I’ve read the LR thread off and on over the years but didn’t want to derail that one with an entry level question.

For someone looking it to try their hand at LR what’s a good starting rig? I’ve shot out to 300-400 yds in the past, but not as a regular thing. Nor do I have any rifles or glass right now that I believe would work for such.

Right is I have regular access to a 300 yd range, but have the ability locally to step up to a max of 2000 yds if it was something that I got interested in.

Not trying to break the bank but wondering what folks here would suggest as a primer to see whether I enjoy it.

Thank you as always.

Are you looking to start with a new gun or built your own. If buying what price range are you looking at. Can you reload or are you stuck buying factory ammo. Will you use it for punching paper with pinpoint accuracy or just hitting steel at distance and are you looking to do other things like varmint hunt. All will drive your considerations. Glass is another consideration and will be driven by use and pocketbook. Recommendations are basically driven by individual preferences and likes so the more you can define in your own mind what you want to do then people will be better able to help you.

For rifle you want a heavy barrel and about anything can get you started. Rifles in .243, 6.5CR and .308 are good starting rifles and can be picked up new and used without breaking the bank. Before buying glass read the riflescope primer that is a sticky to this section. There is also a lot of discussion on glass you can find here with a little search.

To answer a few of the questions, not interested in building a rifle. Can reload for it, but I'm not the type to want to load just to squeeze ever last ounce of accuracy out of a round (the idea of experimenting with endless combinations of power, bullet weight, brass head stamps, etc. doesn't interest me). Would much prefer a classic rifle stock over a chassis system. Something that would serve dual purpose as a hunting round would be a plus as well. As I haven't shot for accuracy much beyond shooting clay pigeons on the berm with a .22 at 100-150 yards I'm not sure if ringing steel or paper punching is what I want, though I suspect I'd be happier shooting steel.

Budget isn't nailed down, but I'd rather spend a modest amount on a gun and more on a scope for now.

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
To answer a few of the questions, not interested in building a rifle. Can reload for it, but I'm not the type to want to load just to squeeze ever last ounce of accuracy out of a round (the idea of experimenting with endless combinations of power, bullet weight, brass head stamps, etc. doesn't interest me). Would much prefer a classic rifle stock over a chassis system. Something that would serve dual purpose as a hunting round would be a plus as well. As I haven't shot for accuracy much beyond shooting clay pigeons on the berm with a .22 at 100-150 yards I'm not sure if ringing steel or paper punching is what I want, though I suspect I'd be happier shooting steel.

Budget isn't nailed down, but I'd rather spend a modest amount on a gun and more on a scope for now.

Definitely interested in a bolt action or is a semi-auto in consideration?


Your intent to spend more on the optic than on your entry level rifle is wise.

SigM4...You have an email

Some thoughts by someone who doesn’t consider himself to be a top tier shooter who is willing and able to do whatever is absolutely necessary to achieve that status, but who has tried to improve his abilities over the past several years (and with some success).

Cartridge selection: The 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge is very attractive these days, not only because of its ballistics characteristics, but also because it’s popular. A round isn’t necessarily good just because it’s popular, of course, but in this case being popular means that there are many good factory loads and many good rifles now chambered for it. I’ve read the many threads here extolling the virtues of the 6mm Creedmoor, just to cite one alternative, so why not that? My answer is that it’s still much more of a specialist’s round that doesn’t have the advantages of being popular.

Rifles: I am still happy with my Tikka T3s in 223 Remington and 308 Winchester. If I were starting all over today, I’d probably get one in 6.5 CM, but when I bought them I didn’t have that option. And more to the point, I had specific reasons for those cartridges then that don’t exist so much today. In my very limited experience, I’ve found the 6.5 CM to be easier to shoot well and possibly is more precise with factory loads, but the 308 T3 is nevertheless a consistent sub-MOA gun with good factory ammunition. Are all Tikkas like that? I don’t know; research is key.

The Tikkas have conventional stocks, but they are popular enough these days that reasonably-priced chassis systems are available for them if you ever decide to upgrade. I have modified both of mine to take AICS type magazines.

Scopesights: You’ll hear over and over that we should buy as good a scope as we can afford, and I’m largely in agreement with that. To cite my own experience, though, if our shooting plans include a lot of elevation adjustments to engage targets at different distances I would focus on the adjustments’ being precise with good tactile feedback. I have three Leupold Mark 6 scopes and although I have no reason to be dissatisfied with how they actually track, I don’t like the fact that their adjustments are somewhat mushy and sometimes it’s hard for me to be certain how many clicks I’ve made. Does it matter in practice? Not really, but despite the fact that I even sent the worst of the three back to have the adjustment mechanism replaced, it’s still something that nags at me. On the other hand, several lower-priced Leupolds have adjustments that are much more satisfying and confidence-inspiring to use. I believe that feature of Leupold scopes has improved in recent years.

The quality of the glass used in scopesights seems to be a major factor in their cost, and that seems to get much more emphasis among PRS and other long range competitors than any other factor. One Internet reviewer, though, as asked, in effect, “If you can see the target, what more do you need?” and his point being, just how good does the glass have to be? That question gave me some pause because I realized that it is valid to ask that. I recently upgraded to a very expensive scope* that is regularly included when top tier makes are discussed. The sharpness and clarity of its image is an example of the, “See: I told you so,” difference between its glass and that of my Mark 6 sights. But what does that mean for my ability to see and engage a target? Nothing, really. Even when I had access to a range with 1000+ yard targets, I could see them with my much less expensive sights, and that’s certainly true of other well-lighted targets that contrast well with the background at shorter distances.

And then there are the other issues of glass quality. Does it matter if there is small degree of color fringing (chromatic aberration) at the edges of the image if we can still see the target clearly? Must the image be as sharp and clear at the edge of the view as in the center? Will we even notice?

So the question about glass is when does the higher quality stuff make a difference for the type of shooting we’re doing? (I’m not, BTW, at all suggesting that it can’t make a difference. Low light conditions or targets that are shaded or otherwise difficult to find and see could demand the best optics we can get.)

None of all that is intended to be a definitive answer to your questions. Some is contrary to conventional wisdom, and I’m sure many people would disagree with some of what I’ve said. Perhaps at least it will give you some things to think about.

* Which one isn’t germane to this discussion.

For just starting I would buy a Tikka T3X CTR 24" in 6.5 Creedmoor.

https://www.eurooptic.com/Tikk...TR-65-Creedmoor.aspx

For right at $1k you get a rifle that will shoot 1/2 MOA with factory match ammo right out of the box.
The barrel is already threaded if you want to add a brake or suppressor in the future.
The factory trigger is excellent and can be made better with a simple $10 spring swap.
Many different options exist for rails and optic mounts.
Gunsmiths that can swap barrels are now very common if/when you do wear one out.
It has a very strong aftermarket, for example you can drop it into a KRG Bravo chassis for $369.

https://kineticresearchgroup.c...oduct/bravo-chassis/

I have a KRG X-Ray chassis for one of my Tikkas and am very happy with it. I didn't mention it because the OP said he wanted a conventional stock, but the KRG offerings are good options at reasonable prices.

https://kineticresearchgroup.c...oduct/x-ray-chassis/

Aftermarket options for Tikka rifles are definitely becoming more common. Nothing like the Remington 700, of course, but growing and although we may initially hate the idea of “What? I just bought a $1000 rifle and now have to start modifying it?” options are good.

Added: The T3x CTR has essentially the same features of the T3 “Tactical” models I bought, but for significantly less money. The adjustable cheek rest by itself is a definite advantage if we’re going to mount a large scope suitable for long range shooting.
Just looking at it now has me thinking, “Can I justify …?”

I haven't gotten in to long-range stuff, but I think my Bergara B-14 HMR is a great economical starter rifle in that arena. The B-14 comes in several different models and calibers, to include .308 and 6.5 Creedmore.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Cartridge selection: The 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge is very attractive these days, not only because of its ballistics characteristics, but also because it’s popular. A round isn’t necessarily good just because it’s popular, of course, but in this case being popular means that there are many good factory loads and many good rifles now chambered for it. I’ve read the many threads here extolling the virtues of the 6mm Creedmoor, just to cite one alternative, so why not that? My answer is that it’s still much more of a specialist’s round that doesn’t have the advantages of being popular.

The other benefit of 6.5 Creedmoor is that it's a relatively new round designed by Hornady, and Hornady is pushing hard to popularize their new cartridge - which means that Hornady produces really excellent factory match ammunition for 6.5 Creedmoor and then sells it at a very attractive price.

Since he used the term "not break the bank":
Ruger American Predator in 6.5 CM or .308
Any better quality scope with 24X.
Should work well at 300 yards.
Dip your toes in and see if you like it. If so, sell the Ruger and go Tikka or beyond.

I'm only half kidding, but a .22LR at 150 or so yards would give you an inexpensive taste of some of the nuances of "real" long range shooting, without investing in a whole new setup.

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
To answer a few of the questions, not interested in building a rifle. Can reload for it, but I'm not the type to want to load just to squeeze ever last ounce of accuracy out of a round (the idea of experimenting with endless combinations of power, bullet weight, brass head stamps, etc. doesn't interest me). Would much prefer a classic rifle stock over a chassis system. Something that would serve dual purpose as a hunting round would be a plus as well. As I haven't shot for accuracy much beyond shooting clay pigeons on the berm with a .22 at 100-150 yards I'm not sure if ringing steel or paper punching is what I want, though I suspect I'd be happier shooting steel.

Budget isn't nailed down, but I'd rather spend a modest amount on a gun and more on a scope for now.

Reloading does not have to be that complicated to produce better more consistent ammo then factory.

Even with a classic rifle stock suggest to get and adjustable length of pull and cheek piece. With out you'll have a very challenging time maintaining point of aim/point of impact.

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:
Even with a classic rifle stock suggest to get and adjustable length of pull and cheek piece.

Especially the adjustable cheek piece. I must raise the combs of the stocks of all my rifles over what is standard on a traditional style stock. Add-on risers work, but they are much less convenient and are much harder to adjust to the exact height needed than an adjustable piece that’s part of the stock. The Tikka version doesn’t look like much, but it works fine.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:
Even with a classic rifle stock suggest to get and adjustable length of pull and cheek piece.

Especially the adjustable cheek piece. I must raise the combs of the stocks of all my rifles over what is standard on a traditional style stock.

Next time you’re at the range shoot two five shot dot drills with/with out cheek rest at the proper height for you. Get up and down between EVERY shot. It’ll show you the importance of a proper cheek weld! Report back.

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:
Next time you’re at the range shoot two five shot dot drills with/with out cheek rest at the proper height for you. Get up and down between EVERY shot. It’ll show you the importance of a proper cheek weld!

I learned this the hard way.

My 18" Wilson Combat AR15 originally came with an A2 stock. The rifle was ludicrously accurate from the start, but I really didn't care much for the fixed stock. I bought a basic Magpul collapsible carbine stock -- which I liked, but found my accuracy wasn't consistent day-to-day. Furthermore, it seemed I was futzing around with my scope's zero. This seemed odd, as a NF F1 3.5-15x is a solid scope.

Down the road I changed the stock to a Magpul UBR. I liked it originally, but something just didn't seem right with the cheek weld. After a little while, the first 18" barrel was shot out. I replaced it with an 18" Bartlein/Craddock. From the start the accuracy was great, but I still had days where my zero required tweaking, using the same NF scope. A scope that performed flawlessly on a previous rifle. I took the newly-barreled 18" to a 2-rifle shoot and shot some stages like dog doo. I had two of the best Colorado shooters in my squad, and they both said I was throwing rounds high during my misses.

After futzing with zero yet again, I realized that I was struggling to get a good cheek weld with the UBR stock. I had to mash my face onto the UBR stock to get a good eyebox picture, or so I thought. So I changed the scope mount to an idle one that was about 3/8" taller. This helped, but I still had consistency issues with vertical POI.

So...I pulled the UBR stock from the rifle. Bought a new Mappul PRS stock and converted it back to a rifle buffer. Adjusted the PRS stock for a good and consistent cheek weld. My 18" WC/Bartlein/Craddock shoots uber well again.

Yeah, I'm not too smart -- only took a few years to figure it out.
Consistent cheek welds are really, really, really important.

SigM4 -- how much thought have you placed on caliber?

22lr -- As you have experienced, it works fine at 100-150 yards. Even with a quality rifle and match-grade subsonic ammo, 200 yards and beyond is a real challenge. Wind tosses a 22lr bullet all over the place, both horizontally and vertically. Recoil is almost non-existent.

223 Remy -- 300 yards is pretty easy with good ammo and barrel. Wind effects are noticeable, especially with lighter bullets. A quality 223 system of barrel, ammo, optics, and shooter does just fine out to 500-600 yards. Minimal recoil.

243 Win & 6mm Creedmoor -- Better long range capabilities than 223 Remy. The heavier match-grade bullets fly better than anything from a 223. Good accuracy to 1,000 yards and beyond is possible. Recoil is greater than 223, but still easy to deal with for most shooters. A major downside is limited barrel life.

260 Remy & 6.5x47 & 6.5 Creedmoor -- A little better long range capabilities than 6mm bores. Accuracy at 1200 yards can be pretty good, but beyond that a magnum caliber is preferred. Recoil is a little greater than the 6mm bores, but pretty reasonable with a brake or suppressor.

7mm bores, but not magnums -- More of a hunting round than a match round. Slightly more recoil than 6.5 bores and a little more barrel life. If you hand load, this can be an option. There are some pretty good bullets in 7mm.

308 Win -- For ages this was the standard caliber for non-magnum match rifles. Lots of quality ammo options, and at various prices. Handloading recipes are well documented. Recoil is noticeably more than the above calibers, however many shooters seem to deal with it OK. Brakes and suppressors make a big difference in recoil. Barrel life is very good. Good accuracy to 800-ish yards, but any of its bullets struggle beyond that.

****
True long distance is a different game. If you really want to shoot regularly and effectively at 2000 yards, a magnum caliber rifle is necessary. Costs increase. Accuracy challenges increase. Demands on technique increase. I do not recommend going this path now.

****
If you hand load, another option is the lower-MV 6mm bores. 6BR, 6BRA, 6 Dasher. Tremendous accuracy and low recoil. Barrel life that's noticeable better than 243 Win, and possibly close to that of 6.5 Creedmoor.

Mine's not a CTR, but I love my Tikka.
First time out with it, managed 5 shots in 3 holes at 100yds, with just over a 1" spread.

My last trip to Academy 2 weeks ago, 6.5 Creedmoor was plentiful on the shelf. 308 was sparse & 223/556 nonexistent.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: P250UA5,

My “long range” gun is a basic tikka T3x superlite, 6.5creed with a few upgrades and a nightforce shv 2.5-10 MILr reticle. It’s mounted with sports match rings, I have an atlas bipod with the non rotating legs.

Pretty basic but I have a few kids worked up for it and it’s not offensively heavy so I still hunt with it, it’s not just a range toy.

Hand losing the 127g Barnes LRX I hit steel out at 800 and have shot caribou out to ~ 350 with it. I wouldn’t hesitate to use it for a sheep hunt.

Savage 12FV or Remington 700ADL varmit
In 6.5 Creedmoor, both are 26 " heavy barrel rifles. Not great for hunting (weight), better off bench. Either is <500.00.

Natchezss.com has lots of scopes, some demo, refurb, close out, all prices, many sale items. There was a Bushnell 6X24-50 FFP gun metal gray for 449.00 that looked interesting to me.

Just some entry level ideas to get started. 6.5 CM has a lot of very good factory ammo and works well as a hunting round. To combine with hunting, maybe a 24" medium weight barrel rifle might be better and still shoot well at 300 yds.

Enjoy the slippery slope you are approaching.