Cheapest Accuracy Available Today

[Bill_in_TR]

If this has been discussed I haven't found it so I apologize in advance.

It is my belief, correct me if I am wrong, that we have rifles and scopes available today at fairly low price points that provide as good or better performance compared to mid to somewhat higher priced examples from 30, 40 or 50 years ago. I was wondering what people thought is the cheapest (least expensive) available combination of rifle and scope that would be likely to provide consistent sub moa accuracy. Suggestions or speculation should be based on experience or at least a pretty consistent reputation.

It would also be nice if the rifle had aftermarket support for potential upgrades later. But initially the accuracy should be there out of the box.

I realize if you're looking for the ultimate precision in any kind of shooting sport you will need to spend money. But for those folks without a lot of disposable finances what is the least expensive way to get into precision shooting, mostly bench or target shooting out to 300-500 yards? It would seem that something chambered in 223 would contribute to keeping the shooting costs down as well.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[JEBruns]

Not knowing your budget, it's kind of hard to speculate. If you look at what the top PRS shooters use, you won't see many .223's. It's mostly 6mm and 6.5mm variations that get the love there. But a .223 is cheap to shoot and is reasonably accurate, especially in a bolt gun.

I only own one consistent sub-moa gun. I have about $3K into it. That seems reasonable to me given what some of the higher level guns can cost, and they would have a hard time shooting any better. Mine is a Tikka T3X Tact A1 in 6.5CM with a Zeiss Conquest V4 scope on it. You could get by with a cheaper scope to bring the price down some. It's very easy to shoot .5-.6 inch groups with it at 100yds with Hornady Match grade ammo. But if you don't reload, it will cost you about $2 every time you touch a round off.

I have some nice AR's in .223/5.56. Pretty hard for me to get an MOA at 100yds with those though.

 

[Newtosavage]

Savage Axis is the cheapest accuracy you can buy today. Ruger American is a close second. Both are incredibly accurate, especially for their price point.

Savage really changed the game when they created the barrel nut solution. Now just about every major manufacturer has a rifle with a barrel nut. They are inexpensive and just as, if not more accurate than conventional rifles.

Every single Savage I've owned has been sub-MOA with my hand loads. Some were sub-1/2 MOA. And those are hunting/sporter-weight barrels.

If I were just wanting an inexpensive bench gun, I'd get a Savage Axis with a heavy barrel in .223. It might run rough, but it will drive tacks.

For scopes, you get what you pay for. There is no free lunch with optics the way there seems to be these days with rifles.

 

[Bill_in_TR]

Not knowing your budget, it's kind of hard to speculate. If you look at what the top PRS shooters use, you won't see many .223's. It's mostly 6mm and 6.5mm variations that get the love there. But a .223 is cheap to shoot and is reasonably accurate, especially in a bolt gun.

I only own one consistent sub-moa gun. I have about $3K into it. That seems reasonable to me given what some of the higher level guns can cost, and they would have a hard time shooting any better. Mine is a Tikka T3X Tact A1 in 6.5CM with a Zeiss Conquest V4 scope on it. You could get by with a cheaper scope to bring the price down some. It's very easy to shoot .5-.6 inch groups with it at 100yds with Hornady Match grade ammo. But if you don't reload, it will cost you about $2 every time you touch a round off.

I have some nice AR's in .223/5.56. Pretty hard for me to get an MOA at 100yds with those though.

I am not trying to necessarily fit an upper end budget. I am sort of looking for a low end bidding war. If someone knew of a $200 package (not likely) that would be great. I reload so I am looking to explore just how cheap I can get precision from.

 

[Turkeytider]

I bought my very first rifle ( I`m 74 ) a couple of years ago after many years of shotgun only hunting/shooting. I wanted something for casual range and varmint hunting, not too expensive with a scope, preferably pre-mounted, that was at least moderately capable. I settled on a Savage 110 Storm package that came with a Vortex Crossfire II 3-9X40 scope mounted and bore sighted chambered in .223. I don`t recall exactly, but I paid between $700 and $800. I got everything I was looking for in spades! If I don`t screw up the shot, the gun easily shoots sub-MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards with loads it likes. It`s most definitely a hunting rifle as opposed to a long range, precision target gun. I have been very pleased indeed.
On the " downside " , Savage rifles aren`t known for the easiest bolt lift in the industry. Mine certainly fits that, but it`s not so bad that I`ve personally not minded so much. Probably the greatest drawback would be Savage`s magazines. You will see negative comments posted about the performance, and I have experienced some inconsistencies in feeding myself. I have found that inserting the magazines with an open bolt GREATLY reduces failure to feed the first round. What you WILL NOT see are many negative comments concerning the ability of Savage rifles to put bullets on target. As "refined " as a Tikka, Bergara, etc? No, I don`t think so. They just shoot.

 

[WisBorn]

This is a though question! Cheaper accuracy?

The rifle is normally the cheap part! If you shoot frequently you will spend much more on ammo than than the rifle quickly. Then you need to identify the definition of accurate. My open sighted Mosin Nagant was cheap to shoot, cheap to buy , and accurate! Nowhere near a MOA rifle, but very capable to ring steel at 250 yards (the longest distance at the range).

If you want to buy a new rifle a Savage Axis or 110 in 223 would offer a lot of fun bench time and time in the field.

 

[greyling22]

I don't know if it is still available, but the Thompson compass was like $200 and accurate.

 

[Bill_in_TR]

This is a though question! Cheaper accuracy?

The rifle is normally the cheap part! If you shoot frequently you will spend much more on ammo than than the rifle quickly. Then you need to identify the definition of accurate. My open sighted Mosin Nagant was cheap to shoot, cheap to buy , and accurate! Nowhere near a MOA rifle, but very capable to ring steel at 250 yards (the longest distance at the range).

If you want to buy a new rifle a Savage Axis or 110 in 223 would offer a lot of fun bench time and time in the field.

I would definitely like to feel confident it was moa, preferably sub moa, CAPABLE. As an example about 12-15 years ago I had an H&R SB2 Ultra Varmint in 223. I think I paid under $300 for it. I put a $100 scope on it. That rifle would shoot slightly sub moa with 52 grain hollow points consistently at 100 yards. That's all I had access to at the time. Would the rifle or scope make very many people happy...probably not.

I now have access to 300 yards and just want to play a little on the cheap.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I have T/C compass in 6.5cm, it's every bit as accurate as Axis and with a better stock. But if you're going bottom dollar, the Axis is it. I've owned a couple, still have one in 6.5cm, and have sighted in a half dozen more for friends and relatives in everything from 22-250 to 300wm. Every one of them has been 1Moa or close out of the box with factory ammo and sub Moa with handloads.
The stocks are junk and the bolt handle is too close to the scope when cycled, but for out of the box accuracy at bottom dollar, Savage is it.

 

[Varminterror]

We’ve discussed this recently a few times, but each thread does have its unique flavor, and certainly the overly simple answer is found so quickly that the threads diverge into some semi-related discussion relatively quickly (as I expect this thread will also). So it’s worth rehashing here.

• 300-500 yard shooting is not done significantly better by anything larger than 223rem, and upscaling cartridge choice only increases recoil and ammo cost.

• Not all 223 ammo is created equally. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want performance, reload 73 ELD’s or 69 or 77 SMK’s in matching brass.

• Any of the current production, low cost, centerfire rifles on the market can deliver sub-MOA precision. At worst, $30 in all-thread and epoxy and two hours worth of free floating and bedding will stress relieve these rifles to deliver sub-MOA precision, especially with reloaded ammo on the table.

• Prices are higher than they were even a couple years ago. Biden, Covid, Ukrainian War, and organic inflation have driven up demand, and driven up prices. Some of us bought Savage 10FV’s at Cabela’s on sale, plus rebates a few years ago for under $200, and some of us bought R700 ADL’s from Walmart on Black Friday for $250 a handful of years ago. Finding deals like that is much less common today - so don’t get too distracted by the idea of finding something in the $200-300 range, unless you are patient enough for markets to change - frankly for national and global economies to change.

• Fit, finish, and feature quality improve with money spent over this minimum centerfire rifle price point, but potential precision doesn’t really improve. Certainly, money can buy feature upgrades which make rifles more “shootable,” which is to say more stable and less sensitive to shooter influence, but don’t let yourself forget - big brand companies are making the barrels for their $1500 rifles the same way they make barrels for their $500 rifles. So even though one barrel might be a lightweight Sporter and the other a heavy contour with fancy fluting, the bores of each have the same potential for precision.

So the ultimate solution to “cheapest sub-MOA rifle for 300-500 yard shooting” is to find the cheapest bolt action 223 Rem package rifle on the market and buy it. You should find at least a Savage Axis XP somewhere around $400. Might find sale deals on Ruger Americans competing at that point, but more likely end up around $500 for any other brand right now (looking around this morning).

It’s not an exciting opportunity, but it’s the answer to the question. The cheapest package rifle will have a lower total cost than the cheapest bare rifle, and will have the capability to deliver sub-MOA performance. Spending three or four times as much may not reduce group size at all, and reliably achieving sub-1/2 MOA performance from any factory rifle isn’t cheap and really isn’t realistic.

Maybe most importantly: “buying a cheap rifle and rebuilding it as you go” is a surefire way to spend MORE than you should on the end result. Yes, you will have spread your costs out over a long time so the pain at any one moment is smaller, but you’ll have a lot of money sunk into a rifle which still isn’t worth much, rather than having a more expensive rifle which would have better held value.

 

[Bill_in_TR]

We’ve discussed this recently a few times, but each thread does have its unique flavor, and certainly the overly simple answer is found so quickly that the threads diverge into some semi-related discussion relatively quickly (as I expect this thread will also). So it’s worth rehashing here.

• 300-500 yard shooting is not done significantly better by anything larger than 223rem, and upscaling cartridge choice only increases recoil and ammo cost.

• Not all 223 ammo is created equally. Garbage in, garbage out. If you want performance, reload 73 ELD’s or 69 or 77 SMK’s in matching brass.

• Any of the current production, low cost, centerfire rifles on the market can deliver sub-MOA precision. At worst, $30 in all-thread and epoxy and two hours worth of free floating and bedding will stress relieve these rifles to deliver sub-MOA precision, especially with reloaded ammo on the table.

• Prices are higher than they were even a couple years ago. Biden, Covid, Ukrainian War, and organic inflation have driven up demand, and driven up prices. Some of us bought Savage 10FV’s at Cabela’s on sale, plus rebates a few years ago for under $200, and some of us bought R700 ADL’s from Walmart on Black Friday for $250 a handful of years ago. Finding deals like that is much less common today - so don’t get too distracted by the idea of finding something in the $200-300 range, unless you are patient enough for markets to change - frankly for national and global economies to change.

• Fit, finish, and feature quality improve with money spent over this minimum centerfire rifle price point, but potential precision doesn’t really improve. Certainly, money can buy feature upgrades which make rifles more “shootable,” which is to say more stable and less sensitive to shooter influence, but don’t let yourself forget - big brand companies are making the barrels for their $1500 rifles the same way they make barrels for their $500 rifles. So even though one barrel might be a lightweight Sporter and the other a heavy contour with fancy fluting, the bores of each have the same potential for precision.

So the ultimate solution to “cheapest sub-MOA rifle for 300-500 yard shooting” is to find the cheapest bolt action 223 Rem package rifle on the market and buy it. You should find at least a Savage Axis XP somewhere around $400. Might find sale deals on Ruger Americans competing at that point, but more likely end up around $500 for any other brand right now (looking around this morning).

It’s not an exciting opportunity, but it’s the answer to the question. The cheapest package rifle will have a lower total cost than the cheapest bare rifle, and will have the capability to deliver sub-MOA performance. Spending three or four times as much may not reduce group size at all, and reliably achieving sub-1/2 MOA performance from any factory rifle isn’t cheap and really isn’t realistic.

Maybe most importantly: “buying a cheap rifle and rebuilding it as you go” is a surefire way to spend MORE than you should on the end result. Yes, you will have spread your costs out over a long time so the pain at any one moment is smaller, but you’ll have a lot of money sunk into a rifle which still isn’t worth much, rather than having a more expensive rifle which would have better held value.

Interesting points made and nothing any reasonable person would have any significant disagreement with. I am not concerned about fit and finish or any glitz whatsoever. All it has to do is shoot. I am willing and able to tinker and I do reload.

This is just a personal challenge I am giving myself with just a tiny little side motive involving some chat back and forth with one of my sons. I am old guy (76) and he is in his forties (a young whippersnapper to me). So my better shooting days are behind me but I haven't lost it all yet.

My hope was to stay under $500 for the rifle and $200 for the scope. Maybe the used market would be a better start point but I would like to find something recent and new.

 

[12Bravo20]

For under $400 I would definitely suggest the Savage AXIS or Ruger American. I am partial to Savage rifles since they always shoot well out of the box and are easier to find in left hand versions.

You can always step up to the Savage 110. Just my personal opinion, but I shy away from the package deals since the scopes usually are not the best quality.

Bass Pro/Cabela's still lists the Savage Model 12 FV for $420-$30 in 308 and 6.5CM. I know that nether is the caliber you want, but the Model 12FV is a great shooting rifle. I have an older left hand version (12FVL) in 308 that will do 3/4" groups at 100 yards with the ammo it likes and if I do my part.

But as mentioned by others, most modern bolt action rifles are capable of 1 MOA at 100 yards straight out of the box. Good ammo and a good scope is what makes the difference.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I didn't see anyone mention Howa. Their heavy barrel .223 varmint rifles shoot sub MOA. Sometimes you can find a used one for less than $500. I just sold a lightly used Howa Mini .223 for $300. I know what they cost new but I only had about $250 into the rifle when I bought it new on closeout.

 

[jmr40]

Tikka

 

[Varminterror]

My hope was to stay under $500 for the rifle and $200 for the scope. Maybe the used market would be a better start point but I would like to find something recent and new.

$500+$200 makes life even easier. Buying a $400 Axis XP package would leave you with an underwhelming, underperforming scope, but picking up a rifle at $500 and then a $200 scope would give you much brighter and clearer optics, with room to also upgrade the rifle to a slightly better stock and better trigger. The Axis XP’s are fine, but they lack the Accu-trigger of the 10/110’s, and its equivalent in the Ruger American.

That said - I MIGHT be easily convinced that buying a lower end model and spending the difference to get Boyd’s or Richard’s laminate stock to stiffen up the foundation might be the best spend of that money. I rebuilt an R700 ADL a few years ago with this paradigm in mind - bedding the action, pillar blocking into the Boyd’s stock, lapping the lugs, and free floating the barrel made the rifle more forgiving, and more shootable. More to consider in your calculus.

But a Savage 10/110 base model or Ruger American in 223rem pushing 77 SMK’s or 73 ELD’s at $450-500 and a Bushnell Prime 3-12x40mm with side focus, graduated reticle, and dialable turret for $200 would do exactly what you need.

 

[d2wing]

A couple years ago I bought a Savage Axis and Remington ADL from Walmart. The Remington was sub-MOA, I posted the target on here. Not impressed with the Axis. The Axis shot about 2 MOA but I believe with a better stock and development could shoot much better. I would buy another Tikka. In my opinion going cheaper might work but QC is less consistent.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Rk.guns.com has Axis Xp with a Weaver 3x9 for $379 in various calibers.
https://www.rkguns.com/sav-axis-xp-combo-223rem-57256.html

but for a little more and my own choice of scope, I' might go with this in 6.5cm:

https://www.rkguns.com/ruger-american-rifle-22-250-rem-predator-rifle-6945-rug-123962.html

 

[12Bravo20]

Correct that the Savage Axis does not have the Accu-Trigger, but the Axis II does have it. I would personally step up and go with the Savage 110 since it has a better recoil lug setup versus the Axis.

Howa rifles can be found around $500. All of the Tikka rifles I could find start around $6675 and up.

One downside to the Savage Axis and 110 with synthetic stock is the fact that the stock can be flimsy at the fore end which can effect accuracy.

 

[Newtosavage]

I've heard about the "flimsy" Savage forend affecting accuracy probably 1000 times by now. It's a mystery to me how every single Savage I've owned has been sub-MOA, even with that stock. I can't possibly be that good of a shooter. I think the problem is grossly overstated.

 

[Turkeytider]

I've heard about the "flimsy" Savage forend affecting accuracy probably 1000 times by now. It's a mystery to me how every single Savage I've owned has been sub-MOA, even with that stock. I can't possibly be that good of a shooter. I think the problem is grossly overstated.

Interesting observation. Plus, a rifle chambered in .223 generates very little recoil, thus not impacting accuracy appreciably through stock flex anyway. I, too, have heard about Savages flimsy polymer stocks. This, for me, prompts a question. At what caliber, with related recoil, could/should one expect to see stock flex to a degree that accuracy is negatively impacted? My only personal experience with Savage rifles has been in .223 and .17HMR, neither of which seems to generate sufficient recoil to flex the stock to impact accuracy.

 

[Hugger-4641]

OP asked about 2 things:
1. Cheap rifle with sub moa accuracy for 300 to 500yd targets
2. Economical choice for ammo.
But he really should also think about what kind of ammo: bulk, match grade, or handload. If he really wants sub moa, bulk is probably out of the picture.

So here's some thought: let's say the Op has time to shoot 100rds a week.

.223 bulk ammo is about $0.75/rd right now. If he handloads, about $0.30 for powder and primer,
$0.30 for match grade bullets, $0.30 to $0.75 for new brass depending on brand. So min of $0.90,/rd unless he has used brass.
Match grade factory ammo, $1.50 to $2.00/rd
No matter how you do the math, in just a year or two of shooting, the ammo is the biggest chunk of the expense.
So, it makes sense, if you can, to get a rifle you're going to be happy with, even if its a few hundred $ more.
I'm not saying you have to buy a Sako, but accuracy as well as excellent quality in stock, finish, smooth bolt travel, etc. can be had from several brands in the $600 to $1000 range. Tikka, Ruger, Savage 110, Kimber, Cz, Howa, etc could all fit the bill.

 

[LoonWulf]

Savage Axis is the cheapest accuracy you can buy today. Ruger American is a close second. Both are incredibly accurate, especially for their price point.

Savage really changed the game when they created the barrel nut solution. Now just about every major manufacturer has a rifle with a barrel nut. They are inexpensive and just as, if not more accurate than conventional rifles.

Every single Savage I've owned has been sub-MOA with my hand loads. Some were sub-1/2 MOA. And those are hunting/sporter-weight barrels.

If I were just wanting an inexpensive bench gun, I'd get a Savage Axis with a heavy barrel in .223. It might run rough, but it will drive tacks.

For scopes, you get what you pay for. There is no free lunch with optics the way there seems to be these days with rifles.

Agree on the Axis....i bloody hate the things, but they carry the same potential accuracy (and usually realized accuracy) of the standard 10/110 line. They're also probably the cheapest budget rifle you can get.....

Optics i disagree to a point. You have to do your research and develope a solid idea of what you want in an optic and where your willing to take a performance hit, but you CAN get alot more now for what you spend than you could even 10 years ago.

I also have a few really nice scopes that ran less than they should have because of competition, and the greater speed at which new models, even from the same line, are being released.

 

[Bill_in_TR]

OP asked about 2 things:
1. Cheap rifle with sub moa accuracy for 300 to 500yd targets
2. Economical choice for ammo.
But he really should also think about what kind of ammo: bulk, match grade, or handload. If he really wants sub moa, bulk is probably out of the picture.

So here's some thought: let's say the Op has time to shoot 100rds a week.

.223 bulk ammo is about $0.75/rd right now. If he handloads, about $0.30 for powder and primer,
$0.30 for match grade bullets, $0.30 to $0.75 for new brass depending on brand. So min of $0.90,/rd unless he has used brass.
Match grade factory ammo, $1.50 to $2.00/rd
No matter how you do the math, in just a year or two of shooting, the ammo is the biggest chunk of the expense.
So, it makes sense, if you can, to get a rifle you're going to be happy with, even if its a few hundred $ more.
I'm not saying you have to buy a Sako, but accuracy as well as excellent quality in stock, finish, smooth bolt travel, etc. can be had from several brands in the $600 to $1000 range. Tikka, Ruger, Savage 110, Kimber, Cz, Howa, etc could all fit the bill.

Since my objective here is to get the best precision I can get I plan on handloading. I have plenty of 223 brass so that isn't a problem. And I am lucky to have a couple thousand small rifle primers.

My objective here is the challenge of getting this precision out of as cheap a rifle and scope as possible. And I completely understand all preaching about how you get what you pay for. I am trying to see if I can get what I didn't pay for.

I am sensing a serious trend towards Savage as a rifle source.

 

[Varminterror]

a rifle chambered in .223 generates very little recoil, thus not impacting accuracy appreciably through stock flex anyway.

Recoil isn’t the reason stock flex is a bad thing for precision, so yes, this paradigm is non-sequitur. But disproving the wrong question doesn’t disprove proper question.

Stock flex allows variations in force to be applied to the barreled action. Whether that variability presents as variability in forend contact and/or variable forend pressure against the barrel, influencing the mechanical POI or harmonics of the barreled action, or presents as variability in pressure against the action through flexion in the mid-board action inlet, with the same consequences.

A lot of folks have the experience @Newtosavage describes, because they shoot in the same conditions and positions so they’ve eliminated variability. “Well mine shoots sub-MOA, so the stock must be fine.” Until they shoot from any other form of support. Flexion is a problem - I’ve even heard reports among Service Rifle shooters that taught sling pressure with non-free-floating rifles could deflect their shots MULTIPLE MOA on target. Obviously an aluminum and steel AR is stiffer than a polymer bolt action stock.

So sure, groups from a bipod on the bench will be small, and then when you get afield and take a sling supported shot at a deer at 100yrds with a 5” target, life is groovy, and confirmation bias blinds the shooter to actual mechanics of their firearm.

I, too, have heard about Savages flimsy polymer stocks.

It’s not just Savage - low budget polymer stocks suck. Some are better than others, such as Seekins’ carbon fiber reinforced injection molded polymer stocks on their Havak line, or Ruger’s old Zytel boat paddle stocks, or HS Precision stocks with aluminum bedding locks (or Savage Accustocks with the same), but when it comes to cheap injection molded stocks used on low budget rifles, they all suck. Ruger Americans, Savage Axis and even 110’s, Rem 700 ADL’s, etc… polymer stocks are flexible, and flexibility can influence precision.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Recoil isn’t the reason stock flex is a bad thing for precision, so yes, this paradigm is non-sequitur. But disproving the wrong question doesn’t disprove proper question.

Stock flex allows variations in force to be applied to the barreled action. Whether that variability presents as variability in forend contact and/or variable forend pressure against the barrel, influencing the mechanical POI or harmonics of the barreled action, or presents as variability in

Totally agree here. I don't have so much of a problem with the forearms, what I notice is flex in the stock where the action attaches, even on the Axis with wood stocks. I can shoot fine with them bench or slung up, but I will say the Ruger American doesn't flex here like the Axis does.