|
|
|||||||
I think too many people try to make varmint rifles out of their hunting rifles - or - expect too much from a rifle shooting bullets designed primarily for killing big game. In the 70's, a hunting rifle that grouped 1 1/2" to 2" was a 'real' hunting rifle. The bullets themselves weren't as well made and were mostly incapable of making the tiny groups we've come to expect with today's bullets. I was shooting 'postition' competition then and in building a rifle, one capable of holding the 10 ring was deemed to be necessary. Any better than that, and it was gravy. The 10 ring meant 10 shots into 1". I am talking match rifle, not hunting rifle. Many of the guns we built were on Mauser actions and were capable of X ring accuracy - that's 1/2" for 10 shots. Pure gravy. BR rifles then, would place in top 5 with an ag. of 1/4", yet today, many people thing their off the shelf '06 should do as well. I think too many 2-shot groups are measured. If I was putting Woodleighs out at 2,300fps to 2,400fps from a 'Taylor' and achieved 1 1/2" to 1 3/4", I'd be quite happy with the accuracy. At the ranges most game is shot, pin-point accuracy is within the capabilities of such a rifle. With perfect alignement of sights, the centre of the bullet hole will be no more than 1/2" from the aiming point at 50 yards, and .7/8" from the cross hairs at double that range assuming 1 3/4 MOA capability. At extended ranges where pin point accuracy is not needed and lung/heart/shoulder shots are taken, even 2" will still do the job, perfectly. We all like to have a rifle that shoots bug holes - makes for good bragging rights - but, it doesn't make it an better of a hunting rifle, especially in .416 calibre. Seems to me the 'old' .416 Taylor standard was 72gr. IMR4320 for 2,400fps. Re#15 is a more consistant powder in heat, and the AR powders are better yet. I'd be looking at the Ausi' equivalents of H4895 and Varget. I've consistantly received better accuracy from H4895 than with Re#15 in my .375's and 9.3's. They are close, but the H's have done better. |