Best Long Range Rifles of 2024 - Thoughts?

[PappyM3]

So....I guess I need to re-read this article because I might have missed it...

But, if all their accuracy testing was done with 100y groups... does 100 yards now qualify as "long range?" Did I miss where they provided testing out to 500, 750, etc?

I dunno, it's like listing the top "long distance runners" and then only mentioning how people did in the 50m.|

Edit - not that it's a bad list, just...don't understand how these were tested to the namesake of the article. Except the AI, I guess, where he does mention targets out to 2,100 yards.

Too many external variables when testing out at those ranges, and cartridge variables.

The Army learned this the hard way with one of their sniper rifle procurements. They used an accuracy metric out at distance, but it was too unreliable of a metric because of external variables.

They have since gone back to using shorter ranges to measure mechanical precision/accuracy performance of rifles for procurement.

Do you have any experience with Sako? Been looking at one of their rifles and they seem pretty sturdy with a good reputation.

Sadly no. But I’d be flabbergasted if they weren’t also great.. or better. But I have no idea if their value proposition compared to cost.

 

[frenchman]

If you grab a Mossberg over a Bergara HMR or a Tikka CTR, you need your head examined.

 

[GunCat]

Too many external variables when testing out at those ranges, and cartridge variables.

The Army learned this the hard way with one of their sniper rifle procurements. They used an accuracy metric out at distance, but it was too unreliable of a metric because of external variables.

They have since gone back to using shorter ranges to measure mechanical precision/accuracy performance of rifles for procurement.

Considering all the variables, it does makes perfect sense. Still sounds funny, though.

"Troops, here's your new long range rifle."
"Cool, how's it shoot?"
"Well, at short range, it was awesome."

Actually, no, that does absolutely fit with how the military issues things. No further questions.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Considering all the variables, it does makes perfect sense. Still sounds funny, though.

"Troops, here's your new long range rifle."
"Cool, how's it shoot?"
"Well, at short range, it was awesome."

Actually, no, that does absolutely fit with how the military issues things. No further questions.

Are there good examples of rifles that shoot great at 100 but fall apart at longer ranges?

Wouldn't that be more ammo dependent?

 

[AJK129]

Are there good examples of rifles that shoot great at 100 but fall apart at longer ranges?

Wouldn't that be more ammo dependent?

Maybe something with a very specific twist rate? But that would be purposeful at that point anyway, and ammo dependent as you said

 

[PappyM3]

Considering all the variables, it does makes perfect sense. Still sounds funny, though.

"Troops, here's your new long range rifle."
"Cool, how's it shoot?"
"Well, at short range, it was awesome."

Actually, no, that does absolutely fit with how the military issues things. No further questions.

How a cartridge performs at long range is just math. You measure the BC of the bullet with Doppler radar over distance and get muzzle velocities. You can also then calculate energy at range too.

For the rifle itself, all you care about is how it shoots the bullet, and that can be measured more precisely and independently at short range.

Then for the cartridge, you want to measure muzzle velocity standard deviation. This should be done in conjunction with the rifle testing, but it has a big effect on down-range accuracy along the vertical/elevation axis. But again, that accuracy effect down range can be calculated as long as you measure the standard deviation and extreme spreads of muzzle velocity.

You can even somewhat check a bullet’s terminal performance at short ranges too. Just down-load a cartridge so the muzzle velocity is down to where the velocity would be at a particular range. Though, this isn’t exact, because the stability of a bullet at short range, shot at low speed will be potentially different than the stability at long range after being shot with a much higher velocity. Still, it’s usually pretty close for results.

Edit: a word

 

[PappyM3]

Maybe something with a very specific twist rate? But that would be purposeful at that point anyway, and ammo dependent as you said

A higher twist can in fact have long range effects. Very slightly flatter trajectories with faster twists. But I don’t think it’s really enough to worry about.


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/C_Lz3IIhOt7/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[Road_Clam]

I have Brian Litz's Applied Ballistics book. Outstanding reference. Highly recommend.

 

[GunCat]

Are there good examples of rifles that shoot great at 100 but fall apart at longer ranges?

Wouldn't that be more ammo dependent?

I don't have any examples, or even suggested examples. Or any science to offer a counter argument to the testing. Just that I think it sounds funny how its presented.

Using your Tikka as an example, you should expect 3~ groups at 1000, assuming you've worked out the math and you do your part?

What's the benefit in buying a $4,000+ rifle then? More consistency in strings of fire? Heavier platform to reduce shooter variables?

I've owned a few SPRs, but haven't dabbled in any long range shooting minus the 500 yards at Parris Island, so no idea if I'm asking dumb questions.

 

[PappyM3]

I don't have any examples, or even suggested examples. Or any science to offer a counter argument to the testing. Just that I think it sounds funny how its presented.

Using your Tikka as an example, you should expect 3~ groups at 1000, assuming you've worked out the math and you do your part?

What's the benefit in buying a $4,000+ rifle then? More consistency in strings of fire? Heavier platform to reduce shooter variables?

I've owned a few SPRs, but haven't dabbled in any long range shooting minus the 500 yards at Parris Island, so no idea if I'm asking dumb questions.

You need more than math and doing your fundamentals properly to maintain that kind of accuracy at 1k yards. Wind is a major factor.

Scenario: shooting 6.5 CM 140gr ELD-Ms at ~2700 fps

Let’s say you are REALLY good at reading wind and can read it EXACTLY. Well, what happens if a 2mph gust picks up right as your trigger breaks? A mere 2 mph.

Well, your bullet is now going to impact ~8” away from your point of aim. So your 3” group could expand to 11”, just by chance.

But mechanical precision capability of your rifle does still matter. If it were a 1 MOA rifle, that is ~10” at 1k yards. But errors stack. With that same wind gust, you would now potentially have an 18” group where the better shooting rifle might have an 11” group with that same gust.

So yes, mechanical precision still matters, but it can be measured at short range. And measured more reliably, with other variables greatly minimized.

Edit: I’ll add that weight of the barrel does help for more consistent strings of fire, and a heavier rifle in general does help minimize shooter-induced movement. Not only are they easier to steady, but move less during the firing process (rifles do in fact start to move before the bullet leaves the barrel). More weight to the rifle means less movement, in general. And the reduced recoil makes spotting impacts/misses for adjusting follow on shots is easier.

But you can build a heavy rifle with a heavy barrel without spending a lot. There are other factors, of course, but also diminishing returns the more you spend.

 

[Broc Tuah]

I don't have any examples, or even suggested examples. Or any science to offer a counter argument to the testing. Just that I think it sounds funny how its presented.

Using your Tikka as an example, you should expect 3~ groups at 1000, assuming you've worked out the math and you do your part?

What's the benefit in buying a $4,000+ rifle then? More consistency in strings of fire? Heavier platform to reduce shooter variables?

I've owned a few SPRs, but haven't dabbled in any long range shooting minus the 500 yards at Parris Island, so no idea if I'm asking dumb questions.

When it comes to expensive rifles ($2.5K+), I don't know if paying more means it will be that nuch better. Is a $5K rifle twice as good as a $2.5K?

I don't know.

What the $5K might get you are tighter tolerances, maybe a different finish, more custom work ... these things should help, but I don't know how much. I am not in that world. Other here are and will have better answers.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

No experience with budget precision, but id go with a tikka t3 over anything mossberg.

Accuracy International guns are incredible.

 

[peterk123]

You need more than math and doing your fundamentals properly to maintain that kind of accuracy at 1k yards. Wind is a major factor.

Scenario: shooting 6.5 CM 140gr ELD-Ms at ~2700 fps

Let’s say you are REALLY good at reading wind and can read it EXACTLY. Well, what happens if a 2mph gust picks up right as your trigger breaks? A mere 2 mph.

Well, your bullet is now going to impact ~8” away from your point of aim. So your 3” group could expand to 11”, just by chance.

But mechanical precision capability of your rifle does still matter. If it were a 1 MOA rifle, that is ~10” at 1k yards. But errors stack. With that same wind gust, you would now potentially have an 18” group where the better shooting rifle might have an 11” group with that same gust.

So yes, mechanical precision still matters, but it can be measured at short range. And measured more reliably, with other variables greatly minimized.

Edit: I’ll add that weight of the barrel does help for more consistent strings of fire, and a heavier rifle in general does help minimize shooter-induced movement. Not only are they easier to steady, but move less during the firing process (rifles do in fact start to move before the bullet leaves the barrel). More weight to the rifle means less movement, in general. And the reduced recoil makes spotting impacts/misses for adjusting follow on shots is easier.

But you can build a heavy rifle with a heavy barrel without spending a lot. There are other factors, of course, but also diminishing returns the more you spend.

Good stuff right there. I enjoy any of your rifle related posts.


I think if someone is looking for a tikka range toy, the varmint line with the heavier barrel would be one heck of a gun. My t3x is dead nuts accurate..... for two shots.

 

[Cur]

• Best Long-Range Hunting Rifle Under $2,000: Seekins Havak Pro Hunter 2

I don't know about "best", but it's the most accurate rifle I've ever shot, and it's really, really well made. A lot of well thought out touches (pre-fit barrels with open source drawing so any maker can spin one up, tool-less bolt take down and ability to swap the bolt head out for caliber changes) Timney Elite trigger, carbon fiber composite stock, etc all with a lifetime warranty.

But then again, I'm no one special, so take all that with a grain of whatever.

 

[paul73]

I think it’s a bad list, but not because they didn’t shoot at long ranges.

You can learn everything you need to know about a rifle at 100

My 6 dasher MPA rig drives me insane as it shoots through same hole at a 100 but consistently spreads out at 300. With SD in 3-7. I kinda lost interest to keep torturing myself with it.

 

[lukewarm_fuzz]

My 6 dasher MPA rig drives me insane as it shoots through same hole at a 100 but consistently spreads out at 300. With SD in 3-7. I kinda lost interest to keep torturing myself with it.

 

[paul73]

same feeling here. 6.5cm bergara keeps the MOA fine, in 1/2-1/3 range between 100 and 300 and further. i brought it to the granby and hit 1000 with it ok, it is reliable.
dasher runs out from same hole at 100yds into almost MOA sometimes at 300, and it is an almost 20lbs rifle, pretty stable as is. but, whatever.

 

[B191299]

I can vouch for the DD Delta 5. It is crazy accurate, and I am not a very good shot.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Kind of silly list. AI or Tikka I get but Mauser at $1000 as a budget rifle!? That's not a "budget rifle". These people have been living in rich folk land for too long to be calling a $1000 rifle "a budget"