Posted: 8/13/2015 6:09:52 PM EDT
|
You may be interested in this video and story from Snipers Hide:
http://www.scout.com/military/snipers-hide/story/1573179-face-off-ai-ax-vs-ruger-precision-rifle Enjoy. Ted |
|
Quoted:
Not sure what to think about that and not sure what that tells me. The Ruger is capable of hitting a target at 450 yards? I would think so. It's telling you that the Ruger Precision Rifle is no joke. The AI AX is the pinnacle of precision rifles, the gold standard right now and it shows how well Ruger did with a $1000 stock rifle. it hangs right up there with the best of them. |
|
Quoted:
Not sure what to think about that and not sure what that tells me. The Ruger is capable of hitting a target at 450 yards? I would think so. I think I agree with this. Any factory bolt gun can hit a 12 in target at 450 yards. I'm not saying the Ruger isn't a nice rifle. It looks like it very well may be but I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this test. |
|
Quoted:
I think I agree with this. Any factory bolt gun can hit a 12 in target at 450 yards. I'm not saying the Ruger isn't a nice rifle. It looks like it very well may be but I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this test. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure what to think about that and not sure what that tells me. The Ruger is capable of hitting a target at 450 yards? I would think so. I think I agree with this. Any factory bolt gun can hit a 12 in target at 450 yards. I'm not saying the Ruger isn't a nice rifle. It looks like it very well may be but I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this test. And that's my point. My Tikka CTR can do this. RPR is a nice rifle. I own one. But no conclusions from this. Maybe some are just used to having crappy rifles and this matters. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not a known shooter but will be running one through a match next weekend. I expect it will perform well. Quoted:
Quoted:
I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. I believe it will also and that is exactly what I think he was trying to show in the video. That it can be a competitive rifle in "tactical" type matches. He wants to get more people shooting matches and now they have a cheap option to get them in the game. The "sport" of long range precision shooting is growing big already and this can only help it grow further. |
|
Quoted: I believe it will also and that is exactly what I think he was trying to show in the video. That it can be a competitive rifle in "tactical" type matches. He wants to get more people shooting matches and now they have a cheap option to get them in the game. The "sport" of long range precision shooting is growing big already and this can only help it grow further. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. I believe it will also and that is exactly what I think he was trying to show in the video. That it can be a competitive rifle in "tactical" type matches. He wants to get more people shooting matches and now they have a cheap option to get them in the game. The "sport" of long range precision shooting is growing big already and this can only help it grow further. |
|
Quoted:
I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. Bingo. Its called a precision rifle and I really do not care which one a person can fire the fastest. Which one has sub MOA potential and down range accuracy is what I want to see, |
|
I like the idea of the Ruger but I think people are investing a bit much hope in it. Plenty of factory guns will shoot near as well as one of those AIs. You won't have much trouble finding a Savage or Remington or Tikka that can easily put them in less than an inch. They just won't come in a whizbang cool stock. In all practical senses, most any decent big-name factory gun today could be a precision rifle, unless it was a real lemon.
You're paying for more than just direct performance with a big name gun like an AI or GAP or whatever. Yes, you're getting a great gun, but there's also fit, finish, miscellaneous other features, and also the name, which cannot be discounted. I love shooting small groups, but anyone realistic with themselves knows that stepping from factory to custom territory nets you a fairly small amount of actual accuracy. People act like a 1 MOA gun is nothing special, but shave 1/3-1/2 of an inch off of that and you're got a shooter worth thousands more. I know I spent near 1k on a barrel that did just that, and was pretty happy about it, too. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it, and doesn't cheapen the Ruger. But people who act like it's something it isn't- something in competition with an extremely rugged, dependable, and well known high end rifle- do it a disservice. People who dismiss it out of hand do the same. But slapping steel at that range is pretty pedestrian. I guess what I'm saying is, don't expect the RPR to replace all those customs and McMillans you see listed at PSR competitions. |
|
Quoted:
I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. You missed the point of this test. A shorter distance where shots fired in a given amount of time is measured removes the influence of the shooter and is a fairer comparison of the rifles' capabilities, i.e. action cycling, stability while cycling, and reloading. That the Ruger fared so well with a shooter who was relatively unfamiliar with it and against the creme of the crop speaks volumes. |
|
Quoted: Bingo. Its called a precision rifle and I really do not care which one a person can fire the fastest. Which one has sub MOA potential and down range accuracy is what I want to see, Quoted: Quoted: I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. Bingo. Its called a precision rifle and I really do not care which one a person can fire the fastest. Which one has sub MOA potential and down range accuracy is what I want to see, It's not going to replace AI's and custom guns for the top level shooters. What it will do is make this type of competition feasible for guys who can't afford to drop thousands of dollars on a high end rifle. |
|
Quoted:
I like the idea of the Ruger but I think people are investing a bit much hope in it. Plenty of factory guns will shoot near as well as one of those AIs. You won't have much trouble finding a Savage or Remington or Tikka that can easily put them in less than an inch. They just won't come in a whizbang cool stock. In all practical senses, most any decent big-name factory gun today could be a precision rifle, unless it was a real lemon. You're paying for more than just direct performance with a big name gun like an AI or GAP or whatever. Yes, you're getting a great gun, but there's also fit, finish, miscellaneous other features, and also the name, which cannot be discounted. I love shooting small groups, but anyone realistic with themselves knows that stepping from factory to custom territory nets you a fairly small amount of actual accuracy. People act like a 1 MOA gun is nothing special, but shave 1/3-1/2 of an inch off of that and you're got a shooter worth thousands more. I know I spent near 1k on a barrel that did just that, and was pretty happy about it, too. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it, and doesn't cheapen the Ruger. But people who act like it's something it isn't- something in competition with an extremely rugged, dependable, and well known high end rifle- do it a disservice. People who dismiss it out of hand do the same. But slapping steel at that range is pretty pedestrian. I guess what I'm saying is, don't expect the RPR to replace all those customs and McMillans you see listed at PSR competitions. To expect the RPR to displace all the high-end rifles is absurd. To expect it to whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc...- seems to be well within expectations, at least with what tentative data has been generated thus far. Also, think of how many people will now be able to jump into the game with a highly capable rifle at a very reasonable cost. Most of those folks likely never even seriously considered an AI or McMillan. I will agree: a bit of caution and skepticism is healthy for any new release, but far too many allow parochial interests, lack of foresight and insight, and general pessimism to cloud one's vision. |
|
The AI rifles are over engineered to not only be accurate but functional if you freeze it or pack it with dirt. Any rifle can be accurate but pour a pound of sand in it then freeze it and see if it works let alone group well. The AI will.
The Ruger is a great rifle in its own right. It's not on the same tier as the AI nor is it intended to be. You get alot of features per dollar with the Ruger. How fast one person operates one rifle vs the other means little IMHO. |
|
Guys, the intent of the video and article was to show the ergonomics and
functionality of the RPR using the Gold Standard AI as the yardstick by which precision rifles are measured. Possibly to get audience feed-back: you can always email Snipers Hide and pick their brains. I was interested to see the very outspoken desire for more details concerning accuracy. That question will be answered in due time as members buy and use their own RPR under various conditions. I, too, am interested in the actual capability, but I also want to absorb as much detail about the gun as possible. To be witness to true accuracy the shooter should be examined as much as the rifle. Some of the targets already posted by members show truly mediocre results, most likely because the shooter is incapable of doing any better and not the fault of cartridge or rifle. Personally I think only a complete fool would think the RPR is the equal or superior to the AI. What, from all indications, is that it is a well made entry level precision rifle that can be used to train a new comer or stand as is for one who wants something apart from the traditional rifle. As another member said, how much of a gap between the two guns accuracy is there? In the coming months we will discover much about the gun and its potential, in mean time I suggest if you have a real interest, then soak up as much as possible even if the info doesn't answer all questions at once. But beware, there are plenty of 1/4 MOA keyboard sharpshooters, separating their "contributions" from the experts can sometimes be a real chore. Ted |
|
The reason the RPR is such a great value is that it has what would be at least a $600 chassis from the factory. The ability to quickly adjust the cheek rest height and length of pull is HUGE. Plus the 20moa rail and forward rail...
It has at least $700 in accessories from the factory. My $250 howa (ee buy, shot ~.75" groups until it would beat up). You can get cheap bolt actions that will shoot submoa but they won't have those accessories and factory warranty with the accessories. |
|
Quoted:
I think Frank has sufficiently addressed the concept of the "MOA challenge" with the RPR over on the Hide.... ie. Send him two boxes of ammo and he'll shoot it for you, otherwise he isn't wasting ammo on it. I posted my MOA challenge target in the main river thread. I shot my AR at the same time for a relative baseline. I think plenty of people have posted plenty of groups for those interested to develop a close expectation for accuracy. So where's my two boxes of ammo? 
|
|
Quoted:
I think Frank has sufficiently addressed the concept of the "MOA challenge" with the RPR over on the Hide.... ie. Send him two boxes of ammo and he'll shoot it for you, otherwise he isn't wasting ammo on it. I'm guessing with confidence that ol' Frank gets lots of free ammo sent his way, certainly enough that shooting the 1MOA Challenge should be sand off the beach. |
|
Quoted:
To expect the RPR to displace all the high-end rifles is absurd. To expect it to whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc...- seems to be well within expectations, at least with what tentative data has been generated thus far. I'd love to see what data you're basing this off of. Best I've seen mustered by anyone was.486MOA shown here.. Sounds great and all, but my $700 off the shelf super non tacticool Tikka T3 Varmint does that with non-match box ammo, and 1/3MOA with handloads (at 100yards). Dropping a ringer of an action/barrel in a good chassis is going to outshine the RPR. You need to have that base otherwise the rest is just 10lbs of shite to distract you from the fact that the rifle isn't that great a shooter in the first place. Note: I'm not saying the RPS is junk, and sub 1/2MOA isn't an easy feat so I was actually impressed to see that. The rest of what I've seen however are guys hovering around the 1MOA mark. Sweet...right on par with my $350 Savage Axis hunting rifle, I just saved myself a shitload of $$! I've seen it written numerous times here, and it's the honest to goodness truth: 1MOA is NOT a precision rifle...it's the benchmark for every $200 rifle you buy at walmart. It doesn't matter how tacticool the rifle is, if you can't at least cut that in half don't even think about calling it a precision rifle. |
|
Quoted: I'd love to see what data you're basing this off of. Best I've seen mustered by anyone was.486MOA shown here.. Sounds great and all, but my $700 off the shelf super non tacticool Tikka T3 Varmint does that with non-match box ammo, and 1/3MOA with handloads (at 100yards). Dropping a ringer of an action/barrel in a good chassis is going to outshine the RPR. You need to have that base otherwise the rest is just 10lbs of shite to distract you from the fact that the rifle isn't that great a shooter in the first place. Note: I'm not saying the RPS is junk, and sub 1/2MOA isn't an easy feat so I was actually impressed to see that. The rest of what I've seen however are guys hovering around the 1MOA mark. Sweet...right on par with my $350 Savage Axis hunting rifle, I just saved myself a shitload of $$! I've seen it written numerous times here, and it's the honest to goodness truth: 1MOA is NOT a precision rifle...it's the benchmark for every $200 rifle you buy at walmart. It doesn't matter how tacticool the rifle is, if you can't at least cut that in half don't even think about calling it a precision rifle. Quoted: Quoted: To expect the RPR to displace all the high-end rifles is absurd. To expect it to whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc...- seems to be well within expectations, at least with what tentative data has been generated thus far. I'd love to see what data you're basing this off of. Best I've seen mustered by anyone was.486MOA shown here.. Sounds great and all, but my $700 off the shelf super non tacticool Tikka T3 Varmint does that with non-match box ammo, and 1/3MOA with handloads (at 100yards). Dropping a ringer of an action/barrel in a good chassis is going to outshine the RPR. You need to have that base otherwise the rest is just 10lbs of shite to distract you from the fact that the rifle isn't that great a shooter in the first place. Note: I'm not saying the RPS is junk, and sub 1/2MOA isn't an easy feat so I was actually impressed to see that. The rest of what I've seen however are guys hovering around the 1MOA mark. Sweet...right on par with my $350 Savage Axis hunting rifle, I just saved myself a shitload of $$! I've seen it written numerous times here, and it's the honest to goodness truth: 1MOA is NOT a precision rifle...it's the benchmark for every $200 rifle you buy at walmart. It doesn't matter how tacticool the rifle is, if you can't at least cut that in half don't even think about calling it a precision rifle. There is a .314 group in the MOA all day thread. I don't see many $200 rifles print 1 MOA groups group after group. There is also an element of the shooter. A lot of people can't shoot well enough to shoot groups that tiny either. |
|
Quoted: There is a .314 group in the MOA all day thread. I don't see many $200 rifles print 1 MOA groups group after group.
There is also an element of the shooter. A lot of people can't shoot well enough to shoot groups that tiny either. I'll have to look for that thread, as I haven't seen it (nevermind, I found it.). In defense of your second sentence, I haven't seen that for the RPR either. The rest of the groups in my link go .911, .826, .836. The groups in the MOA ALL DAY thread aren't consistent either with .848 / .696 / .329 / 1.200 / .668. Again, I'm not saying the RPR is a garbage rifle. My point of contention was with the comment that it was going to "whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc.." I'm my opinion the RPR is an entry level way into the "full custom" precision rifle category. It will not outshine a reasonably custom 700 or Tikka build (by that I mean $1500-2000 minus glass). I certainly agree with your "shooter element" statement. |
|
Quoted:
I'll have to look for that thread, as I haven't seen it (nevermind, I found it.). In defense of your second sentence, I haven't seen that for the RPR either. The rest of the groups in my link go .911, .826, .836. The groups in the MOA ALL DAY thread aren't consistent either with .848 / .696 / .329 / 1.200 / .668. Again, I'm not saying the RPR is a garbage rifle. My point of contention was with the comment that it was going to "whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc.." I'm my opinion the RPR is an entry level way into the "full custom" precision rifle category. It will not outshine a reasonably custom 700 or Tikka build (by that I mean $1500-2000 minus glass). I certainly agree with your "shooter element" statement. Quoted:
Quoted: There is a .314 group in the MOA all day thread. I don't see many $200 rifles print 1 MOA groups group after group.
There is also an element of the shooter. A lot of people can't shoot well enough to shoot groups that tiny either. I'll have to look for that thread, as I haven't seen it (nevermind, I found it.). In defense of your second sentence, I haven't seen that for the RPR either. The rest of the groups in my link go .911, .826, .836. The groups in the MOA ALL DAY thread aren't consistent either with .848 / .696 / .329 / 1.200 / .668. Again, I'm not saying the RPR is a garbage rifle. My point of contention was with the comment that it was going to "whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc.." I'm my opinion the RPR is an entry level way into the "full custom" precision rifle category. It will not outshine a reasonably custom 700 or Tikka build (by that I mean $1500-2000 minus glass). I certainly agree with your "shooter element" statement. In my opinion there is no reason to own a $1500-$2000 rifle anymore with the RPR since the RPR is half the cost and will do everything they will. The days of spending $500 on a Savage 10FP or Remington 700 and dropping it in a $500+ chassis are basically over as they offer no advantage over the RPR. You have to realize too that the people that shoot the MOA All Day thread aren't all the same level of shooters so there will be a wide variation in the group sizes. |
My MOA attempt. I did not post it on the MOA thread because I know it can do better. The flyer (and I'm saying flyer because I did not call a pull on that shot) in the top right group caused the overall average to increase significantly. I have a detailed range report in page 11 of the Ruger thread. Explained groups opening when the barrel was hot. By open I mean going from .4 to .7 to still perfect acceptable.
I don't think that's bad at all for a $1000 rifle and I think it will only get better with break in and better shooting conditions. In all fairness my 308 Remington 700 shoots just as well and costs just as much after modifications (stock, trigger, etc.) but doesn't have the adjustability and doesn't feel as natural to shoot in odd positions. |
|
Quoted: You missed the point of this test. A shorter distance where shots fired in a given amount of time is measured removes the influence of the shooter and is a fairer comparison of the rifles' capabilities, i.e. action cycling, stability while cycling, and reloading. That the Ruger fared so well with a shooter who was relatively unfamiliar with it and against the creme of the crop speaks volumes. Quoted: Quoted: I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. You missed the point of this test. A shorter distance where shots fired in a given amount of time is measured removes the influence of the shooter and is a fairer comparison of the rifles' capabilities, i.e. action cycling, stability while cycling, and reloading. That the Ruger fared so well with a shooter who was relatively unfamiliar with it and against the creme of the crop speaks volumes. Strapping the two rifles into a lead-sled and firing them with an air-pressure trigger release will show a rifle's true accuracy/repeatability. Everything else is the shooter. Introducing shooter error into the comparison of two 'precision rifles' defeats being able to identify the true inherent accuracy of both rifles and enters into the realm of how well a given shooter shoots the weapons. When I evaluate a precision stick, I want to know what the intrinsic accuracy of the rifle is...not how well somebody can operate it.
|
|
Quoted:
Strapping the two rifles into a lead-sled and firing them with an air-pressure trigger release will show a rifle's true accuracy/repeatability. Everything else is the shooter. Introducing shooter error into the comparison of two 'precision rifles' defeats being able to identify the true inherent accuracy of both rifles and enters into the realm of how well a given shooter shoots the weapons. When I evaluate a precision stick, I want to know what the intrinsic accuracy of the rifle is...not how well somebody can operate it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would be more interested in 1000 yard shots from a recognized shooter for there input. You missed the point of this test. A shorter distance where shots fired in a given amount of time is measured removes the influence of the shooter and is a fairer comparison of the rifles' capabilities, i.e. action cycling, stability while cycling, and reloading. That the Ruger fared so well with a shooter who was relatively unfamiliar with it and against the creme of the crop speaks volumes. Strapping the two rifles into a lead-sled and firing them with an air-pressure trigger release will show a rifle's true accuracy/repeatability. Everything else is the shooter. Introducing shooter error into the comparison of two 'precision rifles' defeats being able to identify the true inherent accuracy of both rifles and enters into the realm of how well a given shooter shoots the weapons. When I evaluate a precision stick, I want to know what the intrinsic accuracy of the rifle is...not how well somebody can operate it. This was not an accuracy test.  It was a "how well does this rifle work with an actual shooter shooting it" test. It stacks up with regard to ergonomics and operation.
|
|
Quoted:
In my opinion there is no reason to own a $1500-$2000 rifle anymore with the RPR since the RPR is half the cost and will do everything they will. The days of spending $500 on a Savage 10FP or Remington 700 and dropping it in a $500+ chassis are basically over as they offer no advantage over the RPR. You have to realize too that the people that shoot the MOA All Day thread aren't all the same level of shooters so there will be a wide variation in the group sizes. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: There is a .314 group in the MOA all day thread. I don't see many $200 rifles print 1 MOA groups group after group.
There is also an element of the shooter. A lot of people can't shoot well enough to shoot groups that tiny either. I'll have to look for that thread, as I haven't seen it (nevermind, I found it.). In defense of your second sentence, I haven't seen that for the RPR either. The rest of the groups in my link go .911, .826, .836. The groups in the MOA ALL DAY thread aren't consistent either with .848 / .696 / .329 / 1.200 / .668. Again, I'm not saying the RPR is a garbage rifle. My point of contention was with the comment that it was going to "whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc.." I'm my opinion the RPR is an entry level way into the "full custom" precision rifle category. It will not outshine a reasonably custom 700 or Tikka build (by that I mean $1500-2000 minus glass). I certainly agree with your "shooter element" statement. In my opinion there is no reason to own a $1500-$2000 rifle anymore with the RPR since the RPR is half the cost and will do everything they will. The days of spending $500 on a Savage 10FP or Remington 700 and dropping it in a $500+ chassis are basically over as they offer no advantage over the RPR. You have to realize too that the people that shoot the MOA All Day thread aren't all the same level of shooters so there will be a wide variation in the group sizes. I disagree, but that is also just my opinion. I have nothing against the RPR in fact I think it is awesome that someone did this. The thing with a custom rifle is just that it is a custom ordered to your exact build specs. Everything from getting the exact stock you want (and yes I prefer a stock to a chassis) the exact trigger and pull weight. The exact caliber you want and many long range shooters use wildcat or calibers that have saami specs but are less common to the average shooter. You can get the exact chamber you want with the exact amount of lead you want for the exact bullet you plan to use. You can get longer heavier barrels and yes I like my barrels longer and heavier than the average arfcommer. I could go on, but the point is while this RPR is a great option there are still plenty of reasons to buy a full custom and that market isn't going away. |
|
Quoted: One *has* to consider the skill of the person driving the rifle just as much as the raw accuracy capability of the rifle itself... This guy gets it. For 90%+ of the people the difference between the $7000 AI and the $1000 is unrealized because of their skill or lack there of. |
|
Quoted:
I'd love to see what data you're basing this off of. Best I've seen mustered by anyone was.486MOA shown here.. Sounds great and all, but my $700 off the shelf super non tacticool Tikka T3 Varmint does that with non-match box ammo, and 1/3MOA with handloads (at 100yards). Dropping a ringer of an action/barrel in a good chassis is going to outshine the RPR. You need to have that base otherwise the rest is just 10lbs of shite to distract you from the fact that the rifle isn't that great a shooter in the first place. Note: I'm not saying the RPS is junk, and sub 1/2MOA isn't an easy feat so I was actually impressed to see that. The rest of what I've seen however are guys hovering around the 1MOA mark. Sweet...right on par with my $350 Savage Axis hunting rifle, I just saved myself a shitload of $$! I've seen it written numerous times here, and it's the honest to goodness truth: 1MOA is NOT a precision rifle...it's the benchmark for every $200 rifle you buy at walmart. It doesn't matter how tacticool the rifle is, if you can't at least cut that in half don't even think about calling it a precision rifle. Quoted:
Quoted:
To expect the RPR to displace all the high-end rifles is absurd. To expect it to whip the lower-end competition- Remington, Tikka, Savage, etc...- seems to be well within expectations, at least with what tentative data has been generated thus far. I'd love to see what data you're basing this off of. Best I've seen mustered by anyone was.486MOA shown here.. Sounds great and all, but my $700 off the shelf super non tacticool Tikka T3 Varmint does that with non-match box ammo, and 1/3MOA with handloads (at 100yards). Dropping a ringer of an action/barrel in a good chassis is going to outshine the RPR. You need to have that base otherwise the rest is just 10lbs of shite to distract you from the fact that the rifle isn't that great a shooter in the first place. Note: I'm not saying the RPS is junk, and sub 1/2MOA isn't an easy feat so I was actually impressed to see that. The rest of what I've seen however are guys hovering around the 1MOA mark. Sweet...right on par with my $350 Savage Axis hunting rifle, I just saved myself a shitload of $$! I've seen it written numerous times here, and it's the honest to goodness truth: 1MOA is NOT a precision rifle...it's the benchmark for every $200 rifle you buy at walmart. It doesn't matter how tacticool the rifle is, if you can't at least cut that in half don't even think about calling it a precision rifle. I agree with much of this post, but find the highly adjustable chassis and accessory capability of the RPR to present incredible added value at the price point. I respecfully strongly disagree with the last paragraph. The gun mags make their money from advertising. They have every incentive to fudge in favor of the mfg when they test new bolt guns. NRA's American Rifleman may be the most unbiased, but they too, make money from gun mfg ads. Just pick up any issue. I have them going back for decades. If you limit your search to just the most recent, perhaps last five years, you will see how few production bolt guns break 1 MOA, regardless of cost. Most hover between 1.5 MOA and 2.25 MOA, even with match ammo. Some of them quite pricey, too. 1 MOA benchmark for a $200 "Walmart" rifle is simply untrue, unrealistic hyperbole. I don't dispute that a rifle should be consistently sub MOA with match ammo to be called precision. But, few production rifles, especially those in big box stores are under 1.5 MOA. |
|
Quoted:
This guy gets it. For 90%+ of the people the difference between the $7000 AI and the $1000 is unrealized because of their skill or lack there of. Quoted:
Quoted:
One *has* to consider the skill of the person driving the rifle just as much as the raw accuracy capability of the rifle itself... This guy gets it. For 90%+ of the people the difference between the $7000 AI and the $1000 is unrealized because of their skill or lack there of. ^^^^^^ Yep. |