[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hogue Stocks (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/6/2015 11:08:52 PM EDT
|
Are the Hogue stocks on the Remington 700 Tacticals really that bad?
I really like the way they feel? |
|
I've shot groups ranging from .8 to 1.5 MOA (not counting occasional fliers that were obviously shooter error) using Privi 168 match ammo and a bipod from a 20" .308 SPS.
I believe it is plenty good for anything other than competition shooting. If you aren't going to use match ammo, or load your own accurate rounds, I don't see a reason to switch it. Just my opinion. |
|
Quoted:
I've shot groups ranging from .8 to 1.5 MOA (not counting occasional fliers that were obviously shooter error) using Privi 168 match ammo and a bipod from a 20" .308 SPS. I believe it is plenty good for anything other than competition shooting. If you aren't going to use match ammo, or load your own accurate rounds, I don't see a reason to switch it. Just my opinion. If you arent going to shoot match ammo or load your own, why shoot at all? The Hogue is junk, no matter the version, regardless of how long the bedding block is. |
|
Quoted:
If you arent going to shoot match ammo or load your own, why shoot at all? The Hogue is junk, no matter the version, regardless of how long the bedding block is. Quoted:
Quoted:
I've shot groups ranging from .8 to 1.5 MOA (not counting occasional fliers that were obviously shooter error) using Privi 168 match ammo and a bipod from a 20" .308 SPS. I believe it is plenty good for anything other than competition shooting. If you aren't going to use match ammo, or load your own accurate rounds, I don't see a reason to switch it. Just my opinion. If you arent going to shoot match ammo or load your own, why shoot at all? The Hogue is junk, no matter the version, regardless of how long the bedding block is. This is the typical "technical" response here. I know everyone says they flex and are junk... I've just never heard a response that sounded like an informed opinion. I've actually shot several hundred rounds using that stock. Have you? Did you compare the accuracy with another better stock? What was the improvement? And how much more did the "better" stock weigh? Depending on the rifles use and what is important to the shooter, he may actually like the Hogue. So shooting steel targets isn't worth shooting at all? Hunting? Neither of those activities require match or precision loaded ammo, and both are more fun than making the smallest group possible in paper in my opinion. And the Hogue stock works fine for both applications. |
Perhaps he's getting the responses he's getting is because this is the "Precision Rifle" forum, it's really not about hunting rifles, nor ammo. That's my biggest gripe about this sub-forum, 50% of the topics have nothing to do with Precision Rifles. I'm not being combative, nor hostile just stating the way I see things. 
|
|
Quoted:
Perhaps he's getting the responses he's getting is because this is the "Precision Rifle" forum, it's really not about hunting rifles, nor ammo. That's my biggest gripe about this sub-forum, 50% of the topics have nothing to do with Precision Rifles. I'm not being combative, nor hostile just stating the way I see things. I made much the same observation recently. Quite a few hurt feelings were shared. |
|
When you cheap out on the Hogue, you will get cheap results. The Hogue stock with the full length bedding block, with the metal that extends to the front of the stock, is really a good stock. No, they are not a chassis, or a solid composite stock, but they do pretty well. However, keep in mind, if you cheap out in the beginning, you have just that much farther to go to try and stay caught up with the rest of the group. Just sayin...
Get a Manners, or an XLR... and go shoot. DK |
|
Quoted:
When you cheap out on the Hogue, you will get cheap results. The Hogue stock with the full length bedding block, with the metal that extends to the front of the stock, is really a good stock. No, they are not a chassis, or a solid composite stock, but they do pretty well. However, keep in mind, if you cheap out in the beginning, you have just that much farther to go to try and stay caught up with the rest of the group. Just sayin... Get a Manners, or an XLR... and go shoot. DK No, its really not a good stock. It is a slight, very slight, improvement over the typical OEM plastic stock, but thats it. If you want decent, B&C and HS both make these....Good doesnt enter the equation until discussions begin to hover around Manners and McMillan. |
|
Quoted:
Are the Hogue stocks on the Remington 700 Tacticals really that bad? I really like the way they feel? Yes. I do agree though, I loved the texture and the way the stock soaks up recoil, but..but..Mine lasted all of 250 rds before the front aluminum pillar worked loose in the plastic on my Howa. A new B&C Tactical Medalist A-2 and my rifle went from .5 to .75 moa to a .2-.5 moa rifle...like a night and day difference. |
|
Quoted:
Yes. I do agree though, I loved the texture and the way the stock soaks up recoil, but..but..Mine lasted all of 250 rds before the front aluminum pillar worked loose in the plastic on my Howa. A new B&C Tactical Medalist A-2 and my rifle went from .5 to .75 moa to a .2-.5 moa rifle...like a night and day difference. Quoted:
Quoted:
Are the Hogue stocks on the Remington 700 Tacticals really that bad? I really like the way they feel? Yes. I do agree though, I loved the texture and the way the stock soaks up recoil, but..but..Mine lasted all of 250 rds before the front aluminum pillar worked loose in the plastic on my Howa. A new B&C Tactical Medalist A-2 and my rifle went from .5 to .75 moa to a .2-.5 moa rifle...like a night and day difference. A factory rifle that falls apart in less than 250 rounds? Wow that is garbage. If the Hogue is consistently as bad as the Internet says it is, it's amazing that it is put on so many factory rifles, and that it passes the manufactorers testing and standards. This "improvement" is what I am talking about. For guys starting out, spending $300 or more to improve a $600 rifle by .25 MOA... It may or may not be worth it depending on someone's budget, accuracy goals and priorities. When getting started, it may be better to spend more money on a decent scope, and ammo (or components) until you are consistently shooting better than the rifle is capable of. I understand that there are a bunch of 6'3" tall dudes with supermodel wives here, and unlimited gun budgets, but there are a few around who are less capable. I know everyone on the Internet is a tier one ninja, but personally, I don't outshoot my rifle with the "junk" Hogue stock consistently enough yet to want to trade up. I've also never run across any of these precision shooters that could outshoot most factory rifles either. Im sure they are out there, I've just never run into them at the range. I have seen a few with $2500+ precision rifles and optics that don't shoot all that well. If you have the coin to get everything you want at once, great upgrade the stock. Why not? If you don't have the money right away, you might try it out. It might be good enough to get by for a while. |
|
Quoted: A factory rifle that falls apart in less than 250 rounds? Wow that is garbage. If the Hogue is consistently as bad as the Internet says it is, it's amazing that it is put on so many factory rifles, and that it passes the manufactorers testing and standards. This "improvement" is what I am talking about. For guys starting out, spending $300 or more to improve a $600 rifle by .25 MOA... It may or may not be worth it depending on someone's budget, accuracy goals and priorities. When getting started, it may be better to spend more money on a decent scope, and ammo (or components) until you are consistently shooting better than the rifle is capable of. I understand that there are a bunch of 6'3" tall dudes with supermodel wives here, and unlimited gun budgets, but there are a few around who are less capable. I know everyone on the Internet is a tier one ninja, but personally, I don't outshoot my rifle with the "junk" Hogue stock consistently enough yet to want to trade up. I've also never run across any of these precision shooters that could outshoot most factory rifles either. Im sure they are out there, I've just never run into them at the range. I have seen a few with $2500+ precision rifles and optics that don't shoot all that well. If you have the coin to get everything you want at once, great upgrade the stock. Why not? If you don't have the money right away, you might try it out. It might be good enough to get by for a while. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are the Hogue stocks on the Remington 700 Tacticals really that bad? I really like the way they feel? Yes. I do agree though, I loved the texture and the way the stock soaks up recoil, but..but..Mine lasted all of 250 rds before the front aluminum pillar worked loose in the plastic on my Howa. A new B&C Tactical Medalist A-2 and my rifle went from .5 to .75 moa to a .2-.5 moa rifle...like a night and day difference. A factory rifle that falls apart in less than 250 rounds? Wow that is garbage. If the Hogue is consistently as bad as the Internet says it is, it's amazing that it is put on so many factory rifles, and that it passes the manufactorers testing and standards. This "improvement" is what I am talking about. For guys starting out, spending $300 or more to improve a $600 rifle by .25 MOA... It may or may not be worth it depending on someone's budget, accuracy goals and priorities. When getting started, it may be better to spend more money on a decent scope, and ammo (or components) until you are consistently shooting better than the rifle is capable of. I understand that there are a bunch of 6'3" tall dudes with supermodel wives here, and unlimited gun budgets, but there are a few around who are less capable. I know everyone on the Internet is a tier one ninja, but personally, I don't outshoot my rifle with the "junk" Hogue stock consistently enough yet to want to trade up. I've also never run across any of these precision shooters that could outshoot most factory rifles either. Im sure they are out there, I've just never run into them at the range. I have seen a few with $2500+ precision rifles and optics that don't shoot all that well. If you have the coin to get everything you want at once, great upgrade the stock. Why not? If you don't have the money right away, you might try it out. It might be good enough to get by for a while. Well said. ^ OP if you like the way the stock feels and it makes you shoot good because of it, then keep it. |
|
Quoted:
No, its really not a good stock. It is a slight, very slight, improvement over the typical OEM plastic stock, but thats it. If you want decent, B&C and HS both make these....Good doesnt enter the equation until discussions begin to hover around Manners and McMillan. Well, in MY hands, the stock did really well. I used that stock for a few years in fact, before I had the funds to get into my 1st Manners. I have only used Manners and XLR since that time, but I faired pretty well in various shoots using the Hogue. Equipment is only 1 part of the equation, and I encourage anyone to get the very best they can personally afford. I would rather start off cheap, and be able to get out and shoot, than to sit around for a long length of time "NOT" shooting, because a Hogue is all I could afford. The cheaper components can always be sold to someone else that doesn't have the unlimited bank accounts... it is all about shooting, and getting out and doing your best with what you have access. This is a "Run what you brung" game, like racing, and you can't play unless you get out there. Just like racing, the question is... How fast do you want to go?? DK 
|
| Unfortunately, the OP didn't ask if he could get by with one, or it was all he could afford, or any other myriad questions about shooting. He asked if the Hogue stock was that bad, and yeah, they are pretty bad, about like any other OEM plastic stock. Can you get out and shoot with one? Sure. Is it a good stock? No. OP, check out the Bell and Carlson stocks they really don't cost much, and are actually a decent stock. |
|
Quoted:
Perhaps he's getting the responses he's getting is because this is the "Precision Rifle" forum, it's really not about hunting rifles, nor ammo. That's my biggest gripe about this sub-forum, 50% of the topics have nothing to do with Precision Rifles. I'm not being combative, nor hostile just stating the way I see things. Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. |
|
Quoted:
Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. Thats well and good, but the fact is, you didnt get the forum you wanted, you got this one. I also do not disagree with your opinion, simply that these discussions dont belong here, and when they do occur, to expect a certain amount of derision. Just as one would not ask which oil filter is best for their 87 Camry in a drag racing forum, these sorts of questions are not germane to the discussions this forum was intended to encompass. |
|
Quoted: Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps he's getting the responses he's getting is because this is the "Precision Rifle" forum, it's really not about hunting rifles, nor ammo. That's my biggest gripe about this sub-forum, 50% of the topics have nothing to do with Precision Rifles. I'm not being combative, nor hostile just stating the way I see things. Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. Yes they do! |
|
Quoted:
Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. Quoted:
Quoted:
Perhaps he's getting the responses he's getting is because this is the "Precision Rifle" forum, it's really not about hunting rifles, nor ammo. That's my biggest gripe about this sub-forum, 50% of the topics have nothing to do with Precision Rifles. I'm not being combative, nor hostile just stating the way I see things. Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. just my opinion, but that analogy doesn't jive with my experience. precision shooting is expensive, particularly long range precision. even if someone gave you a top tier rifle and scope for free, the ammo to become proficient will cost thousands of dollars. if you have competent instruction AND a good rifle and scope AND have it set up properly for you, then the learning curve isn't too bad because when you miss a shot, it was you. you have fewer variables to manage (e.g. wind calls, trigger pulling, position) and your instructor can diagnose what was wrong and fix it with minimal drama. when you start out on a budget, buy a cheap scope, a cheap rifle, cheap reloading stuff, can't afford instruction or don't have any friends who actually know what they're doing to help you, you're probably not going to get very far. your rounds are going everywhere and retards on the internet just say "oh they're flyers". you don't know if the problems are the gun, the ammo, or you, or more likely all of the above. so you have no way of diagnosing the problem and you will wind up spending FAR MORE money on ammo trying to figure it out, and then on more and more ammo trying to fix the bad habits you cemented because you couldn't afford instruction. (if the above is 'fun' for someone, then ok, whatever floats your boat. all i can say is for me, hitting targets is a way more fun than trying to find out why you're missing them.) so the difference is you don't need pendlay to learn to lift properly. you can learn the proper, safe techniques with cheap chinese crap or even a PVC pipe. when you use cheap weights and you're not lifting like you want, it's not like it's a mystery and you don't know if the weights are working like they're supposed to. the weights aren't PREVENTING you from learning or getting stronger. if someone is already a competent shooter, a cheap rifle and scope may be a reasonable option. it's a crap shoot whether it works or not, but if it doesn't, a competent shooter will know it's an equipment problem hopefully solve it without much drama, even though it may cost more money |
|
here's a timely example to illustrate the point http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=775414
a good shooter buys a rem model 7 that he knows is going to suck but does it anyway because he wants a light weight gun for flying around alaska and hiking. look at the list of stuff he has to fix to get it to shoot. how long and how much ammo realistically is a new shooter going to take to figure that stuff out? |
|
Quoted:
here's a timely example to illustrate the point http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=775414 a good shooter buys a rem model 7 that he knows is going to suck but does it anyway because he wants a light weight gun for flying around alaska and hiking. look at the list of stuff he has to fix to get it to shoot. how long and how much ammo realistically is a new shooter going to take to figure that stuff out? So a guy bought a Rem 700, and the bolt had a bad spring, and it was poorly assembled so the trigger rubs. Oh noes what is a new guy who isn't a gun smith to do? Send it to Remington and they fix it for free. And it's another Internet claimed case where a new stock improved accuracy about .5 MOA. I wouldn't pay $300 or more to improve my "hiking" gun (whatever that is) by .5 MOA. A competition target rifle? Sure. |
|
Quoted: just my opinion, but that analogy doesn't jive with my experience. precision shooting is expensive, particularly long range precision. even if someone gave you a top tier rifle and scope for free, the ammo to become proficient will cost thousands of dollars. if you have competent instruction AND a good rifle and scope AND have it set up properly for you, then the learning curve isn't too bad because when you miss a shot, it was you. you have fewer variables to manage (e.g. wind calls, trigger pulling, position) and your instructor can diagnose what was wrong and fix it with minimal drama. when you start out on a budget, buy a cheap scope, a cheap rifle, cheap reloading stuff, can't afford instruction or don't have any friends who actually know what they're doing to help you, you're probably not going to get very far. your rounds are going everywhere and retards on the internet just say "oh they're flyers". you don't know if the problems are the gun, the ammo, or you, or more likely all of the above. so you have no way of diagnosing the problem and you will wind up spending FAR MORE money on ammo trying to figure it out, and then on more and more ammo trying to fix the bad habits you cemented because you couldn't afford instruction. (if the above is 'fun' for someone, then ok, whatever floats your boat. all i can say is for me, hitting targets is a way more fun than trying to find out why you're missing them.) so the difference is you don't need pendlay to learn to lift properly. you can learn the proper, safe techniques with cheap chinese crap or even a PVC pipe. when you use cheap weights and you're not lifting like you want, it's not like it's a mystery and you don't know if the weights are working like they're supposed to. the weights aren't PREVENTING you from learning or getting stronger. if someone is already a competent shooter, a cheap rifle and scope may be a reasonable option. it's a crap shoot whether it works or not, but if it doesn't, a competent shooter will know it's an equipment problem hopefully solve it without much drama, even though it may cost more money Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps he's getting the responses he's getting is because this is the "Precision Rifle" forum, it's really not about hunting rifles, nor ammo. That's my biggest gripe about this sub-forum, 50% of the topics have nothing to do with Precision Rifles. I'm not being combative, nor hostile just stating the way I see things. Before the powers that be started this new "Precision" Forum, we asked for a fudd/hunting rifle forum because the tier one crowd gets insulted by people asking basic questions. They decided to expand the precision idea into its own forum but didn't put a basic/hunting/fudd subforum in it. IDK why. What I do know is that lots of people have a lot of fun trying to become better marksman using equipment that many around here discount as being unusable. That's like saying that unless you can afford all new Pendlay equipment you shouldn't even bother lifting. Nonsense. just my opinion, but that analogy doesn't jive with my experience. precision shooting is expensive, particularly long range precision. even if someone gave you a top tier rifle and scope for free, the ammo to become proficient will cost thousands of dollars. if you have competent instruction AND a good rifle and scope AND have it set up properly for you, then the learning curve isn't too bad because when you miss a shot, it was you. you have fewer variables to manage (e.g. wind calls, trigger pulling, position) and your instructor can diagnose what was wrong and fix it with minimal drama. when you start out on a budget, buy a cheap scope, a cheap rifle, cheap reloading stuff, can't afford instruction or don't have any friends who actually know what they're doing to help you, you're probably not going to get very far. your rounds are going everywhere and retards on the internet just say "oh they're flyers". you don't know if the problems are the gun, the ammo, or you, or more likely all of the above. so you have no way of diagnosing the problem and you will wind up spending FAR MORE money on ammo trying to figure it out, and then on more and more ammo trying to fix the bad habits you cemented because you couldn't afford instruction. (if the above is 'fun' for someone, then ok, whatever floats your boat. all i can say is for me, hitting targets is a way more fun than trying to find out why you're missing them.) so the difference is you don't need pendlay to learn to lift properly. you can learn the proper, safe techniques with cheap chinese crap or even a PVC pipe. when you use cheap weights and you're not lifting like you want, it's not like it's a mystery and you don't know if the weights are working like they're supposed to. the weights aren't PREVENTING you from learning or getting stronger. if someone is already a competent shooter, a cheap rifle and scope may be a reasonable option. it's a crap shoot whether it works or not, but if it doesn't, a competent shooter will know it's an equipment problem hopefully solve it without much drama, even though it may cost more money According to this, I've been doing it wrong all these years. Who knew?  |
|
Quoted:
So a guy bought a Rem 700, and the bolt had a bad spring, and it was poorly assembled so the trigger rubs. Oh noes what is a new guy who isn't a gun smith to do? Send it to Remington and they fix it for free. And it's another Internet claimed case where a new stock improved accuracy about .5 MOA. I wouldn't pay $300 or more to improve my "hiking" gun (whatever that is) by .5 MOA. A competition target rifle? Sure. Quoted:
Quoted:
here's a timely example to illustrate the point http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=775414 a good shooter buys a rem model 7 that he knows is going to suck but does it anyway because he wants a light weight gun for flying around alaska and hiking. look at the list of stuff he has to fix to get it to shoot. how long and how much ammo realistically is a new shooter going to take to figure that stuff out? So a guy bought a Rem 700, and the bolt had a bad spring, and it was poorly assembled so the trigger rubs. Oh noes what is a new guy who isn't a gun smith to do? Send it to Remington and they fix it for free. And it's another Internet claimed case where a new stock improved accuracy about .5 MOA. I wouldn't pay $300 or more to improve my "hiking" gun (whatever that is) by .5 MOA. A competition target rifle? Sure. yeah, send your $300 gun back to remington with a complaint that it only shoots 2 MOA. be sure to post their response here. your point about hiking vs competition rifles is spot on. this is a precision rifle forum, and more often than not, trying to use $300 deer rifles with crappy stocks for precision shooting is an exercise in futility; a waste of money According to this, I've been doing it wrong all these years. Who knew? hope you had fun at least |
|
Quoted:
yeah, send your $300 gun back to remington with a complaint that it only shoots 2 MOA. be sure to post their response here. your point about hiking vs competition rifles is spot on. this is a precision rifle forum, and more often than not, trying to use $300 deer rifles with crappy stocks for precision shooting is an exercise in futility; a waste of money hope you had fun at least Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
here's a timely example to illustrate the point http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=775414 a good shooter buys a rem model 7 that he knows is going to suck but does it anyway because he wants a light weight gun for flying around alaska and hiking. look at the list of stuff he has to fix to get it to shoot. how long and how much ammo realistically is a new shooter going to take to figure that stuff out? So a guy bought a Rem 700, and the bolt had a bad spring, and it was poorly assembled so the trigger rubs. Oh noes what is a new guy who isn't a gun smith to do? Send it to Remington and they fix it for free. And it's another Internet claimed case where a new stock improved accuracy about .5 MOA. I wouldn't pay $300 or more to improve my "hiking" gun (whatever that is) by .5 MOA. A competition target rifle? Sure. yeah, send your $300 gun back to remington with a complaint that it only shoots 2 MOA. be sure to post their response here. your point about hiking vs competition rifles is spot on. this is a precision rifle forum, and more often than not, trying to use $300 deer rifles with crappy stocks for precision shooting is an exercise in futility; a waste of money According to this, I've been doing it wrong all these years. Who knew? hope you had fun at least That would not have been the complaint it was sent back for and you know it. Whether you like it or not this is the Bolt Action Forum of arfcom. Expect questions about, oh I don't know, bolt action rifles? Expect people to use what they can afford to try to become better marksman. How many times is it recommended to use a .22 rimfire as a trainer to improve basics. This is not a mystery to me. The only mystery is why people are confused that these questions continue to be discussed. This is the part of this website that has been set aside for it. Sharing what you know and encouraging people to strive for more is a good thing. Telling people that until they hand load precision ammo and spend x amount of dollars on a rifle they shouldn't even bother trying is not. |
| You are correct, this is the bolt action forum...a subforum of the Precision Rifle forum. You would not expect Mini 14 or AK 47 discussions in the Semi Auto portion, or Aimpint vs Eotech question in the Optics area, why would the Bolt Action subforum be any different? |
|
well technically it's the Bolt Action sub-forum of the Precision Rifle forum, which would imply we're talking about precision bolt guns. Don't get me wrong though; I'm not opposed to hunters and others asking questions in this forum about 2-3 MOA rifles. I don't want to exclude people. Doesn't bother me a bit, as long as it's clear what we're talking about. But people usually don't say "this is for deer hunting". They say retarded stuff like "i want to shoot out to 600 yards" or nothing at all. So if they don't specify, I'm going to assume based on the forum title, the context of their question is about precision rifles.
"Sharing what you know and encouraging people to strive for more is a good thing. Telling people that until they hand load precision ammo and spend x amount of dollars on a rifle they shouldn't even bother trying is not. " that's my point. as an example, there's a hobby i would really like to take up. i thought i could get in cheap but multiple friends advised me that i could not accomplish what i wanted on my budget and i would be wasting my money, so i took their advice and am saving my pennies until i can afford to do it right. they understood that i don't want to just own some equipment and say i'm a member of that community; i actually want the capability to do something practical with it. spending the money now to do it cheap and then buying the right equipment later will actually cost more and push my goal more than a year farther out. I really appreciate my friends saving my hard earned money by being honest with me. They weren't discouraging me from the hobby. They were just saying do it the right way. no one, especially me, is trying to discourage people from precision shooting. but think about what you are saying. ultimately, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter how bad the equipment is, people should just dive in and buy whatever they can afford, even if they can only have $300 to spend? what if it's only $200? $100? at what point do you say, "sorry, you just need to save for a few more months"? I suspect what we're really debating here is the amount, not whether or not telling someone to spend x amount is a bad thing. |
|
Quoted:
If you arent going to shoot match ammo or load your own, why shoot at all? The Hogue is junk, no matter the version, regardless of how long the bedding block is. Quoted:
Quoted:
I've shot groups ranging from .8 to 1.5 MOA (not counting occasional fliers that were obviously shooter error) using Privi 168 match ammo and a bipod from a 20" .308 SPS. I believe it is plenty good for anything other than competition shooting. If you aren't going to use match ammo, or load your own accurate rounds, I don't see a reason to switch it. Just my opinion. If you arent going to shoot match ammo or load your own, why shoot at all? The Hogue is junk, no matter the version, regardless of how long the bedding block is. This is what I take exception to. The attitude that if you don't spend a bunch of money you shouldn't even bother. I've been around here a long time and realize that new shooters see that and will hesitate to participate because they fear being criticized. I shoot ball ammo at distance all the time. Out of cheap guns. Its what I can realistically afford without shortchanging other priorities. Knowing the basics, and practicing them, whether I have an MOA rifle or not is what's important. A baseball size group at 100 yards with a golf ball gone from the center is a good shoot with cheap ammo. Knowing that it is not going to get better than that is important. Realizing that better ammo and equipment will shrink those groups is common sense. I read on here long ago that so long as the basics are solid, every round down range is a chance to learn. Breath control, proper setup, squeeze, calling your shot. All of those things can be done for a minimum investment. Honestly, maybe the PF needs a hunting rifle or beginner subforum. But we argued for that in the Armory before this was even created. |
|
If I push the trigger it's usuallyworth a half inch at 100. Jerking or flinching maybe an inch.
Parallax set wrong maybe .75" The difference in a 5 and 15 mph wind on a hornady 75g is worth .72" at 100 Inconsistent recoil management or bipod loading maybe a quarter inch on a bolt gun and 3/4" on a gas gun. A golf ball is 1.7" diameter (I know because some match director makes us mil range them) I have no idea how you could see any of that with a gun/ammo that shoots golf ball sized groups from a lead sled. You could be making every mistake possible or no mistakes and it would be hard to tell the difference. Again shooting baseball sized groups standing kneeling sitting with anything is great and way more practical than shooting .2" groups from a bench, it's just not precision rifle. I have a lot more respect for people who can hit practical targets. |
|
Quoted:
If I push the trigger it's usuallyworth a half inch at 100. Jerking or flinching maybe an inch. Parallax set wrong maybe .75" The difference in a 5 and 15 mph wind on a hornady 75g is worth .72" at 100 Inconsistent recoil management or bipod loading maybe a quarter inch on a bolt gun and 3/4" on a gas gun. A golf ball is 1.7" diameter (I know because some match director makes us mil range them) I have no idea how you could see any of that with a gun/ammo that shoots golf ball sized groups from a lead sled. You could be making every mistake possible or no mistakes and it would be hard to tell the difference. Again shooting baseball sized groups standing kneeling sitting with anything is great and way more practical than shooting .2" groups from a bench, it's just not precision rifle. I have a lot more respect for people who can hit practical targets. So back to the original point, "Do it like I say or don't bother." You honestly think that unless someone is shooting moa or less they are wasting their time. Gotcha. I think that every time a round is fired with the proper fundamentals lessons are being learned. Gonna have to chalk this one up to differing opinion I believe. |
I have a Remington 700 AAC-SD 20" in .308 with the standard pillar-bedded green stock. I shot it out to 600 yards at the InExtremis Precision Rifle Basic course last September. Using 175gr. OTM Match ammo, it shot VERY well. The only thing I did to the stock was open up the barrel channel to ensure the barrel free-floats when shooting prone with a bipod. Sure, the stock flexes, but it doesn't effect the accuracy of my rifle.
|
|
Quoted: If you have not shot the gun from a different, more rigid platform, you cannot say this with any certainty. Quoted: Quoted: Sure, the stock flexes, but it doesn't effect the accuracy of my rifle. If you have not shot the gun from a different, more rigid platform, you cannot say this with any certainty. If it doesn't touch it doesn't touch. How is it going to effect accuracy? |
| Im sorry but the houge stocks really are crap and if they dont bite you on the ass right out of the box the clock is ticking for when it will happen . I have had 2 and that was 2 to many . I am not a high power match shooter I am hunter and precision means everything to me . I would not call a 2 moa gun a good hunting rifle although I would call it an exceptional mini-14 . wether your shooting for the x-ring or a ground hogs head unless you have the same skills of putting the bullet where it goes your going to be awful dissapointed So If a guy ask a question why not try to share some knowledge in a civil manner and help a guy out and by the same token if somebody is kind enought to help dont go off on a rant about unlimited income and being a snob . |
|
Quoted:
If it doesn't touch it doesn't touch. How is it going to effect accuracy? A free floating barrel is only one part of the equation. A rigid base for the receiver is another, and the Hogue is not. Coming back to the barrel issue, if one was to clearance the barrel channel enough to ensure no chance whatsoever of the barrel being contacted under all conditions, it would be quite obvious. The amount of free space required to keep one of these things from touching the barrel when the bipod is loaded would be huge. |
|
Just getting back into the "game" after a 6 year hiatus and have always wondered this:
Physics-wise, how does the flex of a stock's for end alter the accuracy of a free-floating barrel? I understand that flexing around the action could open up a grouping but the forend flex just doesn't seem to matter. Someone please explain. |
|
The fore end of a stock flexing about a truly floated barrel will have no effect. In reality, however, this is rarely the case. If the stock is flexible enough to bend in that manner, odds are it is no more rigid in the action area. Further, in the case of the Hogue, they are often floated, but can easily be flexed enough to contact the barrel, in a typically unpredictable manner. In addition, a stock with a flexible fore end will not yield consistent results when shooting from a bipod.
In the end, a shitty stock like the Hogue can definitely be on a very good shooting rifle, but a quality stock will most likely make that rifle more consistently accurate. |
|
[ Quoted:
If you have not shot the gun from a different, more rigid platform, you cannot say this with any certainty. Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, the stock flexes, but it doesn't effect the accuracy of my rifle. If you have not shot the gun from a different, more rigid platform, you cannot say this with any certainty. With over 750 rounds down the tube, I can definitly say It isn't effecting the accuracy of the rifle. On many occasions, I can shoot 5-round groups and the bullets all touch... 
|
|
Quoted: A free floating barrel is only one part of the equation. A rigid base for the receiver is another, and the Hogue is not. Coming back to the barrel issue, if one was to clearance the barrel channel enough to ensure no chance whatsoever of the barrel being contacted under all conditions, it would be quite obvious. The amount of free space required to keep one of these things from touching the barrel when the bipod is loaded would be huge. Quoted: Quoted: If it doesn't touch it doesn't touch. How is it going to effect accuracy? A free floating barrel is only one part of the equation. A rigid base for the receiver is another, and the Hogue is not. Coming back to the barrel issue, if one was to clearance the barrel channel enough to ensure no chance whatsoever of the barrel being contacted under all conditions, it would be quite obvious. The amount of free space required to keep one of these things from touching the barrel when the bipod is loaded would be huge. Really? Edit to add: You do know that it is just a coating on the outside of the stock and it not the entire material of this right? It's pillar bedded and made of fiberglass. |
|
Quoted:
A free floating barrel is only one part of the equation. A rigid base for the receiver is another, and the Hogue is not. Coming back to the barrel issue, if one was to clearance the barrel channel enough to ensure no chance whatsoever of the barrel being contacted under all conditions, it would be quite obvious. The amount of free space required to keep one of these things from touching the barrel when the bipod is loaded would be huge. Quoted:
Quoted:
If it doesn't touch it doesn't touch. How is it going to effect accuracy? A free floating barrel is only one part of the equation. A rigid base for the receiver is another, and the Hogue is not. Coming back to the barrel issue, if one was to clearance the barrel channel enough to ensure no chance whatsoever of the barrel being contacted under all conditions, it would be quite obvious. The amount of free space required to keep one of these things from touching the barrel when the bipod is loaded would be huge. Actually, it's only 3mm - more than enough to maintain a free-floated barrel. The stock is also pillar bedded, so the action is quite solid/stable when torqued into the stock at 60in/lbs. |
|
Quoted:
Actually, it's only 3mm - more than enough to maintain a free-floated barrel. The stock is also pillar bedded, so the action is quite solid/stable when torqued into the stock at 60in/lbs. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it doesn't touch it doesn't touch. How is it going to effect accuracy? A free floating barrel is only one part of the equation. A rigid base for the receiver is another, and the Hogue is not. Coming back to the barrel issue, if one was to clearance the barrel channel enough to ensure no chance whatsoever of the barrel being contacted under all conditions, it would be quite obvious. The amount of free space required to keep one of these things from touching the barrel when the bipod is loaded would be huge. Actually, it's only 3mm - more than enough to maintain a free-floated barrel. The stock is also pillar bedded, so the action is quite solid/stable when torqued into the stock at 60in/lbs. OK... |
