The Last Rifle For Deer


 
Specs: 300 grain @2000 ft/s extra 2 pounds added to butt of Buffalo Classic rifle
Chart generated by http://www.shooterscalculator.com/
It’s been ages since I purchased a rifle for deer. That’s because I have access to several reliable tools. However, my mind is still agile and I’ve been thinking of one last rifle…

Almost all of the ammunition I fire is reloaded. That used to be a great way to cut the cost of shooting by a factor of 2 or 3 per shot. That’s getting to be more difficult. Hodgdon has bought up most of the North American propellant manufacturers so there’s no price competition. Prices were as high as $50 CDN per pound this year. They’ve fallen a bit. Some suitable powders for deer rifles are as little as $25 CDN per pound now. Essentially there’s temporarily competition between Hodgdon and Hodgdon to keep the powder moving…. It’s a Trump thing. Shooters in USA seem to think he’s on their side… Then there are bullets and primers at three times the price I’d like to pay.

The solution I’m considering is to switch to cast lead bullets out of a .45-70. Lead is not as cheap and plentiful as it once was but even wheel-weights can work on deer in this calibre. A 300 grain cast lead bullet can easily be driven to 2000 ft/s out of a long barrel to do the job to 200 yards. I could even use black powder to get useful loads to 150 yards or so. That’s good enough for deer.

Then there’s a rifle. I don’t have one in .45-70. I do have access to a muzzle-loader but it’s a pain to clean. 12 gauge slugs from a shotgun will work to 100 yards nicely but that is a bit short for half the deer I see. A cartridge rifle that can use either smokeless or black to good purpose is very flexible. What .45-70 rifles are inexpensive these days? Marlin 1895 can run $800 CDN. It’s a sweet rifle. H&R Handi Rifle run $400 CDN but then there’s the H&R Buffalo Classic with 32 inch barrel and globe front sight and aperture rear sight at $650CDN… Oh my. I feel love! Are a longer barrel and aperture sights worth an extra $250? Yes!

So, I have choices and all winter to think about it. I know the longer barrel of the Buffalo Classic can deliver ~250 ft/s extra muzzle velocity with slower powders. Hodgdon lists several starting loads that exceed 2000 ft/s out of 24 inch barrels… I know that longer sight radius will help my old eyes sharpen on a target. I know that decent aperture sights can work wonders on a big black bull’s eye at 200m. I can make the recoil much more comfortable by adding 2 pounds to the butt of the Buffalo Classic… You know how I’m leaning… 😉

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in firearms, food, hunting, technology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The Last Rifle For Deer

  1. Ivan wrote, “People would have less to fear of you if you’d just buy a damn scope”.

    Ivan seems to recall that I erred on the side of safety, not taking a shot at an unidentified deer. Also, I don’t shoot in the dark. There are enough deer walking around in the daylight that that would be silly. I’m not a silly hunter or firearms owner/user. I identify my target and take care of the surroundings before I shoot. I also know my trajectory.

  2. Ivan says:

    Deer still have much to fear of me despite Grece’s scorn.

    People would have less to fear of you if you’d just buy a damn scope.

  3. oiaohm wrote, “The advantage of me not being a firearm user is I did not start with any of the incorrect presumes instead worked exactly from the design and physics of the weapons and users. When I started I heard a lot about that barrel changed magnitude and was told to watch the high-speed videos because it was total myth.
     
    Human changing magnitude of weapon movement due to handling recoil differently is real.”

    I’ve been shooting about 60 years. The human factor is the biggest factor in accuracy. That’s why folks try to minimize the human factor by resting a rifle. I like to rest a rifle so the barrel is least affected by how the rifle is rested. Then it’s purely a tuning fork situation, simple damped vibrations after a shot. One tunes the load as much as possible to exit the muzzle at an extremum of the vibration so slight variations in muzzle velocity cause the least dispersion. I should fire the first “ladder test” with this thing this winter if I can find a day with not too much snow, bright light, little wind and acceptable temperature. That could happen during the Christmas break.

  4. Deaf Spy says:

    Robert: If you hit a gong harder, the vibrations do have a larger amplitude. That’s just physics of elastic media.
    Fifi: This is not exactly the case. Because a barrel mounted in rifle is not a pure elastic case. By the exit of the barrel the resistance of the mounting has stabilized amplitude in a rifle.

    Hey, Robert, do you still think Fifi is technically competent? 🙂

  5. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    If you hit a gong harder, the vibrations do have a larger amplitude. That’s just physics of elastic media.
    This is not exactly the case. Because a barrel mounted in rifle is not a pure elastic case. By the exit of the barrel the resistance of the mounting has stabilized amplitude in a rifle.

    Really short barrels(normally because the mounting is not large enough to get fixed magnitude tuning fork effect) or a rifle with stuffed barrel mounting what you are saying applies. One of the reasons why a GLOCK pistol is so good for consistency round to round is the full length of is barrel has containment to level its amplitude. GlOCK is about as small as you can go and make a fixed amplitude tuning fork set-up in a firearm.

    Basically when you watch the guns on high speed cameras with the barrel placed where you can in fact see the vibration and start measuring amplitude you pick up how much is being directly absorbed by the stock/body of the firearm turned into radiate heat to produce a constant amplitude. A barrel suspended with nothing containing barrel movement you see what you are talking about of more force from propellant more amplitude. Once barrel is put in rifle and the barrel is mounted correctly this behavior disappears because you now have non elastic parts in mix setting upper limit for amplitude and most of a time the max amplitude allowed by the mounting is hit before you have used enough propellant for the bullet to exit a 12 inch barrel as well.

    The early rifle wooden hand guards that were part of the stock added this effect. All rifle made have this effect. There was a lot of presumes before high speed cameras and being able to measure how much the barrel was really moving. It a surprise to lot people being showing high speed camera footage a rifle firing different rounds and the amplitude being constant.

    This is also the difference of using a mount vs human holding it. Human thinks that the amplitude has reduced barrel with lower speed round due to the difference in recoil effecting the frequency and amplitude in the human holder. Yes even sitting rifle on a sandbag the recoil is having effect how still the weapon remains. So its the frequency and amplitude in the human not the barrel of the rifle because the barrel of rifle frequency and amplitude is a constant due to construction.

    This is the difference between a person who builds weapons and a person who uses them. A person using weapons can have a lot of false believe about what actions are correcting accuracy but they get successful results anyhow.

    Barrel length effecting accuracy is basically a fable. Recoil effecting human holders is a problem. Rifle with correct ammo will have a ideal sweet spot for accuracy. Human user will also have a ideal sweet spot for how much recoil they can absorb without introducing vibration. The question comes sweet spot of human user and sweet spot of Rifle in fact overlap with each other if that is the case you get maximum possible accuracy based on the users skill.

    Longer barrel can use slower acceleration to reach ideal travel speed for bullet to get ideal spin speed from rifling so a longer recoil force curve and in some people this is less vibration from the human. Some people this longer recoil force curve causes more vibration from the human. So there is a barrel length with correct round that correctly suites a person.

    Yet for some reason people go in a buy a gun just because their friend uses it and it works for them who is a lot different body build to them. Then they get annoyed that weapon does not work for them as well as it did for their friend. It like attempting to us someone else shoes without checking if they are in fact your shoe size.

    The fact that guns are really not one size fits all when you want accuracy because the human holding it is a factor. Now if you are not using barrel at ideal point you are already down on accuracy could be better suited by different weapon who barrel ideal point matches the recoil your body can handle well.

    There is a stack of different measurements taken from the user for those making proper custom weapons for competition sports shooting that are never done in shops selling off the shelf weapons that could be used to make a size figure for a person this would allow people to buy weapons that suit them better. There are ways of measuring recoil tolerance and holding duration stability these figures are used to customize firearm designs. Even something basic like how much you can control you heart rate to be able to fire bullet between beats so heart due to introduce vibration to shot. If you are a person with a high heart rate this can rule out look at anything long barreled.

    Lot of people with firearms choose firearms based on trial and error with a mixed in pack of presume. Some of those people get really annoyed when come and ask for their weapon to be customized to improve accuracy and the first thing you do is give them a completely different weapon because the weapon they had did not suit them at all. That is not that there is anything wrong with the weapon there is just no point wasting time attempting to customize a weapon to fix accuracy when it the wrong one for them better to sell the weapon off to someone who it fits and get them the right weapon. Even the right weapon can be tuned like by changing amount of weight in hand guard but its a lot easier starting with the correct weapon.

    The advantage of me not being a firearm user is I did not start with any of the incorrect presumes instead worked exactly from the design and physics of the weapons and users. When I started I heard a lot about that barrel changed magnitude and was told to watch the high-speed videos because it was total myth.

    Human changing magnitude of weapon movement due to handling recoil differently is real.

  6. Grece wrote, “it wasn’t even you that shot the animal”.

    Ah! But I taught the shooter how to shoot, supplied him the rifle and made his ammunition. He’s matured a bit but I also taught him where and how to sit in wait for deer in plain sight without spooking them. He’s been very successful as have I. I know I’m past my prime but I can still do the job, just not as easily and quickly. To confirm that, after the last expedition, I raised my rifle and fired at a log ~70 yards distant and with an old Mauser from a seated position and not using a rest, came with in a couple of centimetres of the aiming point. Deer still have much to fear of me despite Grece’s scorn. Soon, I will have another 10-pound rifle to tame. They can iron out my shakes and I can handle a trigger and sights still. If I can shoot a Mauser that well, I can certainly murder a deer with a .45-70 to 250 yards or easier up close. I can do that with a muzzle-loader which is a very similar-handling firearm except for ease of loading.

  7. Ivan says:

    So he’s a cheap Mormon?

  8. Grece says:

    Also, just as important, Robert lives with two-women.

  9. Deaf Spy says:

    Btw, let’s not forget how Trump speaks low of women. Ops, sorry, it was Dems again ignoring sexual harassment acts of their “icons”:
    https://nypost.com/2017/11/26/pelosi-declines-to-call-for-conyers-resignation/

  10. Grece says:

    I’ve rarely needed a quick second shot.

    Robert, may I remind you that on your last alleged hunt, it wasn’t even you that shot the animal.

  11. Deaf Spy says:

    Maybe, but you’ll have to put a lot of practice into getting a quick second shot when you need it with that break-action.

    Ivan, I am afraid you are missing the key point. Robert said it: ” It’s simple, cheap”, followed closely by “I’ve rarely needed”

    As long as … (computer, os, car, gun, software) is cheap and kinda works most of the time, Robert is happy.

  12. I’ve rarely needed a quick second shot.

  13. Ivan says:

    Maybe, but you’ll have to put a lot of practice into getting a quick second shot when you need it with that break-action.

  14. Ivan wrote, “Henrys come pre-drilled and tapped for a scope, Bob. So your argument is silly. Especially as the 45-70 tends to drop a foot between 100-250 yards.”

    BC is tapped as well. One can zero 300JHP @2200 ft/s at 250 yards with 8″ height of trajectory.

  15. Ivan says:

    Henrys come pre-drilled and tapped for a scope, Bob. So your argument is silly. Especially as the 45-70 tends to drop a foot between 100-250 yards.

  16. Ivan wrote, “The gun you want is the Henry H010.”

    Nope, I want a rifle and this is the one. It’s simple, cheap, easy to use and powerful. However, reloading tools and components are adding up… Hornady wants 64₵ for a jacketed bullet. I will cast as well and leave the jackets for hunting in the open. 300 JHP is good to 250 yards on deer without adjusting sights. Apparently, I can’t even see antlers at that range… 😉 so this thing will certainly do until we have an “any deer” season. I could use 308, 6mm, 6.5mm or 7mm Rem Mag in the open but that would be no fun at all.

  17. Ivan says:

    Get yourself a level action Marlin guide gun in 45-70. You’ll thank me later.

    Marlin hasn’t made a gun worth owning since they were purchased by Remington. The gun you want is the Henry H010.

  18. oiaohm wrote, “You said there was a difference in amplitude. The answer is there not never has been.”

    If you hit a gong harder, the vibrations do have a larger amplitude. That’s just physics of elastic media.

  19. oiaohm says:

    For the 32 inch barrel one would get higher velocities with slower powder charges but likely quite different amplitude of barrel vibration with different loads.

    The frequency and amplitude out of modern barrels is a constant. Older barrels where the metal is not as good you can see non constant freq and amplitude if you have ones stop using because the barrel with crack in usage its a symptom of a failing barrel.

    I wrote, “amplitude”, not “frequency”. oiaohm denied my statement but then went on to say the same thing in many more words.

    You said there was a difference in amplitude. The answer is there not never has been. The difference is frequency with length of barrel and if the bullet exists at the right point relative to that.

    Where the bullet exits on the waveform gave people the incorrect idea that the amplitude had changed when in fact amplitude of the waveform the barrel does is a constant. This is scary enough with modern barrels a exit point relative to frequency is smaller factor than blow past or suck back. Older barrels due to differences in metal and design used did have a higher amplitude so you are punished worst for existing at the wrong point and are worst effected by lower consistency rounds.

    Also if bullet is going too slow for barrel it will not get the correct amount of spin so will not be as stable in flight as it should be.. If bullet is going too fast centrifugal force can deform it because it spinning too much as well so also causing the bullet not to be correctly stable in flight.

    The bullets construction defines how fast it should be spinning min/max when it exits barrel for ideal stability.

    From the rifling twist fig this gives you how fast bullet should exit barrel at min/max speed to be inside the correct spin value.
    Frequency and length of barrel provides you exit windows for a predictable exit point from barrel. Then comes the fun of calculating the propellant to use.

    I know all this from having to do weapon construction course where part of it was make a barrel and ammo and in first firings achieve very compact grouping. Note its a non-standard bore and ammo requirement. Fun part was you were given 8 different bores and lengths to choose from only 2 could in fact be made work with pure lead round. Its a true hell exam because you are only told that there were invalid option after the grading test firing and you have passed. Then you have to-do the maths to say what the other valid option was and what was the error issue with the other 6 combinations.. The exam had locked the propellant load min/max and lead weight.

    Doing weapon construction there are a lot ideas people have about how a firearm works you don’t believe any more.

    Many people own firearms and have the wrong idea about what is going on because firing bullets and looking at results suggest one thing. Watching gun on high speed camera shows something totally different and so do the construction maths.

    Construction maths for firearms have never back the idea that short is better than long or long is better than short in barrels. Construction maths have never back aptitude as a big factor to accuracy. Leaving barrel at right point a barrel with high aptitude vs a barrel with low aptitude gives the same results. So having the right amount of propellant so your bullet exits barrel at right time without either being lack propellant or having excess propellant is highly important vastly more important than barrel length. Condition of rifling in barrel to put effective spin on bullet is also important.

    Yes the idea of stiffer barrel with lower amplitude does not really change anything other than making it harder to see when your load is wrong. You still need to get down the barrel at the right speed to put the right spin on the bullet without lack of propellant or excess of propellant. Modern design barrels will have the correct speed aligned with a valid exit point relative to frequency.

    Riffles can different sweet spots based on different bullets being used and the required spin speed of that bullet so having more than 1 require speed down barrel and if that aligns with a valid exit point relative to frequency its workable. So you can have a riffle with any length barrel that takes a standard round size that only provides proper accuracy with only a particular weight and type of bullet with only one particular grade of propellant and nothing else.

    Reality is firearms are not highly flexible tools once you want accuracy.

  20. o. wrote, “Human holding and testing adds too much randomness to be able to tune that bit effectively.”

    Nonsense. I’ve been reloading for decades and worked up many tack-driving loads usually with nothing more than a sandbag and a chronometer and powder scale. Just reloading can cut groups in two. Choosing the right powder and bullet can do the same. Then adjusting seating depth and charge tune the load. My worst rifle worn badly shoots 2 MOA with my loads when commercial rounds would barely be on paper. I don’t even have a best rifle because several shoot 1- hole groups at 100 with good loads. They’ve taken deer at 300 yards like they were on the other end of the sofa.

  21. oiaohm wrote, “The tuning fork effect of the barrel means you always get the same frequency no matter the load.”

    I wrote, “amplitude”, not “frequency”. oiaohm denied my statement but then went on to say the same thing in many more words.

  22. oiaohm says:

    The longer barrel will help that and absorb recoil too.
    That bit hear and there. Longer or thicker barrel because it about mass and mass placement to counter recoil. Also stock design can help lot with recoil.

    The ability to handle the recoil is a factor in how useful a weapon will be.

    For the 32 inch barrel one would get higher velocities with slower powder charges but likely quite different amplitude of barrel vibration with different loads.
    This is not the case.
    http://www.stocks-rifle.com/harmonics.htm
    When a barrel is constructed it has a tuned frequency and amplitude using all kinds of math on barrel thickness and so on you can fairly much make a barrel with what ever frequency and amplitude you want. You can think of a barrel as insanely warped tuning fork when you fire a bullet down the barrel its like you hit the tuning fork and the tuning fork can only by design go to a particular max amplitude and frequency. Its a rare load that can exist the barrel that does not take barrel to max amplitude. The tuning fork effect of the barrel means you always get the same frequency no matter the load.

    Now the bullet has to exit barrel at right time to take advantage amplitude of the barrel. In a longer barrel more sweet spot times can exist.

    Now as bad as it sounds over or under propellant by any large margin will throw you shot into never have accuracy. Now accuracy with propellant so it correctly matched to barrel and bullet even with the worst of amplitude effects will still give fairly tight grouping. 1 MOA range from the weapon you have it still worst than what it able to achieve but tuning your load to get to 0.5 and better MOA but that will take mounting the weapon so you can see when your powder adjustments are improving or harming the accuracy. Human holding and testing adds too much randomness to be able to tune that bit effectively. The good part is once you know the correct load values for a barrel they are normally good enough for life span that an barrel is effective.

    There are a lot of firearms that people say are totally useless most of the problem is failure to put any of the correctly matched load in the breach. Some are truly useless because the barrel is not stable or other bad construction factors but there are ways to check for that without firing anything.

    Mass produced ammo attempts to claim generic when in reality this is not really possible if you want accuracy and some weapons are well outside generic rounds and appear to perform badly when there is really nothing wrong with them.

  23. oiaohm wrote, “So a 32 inch barrel vs 12 inch barrel with the correctly matched ammo should have same accuracy. Of course the ammo for a 32 inch barrel not going to have accuracy in a 12 inch barrel and ammo for a 12 inch barrel not going to have accuracy in a 32 inch barrel.”

    It’s pretty clear from reloading data that best accuracy comes with different charges of different propellants and different bullets. For the 32 inch barrel one would get higher velocities with slower powder charges but likely quite different amplitude of barrel vibration with different loads. For a 300 grain bullet, Nosler found Accurate 2015 powder worked best in a 24 inch barrel. I would expect a slower powder would do better in a 32 inch barrel, perhaps IMR4064, IMR4895 or H335. I have a variety of powders available and I can try them all. Some even recommend IMR4831 for heavier bullets because it burns reasonably uniformly at lower pressures all the way to the muzzle.

    There is a tradeoff in accuracy/power/efficiency. For hunting I don’t need the best accuracy but a bit more energy can be useful. The longer barrel will help that and absorb recoil too. I really don’t care about the accuracy shot from a vise. It’s the accuracy of the overall system that matters. If I can place the bullet where I want, it’s sufficiently accurate. There are shooters on the web who can’t get this rifle to shoot better than several MOA but many get ~1MOA with careful choices of cleaning, lubrication, powder and bullet. There are idiots on the web who can obtain the firearm and get it to shoot poorly but I’m not one of them. I have a huge database of charges I’ve used and how well they shot. There are none that won’t get the job of killing a deer done well.

    The .45-70 as fired in the Buffalo Classic can kill deer reliably to 100 yards with almost any powder from black to IMR4831. To get easy aiming to 200 yards one must increase velocities to >2000 ft/s and that eliminates many of the faster burning powders. There are some loads that will do the job even with cast lead bullets. Almost any jacketed bullet will do. Most use 300-400 grain bullets rather than 500 grain to reduce recoil which is a problem. I intend to increase the weight of the rifle 2-3 pounds by adding to the butt of the stock. Thus I will be able to have very powerful loads in 300 grains to exceed 2000 ft/s and there are several propellants that will give 1-2 MOA accuracy. H322 shows promise as it metres very nicely but any in the range of IMR4198 to IMR4831 might work except for IMR4350. I will try them all to see what works best for me. Deer season for centre-fire rifles is only two weeks long but the year is 52 weeks long so I will have time to experiment.

    I won’t buy any factory ammunition though. Folks are charging ~$2/round these days for .45-70, well above the cost of rolling my own and I will get a load that’s optimal for my purposes. I will be able to shoot cast bullets for ~50₵/round. I have black powder I bought years ago for 11₵ a round so I could reduce costs even more if I can accept 1500 ft/s.

  24. Grece says:

    Petey, just go away. You don’t even own A gun, let alone are allowed to OWN guns, in your backwards country.

  25. oiaohm says:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/the-truth-about-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity-and-accuracy/
    Factors relating to accuracy. (Purely barrel issues–not aiming/shooter issues.)

    Barrel length is a factor on what ammo you should use. You notice it in the above with the Handload: 208gr AMAX Accuracy where the 18 inch beats the 16 and 13.3 inch. Also the 150gr-175gr shows preference for 16 inch barrels.

    Barrel stiffness. (Somewhat length dependent–shorter is better.)
    The difference between 13.3 inchs and 18 inches in stiffness is made the same is nothing. Depending on what round you put down the barrel there is quite a difference.

    So as long as there is not a stiffness issue and you are using the ammo that matches the barrel and the barrel is 12 inchs or longer you should have 0.1 MOA at 415 yards. So a 32 inch barrel vs 12 inch barrel with the correctly matched ammo should have same accuracy. Of course the ammo for a 32 inch barrel not going to have accuracy in a 12 inch barrel and ammo for a 12 inch barrel not going to have accuracy in a 32 inch barrel.

    They myth about longer barrels being better than shorter barrels comes from people using ammo for longer barrels in shorter barreled weapons.

    The problem is one of two things.
    1) Not having enough propellant to properly go down the barrel then ending up with vacuum caused turbulence at end of barrel. This is ammo for a short barrel used in a long barrel.
    2) Having too much propellant and having at end of barrel propellant over take bullet again causing turbulence at end of barrel.
    Both of these turbulence problems throws your accuracy into the weeds.

    Yes Bullet Stabilization is dependent on using the right ammo for the barrel with the right amount or propellant. Too much or too little propellant is going to under mine this.

    Same some what true with suppressors improving accuracy or under mining accuracy when attached compared to not attached. Ammo has to match barrel with all its parts or your accuracy is not going to be right. The propellant factor in ammo is very simple to forget.

    So poorly matched ammo is a big problem. Lot of studies make the mistake of using the same ammo and saying long barrel is better than short or short is better than long. Not waking up that correct ammo with correct barrel in sane lengths of barrels gives basically identical results.

    If you don’t care how fast the rifling wears 2 inches of rifling will get you to the 0.1 MOA at 415 yards. Yes you could have a 13.3 inch barrel smooth bore for all bar the last 2 inches and it match up to a 13.3 inch barrel with rifling all along it and it match in accuracy as long as you use the right ammo in both. Of course the one with only 2 inches of rifling will wear out first . Its all about the twist rate and wear tolerance. One way to improve rifling wear tolerance is make it longer.

    Anyway, what it comes down to is that in the practical world, a shorter barrel is usually more accurate than a longer barrel that is identical in all other ways.
    Grece this is wrong. If the barrels are identical in all key metrics other than length and they are using with correctly matched ammo a barrel being shorter or longer makes no accuracy differences at all. If you are seeing accuracy difference its wrong ammo for barrel length problem or issue with shooter not being able to hold the weapon effectively. There is study after study around showing this.

    Robert is right that humans sighting on long barrel vs short barrel without scope does better with the long barrel. It is a good reason to put a scope on the shorter barrels.

    Robert using a machine rest for turning scopes, sites and checking if ammo matches barrel is a good thing. Removes human error out of the process because each time gun is fired it back in exactly the same place and you can work out if you have the wrong load or site/scope setting quite quickly.

    I find it funny there was a myth around that longer barrels were better than shorter barrels caused by ammo issue now these days we have a new myth that shorter barrels are better than longer barrels being caused by the same problem of wrong ammo for barrel.

  26. Grece wrote, “in a machine rest, the longer sight radius won’t shrink your groups.”

    While hunting no machine rests are available. Such a rest would not be portable if it could handle the recoil. Folks are getting 2″ groups off hand and 1″ from bags. That’s good for hunting.

  27. Grece wrote, “a shorter barrel is usually more accurate than a longer barrel that is identical in all other ways.”

    All those issues pale into insignificance compared to a shooter not being able to align the sights with the target. Humans can easily centre a bull in an aperture of proper size and it’s easier if the front sight is closer to the target so both are in sharper focus. Can’t make a poor rifle shoot better but the BC is not a poor rifle. It is a rifle stripped to the essentials.

  28. Grece says:

    And to finalize.

    Accuracy isn’t the only thing you need from a gun Robert.

    Factors relating to accuracy. (Purely barrel issues–not aiming/shooter issues.)

    – Barrel quality of materials and manufacture. (Length is irrelevant.)
    – Barrel stiffness. (Somewhat length dependent–shorter is better.)
    – Crown quality. (Length is irrelevant.)
    – Bullet Stabilization. (Somewhat length dependent see below.)

    Shorter barrels are stiffer and therefore tend to be MORE accurate.

    At some point with a VERY short barrel, the velocity loss may be so great that you begin to have problems getting enough spin on the bullet to stabilize it. This is really pretty theoretical because you would be talking about a barrel that was VERY short or a gun that was poorly designed for the ammunition being used.

    Anyway, what it comes down to is that in the practical world, a shorter barrel is usually more accurate than a longer barrel that is identical in all other ways.

  29. Grece says:

    Continuing further Robert.

    Sight radius is an AIMING issue, not an accuracy issue. The longer the sight radius the more accurately you will be able to AIM, but in a machine rest, the longer sight radius won’t shrink your groups.

    In the practical world, shorter is also better from a shooter motion standpoint. The shorter the barrel, the less time shooter motion can act on it.

    It doesn’t SEEM right, but it is. Accuracy and barrel length are pretty much unrelated. And, the small amount of accuracy you could gain from changing barrel length would be gained from SHORTENING the barrel NOT lengthening it.

  30. Grece says:

    LOL, with a 32 inch barrel you imagine that your accuracy will be improved, but in fact, you are just hurting yourself. You mention this or that, but how many times do you pull the trigger in a year? If it is under 500 shots, you are just pissing in the wind.

    Barrel length does nothing to improve accuracy, in fact, as a bullet spends more time in the barrel, your movements can cause it to wander more, increasing your shot group diameter.

    I have known people to go deer hunting with a handgun, and actually do very well with it.

  31. Grece wrote, “A longer sight radius doesn’t inherently make a gun more accurate”.

    It certainly does with open sights. It’s geometry. Live with it. Of course a scope will work but that’s an added expense costing more than the open sights. It’s probably better in low light but I rarely have shot a deer in low light because they’re so hard to see then. On our recent hunts deer were encountered in good light out in the open. No need for a scope at all. For target shooting, a black disc is a great target for aperture sights and except for extreme accuracy (say target/varmint calibres), aperture sights will probably do as well. They aren’t any problem for working up loads for hunting. Aperture sights are pretty rugged too whereas I’ve seen a lot of scopes break and never an iron sight.

  32. Grece wrote, “Of course you think I paid more, as most often times “cheap” correlates to “junk”.”

    People don’t make or sell junk and stay in business as long as Remington has. They do however deal with customers who have money to waste and with customers who don’t. It’s not about the price of the product but its utility. One of the most accurate and reliable rifles ever made was the Remington 788. Many are still in use and driving tacks. Here’s a guy testing ammunition in several rifles. The 788 shot MOA groups in 30-30, better than all the other rifles tested, better than Browning, Marlin, Winchester and Savage. The 788 was a bit more than half the price of the 700, not as pretty but they worked very well. They weren’t junk. Neither is the Handi Rifle.

  33. Grece says:

    A longer sight radius doesn’t inherently make a gun more accurate Robert. I use a Trijicon 1.25×4 Accupoint scope and it works just great.

    It’s too bad you paid more than you needed for a good shooter.

    LOL!…how can you comprehend what I needed Robert? In fact, how can you even begin to understand a need versus a want? Of course you think I paid more, as most often times “cheap” correlates to “junk”. This is precisely why everything you speak about on this blog is laughed at.

  34. Grece wrote, “Everything you just stated, can be done to the Marlin.”

    You’d have to mount the rear sight on the butt to have a ~32 inch sight radius and you won’t likely ever get the muzzle velocity of the BC with the same charge and shooting off hand is more difficult with the shorter rifle. It’s too bad you paid more than you needed for a good shooter.

  35. Grece says:

    Everything you just stated, can be done to the Marlin. I should know as I own one.

    CHUCKLE.

  36. Grece wrote, “Get yourself a level action Marlin guide gun”.

    Too light. The BC is 8 pounds and I can add 2 pounds more to the butt. The Marlin is also 8 pounds but several pounds are the receiver and action. I want the weight in the barrel. I will be punching paper 90% of the shots so that will be helpful. I hunt by ambush so that is helpful. I also want more energy from the powder I burn and the longer barrel does that. Have you ever used a Globe front sight? It’s great for paper and the BC has inserts for hunting. It’s all good whereas the Marlin is a serious compromise for hunting and just about useless for target shooting without a scope. I’d rather spend the extra money over the standard Handi Rifle to get the long barrel and sights. They will work for me. Oh, another thing, the BC allows easy boresighting so I will save shots on sighting in. It’s all good.

  37. Grece, pompous ass that he is wrote, “that H&R rifle is junk”.

    Nope. Every product has its lemons and you hear about those but there are many who love the rifles.

    See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-vM5r_iSKY YouTube gets hundreds of hits for “H&R Buffalo Classic 45/70”. That first video is not great shooting. Many are getting MOA groups with this rifle appropriately loaded and shot. This guy has a terrible hold on the rifle. They either have to be clamped down really well or left to do their own dance. He’s resting it in the middle of the barrel so it will squirm as it warms and vibrates. See, for example, http://forums.handloads.com/uploads/Bohica793/2014-12-04_061846_200yds.jpg

    “H&R Handi 45-70 using NOE 460-405, IMR-3031 36grains @200 yards. Of course I have to have the one flyer…. “

    Cabelas customers love it. See http://www.cabelas.com/product/H-R-Buffalo-Classic-Rifle/705467.uts#tabsCollection

  38. Grece says:

    By the way Robert, that H&R rifle is junk. Get yourself a level action Marlin guide gun in 45-70. You’ll thank me later.

  39. Grece wrote, “blame Trump for the gunpowder monopoly”.

    That predates Trump in power by many years.

  40. Grece says:

    Yes Robert, blame Trump for the gunpowder monopoly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *