I am simply curious as to why so many people place such an importance on 3 shot sub 1 inch groups? I see this attitude, on here at least, and wonder the reasoning behind it.

Not fishing or trolling, but I have been hunting with center fire rifles since 1969, and have been reasonably successful, but have never been concerned where shots number two and three were going.

As far as I have been concerned, shot number two was going to be taken on a wounded animal, on the ground that needed finishing.

I know everyone and their experiences are different, but unlike paper, critters, hit or not usually do not stand still waiting for shots two and three and hunters are not going to be as calm placing shots two and three as they were with shot number One!

Am I just an idiot that has been lucky killing stuff with the first shot, or is it that I simply do not see that placing the First Shot where it needs to go is the most important concept, and additional shots are only needed to finish off wounded game!

I think that it gives people a benchmark to measure against. You may never need a second or third shot but I think that I would be irresponsible not to be prepared for it if necessary.

99% of the animals that I shoot only need one bullet. Two animals have needed three shots; a gemsbok that my first bullet hit a branch and deflected forward into the brisket, I hit him two more times as he ran away at 150 and 200 yards. The second was a Cape buffalo that took the first bullet through the lungs and didn't want to die, I hit him again running away at 100 yards up the tail pipe and the third broke his shoulder.

I was confident that my second and third bullets would go exactly where I aimed them because I had practiced specifically for that and I didn't hesitate to take the running shots at distance.

One MOA? That is my standard for 40 cal and up. Under that I want 1/2 to 3/4 MOA, depending on the rifle. If I was just worried about was was going to work I'd just have one 30-06, use factory ammo, and he done with it. What fun is that?

Ross seifried once said the real measure of accuracy was to shot one shot a day for two weeks into the same target and see what your group looked like then-Ross claimed that was real world hunting accuracy.

It's accuracy like that that helped Ross kill that Hippo at 75 Yds.!

First shot consistency is highly valuable and highly prized by me. Reasonably tight grouping to the first shot is very appreciated as well.
Fortunately they usually go together but not always.
Don't know the story of Ross and a hippo but know that he is an excellent shot from the shoulder or hand.

quote:

I am simply curious as to why so many people place such an importance on 3 shot sub 1 inch groups? I see this attitude, on here at least, and wonder the reasoning behind it.Not fishing or trolling, but I have been hunting with center fire rifles since 1969, and have been reasonably successful, but have never been concerned where shots number two and three were going.

I been hunting with center fire rifles a year longer then you have. for years I prided myself on one shot one kill.

I hunted with a Ruger no.1 then it happen brush deflected a bullet and I didn't get a 2nd shot off because it was 17 below zero and I didn't have the 2nd round between my fingers.

Because they were freezing. Never did find that buck after following a light blood trail most of the day.

The 2nd one was the biggest whitetail buck I shot early morning light under some big pines at the shot the buck took off. I ran up the hill he disappeared over and saw him standing there. I said dead deer but dam he is big so I put a 2nd round through his shoulders.

He dropped on the spot when I looked for the first round hit I saw the bullet cut the through the hair on top his shoulders.

Moral of these two stories is shoot till they are not moving.

I have emptied full mags at wounded animals running away most were running dead. Meaning they were going to die shortly.

But having hunted in areas where if an animal ran a short ways he was lost or very hard to retrieve. They hardly ever run towards the truck.

After shooting several hundred head of big game and help recover or try to recover more then double that amount.

I only really needed the follow up shots a hand full of times. But those times it was really important to get those animals on the ground now.

I seen critters take several fatal hits and keep moving.

So yes it is important where the 2nd 3rd or more follow up shots go.

To me sub MOA accuracy is a mine is bigger than yours bragging right. Please I'm not trying to start anything. It's fine if that's what gives you confidence in your rifle. Honestly though, how many people can shoot much better than 2" groups from hunting conditions. That is unless your hunting conditions include sandbags. My buddies and I all have rifles that will shoot around one inch groups. That's a 3" group at 300yds. Mine run around 4' or so. We have a game. We try to replicate 'hunting' conditions. We have a horizontal 2x4 in front of a chair, representing shooting from a blind. We also have a vertical 4x4, our tree, a fence post and a pickup. A small back pack or a jacket can be used with the p-u. These are about as close to " hunting conditions' as we can replicate. The object is, using those 'props,' how good can you shoot? Under these conditions , a sub MOA rifle performs no better than an inch and a half one.
A 1/2 MOA rifle should shoot a 1 and 1/2" group at 300yds. That's around the size the bottom of a beer can. A 1 and 1/2 MOA rifle should shoot a 4 and 1/2' group at 300yds. That's about the size of a saucer. Given that the kill zone of most big game animals is about the size of a dinner plate any rifle that shoots 1.5 MOA is more than enough.
Back to the game: we shoot at, and hit consistently, a 4' gong at 200yds an 8' one at 300yds.

Good question…good thread.

For me: 1) Choosing a rifle; cartridge; bullet; powder & load is a preparation step I find very enjoyable, because I believe those choices will be important. 2) Range testing is the 2nd step to ensure everything will work as expected in the field when the time comes. No unexpected surprises. Totally agree with captdavid, simulating field conditions.

Do I need <.5 accuracy in the field. Nope. But, I find working up good groups at the range very satisfying and certainly a confidence builder…for both myself and my gear. My .458 Win doesn’t have to shoot my hand loads moa at 100 yards…but that it does, for me anyway, creates a real sense of accomplishment.

More than once at public ranges I’ve seen folks sighting in on a box that would hold a small TV. If they could hit the box at 100 yards, they were happy. Not my place to tell them otherwise…just not my way of doing things.

IMO, seeking accuracy is an art unto itself. Each individual will have their own reasons for how much importance to place on that accuracy.

quote:

Ross seifried once said the real measure of accuracy was to shot one shot a day for two weeks into the same target and see what your group looked like then-Ross claimed that was real world hunting accuracy.

Seems like I remember reading that one time, but by then it only confirmed an attitude I had already developed. The work I have been doing for the past 5 years allows me to carry both my .22 and one of my center-fire rifles, usually either my Whelen or my .300 Weatherby. As long as I can take either one out and hit the point I am aiming at from the bench with my first shot, that is my last shot.

quote:

I hunted with a Ruger no.1 then it happen brush deflected a bullet and I didn't get a 2nd shot off because it was 17 below zero and I didn't have the 2nd round between my fingers.

I have owned two different No.1's, and liked them but not having a fast second shot bothered me, especially in the case of wounded game in brush or broken country. Even though my first shot does the job the majority of the time, there are times when it don't and having access to a fast second shot whether I need it or not is comforting at least.

I guess I got off of or away from the 3 shot/tight group concept, After watching a few people wear themselves out at the bench trying for a tight group, only to get tensed up and have the third shot fly off some direction or another.

Thanks for the replies.

I'm not much of a shotgun guy...rifles intrigue me. To be able to place a shot inside a quarter so far away that you can't see it with your naked eye is the magic that maintains my interest. True, you don't need it for hunting, but shooting itself is an enjoyable sport. Rifles are my life :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Thanks for the replies.

Amen!

Tight groups are wonderful, but having confidence that my first shot is reliable is even more so.

I'll work up loads on a bench, but verify point of impact and practice for hunting in hunting positions 'cause I'm too lazy to carry the bench with me into the field.

For me, the point of going to the effort to get a rifle as accurate as it can possibly be is simply to remove that question from the equation. In true field conditions, the last thing I want to have in my head is how accurate the rifle is, whether the first or the 5th shot. I want to have 100% confidence in the equipment, and then all I have to work on is distance, wind, drift, heart rate, steadiness, mirage, movement, lead, etc...

Anything I can eliminate, I will.

Plus, burning powder to accelerate a projectile is wonderful therapy. The world shrinks away, the stresses of life diminish and all that matters is the shot. It's good for the spirit. So perfecting an inherently imperfect process can become a lifelong purpose.

I use group size to quantify the accuracy of my rifle. 1/2 to 1 MOA is the goal as it does give me confidence in knowing bullet placement will be where intended. The more accurate the better. Is it needed for 90% of the shots I've made on game? No, but the few times I had to thread the needle or stretch it out there, it was certainly welcome and did the job with a clean kill as a result.

quote:

I have owned two different No.1's, and liked them but not having a fast second shot bothered me, especially in the case of wounded game in brush or broken country. Even though my first shot does the job the majority of the time, there are times when it don't and having access to a fast second shot whether I need it or not is comforting at least.

That time when it was 17 below was the only time I did not get the needed 2nd shot off with my No. 1.

Would have a magazine repeater helped sure .

If I could have had my 2nd round between my fingers liked I normally carried them I most likely could have got the needed 2nd shot off.

Back to the game: we shoot at, and hit consistently, a 4' gong at 200yds an 8' one at 300yds.[/QUOTE]

Is this a miss type or are you sincere? roger

I am indeed sincere. Captdavid

Under 'hunting conditions.' captdavid

It's all relative to where you are hunting, what you are hunting and what you are willing to accept.
When I lived in Vermont, Michigan and New York I hunted mostly with 35 Rem's. I owned 4 different 35's and none would shoot MOA...and it didn't matter as shots were seldom over 50 yards and if follow up shots were required they would be at or near point blank range or not at all.

When I went to work killing deer on Ag Damage contracts I predominantly took my .223 or .308 as I had no margin for error and shots could come at any distance, plus I might have multiple shot opportunities in a given setup. Since my paycheck was dependent upon how many dead deer I was produced, I wanted the most accurate rifle I could put my hands on.

Here in Missouri I could easily go back to a 35 and not really be handicapped, but I like my 270 and its accuracy. I'm growing pretty fond of my 6.5CM too.

Rifles that will shoot MOA or better will reduce your margin of mechanical error in the field and point the finger of blame for poor shot placement squarely where it belongs.

I think that is why I'm somewhat anal about an accurate rifle. When I was young and starting out with a hand-me-down 20ga, I happened to miss a real nice 8pt 3 years in a row. I of course blamed my equipment at the young age of 12-14 and decided then that if I missed, I wanted to know it was ME and not my equipments fault. So now I even have my own machine shop, build my own rifles, and haven't shot factory ammo other than rimfire and handgun for close to 25 years. I like knowing my rifle is capable of most any shot I might come across when I'm trying to put game in the freezer.

This isn't just bolt guns, I hunt with muzzleloader, lever guns, bolt, archery, he'll, even air rifle. All are more than accurate for what they are designed for.

Some people could care less if all 5 shots go in a 3" circle and some folks want all 5 in a 1" circle, all dependent on your particular needs for where you hunt.
I like my guns to shoot small groups, it is a hobby of mine to fiddle and tinker with my rifles and their loads until I achieve what I feel is the best accuracy they are capable of. For the kind of hunting I do this is very important me.
I don't see this as "dick measuring" as some people have stated. I see it as a necessity for clean kills and "threading the needle" in the type of hunting and at the distances I may encounter.

I killed my first deer in 63 when I was 15. I hunted with a 243 then a 270 until 74 when I got a 25-06. From 76 to 90 I was absorbed with black powder. I even hunted Africa with a muzzle loader. In 90 I bought a Browning single shot and hunted another 4-5 years with it. This gave me one bad habit. I take one shot, using a bolt it's everything I can do to remember to re-chamber another load. The muzzle loader gave me one good habit, get closer.
I have probably killed in excess of 150 game animals. The vast majority have been under 200yds. Most of those under 150yds. I've missed or wounded and lost a few. Most of those can be contributed to youth, or for a period, a malfunctioning stock. All the deer I've shot over 200yds I've retrieved, including the few I've killed at around my personal max range of 300yds.
Captdavid

There is not a "One Size Fits All" when it comes to expected performance from our hunting rifles, from what I have experienced.

My OP was not to degrade or poke fun at those that strive for 3 shot one hole groups on paper.

Some strive for perfection in one manner while others view perfection in a different way.

For me, perfection is a one shot kill, knowing that if that does not happen, my second shot is going to finish what I started by firing the first shot.

It is interesting to read others views or beliefs.

I like shooting, and I like reloading, and I use the group size to challenge myself. When you can dump your rounds into a cloverleaf, you know things are working in your favor. Other than than that, there really isn't much need for MOA on a big game rifle at normal ranges. For me it is just personal preference, and I certainly wouldn't sell a gun because it didn't shoot under 1 MOA.

If you're going to be a responsible hunter, you have to know your weapon and how to use it. You gain that from practice. And while you're practicing, you might as well see how close together you can get the shots. And if they're not close together, you might want to know why. If not, you might as well shoot your practice shots into the bank without posting a target.
And yes, I had a .280 mountain rifle that killed like the Hammer of Thor but from the bench, it was a 1.5-2' shooter regardless of what I tried. And so, I sold it and bought a BDL which gave me the sub moa I was looking for.
One of my problems might be that I hunt and shoot bench matches. When you consistantly shoot 5 shot groups that measure in the .2's and .3's, a 2" group looks enormous.

I think that people obsess over small groups at 100 because they believe it is the same as good groups at long range. Even if it was, it doesn't address the somewhat bigger problem of centering whatever level of precision they do have on the target. Sorting 100 yard groups with a caliper doesn't do much for center punching a 500 yard target on the first and only try when drop and drift are measured in feet. It's s nice fantasy though.

You could argue that small groups don't hurt anything, but that's not the entire story. Did he abandon a few excellent bullets just to pick whatever shot the best? Did endless load developement take time and resources away from learning to shoot from field positions and learning how to judge wind?

I'm pretty sure the average practice shot taken out of a hunting rifle is from a bench at 100. I'm also
Pretty sure the most common shot taken in the field is a miss.

I'm a hunter not a match shooter so : It has been many years since I shot from a real bench. Pop made us a small standing bench 20 years ago but to call it a bench is a stretch. I have not used it for years now. I sometimes wish for one but am glad this has lead to thousands of shots sitting over homemade cross sticks and a few hundred prone, same offhand. All of this is based on consistancy versus absolute group size. Consistancy depends far more on the person behind the trigger than any other factor. I wish all my rifles were 1/2 MOA but don't lose any confidence because their not. It has been many years since I missed a game animal as well. Lots of reasons for that other than the gun.
Happy hunting and shooting to you!

Interesting comments and analogies. I started hand loading/reloading back in 1967 or so, still in High School. I primarily hunted birds so my loading efforts were shotgun shells. Did not buy my first center fire rifle until 1969. It was a Model 670 Winchester in .300 Win. Mag. and I had an El Paso made K6 steel tube Weaver with duplex crosshairs mounted on it.

Killed my first deer in 1970 with one shot at around 150 yards, using a handload I had worked up using a 165 grain Hornady spire point bullet.

Since that first deer, probably 95% of the game I have killed since that first buck, have been killed with hand loads/reloads. While I do try to get new loads/bullets to group if I am going up or down in either bullet weight or powder charge, for me a 2 inch/3 inch group is working accuracy for me.

If it is tighter that is great, bigger than that, it still needs work. I work at finding out which powder and charge works best with the bullet I am planning on using since 1996, that has been pretty exclusively Barnes "X" or "TSX".

A MOA gun will kill deer size game out to 500 yds easily, which is much farther than most people will ever shoot. 1/2 MOA rifles are much more scarce than the internet will lead you to believe, IMO.

I believe firing at least a 3-shot group is necessary to confirm that your rifle is in fact shooting to your point of aim. If you don't, how do you know that your rifle will put subsequent shots in the same spot? Specifically, just because one shot hit the target, does that mean the rifle can put the next shot in the vital zone of a game animal?

No, you don't need MOA accuracy, most of my rifles won't achieve that. What they do is put those shots in 1.5-2.0" groups, which allows me to know that I can responsibly use those rifles to hunt to my maximum comfortable shooting distance. In addition, since I know what size groups the rifles regularly fire, any deviation from these shot groups gives me a heads up that something may not be right with my set up.

Most importantly, I always have my .22 rimfire with me so that I can practice firing from field positions while the barrel cools on my rifles that I'm chasing that ever elusive MOA with.

Actually, when shooting for groups, I generally shoot 5 shot groups. My 5 shot groups are usually larger than my 3 shot groups, sometimes by as much as a half inch. I shoot 3 shot groups, before I go hunting to assure I'm 'on.' captdavid

I would think that most people found this site because they wanted to improve the accuracy of there rifles hence the name Accurate Reloading.

I agree, but we are in the Medium bore section of the Hunting forum. Captdavid

quote:

Actually, when shooting for groups, I generally shoot 5 shot groups.

To me, if it was more important, shooting 5 shot groups is as better indicator than 3 shots.

Back to one of the original premises of my OP, how many of us, in actual hunting situations have had an animal that has been shot at, stand still for shots two and three?

A secondary question, how many people's heart rate/blood pressure go up when shooting at paper versus shooting at hair?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Actually, when shooting for groups, I generally shoot 5 shot groups.

To me, if it was more important, shooting 5 shot groups is as better indicator than 3 shots.

Back to one of the original premises of my OP, how many of us, in actual hunting situations have had an animal that has been shot at, stand still for shots two and three?

A secondary question, how many people's heart rate/blood pressure go up when shooting at paper versus shooting at hair?

We're talking about apples and oranges. Shooting a 5 shot group is an exercise in accuracy, practice, verifying consistancy, and building confidence. So that you can make the one shot, one kill.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Actually, when shooting for groups, I generally shoot 5 shot groups.

To me, if it was more important, shooting 5 shot groups is as better indicator than 3 shots.

Back to one of the original premises of my OP, how many of us, in actual hunting situations have had an animal that has been shot at, stand still for shots two and three?

A secondary question, how many people's heart rate/blood pressure go up when shooting at paper versus shooting at hair?

We're talking about apples and oranges. Shooting a 5 shot group is an exercise in accuracy, practice, verifying consistancy, and building confidence. So that you can make the one shot, one kill.

You are correct Sir. All you are doing is proving consistency and nobody should believe that since they shot a MOA group once that their rifle is consistently a MOA rifle.
AND just because you can sit down at a bench and rip off 3 shots into an inch means nothing unless you hunt from a bench.
My sub MOA rifles give me confidence to make the shot, nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Back to one of the original premises of my OP, how many of us, in actual hunting situations have had an animal that has been shot at, stand still for shots two and three?

Several times. Not always at the same deer, but other deer in the same herd. More than once I've stopped shooting because I already had enough "post shot" work to do, not because I'd run out of deer.
I hunt crop damage, and the land owner wants all the tags filled.

Shooting under hunting conditions is much different to shooting off the bench.

But, having a rifle that does shoot very accurately, gives one more confidence.

And on those occasions when one has to take a deliberate shot off a rest in the field at a relatively small target, an accurate rifles comes into its own.

Like trying to shoot a croc in the brain at 200 yards or more.

The mind where confidence lives is a wonder plus thing. I saw my father shoot his octagon barreled 30-30 into the vitals of big mulies over and over both near and far because of what he believed about himself and "old Betsy." Maybe it was a 1/2 gun. Nobody can say because it was never fired at paper. Pretty hard to measure group size on a sand rock. When I started trying to follow in his steps after he left life early I found out that he was a gifted shooter. I found out I only had a small measure of that gift. I shot lots of groups. Had some great rifles. Passed them on to youngsters in my extended family who needed them. Settled with a few I really enjoy owning and using. I also decided that an inch of deviation from poa was something that was not going to stop me from being a good shooter. That means I simply do my part of correct aim and clean trigger break. I let the group size "help" me with yardage misestimaion or dodging that branch I did not see. Yes I know that sounds foolish and is not scientific. However it makes for a great amount of peace and as mentioned before lots of game in the bag. One could call this confidence. I will also say I have enjoyed Saeeds videos and his gifted shooting with his terrific rifle.
Best regards

Instead of MOA, I have always been more concerned with MOC.

Minute Of Critter!