Springfield Waypoint bad groups troubleshoot help?

[Jon Bischof]

A shooter whose opinion and experience I respect once told me not to use a dollar bill for the free floating test. He said use a $100 bill instead. That way, you are about 1/4 on your way to a new stock if that's the problem.

That's what I'm talking about. But to really be sure to get that dog to hunt, you need to use $1,000 bill.

 

[HSmithTX]

Send it back, something is wrong and they guarantee accuracy, so let them do what they do. Their handgun service is quite good, so I expect the same from their rifle side. I have had a lot of rifles and I have never had one that was 1.5+ moa suddenly be .5 moa without a mechanical change, putzing with loads etc is a waste of time and money in my experience if it won't shoot somewhat decent. I have seen rifles that were 3-5+ moa suddenly start shooting sub 1 moa with mechanical changes, like recutting the crown.

 

[Rosebud]

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 gunsmit

 

[Jon Bischof]

Rosebud, I'm assuming that you started with about $2,000 for your CA Ridgeline. Glad you found a powder that you could work up a good shooting load for it.

 

[Radman]

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?

1st, sorry you're having issues. Problems with a new weapon wears on you.
2nd, if you're satisfied that you've tried enough different ammos, if it isn't any type of scope issue SEND IT BACK!
3rd, one thing troubles me: If the barrel is free-floated & not touching - why then is the barrel showing an interference mark? In my biased, unprofessional opinion that sounds like some sort of serious barrel-whip. I'm just saying....
I'd let the manufacturer worry about it.

 

[Starbuck]

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.

I took the action out and it doesn't seem anything is adversely affecting the rear of the rifle. I hand tightened the front action screw and wiggled the action to see if the rear was jiggling—it was rock solid. Nothing raising a red-flag in the recoil lug department.

I'm calling the guys at Springfield today to figure out what they can do for me!

That's frustrating. I only know 1 guy who's running a waypoint. He loves it.

Just throwing out some thoughts, but did you measure the chamber for freebore?

Any manufacturer can have a bad run or a few bad models sneak out the door, but you'd think a rifle in this price range would go through some fairly extensive QC before being sent out.

I went through a similar experience around 15 years ago. Dumped a pile of cash into the LW rifle I always wanted. Couldn't get the **** thing to shoot better than 1.5 @100. It became a safe queen and I used other rigs. Shortly after, I bought a Tikka on a really good deal just to see what all the fuss was about. From the first few shots the thing is boringly accurate, and it likes just about any load I stuff in it. Was really insult to injury to have a rifle that cost less than the stock on my "high end" rig shooting near one hole groups with ease.

Years later I spent some time with my dream rifle. Tried a different scope - which turned out to be the main issue - and loaded for more freebore. It now shoots .75 or better.

 

[Aurora NC Hunter]

I don't use Leupold but my cousin that I hunt with has sent his Leupold back twice for tracking issues. Zeiss or Nightforce is the way to go.

 

[gnewton]

Please send a picture of how the gun on the sled when shooting the rifle. It can make a difference where and how the gun is supported.

 

[TurboD]

Please send a picture of how the gun on the sled when shooting the rifle. It can make a difference where and how the gun is supported.

The gun was on the sled for 12 of the 120+ rounds. It's not the problem here!

 

[TurboD]

The rifle is on its way back to Springfield. I spoke to one of their tech guys in the repair department, and he said that there is no reason the gun should shoot that poorly with the Norma match ammo.

 

[Korhil78]

You didn't pay all that money for a rifle like that, JUST to spend a ton more money On ammo trying to get it to shoot.

 

[gnewton]

Glad to here they promptly agreed to make it right. I am curious to see whether they fix it and tell you what was wrong or provide you with a new serialized rifle.

 

[Starbuck]

Please send a picture of how the gun on the sled when shooting the rifle. It can make a difference where and how the gun is supported.

If it does, you need to do some relieving work on the stock, or get a stiffer one. Also, even if it did change POI, you should still be able to get a tight group out of it.

 

[ridgeline300]

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. Those LEMON groups are NOT to be blamed on the ammo, the scope, the lead sled or your own marksmanship as you proved with the SCAR. Send it back to Springfield. If it were me I would ask Springfield to send me a check instead of sending the rifle back.

I sure hope you did not purchase this rifle at the recommendation of a LRH member. The one thing about LRH that really irks me is the prevalent belief that one has to pay well over $1200 to get a rifle that will shoot and well over $2000 to be sure to get a rifle that shoots. And I'm being conservative and kind. It is almost a mental disorder with some. Anyone who wants to spend more than that, I'm OK with that. But telling folks they can't get a rifle that shoots SUB MOA for less than several thousand...well, that's just not true.

They often counter that by saying that if you buy a rifle for less than $2,500 that it is just the luck of the draw to get a good one. That depends to a large extent on which rifle you buy.

I would like to see an example of where someone said that one "can't get a rifle that shoots sub moa for less than several thousand"

I don't know that I have ever seen that claimed on here.