You think comparing the test targets might provide a hint? It seems like worse case you could expect to match those targets with RWS. I would not see any reason to expect better from a 1710 than 1712, then I am just guessing.

I am curious, what was your experience with the two 1712?

 

I am curious, what was your experience with the two 1712?

Average about .35"-.38" 5-shots at 50 yards.

 

I'll be glad to offer my experience with a 1710 HB I've had about a year. With ammo it likes, it will shoot in the mid 3's at 50 yards, absent any effects of wind. With that said, I'll also offer that my experience is about meaningless for your purpose. Individual rifles vary so much, you just never know. It shoots better than a 1712 I had, but I think that is more because the 1710 is easier to shoot from the bench, rather than any inherent accuracy advantage.

 

Thank you, I was curious as my 1416 is closer to 0.5. I have to take it back out again and try a few more types of ammo. Or maybe the 64 based guns not quite the same level.

 

Those groups I shot with my 1712s were with top-end ammo. I doubt that there's much difference in accuracy between the 64- and 54-actioned Anschutz models. I seem to recall that the barrels are the same.

 

I have a new 1710 that has only 50-60 rounds through it so far. I was able to shoot a one-hole 5 shot group at 50 yds on my first trip to the range for sighting in.

It looks like it may be my most accurate .22.

 

Mine shoots 6-7 mm groups at 50 meters with almost any SK, any Lapua and RWS R 50. Target after target, outside range.



Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

Mk1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

I don't think there is much difference in the accuracy potential between a 1710 DHB and the same gun in a DKL or the 1712. It's going to be more about the individual gun than the specific model.....in my opinion and my own personal experience. The classic style stock of the DHB does offer advantages for shooting off a rest, but with practice and experience, the DKL and 1712 can be made to shoot just fine.

I have the DHB as well as the DKL.....along with a pair of 1712s. One of the 1712s is bedded in a Classic stock like the DHB has. Of the four guns, the DKL has been the most consistently accurate over time. But I did shoot the DHB some in my club's USBR matches early this year, and was doing well with it. It was consistently turning in around 238 on the USBR. I had it set up with a 3X9 Leupold EFR to make weight in the Sporter class. But, something happened to the gun back in August, and accuracy fell off. I haven't had time to sort it out and have been using the DKL instead. Again, of those guns mentioned, the DKL has been the most consistently accurate (top score of 243 on the USBR), followed closely by the DHB with the two 1712s following closely behind that. But that's my personal experience.....I still think it's more about the individual gun - talking about the 54 sporters. I use tested lots of Eley Match in my guns. As far as group sizes, all have turned in some really nice sets of groups. But with these sporter weight guns, it's tough to get constantly tiny groups. If they aren't shooting around .3" - .25" group average that day, I don't like my chances in a match.

Just some thoughts but based on my own experience.....

 

Have had really good accuracy from the 1710 DHB I shoot, best are in the .1-.15 range at 50 yd. Enough that I know they aren't a fluke. Average would be .250 with SK Rifle Match. Tested most of the high end ammo trying to better the SK but this particular rifle really likes that lot of SK.

 

Just a thought or maybe question about another way to compare accuracy

Got to thinking about this issue, and wonder if it would be of any use to post and compare original factory-shot targets from some of us. Would only be useful in comparing out of the box accuracy and would not reflect any rifle's current accuracy due to improvements such as bedding, etc. As I said, just a thought to be kicked around. (And I am a bit curious what such posts might reveal!)

 

Those factory targets are all but useless for any and all comparison. And they all are pretty much same size too.



Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

Don't get me started on my experience on the 1416.
But this thread is about the 1710 and i like mine.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

I posted a long explanation about how Anschutz shoots its test targets, but here are the main points.

Anschutz test targets are shot with the action out of the stock, and clamped by the barrel. Clamping the barrel effects the harmonics, and is not ideal for displaying the rifles maximum accuracy.
However it is consistent from one rifle to the next, which it wouldn't be with the rifles mounted in their stocks.

They are a function and basic accuracy test, and do not represent what the rifle/action can shoot (group wise) when properly mounted in its stock.
They are also susceptible to a bad round, even though the .22's are shot with RWS R50.
The technician can tell the difference between a flyer, and a out of spec barrel from experience.

So they are of no use for an accuacy comparisons between one rifle and another.

Smooth

 

I mounted an Anschutz 1710 barrel in my CZ/BRNO model one and it shoots great, average groups with match ammo are about .280 to .325 at 50 metres (it has the original Anschutz chamber) not sure if this counts

 

Here's a 50 yard USBR target shot with a 1710 with the sporter barrel.

 

Good shooting!

 

This is my first outing with the 1710 DKL. This is at 50Y off a bipod.
I haven't played with the torques and haven't tried different lots.
I subtracted 0.223 instead of 0.19 (bullet diameter in the paper), but it's just to give you an idea of how it shoots. It actually shoots better than what I was expecting.

 

There's nothing wrong with that at all.....:bthumb:

I think you will find some improvements as you try different lots of quality target ammo. I would also try shooting off a good rest setup, and playing the torque, etc. will not hurt anything. For shooting factory "sporter" class in USBR club matches, I finally settled on a 1710 DKL, though I did use a DHB with a lightweight 3x9EFR Leupold for awhile (to make weight limits)....ultimately, the DKL and the 1710DHB proved to be the most popular choices along with some 64 sporters. My experience with these guns - typical of factory guns in general - is that you can do those really good occasional targets....it's trying to do it consistently that will drive you nuts.

 

pretty dam good for a first outing !! what scope was fitted ?? and I bet if you try different brands and lots you will get a lot better

 

Leupold 6.5-20 EFR.
I do have another lot of Midas that works better in one of my other guns. I can also try to shoot it from a BR type front rest instead of a bipod. The gun is showing some potentials for sure.

 

It took me a while to realize that shooting a sporter with a rounded forearm and traditional angled butt well from bags required exceptional discipline on my part. And I find it difficult, even with notes, to duplicate conditions/hold from range session to range session. I have two 1710's -- one a DKL and one a HB with a wider stock forearm and two stage trigger. Both rifle's best groups are about equal, but I get good groups more often from the HB. Can't give measurements, though. This is impressions from shooting both in the last year.

The pulse still quickens when I have either out at the range. And there is less mystery to either of them than my tweaked CZ's.

Take into account that this is just one n00by's experience though.

 

I have found that my sporter rifles are all much easier to control from a good bipod that trying to use a mechanical front bench rest. Some front rests are made to accommodate the smaller, rounded forend, but I have not found them to be as good as the bipod.

 

As we all know, consistency is the key to consistent accuracy performance - and good equipment and lots of practice and experience. This is more difficult to achieve with the light sporters and their stock form or shape. My best results over several years of shooting USBR and IR 50 came from the DKL and using front and rear rests. I'm sure good results can be obtained with a bipod with practice, but I've never seen anyone using one in competition. That may be because of the necessity of accurate tracking back and forth from one bull to the next across the targets used.

 

So what's the general consensus regarding the typical accuracy of a 1710 with ammo it likes?

From what I've read so far I'd say in 0.3s at 50Y on the average. So depending on the gun it would typically shoot in the 0.2s to 0.4s. Is that a fair statement?

 

That sounds very reasonable to me. I like to operationally define rimfire accuracy as the average of XX consecutive 5-shot groups shot at 50 yards (although we could use 100 yards). The larger XX is, the better, and the consecutive part of this is all-important. It means no cherry-picking groups; you use all groups shot with that ammunition in calculating the average.

From what I've seen and read over the past nearly year and a half since I started this thread, with ammo it shoots best (which usually means the top makes/lines--RWS R50, Lapua Midas+, or Eley Tenex), with good bench equipment, and under good calm shooting conditions, a typical 1710 HB will probably average, for 50-yard 5-shot groups, in the .30" to .35" range (with no cherry-picking!).

A 1710 HB will not equal an Anschutz 54-action single-shot target or BR rifle. There are several reasons for this. First, the barrel, although fairly heavy, is not the weight of the barrels found on the single-shot 54-action rifles, the 1907, 1913, 2007/13, and 54.30. Second, the 1710 HB will not have a true match chamber, something found on the models just mentioned. Instead, it will have a fairly tight, but not-quite match-dimension, chamber--this to allow foolproof chambering from a magazine. Third, a 1710 HB is a repeater, with the cutout for the magazine in the action floor. This results in slightly less stiffness in the action on firing than found with a single-shot action that has a solid, unbroken action floor. Fourth, the 5096D or 5109 trigger in a 1710 HB is not in the same class as the excellent 5018 trigger found on the single-shot Anschutz match rifles noted. Fifth, the stock of the 1710 HB--owing to the cross-sectional contour of its forend--will be less well-behaved on the bags than those of the match rifles, particularly the BR-configuration models. This will make it harder for the shooter to realize the true accuracy potential of the 1710.

These differences will account for somewhat larger groups for the 1710 HB. With a BR-configured Anschutz 54, like the 1907, 1913, 2007/13, and 54.30, I would expect average group sizes (again all groups shot used in the average) of around .25"--again assuming top-of-the-line ammunition, good bench equipment, and good calm shooting conditions (and, of course, some competence on the part of the shooter). We have read of groups in the 1's shot with these Anschutz BR models, but again I'm talking here about averages, not the best groups shot. Some will do better than this, some worse, but--on average over a number of these rifles--my estimate is about .25".

Finally, just for context, I would estimate that the honest average for the Anschutz 1712 (again with top ammunition, good bench equipment, and good calm shooting conditions) would be a little larger than the figure I've estimated for the 1710 HB--something on the order of .35"-.40". That follows from (a) the lighter barrel on the 1712 and (b) the abominable skinny schnabel forend on the 1712 that is hard to control well in the bags. This figure also agrees with my own experiences with a couple of 1712s.

So I'm throwing out my estimates here, based largely on range reports filed by many shooters on this forum. Your experiences may suggest otherwise, so please feel free to correct any points you consider in error.

Edit: I should have added, in my estimates, that I've assumed a good fairly high-power scope in all cases.

 

well I for one am quite happy that you started this thread, I think it got a good response with lots of information reg groups sizes, to which I think you have given an accurate estimate on what we can expect from your average 1710's . I am buying one at the moment with the stainless steel barrel and have seen it's groups at 50m plus it's got a nice piece of timber on it as well. when I get it ill mount my weaver 36x on it and post post some groups. to further add to your thread.
By the way does Anschutz still make the 1710's with a stainless barrel as I asked a few shops here in Australia for one, but they only sell the chrome moly barrel versions and stated that the stainless steel one's have been deleted. ??????

 

Lithgow_101, the 1710 D HB with stainless 23" barrel is still on the Anschutz North America web site.

 

Thank you for that information .it must be the importer here in Australia that is not bringing them in.so the shops think the model is deleted
Here's one of the shops ads .its not all there but you will get the idea about why i asked
Calibre/Item:*22LR
Make:*Anschutz
Model:*1710 DHB
Action:*Bolt repeater
Condition:*New
Price: $2495*
Advertised:*17/01/2018
Comment:*Anschutz 1710 DHB 22LR stainless. This rifle is brand new and no longer make this particular rifle with the stainless ba...
Elks Hunting and fishing.

 

Well, so far I am totally confused. What group size is this discussion about? ctc or oto?

Regards, Jim

 

Well, so far I am totally confused. What group size is this discussion about? ctc or oto?

CTC. At least that's the metric I've used in my summary comments.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards, Jim

 

Went out this morning since it was sunny with a slight 8-10 MPH breeze but it was pretty cold at 26*. The target was at 55 yards and the ammo used with my 1710 HB was SK Pistol Match. South-Pender was pretty accurate with his estimation.

The C-C average was 0.302 as best as I could measure. I'm pretty new to target shooting so I think most average shooters could have done better.

 

That is really good accuracy in the cold. :bthumb:

First 12 years of my life I spent in Wallace. I miss it.