Forum shooting challenge: The under 500 500

[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

[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,
* 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)

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

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. 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 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

[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.