I frequently hear people say that such and such a rifle is quite accurate enough for hunting as if just about any level of accuracy is good enough because it'll be better than your accuracy in the field.

I never ever understood it.

Whatever happened to the need to neck shoot that massive buck that walked off and paused 100yards away to look over his back before stepping into cover.

I don't get it in the woods either. I quite often will have to shoot at a part of a deer through a very narrow window of vegetation at quite a distance.

OK our some of our deer are a lot smaller (coyote sized) but even so I will not stalk with a rifle that shoots over an inch.

I'll have to agree with you. I see guys at the range with 3 and 4 inch groups at 100 yards walk away from the bench fully satisfied that they are ready to hunt. What happens when the only shot that they have is at the throat patch of a deer staring at them from the brush? Either they need to pass on the shot (which would be the right decision if they are not confident) or they just shoot and hope for the best.

I would much rather be able to use a rifle that shoots where I point it. The bad groups get much worse as the range increases and most of these 3 - 4 inch group guys have no business shooting that far.

I think that the poor shooting rifles have mostly been accepted due to the lack of time spent my some shooters to develop proper shooting techniques and the acceptance of mediocre rifles with litte effort to increase the rifle's accuracy. (I am not talking about most of the shooters here, but some of the general public who shoots 4 or 5 rounds per year from the bench then goes hunting)

I agree, I don't feel confident with my rifle unless it will shoot less than an inch at 100 and I really prefer them to shoot less than an inch at 200.

I do have a lever gun that will only do around 2.5" at 100 but, I only use it when I'm in a thicket and shots are out to 50.

One thing you should consider is that most of those guys that shoot 3-4" at 100, it's not the guns fault. Those guys have no business taking anything but broad side shots out to 100 IMO.

Reloader

I'll vote with ya'll as well. I got into reloading after years of spending quite a few $ and a lot of time shooting various factory ammo to find one my rifles liked. Most of my friends thought I was nuts buying 6,7 or even 10 different types of factory ammo to find one my rifle liked. I was lucky that I had some mentors that told me that some rifles 'liked' one ammo over another, and figured it out for myself from there.

It's amazing the difference that can be there sometimes, I had some ammo that wouldn't shoot under 5", and some that would be sub-moa--I'm convinced that most folks just buy what they like, or is on sale, and figure it will shoot. I can gurantee that a fair amount of folks just boresight their rigs, buy some ammo they like, and go hunting---ARRRGGGGH

As cwilson said, group size disintegrates under field conditions, so why wouldn't you want the most accurate rig possible when you head afield. I won't hunt with anything that won't shoot sub-moa, and preferably sub 1/2 minute.

I tend to disagree. I guess it depends on the style of hunting, but I hunt in open spaces, with no predetermined rests. Never in a box blind or the like. As such, I do not take a questionable shots. A neck shot at any distance is marginal in a real hunting situation, without rock solid rests. I only shoot off sand bags once a year, to check the zero. 1 shot. Then it is practicing in all manner positions and physical conditions. Sitting, standing, prone, running before the shot, cold days, hot days, etc.

I have guided plenty of hunters who shoot subMOA at the range and can't hit a broadside elk at 150 yards, let alone a neck shot or threading it thru vegitation. If I hunted in a box and had a set rest maybe I would be more concerned, but I don't hunt that way.

I think the real problem is that there is WAY more to a rifle then what it can shoot strapped into a rest on a bench.

What a rifle can shot under those conditions and what a person can do while shooting offhand is a different game.

An 18 pound heavy barrel tack driver with a bipod and the works might shoot 1/2 MOA but not off hand she won't! That is assuming you can even get off a shot with such a slow and clunky gun.

Also MOA is not what is important, the first shot out of a cold barrel is. Obviously a bull barrel will give better groups but you don't shoot groups while hunting, all you get is one shot usually. Maybe you have a thin barreled gun that handles great, is easy to carry, and points perfectly. She will also put the first shot right on the money everytime. The only problem is that when you start to shoot groups the barrel heats up quick and effects accuracy. In the hunting world this is a non factor and a far better hunting rifle then a gun that will shoot 1/2" MOA 5 shot groups off a bench.

Well, having a rifle that is sub MOA is fine and sb half MOA is even better, but I prefer a rifle that is consistant.
Ionce had a rifle that was sub half MOA, a Mauser custom in a very beautifle hunk of walnut. Groups ran in the .375" to just under .50"consistantly. Well, after a fashion.
Let's say I sighted the rifle in 3" high at 100 yards. All well and good right? The next group might still be .375", but maybe 4" high and right. The necxt group might be 5" low and left. I never knew where the next beautifully tight group would end up. Damned rifle was driving me sane. I changes scopes. Not a fix. I rebbed and resealed that stock four or five times with no change. Finally, I glass beded that rifle into a Mc Millan synthetic stock and while goups were no longer in the .50" range, more like 1.0 to 1.25" depending on the bullet and load, it is consistant. Every year, just before hunting season, I take that rifle out and check the sighting. I put it together in the summer of 1980 and sighted it in 3" high at 100 yards. I can take it out tomorrow, rain or shine and from the bench, the group wil be 3" high at 100 yards. Now this is the kind of consistancy I want from a rifle. Of what good is a rifle that shoots .25" groups if each time you shoot, the group ends up out of where you sight it in?
Paul B.

quote:

Of what good is a rifle that shoots .25" groups if each time you shoot, the group ends up out of where you sight it in?

I believe that the problem is the number of shots you consider "a group." A one shot "group" would be very small. A two shot group would be small some of the time even in an inaccurate rifle (i.e., inconsistent). To judge what a rifle's accuracy is, groups should probably consist of 5 or 10 shots to be meaningful.

By my math, a group of .375 in 4 inches high and to the right followed by another group 5 inches low and to the left would be a 9 inch group.

Maybe I need to clarify my position a little. I do not generally take neck shots on deer unless it is the only shot available and the deer is motionless AND I have a solid rest, such as a shooting rail or the side of a tree. Obviously, a MOA rifle is not much better than a 3-4 MOA rifle if one is shooting offhand or from an unstable shooting position. I almost always find a way to get into a solid shooting position. If hunting in open spaces, where the shots tend to be further (200 -300 yards), it is even more critical to assume a solid shooting position and /or find a rest.

I do agree with MC who states that shooting from field postions is critical and is good practice. I think, however, that shooting from a bench is also important to build confidence in the rifle and load.

As GoeffM24 stated, groups widen as the barrel heat up. I usually have several guns at the bench and alternate shots, allowing the barrels to cool somewhat between shots. It is, after all, the first shot from a cold barrel that is the most important. I believe that some guys get too hung up on accuracy, but having rifle/load combo be as accurate as it can be is not a bad thing. Some people do not pay enough attention to rifle accuracy. I have seen guys shoot at a paper plate from 50 yards and hit it 4 out 5 times and think it is good enough and that they are ready to go hunting. (I know that this has more to do with poor marksmanship than it does with the rifle's accuracy potential)

I don't think I would scrap a 2 MOA rifle if I liked the gun and liked to carry it and felt my shots would be less than 250 yards or so, but I feel much more confident with a rifle that I know will shoot where I aim it. It eliminates (or at least reduces) one of the variable of field shooting. The others (such as range estimation, shooting from field positions, shooting when out-of-breath,,..etc) are still there.

An elk at 100 yards with a 3 MOA rifle is not a problem, all else being equal, but a 300 yard antelope could be a complete miss or worse.

I compare having an accurate rifle to having a Hemi engine in my truck. I do not often need it, but it is sure nice to have when I do.

I won't keep a rifle that will not shoot 1 1/2 inches at 100 yards. Most of my rifles with their prefered load on days when I am shooting at my best will shoot under one inch.

I don't care what or where I am hunting, good enough is not a term I care to use. I want things as close to perfect as I can get. I owe it to the game I hunt and to myself.

I think Paul B hit the nail on the head with the right hammer....I also do not like rifles that cannot shoot under 1" consistently and I will not give up until I find the common denominators...if ya know what I mean. Practice from the bench, confidence in my rifle and shooting from different positions brings it all together. My hunting partner is a good shot, but does not spend the time at the range or reloading to improve his rifles....he has the equipment, just does not do it. Odd tho, he usually kills more dear than I do....maybe I need to change my diet...

quote:

Originally posted by Paul B:
Well, having a rifle that is sub MOA is fine and sb half MOA is even better, but I prefer a rifle that is consistant.
Paul B.

Paul B, this is an important point. My rifles need to do both!
I think one of the things that is overlooked by a lot of folks is that in their thought that 2 or 4 or whatever MOA is acceptable because the intended target doesn't require more than that level of accuracy, miss the point that if the best you can hold is 2 moa, and you have a 2 moa rifle, then what you're hunting with is 4 moa.

All of this verbage is fine and good but it wasn't too long ago that a rifle that would consistantly keep its shots inside of 2" at 100 yards was deemed a tack driving hunting rifle.

Also, you folks bragging about your .5 sporting rifles, I assume you're talking about an occassional group with your rifle bagged down on a solid bench on a dead calm day. And to, are you talking about .5 cyberspace inches where an inch is whatever you want it to be? What is your group size offhand?? Kneeling? Sitting? Most of the .5 rifles I've heard bragged about become something else when everyone sobers up and the cold light of day is shining on the target.
And to the fellow that sez he has to shoot at deer thru narrow openings in the brush at long distances: The secret to that is get closer. And if you can't get closer, you need to spend more time on your stalking skills.
Okay, let the flames begin. And before you post your alledged targets, be sure and wipe the powder burns off the paper.

stillbeeman, I think that is an interesting thought, and I sure agree that modern rifles are far more accurate than their predecessors, but I wonder this.....I have a .270, Remington 721 BDL that I inherited from my Grandad, through my Dad. It has an OLD weaver 4-6x variable scope--kind of interesting, seperate knob w/cap for the power adjustment. It will shoot sub 1 minute with Winchester 130 power point factory ammo. Not real good optics, and would damn sure drill. Maybe it is an exception of a 60+ year old rifle, but it sure shoots.....

my best friend has a 50+ year old Winchester .270 that is much the same, but he has put modern optics on it--it is still his go to rifle. It will do sub moa all day with Winchester Supreme NBT factory ammo. Both of these rifles are wood stocked, and have not been bedded or floated or what not--just bone stock.

I am not as knowledgeable a rifleman as I intend to be--yet--, but I will hope that some of our experienced members chime in about how modern rigs compare against the 'older' stuff, I really don't have a good sample size for comparison.......

All of my rifles have their accuracy benchmark established off of sandbag/front rifle rest and a rear bag. This is how I determine what a rifle is capable of...I guess you could be more precise with that assesment with some type of vise or something where the rifle couldn't be affected by shooter error...but whatever. I shoot all my rifles from a lot of different field positions, and in several of them, I can get really close to, or match what I can do off of the 'bench' setup. Offhand is certainly a different animal, at 100 yards, I can hold a 1/2 minute capable rifle to about 2 inches on a good day maybe 1 1/2 to 2, I don't know if that's worth a darn or not, but I always endeavor to NOT shoot offhand at game. I will sit, get prone--off a pack or bi-pods often, prop against a tree, shoot off of crossed sticks or something. From those positions I can get awful good results in comparison to my 'bench' setup.

I'll keep grinding to be a better rifleman, and stay a good marksman too!

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
All of this verbage is fine and good but it wasn't too long ago that a rifle that would consistantly keep its shots inside of 2" at 100 yards was deemed a tack driving hunting rifle.

Also, you folks bragging about your .5 sporting rifles, I assume you're talking about an occassional group with your rifle bagged down on a solid bench on a dead calm day. And to, are you talking about .5 cyberspace inches where an inch is whatever you want it to be? What is your group size offhand?? Kneeling? Sitting? Most of the .5 rifles I've heard bragged about become something else when everyone sobers up and the cold light of day is shining on the target.
And to the fellow that sez he has to shoot at deer thru narrow openings in the brush at long distances: The secret to that is get closer. And if you can't get closer, you need to spend more time on your stalking skills.
Okay, let the flames begin. And before you post your alledged targets, be sure and wipe the powder burns off the paper.

LMAO!!! If a shooter can consistently shoot half inch groups with a rifle off sand bags on a bench, the RIFLE is still a "half inch gun" whether it is being shot from a bench or offhand. The SHOOTER is the variable in the puzzle and not the gun. Most guns are much more accurate than the guy holding it (at least it is the case with the ones that live in my safe).

quote:

Most guns are much more accurate than the guy holding it

So very true....


Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
And to the fellow that sez he has to shoot at deer thru narrow openings in the brush at long distances: The secret to that is get closer. And if you can't get closer, you need to spend more time on your stalking skills.

That would be me.

Sure get closer if the deer is heading in a predictable direction and you can see where it's going while you stalk in. In reality woodland stalking ain't like that especialy when you're stalking a herd species.

An accurate rifle that one is confident in will allow the shot to be taken. We're not talking huge distances but it should be possible to aim at an eye at 75yards or a neck at 100yards or a piece of chest at 150yards IMHO.

I lurk on a couple of message boards that are specifically for long range shooters, and it is cool to hear about guys shooting game at 500 yards+. That is not MY idea of "hunting". I have been deer hunting 25 years and killed well over 100 deer, and my furthest kill is 300 yards (he dropped in his tracks). I killed 12 deer in the last 2 years alone, and all were killed under 75 yards. I can shoot MOA or less out to 200 yards, but my "comfort zone" on any game is 100 yards+/-. IN MY OPINION, there are too many variables in taking long shots at game. If you can do it, I tip my hat to you, but it is just not my thing.

I just got my new rifle that I plan to hunt Antelope to Moose with. I think the accuracy will do, but their is allways room for improvement. Does any one have sugestions on how I can tighten up the groups.
Rifle and target Pics

DR B

Personnally i like rifles that can shoot MOA but that really doesnt matter in the field or woods where i hunt. Most shots are under 100yds and its the hunter not the rifle. 2 inch groups would be fine, its just that i feel with todays modern manufacturing processes if a rifle does shoot 2in then there is probably something wrong with the rifle.

The only guy i know who took a shot at the throat patch hit the poor buck(140 to 150 class 5X5) in the jaw. This was a realatively easy shot, so i dont think it would have mattered if the rifle shot in the 2's he still would have missed, he got rattled.

DrB

That thing is shooting like crap sell it to me for next to nothin, i'll be doin you a favor

My minute-of-buffalo rifle.

I am sitting in the workshop right now making more of these Walterhog bullets.

Saeed, very nice. I am fascinated by the bullets. Is that cartridge similar to a 375 Dakota? It appears longer, I'm guessing it's just a 404 Jeffery necked down?

Regards--Don

Don,

You are right, it is just the 404 straightened out and necked down to 375.

We also necked it down to 338, 30 and 270.

quote:

You are right, it is just the 404 straightened out and necked down to 375.

We also necked it down to 338, 30 and 270.

Saeed How do your wildcats compare to the Remington UltraMag line.
DR B

Dang Saeed, I bet that is smokin' in .300 and .270! Being the .270 nut I am , I think I'd be prone to try one of those beasts!

Thanks--Don

a rifle with a high level of accuracy instill a level of confidence that ranks very high on my list.

I don't see why a pack/bipod for the fields, crossed sticks and a shooting rail on a stand shouldn't allow people to shoot very accurately in the field.

It would be interesting to see a hunter shoot two groups.
1. from a bench rest to see what the rifle was capable of. Thats where the sub MOA groups come from.
2. off hand.

I would bet that a fellow who could shoot sub MOA groups at the bench would shoot a much bigger group from offhand. And a fellow who shot a 3 inch group at the bench may be shooting groups offhand that are not too different from the other fellow.

I have been hunting with a Sav. 99 in .300 sav. lately. It is not a "tack driver" but I can get off a resonably accurate first, second and third shot if needed with it. Everything I have shot with it so far has been at less than 100 yrds (actually about 50 yard. average)

If I am going to the mountains or the prairie, I will take my Model 70 Win. in .264 win mag, that is a tack driver and has longer range capability.

Robin in Rocky

I like accurate rifles I have rifles that shoot very very well. I have rifles that shoot under 1.5 inch that can kill anything I shoot at resonble distances say out to 300 yards neck, head or chest shots. Given a proper rest.

Then I have rifles that a resonable distance is well past 300 yards out to as far as one wants to shoot.

I have done most of my deer hunting the past 12 years ago with a 99 savage in 300 sav with a 165 gr rem corlock at 2400fps. She is about a 2 inch rifle some days better others at 2 inchs. 99 percent of the deer killed with it are under a 100 yards I have fire one shot at 300 yard deer it was a very dead deer. I have shot a couple around 200 yards very dead deer.

I shoot thousands a rounds a year out to 600 yards I have my own range. I have been hunting for over 40 years and have killed thousands of critters from p dogs to elk and bears.

Most of the time a 2 inch rifle will take all the game one wants too not inclueing varmints then .5 to .375 rifle helps a lot.

But then the chest of a deer or elk is a lot bigger then any pdog. Does one need a sub moa rifle to hunt with no are they nice yes. Would I pass a hunt up because I don't have one no. would I pass up shots because I don't have one yes.
Would I feeling realy hanicaped with one most likly not unless I was hunting really open ground but then I most likely would change my hunting tactics to get closer.

What Min of deer means to me is that I can place a killing bullet into the critter Iam shooting at with the rifle I have in my hands at the time I need to shoot the critter.

If I can do that when needed the rifle was or is plenty of accurate to get the job done.