What kind of rifle do I want for accurate target shooting?

[DRob]

Target shooting

Couple of things to consider. You say this will be a target gun which to me means you don't plan on toting it around much. Add to that the concept that you may be shooting a lot and it all equals a heavy varminter. The weight will help it "ride the bags" and the heavy barrel will not heat up as quickly. A standard weight barrel will get very hot very quickly in hot weather. I'm talking only 15-20 rds before the barrel is too hot to leave your hand on it. That's my yardstick when we're prairie doggin'. As the caliber and case capacity increase, so does the heat you're putting into the barrel.

Accuracy: Accuracy is very different to different people, particularly at 100 yards or so. Some are happy to be able to hit a man-size target with every shot at 100 yards. To others, it's stacking bullets through the same hole at 100 yards. If you're going to be shooting a rifle that you wish to call "accurate" you need to decide which of the above applies. I'm closer to the latter than the former and I suspect you will be, too, since you're talking about a scoped bolt gun. All of my dogtown rifles are capable of shooting 1" groups at 100. I waste enough ammo due to my lack of talent. I don't need a gun that complicates the issue.

Caliber: In my opinion, .223 is more than adequate for killing paper at 100 yards and retained energy means nothing. For that matter, so is .17 HMR and several more which lie between those two. .223 ammo is relatively cheap but commercial ammo capable of shooting 1" groups is not. Typical .223 FMJ is not intended to be target ammo and you're probably going to need something like a 1:7 twist barrel to get it to consistently hit a torso-size target at 100 yards. Our .223s are 1:9 or 1:12 twist. That green tip "penetrator" crap keyholed at 25 yards from our 1:12 Howa 1500 SV but the gun took a prairie dog at a lasered 532 yards with a 45 gr. Winchester HP. If you're planning on reloading good ammo, go with a .223. If not, I'd seriously consider a .17 HMR. It's still available for about $11 a box (shipping included) online and will shoot 1" at 100 yards from a rest with any one of a half-dozen decent bolt guns. And, I don't care what anybody says, the mighty HMR is capable of humane one-shot kills on Shoot.N.C targets, even the big ones, at 100!

 

[mammynun]

.223 ammo is relatively cheap but commercial ammo capable of shooting 1" groups is not. Typical .223 FMJ is not intended to be target ammo and you're probably going to need something like a 1:7 twist barrel to get it to consistently hit a torso-size target at 100 yards.

While I agree with the majority of you post, I don't think the above is true.... if it were, none of the people in the military would/could ever qualify as even a marksman.

 

[kludge]

Good point about the magnum rimfires (.22 WMR, .17 HMR). You can get a Savage Model 93-FV (heavy barrel) for under $300, work on varmints and pests out to 150yards... some will claim more than that, and they will shoot! Ammo costs about what surplus 5.56 NATO does.

The reason I have a .223/5.56 and not a .22 WMR is because I reload. (about $0.20 to $0.25 per round or $4-$5/box, not counting brass.)

 

[ryan3030]

Back before the internet we just read, reread and memorized ballistic tables like the one in the annual Remington catalog.

Now you just go to their web site and compare calibers online.

If you really want to learn ballistics, you need to understand ft/Lbs (foot pounds) and the transference of ft/lbs to the target. Many good shooters get their facts wrong and continue to pass on legends and crap about most calibers.

So once you understand trajectory and retained ft/lbs at any given distance then the issue is how do you transfer all or as much as possible of those ft/lbs to your intended target.

Here is a crazy made up example: At 100 yards one bullet has 1000 ft/lbs, the other 100 ft/lbs. The bullet with 1000 ft/lbs blows through the target and out the other side transfering 90 lbs to the target before exiting, retaining 910 ft/lbs. The bullet with 100 ft/lbs enters target and never exits. It transfered 100% of its retained energy to the target.

The big bullet transfered 9% and even less then the smaller, slower bullet.

Bullet selction is the issue within any caliber. Start with the desired end result and work backwards.

What are you shooting at?
What do you want to happen when the bullet hits the target?
How far are you shooting from?
What caliber/calibers do you have to choose from?

Now you go from there.

By the way Ft/lbs is a result of mass and velocity. Go compare common calibers at the Remington site and you will see it real quick.

Super informative post, thanks! Energy transference isn't really a factor in choosing this gun as it will primarily be for target shooting. However I will keep all of this in mind and learn.

 

[ryan3030]

Couple of things to consider. You say this will be a target gun which to me means you don't plan on toting it around much. Add to that the concept that you may be shooting a lot and it all equals a heavy varminter. The weight will help it "ride the bags" and the heavy barrel will not heat up as quickly. A standard weight barrel will get very hot very quickly in hot weather. I'm talking only 15-20 rds before the barrel is too hot to leave your hand on it. That's my yardstick when we're prairie doggin'. As the caliber and case capacity increase, so does the heat you're putting into the barrel.

Accuracy: Accuracy is very different to different people, particularly at 100 yards or so. Some are happy to be able to hit a man-size target with every shot at 100 yards. To others, it's stacking bullets through the same hole at 100 yards. If you're going to be shooting a rifle that you wish to call "accurate" you need to decide which of the above applies. I'm closer to the latter than the former and I suspect you will be, too, since you're talking about a scoped bolt gun. All of my dogtown rifles are capable of shooting 1" groups at 100. I waste enough ammo due to my lack of talent. I don't need a gun that complicates the issue.

Caliber: In my opinion, .223 is more than adequate for killing paper at 100 yards and retained energy means nothing. For that matter, so is .17 HMR and several more which lie between those two. .223 ammo is relatively cheap but commercial ammo capable of shooting 1" groups is not. Typical .223 FMJ is not intended to be target ammo and you're probably going to need something like a 1:7 twist barrel to get it to consistently hit a torso-size target at 100 yards. Our .223s are 1:9 or 1:12 twist. That green tip "penetrator" crap keyholed at 25 yards from our 1:12 Howa 1500 SV but the gun took a prairie dog at a lasered 532 yards with a 45 gr. Winchester HP. If you're planning on reloading good ammo, go with a .223. If not, I'd seriously consider a .17 HMR. It's still available for about $11 a box (shipping included) online and will shoot 1" at 100 yards from a rest with any one of a half-dozen decent bolt guns. And, I don't care what anybody says, the mighty HMR is capable of humane one-shot kills on Shoot.N.C targets, even the big ones, at 100!

Very thoughtful post, thank you. I'll keep my eye open for these calibers at the gun show tomorrow.

 

[Jay]

I can't add much to the equipment detailed above, except to say that once a 1MOA rifle is obtained, the accuracy goal then rests on the shoulders of the shooter, and ammunition. Without all three being effective.... rifle, shooter, and ammunition, your accuracy will likely be less than you desire.

 

[DocIndy]

My Stevens 200 is a 1 in 9 twist and it hates the 68 & 69 gr. match ammo. Stuff it with Hornady 55 gr.V-Max and you'll cut cloverleafs all day long. It all depends on the gun. They are like women.... just because your wife likes perfume X doesn't mean your girlfriend will. And just a FYI..... if you keep an eye on the Dick's ads, you might find a Remington 700 SPS .223 with a 26" heavy barrel with a Remington (Tasco) 4-12x40 scope in cheap weaver style bases and rings for @$499. Its a 1 in 12 twist but even with the cheap scope you can upgrade it later and shoot it with the cheapy in the meantime.

 

[DRob]

Military standards

While I agree with the majority of you post, I don't think the above is true.... if it were, none of the people in the military would/could ever qualify as even a marksman.

What standards do they have to meet to be considered a marksman? Last I heard was they had to be able to hit a man at 200 meters. That's not much of a shot! Not being snide, I just don't know for sure.

I do know all the surplus ammo I've had required a fast twist barrel and turned out to be utterly useless for the kind of shooting we do and performed very poorly in our guns. It made noise and that's about all that could be said for it. The only reason I had it was I didn't know any better at the time.

 

[mammynun]

What standards do they have to meet to be considered a marksman? Last I heard was they had to be able to hit a man at 200 meters. That's not much of a shot! Not being snide, I just don't know for sure.

I do know all the surplus ammo I've had required a fast twist barrel and turned out to be utterly useless for the kind of shooting we do and performed very poorly in our guns. It made noise and that's about all that could be said for it. The only reason I had it was I didn't know any better at the time.

It's been too long for me to remember exactly what the standards are (were?), so I'll leave that question to someone more current. I do remember that it involved pop up targets from 25(?) to 300 yards (might have been meters), and I believe that 40 was the max. I spent most of my 6 yrs with a WELL worn m16a1 (1:12 twist, IIRC) with irons, and I imagine we were shooting m193 (55gr). I don't think I ever scored lower than expert (37? to 40 hits). I wasn't a great shot then (I'm still not), but I'm confident that I could go out today and hit 40/40 with my AR @100 yards on an "e-type" silhouette (which is basically a "torso").

I guess my point is that while better ammo certainly exists, I don't think surplus 5.56 in any flavor is ineffective under 250-300 yards unless a specific rifle just hates it. I have a Savage 12FCV in .223 that is accurate with with m193, but doesn't like m855 as much. It will shoot either surplus to ~1MOA (I believe that I'm the weak link), but it does seem to do better with the lighter surplus rounds. It groups best with 69gr Federal SMK, but it's not enough of a difference (at least @100yds) for me to justify the cost.

BTW, I am aware of the differences between .223 and 5.56, but I don't concern myself with them in a .223 bolt rifle.

 

[Zoub]

Super informative post, thanks! Energy transference isn't really a factor in choosing this gun as it will primarily be for target shooting. However I will keep all of this in mind and learn.

For now...............eventually you will want to shoot "bigger" paper, maybe even a 2x4 I guess I thought you were going to work your way up to whacking some kind of critter. I hear the word ballistics and I always equate it to kiling something. Even if you just punch paper, it is good to understand all of ballistics. Knowledge is power and trick shots are fun.

Food for thought:

If you shoot a gallon jug full of water, with red dye added, what bullet is best if you want a dramatic blast?

It is after Halloween and you find you have unlimited access to Pumpkins to shoot, what do you use? I love the smell of burning pumpkin in the morning.

Your Mother In-Law gives you crappy gifts for Xmas, you take them to the range for a fitting demise. Is FMJ really the best choice?

Have fun!

 

[oldbikelvr]

What standards do they have to meet to be considered a marksman? Last I heard was they had to be able to hit a man at 200 meters. That's not much of a shot! Not being snide, I just don't know for sure.

When I was in the Marine Corps we shot at 200, 300 and 500 meters to qualify. I used and M16 A2. I can't speak for what other branches did, and that was the early 90's.

 

[2cool9031]

I have a Savage Edge in .223, accurate and relatively cheap. I have seen them for $249.00 on sale.

 

[DRob]

Good discussion

Thanks to the guys who posted info on military standards. I think the discussion needs some input from the OP. What kind of "accuracy" are we talking about? What kind of shooting are we talking about? I can't hit a Greyhound bus at 300 yards with iron sights shooting offhand but, from a bench, with a scope, I have a pretty good batting average on prairie dogs (for the uninitiated, they're somewhat smaller than the above-mentioned bus) at the same distance. We are not comparing apples to apples. Shooting a 1" group (3 shots, 5 shots, doesn't matter) at 100 yards is a lot different than hitting a torso-sized target. Not to throw-off on a different type of shooting but it's clearly two different applications of the word "accuracy".

 

[ryan3030]

My definition of the word accuracy is putting bullets where you want them to go. There is no such thing as too much accuracy, so for all intents and purposes let's assume the smallest groups possible from 100 yards.

 

[KillStick]

I would say for just pure enjoyment and the thrill of a historical firearm would be a M1 Garand. Savage makes some good accurate weapons at a affordable price also.

 

[silkpoet]

A Remington 700 Varmit in .223 could be very accurate and very cheap to shoot. The up-side is that you would have many options available to customize and accurize it later.

 

[thegeez]

I would go with a Savage in .223 caliber and the accu-trigger=for the money,you can't beat it.