Interesting choice for a deer rifle

[bearcreek]

I have one rifle that would be OK for deer, my great uncle's old Remington 788 bolt action in 6 mm Rem. Problem is that it's not that accurate, even with handloads. Maybe 3 MoA at best.

I'm thinking my next rifle will be a 223 bolt gun, which is legal for deer here. The Ruger American are about a 1 MoA gun.

Shots on deer here are usually under 100 yards.

If you're going deer hunting, would you take the 3 MoA 6 mm or the 1 MoA 223?

Also, I've never used a Remington 788 or a Ruger American, but everything I'm reading about the Remington is saying it's a pretty accurate rifle. Under 1.5 MOA ish, generally speaking. Have you used a Ruger American? If not, what leads you to believe it'll be that much more accurate than the Remington in your hands?

 

[Smaug]

If you're considering a new rifle purchase anyway, why limit yourself to a .223? Lot's of more appropriate options.

Well, I’ve got the 6 mm Rem, which should be perfect for deer. Then I’ve also got a 44 Magnum, which is also perfect for deer out to 100 or 125 yards.

.223 would be something to shoot cheaply and could also theoretically be used on deer.

I don’t like big recoil; that’s another factor.

 

[Smaug]

Here are pix of the Remington.

I had forgotten that I have a Leupold scope on it; a VX II 3-9-40. Do you think it’s the scope rings?

 

[bearcreek]

Well, I’ve got the 6 mm Rem, which should be perfect for deer. Then I’ve also got a 44 Magnum, which is also perfect for deer out to 100 or 125 yards.

.223 would be something to shoot cheaply and could also theoretically be used on deer.

I don’t like big recoil; that’s another factor.

I see. Kind of a different subject then if this possible new rifle isn't primarily for deer hunting.

Here are pix of the Remington.

I had forgotten that I have a Leupold scope on it; a VX II 3-9-40. Do you think it’s the scope rings?

View attachment 1097548 View attachment 1097549 View attachment 1097550 View attachment 1097551 View attachment 1097552

I'd guess that's very likely a big part of the problem.

 

[Smaug]

If I were to replace the scope mounting, what would I look for? Something compatible with Remington 700?

I’ll have to look and see about removing the sights…

 

[Smaug]

I see. Kind of a different subject then if this possible new rifle isn't primarily for deer hunting.

Yeah, I had already written off the Remington for deer on account of its inaccuracy and just wondered if I WERE to go deer hunting again, which would serve me better.

Now that I’ve had some encouragement from this thread to work on the Remington again, it got me thinking it might be smarter than buying a whole new gun.

It would also be nice to use Uncle Tom’s old gun again; I’m a sentimental guy.

I’ll just take my time working on the 788, and get the 223 when funds allow.

 

[bearcreek]

If I were to replace the scope mounting, what would I look for? Something compatible with Remington 700?

I’ll have to look and see about removing the sights…

Search for "Remington 788 scope mount". Lots of options available. Or just use the irons. They'd be fine at 100 yds, unless you have some vision problems. Or, a picatinny rail and a red dot would also be fine at 100 and the irons could stay.

 

[jmorris]

If I am buying a rifle with the intent being to hunt deer, it’s not going be chambered in .223.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I will start with the scope rings. They are cheaper ones that I got so I could look through them in case the scope went out.

Ok, I missed that detail along the way and it explains a lot .
I've hunted with see-thru rings my entire life and there are issues with them that most people are not able to overcome. These may explain your rifle's performance:
1. You cannot get a consistent cheek weld because you have to raise your head to get proper eye relief and sight picture.
2. Because you don't get a consistent cheek weld and consistent eye placement, parallax issue is exasperated and most scopes aren't forgiving of this. This alone can give you "minute of dinner plate" accuracy.
It takes A LOT of practice and muscle memory to overcome this but there are a couple things that will help if you use high mounts:. Get a riser pad, I use an ammo pouch with changeable rise pads that attached with velcro straps. This will solve most of the problem, but you can also get a better scope with parallax adjustment.

I think your plan to switch to good quality low rise rings is a good first step. This way you can make sure all the mounting screws are tightened properly and if the gun shoots well, you know the scope is ok and the rings were the issue. If nothing changes, then get a new scope and see how it does. If nothing changes after that, then go after the barrel bedding.
If one ore more of these steps shrinks your group size considerably, then you can probably fine tune a handload to improve even more.

 

[bearcreek]

I’m just worried that I’m going to do all this stuff, spend hundreds of dollars and months chasing it down and it’s STILL not going to shoot. Then, I’ll kick myself for not spending it on the Ruger American Rifle Predator in .223 instead.

If you get a picatinny rail for the Remington and that rifle ends up being unfixable, you'll really only be out the $35 or so for the rail. Better rings and an optic can be used on another rifle, so it's not like you'll be going all in on the 788.

 

[Smaug]

Search for "Remington 788 scope mount". Lots of options available. Or just use the irons. They'd be fine at 100 yds, unless you have some vision problems. Or, a picatinny rail and a red dot would also be fine at 100 and the irons could stay.

I'm embarassed to admit this, but I never even tried the irons on it...

If I am buying a rifle with the intent being to hunt deer, it’s not going be chambered in .223.

Me either, but that's not what I asked.

Ok, I missed that detail along the way and it explains a lot .
I've hunted with see-thru rings my entire life and there are issues with them that most people are not able to overcome. These may explain your rifle's performance:
1. You cannot get a consistent cheek weld because you have to raise your head to get proper eye relief and sight picture.
2. Because you don't get a consistent cheek weld and consistent eye placement, parallax issue is exasperated and most scopes aren't forgiving of this. This alone can give you "minute of dinner plate" accuracy.
It takes A LOT of practice and muscle memory to overcome this but there are a couple things that will help if you use high mounts:. Get a riser pad, I use an ammo pouch with changeable rise pads that attached with velcro straps. This will solve most of the problem, but you can also get a better scope with parallax adjustment.

Yeah, that's too much fussing around. I'm going to replace the mount and get some quality rings.

I think your plan to switch to good quality low rise rings is a good first step. This way you can make sure all the mounting screws are tightened properly and if the gun shoots well, you know the scope is ok and the rings were the issue. If nothing changes, then get a new scope and see how it does. If nothing changes after that, then go after the barrel bedding.
If one ore more of these steps shrinks your group size considerably, then you can probably fine tune a handload to improve even more.

Great advice; thanks.

If you get a picatinny rail for the Remington and that rifle ends up being unfixable, you'll really only be out the $35 or so for the rail. Better rings and an optic can be used on another rifle, so it's not like you'll be going all in on the 788.

I'm taking your advice and buying a Pic mount:
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/2160656448?pid=931073

...and some decent rings:
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1023228938?pid=699951

 

[.308 Norma]

8 M.O.A. at 100 yards is 8.38 inches just under the size of a paper plate. The approximate size of a whitetail deers kill zone. There have been hundreds of thousands of deer harvested with shotguns and slugs that struggle to shoot that well

Exactly!

 

[.308 Norma]

I had forgotten that I have a Leupold scope on it; a VX II 3-9-40. Do you think it’s the scope rings?

Great scope! I just can't say much for those rings. They're too darned high as far as I'm concerned. I understand your thoughts about being able to "look through them" if your scope goes bad - at one time I had concerns about the same thing. Trust me though - that scope will stand up to a lot more than you think it will. And besides, even though a 6mm Remington is not a notoriously hard kicker, the higher your scope is above your rifle's bore, the greater the torque is on your scope when the rifle does recoil - think of taller scope rings as longer levers.
That said, if you get lower rings, you're probably going to want to remove those sights. That shouldn't be much of a problem though. Just don't put them away somewhere and forget where you put them - you might want to sell that rifle someday.

 

[Smaug]

8 M.O.A. at 100 yards is 8.38 inches just under the size of a paper plate. The approximate size of a whitetail deers kill zone. There have been hundreds of thousands of deer harvested with shotguns and slugs that struggle to shoot that well

Well, that assumes my aim and wind holding are perfect in the middle of that 8" kill zone and no wind, and as you know, that's a big assumption when a fellow has buck fever. In other words, even though the kill zone is 8 MoA @ 100 yards, an 8 MoA shot from a benchrest is not adequate.

3 MoA is better, but still questionable to me. It doesn't take many "field challenges" to open that up to > 8 MoA, right? Rested against a tree in an awkward position and a 5 mph breeze... God forbid there's brush, too...

I'd like to hear your stories about your guys' deer hunts with guns shooting 3 MoA or worse. ;-)

 

[Smaug]

Great scope! I just can't say much for those rings. They're too darned high as far as I'm concerned. I understand your thoughts about being able to "look through them" if your scope goes bad - at one time I had concerns about the same thing. Trust me though - that scope will stand up to a lot more than you think it will. And besides, even though a 6mm Remington is not a notoriously hard kicker, the higher your scope is above your rifle's bore, the greater the torque is on your scope when the rifle does recoil - think of taller scope rings as longer levers.
That said, if you get lower rings, you're probably going to want to remove those sights. That shouldn't be much of a problem though. Just don't put them away somewhere and forget where you put them - you might want to sell that rifle someday.

Thanks again!
I just went and looked to make sure the sights are easily removable. They are; just a couple of flat head screws. I'm gonna order that pic rail and rings, and get some rifle powder and primers next time I'm by the Bass Pro.

 

[plumberroy]

I am not a fan of that type of rings . I would definitely mount the scope lower . Most whitetails are killed under 100 yard if your Remington is shooting a true 3 M.O.A. you have a gun that will put venison on the table past 200 yards any day of the week. I can't help you with Buck fever , never had that problem.

 

[Chuck R.]

Well, that assumes my aim and wind holding are perfect in the middle of that 8" kill zone and no wind, and as you know, that's a big assumption when a fellow has buck fever. In other words, even though the kill zone is 8 MoA @ 100 yards, an 8 MoA shot from a benchrest is not adequate.

3 MoA is better, but still questionable to me. It doesn't take many "field challenges" to open that up to > 8 MoA, right? Rested against a tree in an awkward position and a 5 mph breeze... God forbid there's brush, too...

I'd like to hear your stories about your guys' deer hunts with guns shooting 3 MoA or worse. ;-)

The only times I've killed dear with a 3 MOA "tool" was with either shotgun slugs or a traditional muzzle loader using iron sights. For both I was in wooded terrain, with limited chances for long shots. I've killed a lot of deer at under 100yds where a 3MOA rifle would have been perfectly fine. I've hunted stands and ground blinds where I couldn't get a shot past 50 yds. One of the nicest 10pts I've taken was a little over 50 yds while pushing a draw in western KS, he was bedded down upwind and stood up to see what the noise was all about.

IF you're limited to 3MOA, you might have to "think" like a bow hunter and set up your stand etc. within the range of your tool... Find the trails, crossing points, entry points to crops field their using and set up in overwatch within your practical limit. Good friend of mine is an avid bow hunter, has a wall full of great racks and has killed most well under 30yds. He sits trails leading to and from bedding areas enroute to crop fields. His tactics are adapted to his chosen weapon.

Still hunting or drives with a 3MOA gun is perfectly doable, while spot and stalk, sitting the edges of row crop fields, not so much.

I also want as much accuracy out of my rifles as possible, but I'll also admit that I rarely need that level of accuracy. A lot depends on the game and conditions. Which is why I have multiple setups for big game hunting. The game might be the same, but the conditions can vary wildly. You won't see me dragging a 24" barreled rifle through draws, nor will you see me sitting the edge of crop fields with a 20" barreled 350RM.

IF it were me, I'd fix the 788, try lower rings first, clean the thing and start with a clean slate. IF I couldn't get it to shoot better it would move on to someone that had a 788 fetish (They're out there). I would then buy a deer rifle in a suitable caliber,.

 

[bearcreek]

I'd like to hear your stories about your guys' deer hunts with guns shooting 3 MoA or worse. ;-)

You could get those stories from tens of thousands of hunters from several of
the Great Lakes states. Up until less than ten years ago or so they were almost all using 3 MOA or worse guns.

Me either, but that's not what I asked.

Yes it is. Your thread was about a choice for a deer rifle. It's in the title. It wasn't until later in the thread that you implied that the thread title was misleading and wasn't actually about a deer specific rifle.

 

[Speedo66]

How many deer have been taken with Winchester 94's?

How many 94's with average shooters behind them are 3moa or less?

You may be over thinking this, deer aren't that hard to kill.

 

[WisBorn]

@Smaug once you have remounted your scope in new rings. You may want to try a box of factory ammo. I like CORE-LOKs as most rifles that I have owned will shoot them. A buddy of mine that was a seasoned handloader was having trouble getting accuracy from a 22-250 he had. I was at a Walmart and picked up a box of CORE-LOKs and his rifle loved them. He then started with similar velocity and weight bullets in his hand loads staying with a lighter bullet than his original handloads. And made it a real tack driver.

 

[stillquietvoice]

It’s academic, guys. I’m Not even planning on going deer hunting. It’s too much trouble for someone like me who doesn’t know someone with property and doesn’t have a family legacy of deer hunting.

The reason I ask is that I just found out that .223 is legal for deer in Wisconsin, where I live, and I’m about to buy a .223 rifle in a month or so. For target shooting.

It just had me WONDERING.

i do have the old 788, but it’s a turd. A couple of you are quick to blame me, but believe me, I tried like hell to get it to shoot: fire-formed brass, different bullets, seating depths, powders and quantities… Then, my trusty Ruger 77/22 in 22LR outshoots it at 100 yards easily, and with any ammo other than Remington Thunderbolt. It’s a ****** rifle.

The only thing I can think of that I may have done wrong was not letting it cool off enough between shots.

A few things come to mind some have been covered, like slightly enlarging barrel channel do barrel is free floated, pressure points in reciever. And scope mounts, long screws. The scopeount screws can put pressure on the bolt head and cause accuracy issues too. When you get the new mounts make sure there is clearance of the bolt head. Make sure there isn't wood compression from reciever screws that could pull action down farther into action and make pressure points and make accuracy worse with each consecutive shot due to heating.

 

[.308 Norma]

How many 94's with average shooters behind them are 3moa or less?

Not bragging, but I'm at least an "average" shooter with a rifle, and I can't make my Model 94 30-30 do any better than 3moa. Yet I've killed deer from 75 yards to 125 yards with it without a problem.
On the other hand, my wife has a Model 94 32 Special (that she's never used for hunting) that I can make go 2moa or slightly less. Don't get me wrong though - I'm not saying a 32 Special is more accurate (or "precise" if you prefer) than a 30-30. My wife's Model 94 32 Special has a Williams aperture sight (a "peep" sight) for its rear sight, and I've always been a little better with "peep" sights than I am with open sights.

 

[illinoisburt]

I would definitely be suspect of the see-through high rings. I believe the rear base may only have 1 screw attaching it to the receiver, which is very likely to allow shifting under recoil. As I had mentioned previously, a 1-piece solid picatinny rail will be substantially more solid. Since the 788 is an older action the choices are limited and cost a bit more than other more common ones.

Smaug ** Great choice on the rail and rings from midway!

 

[Smaug]

@Smaug once you have remounted your scope in new rings. You may want to try a box of factory ammo. I like CORE-LOKs as most rifles that I have owned will shoot them. A buddy of mine that was a seasoned handloader was having trouble getting accuracy from a 22-250 he had. I was at a Walmart and picked up a box of CORE-LOKs and his rifle loved them. He then started with similar velocity and weight bullets in his hand loads staying with a lighter bullet than his original handloads. And made it a real tack driver.

I started with the Remington Core Lokt, 100 gr. or so. 6” groups at 100 yards. That’s what led me to hand load. I cut it way down, but it’s still underwhelming.

I did some reading on a reloading forum, and another guy had a Remington in 6 mm Rem that wouldn’t shoot and one that would.

I haven’t done any fancy cleaning yet with copper solvent, but other than that, I’m pretty confident my loads were good.

 

[mokin]

Like the thread.

To answer the OP question, I'd take the 6mm. .308 Norma, Chuck R, and a few others covered why.

To expand the answer, when you mentioned the rifle belonging to a great uncle, I invisioned a rifle purchased in the late 50s or early 60s. Don't know why. When I saw the see through scope rings things seemed period correct. It occurred to me that your great uncle probably didn't use the scope. Try the iron sights. Maybe 50 yards or so. Get your face down on the stock where it's supposed to be. I had see through rings on one of my rifles and couldn't get a consistent cheek wield ever. I changed the rings and things improved immediately.