So.... 6.5 PRC fliers.....

[BrentM]

@bluedog69 FWIW - If you go through the Internet and Facebook you'll find no shortage of posts about the 6.5 prc 110 Tactical having accuracy issues.
When I pulled my factory barrel I contacted Savage and asked them to whom in their company I should send it to.
They haven't responded.
My guess is they're not going to.

Is it a barrel rifling issue or chamber spec issue?

 

[CoachChris]

Is it a barrel rifling issue or chamber spec issue?

I believe it is rifling?

 

[sveltri]

Treat setting actions like you do scope bases. Always push the recoil lug into the block to ensure it cannot move under recoil and torque. I prefer to do the front and rear back forth in steps and my final torque is the front first, finish rear. Just me and how I do it. I do torque everything period these days. Used to just tighten until I felt like it was good enough. I found tq to spec removes another variable for inconsistencies that we may face when dialing in a rifle system.

This is how we do it as well. Just get the action screws engaged, tap the butt to set the recoil lug in place, take the front to 20lbs, then the back, then the front to 40-45 and the back to 35ish. My barrel looked horrible but it shoots very well, i guess looks aren't everything.

 

[BrentM]

This is how we do it as well. Just get the action screws engaged, tap the butt to set the recoil lug in place, take the front to 20lbs, then the back, then the front to 40-45 and the back to 35ish. My barrel looked horrible but it shoots very well, i guess looks aren't everything.

Yep. All my savage barrels looked rough but all shot very well. I was really into them for a while and had a lot of exposure to friends and clients with savages, all shot. To this day I've not first hand experienced a problem. I know it happens tho.

 

[Another Casual]

Tell that to alot of good BR and F- Class shooters. Did you watch the Video with Eric Cortina with he the Horny guy.
I'm sure Hornys testing was done at 100 yards there a big difference between 100 and 500 and beyond. I know for a shadow of a doudt seating depth makes a difference past 100 yards so I know that claim is pure 100% B.S

I'm not talking to a benchrest shooter who wins or loses in the thousandths. And if you read my post, I didn't say anything at all about seating depth.

I'm talking to OP who said they had 3 shots at 120 yards with 2 touching and one 3" apart. Their sample size is too small to say that the 3rd shot is materially different. A repeatable 3" group is certainly not a load I would go hunting with or waste more components on. This is the circumstance my advice was grounded in.

Happy to review your data that proves "for a shadow of a doudt" that you are right, even though my post did not mention seating depth once. Perhaps a separate thread would be a more appropriate venue.

Lots of reading to be done on statistics and what it takes to have a statistically significant sample size. I can't summarize it all here. But 3 shots ain't it.

And no, I haven't seen the video of "Eric Cortina with he the Horny guy". Doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

 

[L.Sherm]

Happy to review your data that proves "for a shadow of a doudt" that you are right,

I have plenty of rifles that will shoot .25-.3 m.o.a at 665-700 yards 3 shot groups that will repeat is my data. Target data is all I care about.
I'll take Eric Cortina, Keith Glascocks and the likes any day advice over some Hornandy people who's only data is 100 yard controlled.
By the way I never said you said anything about seating depth, its your Horny guys your touting as superman who claim it makes no difference.
Eric, Keith and people like them have proven themselves, watch there stuff you could probably learn something

 

[Another Casual]

I have plenty of rifles that will shoot .25-.3 m.o.a at 665-700 yards 3 shot groups that will repeat is my data.

Might be an error on my end, but not seeing any actual data here. If you overlay all the 3 shot groups you might get something approaching statistical significance. But just saying that you have shot a lot of small 3 shot groups at distance does not prove whatever you're saying it proves. Please understand that my post was about the lack of statistical significance of a 3 shot group and not a warranty that everything Hornady has ever said was right. You changing the subject to seating depth because you disagree with them there does not change that.

Again, happy to review any actual data you claim supports whatever point you are trying to make in another thread so posters here can focus on helping OP with their rifle.

 

[L.Sherm]

Just so your clear, mine are all HUNTING RIFLES shot off bipod.
What more data is there than the target.
Numbers don't mean squat, the target means everything in load development.
Hitting the animal the first time maybe the second is what counts right not the 35, 50 or 100.
Oh I should add the first time were its suppose to be.

 

[L.Sherm]

. You changing the subject to seating depth because you disagree with them there does not change that

I'm not changing anything im pointing out that anybody who has shot enough at LR knows seating depth makes a difference so if you make that claim your data means nothing.
Keith's video shows even at 100 it does.

 

[Another Casual]

Just so your clear, mine are all HUNTING RIFLES shot off bipod.
What more data is there than the target.
Numbers don't mean squat, the target means everything in load development.
Hitting the animal the first time maybe the second is what counts right not the 35, 50 or 100

Thanks for your reply. Still not seeing the data you referenced. Please feel free to post it up (in a new thread so this one can be to help the original poster) for all to review when you get the chance.

With regards to your last comment. Please review Joe-Boy's informative post #42 on page 3. Lots of guys have spent lots of time chasing that "flier" in a 3 shot group only to learn that if you zoom out to a statistically significant sample size it's not a "flier" at all. 3 shots landing close together is luck, as the number of shots grows larger it starts to approach skill. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be much more impressed by a 0.5 MOA 100 shot group than a 0.5 MOA 3 shot group. That's the easiest way to think about statistical significance and the repeatability of results.

I'm not changing anything im pointing out that anybody who has shot enough at LR knows seating depth makes a difference so if you make that claim your data means nothing.
Keith's video shows even at 100 it does.

I don't expect everyone to be an expert in everything. My reference to them was with regards to the statistical elements showing how unhelpful a 3 shot group is being presented in an approachable manner. I apologize if that was upsetting to you. Have a great night.

 

[bluedog69]

I'm not talking to a benchrest shooter who wins or loses in the thousandths. And if you read my post, I didn't say anything at all about seating depth.

I'm talking to OP who said they had 3 shots at 120 yards with 2 touching and one 3" apart. Their sample size is too small to say that the 3rd shot is materially different. A repeatable 3" group is certainly not a load I would go hunting with or waste more components on. This is the circumstance my advice was grounded in.

Happy to review your data that proves "for a shadow of a doudt" that you are right, even though my post did not mention seating depth once. Perhaps a separate thread would be a more appropriate venue.

Lots of reading to be done on statistics and what it takes to have a statistically significant sample size. I can't summarize it all here. But 3 shots ain't it.

And no, I haven't seen the video of "Eric Cortina with he the Horny guy". Doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

I am a math teacher so I have done my fair share of data crunching. I fully agree that it would be pretty silly for anyone to base anything off of a three shot group.(good or bad) We had about 7 groups with two close and 1 shot 3"-3.5" inches off. Something seems off. I hope to find out this evening or Friday.

 

[bluedog69]

This is how we do it as well. Just get the action screws engaged, tap the butt to set the recoil lug in place, take the front to 20lbs, then the back, then the front to 40-45 and the back to 35ish. My barrel looked horrible but it shoots very well, i guess looks aren't everything.

Yep. All my savage barrels looked rough but all shot very well. I was really into them for a while and had a lot of exposure to friends and clients with savages, all shot. To this day I've not first hand experienced a problem. I know it happens tho.

So I have read all over the wonderful internet that some are finding better groups at about 30 on the back and 35 on the front. Not 100% sure that they are talking the exact same stock.

Last night I took the stock off and cleaned and retorqued back and forth until I hit 35 front and 30 back. My reasoning is that if it doesn't help I can go on up to 45ish and 35ish to see if that helps.

Sound like a good plan? Or should I go ahead and go tighter?

 

[Another Casual]

I am a math teacher so I have done my fair share of data crunching. I fully agree that it would be pretty silly for anyone to base anything off of a three shot group.(good or bad) We had about 7 groups with two close and 1 shot 3"-3.5" inches off. Something seems off. I hope to find out this evening or Friday.

If you didn't make any scope adjustments between the groups try to overlay them into one large group. Put a pin through the point of aim to line them up and trace them all onto one sheet and see if that helps. With the other load shooting well, it's tough to say that it's a scope being loose or something.

 

[BrentM]

So I have read all over the wonderful internet that some are finding better groups at about 30 on the back and 35 on the front. Not 100% sure that they are talking the exact same stock.

Last night I took the stock off and cleaned and retorqued back and forth until I hit 35 front and 30 back. My reasoning is that if it doesn't help I can go on up to 45ish and 35ish to see if that helps.

Sound like a good plan? Or should I go ahead and go tighter?

I googled savage accustock and savage FAQ showed 40-45. My manual said 48. I've used 48 on every accustock I have, thinking 7 now, and they all shot well with handloads. I don't shoot factory ammo so I cannot say if more or less is better. I do feel that too little will eventually mean a loose action screw. For any stock with a steel pillar and I run 65. All chassis, 65.