I do think it's a decent group, especially for a factory rifle, and you will do better as things progress. You certainly have motivation to keep it up.
Saturday, I watched a visiting shooter stack 5 rounds in a row into the same hole at 250yd during a 10rd string in our twice-monthly FV250 Match with a factory Savage .308 F T/R; so such things can be done, but I was simply floored while I watched. Not all factory rifles are created equal.
I have long appreciated the factory rifle. With decent load development and a decent shooter, they can do pretty amazing things. For most shooters, they are far and away capable of outshooting their operator. For the dedicated load developer/student of marksmanship, one will eventually find a plateau beyond which advanced gunsmithing can actually bring visible improvement. It is at that point that all those advanced handloading tools and techniques can show their true contribution to accuracy improvement.
I have only one rifle that qualifies as an advanced gunsmithing product. It is the only rifle for which I maintain higher quality dies and brass, etc. I am at the stage where the rifle still has quite a lot to teach me.
Headspace gauge and bullet comparator; I think they can have some benefit.
In the world of factory rifles and ammunition, chambers and ammunition are dimensioned in reference to a (SAAMI) standard. It's a good starting point for the beginner. The headspace gauge will allow case comparison to that standard, hopefully your chamber will also be close to that standard, and the industry's standard (and generous) dimensional deviation tolerance will ensure that factory ammo will function acceptably in a factory chamber. But the greater the deviation between that 'standard' chamber and the one in your specific rifle is, then the more that gauge will foster a fiction.
A bullet comparator measures seating depth as indicated off the bullet's ogive. It is another reference tool. It needs to have a paired reference, relative to the subject barrel's point of rifling engagement, in order to render meaningful data.
These are all useful data references, but there is the discrepancy between standards and reality. To get real compatibility between ammo and rifle, there needs to be an understanding of how the variances between that reality and the standard will affect performance.
Just as I use standard 2 die sets for my ammo fabrication, I also forego the headspace gauge and bullet comparator, because there is a more direct and reliable way to craft ammo to fit my specific rifle.
You see, the gauge constitutes an intermediate step in establishing the reference, and gives numbers as a means to correct any incompatibilities. My methods employ the rifle and ammo directly, and leave out the intermediate step. Yes, I will not know the numbers involved, but for me, the numbers are unimportant. What is important is the actual relationship between the rifle's needs and the ammo's compatibility.
Remember the part about adjusting the resizing die until the bolt drag becomes mild to moderate? Well, that nothing less than employing the chamber and resized case themselves as the headspace gauge.
Remember my comment about using the permanent marker on bullet method to establish a seating depth reference? Well, that is nothing less that using the chamber and seated bullet themselves in order to find that rifling engagement point in a manner that is functionally very similar to that of the comparator.
There are no numbers involved. There is also no question about dimensional compatibilities.
The competition sizing and seating dies do things in a similar way. They allow an arbitrary reference number to be established so ammunition can be constructed and adjusted to an arbitrary standard. But they size and seat pretty much the identically same way as the standard die. If one learns how to work with the standard die, and read/feel the compatibility of the ammunition to the rifle's chamber and rifling, then the reference numbers become superfluous; and one becomes capable of building precisely the same ammunition without needing to employ the more sophisticated dies.
In some ways, eliminating the intermediate reference may even have the capacity to craft even better ammunition, but there is a huge caveat; one needs to know precisely what one is doing, including all the why's and potential consequences. This is the place where knowledge and experience become mandated, and there are no shortcuts around that.
Now, people will talk about issues like runout and concentricity, or ogive length variances and other very real statistics.
But the salient point is simply that with the factory rifle's SAAMI standard-based (and generous, some will say sloppy. Don't be so sure 'sloppy' is such a dirty word...) dimensional tolerances, these statistics become largely meaningless. You can vary the cartridge configuration from zero to fairly significant 'error' values, and the rifle simply doesn't care, it shoots either cartridge with the same degree of dispersion. In fact, slaving for hours over a hot loading press will likely buy you no more accuracy than simply doing the more basic steps with the basic tools with good care and diligence; divesting oneself of a high degree of stress, frustration, and confusion.
Fortunately, you have a choice. You can go basic, stay basic with good care and diligence, or become a handloading dilettante. With the factory rifle, the outcomes are virtually identical.
In several decades of handloading I have gone through all the stages, starting precisely the same way as you are doing now.
Basically, I learned that all the tools and techniques have value, and that for most of the advanced ones, an advanced rifle is needed in order to properly realize their potential.
I also learned that the modern factory rifle, with good ammo assembled in a basic but diligent manner, coupled with serious attention to marksmanship basics, can attain accuracy goals that will satisfy all but the most demandingly obsessed shooter.
Today, I value handloading as an irreplaceable resource, but also as a necessary evil; to be accomplished in the most direct and least complicated manner possible. Its primary value is in how it supports the marksmanship progression process. When we allow it to take center stage, we become its servant, and not its master.
In my world, the equipment must serve the shooter, and not vice-versa.
Finally, the advanced rifles and handloading methodologies are not for the timid.
Such rifles can become demanding divas, and can task the shooter to the point where shooting becomes a job, rather than recreation. They can become so picky about ammo that only their precise recipe can be shot in them safely. They can have a bad day because the ammo and the weather can't come to an agreement.
So be careful what you dream for, you may get it.
Greg
appears to have a light stock and can be bouncy after a shot is fired. Someone suggested putting some metal rods in the stock. Can this procedure affect the accuracy of the later shots?
