Realistic 30-30 accuracy?

[KCSO]

In an average levergun I look for around 3" at 100 yards and 1/2 that in a good tuned levergun. In a T/C bull barreled single shot with a 3x9 scope I have shot below an inch with good cast loads and i was trying for a 1/2" group.

[northmn]

Ed Harris on the other Cast Bullet site tried some of the old classics like the 95 Winchester and a couple of others, and found with factory loads that about a 4" group was common. Knew a gunsmith that sighted in 94's but shot slow and let the barrel cool between shots as he stated the barrel bands can cause havoc ( he was paid to sight them in not modify them). He would take out several rifles and alternate shooting them. My old Marlin required a bit of forestock loosening to get to shoot well as it wanted to walk to the right. Have not seen any comment here I would really debate. Some claim groups of a little larger than an inch but for most of us, even with a scope, 3" or less would be pretty acceptable. I guess I maybe do not expect as much out of a lever gun as I should, but find that they deliver minute of deer adequately at the ranges I shoot deer. Another point is that I used to shoot a lot of offhand competition with muzzle loaders. Some of the shooters claiming great bench rest groups were lucky to hit the paper offhand at 100 yards. I do not carry a bench rest with me in the woods but have shot a lot of deer with improvised rests, like X sticks.

DP

[roberto mervicini]

It depend from the rifle and the person using it. Set up with peep I find a little more accurate than buck horn, however at 100 rested it should work inside 2 to 3" .

[searcher4851]

3" at 100 yards is all that I require from my 94's. I know they are capable of it, so if it's not happening, I figure it's me or the load. Seems like it's usually me.

[blixen]

I didn't expect such a response. Tnx. I plan on blackening my front sight, carefully loading another 100 rounds and trying again as soon as possible. I may drop back to 50 yards for load development, before I take on 100 again.
BTW, I'm lubing with 45/45/10 Alox/wax/thinner. I'm using 4759 because I'm about out my usual powders and the stores are cleaned out.

[Lonegun1894]

I get the occasional 1-1.5" group, but usually 2-2.5" at 100yds with my M94. Now on bad days, that opens up to 3-4", but even the bad days are good enough to put a deer or hog in the freezer, so anything better than that is just a bonus.

[kir_kenix]

My best shooting 94 was built in the mid '50's and wears unmarked receiver sights. From solid bench, with the correct bag on a rest, I'm very happy with 3" groups. Offhand, I'm content to put them all on a paper plate (deer vital dimensions). I've shot a few wallet groups that measure less than half my regular bench shot average...but they are NOT the norm. Remember, these are hunting guns...not benchrest guns. Whenever I hear about people shooting consistent 1" groups from a 94, I just roll my eyes.

I think you are doing really well, especially considering the limited load development and the conditions. Have fun pumping lead down range and loading for your fine rifle.

[dverna]

I didn't expect such a response. Tnx. I plan on blackening my front sight, carefully loading another 100 rounds and trying again as soon as possible. I may drop back to 50 yards for load development, before I take on 100 again.
BTW, I'm lubing with 45/45/10 Alox/wax/thinner. I'm using 4759 because I'm about out my usual powders and the stores are cleaned out.

50 yards is to get the gun shooting POI close to POA. Load development at 50 yards is a waste of time. If you get a good groups at 50 you still need to test it at 100 (or longer range). As has been stated, groups really open up as distance increases and it is NOT linear.

I also do all my load development with a scope. It is just so much easier and if I get a "flier" I know it is not a sight issue but a true load issue.

I agree with others here about 3-5" groups being a lot more "normal" for a 94 than under 2". Heck, there are a lot of scoped bolt guns that will not hold under 2" consistently - but no one wants to man up to that after spending $1000+ on a rifle and scope.

You will kill a lot of game with a 4 MOA rifle if you don't try to be Davey Crocket and try for neck shots.

[northmn]

50 yards is to get the gun shooting POI close to POA. Load development at 50 yards is a waste of time. If you get a good groups at 50 you still need to test it at 100 (or longer range). As has been stated, groups really open up as distance increases and it is NOT linear.

I also do all my load development with a scope. It is just so much easier and if I get a "flier" I know it is not a sight issue but a true load issue.

I agree with others here about 3-5" groups being a lot more "normal" for a 94 than under 2". Heck, there are a lot of scoped bolt guns that will not hold under 2" consistently.

50 yards may be OK for those that only shoot up close, but I can agree with this statement fully. You will do better at less than 50 ayrds with a rifle sighted in at 100 yards than you probably will if you have to take a longer shot with a rifle sighted in at 50 yards. Used to read about how you could sight in at 25 and be point on at some longer range. Works in theory maybe but in practice all it was good for was to get on paper at longer ranges. Sometimes I have had to use a fairly large paper. There is also a lot to be said for sighting in cold. Make sure the rifle shoots where you want it with a "cold" barrel or one that has not been fired recently. I ahve seen more than one lever gun that likes to walk a bit, even after taking Bill's excellent advice. 94 or 336 barrels are hardly bull barrels.

DP

[Baron von Trollwhack]

The "fix" for improving lever gun accuracy is well established. There have been discussions here within the last 2-3 years. It works and it is easy.

BvT

[imashooter2]

My Marlin 30AS is a 2.75 inch rifle with my very best handloads and a trifle over that with factory. My 1894C does 3.5 to 4 inches. Those are all 5 shots at 100 yards. I read lots of stories about MOA or less lever actions, but I never see them shooting at the ranges I visit.

[badbob454]

Winchester guys don hate me .. I have shot 3" groups or less with a marlin microgroove barrel inside a tennis ball bullseye every shot with a 3x9 scope 100 yds fmj bullets (didn't cast back then)I had a Winchester I couldn't hit the target
but once in 5 shots , same ammo ,same scope ,so your old eyes , I would say are doing excellent with iron sites just saying different rifles shoot differently and I would recommend a scope temporarily to work up a load then switch back,....disclaimer this was one Winchester and does not mean the marlin is a better rifle , just my experience..

[Garyshome]

Interesting philosophy, kind of tough hitting a deer that way though.

[Garyshome]

Silly shooter! One shoots groups to establish an accurate load. Otherwise, close your eyes, hold your nose and just buy ammo from wally.

[NickSS]

I have been shooting 30-30 rifles for over 45 years and mostly with reciever sights and a front bead sight. My eyes are getting poorer so my groups have suffered some of late but I have done enough shooting to know the potential of my rifles and loads. On the average with a good load and cast bullets I have shot many 10 shot hundred yard groups with 94 winchesters in the 2 to 2.5 inch range. The same loads when shot at 200 yards print groups of 4 to 5 inch groups. Interestingly my cast loads turn in better groups at both ranges than any jacketed loads I ever developed by something like 10 to 15% smaller. I do not know why. I routinly shoot a Pedersoli 30-30 rolling block I have in 200 yard silhouette matches at my club and have had good success with it. That rifle actually shoots better than a 94 lever action. 1.5 moa is average group size with it.

[Canuck Bob]

http://www.castbullet.com/shooting/accu.htm

This is a good link were a guy takes the 30-30 peep sight rifle and cast up a notch or two. His 4 part series on the 94 is both informative and fun. the above link is part 2.

[Scharfschuetze]

Nice article Canuck. It certainly brings to light the utility of peep sights. Let me add the following from my experience of shooting peep sights on the M-1, M-14, M-16 and various civilian rifles.

I've been shooting Model 94s for about as much time as NickSS has been and I've seen a few that wouldn't hold 4 to 5" at 100 yards and a few that were close to MOA rifles. Barrel quality and wear, forarm binding, rounds in the magazine and what not all either contribute to or detract from their ultimate accuracy. That's all been said above so let me move on to my main point on accuracy with 30/30s.

Vision is pretty important in the accuracy game and a scope will certainly enhance it, but most 30/30s can't or won't ever wear a scope sight so an aperture sight is the best option for most 30/30 shooters. There are two components in the proper use of any iron sight and those are "sight alignment" and "sight picture." While this is probably old knowledge for most members here, let me emphasize it again as it can cure a lot of those flyers and open groups. As a firearms instructor for both police and the military I found this to be one of the main reasons for poor shooting with iron sights.

1. Sight alignment is critical and any error here introduces an angular error into the equation. You can define it by saying the front sight is in the middle of the rear sight without any reference to a target. The eye will, in most cases, align the front sight in the center of an aperture and thus the reputation of peep sights being more accurate than barrel mounted buckhorns or military style sights such as on Mausers or 1903 Springfields. Focusing your eye on the front sight is the key to maintaining this alignment. It is important to see the front sight sharply and accept the fact that your aperture and your target will be blurred somewhat. The human eye is like a camera lense. It has a depth of field and you can only focus on one point at a time. The front sight is your friend in the accuracy game. Focus on it and allow the target to be a bit blurry. This changes when you use an aperture front sight in addition to the aperture rear sight, but that's outside this post.

2. Sight picture is merely maintaining good sight alignment and placing the front sight on the part of the target you want to hit. An error here is not angular and thus does not increase with distance. For target shooting at bullseyes, I zero my sights so that I can hold at the bottom of the bullseye and the boolits impact the center or 10/X ring. This gives me a more precise aiming point and it is popular with most of the military shooting teams. This is often called a 6 O'Clock hold.

3. In order to establish a good sight picture, I like a blade or post front sight that is as square as possible on the top and blackened to prevent glare. A wider than normal sight is my preference. Depending on barrel length, I like something around .08 inches in width. Fine sights like the old 1903 Springfield sights can induce a bit of eye strain for us older shooters. The diameter of the rear aperture should be variable if possible so as to compensate for various light conditions, sight radius and the shooter's eye. Lyman sights come with two aperture inserts so you have an option of three diameter sizes. Small, medium and a ghost ring without the inserts installed.

4. Presbyopia (inability to focus up close) is a fact of life for most of us past 45 or so. Next time you are at the optician's, explain to the doctor that you need a set of shooting glasses and that you need to have them focus on your front sight. Measure that distance before going in and look for an average distance between your rifles. He can adjust the prescription to help you out so that you can see that front sight clearly without eye strain. Being in the Army, the optician always made on my request such a pair of glasses with tempered polycarbonate lenses and flat temple to fit under ear muffs or radio headsets. With such a prescription I can see just fine at distance and I normally default to them for driving, hunting and typing this on the computer. The cost of a good set of shooting glasses optimized to your eyes will pay off in spades when you start seeing that front sight again.

Eye strain at distance is not part of the equation. We should be focusing on the front sight and not the target for a good group. For distance, just use a larger target. let's say you like a 4" diameter target at 50 yards and do well on that. That target is roughly 8 MOA in diameter so an 8 MOA target at 100 yards will equal roughly 8 inches. At 200 yards that would make for a 16" target which for deer hunters, is about the lung/heart area for a large deer. Either way, you will see virtually the same sight picture if you are focusing on the front sight with a proper prescription.

As for 30/30 accuracy in a Model 94, I'd be happy with a 3 MOA carbine with good ammo and really happy with a 2 MOA carbine. I just checked my loading notes and my 1956 production Model 94 Carbine with a Redfield aperture sight is a solid 2 MOA rifle with 170 grain boolits and more of a 3 MOA rifle with 150 grain boolits.

Someday I'm going to load 155 grain Palma or 168 grain Sierra Match Kings just short of the rifling (single loaded of course) and see just what the old girl will do MOA wise.

[TXGunNut]

Excellent post, Scharf. Have you had any luck or experiece with progressive lenses? Mine allow me to see the front sight but target is almost indistinguishable @ 100 yds with my current prescription. I'm due for new lenses soon. My eye doc is a shooter but he's more into handguns and short-range MSR-type shooting.
Sorry about the hi-jack, OP.

[blixen]

Took the Mod. 94 to the range again. Using 14 and 15 grain loads of SR4759 mostly because have a pound of it and am low on my other powders. The 15 gr. load gave me the best 100 yard groups--3.5" and 4.5" (Obviously "best" is a relative term.)

Here's where the problems might lie:
-- load: in the past, the rifle liked the same boolit with 8grains of Red Dot. I don't have a chrono, but The 4759 seems to have significantly more recoil, and, i'm guess, velocity. Not seeing any leading, however. I might drop back to the Red Dot load, I've still got a little left.

-- Loose gas checks. I'm using aluminum gas checks that don't seem to grip as tight as Hornady copper. Because I have to seat the boolit deeply to chamber, the boolit base is into the shoulder zone of the case. I'm wondering if the GCs are falling off or being pushed cock-eyed. Next, time I'll use up the few copper GCs I have and see if that makes any difference.

-- Damn my astigmatism! The tip of front sight looks like a fuzzy post covering about 3" of the target at 100 yards and it's hard to keep a consistent sight picture with the fuzz.

If I can get consistent 3" groups at 100 yards, I'll be more than satisfied.

[Scharfschuetze]

TXGunNut,

It's all about accuracy, so I guess we're not too far off topic, at least I hope so.

No, I haven't tried those. In the past I've used the Merrit disk that attaches to your eye glass lense for pistol shooting and it is fairly effective. Like all apertures, it functions like a primitive camera lens and helps to sharpen up your front sight. They used to be very popular in the old 2700 pistol shooting matches. Merrit also makes a great variable aperture for peep sights like the Lyman, Williams and Redfield.

I also have a set of lenses that attach to your eyeglass frame and swing up or down when in use or to adjust. They also work well, but again, these are a pistol shooting aid for me. One of my shooting buddies (a member here) uses these a lot and has great success with them. For the life of me, I can't remember their name, but I think that I got them from Champion's Choice or Gill Hebard several years ago.

Another option is to just get a longer barrel and I did that recently with the purchase of a Model 64 Winchester circa 1942 in 32 Special. I'm setting it up now with a Lyman 66A and a blade front sight. I have great expectations and that longer barrel and sight radius should help me see that darned front sight better. Pow! Now we're back on topic for Winchester accuracy.