I had a lot of good things to say about the Remington 513T Matchmaster in the post immediately prior to this one. The proof of a rifle though is in the shooting. I took it to the range this afternoon, and set up targets at the 50 foot line. The targets were NRA standard 50 foot rifle targets for 22's. The black bull's eyes are 1 3/16 inches across if I measured right. As you can see I am posting 2 pictures. The reason I am only posting 2 pictures is because I only shot at two targets. Each has 12 bull's eyes. In all I only shot at 18 of those in the hour that I was shooting and the total number of rounds I fired was 88. It would have been 90 but I ran out of a particular brand of ammo and just shot the last three of that offhand, and that was not too shabby. For all the other shots, I fired them from a seated position, arms resting on the bench, with a coat folded up and placed between my arms and the bench surface. Yeah I know, really professional, but obviously it worked just fine.
As for the ammo, I fired a variety. Some was just cheap stuff, which is the bulk of the .22LR ammo that I have. Some was more expensive but nothing of the high end target type ammo used by competition shooters. Ammo types I shot were: CCI Blazer, CCI Mini Mag, Federal's American Eagle, Federal Champion (target velocity), Remington Thunderbolt. Nothing special as far as .22LR ammo goes, some of it even considered to be pretty low end - the CCI Blazer and the Remington Thunderbolt. There can be some surprises though when you expect something to be junk and it isn't. A look at the targets will show you what I mean. Click on each to enlarge it. They are annotated to show which ammo was used on each bull's eye, and as to group size. All groups were 5 shots except for one in which I fired 4 because I made a mistake when I loaded the mag, and the other because I ran out of ammo - so I discounted both of them. As for measurment of group size, I measured the widest spread from the outside rim of one to the oputside rim of the other. I think that is not the proper way to do it
and that normally you would measure from the inside edge of one shot to the outside edge of the other. That would have been tough since the groups were pretty tight. It was just easier to measure the way I did it but had I done it the right way then the group sizes would have been a bit smaller, maybe by as much as 2/16" for some groups.Looking at the first target, you can see that every shot is to the left of center. I probably had not fired this rifle for at least a year, maybe as many as 2 or 3 years, prior to today and do not recall if it was sighted in right before or not. It is possible that the sights got messed up during a cleaning or moving or rearranging of the gun locker. Whether or not it was shooting at the center of the target is inconsequential for all the shots on that target. The thing was that it was shooting pretty consistent groups and all groups were to the left. That was good. A bit of twiddling with the sights and the result was target 2 where many more shots are at center of the bull's eyes. The groups on the second target are not too shabby but I could not again achieve the best two groups on target 1 which were only 6/16" across each.
When I was shooting on the second target, I
think know I was getting a bit rattled by two other shooters who just would not stop talking, one of them was exceptionally loud. Even with all the shooting going on all I heard was him. It was friggin annoying. I was about to say something to them when I noticed one of them pointing his shotgun directly across the firing points at a right angle to all of them next to his. In other words, had he let one loose, it probably would have injured or maybe killed a shooter on one of the other points. Lucky for them there were no other shooters at that moment, the other two guys in that bay of shooting points had already left. So, I gave them a good but restrained lesson in where to point firearms, when to have a finger on the trigger, and to consider all guns as loaded. They both listened and I think they got it too. That was it for me though, no more shooting. My getting annoyed combined with the strain of trying to shoot as well as I could , and taking my time doing it, had me at the point where my shots would not be getting any better. By the way, yes it is pretty stressing to try to shoot as well as you can when hand holding an 8 to 9 pound rifle even if resting on the bench. Maybe I should invest in some shooting bags or a rifle rest. I suppose that working out a bit to better develop my arm muscles might also help, heaven knows I have not worked out recently because of Arthur I. Tispain. No excuses though, and heck I don't need any, I shot pretty good for a muddled minded middle aged guy whose eyes are not what they once were back in my day. In closing, I have to say that the Remington 513T Matchmaster is one heck of a tack shooter and is obviously capable of better accuracy than it can get with my finger on the trigger.All the best,Glenn B
The Matchmaster was tucked away snugly in the far corner of the gun locker. It had been there for a long time, all but forgotten, among its more used companions. It came out now and then to be inspected and cleaned and then was gingerly placed back into its corner. As far as shooting went, it had not been fired in well over a year maybe even two.There is no acceptable reason for neglect of the type I just mentioned; and I readily admit - I am guilty of it. The remedy ofcourse is at hand and later today I plan to head to the range. Yes, the Remington 513T Matchmaster will be there with me. Sometimes, we forget old friends but when we remember them and get together with them again it is always a good time. That is how I anticipate my time at the range with this rifle later today - a good time. As far as actually shooting it goes, I expect it will shoot better than I can aim or deserve it to do. A funny thing about this rifle is that when I bought it, it had been tucked away, probably forgotten, in a gun cabinet with a for sale tag on it, at a local sporting good store. It was a part of the owner's personal collection of firearms. I just took a look at the receipt for it, that too had been tucked away and forgotten, though a lot longer than was the Matchmaster. I bought it in January 1999 - almost 11 years ago for $271.25. He was asking $250 and that is what I paid - plus tax of course - this is NY after all! To me it seemed like an awful lot to pay for a .22 rifle back then, but it was in fact a good deal.The rifle was impressive back then, heck it still is now. It is a hefty boomer, I don't know the weight but my guess is around 8 to 9 pounds. For a .22 rifle that is pretty heavy. It is a bolt action repeater with a 6 round magazine. The stock is wood with high gloss finish, the metal is all blued steel. The Globe front sight is hooded and has interchangeable inserts. The shame of it is I have three of the same inserts for it. I also have another two inserts made of orange plastic. It might be interesting to use them someday as I cannot recall ever shooting with them before. I think it would be possible to insert them along with one of the metal inserts. Sort of sunglasses for the front sight. The rear sight is a fully adjustable Redfield peep sight with positive click stops. The barrel on this rifle is a heavy target type and is 27 inches long. Not as big around as some made today but not a narrow one by a long shot. It is drilled and tapped for a scope mount. On the bottom of the forend there is a multi position sling swivel base, another feature found on target rifles. The swivels were attached, and along with them came a really nice leather sling. All in all, with its weight, the leather target sling that came with it was a very good thing. The rifle is in excellent condition. There is a chance that the wood was refinished at some point, I am pretty certain of that especially with the fingerprint in the varnish. Sadly there are a few scratches to the surface finish of the wood, but only minor ones. The metal has not been refinished and is in 98%+ condition.They were made between 1940 and 1968(1). I know when I bought this rifle, but I am not sure of when it was manufactured; from what I can see by the date code that is stamped on the barrel it was either made in 1941 or 1963. The code of which I speak is a 2 letter code, the second letter distinguishing the year of manufacture. The second letter on mine is a K and as far as I can find out, K is assigned to both 1941 and 1963 (2). There is a good chance this was one of the two or three types of rifle I shot at summer camp many - many - moons ago in the mid to late 60s. I remember they were heavy as is this one, heavier then I suppose, when I was a stringbean of a kid.As far as shooting it goes, I pretty much said it all above. It shoots better than I can aim. This was manufactured as a target rifle and it will hit where you aim it and if you can aim at the same spot and hold it there consistently when you squeeze off a shot then it will hit there consistently if using good ammo.If you are in the market for a fine rifle in .22LR, this could be it - well not this particular one - mine is mine. Of course, you need some money to buy one and they are not inexpensive. I saw a similar one today at GunBroker.com that already had a bid of over $550 on it. That is an increase over 100% in value compared to the price at which I bought mine. Not a bad investment in 11 years.All the best,Glenn BReferences:1. http://www.remington.com/library/history/firearm_models/rimfire/model_513.asp2. http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/questions/barrelcodes and http://www.wisnersinc.com/additional_info/remington_date_code.htm