High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig

[GuerrillaXXI]

I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there for those who might want to have a good, accurate, sniper-worthy bolt-action rifle but might not have a lot of money. While the following set-up isn't dirt cheap, it's a hell of a lot less than a custom rifle and high-end scope, and nearly as good. This will allow more people to get into the precision shooting game, which is definitely a good thing.

(Note: I do not work for any of the following companies, nor do I have any stock or other financial interest in any of them. I'm just giving my opinions based on years of research and experiences. Others can certainly do their own research to see if what's said below really does match up with the "word on the street.")

Rifle: Something from Savage's Law Enforcement line (e.g., the 10FP or the Precision Carbine). .308 Win is recommended, or maybe .300 Win Mag if you want more power and range but much less barrel life. Try to get one with an Accustock. These rifles are famous for their out-of-the-box accuracy. Expect to get groups well under 1" at 100 yards with any of these rifles and match-grade ammo. As an added bonus, it's a lot easier to change the barrel on a Savage than it is on most other bolt-action rifles. The rifle's cost should be roughly $800, depending on the model.

Scope: SWFA Super Sniper in 10X, 16X, or 20X. These can be had for $300-$400 and are well-known among .50 BMG shooters for holding up well even to the massive recoil of that cartridge, which is infamous for eating expensive scopes. They are extremely rugged, and the quality of the glass is excellent. I've heard it said that there's essentially no difference in optical clarity between a SS scope and a high-end scope costing many times more except in very low light and/or at ranges past 600 yards.

Scope mount/rings: Larue probably makes the best quick-detachable mounts. Badger Ordnance is highly regarded for their fixed mounts. These mounts aren't as cheap as a lot of others, so this is where you'll probably be forced to pay more (maybe $200 or so). But with all the money you'll save on the rifle and optics, it will be worth it. Scope mounts need to be very rugged, so this isn't the place to cheap out.

Anyone else have opinions on this?

 

[phill4paul]

Honestly, my advise is just buy something you can afford. And a lot of ammo. And practice with it. A lot. There is a bloody legacy of iron sights killing other humans. Jerry Miculek can damn near squeeze off as many rounds on a single-pull as an automatic. Practice makes perfect. Imperfect practice is wasted time.

 

[tod evans]

Range I like 22-250.....flat-n-fast.

Close in 45-70 lever w/iron sights.

Shooting big bullets is fun but the damage a 22-250 will do really is amazing.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

Honestly, my advise is just buy something you can afford. And a lot of ammo. And practice with it. A lot. There is a bloody legacy of iron sights killing other humans. Jerry Miculek can damn near squeeze off as many rounds on a single-pull as an automatic. Practice makes perfect. Imperfect practice is wasted time.

No argument there. But less money spent on incredibly expensive rifles, scopes, etc., means more money available for ammo and practice. That's another benefit of the set-up I mentioned, even for those who are pretty well-off financially.

 

[Intoxiklown]

Is there a "zero distance" people recommend for scope sighting? 250 yards? 300 yards?

I recently traded an AR15 for an AK-76 (I preferred to give up some accuracy for the power and durability of the AK series):

And I have a Kimber Stainless Ultra Carry II .45 ACP I bought for a close quarters, easy to conceal and handle pistol:

However, I have come acros a good deal on a Browning BAR .300 MAG rifle I am probably going to get, just in case I want to reach out and touch someone. But I don't know crap about scopes, so your post is very helpful.

 

[osan]

oops

 

[osan]

The FP is an excellent rifle, particularly for the money. One of the greatest bang-for-the-buck deals going. Right on about the bedded stock, too.

The scopes I am not familiar with, cannot comment.

As to rings, again you are on the money. Tack driving rifle will not drive tacks if the gunsight is not properly fixed. Cheap rings are worse than good iron sights. Possibly a lot worse.

Good post.

 

[osan]

Range I like 22-250.....flat-n-fast.

Close in 45-70 lever w/iron sights.

Shooting big bullets is fun but the damage a 22-250 will do really is amazing.

Depends on the target and the purpose. Deer - OK. Large game - not so OK. Large DANGEROUS game - all you will succeed in doing is getting their very much unwanted attention. Hardened human targets, no good. For the latter you want lb-feet of energy so that if you do not penetrate a vest, you knock the living snot out of him in any event. A home invader who has proven serious enough to armor himself is indeed very dangerous to anyone he faces. Ref. the boys in N. Hollywood a few years back in case you think it is not possible. You do not want to face hombres like that with a pea shooter, but rather with serious knock-down force.

I am a big fan of express calibers, 375 H&H being the least among them, preferring perhaps 470 Nitro Express and up shooting, e.g. 400 gr Barnes solids. Even with armor, getting whopped by a slug coming at you with, say, 5000 lb-ft of energy is going to slow you way down and may even kill you without penetrating the body.

Caliber needs to be well matched to target and purpose. Flat shooting avails one nothing if the bullet will not take the target down. Slow and curvy is as dandy good as otherwise if you can put the projectile on target, the latter being equally bad if you cannot.

Always bear in the forefront of you considerations in making such choices what the ultimate purpose is. From there one can list and prioritize the requirements for achieving the goal and from those the choice of instrument. That is the hierarchy that will serve one best, especially when the targets know how to shoot backsomething one should want to endeavor to best ensure does not happen.

 

[osan]

Is there a "zero distance" people recommend for scope sighting? 250 yards? 300 yards?

100 yards is a common standard, but any distance will do depending on the gun sight and what it is you are trying to accomplish.

For example, if you are using a simple dot reticle on a 32x scope for 1000 yard bench shooting you are going to zero at 1000 yards because you are aiming for ultimate accuracy at that range. You do not want a mil-dot affair and fiddling with the elevated graduations. You want to put the hairs precisely on the center of that tiny target and have at it. If you are scout/sniper milling about in the woods or in Afghanistan shooting at moving targets at constantly changing ranges, the requirements are completely different. You will usually zero at the range you believe will be most commonly encountered and adjust your sight picture to match conditions for range and windage. Simple in theory - not so easy in practice.

However, I have come acros a good deal on a Browning BAR .300 MAG rifle I am probably going to get, just in case I want to reach out and touch someone. But I don't know crap about scopes, so your post is very helpful.

Good semi-auto rifle. How much?

 

[tod evans]

I've shot the 375 Weatherby mag.....Large game? Hell the way that thing kicks it'd stop a Cummins.

I agree bigger stops better, for many years the ol' M1 in 30-06 was all most anybody hunted with unless you were lucky enough to hunt rhinos or elephants.

Here in the sticks most shots at deer are taken in underbrush well under 100yds and the 45-70 has proven itself time and again with its ability to plow through both sides of the rib cage AFTER tearing through a sapling. A Marlin 1895 is fairly inexpensive and pretty much idiot proof, light for the punch it packs and cartridges aren't an arm and a leg like Weatherby ammo is.

Lots of folks like to load up on supposed "man-killers", easily converted semi-autos with big mags....and that's fine if you like shooting at a range or at targets but for hunting a person is wise to talk to local old-timers.....Prong-horn hunting in the mountains is way different than white-tail hunting in the Ozarks.

 

[Intoxiklown]

Good semi-auto rifle. How much?

He's in a bind financially, so he's willing to take $300 for it. I don't think the gun has had 100 rounds through it.

I'm thinking it'd be best to zero the scope on it around 300 yards, maybe even 400 yards. Because, the AK is absolutely brutal up to 250 yards or so. It's only around the 300 yard mark the accuracy of it starts getting difficult. I guess maybe it's my coon ass roots, but I feel if I'm going to use a weapon built for distance, I should equip it for distance. Because honestly, if I even remotely think I am going to be using a rifle with an averag target distance of 100 yards, I'm going to use the open sights on an assault rifle instead of increasing aim time with a scoped weapon.

I've only had the AK for a few months, but I'v put around 15,000 rounds through it, and one thing I've learned, is 100 yards and closer, that is a nasty damn rifle. Far superior to the 5.56 weapons so popular. I've tried to make it jam, lol...and I can't.

 

[osan]

He's in a bind financially, so he's willing to take $300 for it. I don't think the gun has had 100 rounds through it.

Unless it is trashed, as in unsafe to shoot, BUY IT. A good BAR is well worth 2x that price.

If you do not buy it, I will find you and murder you for unforgivable stupidity.

Seriously, a BAR in 300 Winmag in decent condition for that money is a steal.

I'm thinking it'd be best to zero the scope on it around 300 yards, maybe even 400 yards.

22-250 hurls a SMALL slug. I would not want to be on the wrong end of it at any range, but if the goal is a clean, one-shot kill on anything larger than, say, a coyote, I might start thinking otherwise.

Because, the AK is absolutely brutal up to 250 yards or so. It's only around the 300 yard mark the accuracy of it starts getting difficult.

I regard AKs as strictly suited to close-quarters use. Full-auto AKs are essentially useless as anything but instruments of suppression and noise making. I am a big fan of ARs as they are far and away more accurate and may be chambered for a pretty wide variety of cartridges including 300 Whisper and 458 Beowulf. Overall, these are very versatile, precise, and reliable. I will also say that under full-auto fire the M16 is a very stable weapon, vis-a-vis the AK which pulls heavily to the left because of the way the brake is made. 7.62x39 does hit harder than 5.56, but if I'm going that route, I'd rather 7.62x51, which hits a whole hell of a lot harder at distance than the smaller Russian round.

I guess maybe it's my coon ass roots, but I feel if I'm going to use a weapon built for distance, I should equip it for distance. Because honestly, if I even remotely think I am going to be using a rifle with an averag target distance of 100 yards, I'm going to use the open sights on an assault rifle instead of increasing aim time with a scoped weapon

.

Different strokes and all that. It's all good so long as you are able to put lead on target.

 

[mrsat_98]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/17HMR_rifle_accuracy_results.htm

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

The big advantages of the AK are reliability and durability in the harshest conditions. Otherwise, the AK is really not optimal. I own an AK myself (a "marksman" variant) and love it, but it still wouldn't be my first choice. 7.62x39 is one of the easiest rounds to stop with the latest body armor and helmets, and a typical AK isn't accurate enough to shoot around armor (though my heavy-barreled AK is an exception). 7.62x39 is also heavy ammo in comparison with the superior 5.56 NATO.

For a lightweight semi-auto, the ideal round is still probably .308 or .30-06 with AP rounds. If you can't get AP or solid brass bullets for those, then 5.56 with steel core M855 ammo is the way to go. M855 doesn't have great terminal ballistics, but that's better than having your rounds bounce off the enemy's helmet or ballistic goggles. The .458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf with solid brass bullets are also very nice and are arguably superior to 5.56 at close range, though mag capacity is limited.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/17HMR_rifle_accuracy_results.htm

A .17 HMR might be good for harvesting small animals for food. But I sure wouldn't want to take one into combat.

 

[mrsat_98]

A .17 HMR might be good for harvesting small animals for food. But I sure wouldn't want to take one into combat.

High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig

It may be those things, but do you really think a .17 HMR has sufficient power and range for fighting purposes?

 

[Intoxiklown]

I disagree about the AK to AR comparison. For an assault weapon, you want reliability. It doesn't matter how much more accurate a weapon is, if you have to clean it every 60 rounds, you won't last long against someone who can keep slinging lead at you. I agree and fully understand the loss of accuracy when compared to the AR, but assault weapons aren't built for pure distance shooting really. They are designed for combat, and are supposed to be agile to allow you the best of all worlds. The AK is the only one I've seen cover all spectrums, and give that dependability. Put it this way, I can take a shoe string with some knots in it, coat it in gun oil, pull it through the ejection port out the through the barrely, and she's ready to fire again. The AR design cannot do that.

I will be honest though, I am seriously thinking of purchasing a HK-416, as from their demos, they seem to offer all the pros of the M-16 and the AK series all rolled into one.

And yeah, I talked to 'ole boy tonight, and am picking up the .300 tomorrow. I am a Browning man myself anyway, as all my shotguns are Belgium made (two Sweet Sixteens and one Light Twelve), so my affinity for the Browning firearms already had me wanting to anyways.

I will say, if penetration is a fear of the 7.62x39 mm, then why would you downgrade to a 5.56? The AK round is basically a short version of the .308 round. Unless you are saying you plan to use accuracy for round placement? In my opinion, if you're in a position where you're having to use an assault rifle agaisnt men wearing body armor, you won't have time to take cherry shots, and need to be as hard hitting as possible.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I disagree about the AK to AR comparison. For an assault weapon, you want reliability. It doesn't matter how much more accurate a weapon is, if you have to clean it every 60 rounds, you won't last long against someone who can keep slinging lead at you.

Only 60 rounds? No way, my friend. I typically shoot 400 rounds through my AR during a typical practice session without any cleaning. Much of this is rapid fire that gets the barrel and action really hot. I've never had a single malfunction in thousands of rounds ranging from 1993 Spanish mil-surp to brand new match hollowpoints. A properly-made AR, while not as bomb-proof as an AK, is still extremely reliable. Magazines for the AR used to be a real weak spot, but now there are some really tough mags out there, like the Magpul PMags.

Here's an example of what a properly-made AR can endure without cleaning:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=95136

And speaking of bomb-proof, check out this torture test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo

The critical point here is that not all ARs are created equal. Some manufacturers put out "hobby guns" that aren't made to military standards and just aren't as likely to hold up under heavy use. Other manufacturers make the real deal, and some make stuff that's better than what the military gets. Some of the best manufacturers include Larue, Noveske, Daniel Defense, Bravo Company, and Colt. There are other high-end manufacturers out there that aren't as well-known.

Note that this is also true of the AK. Some are very well made. Others are crap that won't hold up. Mine is Russian and is as durable as a hammer, but some makes are just clumsy copies.

One weakness of the AR is that some of the parts are "wear items" that need to be replaced every so often. But these tend to be cheap and very easily replaced (e.g., extractor springs). It's easy to keep a lot of them handy.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that the AR is as durable as an AK. I just think it's durable enough that its other advantages outweigh the durability of the AK.

I agree and fully understand the loss of accuracy when compared to the AR, but assault weapons aren't built for pure distance shooting really. They are designed for combat, and are supposed to be agile to allow you the best of all worlds. The AK is the only one I've seen cover all spectrums, and give that dependability.

You're right that most assault rifles aren't built for pure distance shooting. But distance shooting is arguably what anyone who's outnumbered and/or outgunned should be trying to do, with close-quarters shooting under those circumstances reserved for emergencies only. Think of Charles Whitman (not that I condone his killing of innocents). How long would he have lasted with all those people firing at him if he'd been within 50 yards of them? The AR out-ranges the AK and is accurate enough to aim around body armor, especially if a "designated marksman" type of AR is used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Squad_Designated_Marksman_Rifle

There is much to be said for being able to hit a 4-inch diameter target at 400 yards while also being able to dish out rapid fire at close range as a last resort. This is the sort of versatility that a good AR (not necessarily in 5.56) and good ammo can provide. The AK is for close range only, unless you're lucky enough to have one that's unusually accurate (and they are out there).

One option for those who prefer the AK in a SHTF situation might be to keep the AK in their hands for close range encounters while carrying a lightweight bolt gun in a backpack for long shots.

Put it this way, I can take a shoe string with some knots in it, coat it in gun oil, pull it through the ejection port out the through the barrely, and she's ready to fire again. The AR design cannot do that.

You can still do that with an AR. As noted above, its lack of reliability is a myth born partly from its teething problems in Vietnam, and partly from low-quality commercial copies.

I will be honest though, I am seriously thinking of purchasing a HK-416, as from their demos, they seem to offer all the pros of the M-16 and the AK series all rolled into one.

I'd humbly recommend against that. Piston ARs are a solution to a non-problem. If you can afford an HK-416, your money would be much better spent on something like a Larue Stealth or OBR. (I'm looking very hard at an OBR in .308 myself. These are getting rave reviews from everyone who fires them.)

I will say, if penetration is a fear of the 7.62x39 mm, then why would you downgrade to a 5.56? The AK round is basically a short version of the .308 round. Unless you are saying you plan to use accuracy for round placement? In my opinion, if you're in a position where you're having to use an assault rifle agaisnt men wearing body armor, you won't have time to take cherry shots, and need to be as hard hitting as possible.

How much penetration you get depends on the bullet and the material you're trying to shoot through as much as on the cartridge.

Because of its high speed and small diameter, 5.56x45 penetrates body armor better than lead-core 7.62x39 does. This is especially true of the widely-available M855 (or XM855) steel core NATO ammo. Even .308 doesn't penetrate body armor as well as 5.56 NATO unless you have steel core 7.62 bullets (e.g., M61), which are hard to find nowadays. For example, there are lightweight polyethylene hard plates out there that can stop 7.62 NATO (lead core) but not 5.56 NATO (steel core M855). The newest military helmet is also made of polyethylene and is designed to stop 7.62x39. Thus, I'd take the 5.56 versus body armor every time, unless I had a plentiful supply of TRUE armor-piercing rounds for my AK or .308.

Where the bigger bullets do better than the 5.56 is against glass (like auto windshields) and many common building materials. But I care more about armor than about those things.

 

[oyarde]

Love a BAR . As far as zeroing a rifle , 100 yards is fine for small caliber , but when I was a young fella , usually picked 250 meters.

 

[Kotin]

Ruger mini 30's are sweet cause they are 7.62x39 and I would say more accurate than an Ak( from personal experience only)

I love mine.. Though I would replace the iron sits with the m-14 sights.. Ak47 open sights are some of the best and easiest to use truth be told..