Importance of similarities in a trainer rifle

[Carole Baskins]

Hello,

How important is it to have an identical training rifle to one's match rifle? For example, if I have a Defiance/MPA setup, would a Rem 700/MPA setup be a good candidate for a trainer and developing muscle memory? Thank you for any advice.

 

[b6graham]

Not as ideal as matching actions but yes that will be more than fine

Id say weight and balance are more important since they're both 90 degrees in same chassis

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

After years on this forum and all kid of “trainers” here are main points you need to hit:

-the closer to your competition rifle the better

-talk about how much money you save spending $3,500-4,000 to save $0.90-0.20 cents per trigger pull

-scope need to match. Again ignore the cost of a second $4000 optic

-brag about how your wife is a idiot and won’t notice or how you are a coward and are not allowed to spend money

-buy a suppressor for both.

It’s CRITICAL to ignore
-dry fire is free
-you don’t learn to preload your bipod
-you don’t learn to absorb recoil
-22lr is a finicky white and you WILL buy a lot of ammo your trainer “doesn’t like”

But you already knew that Carol

 

[Carole Baskins]

After years on this forum and all kid of “trainers” here are main points you need to hit:

-the closer to your competition rifle the better

-talk about how much money you save spending $3,500-4,000 to save $0.90-0.20 cents per trigger pull

-scope need to match. Again ignore the cost of a second $4000 optic

-brag about how your wife is a idiot and won’t notice or how you are a coward and are not allowed to spend money

-buy a suppressor for both.

It’s CRITICAL to ignore
-dry fire is free
-you don’t learn to preload your bipod
-you don’t learn to absorb recoil
-22lr is a finicky white and you WILL buy a lot of ammo your trainer “doesn’t like”

But you already knew that Carol

Carole is new to this. If Carole understands you correctly, a trainer is not as valuable as Carole was led to believe.

 

[jcmullis2]

I understand why people want cheap or small caliber trainers. However I don’t see it helping in any meaningful way. I suppose we can convince ourselves of anything we want. The lessons learned with a 22 don’t translate into anything useful if you’re competing with a larger caliber. The winds effects are totally different and you can’t grow accustomed to the effects of recoil shooting a rifle that doesn’t have any. Dry firing your competition rig makes better sense. Instead of spending money on a trainer buy ammo and barrels if you wanna save money on training.
If a man wants another rifle but has to explain his spending to his woman he should just ask her for his balls back. Who knows maybe she’ll let him use them for a little bit.

 

[Harman117]

Best training = using your actual match rifle in conditions that simulate your intended match

 

[Sheldon N]

I run a trainer, identical to match rifle but in 223, have done so for years.

I think you can do a lot with dry firing your main rifle in terms of position building, transitions, familiarity with the handling of the gun, etc.

I think you need to shoot something with muzzle blast and at least some recoil when training, no substitute for live rounds down range. I don't think it's crucial that the rifle is identical but it it's nice when they are similar.

Agree that shooting your main match rifle is the best way to train. Perfect world your trainer would be same caliber as your match gun, or even something with more recoil like 308.

So why do I run a trainer?

Cost, at least given high volume shooting. When you shoot out multiple 223 barrels the trainer actually does pay for itself.
I don't want to dick with my match rifle when it is shooting good. Leave it alone and run it at matches, save the wear/tear.
Time reloading. I can load 223 on a Dillon MUCH faster than I can load my match ammo, even if I load my match ammo progressive, given the presses I use (1050 vs 550).

 

[kthomas]

A trainer is just an excuse to buy another gun.

You can spend thousands upon thousands to replicate your match gun, but you are really running up against the law of diminishing returns. From a fiscal perspective it's hard to make it work, how much match ammo can you buy/make for the $7-8,000 you would pump into a trainer rifle, plus ammo?

If you go with a .22lr (or other really small cartridge), then you don't get the benefit of training with recoil, which can ingrain really poor habits, and arguably doesn't benefit you much more then dry fire would.

If you have to build a trainer rifle, then building one in a .308 is the perfect cartridge IMO. You get the benefit of understanding how well your fundamentals are, as a .308 has enough recoil to exploit any weakness in your fundamentals. You don't get that benefit with a .22lr or .223. Barrel life is also plenty, and you can find quality factory match ammo if you don't or can't reload. You also get the benefit of having to get better at calling the wind, with .308 being not as ballistically capable as many of the 6-6.5mm match cartridges.

Building one that exactly matches your match rifle is not necessary, but would certainly help you to understand the nuances on subtleties on your match gun. How exactly it rides a bag on a barricade, how your offhand interacts with your rifle/scope on a barricade, etc. Again, you are really running up against the law of diminishing returns, and spending a lot of money to get that ~1% in performance benefit. Arguably, you can get ~95-99% of the benefit of training with a rifle that doesn't quite match your match gun.

If you are a casual match shooter, I wouldn't get too carried away with a trainer rifle and it's specifics. If you are aiming to make a career out of match shooting, winning the AG cup matches and using that money to pay the mortgage on your house and put your kids through college, then perhaps an identical trainer rifle makes sense. Perhaps.

 

[Dthomas3523]

There’s 100 ways to go about this and all have pro and cons.

Practice is very important if you want to be competitive with the best. No two ways about it.

How you practice/train is up to your personal requirements. I personally train with my match rifle, my match rifle with a .308 barrel, and also a .22 trainer.

They all have their uses for training.

IMO, balance is the most important similarity as that has a direct effect on how your set up your position on props.

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

Carole is new to this. If Carole understands you correctly, a trainer is not as valuable as Carole was led to believe.

My philosophy has always been:

If you have a desire and the means, go for it.

That Joe Exotic dude still giving you trouble?

 

[Krob95]

train with your match rifle. That’s what I do. But I only shoot rimfire matches. I’m not good enough to shoot centerfire matches

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

I use 22lr to better judge wind. You can't get that benefit at 50yrds though. Let that puppy fly out to 200-400. My wind mph calls drastically improved as well as position setup on the clock. I don't care what the gun looks like compared to my main rifle as long as you can get proper cheek weld and eye relief.

Other than that the money you wasted on a replica in a "cheap" caliber you could have spent on more barrels and bullets for your main rifle.

 

[spife7980]

Why only 1 match and only 1 trainer?

Get a lot of different stuff and round yourself out.

 

[jsel10]

After years on this forum and all kid of “trainers” here are main points you need to hit:

-the closer to your competition rifle the better

-talk about how much money you save spending $3,500-4,000 to save $0.90-0.20 cents per trigger pull

-scope need to match. Again ignore the cost of a second $4000 optic

-brag about how your wife is a idiot and won’t notice or how you are a coward and are not allowed to spend money

-buy a suppressor for both.

It’s CRITICAL to ignore
-dry fire is free
-you don’t learn to preload your bipod
-you don’t learn to absorb recoil
-22lr is a finicky white and you WILL buy a lot of ammo your trainer “doesn’t like”

But you already knew that Carol


Preach!!! So much truth right here.

 

[Carole Baskins]

I appreciate the replies. The one-gun argument is making the most sense to me. Thanks!

 

[hereinaz]

Fear the woman with one gun...

Shoot out your first two match barrels, then think about a trainer.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

2 identical rifles, alternating barrel replacements.

 

[1moaoff]

308 trainer

 

[CBDR]

After years on this forum and all kid of “trainers” here are main points you need to hit:

-the closer to your competition rifle the better

-talk about how much money you save spending $3,500-4,000 to save $0.90-0.20 cents per trigger pull

-scope need to match. Again ignore the cost of a second $4000 optic

-brag about how your wife is a idiot and whon’t notice or how you are a coward and are not allowed to spend money

-buy a suppressor for both.

It’s CRITICAL to ignore
-dry fire is free
-you don’t learn to preload your bipod
-you don’t learn to absorb recoil
-22lr is a finicky white and you WILL buy a lot of ammo your trainer “doesn’t like”

But you already knew that Carol

I have never shot a competition rifle match, nor do I ever intend to. But from the safety of casting comments from the side lines. Your recommendations sounds spot on. Training to the point of burning in muscle memory is what I have found what works for me. Slow is smooth, & smooth is fast.

 

[Rocketmandb]

A trainer is just an excuse to buy another gun.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Sheldon N]

From a fiscal perspective it's hard to make it work, how much match ammo can you buy/make for the $7-8,000 you would pump into a trainer rifle, plus ammo?

If you want to get into the weeds on the fiscal side of it, you do need to take into account the differences between consumable items (barrels/gunsmithing costs) and the longer term depreciation of other gun components from wear/tear/time.

Barrels are a net zero cost, you'd be buying a new barrel for something eventually no matter whether you have one gun or two. So you can ignore the cost of the barrel in the comparison.

Stuff like optics, chassis, triggers, mags, bipods do carry long term value. No you're not building the gun to sell it but when you change your mind and swap out gear, or move onto some other hobby there is a recoverable cost from selling those components. I did the rough math on my trainer rifle and it's actually "cost" me about $1k in the value that I've lost when swapping out chassis to stock, changing muzzle brakes, accessories etc and taking into account the used market value of the parts on the gun now versus what I paid for it all. The rough math on my total ammo cost savings (trainer vs match) is about $5k. If you have the cash on hand to tie up in a second rifle, it's not hard to justify the costs.

But the real reason you see most serious competitors using a second "trainer" rifle is not about $$ though, it's that you don't want to kill a good competition barrel and end up right before a match in the cycle of brand new barrel, break in with 100-150 rounds to make sure it's sped up, confirm load development, check dope at distance etc. A 6mm competition barrel has a usable match life of maybe 2k rounds before you have to repeat that cycle. A trainer barrel like 223 or 308 can be 5-10k rounds, with much lower need to worry about the little details you'd go through when prepping a barrel for a match. That's a ton of work saved by shooting a trainer, whether that's a barrel swap or a second rifle.

 

[LV Precision]

I just put together a 22LR trainer for my main competition gun. Hard to get 300-400 round practice sessions on a full size centerfire running mini stages over and over. Also seems like a waste shooting full size ammo for paper drills at 100 yards. So much of competition is manuevering around props or between positions, or other non-shooting time. Dry fire is great (and I use my DFAT all the time) but live fire, even with a 22lr, keeps you honest (just pick a smaller target).

You can just as easily justify having 2 guns vs 1 gun. If you have the money, why not get both?

 

[Dthomas3523]

I just put together a 22LR trainer for my main competition gun. Hard to get 300-400 round practice sessions on a full size centerfire running mini stages over and over. Also seems like a waste shooting full size ammo for paper drills at 100 yards. So much of competition is manuevering around props or between positions, or other non-shooting time. Dry fire is great (and I use my DFAT all the time) but live fire, even with a 22lr, keeps you honest (just pick a smaller target).

You can just as easily justify having 2 guns vs 1 gun. If you have the money, why not get both?

3-400 rnd practice sessions stop being training long before you get to 200 rounds.

Centerfire at 100yds makes a lot of sense when recoil management is on the table. I use a .22 as well. But also use centerfire at 100yds.

 

[LV Precision]

3-400 rnd practice sessions stop being training long before you get to 200 rounds.

Centerfire at 100yds makes a lot of sense when recoil management is on the table. I use a .22 as well. But also use centerfire at 100yds.

You don’t need to focus on recoil management every time if your focus is on something else. Not saying 22lr completely replaces centerfire but it allows you to focus on different skillsets. Training with top instructors in the other shooting sports will tell you the same thing.

 

[Dthomas3523]

You don’t need to focus on recoil management every time if your focus is on something else. Not saying 22lr completely replaces centerfire but it allows you to focus on different skillsets. Training with top instructors in the other shooting sports will tell you the same thing.

I didn’t say anything of the sort. I just pointed out there is a lot of value in centerfire at 100yds.

 

[LV Precision]

I didn’t say anything of the sort. I just pointed out there is a lot of value in centerfire at 100yds.

Totally agree with that.

 

[Carole Baskins]

Thanks again for the input and thoughts. The reason I asked is because I've had a short action 700 that's been kept around for a "rainy day". I considered having it barreled up for practice also in 6 Creedmoor since that's what my other rifle is chambered in. By biggest concern was getting another identical chassis, scope, etc.; getting it close; or just throwing something together that isn't remotely the same.

Again, thanks. There is some good info here that I'd never considered.

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

Trigger Control, Trigger Control, Trigger Control. In days gone by, when I was actually shooting at the IHMSA International Class level, I found that the heaviest trigger in the world is found when aiming at the 40th target. This when using a 2.5 OZ Del Taylor Trigger on a Custom Remington XP-100, trying to end the day with a perfect score.

That 40th pull of the 2.5 oz trigger weights at least 40 pounds. That’s when training takes hold and reason, thought, and thinking are thrown to the wind.

Point. Any rifle with a decent trigger in 22 LR will allow practice of trigger basics, all day long, and before every practice session with a competition rifle. For me, it is a suppressed Ruger American. Puts ten shots in a 2.5 inch circle at 100 yards with cheap ammo. Shoots 200 yard silhouettes all day long (with a hold over that all but seems fitting for an 81mm Mortar. I know because I am a former 11C having served in Vietnam). Does it teach wind or much of anything else. Not really, but when it comes to getting the trigger right...It works for me.

 

[SporterII]

Trainer? Trigger and optic. Rimfire is another something unto itself.
I am timed out. Not athletic enough for a clock or two days in the sun. But a 223 is everyone’s friend. My .02. I have two, and my trusty 243.

 

[MakeSawdust]

Shooting a 223 as a trainer upped my game considerably. Shooting a 6mm with a brake will have less recoil than an identical 223 with no brake shooting heavy bullets. Time saved loading ammo will easily buy the second gun if you make a good salary. That said, I am a cheap ass. I have a CBI 223 Wylde savage prefit with the barrel nut red loctited in the correct position. I change barrels on my match gun at the range. I record the zero offset every time I change barrels and am rarely off more than .1 mil.

There is a huge benefit to not having to chase break in, load development, and cleaning in a short life span 6 mm barrel. If I were shooting the same barrel for matches and practice, I would be on barrel #3 since April. There would be shitload of stress trying to break in a barrel and do load development between matches if I was running a 6mm match barrel for all of my practice.

I really want to get to the point where I have 2 6mm barrels going at the same time, so I can swap them for cleaning or if the load needs tweaked. I usually figure out my load needs tweaked when zeroing and checking dope. I could simply put the other barrel on and zero and drive on. Then I could piss with the load when I have time. As it is, I end up shooting the match with a barrel that is shooting so, so. It usually costs me a couple or a few points on the smaller targets which will move a guy a fair bit in the standings.

If money was no object, and I just wanted to win matches, I would train 4 ways: dryfire with match gun, 308 trainer for recoil management, 223 trainer for spotting corrections and working on correcting to the center of the plate, and 22 lr for making wind calls and follow-through. All rifles and scopes would be identical to the match rifle. No brake on the 223 and would shoot the 308 both with and without the brake.

Most importantly, a match rifle that is hammering would not have rounds wasted on practice or dinking around. I want my match rifle to shoot it's best rounds in the match, not in practice.

 

[RRW]

I am far from finishing in the top 10 at a major two day match but I practice with a 308 and shoot the 6.5 for matches. I shoot an AI AX so changing barrels is a breeze. I personally see no benefit in shooting a 22lr.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I personally see no benefit in shooting a 22lr.

 

[Mk32784]

I am building a 22lr trainer rifle as my next move. Rimx probably, but here are the main points that sold me.

1. Ammo is cheap and I don't have spend TIME reloading it.
2. I can match my comp gun pretty close
3. Barrel doesn't heat up, so I can run drills without waiting for things to cool
4. Barrel lasts "forever" and wouldn't be a consumable cost
5. The parts and action hold a fair value, so in a year if I decided this was a waste I could go get 65-75% of my money back
6. I can setup 1-2 MOA steel targets at 50-400 yards to simulate centerfire wind conditions.

I started doing bi-weekly training sessions at our local range and my god it's helped my scores more then anything else. However my main gun is a 6.5 CM and 400+ rounds a month in training starts to get a little pricey in ammo and barrel life.

The biggest downside to a 22lr trainer is the lack of recoil, and the possibility of developing bad habits but I am plan to always shoot some centerfire mixed since so hopefully that keeps that at bay.

308 and 223 were something I am thinking about (i have ARs i bring and shoot to while waiting for the 6.5 to cool). But considering the ammo costs for those suckers these days, and the effort to reload. Even with the barrel life being quite high I decided not to go that route with a trainer. YMMV I am excited to see how this works out....

 

[RRW]

View attachment 7406586

I couldn't care less if anyone remembers my name. That's not why I shoot. Maybe it matters to you. You must see the benefit of shooting a 22lr based on your reply. How is it working out for you. You must win a lot of matches.. Some people are legends in their own mind.

 

[SporterII]

I did not think that was a personal snub. Rather, an opinion many here discuss, value of rimfire here. Also, a LOT of industry here.

 

[Gilly]

Here’s how I look at it. I’m no top shooter but hit a few matches a year. Everything in match rifle 6 dasher vs trainer a 223 AI is a fixed cost except the barrel and components for loading ammo that differ in volume and/or cost; brass, bullet and powder. I didn’t factor in any time savings that’s hard to argue but I save a lot of time cranking out 300+ an hour 223 on dillon vs slow loading for my dasher. I run a much cheaper bullet in my 223 (75 eldm) and a cheaper powder with a lower charge. Brass is also significantly cheaper, I assumed 7 firings for both to spread out thy cost. Barrel life also differs. If you shoot out a 223 barrel at 5000 rounds the savings is significant compared to doing the same with a dasher or other 6mm. I used .50 for a 6mm match bullet cost, if I put in the .65 an Atip costs it would be scary! See attached table.

And to address OP question, make them as close to matching as you can afford! I hope by spring to have mine identical but I need to swap scopes and need to shoot out a 223 barrel so I can go heavy varmint contour to match them up. I thought a light barrel, medium Palma, would get me some extra feel of recoil out of the smaller 223. But in reality about 1000 rounds in since I built the trainer I think getting it to balance the same is more important than the little recoil change.

PS. I’m in my trainer less than $3k. I went new on action, trigger and barrel and a used stock. Could have saved more if I was patient on used market. So I will have an asset paid for by the savings in variable costs over the life of a barrel. 2 barrels in the scope is now paid for by savings. That’s probably 3 years to do it but if you’re serious the numbers are there.

 

[chase723]

If you use an action that can utilize prefits then the upfront cost is pretty low...if you already have the action. Pretty much the cost of the barrel and bolt face +/- reloading supplies. Just screw one off, screw the other one on. I realize some people don’t like doing that, but for $7-800 it’s hard to beat.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I haven't subscribed to the near identical trainer mantra in well over a decade. While I've retired from serious competition, I did put in a few decades where competition was a several times a month thing for me.

The marksmanship basics are not indelibly bound to the idea that the rifle defines the skill. To do so handicaps the marksman to only being proficient when the equipment fits within a narrow range of variations.

That is the diametric opposite of what a proficient marksman should be; a shooter who can pick up any firearm and deliver its accuracy potential, or be at least able to define the flaws it contains which prevent such performance.

Does that mean I do not have 'identical rifles"? It does not.

I have pairs of rifles that differ only in chambering, or even not at all. But I own no trainer rifles. Saying I own trainer rifles is like saying I own sniper rifles. The rifle is defined in terms of its use, not in terms of some marketing strategy. I have no use for a sniper rifle because I am not, never have been, and never will be a sniper. All of my rifles are accurate enough to serve such a purpose, but without that purpose they will never be such. It's like calling every gun owner who owns an accurate rifle a sniper. As much as the gun haters may wish, they cannot make that so by simply saying it.

The same applies to trainer rifles

One pair of my rifles are bolt rifles chambered in .223 and .308. They are identical because both shoot a similar course. The difference is that the .223 is intended to shoot the 600yd MR F T/R Course, and the .308 shoots a 1000yd LR F T/R Course.

When I shoot; I do so with a single purpose, to defeat the target. Each and every time, each and every marksmanship skill is called into use. For my intents and purposes there is no, zero, difference in the context of the shooting. Defeating the target is the object of every shot, score is just a consequence, which may be useful in competition, but really, is not necessary to the task regardless of whether or not a score is the object.

So by my definition, there is no such thing as training. Every shot is done to the same standard, and has the same importance. Every shot is done for a purpose, and the manner in which it is done is training for every other subsequent shot. The two purposes are inseparable.

I also have a pair of totally identical long barreled 223 AR's, complete with high resolution scopes. They are for the single purpose of private one on one competition. It is Training? Sure. Is it Competition? Sure? For my intentions, and for all other purposes, the two are one and the same.

There s absolutely no reason why it can't be the same for the other situations. Shooting is about hitting targets, no more, no less. To place a distinction between training and competition is to define a difference where none exists, as far as the actual process is concerned.

To accept such a difference means that the shooter has some erroneous concepts that one does the two things differently. They should not.

Greg

 

[SporterII]

Greg, trainer I see posted largely for PRS matches. Athleticism, technique and repeat. Faster. Props, equipment, time management. Evolution as in racing. Trainer for me was a single shot Winchester in 22lr.
Enjoyed your input many years already right here. Time flies

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Accepted and welcomed.

I just feel that we make distinctions that prompt newer folks to believe that they need equipment that they may do just as well, if not better, without during their startup phase. My concern here is that we may be encouraging newer shooters to believe that they need to follow certain accepted norms before they can get down to the serious part of marksmanship development.

IMHO, anything the postpones that is in the way of bringing the new shooter into the fold of active, improving marksmen and markswomen.

My biggest concern is that all areas of competition are becoming arms races, with higher and higher spending bars dividing beginners from the serious competitors. I've seen this develop with other disciplines and it's a recurring theme.

I think it hurts us as a whole.

If this be the price of advancement, I can accept that. BUT, there still needs to be a number of venues where shooters can run what they brung and still go home with a smile. If we can't manage that; then we're doomed species, and we did it to ourselves.

I worry that we as that species have been on a downward spiral ever since the biggest draw became a prize table. I ran some fun and busy event programs for years where the biggest prize was a piece of paper. That got changed, and that's when I started to to see clouds looming.

I like the 22lr, but it has serious limitations. It's inherently accurate, but it is simultaneously based on ammunition that cannot be counted upon as consistent. Trying to find "good ammo" should not be a prerequisite to whether one can be competitive or not.

IMHO, a centerfire cartridge is a better basis, and I suggest the 223. Good ammo can be bought or made by the competitor, and making it strengthens the bond between the shooters and their implements.

Greg

 

[SporterII]

Well written. I might include the need for a super seniors catagory somewhere around here! Caddies perhaps. Lol.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

When I left F Class, my last classification was as a Grand Senior. Basically, I did a double take.

Writing up categories for either beginners or seniors has been a serious chore since back before when folks were competing with Scheutzen rifles. The same with limited or factory rifles. The devil is in the details. Every time one add a restriction to the rules, the arms race notches up one increment further. Rules are limiting, but the people who they limit the most are the the very ones who desire the greatest to advance the sport.

Seen through the lens of my own three decades, it just doesn't work.

The freedom and fun needs to start at the other end of the process, the part that puts the scent on the air and draws the shooters, new and experienced alike, to the honey pot. When I started the Competitive shooting program for the NJ Marine Corps League, our concentrations were on fun, preferably family fun, and earned respect, not the kind that can be bought.

Some here can remember the SH Snowflake Target. We at Odessa started the F-V250 competition program, which survives and thrives in a form with Tony L and the guys and gals in Pa.

Then, there's the Carlos Hathcock Sniper Match, now in its third decade. Awards were certificates with categories pre-printed and winning names handwritten in and signed by the MD. At an early point, small plastic trophies were added to the Carlos. The few I earned are my most prized shooting possessions. I remember the dozen or so of us who ran and shot the first one.

When I saw the advance blurbs about the big prize matches, I turned away. Did it promote the sport? Yes, in a big way. I suspect it was too big a way, and that the hinge upon which the key interests turned got shifted.

My concerns don't count. I've been physically self disqualified from such sports since their beginning. So I have nothing to miss, and nothing to base a bitch upon. I have no horse in the race, EXCEPT that EVERY new shooter here on The 'Hide has always been my primary concern. That horse; I will back as long as I have breath.

We need them like we need oxygen. We need to put them at the front of the cart. If we fail; we will all go down together. We keep ourselves afloat by keeping them afloat

Whenever we price someone out of that race, we all sink a little deeper.

Let's not do that, please.

Greg

 

[1fliride]

Practing fundamentals goes a lot farther than one thinks. Trigger time is good time.

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

A different point of view on “arms races.” In many cases, an unlimited gun, is far easier to shoot well than the run what you brung gun. Without trying to confront or argue a point, Shooting requires a level of success to bring on conintued desire to participate. When the new shooters keep being new shooters with resulting scores, two things happen, either they get tough and do the things necessary to improve. (Think $$ with better equipment, more training, more practice) or they go home. All this said,just about any of the new crop of production Precision Rifles would result in much happier returns than struggling with a hunting rifle that just happens to shoot good from the bench.