I have a custom 458 Lott that shoots no better than 1-1/2 inches as the very best groups ever, and most of the time groups at about 2 inches. I think it should be able to do better than that, and would like to have your opinion. I am capable of handling the recoil (properly cushioned, of course) when shooting from the bench, and have shot other heavy-recoiling rifles quite well. Flinching is not a problem with me.

J. W., Oregon


I'll have to figure (notice how I didn't say assume) that all of the necessary precautions have been taken, such as making sure that the action screws are properly torqued, that the scope is snug, etc. You didn't say what the

The trend in thinking is that fat barrels are more accurate than slender barrels. There's plenty that can be said about that. Fat barrels tend to be self-dampening; in other words, they handle the vibrations caused by firing and bullet travel through the bore quite well. Smaller diameter barrels have a higher-pitched tuning fork-like "bong," which can disburse bullets into a larger group. However, the heavy barrel is no guarantee of greater accuracy; the internal quality of the barrel and chamber are the important factors here.

The first of two other primary factors of heavy-barrel accuracy advantages are that they are slower to heat up and cool down. This shorter and shallower oscillation results in better shot-after-shot uniformity when several rounds are fired in sequence. The second factor is stability, as the heavier rifle will be less mobile during the shooting process. It will be less affected by the shooter's heartbeat and method of trigger control, for example.

Heavy-barreled varmint and target rifles are expected to shoot better than slender-barreled "sporting" rifles at the range. Consequently, the owners of such rifles can become upset, or at least disappointed, when somebody two

Some reloading manuals provide information as to what the researchers who assembled the data found to be the most accurate load for a specific bullet or bullet weight for that cartridge in the rifle they tested. Gets kind of specific, doesn't it? Think about it... It was the most accurate load in their rifle, with that bullet (or bullet weight, if several types of bullets are available in that weight). The number of times this has worked for me is exactly zero. The published "most accurate load" has always fallen short, sometimes way short, of what turned out to be highly accurate loads in my rifles. Further, the published most accurate load may deliver velocity performance significantly below

I have been looking at both the Savage 12 Bench Rest and the F Class in 6.5 x 284 Norma. I would like to shoot long range with great accuracy, and either of these rifles are affordable. I see from the specifications that the F Class barrel is an inch longer at 30 inches, and is heavier at the muzzle being a full inch versus 0.900". Other than that, they look quite a bit like they are the same rifle except for the dual port on the Bench Rest. What is the purpose of the dual port? Would this be of any advantage to me? I do not intend to compete. I live on a ranch, and just enjoy relaxing by shooting at distant targets.
Either rifle would do

Ben, Wyoming





well for you. A third difference of the Bench Rest from the F Class is that the forend of the Bench Rest stock is contoured, which makes it a little lighter as well as provides somewhat of a ridge on the bottom that makes it easier to grip when picking it up to move it from one location to another. The butt end of the Bench Rest is also more conventional in its shape around

I have a Ruger 77 Hawkeye in 270 Winchester. My friend bought one at the same time, but his is the All-Weather in stainless steel with a synthetic stock. His rifle groups real good at 200 yards; about 2 to 2 1/2 inches with some loads. My rifle shoots more in the 3- to 4-inch range with either of us shooting it. We even switched scopes, which only took a couple of minutes when leaving the rings on them, and the results were no different. I get two holes about an inch from each other, but the third, in no particular sequence, will end up three inches away. Any suggestions?

For this segment of the website, we look forward to input from others. That's because our experience with formal target shooting is limited and in the distant past. Initial exposure dates back to high school in the 1950s, with 50-foot indoor matches using mid-priced Winchester and Remington target rifles chambered in 22 LR. Then, in later military years, the M14 in a fine match rifle version served well in competition out to 600 yards. To go longer meant an occasional flight to Camp Perry to compete in national events. Then, competition became more critical and potentially deadly when the rifle became a military version of the Remington 700 Varmint Rifle in 7.62 Nato with a hogged-out barrel channel and Redfield 3-9 power scope with internal range estimator. The scopes were replaced with Redfield's 4-12 a year or so later, with better

I am ready to go sight in my new rifle, a 30-06, and want to know what's the best distance to do this.

From time to time, the discussion of "best distance to sight in a rifle" comes up. This is a subject that deserves to be looked at in depth, although there is seldom widespread agreement.

For years and years, for whatever original reason, the standard for accuracy has been expressed primarily as the size of a group or series of groups, measured in inches and fractions or decimals thereof, fired at 100 yards. It's kind of like the now widely accepted standard for acceleration time of from zero to 60 mph for cars, which was started by Tom McCahill of Mechanix Illustrated magazine. There are, of course, many exceptions to this. The 1000-yard shooters may prefer to check load development at, say, 300 yards or more. Around-the-course shooters may be

I am ready to go sight in my new rifle, a 30-06, and want to know what's the best distance to do this.

From time to time, the discussion of "best distance to sight in a rifle" comes up. This is a subject that deserves to be looked at in depth, although there is seldom widespread agreement.

For years and years, for whatever original reason, the standard for accuracy has been expressed primarily as the size of a group or series of groups, measured in inches and fractions or decimals thereof, fired

During the past few few years, several bullet manufacturers have introduced long and heavy-for-caliber boattail bullets intended for shooting at extended ranges. In theory, these bullets offer remarkable performance over anything and everything that came before them. In practical application, other results are showing up.

Ballistic coefficient is a relative number that kind of describes a bullets ability to fly. Essentially, the higher the number, the more streamlined the bullet. Shooters of 30-caliber rifles used to be happy with a ballistic