Remington or savage? Please help

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Well when you can sit around all day and fire rounds at turbans in the desert at 1000 yds, yes you will eventually hit one once in a while. You can take one of those shooters to the nationals, super shoot, or the worlds with their .303 and I guarantee they will come in last place. Even the most accurate Lee Enfield is really not a very accurate rifle. 1" groups at 100 yds will get you last place in any registered match.
Gunner, I would like to see what you and your friends could do if you had some really accurate rifles.

How about one hole three shots 1200mtrs to qualify . Does caliber matter lol. as for the boy shooting back in the day there targets shoot back .

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

All the men that used them are a bit older now. Bull at 100 in 30 sec from standing with rifle . How acurate is this bench.

You are speaking of two complete different accuracy parameters.
The bench is the ultimate in pure accuracy to the point where you can see the accuracy difference in different lots of match ammo when a particular rifle is set in a machine rest on the bench.
A different rifle however, may not yield the same results.
Same as your qualifying rounds example.
However, when rifle accuracy is the topic among match shooters ( and many non- match shooters), the benched rifle is normally where the topic draws to, not the style in which it is shot.
Cat

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

How about one hole three shots 1200mtrs to qualify . Does caliber matter lol. as for the boy shooting back in the day there targets shoot back .

Make no mistake, the targets you are speaking if shoot back today as well, and there is not a sniper around who will argue that a No.4 T was a better rifle than even the Parker hale, let alone the Timberwolf.
I might add here, that either benched or shot offhand, both the Remington and the Savage rifles are about on par for production guns.....
Cat

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Make no mistake, the targets you are speaking if shoot back today as well, and there is not a sniper around who will argue that a No.4 T was a better rifle than even the Parker hale, let alone the Timberwolf.
I might add here, that either benched or shot offhand, both the Remington and the Savage rifles are about on par for production guns.....
Cat

Im with you cat . My point is your talkin .5" variances. In real time real world shooting (hunting) this is way over the top unless your a range rat all summer. As we aggree ten Remingtons will have over that .5" as will ten savages. Please remember I try to bring some jest in my posts .

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

How about one hole three shots 1200mtrs to qualify . Does caliber matter lol. as for the boy shooting back in the day there targets shoot back .

Pick 3 cartridges if you can put them in the same hole at 1200 mtrs first try with a .303... heck I'll give you 10 tries , if you can do it once out of 10 tries I'll give you an ounce of gold..grin.
We are arguing two different things, accuracy of a shooter or shooting talent verses accuracy of a rifle. Two different things, one isn't much use without the other.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Pick 3 cartridges if you can put them in the same hole at 1200 mtrs first try with a .303... heck I'll give you 10 tries , if you can do it once out of 10 tries I'll give you an ounce of gold..grin.
We are arguing two different things, accuracy of a shooter or shooting talent verses accuracy of a rifle. Two different things, one isn't much use without the other.

Thats why I stated caliber in that post, thats minimum req for 120.lol and yes were mudling the thread. no a 303 enfild in the best hands will not clover leaf at 1200. My suggestion is as cat stated earlier accuracy variance between a box of savages and a box of Remington will vary more than any would like to admit.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

My suggestion is as cat stated earlier accuracy variance between a box of savages and a box of Remington will vary more than any would like to admit.

Can't argue with that, I've seen it, sometimes you get a good one sometimes you get a turd.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Pick 3 cartridges if you can put them in the same hole at 1200 mtrs first try with a .303... heck I'll give you 10 tries , if you can do it once out of 10 tries I'll give you an ounce of gold..grin.
We are arguing two different things, accuracy of a shooter or shooting talent verses accuracy of a rifle. Two different things, one isn't much use without the other.

You ate talking about absolute.In real hunting,or combat situation I am completely agree with Fish Gunner.Have not seen too many real talents on the field.
Seen professional hunters shooting cheap (old,don't want to mention which,so price wouldn't go up) rifles off hand with results many modern snipers would never did

[twofifty]

To me practical accuracy is what matters. What a gun will do off the bench is of secondary importance.

Any guy who can keep most of his rounds (say 8 out of 10) within a 6" pie plate at 100 yards standing offhand is a very good practical shooter in my eyes.

If the same guy keeps 8 out of 10 into a 4" circle while seated on the ground or kneeling, that too is very good practical shooting.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by twofifty

To me practical accuracy is what matters. What a gun will do off the bench is of secondary importance.

Any guy who can keep most of his rounds (say 8 out of 10) within a 6" pie plate at 100 yards standing offhand is a very good practical shooter in my eyes.

If the same guy keeps 8 out of 10 into a 4" circle while seated on the ground or kneeling, that too is very good practical shooting.

Here we go-gold words! All rest is marketing! from guys practicing shooting for 12 hrs a day in their X Box!

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Best shooter on earth is only as accurate as the rifle he's shooting.

And most rifles now are better than the guy behind it.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by sailor

Here we go-gold words! All rest is marketing! from guys practicing shooting for 12 hrs a day in their X Box!

Unless we are talking about accuracy rifles like long range varmint rifles or match rifles for instance.

And if you are speaking of palma match or Fclass, you you had better be able to shoot 8" at a lot further than 100 yards off your belly.
Even national course shooters shoot far better than that.

Cat

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by sailor

You ate talking about absolute.In real hunting,or combat situation I am completely agree with Fish Gunner.Have not seen too many real talents on the field.
Seen professional hunters shooting cheap (old,don't want to mention which,so price wouldn't go up) rifles off hand with results many modern snipers would never did

REALLY? every single sniper I ever knew ( and I know a few real ones on both sides of the border) was also a hunter, and they were VERY accurate.

Cat

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

And most rifles now are better than the guy behind it.

Yup

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by twofifty

To me practical accuracy is what matters. What a gun will do off the bench is of secondary importance.

Unless you happen to be a competitive benchrest shooter. Many rifles are not designed to be shot offhand. Shooting sports are growing rapidly. A lot of folks buy rifles or have them made for all sorts of sporting or competitive venues besides hunting or offhand shooting. Of The shooters who shoot the most, many don't even hunt or own a hunting rifle

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Unless you happen to be a competitive benchrest shooter. Many rifles are not designed to be shot offhand. Shooting sports are growing rapidly. A lot of folks buy rifles or have them made for all sorts of sporting or competitive venues besides hunting or offhand shooting. Of The shooters who shoot the most, many don't even hunt or own a hunting rifle

Can not but agree with you,and when they try regular forces rifles with heavy triggers their results are pathetic

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by sailor

Can not but agree with you,and when they try regular forces rifles with heavy triggers their results are pathetic

The BR guys I have shot with can shoot equally well with either an issue service rifle or a BR gun.
many of them shoot both as a matter of fact.
if you know how to set up a shot sequence the type of rifle (or trigger for that matter) does not matter, it's the shot sequence that matters.
Cat

[Unregistered user]

I've been shooting Savage since before they were cool. Kinda like Polaris quads, DBs with no experience trash talked them but they sell like crazy these days. So yes, Savage by a country mile.

[north american hunter]

Good choice with the savage, you cannot go wrong with the accu trigger

[sailor]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

The BR guys I have shot with can shoot equally well with either an issue service rifle or a BR gun.
many of them shoot both as a matter of fact.
if you know how to set up a shot sequence the type of rifle (or trigger for that matter) does not matter, it's the shot sequence that matters.
Cat

Absolutely agree-lots of talents (as Bushrat mentioned),not on the field though.But ,Cat It's a different story,looks like we derailng this thread.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by sailor

Absolutely agree-lots of talents (as Bushrat mentioned),not on the field though.Buy Cat It's a different story,looks like we derailng this thread.

You mean the h8unting field?
read my previous post, EVERY sniper i know hunts and they are EXCELLENT field shots, with either a savage or a Remington, some own both.

Cat

[sailor]

Sorry Cat I didn't mean to start argument.And no, on field I meant,they don't hunt with savage

[Cooeylover]

I got both and they both shoot good.
I lean to remington cause the fit n finish of my savage is ugly and looks like crap IMHO. But it shoots as tight as my model 700. And I can't argue holes in paper.

[Speckle55]

5000000 shooters cant be wrong I would choose Rem 700 series .. i choose a BDL 7mm Mag for my main gun but I have a Savage too in 308 model 99

as always this is

Food for Thought

David

[Lemonz]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

5000000 shooters cant be wrong I would choose Rem 700 series .. i choose a BDL 7mm Mag for my main gun but I have a Savage too in 308 model 99

as always this is

Food for Thought

David

Quantity has nothing to do with quality

Lemonz

[north american hunter]

Originally Posted by Lemonz

Quantity has nothing to do with quality

Lemonz

thats true

[Alberta Bigbore]

Out of those two.. Savage.

I have strayed away from savage exept from theyre rimfires.

[raab]

Originally Posted by north american hunter

Good choice with the savage, you cannot go wrong with the accu trigger

Until it gets iced up...

[TriggerHappyHippy]

So I got a chance to take the new Savage out:
After a 50 round break in, I must say I am very pleased with the results
I tried to put a picture of my targets up, but the files are to big and it will not allow me.
Using full length sized 52gr BTHP I had 2 15 round groups under 1Moa
The first measured .790
The second .810

Now i have some fireformed brass ready to be neck sized, and with some load development, I am hoping to get that down to .5 moa.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in. I am happy I went with the Savage, and hopefully it wont mind sitting beside a new Remi 700 I plan on getting next, in the safe

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by raab

Until it gets iced up...

Silly Billy.