them. There is no instruction manual and no way of predicting what will happen when you bring those variables back together. That is the domain of math. 

There is no point in creating a fair test if it is an irrelevant test. 

I would put it simply. When you have the machine rest in the wind tunnel, how do you get the wind tunnel up the hill and line it up with the deer?

If you take away relevant variables, then you are just wasting your time. 

How many hunting rifles shoot 1/5" MOA groups off a benchrest, but throw a first round flier from a cold barrel? How many shoot 4" to the left (for example) when cold? Heaps of them. Your half MOA is not a relevant variable to hunting. The first shot out of a cold barrel is. 

There is no point isolating relevant variables and the exercise to find relevant variables is different. Without going through that process you are making a ton of assumptions, and assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups. 

The point of this entire exercise from the get go is to start a discussion about shooting in terms of marksmanship, taking in the human element. 

Is there any way a machine rest could demonstrate what happens when a human fires a rifle? How could a machine rest in a tunnel demonstrate the mental aspects of marksmanship? 

Setting up heavy rigs with gadgets and computers and isolating every variable is fun, but I would hold my manhood cheap if it was all I could do.

----------


## Got-ya

[QUOTE=Tussock;889149]


 The better follow through comes from being more deliberate with each shot. When I shoot a group at 100m I can see each round hit the paper and for me, the pressure builds not to blow the group out and it is a distraction. This alone can mean your groups tighten up when you shoot further out. 



Bit like when shooting DTL, target 25 and your on a possible? I know that feeling.

----------


## trooper90

Bump did this go ahead seemed like a good idea

----------


## Sako851

Yeah we should make this happen

----------


## Ultimitsu

This is an ongoing challenge, I don't think it was meant to be an event where everyone shows up with their 500 dollar gun and see what wins. If you acquired a 500 dollar gun and want to give this a go, then just go do it and post your results.

----------


## Tussock

I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted. 

It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle. 

So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically. 

This has been a very worthy exercise. 

First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m

Care to explain that one @Ultimitsu ?

Why would a rifle shoot twice as well at range,  while using reticle hold? The reticle is a plain reticle on 9 power. 

That means that holding over on a plain reticle has better accuracy and precision than my range groups holding on the dot. 

I know the answer. 

This is a fun challenge. I have a slick rifle in the cupboard, all I need is a reliable $50 scope and all it has to do is hold a zero. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

----------


## jackson21

> I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted. 
> 
> It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle. 
> 
> So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically. 
> 
> This has been a very worthy exercise. 
> 
> First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m
> ...


Funny you say that my MOA groups on my 22 250 seem to get better at 200m than 100m, I've just put it down to outlier data from my shooting as technically seems impossible?

----------


## LRP

> I have continued playing with this. It was started around March 15 and we got distracted. 
> 
> It can be done. Not only that, but there is a way to do it very comfortably with an ordinary reticle. 
> 
> So far I'm not using my actual rifle but my. 223 because it's cheap and the. 223 has way less going for it basically. 
> 
> This has been a very worthy exercise. 
> 
> First odd ball thing to come out of it. My reticle hold groups are half the size of my 100m test groups. 1MOA at 100, .5moa using reticle hold out to 350m. This anemic load has 50" of drop at 350m
> ...


The suspense is killing me ! Please explain ?

----------


## Friwi

Aim small miss small

----------


## Tussock

Below is a bit of Tussock theorizing. Please keep nickers twist free if you don't agree :Wink: 

Trigger pull and follow through @R93. I have two for this rifle. One when I am shooting for a group at 100m and one when I am shooting with hold over and at greater ranges. 
When I add the element of holding over my trigger pull becomes sub-conscious. I shoot off a backpack like on a field rest. Lock time and follow through are a big deal when shooting from field rests because you have a lot more opportunity to move the rifle between the trigger breaking and the projectile departing the end of the barrel. The trigger breaks, firing pin moves forward and hits firing pin, primer goes, powder goes, projectile departs barrel. It is not instant. 

When you have a rifle set up rock solid on a bench, it moves in a very controlled way. You could have a very long slow lock time and still shoot well because there is no movement in the rifle as the above sequence takes place. 

You will note some characters on this forum shoot bug holes off a backpack in a paddock. Not many, but it can be done. More might do it if there was a reason to try. 

When you shoot in the field, it is less about that flawless trigger break on a stable rifle, and more about synchronizing the trigger break with the moment you bring your body to absolute stillness, while the cross hairs are where you want them.  

The better follow through comes from being more deliberate with each shot. When I shoot a group at 100m I can see each round hit the paper and for me, the pressure builds not to blow the group out and it is a distraction. This alone can mean your groups tighten up when you shoot further out. 

This is why as an exercise, I think you should shoot at a single point, one shot, one target. To get a group equivalent measure the difference between the point of impact and the point of aim. I'm trying to factor this tension build effect out of my shooting. 

What Friwi said is important. I have been doing this in 50 round sessions and I come back to 100m from time to time. Going back to 100m feels like driving in a car at 100ks an hour right after you have been going 200ks. 100m suddenly seems very close. 

I'm very interested in lock time now. I think the ammo I am using has slow primers or the rifle has long lock time. As I get 3-4 missfires a box there is something up. I increasingly felt with the rifle every time I felt a really sweet shot, it went where I wanted and every flier I pulled. The better it felt, the closer to the point of impact. This is not how it feels with an inherently inaccurate rifle. It feels like things are random. With this Sauer it feels like it is very easy to shoot 1" and very hard, but possible, to do better. 

If my theory is correct, then once I have churned through the next 150 rounds currently sitting in my range bag, I should be able to synchronize my trigger break, reticle hold and moment of stillness and tighten my groups up significantly. 

The accuracy of the reticle hold is brain magic usually reserved for open sights. Your brain is wired for projectile weapons and has an inbuilt ballistics calculator. Scopes etc get in the way to a degree. I'm not sure if my ability to visualize a point on the cross hairs in precisely the right spot it common, as I spent a few years of my life looking down a microscope measuring things with a reticle. I assume anyone can do it. 

The hold over off a plain reticle actually has about ten fold increase in accuracy and precision over how the rifle groups. Your brain clearly has a nack for this. It is basically just image retention.

----------


## LRP

Well thank the lord Tussock : I thought u were going to roll out the "bullets go to sleep" theory !

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Well thank the lord Tussock : I thought u were going to roll out the "*bullets go to sleep*" theory !


Some do  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## LRP

So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?

----------


## Tussock

> So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?


I could have summarised the whole thing with "I shoot badly when I can see the group forming with this rifle".

----------


## Tussock

> So I believe but I suspect only a machine-rest, used in a tunnel, MAY be able to separate that phenomenon from all the other variables that lead to group divergence ?


You have it a little backward. Why do I care about separating variables? This is the great conceit of science. You isolate variables in order to talk about them. There is no instruction manual and no way of predicting what will happen when you bring those variables back together. That is the domain of math. 

There is no point in creating a fair test if it is an irrelevant test. 

I would put it simply. When you have the machine rest in the wind tunnel, how do you get the wind tunnel up the hill and line it up with the deer?

If you take away relevant variables, then you are just wasting your time. 

How many hunting rifles shoot 1/5" MOA groups off a benchrest, but throw a first round flier from a cold barrel? How many shoot 4" to the left (for example) when cold? Heaps of them. Your half MOA is not a relevant variable to hunting. The first shot out of a cold barrel is. 

There is no point isolating relevant variables and the exercise to find relevant variables is different. Without going through that process you are making a ton of assumptions, and assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups. 

The point of this entire exercise from the get go is to start a discussion about shooting in terms of marksmanship, taking in the human element. 

Is there any way a machine rest could demonstrate what happens when a human fires a rifle? How could a machine rest in a tunnel demonstrate the mental aspects of marksmanship? 

Setting up heavy rigs with gadgets and computers and isolating every variable is fun, but I would hold my manhood cheap if it was all I could do.

----------


## Got-ya

[QUOTE=Tussock;889149]


 The better follow through comes from being more deliberate with each shot. When I shoot a group at 100m I can see each round hit the paper and for me, the pressure builds not to blow the group out and it is a distraction. This alone can mean your groups tighten up when you shoot further out. 



Bit like when shooting DTL, target 25 and your on a possible? I know that feeling.

----------

