Just picked up the recent issue of Guns and Ammo, and Craig Boddington had an article on rifle accuracy. Basically he said since the quality of an off the shelf rifle is now pretty close to 1 M.O.A., that the "bar needs to be raised" on what is acceptable accuracy.

Now, my Savage .308 is right around 1 MOA, and my Rock River varmit AR is well below that. I would love to have them be even better! To be honest though, when I see that deer I doubt I would be able to shot as well as my rifle is capable of.

So, what is an "acceptable" level of acuarcy for a hunting rifle in your guy's opinion?

If I could get all of my hunting rifles to shoot 1 m.o.a. all of the time I would be happy as a clam. They are probably capable, but I know I am not all of the time.

I used to like Boddington's work, but now I think he has written long enough that new things "pop" up just to write about.

More crap to help the companies sell new rifles. I love accurate rifles too. Have several that will break .25. However, for most practical situations, 300yds is the upper limit of 95% of big game hunting. The difference in a .5 MOA and 1.0 moa rifle at that distance is around 1.5 inches in group size. Shooting in hunting conditions, most people cannot come close to 1 MOA of holding accuracy. It is likely closer to 3 MOA (I'm not talking about setting in treehouses here and shooting off a bench in a beanfield, but real world hunting.) This kind of practical accuracy fits well with a 12" kill zone on a whitetail. The difference of .5 MOA is really negligible in a normal hunting rifle. After all, empirical results from the game field is what set the accepted standard in the first place.

Now, that's not to say that I wouldn't prefer a rifle that shoots .5 MOA to one that shoots twice that much, but the fact is that either will serve more than acceptably to hunt big game, and I wouldn't let that criteria preclude the use of a rifle or justify replacement.

I think that the bar should be raised if we only want 1 moa guns then that is what the makers will build if we the consumer demand more accuracy then that is what the makers will build

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
I think that the bar should be raised if we only want 1 moa guns then that is what the makers will build if we the consumer demand more accuracy then that is what the makers will build

I agree with that. My concern was that there are a lot of hunters out there that are going to get real upset that their favorite vension gun can't shoot under 1 MOA. For most hunting, if you can hit a pie plate that is good enough.

If the kill zone on an animal is 8", then even a 2 MOA rifle is capable of hitting the vital zone at 300 yards.

Sub-MOA rifles matter for varmints like prairie dogs but I don't see why one would need that for big game.

Also, in order to acheive sub-MOA, the price of the rifle would presumably be higher, and that money could be better spent on optics, or more ammo for practice IMHO.

Hunter308

Nice thought but most guys can't shoot accurately enough, from field positions, to take advantage of 1moa rifle, let alone something better. Think about it, most hunters across the globe do not handload. How can you expect submoa perf. from any rifle using one or two factory loads? Yes, it can happen but not on a regular basis.

I’ve heard this a lot: basically that if the hunter is only so-so accurate it is OK for the rifle to be so-so accurate also. I guess I don't see this logic, considering errors are potentially cumulative. If we get a 3 MOA hunter matched up with a 2.5 MOA gun that will often be a 5.5 MOA situation. If this same hunter gets a 0.75 MOA rifle the situation is more tolerable. Knowing the kill zone size we can even calculate a max distance this person should risk a shot.

By this logic only good shots should put up with a fair to poorly accurate rifle, as mathematically a 3.0 MOA rifle and 0.75 hunter will do the same feat as our poor hunter and a good rifle.

Is my logic flawed on this?

This is all true but most people can't drive their cars on the edge of performance either. That doesn't mean I don't want damn good brakes or precise steering. Accuracy builds confidence, even if a particular shot doesn't need the last reasonable measure of it. I guess "reasonable" means different things to different folks but it means a lot in the market place.

Who the hell would buy a Savage if they didn't shoot like gangbusters?

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
This is all true but most people can't drive their cars on the edge of performance either. That doesn't mean I don't want damn good brakes or precise steering. Accuracy builds confidence, even if a particular shot doesn't need the last reasonable measure of it. I guess "reasonable" means different things to different folks but it means a lot in the market place.

Who the hell would buy a Savage if they didn't shoot like gangbusters?

They are among the safest and most reliable actions you can buy. I'll grant you though that they're uglier than sin.

quote:

Originally posted by 300winnie:I used to like Boddington's work, but now I think he has written long enough that new things "pop" up just to write about.

In order to live the life he does he better write about new hardware and philosophy. The question is ; How much integraty will a person jeopardize in order to get all his hunting paid for all over the world and than some.I guess I would be the biggest hypocrit and tongue in cheek writer that ever hit a gun rag. Oh my roger

90% of all hunting isn't done within 300 yards, it's done within 125 yards per statistics kept year after year by the FWS. MOA guns are only of use to those odd folk who love to blow away ground squirrels in the next time zone. For them, every possible aid to accuracy is essential, bless'em, but for the rest of us it detracts from the essentials of hunting, the woodcraft, the field position shooting, fitness and an understanding of game behavior. MOA guns only shoot MOA off bench rests and those, in my experience, are few and far between in the bush! Remember, Craig is the man who invented the term "minute of volleyball" pointing out that the vital areas of most game animals are that size.

There are certainly many different situations for hunting from the western states to the heavy woods of the southeastern US. It is simplistic to state that long ranges require greater accuracy than close ranges, but my experience (here we go again with the Ole Guy and his experiences) is that more often than not the shooter is the main factor in accurate shooting, particularly the one that has, and does, shoot a lot. Writers must produce new articles, or wither away, and all of us can identify at least one that we would never miss again. Less than 1 MOA as a criteria for accuracy is getting silly.
My hunting areas are in Alabama and North Florida and the longest shot since 1964 has been less than 100 yards, which is why I always get a neck shot on deer and hogs and never have to look for where they fell.

quote:

Originally posted by cobra:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
This is all true but most people can't drive their cars on the edge of performance either. That doesn't mean I don't want damn good brakes or precise steering. Accuracy builds confidence, even if a particular shot doesn't need the last reasonable measure of it. I guess "reasonable" means different things to different folks but it means a lot in the market place.

Who the hell would buy a Savage if they didn't shoot like gangbusters?

They are among the safest and most reliable actions you can buy. I'll grant you though that they're uglier than sin.

I have had many, still have one. But if they didn't shoot like gangbusters I would not have ever owned the first one. There are lots prettier rifles that shoot shitty to pick from

You have to remember the reason Col. Boddington is writing articles for G&A to begin with and that is to sell G&A for the large manufacturers. Many of his articles are worthwile, but he seems to have a problem remembering that the vast majority of us don't get all expense paid hunting excursions like he does on many occasions.

Less than 1 MOA is great for the range 1/2" is better, but hopefully, most of us won't need to shoot 3 or 5 round groups on our quarry.

Tiggertate: That lady looks familiar, if you could get that picture blown up a little bit, I could verify if we had once been seeing the same woman! Got to be a Texas girl!

if 1 MOA is no longer acceptable then 75% of all guns today don't make the grade. I'd venture that 80% of the folks that claim their rifle shoots 1 MOA can't prove it at any range.

Boddington needs to sit back and think a little more.

Tiggertate: That lady looks familiar, if you could get that picture blown up a little bit, I could verify if we had once been seeing the same woman! Got to be a Texas girl!

If you were seeing her you were doing better than I was in those days, my man.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
if 1 MOA is no longer acceptable then 75% of all guns today don't make the grade. I'd venture that 80% of the folks that claim their rifle shoots 1 MOA can't prove it at any range.

Boddington needs to sit back and think a little more.

Very true!

Terry

Whats exceptable ?
Its up to you. A good many of my rifles shoot better than MOA. Even my Marlin 45/70 comes darn close ! But most of my rifles have never fired a factory round. I hand load nearly all my ammo.
I am willing to except MOA for a standard weight bolt action sporter , but somthing like my ultra light ruger I will except 1.25 happily.
When i buy a rifle, if it shoots poorly out of the box, its not often to hard to improve it.
Out of the Box is probably a poor term, as I do not often buy a new rifle these days...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Boddington needs to sit back and think a little more.

Not really! He's positioned himself just right to get what he wants out of this game. "Damn the truth let the troops be fed Hype."

If you have a hunting gun(s) that shoots consistently at 1 MOA with hunting loads, be thankful. You've got a special gun. 1" 3-shot groups at 100 yds., 2" groups at 200 yds., and 3" groups at 300 yds., etc. are excellent!

The funny part of this is that as far as production rifles go, I've had much better out-of-box accuracy out of older pre and post-64 Model 70s and Remington 700s that I've had out of the latest offerings.

In fact, some of the more recent factory rifles I've fired have been honest minute-of-foot rifles instead of MOA. So I'm not so sure that the bar has been raised, but I don't get around to shooting nearly as many different rifles as Craig does, either!

I agree with Ackley that a one-inch rifle is one to treasure, keep, and take care of.

Where the bar has honestly been raised is in the realm of custom rifles. Half-inch groups aren't all that uncommon with quality-built custom rifles anymore.

AD

Well, the purpose of a sub-MOA rifle at the range is strictly an ego trip. Kind of like my dad can whip your dad, only in rifles. My rifle shooter tighter groups than your rifles.
I have a couple that shoot some pretty snug groups when I do my part. Nice tight three shot groups, but they do open up some when shooting five shots.
I have a friend (?) who think three or five shot groups are a waste of time. He thinks that's OK, now shoot a 40 shot group and see what the rifle can really do. I asked when was the last time he had to shoot 40 times at a deer runnung away?
I think I'm being realistic when I say I'll accept 1.5" groups from a hunting rifle. If I was given a dollar for every shot at big game over 200 yards, I wouldn't even be able to get a cup of coffee at my local Starbuck's. In fact, looking at 55 years of deer hunting, all but maybe thre or four could have just as easily been taken with a 30-30 and open sights.
Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that much of the dislike for Boddington, and that includes my own, is all those freebie African hunts he gets, while I will never be able to have even one. Well maybe, if I ever win the damned lottery, because that's my only chance and that's slim, slimmer and slimmest.
Paul B.

If I were to really try to say what grouping means to me in a hunting rifle I would have to say how well it groups the first two shots ( #1 cold, #2 warm) because that's how my big game guns are used. Every great once in while I need a third shot but if the first two are close all my rifles throw the third in there too.

Paul B, not to nit-pick but how do you reconcile your post with your signature? 1.5 MOA ain't bad but it is a compromise relative to what's acheivable.

makemine & tigger, my point being, if you give a medicore golfer a set of Ping golf clubs, his score isn't going to drop much from the set of Sears clubs he's using. A 1.5moa rifle is fine for 95% of all big game hunters. The 5% that shoot beyond 300yds may be able to use the accuracy of a submoa rifle but the rest, not. I always strive to get the best accuracy out of my rigs but am happy if they hit 1moa & the first shot is always where I need it to go.
BTW, I've seen guys w/ some very expensive equip. that I know can shoot submoa, but they are shooting 2moa & blaming the rig. So where exactly is that confidence builder? It's always going to be the guy behind the trigger.

A couple of my favorite rifles won't shoot better than 1.3 at 100 yards, but I almost never miss game with them. Fit and balance offhand will kill big game, not .5 groups. Varmint hunting is of course another story. I'll shoot better in the field with a 1.5 in. rifle that has a great trigger and hangs well offhand than a .5 rifle that feels like a club.

interesting point...

it's pure bullocks, but interesting....

to the point of exclusion, no rifle AND shooter are under 1 moa in field conditions....


now, if you mean "you and your hunting rib should be consistant and known for the first shot at X range" sure...

but most of the time, a miss is NOT the rifle's fault


of course you know one MOA is about 0.000278" ... that's 0.000278, or that means you and the gun have to be with 278 MICRONS

jeffe

Fred, there's no helping a fool (at least my wife tells me that from time to time) but a man who knows that his rifle shoots better than he will strive to do better. At worst he will admit it was the shot and not the gun.

I think the merits of this argument would differ drastically between the dense woods of some eastern hunting and the openness of western hunting. This is one of those where reasonable people can not only disagree but both parties can be equally right.

I just like the confidence of knowing my equipment is orders of magnitude less fallible than me.

A really bad rifle / ammo combination can indeed guarantee a bad shot. If the shooter is already having difficulty I see no sense making it worse. I have no idea how new shooters can start if they have no experienced friends and learn things solely from the gun rags. It's tough enough just to get new shooters to understand they should stick to the exact same ammo until they are willing to re-sight the scope. It's not completely uncommon to have someone sight in and practice with PMC/Wolf class ammo and then buy a box of Federal Premium for the hunt. Never even checking if the new ammo will shoot the same, usually with the innocent explanation; “The article said this is what I should switch to for the big buck!?†Writing articles about how to effectively use what you buy instead of telling you what to buy seems to be a thing of the past.

Hunting and shooting has taken on an almost too competitive edge to make it enjoyable as an easygoing hobby. Boddington is not helping by claiming MOA is not good enough, although something PROVEN in the neighborhood of MOA would certainly help a new shooter develop skill. Knowing how to prove that would be a more valuable article for many.

Minute-of-Angle accuracy may not be needed for a big game rifle but it sure does a heck of a lot for my confidence in the rifle if it shoots MOA.
I must be lucky because most plain jane factory rifles out of the box that I have had or shot will shoot MOA or better

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
Minute-of-Angle accuracy may not be needed for a big game rifle but it sure does a heck of a lot for my confidence in the rifle if it shoots MOA.

All else beeing equal the MOA that matters is between the last shot taken with this rifle cold bore and the one I'm about to take cold bore at that 6 point mule deer( you pick the range). That's what sparks confidence level, knowing were the first shot is going. roger

Accuracy does build confidence but its not nirvana. I strive to tune my hunting rifles and loads to shoot 1 MOA or better off the bench, but if the combinations don't quite make it and hover just above 1 MOA and are very consistent, so be it, I'm happy.

IMHO Boddington is full of crap a lot of the time and represents the worst of the current breed of firearm/hunting journalist, an unabashed gun rag whore.

Ah come on guys, you're beating up on CB a bit. Free trip or not, at least he has been there & done the deeds & then written about it. I've met him & talked a bit w/ him. He seems an amiable sort, the kind of guy you would like to share camp with. He is probably the kind of guy who can get the most out of a 1/2moa rifle & I'm sure he won't have to pay for it.

How did this thread degenerate from the topic to a bunch of mean-spirited, jealous commentary on Craig Boddington?

Reminds me of an unhappy lady I know who relates any problem in her life to George Bush. Her eggs from the supermarket were broken because of that rotten George Bush...etc, etc.

He's addressed the free hunting trip issue here before. Look it up.

But what in the world does whether he gets comped hunts or not have to do with whether manufacturers will be forced to produce more accurate rifles, or whether more accurate rifles are required for hunting?

Steve

You are wise skl1.When it comes to rifle makers here in the states, it's always about the money. Make something cheap the once a year deer hunter will buy, anyone here own a M710? Companies like Dakota & Kimber thrive on the niche rifle market, guys,/shooters, willing to pay for quality they can't get from the big manuf. I've had good luck w/ the few pure factory rigs I have but admit I would rather use them as platforms for something a bit better. Besides, you can't get a 23"bbl. from a factory rifle.

quote:

Besides you can't get a 23"bbl from a factory rifle

You need to check out the Ruger M77RSM 23"bbl from the factory.
By the way what does RSM mean anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by skl1:
How did this thread degenerate from the topic to a bunch of mean-spirited, jealous commentary on Craig Boddington?

Fred and Steve, If I were 30 years younger I would love to be in Craig's position. If my job hinged on servicing advertiser's marketing groups I would do so even though I might not totally agree with what they do or propose. Having at least natioal exposure in what I would write I would hope to be mature enough to realize that when I screw up or present something to a knowledgeable group that is not correct that I would be leaving myself open for criticism. It goes with the territory. Criticism comes in many degrees depending on the emotional state and maturation level of the critic and that is what you see on this thread. I'm sure that I'd like to share a camp fire with Craig and that he really is a nice guy. I'm also sure that he understands the position he puts himself in trying to serve the puplic and yet keep his job by meeting his employers desires, needs and demands.

It would appear with this topic Craig my have gone a bit overboard as it applies to hunting other than varmints.IMHO roger

After doing a lot of load testing for varmint shooting... I think about any rifle can be made to shoot minute of angle or less... provided the bore and barrel are in good enough shape to work with...

I have made some silk purses out of some real sow ears of a rifle....

But one needs to think outside the box of standard thinking... too many folks want half minute of angle and MAX velocity....Sometimes concepts in harmony and sometimes NOT!

Getting off the velocity kick is a good start to better accuracy....Real poor shooters I have found seem to like the faster powders....They reduce recoil and also help with shot placement...

However folks have to get pass the two trendy " accepted" concepts of 1. Max velocity and #2. "The Full Case Leads to Better Accuracy " concept... Yeah that works with Slow powders... but a lot of fast powders have a low flame ignition capability so they are not necessarily case position sensitive.. ( another rumor that everyone seems to think is gospel)...

I have several rifles that do Stink with any factory ammo or any other normal " highly accurate" handload accepted loads....HOwever... it loves low velocity down loads with a batch of different fast powders on one end.. on the other it loves slow powders that are way overloaded to high pressure.... Go figure?

I prefer the lower velocity loads in the rifles if possible...

Seating bullets out to magazine length.. and if that is longer than the throat allows, then take the rifle to a gunsmith and have the chamber reamed out to accept the longer case length...That appears to help accuracy in a lot of rifles also...

One also has to try a whole bunch of different types of bullets also....

But I guess it all boils down to how much work you want to put into a rifle... or just pawn it off on someone else and play pot luck with its replacement....

Then the final question, do you need minute of angle or less in the intended application? Like to me, I don't think I need minute of angle on an Elk rifle...as I try to keep the shots ethically ( my personal standards only, you guys be your own guides) to 250 yds or so....

If I still can't get a rifle to shoot, then I will normally rebarrel it, instead of trade it...

I believe the level of QC on an aftermarket barrel is a lot higher than the factory, non custom shop, rifles...

Good luck tho...

cheers
seafire

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
If I were to really try to say what grouping means to me in a hunting rifle I would have to say how well it groups the first two shots ( #1 cold, #2 warm) because that's how my big game guns are used. Every great once in while I need a third shot but if the first two are close all my rifles throw the third in there too.

Paul B, not to nit-pick but how do you reconcile your post with your signature? 1.5 MOA ain't bad but it is a compromise relative to what's acheivable.

Naw, it ain't a nitpick. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with rifles, or shooting or much else, other than the compromising the NRA has been doing with out gun rights. From the national Firearms Act of 1934 to S. 397 on protecting gun makers from frivolous law suits, the have compromised in one way or another. I realize that the way i state it leads to questions like yours. It's deliberate. I get to state my position on the NRA's compromising out rights away. I'll stop here as I don't want to hijack the thread.
Paul B.

Well, I still like Boddington's writing, I think it's great. As for free trips, I get free trips all the time. Except I go to help people develop an information technology infrastructure for their enterprise, because that's my job. His is writing about hunting and shooting and new products and whatnot, I should think they give him the means to perform his job!

But this isn't about the Col. per se, it's about what should be considered accurate. A lot of times with firearms, it boils down to luck of the draw. Maybe your gun was built on a Friday at 4:30 in the afternoon? Maybe that's why it groups as well as my 12 gauge? But a lot of manufacturers are providing guarantees now. I mean, look at the $300 Weatherby Vanguard! They guarantee it'll shoot to 1.5" at 100 yards with factory ammo. They don't even test it extensively. They put 3 rounds of ammo in, shoot it, and if it hits 1.5" or less, it's ready for sale. I've heard of some of these guns shipping with targets showing .5" or .75" groups, and the new owners duplicate it like it's no ones business.

I have owned some pretty poor shooters in my time, my sporterised .303 couldn't keep it's shots within 2 inches at 100 yards and it was really frustrating, especially since half of my hunting is done from a treestand and ranges of 200-250 yards are prefectly normal. On the other hand, my Winchester M70 in 6.5x55 would keep it's shots within 2 inches at 200 yards if I was patient. And that was from a factory stock rifle using the third or fourth handload I worked up. My Dad's '06 seems to be magic, it'll keep anything from 150-180 grains between 1"-1.5" regularly at 100 yards, and it too is a factory stock rifle, not only that but it's a low-buck Model 70 "Ranger" to boot.

I'm willing to bet if we brought any of our guns in to the local, highly reputable gunsmith, we'd get some sub-MOA rifles back in return for reasonable cash. I know several members of a hunting club locally, most are European and buy only European rifles because they think American rifles aren't elegant or precise, but then they get completely, horribly discouraged when a secondhand Remington blows the scopes right off their eye-wateringly expensive rifles at the range after an afternon with the gunsmith.

The accuracy is enough to increase the confidence in any hunter. I love accurate rifles as they challenge me to shoot better, to continually try and improve on my previous bests. They also give me the confidence to take shots regardless of me being on the ground 25 yards away or in a stand 200 yards away. For me, it means more humane one shot kills and more meat for my freezer, and that's what really counts.