The perfect rifle

[Don Fischer]

^^^Exactly!

Hell one of the reasons I bought this one years ago, found it “interesting” at the time, though it’s going on the market next week lol.

View attachment 212001

Well, I'd call that an assault rifle, much to shiny for me! So, my predilute comes from not liking stainless steel unless it's a fork! Friend of mine in Montana years ago had a stainless 700 in a thumbhole stock and I didn't like the stock. But same rifle in a reg wood stock and it was beautiful. OH yea, The stainless back then was covered with come blacking of some kind and you had to be told it was stainless. The truth is both the blue version and stainless version do exactly the same thing. Except my blued will probably outshoot your stainless! Oh yea, forgot to mention I don't like plastic stock much either. They would be alright but I fear someone might see me with it!

 

[Don Fischer]

A hundred and fifty years ago I'm sure there were plenty of old buffalo hunters who looked down their noses on the new repeating rifles inspired by military arms races. By early 20th century those old boys were gone and the new breed of gun enthusiasts were inspired by gangsters and African white hunters using the new technology. By the time I started to hunt we were essentially still stuck in that same mold. The most significant technological advancement in the early half of that century was the development of practical fully automatic weapons and those were effectively outlawed in the field fairly quickly. But that line was drawn for public safety, not game management. Since I started hunting, and especially over the last twenty years, technological "advancements" have exploded. Unfortunately, the game animals haven't evolved to meet the challenge of those advancements. They are compelled to cling to the past. Every fall when I return to hunt eastern Montana with my brother, we like to think it's still like hunting there with our dad in the sixties. Of course it's not. But some days when I'm alone in the windy rolling hills and coulees it's not that difficult to pretend nothing has changed. I'm wearing different clothes (the old ones wore out long ago) but carrying the same gun and using the same ammo. The Springfield has gone through some changes since 1964, due mostly to wear and tear, but it's essentially still the same gun I used to shoot my first deer. Though I hide from reality as much as I can, I am nonetheless very much concerned about the quantum leap into technology that hunting has taken recently. Where will it end? Since game cannot evolve fast enough to keep up, when does it stop being hunting in the traditional sense? What's the end result? Spotting from satellites and computer guided bullets that can shoot over the horizon? Besides being associated with warfare, for which they are specifically designed, I look on MSRs (Modern Sporting Rifles aka assault weapons) as just another technological step in the wrong direction. I don't own wind meters, trail cams, spotting scopes, drones, "tactical" optics, etc. My smart phone is used for business or safety only. An E-trex GPS was gifted to me years ago but subsequently stolen from my vehicle (I don't think I ever carried it in the field). I recently upgraded my rifle's scope but similar technology was available when it was first scoped in the sixties. Call me old fashioned ... or maybe I've just decided technology is redefining the future of hunting in a way I want no part of. It's a matter of personal ethics.

That is good! I went to the trouble of getting a range finder years ago, nice Leupold. I seldom ever use it though, I'm a MPBR hunter and learned years ago that beyond that range is simply to far for me to shoot! But the evolution in rifles and especially cartridges have gone well beyond me. I have no problem shooting very long range at paper targets but never game, well unless it's a sage rat! Imagine one of those old buffalo hunters' showing up at a 500 yd match and expecting to be using the string method to measure groups! Using those old rifles, they have probably forgot more about long range than we know but probably also still know more about hunting than we do!

 

[Mallardsx2]

I knew an old gunsmith from Pennsylvania that was know to be one of the best shots in the area. He has since left for parts unknown in the sky but one thing he left with me was when he told me his best group ever was from a 25-06 he built. He was all business and he was NOT a liar. He knew guns inside and out and operated a business for 50 years working on guns. I really enjoyed talking with him.

5 shot - 5/8" group at 500 yards.He had the target with him holding it in a black and white photo framed and it was on his wall.

His words always stuck with me about the 25-06. At the time, he said there was not a more accurate gun that he could find. I dont know the details about the gun. I do know he killed a moose with it back in the 70's.

 

[nhenry]

Something else I'll add about accurate 25-06s. I shot the best group of my life with my custom 25-06 with factory Superformance 117 SSTs. It measured somewhere around .2 but I didn't put calipers to it; only a scale ruler I had in my car.
That was before the rifle was bedded, too. I bet it could get tighter

 

[Jeff1981]

New to this site, does anyone have any information on a Ruger 325 m77 mark 2 rifle, I recently picked one up and am told it's 1 of 10 made. Thanks

 

[OntarioHunter]

New to this site, does anyone have any information on a Ruger 325 m77 mark 2 rifle, I recently picked one up and am told it's 1 of 10 made. Thanks

Jeff, start a new thread with this question so it's not buried under another topic. Seems there's an interesting story to that gun.

 

[Jeff1981]

New to this site, does anyone have any information on a Ruger 325 m77 mark 2 rifle, I recently picked one up and am told it's 1 of 10 made. Thanks

Jeff, start a new thread with this question so it's not buried under another topic. Seems there's an interesting story to that gun.

Yeah I can't figure out how to start a new thread.

 

[OntarioHunter]

New to this site, does anyone have any information on a Ruger 325 m77 mark 2 rifle, I recently picked one up and am told it's 1 of 10 made. Thanks

Yeah I can't figure out how to start a new thread.

I know, it's confusing. Go to the ladder menu symbol at upper left. Menu drops down, select forums. When a list of all topic titles comes up, you should see "post a thread" button above the list. Select that, then go down the list till you see the one for firearms, give your thread a title, then scroll down a bit to enter text for first post which will have details of your question. Anyway, that's how I remember it. I rarely start threads so will have to double check. Yep, that'll do it. Good luck.

 

[ImBillT]

Now how did you manage to shoot a group smaller than one bullet?

Because he know how groups are measured. The measurement is the center to center distance. A group measuring .111” shot with a .257” bullet would measure .368” outside to outside.

 

[ImBillT]

"Basic bolt" doesn't define military configuration. Here's the parent rifle and mine underneath. Really, the only significant similarity is the knob on the end of the striker and the extractor claw. You need to keep in mind that Mauser, upon which the Springfield was so closely designed that the US govt had to pay them for a patent infringement, produced sporting models of the same rifle almost from the beginning. View attachment 211943View attachment 211944

So how does modifying the bolt handle to clear a scope and removing hand guards make it less of a “man killer” or “weapon of war”?

 

[OntarioHunter]

So how does modifying the bolt handle to clear a scope and removing hand guards make it less of a “man killer” or “weapon of war”?

How many guns looking like this have you seen go into combat? Looks like a deer killer to me.

 

[ImBillT]

How many guns looking like this have you seen go into combat? Looks like a deer killer to me.View attachment 212840

Why do looks matter? Looks have very little to do with killing or war.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Why do looks matter? Looks have very little to do with killing or war.

Looks have a lot to "do with" it for people who don't like "killing [people] or war." Put me in that group. I'll defend my country if called on (and I did), but when my tour's done, I'm not associated with that any longer. In the South Pacific my dad killed people with a Springfield and I know it bothered him. Yet he ordered two of them military surplus in 1962. However, he immedistely changed them both into something entirely different. Besides bending the bolt and changing to a rollover sporter stock (since then changed again), he also tapped and mounted a scope, polished the bolt, removed the military sights, changed the safety, changed the trigger (though not an alteration in appearance), turned down and polished the barrel, buffed off the parkerized finish, and hot blued the receiver, barrel, and safety housing. It's absurd to imply it's the same gun issued to kill people. The only thing that remained the same was the bore (badly corroded, it was probably the one thing that most needed changing ... and since changed as of 2021).

 

[ImBillT]

Looks have a lot to "do with" it for people who don't like "killing [people] or war." Put me in that group. I'll defend my country if called on (and I did), but when my tour's done, I'm not associated with that any longer. In the South Pacific my dad killed people with a Springfield and I know it bothered him. Yet he ordered two of them military surplus in 1962. However, he immedistely changed them both into something entirely different. Besides bending the bolt and changing to a rollover sporter stock (since then changed again), he also tapped and mounted a scope, polished the bolt, removed the military sights, changed the safety, changed the trigger (though not an alteration in appearance), turned down and polished the barrel, buffed off the parkerized finish, and hot blued the receiver, barrel, and safety housing. It's absurd to imply it's the same gun issued to kill people. The only thing that remained the same was the bore (badly corroded, it was probably the one thing that most needed changing ... and since changed as of 2021).

It’s not absurd to say(I didn’t imply) that it’s the same gun used to kill people. It’s the very same gun. Not just the bore, but the chamber, bolt body, extractor, firing pin, receiver and serial number. What’s more, other than removing something that protected the barrel from damage, it’s now a more effective weapon of war. The only reason those bolt handles didn’t clear a scope is because the military didn’t have enough reliable and affordable scopes to issue them to an entire army.

If cosmetics make you emotional(and that’s not an insult), then by all means, feel free alter the cosmetics of any weapon you own in order to make yourself feel better about it. On the other hand making the claim that looking like a weapon of war should be a problem for anyone who doesn’t find it to be a problem is ridiculous. I challenge you to find a firearm model that has never been used to commit murder. I then challenge you to find a firearm model that has never been used for self defense. (Both may exist if they are new enough or rare enough) Shall we make sure that all of our firearms LOOK different so that they don’t trigger the emotions of others?

 

[std7mag]

How many guns looking like this have you seen go into combat? Looks like a deer killer to me.View attachment 212840

Short answer.
A bunch!
Early Vietnam sniper rifle right there.

But back to Don Fischer's original post.
Perfect would depend upon intended purpose.
Perfect at what?
I've never seen the alleged "perfect" group. Aka the actual one hole.
Although i have many "perfect" targets with one shot.

A rifle for Africa's dangerous game hunting is not going to be suited to say, PRS shooting.
Not a bench rest rifle for clearing houses in wartime.

But to my thinking there is no "perfect" rifle.
Nor is there a "perfect" cartridge or caliber. (Don't get me started on the "inherently accurate"!)

 

[Don Fischer]

any rifle can be perfect if the shooter stops caring about how perfect it is.

Lot to be said for that. I have a 1903 built by Paul Jaeger in 1945. Guy I got it from fired a lot of corrosive primer in it without cleaning very well. Inside the barrel is a trash dump. Though about re-barreling it but Paul's name is on the barrel. So left it as was and tried shooting it. Not to bad for a bad barrel, 1 1/4" groups is normal! Well, that may not be all that great and to be sure if Pauls name wasn't on the barrel, I'd re-barrel it. My mod 70 in 6.5x55 I have also done nothing to and it shoots about the same on a normal day, I live with it! I don't know why I live with the mod 70, probably because I just like the gun! Both rifles to me are perfect!