Thread: Rifle Modifications-Improvement or Victim of Marketing

Originally Posted by Tentman

The whole hunting and shooting realm is a fashion industry, rifles made before the turn of the 20th century are bugger all different from what is now offered, with the possible exceptio n of optics .. . . a nice lightweight Mauser '95 7x57 will do anything a 2023 Tikka will!

yep they even sport the same "low" comb of the old originals for use with open sights, even though most new rifles come without them!!
So we fit comb raisers of all sorts or replace the new rifle stocks with new ones. It makes you wonder!!

What did you find worked best for spacers? Did you make your own or purchase purpose made spacers?

Originally Posted by dannyb

For accuracy there are so many variables that add up to make a difference.
For me I have owned all sorts of cool stuff but in a nut shell the basics of good accuracy come down to:

Good shooting technique
Good barrel
Good trigger
Good bedding
Good ergonomics between shooter and rifle
Good ammo
Good optics

How you get there is up to the individual there's nothing wrong with a little rifle vanity if it makes you happy, but it's not necessary for accuracy. You can buy a stock, Tikka, Sako, Remington, Howa etc etc etc and whack a reasonable scope and rings on it and shoot sub moa if you have the skill set.
It's a personal choice, do what makes you happy
Life would be pretty boring if we had the same stuff

But you'd have a hellofalotofmoney for a rainy day. Not to mention lots more hunts under the belt. Talking of money I'm spending mine on global hunting adventures, starting in sept.

Originally Posted by mikee

yep they even sport the same "low" comb of the old originals for use with open sights, even though most new rifles come without them!!
So we fit comb raisers of all sorts or replace the new rifle stocks with new ones. It makes you wonder!!

I am pleased I am a dedicated wood blue man - can spend more on scope - but been neat thread to read really - bit disappointing on another thread to read some of these synthetic stocks need refurbishment - wonder how widespread that is - always did wonder how some of these carbon wrap jobbies would stand up - me well Shultz and Larsen Victory would do it all for me - yes some will say a little heavy - been lumping heavier rifles around for years does not worry me - started hunting with a fully wooded .303 so learnt young

Ten years ago I got suckered in and started to search for "Accuracy".
Spent time and money at it.
Now I have come a full circle and happy that close enough is good enough.
Main secret to accuracy is, "If you don't feel comfortable, don't take the shot".

Originally Posted by Hall

Ten years ago I got suckered in and started to search for "Accuracy".
Spent time and money at it.
Now I have come a full circle and happy that close enough is good enough.
Main secret to accuracy is, "If you don't feel comfortable, don't take the shot".

You are dead right Hall - accuracy is a fickle thing sometimes - never ceases to amaze me how much hunters spend in the search when at times the awnser is right in front of them - take my old 700 Rem BDL - on a target I would very confidentally put it up against a modern Tikka provided same scope - power and ammo - yet now likely well under half the cost - yes a little heavier but- some of the older rifles shoot - sitting in our local store is an early LSA 55 Tikka in .270 - lovely wood - and I bet the modern ones would struggle to really have a accuracy advantage and its all steel and a lot cheaper - and how many will not admit they stuffed the accuracy by playing around and getting the recipe wrong - seen that happen a few times - much head scratching how the fuck has this thing gone from shooting an inch to over two inches - well ya attempt at improving the bedding did not work did it - but what ever rocks ya boat so long as ya get out and shoot things thats more the main thing - my rant for day - and yes enjoyed it as I do dragging a fat little fallow home and putting it on table

Originally Posted by SmokeyJason

But you'd have a hellofalotofmoney for a rainy day. Not to mention lots more hunts under the belt. Talking of money I'm spending mine on global hunting adventures, starting in sept.

Good for you. Care to say where you're headed ....?
( off-topic question, sorry. I can PM if preferred )

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

You are dead right Hall - accuracy is a fickle thing sometimes - never ceases to amaze me how much hunters spend in the search when at times the awnser is right in front of them - take my old 700 Rem BDL - on a target I would very confidentally put it up against a modern Tikka provided same scope - power and ammo - yet now likely well under half the cost - yes a little heavier but- some of the older rifles shoot - sitting in our local store is an early LSA 55 Tikka in .270 - lovely wood - and I bet the modern ones would struggle to really have a accuracy advantage and its all steel and a lot cheaper - and how many will not admit they stuffed the accuracy by playing around and getting the recipe wrong - seen that happen a few times - much head scratching how the fuck has this thing gone from shooting an inch to over two inches - well ya attempt at improving the bedding did not work did it - but what ever rocks ya boat so long as ya get out and shoot things thats more the main thing - my rant for day - and yes enjoyed it as I do dragging a fat little fallow home and putting it on table

my .223 is still hot glue gun bedded from 20 years ago...Ive taken it apart,looked at it and realise its still shooting really well so leave the plurry thing alone.....

Interesting thread, which rings bells with me.

I have 4 centrefire rifles and always reach for the cheapest and least flash for a hunt. It’s a .284 Win converted T3 with a factory barrel, stock and trigger and its shoots better than my full custom 7RM that cost many times more. I have thought about a carbon stock, but with the bedded and stabilised stock I have repeatability and don’t care about scratches.

Aside from bedding, all I have done is mill the small transition off the front of the action to make it flat and fitted a Remington style recoil lug with the same outer profile as the action as I’m not a fan of the captive lug system on T3s.

The lesson for me is that flash harry rifles don’t necessarily shoot better, definitely cost way more, and are too nice to hunt with.

Another change for me is a desire for a blued walnut rifle. Must be an age thing, but that will be next - probably a Mauser 98 based rifle.

A few years back when I started looking at getting into a bit of long range (for me anyway) shooting. I asked a mate that knows what he's talking about what I should spend my hard earned money on to improve my accuracy. His advice "buy ammo" . Buy as much as you can comfortably afford and go shoot it. Learn your gun, learn your drops/drift . Shoot outside your comfort zone until it becomes comfortable. Shoot rocks, shoot rabbits. You will miss, but because you have plenty of ammo fire a couple more shots and figure out why you missed. Can be a little hard to do in an ammo shortage, but still some of the best advice I have had.


Sent from my SM-G525F using Tapatalk

Jeff Cooper warned us to beware the man with one gun - he knows how to use it.

I read a really interesting article in an american magazine about 20 years ago. The author bought about seven identical Remington 700s and checked the out of box accuracy for each one, following that each rifle was given a single upgrade. Trigger, bore polish, bedding, etc.

After each upgrade the rifles were again tested and a before/after group size noted.

While there could still be un controlled variable in this test, it seemed like a fair stab at finding the truth.

From memory the two things that really made the difference were the trigger and the bore polish. The other upgrades did not make much practical diffrrence.

Originally Posted by longshot

I read a really interesting article in an american magazine about 20 years ago. The author bought about seven identical Remington 700s and checked the out of box accuracy for each one, following that each rifle was given a single upgrade. Trigger, bore polish, bedding, etc.

After each upgrade the rifles were again tested and a before/after group size noted.

While there could still be un controlled variable in this test, it seemed like a fair stab at finding the truth.

From memory the two things that really made the difference were the trigger and the bore polish. The other upgrades did not make much practical diffrrence.

can really believe the trigger - nothing worse than a bad one - dont the best rifle makers do a hand lap final polish - seem to recall Shultz and Larsen do

I’ve had a lot of fun buying a cheap 223 Remington 700 ADL; finding a secondhand stock, then a magazine kit, scope rings, scope, suppressor and now developing loads for the 1:12 “old fashioned” twist. I guess buying a new Tikka would have been cheaper but I’ve learned heaps, met so many helpful people (on this forum too) spent hours messing around and had a lot of fun. For me the journey beats out of the box plug and play.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

I have recently noticed the legendary Tikka accuracy appears to be slipping and/or isn't as easy to access as it used to be pre T3X

A while back Dan Hardy had both 223 and 243 Tikka barrels for sale. So we grabbed a few awaiting the time we need to rebarrel.