I've been following several threads the past few days regarding hunting bullets and it prompted me to pose this question. What do you consider adequate hunting accuracy?
It seems many proponents of the Ballistic Tip, SST, MatchKing and other similar designs like them for their great accuracy, while X bullet lovers like their choice because of terminal performance. Sometimes they make comments about accuracy being "good enough" for hunting purposes or terminal performance being adequate to kill their intended quarry. Okay, so what is good enough?
Good enough for 250+yd shots at deer/sheep/antelope type game? Good enough for 125yds or less at dangerous game?

It's all a matter of what you're hunting for and where you're doing it.

I would define "adequate hunting accuracy" as the accuracy that will allow me to place my shot in a vital area at the range in which I am willing or able to shoot.

Hunting whitetails in the northeast woods, that includes bullets that give a group the size of the palm of my hand at 100 yards from a .44 mag.

Hunting pronghorn on the Wyoming plains, it means bullets from a 7mm Rem that provide the same size groups at distances approaching a quarter-mile--even though I would hope and expect a closer shot.

Field conditions that give a hunter a chance to wring the last fraction of an inch of accuracy out of a bullet are very rare, at best, so match-grade accuracy is generally not required. At the same time, a more accurate bullet is one less thing a hunter has to worry about, when he's trying to steady wobbling crosshairs at a target already near the outside limits of his shooting abilities.

When I get down to the critical few seconds--the slack is out of the trigger and the pin is about to fall--I want to know that the bullet is going where my hand and my eye are sending it, and that the kill will be clean. If I know that that will be the case, the bullet has "acceptable hunting accuracy", even if it won't win at a benchrest shoot.

I believe I did qualify my basic question with various scenarios, nevertheless we will narrow it down a bit further.
Let's say a hunter has an expensive, guided elk hunt booked with an outfitter. The trophy expectations are high but the shots can vary from 100yds to 350+ yards. Let's say our hunter is using his favorite elk rifle, caliber is unimportant. If the rifle shoots 3" groups at 100yds with a Barnes X, is this adequate? Would he be better served by shooting a Ballistic Tip that groups 1" in his rifle?

I like my rifles to shoot 1 MOA or better. If they do that (and I do it as well) then I feel I would be prepared to hunt under just about any circumstances. Of course others will say that's not good enough, and some will say a 3 MOA rifle is OK. I bet you get lots of opinions on this one!

Good hunting.

As stated the range and conditions are going to demand the "Adequate Need" of accuracy. But I would suppose most hunting can be accomplished with rifles in the 2.5MOA down to the 1.25MOA range. I shoot for MOA at 100 with mine and am satisfied. Don't have the money or time to get much tighter. Though my current .270 with give me .75 with factory Hornady 140gr btsp, Light Mags. So I'll take all I can get .

John,
To answer your question specifically I would rather trust my elk hunt to a Barnes X that grouped 3 MOA than to a Ballistic Tip that would give 1 MOA.

Jeff

Taking into account all of the variables that come into play, I don't think that 3 moa is acceptable. On your best day that is roughly nine and a half inches of "where the hell is it going to go" at 350, not taking into account wind drift, breathing, rest, etc. I would shoot the more accurate bullet, and confidently place that bullet rather than shoot "at an animal". I have a rifle (an old M-81 woodsmaster)that fits that 3 moa catagory, no shots over 100 yards for me.

John L. Plaster wrote once in his book on military sniping that 88% of the snipers he knew couldn't use any more than .75 MOA for sniping.
Jeff Cooper has written that 2 MOA, even 2.5 MOA is adequate for big game. He writes about the difference being only equal to 1/4 the dispersion, etc.
I must admit I love getting those little sub MOA, and even sub .5 MOA groups from my big game rifles. BTW, my big game bullet of choice is the Barnes X. Clean the barrel as directed and look long enough and you will find what I have.
I have hunted with 2 - 2.5 MOA ammo. I wanted the bullet (the Federal Throphy Bonded factory ammo) and knew I'd do fine. I did.
Varmits, of course, can easily be a different story. Those dang PD's and ground squirrels give one very little to shoot at. Give me all that can be had for that. I wouldn't even think about it with anything over one MOA. E

John S,
You posed the senario of a rifle shooting 3" groups at 100yds. If that is the best acuuracy your rifle can muster than that can be considered adequate hunting accuracy as long as you know where the bullets will land every time. The groups from that rifle will be around 9" at 300yds. With the vital area of an elk being around 18", a hold in the middle would make a clean kill, in theory. If that hunt is to also include deer, then the 3" groups are not going to be sufficient to ensure a clean shot to the vitals at extended ranges. A rifle that would group around 1.5"-2" @ 100yds. would be a better choice. Many big game hunters have visions of their rifles shooting half inch groups, me included and on good days they will break the sub MOA barrier. Is this a neccessity? No way, at the ranges most big game is shot (250yds. and under) any rifle that will consistantly keep the groups around 2" would be perfectly adequate. Smaller groups are great to see and can really help with confidence in making the shot.
As for dangerous game I can only give my opinion. I'm assuming you are talking about grizzlies or African game at arms length. I would want power over accuracy and as long as the rifle will keep the most powerfull and safe loads inside a 4"-5" circle should do the trick. I'm sure there are some that may not agree with my requirment but like I said it is my opinion based on what I would feel comfortable using in that sitiuaton.
Elk Country

[ 01-11-2003, 02:41: Message edited by: Elk Country ]

Good reponses thus far, keep 'em coming! My example of the elk hunter and his 3" rifle was hypothetical, but in reality it would likely do the job. As mentioned, if deer or other much smaller game were on the card I would insist on better grouping!
For my own hunting, I like to use the bullet that will give me the best groups while at the same time deliver the terminal performance I demand, which is most likely about what everyone else wants too! In reality, this doesn't occur very often simply because the "tough" bullets are what I prefer to use and those bullets aren't generally the most accurate in my rifles. So, I have to compromise a bit, and that's what I am trying to get at with this thread. How much compromise are we hunters willing to deal with when hunting non-dangerous game?

In reality a 3" group at 100 yards means that any single shot should hit within 1.5" of the aim-point....certainly OK for any big-game animal.

At 200 yards if we assume we now shoot 6" groups we expect any shot to hit with 3" of the aim-point. If we assume chest shots then we still OK for almost everything but getting a little "iffy" on animals the size of antelope.

At 300 yards, with 9" groups, each shot should be within 4.5" of aim-point....now anything smaller than elk/moose/etc will be "iffy" in my opinion.

And I would make the choice as being between a Barnes-X and a Ballistic-Tip as Nosler Partitions
would be a good compromise.

Just because a rifle shoots 3" groups at 100 yards does not mean it will group 9" at 300. It may be more or less, sometimes significantly. As an example, I once owned a 280 remington that would group 3/4" at one hundred and 1.5" at 300.

chuck

I think the concept of "benchrest accuracy" is vastly overrated in terms of big game rifles. I think some guys have pocket gopher hunting confused with deer and elk hunting, but back to the main point........

If I have a rifle that produces consistent 1 MOA groups at 100 yds. with the same POI every time, then I'm happy. I've never been in a hunting situation anywhere that could not be handled by a rifle that produced MOA accuracy.

To be honest, I'd rather hunt with a rifle that produced 1 MOA with dependable premium bullets than 1/2 MOA groups with junk bullets.

AD

I'm less concerned with the size of my groups. especially as small a sample as a 3 shot or 5 shot group. I consider the shape and consistency of the groups far more important. If I can get a rifle to put 10 shots, in different conditions, hot barrel, cold barrel, clean barrel, fouled barrel etc...into less than 2 MOA. I'm satisfied and have complete confidence in the equipment to get the job done. On my farm I will leave a target out for a few days and shoot a string of 3 or 5 shots. Then later, same target, with a warm barrel. Let it cool and take a few shots over the course of a day, same target. Clean it and take some more shots later, again, same target. If I can get it to shoot 10 shots like that under 2 MOA it will be a fine game rifle.

I think Allen hit the nail on the head. Who cares if your Boatail Wonder at 3400fps shoots .34" at 100yds if it is so frangible that it is not effective on game.

I'm pretty happy if my 300 WM shoots around an inch with premium bullets. I don't shoot at more than a real 300yds if I can help it anyway so this is fine. With bigger stuff for shorter ranges like a 375 H&H 1.5" is more than adequate.

Terminal preformance is more important than one hole groups.

I'm more concerned with REPEATABLE accuracy than sub MOA accuracy. I would rather have a 1 1/2" at 100 yds shooter that consistently places its shots at zero, than a 1/2" shooter thats all over the place from week to week.

Used to have one of those 1 1/2" at 100 yds, BUT consistent shooters and I did some of my best big game shots with that rifle, as I knew from experience exactly where my shots would go.

Since a lot of my shooting out here can be 250-350 yds I'm more concerned with what I can get at 200 and 300 yds, versus small groups at 100 yds. My Wby ULW in .280 will do 4" at 300 yds and for a lt wt rifle thats just fine for me. Plus; I can live with giving up a bit of accuracy in order to shoot a bullet that will hold together or penetrate better if thats whats needed.

FN in MT

I like for my big game rifles to shoot 1 MOA or less consistently. I'll accept slightly larger groups, but accuracy gives me greater confidence. On a varmint rifle, I want 1/2 MOA.

[ 01-11-2003, 03:38: Message edited by: Calif Hunter ]

If you read the hunting mags they'll tell you acceptable is as bad as 1.5-2" at 100 yds from a rest. I have to disagree with that. In particular in your case I would not take a gun that shot 3" from a rest, that gun needs work or really doesn't like the x bullets. If you are shooting 3" from a rest I'm going to guess that when you add our own inaccuracy, shooting from other positions, you are talking about 4" groups at 100 yards. At least for me there is a big difference in shooting from bags and shooting from position.

I shot my first elk this year with a short barreled Dumoulin carbine in 338 Win Mag useing the Remington factory 250 gr. load. I used it because it would shoot them into 1 1/4" sitting with a sling. I would imagine a good shot shooting from a sand bag rest could get it well within 1". In your case I would probably not use a ballistic tip in calibers under 338. I would find another load though before useing the 3" load. For a once in a lifetme hunt you can afford to try several boxes of Partitions, Trophy Bonded etc. even a Hornady Interlok would be better.

In my short range (100 yards or less) rifles, I accept 3MOA and under.
In rifles I will use for still hunting and expect to use at 200 yards or less I want at most 2MOA.
My 300 yards and over rifles are all capable of 1 MOA or smaller groups.

One can't have a rifle that is too accurate,though he can certainly find one that isn't accurate enough.

It is impossible to use a bullet that behaves too perfectly,though it is easy to use one that is lacking.

In my opinion,happiness can only be realized,through the melding of those attributes,coupled with durability,repeatability and the end result of confidence.

In this day and age,it is possible to have your cake and eat it too,should one desire that option. That is the avenue that most excites me..................

I demand that I can hit 3/4 of the vital area in a hunting position. For example, if the vitals measure approximately a 8" circle, then I will take a shot upto the range that my gun, myself, and the bullet will shoot a 6" group. That may be 500 yards, or it may be less than 100.
I very seldom have more than a one shot kill anymore, and I believe a side benefit of this rule is that I have learned how to shoot very accuratly in a hunting position, and not just off the bench.

First, my .270 will group Barnes X 130 gr in 1 moa, and so will my 300 Wby with the 165 gr Barnes X. My old Rem 700 ADL 7MM RM will shoot about anything in 1 MOA. I have not found the Barnes X any less accurate in an individual rifle than any other big game bullet. I also think that it is by far the best bullet for big game ever made, even including the original Nosler partition. This is not based upon extensive use by me, but by a friend who in Africa has taken around 4000 head of big game over many years. He has used all the premium and other bullets, and that is his conclusion.

As to hunting accuracy, I require my rifles to group 1.5 moa with full power hunting loads with hunting bullets. I would rather have a 7MM Mag that would group 1.5 MOA and get 3100 FPS with 160 gr bullets than to have it group 1 MOA and get 2900 fps with the same bullet. As long as it meets my minimum accuracy requirement I prefer more velocity rather than accuracy.

Years ago I found that I could group my shots in 2 MOA from the sitting position in the field. I had a SPG 03 which would only group 2" at best. I took it and a M70 .243 that would group 1" to the range and shot sitting out to 500 yards. There was no difference in group sizes.

However, I still require 1.5" accuracy. I feel better about it. I think the requirement for sub minute groups is a mental thing, and I don't knock that, than a practical requirement for big game hunting.

When you are tired and excited and do not have the opportunity to get into your best position, a 2 MOA rifle is more accurate than you are.

Shoot from sitting, kneeling, and standing positions, and see how well you can shoot. If you are a 3 MOA shooter then you do not need a sub MOA rifle and load. Even with a field rest is not equal to the bench rest on your range.

Handy MOA is all I can use, and hope for on my good days with a true hunting scope, and if the rifle will do this, I can feel confident, just from the accuaracy standpoint. If it wont do this with a Nosler Part. or a Swift Aframe or the Failsafe, somethings going to change, or that rifle is not going far from home.

Many Thanks
HBH

One can demand a specific level of performance, put in countless hours of tuning the weapon and loads, or one can learn a weapon and work within its limitations. I think most of us do both to a certian degree.

For me there is not really a "specific" level that I expect from ALL of my rifles, I demand more from some than others. For instance I consider my 257AI my long range deer rifle and my 35 Remington is strictly a brush gun. If the 257 didnt shoot any better than the 35 that would obviously need to be addressed one way or another.

My 06 class guns Id like to get slightly under an inch. Any better than that is a great confidence builder.

[ 01-11-2003, 08:08: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ]

With a 4" group (three bullets) at 100 yards, I still can kill a moose at 200 yards. Most Alaska moose are killed from very close to about 150 yards (average). But I would not use the same rifle to shoot squirrels at 200 yards.

[ 01-11-2003, 07:57: Message edited by: Ray, Alaska ]

What do you consider adequate hunting accuracy?

If I cant make it group 1" or less @100yds then it goes away!

It doesnt matter what your rifle groups off the bench. What matters is how you hit with your rifle from field positions. Bench group sizes dont mean jack, real group sizes from a realistic shooting position is what matters.

I would guess the majority of hunters cant shoot 3MOA from field positions regardless of how accurate thier rifles are.

I'm with Old Fart.

Whatever you shoot should have a comfortable margin of error in regards to the size of the vital area.

That is with your field-position shooting error INCLUDED.

I hunt with four other guys and only myself and my brother practice offhand and sitting.

Acceptable hunting accuracy is not about group size so much as shooting ability and range.

There are a LOT of guys with sub-MOA rifles that have acceptable hunting accuracy to only 50 yards.

[ 01-11-2003, 08:46: Message edited by: steve y ]

I'd submit that there are more than a couple gents who are serious enough about their rifles,that they have them purposely constructed to yield exacting accuracy potential. They also practice with said implement,in order to reliably extract as much of that mechanical accuracy potential,as possible,from the field.

What you won't find,is a rifle that is only 10MOA capable off of the bench,shading that figure from the field.

There of course is no substitute for practice and an accurate rifle compliments that effort................

Put a target with a bullseye the size of the kill zone of the animal you intend to hunt, out at the distance you are willing to limit yourself to, and shoot from field positions, if you can keep all of your shots in that zone at that range, you have acceptable accuracy. I know guys who can shoot real small groups from the bench, but have trouble hitting water from a boat in the field.

[ 01-11-2003, 09:26: Message edited by: AKBman ]

I agree it is important to have a rifle that is mechanicly accurate, because you cannot be more accurate than the rifle will let you. The point is it is the combined precision of the rifle and the shooter ability from field positions that is important for hunting accuracy.

Granted, i dont have the money to build a super accurate custom rifle, and someday i'm sure i will, but i think most hunters including myself are better off spending their time shooting their rifles in practice field positions than spending all the time and money trying to get that last 1/4 MOA accuracy from the rifle. I think most hunters would achieve better accuracy in hunting situations this way.

Thats a good question. I want under 1" at 100 yards. I don't own a rifle that it only used for hunting. I like target shooting so I hope for better than 1MOA.

Determing field accuracy is for me a rather lengthy process first I develope what appears to be the load I'm looking for.Then I shoot one shot from a cold clean barrel every week for a year through the full 100+ degree temp swing. This from a bench,but field accuracy is determined by me 1 shot off hand @ 100,then drop to sitting fire one shot. I do this in 10 seconds or less and do it 5 times and the result is a my field radius 10 shot group.I know pretty close what me and my rifle can do any place any time after a year with said rifle and if it performs absolutely relieably and consistant-Rawhider

P.s. As you guessed I don't have many rifles and use very few,but the one that goes with me out door I know.

Something no one has mentioned directly is confidence in your zero -- I like to see groups tight enough that I can easily tell that POI is consistent.

For me that is somewhere in the 1-1.25" range for 3 shots, though a .38" group with the .375 inspires some extra confidence! I have a new rifle on the way and if I can get in that 1-1.25 MOA range with a bullet I like, I will be happy.

John

I agree that a consistent POI is a vital aspect of practical accuracy. If you have a rifle that produces, let's say, 1/2" groups at 100 yds. but shifts POI by 2" every time a cloud appears on the horizon, in reality you have a 2.5" gun. I've had a few whimsical rifles that were that extreme (some even with custom fiberglass stocks) and there's nothing more frustrating to deal with with.

AD

Bruce-
What was mentioned about rifles grouping better at long range than their 100yd groups would indicate is quite common. Long range target shooters refer to this as the bullet "going to sleep" or something to that effect. What is meant is that they have not yet fully stabilized at 100yds. In fact, sometime ago i read an article by Ross Seyfried about a long range 22cal. He was using some really heavy bullets and a very fast twist rate. He never bothered to shoot 100yd groups, he mentioned the stabilization part and started off at 200yds.

We all know that 3 MOA does not have to be tolerated for a long range rifle. So if it were a small caliber that required a particular bullet to perform I would just move on to another rifle.

I have a half dozen "elk" rifles in the safe all sighted in. They are all good for 1.5 MOA or better.

I would not bother with X bullets. Is this why this discussion does not trouble me?

Besides you don't need premium bullets! Just load the 200 gr .30 cal Speer spitzer.

I'm confident my guns can all shoot 1 MOA, or better, unfortunately when I pick them up and shoot from various shooting positions, the results head south.

From a rest, my guns continue to shoot 1 MOA, and I'm confident past 300 yards, but would draw the line short of 400 yards probably except maybe for varmints.

I'm 3 MOA sitting and standing and would not pull the trigger past 150 yards from those positions without support. (Frankly I was better off-hand than I thought I'd be.)

I was surprised to find that kneeling, I was about 6 MOA. It hurts, I'm distracted, I'm not doing it right, I'm too old, something's wrong. For that reason I don't practice kneeling shots for hunting.

I don't practice prone shots either. In my experience the prone position is seldom the best choice.

The weak link is not the gun, the bullet, the scope, it's me. I know my limits and stay within them. That's good enough for me.

i use sierra game kings. 1/2 the cost of premium bullets, but the accuracy of ballistic tips. my .308 will consistantly shoot .6" or less 5 shot groups at 100yds. target accuracy with a bullet that will take big game. btw, my rifle is a lowly savage 10fp, with no bells and whistles