Rifle Accuracy (Was Are SAKO rifles accurate)
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Jim: >OK, tell me the truth, all these confrontations are a hype to sell your >product, right? Seriously, I enjoy the tyrades and they have aroused my >curiousity. I bought a Ruger M-77 last weekend, see my post "Atlanta Gun >Shows," in .257 Roberts and plan to spend some time to see if the out of >box gun is inaccurate, if bedding will help, and, if all else fails, to >see if there is truly AccuMajic without reloading! 
>Score: >Jim - 0 >Steve – 0 >Richard N. Elliott
Good luck to you Elliot, It will be interesting to see how it comes out. Will you be using factory "junk" or do you intend to handload? Don’t forget to either pilar bed the center action mounting screw, or leave it only finger tight with some loc-tite on the threads. Good Shooting to You, Jim Nasset Aftermarket Innovations P.S. The "confrontations" aren’t hype, but they do give me a chance to keep my product in front of those who may be interested.
Response:
I plan to "break in" the rifle with about 60 rounds, then fire for groups with several brands of factory premium ammo. Then have the action bedded and refire with the same brands (lot numbers?) of the most accurate of the aforesaid premium ammo. If I can’t get better than 1.5 MOA, then we’ll see what your product can do. If you or Steve have any suggestions about this test, sans reloading, please feel free… Richard N. Elliott
Response:
> Good luck to you Elliot, It will be interesting to see how it comes out. > Will you be using factory "junk" or do you intend to handload? Don’t > forget to either pilar bed the center action mounting screw, or leave it > only finger tight with some loc-tite on the threads. > P.S. The "confrontations" aren’t hype, but they do give me a chance to > keep my product in front of those who may be interested.
Don’t forget a key factor in accurizing. Include a McMillan fiberglass stock to your customizing. It may make more difference than anything else you can do.
Response:
>Bruce, could you please let those who don’t handload in on your secret >where they might purchase the tools and components necessary to handload >for their rifles for under $99.95, I am sure they would appreciate the tip. >And quite possibly, unlike you have apparently done, most of them would not >go to a gunsmith to have their barrel floated. As all that is necessary is >a piece of sandpaper and about a half an hour worth of their time. >But if you have paid that much to have it done, then maybe P.T. Barnum was >right.
Gee, Jim; what planet have you been living on? It’s no secret at all. Some manufacturers do offer starter reloading packages in the $100 range, give or take a few bucks. RCBS comes to mind. Seems like I spent much less than that with my Rockchucker package, which is over two decades old and still going strong. And I bought a second press just last summer, a Lyman turret press, for less than $80. They’ve paid for themselves many times over. Yeah, Jim; P.T. Barnum was right. Btw, _none_ of my rifles have been floated. They are 100%, out of the box, wood-stocked sporters (Sako, Weatherby, Remington). They shoot sub-MOA as is, so I’m damn sure not going to fix something that isn’t broken. While I don’t discount the theory behind your gadget, your limited and subjective testing is hardly conclusive. Even less so is the Shooting News article, in which the author used a single rifle with a custom heavy target barrel, a high-powered target scope, and a single reload (not any factory ammo). Nor did he bother to shoot the rifle before he installed your whatchamacallit, so the reader has no idea of the rifle’s capability beforehand. You want to make a believer out of me? Ever hear of IV&T (independent verification and testing)? When you and your son make repeated claims that your device can make Joe Lunchbucket’s rifle shoot 1/2 to 1/4 MOA groups with factory ammo, you’d damn sure better be able to prove it.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Bruce, could you please let those who don’t handload in on your secret >where they might purchase the tools and components necessary to handload >for their rifles for under $99.95, I am sure they would appreciate the tip. >And quite possibly, unlike you have apparently done, most of them would not >go to a gunsmith to have their barrel floated. As all that is necessary is >a piece of sandpaper and about a half an hour worth of their time. >But if you have paid that much to have it done, then maybe P.T. Barnum was >right. >Gee, Jim; what planet have you been living on? It’s no secret at all. >Some manufacturers do offer starter reloading packages in the $100 >range, give or take a few bucks. RCBS comes to mind. Seems like I >spent much less than that with my Rockchucker package, which is over >two decades old and still going strong. And I bought a second press >just last summer, a Lyman turret press, for less than $80. They’ve >paid for themselves many times over.
The third rock from the sun. I am however curious how you managed to reload all of your rifles to sub moa accuracy without a few of the other essentials. Yes a press is a good start. However when you add a scale, case trimmer, deburring tool, dies, micrometer or caliper, powder measure or funnel, case lube, lube pad, make or buy a bench, (I couldn’t talk my wife into letting me drill holes in the dining room table to mount my press, but maybe you are single) a handloader might also want a case polisher and maybe a chronograph. Now that the equipment has been purchased one needs to go out and purchase cartridge cases (or buy a few boxes of that awful factory ammo, which according to some is essentiallyonly useful for getting the rifle on the paper) a pound of powder, a box of bullets (which you take a chance that your rifle will like) and some primers. Oh I almost forgot, a person might also want a reloading manual which can be had for only $15 to $30. >Yeah, Jim; P.T. Barnum was right. >Btw, _none_ of my rifles have been floated. They are 100%, out of the >box, wood-stocked sporters (Sako, Weatherby, Remington). They shoot >sub-MOA as is, so I’m damn sure not going to fix something that isn’t >broken. >While I don’t discount the theory behind your gadget, your limited and >subjective testing is hardly conclusive. >Even less so is the Shooting News article, in which the author used a >single rifle with a custom heavy target barrel, a high-powered target >scope, and a single reload (not any factory ammo). Nor did he bother >to shoot the rifle before he installed your whatchamacallit, so the >reader has no idea of the rifle’s capability beforehand.
You evidently didn’t read my previous post. Mr. Kreischer told me that the rifle never shot better than .75" groups, even with his match ammo, prior to the installation of the "whatchamacallit". >You want to make a believer out of me? Ever hear of IV&T (independent >verification and testing)?
I have absolutely no reason to attempt to make a believer out of you, it is obvious that your rifles shoot to your satisfaction. I am simply letting the less fortunate than yourself, who may be interested, know that there is an alternative available to them. >When you and your son make repeated claims that your device can make >Joe Lunchbucket’s rifle shoot 1/2 to 1/4 MOA groups with factory ammo, >you’d damn sure better be able to prove it.
The proof of what we have done with the AccuMajic Accurizer can be found at http://www.teleport.com/~ami Again you must have missed the post where I explained that I should have used the term "I" instead of "we". I have stated what has been done by myself and others, including my son. However my claim for "Joe Lunchbucket" is that if he isn’t satisfied with the performance of the Accurizer that he can be return it and the purchase price will be refunded. Oh, by the way, I haven’t seen any information that substantiates your claims of under moa accuracy from your "100% out of the box wood-stocked sporters", but if you say it is true, I am sure it is. And you are also right when you say, if they ain’t broke don’t fix em. Good Shooting to You, Jim Nasset Aftermarket Innovations
Response:
[snip] >Bruce, could you please let those who don’t handload in on your secret >where they might purchase the tools and components necessary to handload >for their rifles for under $99.95, I am sure they would appreciate the tip. >And quite possibly, unlike you have apparently done, most of them would not >go to a gunsmith to have their barrel floated. As all that is necessary is >a piece of sandpaper and about a half an hour worth of their time. >But if you have paid that much to have it done, then maybe P.T. Barnum was >right.
Snort. I spent something like 12 hours using every file, rasp, heavy grade of sandpaper (with and without dowels) trying to remove enough wood from my Howa 1500 to float the heavy barrel before surrendering to the amused glances of the fellows at Simons Sport Shop where my rifle is being floated and bedded for $65. For about that amount I could have (and maybe should have) bought a Dremel tool that m i g h t have made this a half hour job. And it might have cut my clumsy thumb off, too. (Of course, not everyone is a Motor Moron(TM) like me, either.) But it still would not have been glass bedded. Since I am a bigger (oh, much bigger) klutz than the Home Improvement guy–I’m the guy of whom it is correctly said, "He can foul up a steel ball with a rubber hammer," having the glass bedding done for me seemed like a prudent way to keep the rescue squad from having to chisel me loose from the remains of my stock and action. Now, I have no opinion about the product in dispute. Honest. I did send my stripped receiver/barrel into be frozen while they were busy hacking excess timber from the stock and bedding the action, so I am willing to try things to compensate for my overall piss-poor marksmanship. And a doo-hickey on the end of the barrel might be nice, especially if it reduces muzzle jump (so I can see them little critter explode more easily–if I ever hit one, that is). But… anyone who tells me I could float my barrel in 30 minutes is either given to sweeping overgeneralizations or rather charitable in his assessment of my eye-hand coordination skills.<g> Of course, that also goes for anyone who tells me I can get to subMOA accuracy from a standing start by reloading and do it from less than $100…<g> Regards, Bill — "Veni, vidi, vomiti!" The ghost of Thomas Jefferson on reading the Brady Law.
Response:
: >100 yd. Two different guns, two different barrels and barrel lengths : >(788 = 18 in.; Sako = 24 in.). Each rifle is an individual. And the : >little bit of time and material that I spent at the reloading bench and : >the range developing these loads cost me only a fraction of the $99.95 : >or so charged for the "wonder-wizmo-makik-dohiky." Of course, after : >you get your $99.95 "wonder-wizmo-makik-dohiky," you still have to put : >in the time to float and bed your barrel (or pay someone another $100 : >or $200 to do so) before you even install your $99.95 : >"wonder-wizmo-makik-dohiky." And finally, after that’s all done, you : >can buy a couple of $20 boxes of factory ammo and go to the range. : > : >Doesn’t sound very cost effective to me. But then, as P.T. Barnum : >said, there’s a sucker born every minute. : Bruce, could you please let those who don’t handload in on your secret : where they might purchase the tools and components necessary to handload : for their rifles for under $99.95, I am sure they would appreciate the tip. The "tip" is that it doesn’t cost that much "per rifle", or is your device easily leveraged over my entire collection of hunting rifles? Even I admitted that a guy who only shot his rifle during deer season would be better off with the BOSS than getting into reloading from a cost standpoint, but it also came with the disclaimer that anyone who didn’t shoot enough to SAVE money reloading couldn’t shoot well enough to tell the difference between a 3/4" rifle and a 1 3/4" rifle anyway. Barnum was also good at twisting reality to make it appear as if he was "telling it like it is". -Steve
Response:
>However >my claim for "Joe Lunchbucket" is that if he isn’t satisfied with the >performance of the Accurizer that he can be return it and the purchase >price will be refunded
Again, please tell me how one returns the Accurizer. Isn’t it glued into the forearm with epoxy? How would you get it out without destroying the stock? I am not trying to be obnoxious. I just want to know. However I will admit I do not like or believe your claims (your son told me this and you agreed) of consistent 1/4" groups at 100 yards with factory ammo and out of the box rifle with the Accurizer installed. I think it is quite right to challenge such claims since you choose to advertise on this list. I am not against advertising. It just should be truthful. Jim
Response:
>>However >my claim for "Joe Lunchbucket" is that if he isn’t satisfied with the >performance of the Accurizer that he can be return it and the purchase >price will be refunded >Again, please tell me how one returns the Accurizer. Isn’t it glued into the >forearm with epoxy? How would you get it out without destroying the stock?
Good question Jim. The Accurizer is not "glued" into place. During the installation the template which sets up the exact finished dimensions of the inletted area and also the proper alignment for barrel taper, is covered with a release agent (Pam cooking spray works fine) then the epoxy sets up around it. Once this is done the template is removed and the unit is placed into the cavity. It is a snug fit, but is easy to remove and re-install. If one should decide that they are not satisfied with the Accurizer all they have to do is to remove the unit, then take a 1/2" square, 4" long piece of wood and place it in the cavity. Then simply get a sling swivel screw and screw it into the wood. One could also epoxy or "glue" the wood in place if desired and reshape it to match the barrel channel radius. >I am not trying to be obnoxious. I just want to know. However I will admit >I do not like or believe your claims (your son told me this and you agreed) >of consistent 1/4" groups at 100 yards with factory ammo and out of the box >rifle with the Accurizer installed. >I think it is quite right to challenge such claims since you choose to >advertise on this list. I am not against advertising. It just should be >truthful. >Jim
The claim made for his rifle and the Federal Gold Metal Match "factory" ammo that he used are true. Whether you beleive them or not is your perogative. The only change made to the "out of the box" rifle was to glass bed the recoil lug area, as it was loose, even though it has an H-S Precision stock with an aluminum bedding block. Good Shooting to You, Jim Nasset Aftermarket Innovations
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I am not trying to be obnoxious. I just want to know. However I will admit >I do not like or believe your claims (your son told me this and you agreed) >of consistent 1/4" groups at 100 yards with factory ammo and out of the box >rifle with the Accurizer installed. >I think it is quite right to challenge such claims since you choose to >advertise on this list. I am not against advertising. It just should be >truthful. >Jim >The claim made for his rifle and the Federal Gold Metal Match "factory" >ammo that he used are true. Whether you beleive them or not is your >perogative. The only change made to the "out of the box" rifle was to >glass bed the recoil lug area, as it was loose, even though it has an H-S >Precision stock with an aluminum bedding block. >Good Shooting to You, >Jim Nasset >Aftermarket Innovations
Jim, Thanks for the information on how to return the your device. That does make that clear. However I was not speaking of the claim of 1/4" accuracy on the net but of the claim made dierctly to me at the Puyallup gun show by your son Brian with you concering. There was no mention of any specific brand of ammo. Neither of you even asked what kind of rifle I had. Brian said that I would get consistent 3 shot 1/4" groups at 100yards with my rifle and fatory ammo. You nodded your agreement. I am not saying your device doesn’t work. It may well work and have use for some people. I just think that claims of 1/4" accuracy are more than a little unrealistic. Sincerely, Jim
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Jim, >Thanks for the information on how to return the your device. That does make >that clear. >However I was not speaking of the claim of 1/4" accuracy on the net but of >the claim made dierctly to me at the Puyallup gun show by your son Brian with >you concering. There was no mention of any specific brand of ammo. Neither >of you even asked what kind of rifle I had. Brian said that I would get >consistent 3 shot 1/4" groups at 100yards with my rifle and fatory ammo. You >nodded your agreement. >I am not saying your device doesn’t work. It may well work and have use for >some people. I just think that claims of 1/4" accuracy are more than a >little unrealistic. >Sincerely, >Jim
Jim, you may have spoken to my son, however I was not at the gun show, it may have been his hunting partner you were speaking of. I can’t speak for either of them. My claims have never been all rifles that have an AccuMajic Accurizer installed in them can shoot .25" groups. I can only say that I have four sporting rifles, and one varmint rifle that have done so, some with reloads (though they were loaded to factory velocity and dimensons) and some with factory ammo. My son has two rifles that have also shot groups of this size, one is a Mod 700 BDL 30-06 and his Mod. 700 Police .308 Win which does it regularly, with match factory ammo. I have only said that the AccuMajic Accurizer, when properly installed and tuned will allow a rifle to shoot the best it can with a chosen load. Just setting the record straight. Jim Nasset Aftermarket Innovations
