Weatherby Accumark vs Vangard

[dariuszczyszczon]

So why is an accumark cost $1800 and a vangard cost $900, but Weatherby states that the vangard will shoot sub moa 100 yds and the Accumark a 1 1/2 at 100 yds but it costs about $1000 more? So for shooting long distance is the vangard better?gun)

 

[Seven Oaks]

I wouldn't say the Vanguard is better for long range shooting. However, the few MOA rifles I have been around lived up to their guarantee.

I would think the Accumark would be an MOA rifle as well, with the features it has- a Kevlar re-enforced stock with an intergal aluminum bedding block. It also features a Krieger button rifled Bbl. if I'm not mistaken. This also explains some of difference in cost.

I don't know if they share the same actions or not.

If I was going to spend $1,800 I would look at a M52 Cooper Jackson Hunter or Excaliber. You'll get an accuracy gaurantee of .5" and they live up to it as well.

Hope this helps some.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

The Vanguard is built on a HOWA action they are from Japan veary strong. The Accumark is built on Weatherbys MK5 action.

I think both rifles are great but for my money I would go with the Vanguard and trick it out with a good scope and rings.

 

[Boman]

I've owned an Accumark and my father has one now. I really like them when I purchased them years ago. Mine shot 3/4moa with factory and 1/2 moa with reloads. My dad's shoots even better. They are great entry level long range rifles but..... at $1800 i'm not so sure. That's way to close to custom rifle cost. If I could get one for $1300 then it would be a no brainer.. Having said that I picked up a Vanguard sub moa today at a shop and was very impressed. Seems like a well built rifle and they guarantee they shoot. To me the Accumark feels better but your mileage may vary. If you can get to a gun shop that has both and see which one feels better to you. As long as your doing that though pick up a Rem Sendero it's priced right in the middle and I like it quite a bit. If you really love the Accumark wait to pick one up used unless you can find a good deal online.

 

[J E Custom]

I wouldn't say the Vanguard is better for long range shooting. However, the few MOA rifles I have been around lived up to their guarantee.

I would think the Accumark would be an MOA rifle as well, with the features it has- a Kevlar re-enforced stock with an intergal aluminum bedding block. It also features a Krieger button rifled Bbl. if I'm not mistaken. This also explains some of difference in cost.

I don't know if they share the same actions or not.

If I was going to spend $1,800 I would look at a M52 Cooper Jackson Hunter or Excaliber. You'll get an accuracy gaurantee of .5" and they live up to it as well.

Hope this helps some.

The accumark is built on a MK5 action and has the 9 lug bolt the vanguard has a smaller bolt
with 2 recoil lugs (Doesn'T make it inferior just smaller) the vangaurd is normally chambered in
the standard calibers and the MK5 is chambered in large Weatherby calibers.

The 1 1/2 MOA is the max guaranty and most will shoot less than 1 MOA .

All the other features are what makes the accumark more expensive.

If you put together a rifle that had all of the features you would spend as much so it is
just what you want and can afford. but if you can find a MK5 for less than $1500.oo it
would be a good deal.

 

[FEENIX]

The Vanguard is built on a HOWA action they are from Japan veary strong. The Accumark is built on Weatherbys MK5 action.

I think both rifles are great but for my money I would go with the Vanguard and trick it out with a good scope and rings.

+1. Topic should have been Vanguard vs. Howa.

Good luck!

 

[rdsii64]

I wouldn't say the Vanguard is better for long range shooting. However, the few MOA rifles I have been around lived up to their guarantee.

I would think the Accumark would be an MOA rifle as well, with the features it has- a Kevlar re-enforced stock with an intergal aluminum bedding block. It also features a Krieger button rifled Bbl. if I'm not mistaken. This also explains some of difference in cost.

I don't know if they share the same actions or not.

If I was going to spend $1,800 I would look at a M52 Cooper Jackson Hunter or Excalibur. You'll get an accuracy guarantee of .5" and they live up to it as well.

Hope this helps some.

The vanguard sub moa also has an integral aluminum bedding block block

 

[Xenomorph]

I don't know why people keep insisting on comparing Vanguard to MarkV

No, they're not the same, they never will be. If you want to lie to yourself that's not a biggie, you do whatever feels good, but at the end of the day you know it's untrue.

Far from being similar, even in performance, let me give you a couple of my reasons:
1. Strongest available commercial action with 9 lug bolt
2. Long barrels 26" min on most magnum cartridges
3. Bedded and kevlar reinforced stock.

Look, I have both, 25-06 and 30-06 in Vanguard. They're terrific rifles out of the box, you can (I did) trick and use to them to their full potential, but don't confuse a race horse with a Clydesdale.

My 30-378 Accumark has less, yes LESS recoil than my Vanguard 30-06. Put that into perspective when you're comparing them. Same with the .257 Weatherby, no matter how hot I'll load them, the Weathermark is still easier and more pleasant to shoot than the 25-06, 30-06.

Now, if I want to go bushwacking and kill a bear at 5-10 yards I'll never reach for the MarkV. I'll take the Vanguard S2. It's always been reliable, it's always got the game, and it's **** heavy enough that I can club the bear to death if all else fails to work.

Two different animals. They both work. Don't insult them by saying they're the same.

 

[B23]

You do realize this thread was last posted on over eight years ago, right?????

 

[MudRunner2005]

I don't know why people keep insisting on comparing Vanguard to MarkV

No, they're not the same, they never will be. If you want to lie to yourself that's not a biggie, you do whatever feels good, but at the end of the day you know it's untrue.

Far from being similar, even in performance, let me give you a couple of my reasons:
1. Strongest available commercial action with 9 lug bolt
2. Long barrels 26" min on most magnum cartridges
3. Bedded and kevlar reinforced stock.

Look, I have both, 25-06 and 30-06 in Vanguard. They're terrific rifles out of the box, you can (I did) trick and use to them to their full potential, but don't confuse a race horse with a Clydesdale.

My 30-378 Accumark has less, yes LESS recoil than my Vanguard 30-06. Put that into perspective when you're comparing them. Same with the .257 Weatherby, no matter how hot I'll load them, the Weathermark is still easier and more pleasant to shoot than the 25-06, 30-06.

Now, if I want to go bushwacking and kill a bear at 5-10 yards I'll never reach for the MarkV. I'll take the Vanguard S2. It's always been reliable, it's always got the game, and it's **** heavy enough that I can club the bear to death if all else fails to work.

Two different animals. They both work. Don't insult them by saying they're the same.

What good is a Clydesdale when you got tricked into buying it, only to find out at race time that it comes out of the gate with a limp and eventually goes lame by the time it walks 50 yards? Just like my Accumark experience from 2008-2014. It had a bad barrel on it from the factory, and Weatherby refused to fix it. So I traded it off and got another brand new Rem 700 5R Milspec for $100 bill more than trade-in.

The Vanguard is a MUCH better buy. You're still buying a **** mass-produced factory rifle. I learned this the hard way. Despite the ridiculous price tags of the Mark V rifles, you are not actually getting anything better, just something prettier and shinier for people to THINK is better. The ONLY advantages over the Vanguard is that the MK-V has a stronger action and a 60º bolt throw.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I only have experience with one of each , an $1800 338-378 Accumark and a $399 243 Vanguard. The Accumark was vastly superior in every way except accuracy, the Vanguard ate it for lunch .

The Accumark went back to Weatherby several times and in the end they took the rifle back and refunded my money. The poor cheapo Vanguard has been shooting junk ammo 3/4 MOA for years.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I only have experience with one of each , an $1800 338-378 Accumark and a $399 243 Vanguard. The Accumark was vastly superior in every way except accuracy, the Vanguard ate it for lunch .

The Accumark went back to Weatherby several times and in the end they took the rifle back and refunded my money. The poor cheapo Vanguard has been shooting junk ammo 3/4 MOA for years.

You got lucky... They hung me out to dry because it shot "within the [horrible] 1.5" @ 100 yards" BS warranty they offered, when it was new. They said that it left their facility new within their guaranteed specs, and that it was on me that it crapped-out with 50-75 rounds of factory ammo down the tube.

Won't ever buy another one, unless I can get it used for under $500. That just left a bad taste in my mouth. My guess is one of their employees probably just wanted to be a douche, and told me that, just to be an a$$hole, and that he probably NEVER even reported my complaint or rifle problems to the higher-ups or to anyone who could do anything about it.

 

[B23]

The accumark is built on a MK5 action and has the 9 lug bolt the vanguard has a smaller bolt
with 6 recoil lugs (Doesn'T make it inferior just smaller) the vangaurd is normally chambered in
the standard calibers and the MK5 is chambered in Weatherby calibers.

The 1 1/2 MOA is the max guaranty and most will shoot less than 1 MOA .

All the other features are what makes the accumark more expensive.

If you put together a rifle that had all of the features you would spend as much so it is
just what you want and can afford. but if you can find a MK5 for less than $1500.oo it
would be a good deal.

When did the Vanguards ever use the 6 lug actions?

I had a MkV in 240Wby that was the 6 lug bolt but any Vanguard I've ever owned or been around was the re-branded Howa with a standard two lug bolt. Didn't know they ever made a Vanguard in a 6 lug bolt design.

And not that anyone cares because this thread is over eight years old but I've had two Accumarks, first one was in a 300wby I bought when they very first came out with the Accumark and I believe they used HS Prec. stocks back then, second was a 338-378. The first one I had in 300 Wby shot extremely well for a factory gun and the 338-378 was mediocre at best and the stock fit was terrible, certainly not what you'd expect from a gun with this kind of price tag.

 

[MudRunner2005]

When did the Vanguards ever use the 6 lug actions?

I had a MkV in 240Wby that was the 6 lug bolt but any Vanguard I've ever owned or been around was the re-branded Howa with a standard two lug bolt. Didn't know they ever made a Vanguard in a 6 lug bolt design.

And not that anyone cares because this thread is over eight years old but I've had two Accumarks, first one was in a 300wby I bought when they very first came out with the Accumark and I believe they used HS Prec. stocks back then, second was a 338-378. The first one I had in 300 Wby shot extremely well for a factory gun and the 338-378 was mediocre at best and the stock fit was terrible, certainly not what you'd expect from a gun with this kind of price tag.

B23, the newer ones use Bell & Carlson stocks and button-rifled Criterion barrels... The older models used cut-rifled Kriegers and H.S. Precision stocks. So, that might explain the differences in your experiences with them.