Send it back! No need to waste ammo if you are certain it's the rifle.
Hard to disagree with this. There's a decent cost and hassle associated with sending it back so I'd make sure it's not the scope or shooter.I just looked up the Waypoint and read all of Springfield's claims about this rifle. I also took note of the price. Send it back to Springfield.
Well I have run into a lot of grouping issues over the years, mostly with a barrel not liking the cannon fodder that you are feeding it.Hi all,
I just took my new Springfield Waypoint in 6.5 with the carbon barrel to the range for the first time this weekend... Not impressed! For a gun that guarantees 0.75 MOA, my example was hovering around 1.5 MOA. This is after 100 rounds of Norma 143 Match ammo. Not a good showing when my 16" Scar 17 was consistently putting down 0.75 MOA in between my Springfield frustration!
View attachment 362395View attachment 362396View attachment 362397
I took it to an indoor 100-yard range today to try out some different ammo. These god-awful groups were shot with Aguila 140gr—the only other stuff I could find. Not match ammo, but not bad ammo. I shot 3 groups between 1.5 to 5+ MOA. All shots at this session were made using a lead sled to limit possible human error. On the 5+ MOA group, I'm inclined to think it was just a flyer, but the shot didn't feel like any issues on my end.
View attachment 362398View attachment 362399View attachment 362400
At this point, I doubt it's ammo. At the range, I checked the scope rings at the range and mount—all were at the same torque spec I initially tightened them down to.
I suspect that the free-floating (or lack thereof) may be the issue. Everything looks good from the outside, but it's possible the barrel is coming into contact with the stock during firing.
I took the barreled action off the stock and found what looks like the slightest bit of rubbing. It's very hard to capture this on camera, but there is a very slight rub mark right along where the forend sits. The carbon sheen really covers it up.
View attachment 362401
Could this be the culprit? Is this worth sending it back to Springfield for their warranty fix? Or would y'all find a gunsmith to diagnose the issue first?
I don't think it's a scope issue. The glass on it is a Leupold Mk5 with a Spuhr mount. I mounted it using the Spuhr recommended torque sequence. Further, I tried out a known performer off another rifle and had the same results.Learned over the course of similar problems I've encountered over the years:
What kind of scope, rings, mounts? What is your mounting procedure?
Did you take the action out of the stock to make sure nothing is adversely affecting the rear of the action?
Check torque on action screws.
After confirming the rings and mounts are solid and not placing any torquing or pressure on the scope, and that nothing is wonky with the stock around the action and recoil lug, the next thing I'd do is pull the scope and put a known performer on it. Likewise, I'd mount the questionable scope on a known performer rifle.
I know this has been covered extensively through the years, and it's not my intent to derail the thread, but I can't say I'm surprised by the results of the gentleman with the Leupold VX5. I have multiple similar experiences of my own to report.
I think we need more info. Carbon barrels are supposed to be more immune from heating warp or whip. I would definitely contact Springfield and have the plan of action in place if it comes down to returning it. What is the barrel length? What is the barrel's twist rate? What taper? What bullets were in the loads, cup and core, mono, bonded? I would try to sand down the spot on the fore end that appears to be touching the barrel. Use very fine grit paper and only do a little at a time. Wrap it around a wood dowel that approximates the diameter of the barrel where that spot is. If this spot is rubbing a dollar bill should not slide past it. Does the first shot go where you want it? While the rest walk away from original point of impact?Hi all,
I just took my new Springfield Waypoint in 6.5 with the carbon barrel to the range for the first time this weekend... Not impressed! For a gun that guarantees 0.75 MOA, my example was hovering around 1.5 MOA. This is after 100 rounds of Norma 143 Match ammo. Not a good showing when my 16" Scar 17 was consistently putting down 0.75 MOA in between my Springfield frustration!
View attachment 362395View attachment 362396View attachment 362397
I took it to an indoor 100-yard range today to try out some different ammo. These god-awful groups were shot with Aguila 140gr—the only other stuff I could find. Not match ammo, but not bad ammo. I shot 3 groups between 1.5 to 5+ MOA. All shots at this session were made using a lead sled to limit possible human error. On the 5+ MOA group, I'm inclined to think it was just a flyer, but the shot didn't feel like any issues on my end.
View attachment 362398View attachment 362399View attachment 362400
At this point, I doubt it's ammo. At the range, I checked the scope rings at the range and mount—all were at the same torque spec I initially tightened them down to.
I suspect that the free-floating (or lack thereof) may be the issue. Everything looks good from the outside, but it's possible the barrel is coming into contact with the stock during firing.
I took the barreled action off the stock and found what looks like the slightest bit of rubbing. It's very hard to capture this on camera, but there is a very slight rub mark right along where the forend sits. The carbon sheen really covers it up.
View attachment 362401
Could this be the culprit? Is this worth sending it back to Springfield for their warranty fix? Or would y'all find a gunsmith to diagnose the issue first?
I would just do it myself I do all of mine so I can run a hankdown and back to clean out any crap that might drop in thereHi all,
I just took my new Springfield Waypoint in 6.5 with the carbon barrel to the range for the first time this weekend... Not impressed! For a gun that guarantees 0.75 MOA, my example was hovering around 1.5 MOA. This is after 100 rounds of Norma 143 Match ammo. Not a good showing when my 16" Scar 17 was consistently putting down 0.75 MOA in between my Springfield frustration!
View attachment 362395View attachment 362396View attachment 362397
I took it to an indoor 100-yard range today to try out some different ammo. These god-awful groups were shot with Aguila 140gr—the only other stuff I could find. Not match ammo, but not bad ammo. I shot 3 groups between 1.5 to 5+ MOA. All shots at this session were made using a lead sled to limit possible human error. On the 5+ MOA group, I'm inclined to think it was just a flyer, but the shot didn't feel like any issues on my end.
View attachment 362398View attachment 362399View attachment 362400
At this point, I doubt it's ammo. At the range, I checked the scope rings at the range and mount—all were at the same torque spec I initially tightened them down to.
I suspect that the free-floating (or lack thereof) may be the issue. Everything looks good from the outside, but it's possible the barrel is coming into contact with the stock during firing.
I took the barreled action off the stock and found what looks like the slightest bit of rubbing. It's very hard to capture this on camera, but there is a very slight rub mark right along where the forend sits. The carbon sheen really covers it up.
View attachment 362401
Could this be the culprit? Is this worth sending it back to Springfield for their warranty fix? Or would y'all find a gunsmith to diagnose the issue first?