How much has accuracy increased in the past 75 years?

[richc]

I own a few milsurps that date back to WWII and earlier. I've watched guys shooting very old rifles and having amazing accuracy at 100 yards. I've watched guys shoot the eyes of out a target with a K31 and other equal quality firearms.

I'm curious... just how much of an improvement has been made in the accuracy of rifles over the past 75 years?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Rich

 

[Chris]

The guns are the same. The skills of the shooters has deteriorated on average.

 

[KMM696]

I own a few milsurps that date back to WWII and earlier. I've watched guys shooting very old rifles and having amazing accuracy at 100 yards. I've watched guys shoot the eyes of out a target with a K31 and other equal quality firearms.

I'm curious... just how much of an improvement has been made in the accuracy of rifles over the past 75 years?

I'm going to go with....none.

Okay, I'm kidding, but not completely. We think of the old milsurps as cheap rifles, used and abused, and behind the times. I believe it's very difficult and expensive to find equal quality modern firearms to rifles like the 1903/A3, K31, Mauser k98/VZ24/M96/etc., or M1 Garand (my apologies to anyone's favorite I missed). To equal the workmanship put into a K31 today is going to require visiting one of the small semi-custom manufacturers like Dakota or Cooper, or maybe a custom shop from one of the big companies. Compare prices what they offer to the $200-300 a nice K31 goes for, and you'll get an idea what that level of effort costs.

Hell, if you start tracking down custom barrel shops, you'll probably find that most of them are still using Pratt & Whitney gun drill machines from the 40's!


I also have to agree with Chris on the accuracy of shooters degrading in the last 75 years, too. Perhaps there's an assumption that technology will make up for basic technique - it took me a while to start digging myself out of that fallacy. For example, while optics have improved since when I started shooting, none of those nice scopes I've bought have improved my shooting, they've just let me see the target.

 

[economist]

My guess: barrels, gun design, triggers, etc, are maybe just a little better. Optics are much better. Factory ammunition is more consistent, with design improvement in powder consistency and bullets. For top shooters with access to the best equipment and ammunition available, things may not have improved that much. For a typical shooter buying mass produced guns and ammunition, I bet things have improved a lot. Today I can walk into Cabelas, grab a bolt action Savage with the accutrigger, a nice Leupold scope and ring set, and Hornady match ammunition (all just as an example) and know that the rig will almost certainly shoot better than me. I bet it wasn't that easy 75 years ago.

 

[stoneypete]

For example, while optics have improved since when I started shooting, none of those nice scopes I've bought have improved my shooting, they've just let me see the target.

You mean if I spend $1000 on an Eotech and 3x magnifier with flip to the side mount, I'm STILL gonna have to AIM, BREATH RIGHT AND NOT JERK THE TRIGGER. [/sarcasm]

I have been watching some documentaries on WWI and WWII. The accuracy of the firearms has not greatly improved. It's merely the magazine capacity and rapidity with which the average solder can shoot that has evolved. The old 1873 Allin-Springfield could hit a target out to and beyond one mile. The Sandy Hook Test of 1879

 

[KMM696]

For example, while optics have improved since when I started shooting, none of those nice scopes I've bought have improved my shooting, they've just let me see the target.

You mean if I spend $1000 on an Eotech and 3x magnifier with flip to the side mount, I'm STILL gonna have to AIM, BREATH RIGHT AND NOT JERK THE TRIGGER. [/sarcasm]

Exactly....

I should have said "...just let me see the target I'm missing."

 

[lupis42]

I own a few milsurps that date back to WWII and earlier. I've watched guys shooting very old rifles and having amazing accuracy at 100 yards. I've watched guys shoot the eyes of out a target with a K31 and other equal quality firearms.

I'm curious... just how much of an improvement has been made in the accuracy of rifles over the past 75 years?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Rich

Well, 75 years ago, I doubt you could pick up a .22 that could make a ragged hole at 100 yards for what would equate to $500 in today's money. On the other hand, the K31, K98K, Garand, et al are battle rifles. Modern battle rifles are often slightly less accurate, because other aspects, such as weight, mobility, capacity, and rate of fire are considered more important.

Were the most accurate man-portable rifles of 75 years ago capable of 2000-2500 yard accuracy as achieved by the .50s and .408 Cheytacs available today?
(I don't actually know for certain, because I'm not familiar with the extreme-range rifles from that era).

 

[vellnueve]

Probably not... with the 3x scopes of the day, seeing the target at 2500 yards would be rather difficult.

 

[richc]

I find it fascinating that rifle accuracy may or may not have improved during the greatest technical revolution of our time. But let's also remember that the difference between a good shooter and a world champion at 100 yards is less than 1". How much better can we really get?

Certainly production and manufacturing methods have improved drastically. I imagine materials science has come a long way in improving safety. Ammo too has improved. Optics too. I'm floored by how much scope you can get for $300 these days.

I agree with the point that you can buy an off the shelf rifle that shoots the eyes out of the target. I imagine that may not have been the case 75 years ago, but could be wrong on that point. I do know that some of the older sniper style rifles I have are things of beauty, build like tanks, with the accuracy and reliability of a Swiss watch.

I'm a relatively new member of the shooting community. From time to time my son and I shoot at 250 meters. It floors me that my son and I can ping an 8" plate at that distance rather consistently with off the shelf products and a benchrest. My son can do it with some regularity off hand. My old eyes can barely see that distance.

Having said all of that I wish I had started this hobby years ago. I have so much fun. I spend a fair bit of time with my son enjoying this together. I've met some incredibly nice people. I'm really into reloading these days. And I still get excited by the ping of a plate at any distance. It has become one of my favorite sounds!!!

 

[TheRoland]

I'm no expert, but I suspect accuracy and the technology associated with it have improved dramatically over the last couple of decades. With 500$ worth of rifle and scope, I can drop .223 rounds into a 3x5 index card at 300 yards, and I've got NO fundamental rifle skills. I'm extremely skeptical that you could hand me a Kar98 with a WWII optic and get me anywhere close to that accuracy. Could a great shooter? Sure. A novice? Doubt it.

 

[terraformer]

Precision v. accuracy. Precision (groupings) has not risen, accuracy (shot at point of aim) has with modern optics and other improvements.

 

[jpattersonnh]

My guess: barrels, gun design, triggers, etc, are maybe just a little better. Optics are much better. Factory ammunition is more consistent, with design improvement in powder consistency and bullets. For top shooters with access to the best equipment and ammunition available, things may not have improved that much. For a typical shooter buying mass produced guns and ammunition, I bet things have improved a lot. Today I can walk into Cabelas, grab a bolt action Savage with the accutrigger, a nice Leupold scope and ring set, and Hornady match ammunition (all just as an example) and know that the rig will almost certainly shoot better than me. I bet it wasn't that easy 75 years ago.

I must disagree w/ you. I shoot mainly Swedish rifles. Both hunters and Military. 1st rifle is a 1943 Husqvarna M46b in 9.3x57 w/ 150 yard express sights. It is outstanding in every catagory out to 200 yards, w/ irons.
Second is a 1955 Husqvarna 640. It is built on a 1947 FN commercail 98 receiver (only 10,000 made). 8x57. Still has the original short side rail mount and is sporting a more modern scope than it should, but it is a 500 yard Big game getter.
3rd rifle, a 1962 Husqvarna 1600 in 6.5x55. It wears a simple 4x32, but does great w/ 150 yard express sights. 300 yards on an Elk is not breaking a sweat.
Last is a Swede M41b. Just outstanding German 1937 Ajack scope and a 1906 rifle. It is an 800 yard man killer.

I think from a craftsmanship side, we have lost ground.

 

[lupis42]

I must disagree w/ you. I shoot mainly Swedish rifles. Both hunters and Military. 1st rifle is a 1943 Husqvarna M46b in 9.3x57 w/ 150 yard express sights. It is outstanding in every catagory out to 200 yards, w/ irons.
Second is a 1955 Husqvarna 640. It is built on a 1947 FN commercail 98 receiver (only 10,000 made). 8x57. Still has the original short side rail mount and is sporting a more modern scope than it should, but it is a 500 yard Big game getter.
3rd rifle, a 1962 Husqvarna 1600 in 6.5x55. It wears a simple 4x32, but does great w/ 150 yard express sights. 300 yards on an Elk is not breaking a sweat.
Last is a Swede M41b. Just outstanding German 1937 Ajack scope and a 1906 rifle. It is an 800 yard man killer.

I think from a craftsmanship side, we have lost ground.

Maybe, but consider the relative costs of those rifles (when they were new) and the purposes for which they were designed and built.

A 19th century .45LC Single action army has more power than a 21st century 9mm 92FS, but that doesn't mean we haven't advanced in power.

When you talk about comparing accuracy over time, you can look at a couple points:
How accurate can you get for the same money in the same class of gun?
Modern military rifles have been getting less accurate since WWI, because of increased focus on rate of fire and mobility.
Modern hunting rifles haven't gotten much more accurate, because there isn't much demand. Most hunters have been more concerned with stopping power, cost, weight, and obnoxious legislation anyway.
How accurate can you get if money is no object?
You can be much more accurate at much longer ranges with individual rifles now.
How difficult is it to get a gun that hits a given accuracy benchmark?
I don't have much basis for comparison here, because I don't know how accurate guns from the 30s were, but for 500$ or so, I can get a .22 that will be extremely accurate and consistent at short range. For some more money, I can get a really nice competition gun that, in the hands of a good rifleman, will consistently score hits at 1k+ yards.

 

[jpattersonnh]

Maybe, but consider the relative costs of those rifles (when they were new) and the purposes for which they were designed and built.

A 19th century .45LC Single action army has more power than a 21st century 9mm 92FS, but that doesn't mean we haven't advanced in power.

When you talk about comparing accuracy over time, you can look at a couple points:
How accurate can you get for the same money in the same class of gun?
Modern military rifles have been getting less accurate since WWI, because of increased focus on rate of fire and mobility.
Modern hunting rifles haven't gotten much more accurate, because there isn't much demand. Most hunters have been more concerned with stopping power, cost, weight, and obnoxious legislation anyway.
How accurate can you get if money is no object?
You can be much more accurate at much longer ranges with individual rifles now.
How difficult is it to get a gun that hits a given accuracy benchmark?
I don't have much basis for comparison here, because I don't know how accurate guns from the 30s were, but for 500$ or so, I can get a .22 that will be extremely accurate and consistent at short range. For some more money, I can get a really nice competition gun that, in the hands of a good rifleman, will consistently score hits at 1k+ yards.

I'm not sure what planet you come from, But WOW!
An M41B is a $1500.00 rifle. It will shoot w/ rifles made now w/ modern glass although the glass is 75 years old. $1500.00 is not that much!
My M46b cost me $300.00, 1600 was $400.00, 640 was $430.00. Can you get any cheaper?
Modern military rifles have gotten as a whole, more accurate, so have hunting rifles. I have an F series 110 Savage 7mm Rem Mag without accu-trigger that I will put against any new model. You are so far off base! A .22 compared to an 8x57, or 6.5x55 is no comparision. What money do you want to spend? You can't compare what you don't own.

Edit: you come up and see me. I'll learn ya!

 

[boomerang]

I haven't seen any difference in the accuracy of new rifles.

I don't think any new rifle can get as good of a trigger as a well made old one, unless it's made by hand (like an old one).

 

[KMM696]

Were the most accurate man-portable rifles of 75 years ago capable of 2000-2500 yard accuracy as achieved by the .50s and .408 Cheytacs available today?
(I don't actually know for certain, because I'm not familiar with the extreme-range rifles from that era).

Hmmm......you bring up an excellent point. VLD bullets, cartridges designed specifically for long range accuracy, laser rangefinders, long range optics and mounts do seem to have pushed back the boundaries of accuracy recently.

 

[PatMcD]

I think the accuracy of off-the-shelf rifles has dramatically increased in just the past 30 years (strictly talking about your basic hunting rifle). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find your basic "Dick's Special" that won't hold 1.5 MOA with major-brand hunting ammo. That definitely wasn't the case back in the early 1980's.
Military rifles? I think accuracy has increased slightly. Issued A2's will probably shoot inside issued M1's.

 

[bpm990d]

There have been enormous improvements in ammunition, optics and the quality of the steel used in barrels. The precision (grouping ability) has never been better. I'm not really sure that exactly translates into accuracy though.

I think if you narrow the question down a bit, you might get more interesting answers.

B

 

[lupis42]

I'm not sure what planet you come from, But WOW!
An M41B is a $1500.00 rifle. It will shoot w/ rifles made now w/ modern glass although the glass is 75 years old. $1500.00 is not that much!
My M46b cost me $300.00, 1600 was $400.00, 640 was $430.00. Can you get any cheaper?

Right, but how much did they cost to make then? Were they the expensive, high end rifles of their day, comparable to the L96 of today, or should they be compared to modern battle rifles like the M21, or even to modern assault rifles like the AR15?

Modern military rifles have gotten as a whole, more accurate, so have hunting rifles. I have an F series 110 Savage 7mm Rem Mag without accu-trigger that I will put against any new model. You are so far off base! A .22 compared to an 8x57, or 6.5x55 is no comparision. What money do you want to spend? You can't compare what you don't own.

I'm not comparing the .22 to the 8x7. I'm saying that .22s have gotten more accurate because there's been a market for improved accuracy there. Hunting rifles may not have gotten as much more accurate, because there wasn't as much more accuracy there.

I'm saying that comparing a 75 year old rifle that costs $500 today to a brand new rifle that costs $500 today is only useful if your comparison shopping. The question is not how to buy the most accurate rifle for the least money, but whether we've made improvements in accuracy, and you do that by comparing relative costs, then with now.

Edit: you come up and see me. I'll learn ya!

I will happily shoot your nice old rifles anytime

 

[PaulD]

I find it fascinating that rifle accuracy may or may not have improved during the greatest technical revolution of our time. But let's also remember that the difference between a good shooter and a world champion at 100 yards is less than 1". How much better can we really get?

Certainly production and manufacturing methods have improved drastically. I imagine materials science has come a long way in improving safety. Ammo too has improved. Optics too. I'm floored by how much scope you can get for $300 these days.

I agree with the point that you can buy an off the shelf rifle that shoots the eyes out of the target. I imagine that may not have been the case 75 years ago, but could be wrong on that point. I do know that some of the older sniper style rifles I have are things of beauty, build like tanks, with the accuracy and reliability of a Swiss watch.

I'm a relatively new member of the shooting community. From time to time my son and I shoot at 250 meters. It floors me that my son and I can ping an 8" plate at that distance rather consistently with off the shelf products and a benchrest. My son can do it with some regularity off hand. My old eyes can barely see that distance.

Having said all of that I wish I had started this hobby years ago. I have so much fun. I spend a fair bit of time with my son enjoying this together. I've met some incredibly nice people. I'm really into reloading these days. And I still get excited by the ping of a plate at any distance. It has become one of my favorite sounds!!!

I'm a noob at guns so take this with a grain of salt.

Basic gun design in the last 75 years really hasn't changed much relative to other mechanical devices. All the manufacturing advances you talk about will mean better consistency in mass produced guns but is a hand fitted 1911 from 75 years ago really that much different than now? The material improvements probably translate to a gun that will last longer but once again, that's another measurement. This probably translates to ultimate accuracy being cheaper to achieve.

Optics are another matter and certainly they have come a long, long way. Computer aided design and manufacturing of lens elements, new coatings and new glass formulations have made it possible to create new optical formulas that weren't possible even 20 years ago.

 

[hminsky]

Having said all of that I wish I had started this hobby years ago. I have so much fun. I spend a fair bit of time with my son enjoying this together. I've met some incredibly nice people. I'm really into reloading these days. And I still get excited by the ping of a plate at any distance. It has become one of my favorite sounds!!!

I wish I had started rifle shooting while my eyesight was still perfect. I took the pistol phys-ed classes that were offered at our college, and then didn't pick up a gun until 25 years later. I can only try to remember what it's
like to be able to focus my eyes on the front sight and then on the target at 100 yards, and see both clearly.

 

[drumenigma]

My .02 from my somewhat limited knowledge and experience compared to many out there I don't think that the accuracy of firearms themselves have necessarily been improved much in the past 75 years. Even before that time there have been amazing shots made by long distance snipers and the like with old bolt action milsurp guns. I think the addition of a lot of todays technology definitely helps in increasing the accuracy of todays shooters but not necessarily the guns themselves. Also modern bullet technologies certainly help I am sure along with fundamental shooting skills with regards to calculating distance, factoring in the wind and other aspects that affect the shot.

 

[whatluck]

I think metallurgy has come a long way in the last 75 years with all of the new alloys and heat treatments. I'm sure the advent of the CNC machine has helped quite a bit. Something as simple as the quality of the barrel crown that can make or break a rifle.