Axis mods: A solution in search of a problem?

[DrThunder88]

I'd like to see scientific data on which modifications are the most effective at shrinking group size. If I had to guess, I'd put them in the following order for the Axis:

1. Trigger
2. Comb height
3. Barrel
4. Scope and mount
5. Bedding
6. Stock composition
7. Paint color

These are factors organic to the rifle, so I've not included "handloading", though that's a popular suggestion.

I unashamedly modify the triggers and combs of rifles that don't meet my needs before they even get to the range. Those are easy to pick up on without firing a shot, much like the flexible forend and wrist. It's also a cheap and easy fix, especially if Rockite is used.

[LarryM]

Thanks for humoring me. I'm about as old school as one can get. Yesterday was the first time in my 64 years that I ever fired a shot through a scope. I got rid of my hunting guns years ago. I recently retired and, while looking for hobbies to keep me out and about, recalled fondly my days on a Marine Corps rifle range creating tight groups with an M-16, iron sights, at 500 meters. So here I am.

I can definitely understand the trigger situation. Not everyone likes a stiff trigger, although mine has a nice crisp break to it. It may be one of the things I will change down the road, but for sure that plastic trigger guard assembly has to go.

Comb height is fine for me right now, but I have ordered a new scope since the cheap one that came with it has a very awkward focus design. I expect I will be making some sort of comb adjustment when that gets here.

Barrel: I've not come across any barrel mod threads but I will check it out.

Bedding: I guess almost all long range shooters do this. It looks like a fun mod. But, I keep thinking back to that M-16 that had probably belonged to a dozen Marines before me and how effective it was unmodified. I suppose time will tell on that one.

The Boyd's stocks look great, but first I have to convince myself that the one I have is not sufficient. I can see where it might not take a lot of abuse in the field, but for right now anyway, my shooting will be done on the range only. And now I'm reading of mods to the Boyd's too? Yikes.

I have to ask...paint color?

[jim46ok]

Thanks for humoring me. I'm about as old school as one can get. Yesterday was the first time in my 64 years that I ever fired a shot through a scope. I got rid of my hunting guns years ago. I recently retired and, while looking for hobbies to keep me out and about, recalled fondly my days on a Marine Corps rifle range creating tight groups with an M-16, iron sights, at 500 meters. So here I am.

I can definitely understand the trigger situation. Not everyone likes a stiff trigger, although mine has a nice crisp break to it. It may be one of the things I will change down the road, but for sure that plastic trigger guard assembly has to go.

Comb height is fine for me right now, but I have ordered a new scope since the cheap one that came with it has a very awkward focus design. I expect I will be making some sort of comb adjustment when that gets here.

Barrel: I've not come across any barrel mod threads but I will check it out.

Bedding: I guess almost all long range shooters do this. It looks like a fun mod. But, I keep thinking back to that M-16 that had probably belonged to a dozen Marines before me and how effective it was unmodified. I suppose time will tell on that one.

The Boyd's stocks look great, but first I have to convince myself that the one I have is not sufficient. I can see where it might not take a lot of abuse in the field, but for right now anyway, my shooting will be done on the range only. And now I'm reading of mods to the Boyd's too? Yikes.

I have to ask...paint color?

Haaaahaaa!

[LarryM]

Haaaahaaa!

What aren't you buying, friend? I'm guessing the iron sights at 500 meters. True as true can be. I just came across an article that says the Marines have phased out iron sights on their combat rifles. But up until a few years ago every Marine, regardless of MOS, had to qualify once a year on a range at 100, 300 and 500 meters with iron sights. In basic we spent two weeks at the range. The first week spent training and "snapping in" or dry firing at targets. The second week was live fire, with qualification at the end of the week.

The Marines know what they're doing when it comes to weaponry, but to me not training troops on iron sights would be a major disadvantage if something ever happened to that expensive optic. Scopes are a big advantage when they work, but when they fail what do you have left?