Do off the shelf rifles really differ that much?

[Shooter243]

Im looking to purchase a rifle for the first time and get into the sport. Not likely to have the oportunity to hunt often so I'm gearing towards something that'll easily reach out to 600 and has potential to hit out to 1000m.

As such, I've been doing some research on what makes rifles accurate and I'm concerned that the info I'm looking at is dated. Things like beded actions and floating barrels seem to be standard. Also it's difficult as hell to find out the specs of scopes, e.g. types of glass (if its high density glass or not), lens configuration to get rid chromatic aberration, etc.

Basically, are there any pointers regarding how to research what rifle to buy based on objective facts, e.g. construction/features?

Fyi: currently leaning towards a tikka t3x, .243 varmint. With 3-15x scope.
Tikka because I'm under the impression their quality control is better, i.e. less likely to get a dud.
3-15x, because apparently it's clarity and turret tracking over magnification.
Varmint, for heavy barrel less likely to be effected by quick succession shots at 200m ranges.
.243 for flat shooting relatively cheap rounds and vercitly for hunting.

[cracker]

Im looking to purchase a rifle for the first time and get into the sport. Not likely to have the oportunity to hunt often so I'm gearing towards something that'll easily reach out to 600 and has potential to hit out to 1000m.

As such, I've been doing some research on what makes rifles accurate and I'm concerned that the info I'm looking at is dated. Things like beded actions and floating barrels seem to be standard. Also it's difficult as hell to find out the specs of scopes, e.g. types of glass (if its high density glass or not), lens configuration to get rid chromatic aberration, etc.

Basically, are there any pointers regarding how to research what rifle to buy based on objective facts, e.g. construction/features?

Fyi: currently leaning towards a tikka t3x, .243 varmint. With 3-15x scope.
Tikka because I'm under the impression their quality control is better, i.e. less likely to get a dud.
3-15x, because apparently it's clarity and turret tracking over magnification.
Varmint, for heavy barrel less likely to be effected by quick succession shots at 200m ranges.
.243 for flat shooting relatively cheap rounds and vercitly for hunting.

sounds good too me id go .308 over .243

[SCJ429]

The Tikka 243 comes with a 1:10 twist and you will not be able to shoot 105 or 107 grain VLD. That is fine as a 85 or 90 grain projectile will shoot well from 300 to 500 and even a bit further.

If it was me starting out with some distance shooting, I would start with a 223 with a 1:8 twist and shoot 80 grain Bergers. Easy to tune and shoot, great for learning how to shoot in the wind.

I wouldn't get too concearned about the performance of your scope, I have never seen a Nightforce that negatively impacted on my shooting. Even cheap scopes are quite useable these days.

A 15x scope is not a lot of magnification for 500 or 600 metres.

[in2anity]

Accuracy mostly comes from the barrel. It can be further divided into precision and repeatability. Most modern guns will shoot a few rounds precisely, but as the barrel heats, particularly in cheaper barrels, the point of impact will start to wander. A heavier barrel slows this process. A high quality barrel is subject to much better consistency, meaning it has a better chance of holding the zero.

Sako and Tikka barrels are among the best factory barrels available - I doubt very much you’ll be disappointed with a varmint tikka. Still, if you want the pinnacle of repeatability, you will need to consider an aftermarket match grade target barrel. But of course you will have to pay a lot more for it...

[MrSavage]

You should consider a Lithgow.
Good accurate rifles and Australian made.
They come in 243 and 308.
I'd take one over a tikka.

[SCJ429]

You should consider a Lithgow.
Good accurate rifles and Australian made.
They come in 243 and 308.
I'd take one over a tikka.

What Lithgow do you have and how well can it shoot?

[solarpak]

You should consider a Lithgow.
Good accurate rifles and Australian made.
They come in 243 and 308.
I'd take one over a tikka.

+1 on what mr savage said.....
The Lithgow in 308 can be had for around $1100 or so when i last checked.....

They are very accurate - and made to be used as a hunting a la target rifle ....hence the crossover tag.


Tikka's are very nice too but the better spec models are north of $1500 and a sako 85 probably around $2500 plus.

Howa make some great models too - and lots of stock options to choose from too.

With glass - if you want something decent for shooting out to 600m - and to be clear as all buggery - lots to choose from. Meopta Meostar, Leupold VX5 VX6, Zeiss V6 .......etc..... will set u back at least $1K but worth it if image quality is important.

C

[Wm.Traynor]

If you are getting in to the sport, are you a novice? A 22lr is the best place to start, IMO. As for, "...what makes rifles accurate...", That is a helluva good question. For instance, a former club mate used to talk about a rifle that was half shot out but which still shot bulls eyes. Obviously, you would not touch a rifle like that with a barge pole IF you didn't know it. So to answer your question, as best I can, it is attention to detail, ATD. You mentioned bedding, for instance. One of my rifles was factory bedded in some kind of compound; epoxy probably. But someone forgot the release agent and glued the action and stock together. That is very unimpressive for $1800. And speaking of money, that is usually the most important difference and you would like to think that price reflected ATD. But the most important detail might be how much accuracy do you want? Benchrest or hunting accuracy?

[flutch]

most decent stuff tends to be about the same in accuracy and failures... most of the issues I've heard of are more related to feeding from magazines, bolt components, and stocks being cheap snot that regardless of what mods people do never stop warping and touching barrels, for this reason i will never have a synthetic stock again. that and they looks ******.

my weatherby, howa and remington rifles all cost me under 1200 each and are all well within sub moa accuracy. likewise my ruger 22lr is great also for a $450 gun

the only issues i have had to sort are mostly on the remington, the stock originally synthetic, was a pile of utter embarrassing crap. as well as the box mag being a pile of crap and never feeding properly on the last two rounds.

[marksman]

l think you will find the T3x will do what you want, the tikkas have plenty of oal room for medium length rounds with long vld oal's
there is still quite a bit of hand fitting and tweaking you could do to make it a more precise shooting rifle
l'd even go as far as to say that l would get it rechambered to an ackley or even better a 6mm slr but that is me
the only thing l am unsure of is what the twist is in the upgraded T3x, if it is still a 1 in 10" it might not be best for longer distances

here's a review worth looking at
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/thread ... w.3926569/

[SCJ429]

The Tikka barrels are so hard that you can break your reamer trying to give them the Ackley treatment.

I have a Tikka 243 and 223, the 243 is on its third barrel but the 223 has about 4000 rounds through it and I shot a 0.260 group with it last weekend using ZMax and in a gusty wind.

[GQshayne]

I will add my 2c here - something for you to think about.

For me personally, a hunting rifle, and a rifle that can target shoot from 600-1000m are not one rifle and scope. I would need two rifles, with two different scopes. The exception would be if the hunting rifle was for long range varminting. But I would hate to have to use a target rifle for general hunting.

If you are just starting out, and really want to target shoot at long range, then I would consider buying a rifle and scope for that purpose. In particular, a 15 power scope is not a lot at 600m.

[bigrich]

well shooter243 , if your new to the sport you would be better of with a 22lr at least to learn , if you want a centre fire get the tikka, but in the tight twist (1-9 ?) 223 that is cheap to shoot, low recoil , and will throw heavy for caliber projectiles out to 500-600 metres . 6-20 or 24 scope of decent qaulity should get the magnification you need . i'm not trying to rain on your parade, but ya gotta learn to crawl before you can walk JMHO

[Sergeant Hartman]

I am surprised no one here has suggested him to practice on call of duty then get a 300wm... or even 338 of any description. Hehehe

As big rich and a few others have said, get a 22lr/223 and practice heaps... easy to shoot and cheap to run. Learn the basics (to crawl) before aiming for 1000m.

I think a tikka in 243 might be to much to get to 1k.... you will quickly lose interest (after spending a fair bit on the gun and scope and factory ammo) when firstly you won't be able to easily find a 1000m range... and when you do find one and get there then you will not be able to hit the side of a barn at 1k.

[TassieTiger]

In with Z.
338 Lapua or 300 win mag is def worth looking at - why buy twice? You’ll end up there eventually!

It’s a interesting question - and I don’t think there’s a straight answer as everyone else has touched on.

I consider that 30 years ago a sub Moa rifle was only available to the upper echelon of the sport. The die hards whom applied them selves to not only full house builds but carefully loaded bullets.
Now? I doubt you could buy a 2 moa bolt gun off the shelf - any man and dog can spend $2k and shoot sun moa and 500m with factory ammo...

The question for me then becomes - how deep do you want to swim down?
Do you want to chase .267 groups? Do you need to hit 5 inches at 1000 or would you be happy to smack some large gongs at 600? Are you content to carry a 5kg rifle over the mountain and 7klms to the hunting grounds or do you need a 3kg set up for loong walks?
I think almost every manufacturer offers a sub Moa bolt gun for between 600 and 1500 dollars. If your content to not be tooooo serious - but the one that shoulders best and then go play
Splitting hairs in shooting costs time and $$$....

[pomemax]

Its always amazing how people want to shoot out to 600 and has potential to hit out to 1000m. before they get any sort of fire arm. ( I cant remember if I did it was 47 years ago when I bought my first )
As some have said get a rimfire .22 and shoot 1500 round a week @ 50 meters for a few months then get a centerfirewhen you have a bit of experience .
the reason is .22 amo for 50 costs $10
308 amo for 20 cost $42
243 amo for 20 cost $36

You will get a lot more practice with .22 /$$$

If your $ can stretch to it get a .22 and a 243 you can pick up a .22 for $199 brand new a (norinco chinese ) or ANSCHUTZ up to $ 2300 depends what you can spend

[Leadspitter]

Shooter 243

Do yourself a favour and buy a 22 .

Practice on the 22 at the range

Find an old hand at the range with a 243

See what groups he is getting at 200 yards

Then you see how you go !

That will be a big wake up call.

The same people that think mc donalds is food, think that 600 metres is easy.

[SCJ429]

Shooter 243

Do yourself a favour and buy a 22 .

Practice on the 22 at the range

Find an old hand at the range with a 243

See what groups he is getting at 200 yards

Then you see how you go !

That will be a big wake up call.

The same people that think mc donalds is food, think that 600 metres is easy.

How is he going to have a go himself at 200 if he bought the rimfire you recommended? 200 with a rimfire is like 500 with a 243.

[marksman]

I really dont see a problem with someone wanting to shoot a 243 at 600, really l assume he will be shooting gongs ect.. and not comp
but what if he did its what he wants to do

[sungazer]

I have a Sako 85 243 and I have shot it at 600yrds on electronic targets and it performed very well. I was shooting the 90grn Berger Target bullets the rifle from memory is a 1:10 twist. It performed very well and certainly can shoot less than 1 MOA. I also shoot the 100 grn Sierra Pro Hunter and 100 grn Gameking the 1:10 stabilizes both of these without fuss.

The question do "off the Shelf rifles really differ that much" my answer would probably be "No they dont". Sure like anything there are the outliers in both good and bad and the prices can vary dramatically.

[SCJ429]

That 90 grain flat based Berger is hard to beat at 300 and is a solid performer at 500. They are a bit easier to get over the 105 VLD.

[GQshayne]

I have a Sako 85 243 and I have shot it at 600yrds on electronic targets and it performed very well. I was shooting the 90grn Berger Target bullets the rifle from memory is a 1:10 twist. It performed very well and certainly can shoot less than 1 MOA. I also shoot the 100 grn Sierra Pro Hunter and 100 grn Gameking the 1:10 stabilizes both of these without fuss.

The question do "off the Shelf rifles really differ that much" my answer would probably be "No they dont". Sure like anything there are the outliers in both good and bad and the prices can vary dramatically.

I agree here. I think many people spend most of their time splitting hairs over the rifle, when the choice of scope is probably the more important decision.

[in2anity]

While glass is important, I believe the inherent accuracy of the rifle to be more-so. If you shoot smallbore or fullbore, you will learn a lot of good shooting comes from technique and muscle memory. Sure magnification is nice for cross-armed shooting, but quality of glass easily trumps magnification in my books.

[Shooter243]

Hi All, thanks for pitching in.

Lets get one thing straight first.... What do you mean all my hours of call of duty dont count?!?!

Guys i appreciate that i cant start off shooting at 600m. Wouldnt know where I would do this regularly anyway most ranges are up 200m.

To get into it I'm planning on shooting about once a month up 200m and on the rare occasion go to the 600m range. I'm hoping while I'm in the sport ill figure out some venues to shoot a longer distances and by that time I should have a decent amount of rounds under my belt. Also I have shot a .243 before so im not going completely blind.

Currently I'm working under the impression that I may not get that much more shots out of .22 due to barrel heating, i.e. I'll still need to pace myself so in an hour i wont get that many more rounds down range. Will need you guys to advise on the whole barrel heating thing and if its as big a factor as im making it out to be.

The main thing that put me off the .22 however was my experience shooting .22 pistols... it was really underwhelming. So I'd have to really be sure i'll get a whole lot more 'learning' done on a .22 before making that choice. I'm aware however that .243 are barrel burner's as SCJ429 has mentioned and thats another plus for the .22

Regarding scopes, my info regarding 15x comes from youtube vids... not sure how valid the info is. I have seen what targets look like at 500 and 1000 at that mag and it it pretty tiny but you can still see it. Good luck seeing your groups however without going for a long walk. So I have been considering the Leupold VX5. again most of my shooting will be up to 200m.

SCJ429 kinda disappointed to hear that 1:10 wont shoot 100+ grain... part of my thinking was that I had that option for the long range shots

Regarding accuracy, i'd like to be confident of putting sub moa groups at 200 and being confident I can hit 600m within the first couple of shots. preferably one. latter goal obviously much harder than former.

Regarding actual question, seems like no one really disagrees that most off the shelf rifles differ to much regarding accuracy, however there is some support for the idea that more expensive may equal more reliable...? I considered lithgow but am worried that there might be more (not sure by how much) of a chance i get a rifle that slipped through the tolerances... a lot of people say its luck of the draw so im basically paying to skew the odds.

[duncan61]

.243 is not a barrel burner.It is a very well balanced chamber.I purchased a HOWA .243 for roo culling with a 22 inch barrel in steel for $700 and it has performed faultlessly in the 15 years I have owned it.I last shot the rifle at 300 yards on a range and it still groups well with 80gn PSP Remington that will do pigs and head shot roos out to 200 metres.I would like to come in the field with some of the people who shoot out to 500 metres.how do you find what you have shot???

[SCJ429]

The 243 is an overbore cartridge and can be made worse shooting VLDs fairly fast. My last barrel went south after 1000 rounds, I set the barrel back and shot a further 1500 out of it but it never shot as wel as it did initially.

For the OP, if the 243 shooting 90 grain pills is not what you want, the choices are a 260 shooting 140 or a 223 shooting 80s will get you some long range plinking. My 223 has shot over 4000 rounds and still shoots 80 grain Bergers in the high 0.2s.

[PaddyT]

if you dont want to buy a 22 and you live in Sydney-once youve got your licence go and hire a 22 at St Marys and practice with that- you can also hire at Silverdale (i think) before you move onto your bigger , more expensive calibre. If im having a practice shoot then the 22 always comes along- i can put 2-300 rounds through that while im waiting for my centerfires to cool down. $8 for 50 rounds of CCI Std is a pretty cheap practicing tool-cheaper if you buy in bulk.

[Sergeant Hartman]

There is a cz452 on ssaagunsales website... probably one of the best thing you can do.

It is underwhelming... but it gets you practice, and practice makes perfect. You can easily shoot 200 rounds per sitting of the 22lr without any sore shoulders. It will cost you 20-30 bucks compared to 100+ for the 243 ammo. The 22lr barrel will easily last 10,000-100,000 rounds while the 243 will start to go south after 1500-2000 rounds.

Also i am surprised no one has mentioned 6.5 creedmoor as a lot better long range calibre.

[bigrich]

There is a cz452 on ssaagunsales website... probably one of the best thing you can do.

It is underwhelming... but it gets you practice, and practice makes perfect. You can easily shoot 200 rounds per sitting of the 22lr without any sore shoulders. It will cost you 20-30 bucks compared to 100+ for the 243 ammo. The 22lr barrel will easily last 10,000-100,000 rounds while the 243 will start to go south after 1500-2000 rounds.

Also i am surprised no one has mentioned 6.5 creedmoor as a lot better long range calibre.

i agree on a cz 452 as a good practice rifle that won't break the bank . doing feild rifle with the 22 can be a lot of fun and it's cheap to do .

shooter243 , you stated in your post that your new to the sport , and not being aware of your level of experience and capabilities , such as ability to handle recoil , etc , i recommended a decent qaulity 223 with the fast twist barrel . the tikka t3 can be amazingly accurate ,will last well , and won't break the bank to buy or shoot . getting into the larger calibers could get expensive for you if your not reloading . as ziad has said, the 6.5 CM is a known distance shooter , but will be more expensive and with more recoil than the 223. i'm not judging, or trying to put you down , just trying to offer some genuine advice. if the 243, or 6.5CM is what you want then go for it . it sounds like you've done your research , i'm sure you'll do well

[TassieTiger]

Very Good advice above...real world, usable advice.
I enjoy stuffing around with .22’s - especially whilst waiting for the larger rifles to cool down - they can bea lot of fun. I still recall the step up from .22 to my first ever shot of a 223...and I was hooked. There’s a big jump.