Mysteries of the Rifle, Part III

In quick review of this series, we've taken a look at the process of trying to diagnose why my Ruger Model 77 in  the .243 Winchester caliber has had some issues with shooting both accurate and consistent groups when using both factory and hand-loaded ammunition.  Initial thoughts were that the old scope was improperly mounted or damaged and thus it was replaced, and the shooting performance of the rifle improved some.  Next, the trigger was worked on by reducing the amount of pull required to release the sear and fire the gun while also reducing creep.  This too helped increase accuracy and consistency but not to the levels we know this rifle can shoot.

A bit more of a refresher to try and clarify what I am basing my tests on and why we are examining this case; my Dad has the same make and model of rifle as I do but manufactured 2 years earlier.  Both are chambered for the .243 Winchester, have 1-in-9 inch rifling, and are primarily used for anything from small game to white-tailed deer (and possibly larger if needed).  In order to cover such a large range of animals this rifle is being used for, various bullet weights are used to match the need of the game being pursued.  A "heavier" bullet weight isn't needed for prairie dogs and a "lighter" bullet weight on a deer risks a very painful death (or worse, a non-lethal hit).  Therefore, we have a variety of handloads that my grandfather, father, and I have developed over the last 60 years or so.  Since the M77s that Dad and I have are fairly similar, we thought (perhaps erroneously) that they would shoot reasonably similar.  That was until I had a bad hunting season using this rifle back in 2008 when several deer were missed, or required two shots to be put down which I find unacceptable.  However, my Dad has his usual success with his M77 without any issues on loads or needing two rounds to put a deer down.

Again, before the one or two readers spout off with "Well, it was the shooter (i.e. YOU) that was the problem!".  I cannot dissuade you from your opinion since we cannot sit down at a range and put your opinion to the test, but I will state that I've been hunting since I was 8-years old, know that bullet placement trumps any caliber of rifle/bullet, and am probably more than a "weekend warrior" but do nowhere near enough shooting to consider myself a pro.  I'll also have a picture in a bit that might dissuade you from your opinion...but enough defending my "qualifications" if you want to call it that.

Onto the meat of this post.  A few weeks after the prairie dog shoot, I returned to my parents place to decide if there was a good hunting round I could use in a month when I would first be able to head out for white-tailed deer season.  My grandfather's notes have loads for various types of bullet design and weights; namely 70, 75, 80, 90, 95, 100, and 105-grain bullets from manufacturers Hornady, Speer, Sierra, Nosler, Winchester, and Remington (some of which have been LONG discontinued), mostly IMR or Hodgdon powders, Winchester brass, and either CCI or Winchester primers.  The previously mentioned 75-grain Hornady Hollowpoint in front of 38-grains of Hodgdon Varget powder is our favored varmint/small game load with the 95-grain Nosler Partition in front of 42-grains of Hodgdon H4831 (or H4831SC) the preferred deer load.  The time came to finally put my rifle to the test.

My test consisted of the following rounds (all with WLR primers and Winchester brass unless noted):
70-grain Nosler Ballistic-Tip in front of 45.5-grains H4350, loaded mid/late 90s by my grandfather
75-grain Hornady Hollowpoint in front of 38-grains Varget, loaded in 2000 by my grandfather
75-grain Hornady Hollowpoint in front of 38-grains Varget, loaded in 2009 by my Dad and I
85-grain Barnes Triple-shock, Federal factory ammunition (Federal brass and primers, powder unknown)

Three rounds at a time for each load with time in-between to allow the barrel to cool back to ambient temperatures, with another three rounds through my Dad's rifle and all hand-loads made from the same lot of powder, primers, and bullets and matched case weights.  Here were the results for my rifle (scale reference, from the bullseye, the first thin white circle is 1/4 inch radius, first thick white line 1/2 inch, second white line is 1 inch radius, edge of black target and white paper 1.5 inches):

The two holes in the target at the top that is cut in half (sorry, bad iPhone pic on my part) were the 75gr Hornady HP loads from my grandfather.  On target with about a 1/2 inch grouping, not bad and to be expected if I could pick off prairie dogs at 100-200 yards distance with few misses.  But then came the "New load 75gr Hor"nady hollowpoints loaded by my Dad and I.  Contrary to what the image may show, I was still aiming at the top target (center target on a grid of 3 x 3 targets), and ended up on line vertically but 2-3 inches LOW!  Huh?  Third group shot was the 85-grain Barnes Triple Shock/Federal factory load.  All were fliers and are labeled "B" on the target.  Again, these were anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 inches LOW again AND about 2-4 inches RIGHT.  WHAT???  At this point, we started to compare my dad's shots, all of which landed in 1 to 1.5 inch groups on target and anywhere from 0 to 1 inch high.  Absolutely NO consistency between the loads and our rifles.  We also decided not to shoot the 95-grain Nosler Partition through my rifle since my Dad was getting a 1/2-inch group on target 1 inch high and the start of hunting season was around the corner.  We did decide however to use the last three rounds of 70-grain Nosler Ballistic-Tip bullets out of a box my grandfather loaded in the late 90s (the exact year escapes me, the box is at home) and were blown away by the results, a 1/2 inch group again but 3-4 inches low and 1/4 to 1/2 inch to the right.  THAT is the kind of grouping we want, but about an inch high on target (and an excellent example of good consistency but poor accuracy)!

And this brings us up to where we are at now.  My M77 is in the safe, unusable again this hunting season out of fear of missing or inhumanely bringing a deer down.  Instead, I am using my grandfathers pre-64 Winchester M70 .243 Winchester with a 100-grain Sierra bullet and have successfully dropped a doe in her tracks at 70-yards over my Thanksgiving leave from work.  We weren't able to do any further load testing since it is hunting season and I was putting a scope on a 7x57 Mauser rifle which will be a new series of posts when I bring it to the point of load development.  In the spare time we did have, my Dad and I discussed all the various elements that we had taken into account so far and came up with two more items to check:
1)  The reloading process
2)  Barrel harmonics and optimal charge weight.

So, we will be exploring these two things next with additional posts until I figure out what the best loads/bullets are for my Ruger rifle.

Mysteries of the Rifle, Part Deux

In the last post, we covered up to replacing the scope on my Ruger Model 77 as my Dad and I continue to seek out some issues I have been having with consistency and accuracy of various hand loads as differentiated between his Model 77 and mine (again, both in the .243 Win caliber).  It took me a while but I finally found that picture I took over the summer once we had the scope on and were testing the rifle out:

Dad put in a concrete shooting bench at the same spot my grandfather had his old wooden bench.  You can see the 25-yard target for a rough bore-sight shot (and for practicing with my .40S&W Springfield XDM), and then the 100 yard target downrange.  The chronograph was used to ensure consistency of the loads from shot to shot (the 3060 fps was a HOT or fast load and different from all the others I shot that day; it was the last round from some loads my grandfather put together...in 1993!).  Some might notice that we don't have a shooting "sled"; one of those heavy-duty holders that you place your rifle into and lock it into place to remove the "human variable".  We feel that this defeats the purpose of handloading ammunition and shooting your own rifle.  You WANT to know how the trigger pull feels, what kind of recoil the load has, and to gain practice with working the action and reloading the magazine if/when needed.  Yes, your shoulder will hurt after a full day of shooting, but at least you will have a better understanding of how your firearm works.  But I digress...

We continued to experience a lack of consistency with the new scope but the accuracy had increased somewhat. After about 40 rounds or so through my rifle (not in series, always in groups of 3 with time in between for the barrel to cool) through the morning plus another few rounds through my Dad's M77, the issues with bad consistency and accuracy continued in my rifle while I could shoot groups under one minute-of-angle (MOA) with my Dad's rifle and same ammunition I shot through my rifle.  We both felt that the trigger pull may have something to do with the lack of consistency.  The factory trigger pull for Ruger M77 rifles of our eras was set somewhere between 6-7 pounds and there was a bit of creep in my trigger.  Think about it this way, you know you have to pull hard on the trigger to fire the gun but at the same time, you know that the "kaboom" is coming.  What would your natural tendency be?  Mine is to start to cringe as that trigger starts to slide thus my attention is taken off the target to preparing for the recoil of the rifle.  A lighter trigger pull PLUS some work to reduce the creep and increase the crispness of the sear release will reduce the chances of the human element coming into play and throwing the rifle off target, even by only a few millimeters.

SO, this past summer we sent my M77 off to a gunsmith that has worked on various rifles for my family over the past 30 years or so.  After a one month layover at the gunsmith, the rifle returned with a MUCH improved trigger.  We had asked for the trigger pull to be reduced to 1.5 pounds and it came in at that point with a very crisp release with no creep.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?  I can already hear the gun-savvy readers response to that light of a trigger pull with their eyes probably as big as a Buick hubcap.  "You can't set the trigger pull to be so light, it will go off when you bump it or drop it!  That's dangerous!!!!!".  Baloney.  First off, basic firearm safety states that the rifle should remain unloaded until you are ready to use it.  Therefore, the rifle remains unloaded when I'm driving a vehicle until it is parked and I am prepared to fire it which is usually when I'm in the place I am hunting or if I am preparing to walk to that place.  In the event I am a passenger in the vehicle (as is often the case when I am out and about with my Dad on the ranch), I will load it as we never know when we will happen upon a skunk, feral hog, coyote, or some other pest.  However, the safety will then be on until the rifle is pointed at the target and I am ready to fire AND it will be pointed out the window if there is some issue where the safety fails and the rifle attempts to discharge.  Likewise, the safety is always on while I'm sitting in my spot for the day in case it does get bumped when I nod off or shift positions.  Anyway, most rifles come with a "heavy" pull from the manufacturer because of liability concerns if something were to happen...and I bet that the gunsmithing community doesn't mind one bit because it provides a steady stream of customers!!!

Off the soapbox and back to where we were.  After the return of the rifle, we sat down at the bench once again to re-sight the rifle and again had mixed results.  My varmint hunting load of 75-grain Hornady Hollow-point bullets were shooting 1-groups, on-target, and consistently!  I felt really good about this and we left the rifle as it was at the end of the summer because we had run out of time for shooting as the wind had increased considerably and we didn't have enough other loads prepared for a thorough testing.  Another lesson learned: considerable time it takes to handload the ammunition, prepare for a shoot, conduct the shoot and comparisons, all while at the mercy of the weather (in our case at least, I'm not going to pay for an indoor range when I have one for free that is available whenever I want it!!!).  I thoroughly cleaned the rifle with that fabulous Hoppes No. 9, swabbed down with sheath oil to remove fingerprints and preserve the metal and finish, and the rifle was placed into the safe until mid-October.

By this time, our annual fall-roundup was taking place at a family ranch, the one with the prairie dog problem. After taking care of our primary task with the cattle, my Dad and I headed over to the prairie dog town the last morning we were there to do our best at reducing the population a bit.  After missing a coyote at well over 400 yards for my first shot of the day (it was a long shot, pun intended), Dad and I proceeded to use my Ruger M77 to dispatch quite a few prairie dogs.  The numbers aren't important (don't want to offend too many PETA types out there...) but we ended up shooting another 40 rounds of the 75 grain Hornady HP loads and well over half of them landed on target at distances from 100-250 yards.  I thought my problems with the rifle had been solved if I could land a round at that distance and on target as many times as I did...

However, that was not the case and will be discussed over the next couple of installments and this will bring us up to "real-time" posts as we continue to follow the mystery of my Ruger M77 .243 Winchester rifle.

Mysteries of the Rifle, Part I

The particulars of the mysteries we are going to explore revolve around a Ruger Model 77, Mark I in the .243 Winchester caliber.  My Dad has this model manufactured 2 years prior to my M77.  However, my rifle was passed down from my maternal grandfather, to an uncle, and then to me.  We don't know how many time my M77 was shot, what ammo has run through it, or what environment it was kept in.  The rifle was handed down to me after my uncle lost his battle with cancer and I never really shot it because I already had a .30-06 caliber rifle I used for hunting as well as a plethora of other choices from family members.

Our family has used the .243 pretty much since the caliber became available to the general public.  This, along with the .250-3000 Savage and .257 Roberts were considered excellent varmint and medium-sized game calibers when they came out and these game are what we primarily hunt.  However, the bulk of my grandfather's reloading work centered around the .243 and I knew that we had ample information to develop gun loads.   I also wanted to keep my Ruger at home with me to have available in case opportunities arose where I needed a medium-caliber rifle.  All my other rifles are locked up in a gun safe because of their sentimental and/or monetary value in them.

About three years ago, I brought the rifle with me during white-tailed deer season to see how it performed on bigger game.  Up to that time, I had only used the M77 to try and contain an prairie dog infestation on some family land (the prairie dogs have chewed up 200+ acres of grassland which is now unsuitable for livestock and has had much of the topsoil blow away).  Results were good with the small game and I thought that it would also be the same for larger game.  Not so...

That year when I took out my M77, I had several deer that required two shots to put down which is NOT the humane way to do things.  There were also several missed shots as well.  I couldn't understand what was going on and we took the rifle to our range and tested it.  Unfortunately the loads were shooting with no accuracy or consistency.  Accuracy meaning it was not hitting where I was aiming and consistency meaning bullets land in close proximity to each other.  My dad and I would resight my scope/rifle, all with the same powder load/bullet/primer combinations in the cartridge, and I could only get groups of around 2 inches.  We would then take the same loads and BOTH my dad and I would achieve 1/4 to 3/4 inch groups at 100 yards with his M77 in the exact same caliber.

Initially we though the problem was with the scope.  It was an old Burris variable power model and I personally am not a big fan of variable power scopes.  The sight pictures was not circular; it was more of an oval and had thick cross-hairs that I didn't like as well.  We also weren't sure how well the scope was mounted to the rifle so I decided to swap out the scope mount rings and scope to a Leupold FX-2 with Leupold rings.  Sure enough, pulling the old scope off indicated that whatever gunsmith installed the scope had tightened the rings beyond normal torque specifications.  The finish of the scope had been crushed off exposing bare aluminum and there were slight indentations on the barrel of the scope as well.  Several of the scope mount screws were also slightly stripped, indicative of over-tightening.

After reading as much as I could on how to mount scopes and the arrival of the tools, rings, and scope, my Dad and I mounted it on the M77.  We boresighted the rifle/scope and started to shoot once again with the same loads used in the initial testing.  Accuracy increased quite a bit but the consistency was still not as good as we wanted.  There was something else going on that we had to figure out and this will be discussed in the next installment.