This oughta get some flames going and steam rising...

Personally, I'd say for the great majority of shooters, 1' grouping ability is "not very important".

For the average shooters, who CANNOT consistently hold 2-1/2" groups at 50 yards offhand, and definetly not 5" groups offhand at 100 yards, just how important are rifles capable of 1" groups?
\
Note...I am saying cannot consistently hold those 2-1/2" & 5" groups, not just average groups of those sizes...but it doesn't matter. The great bulk of rifle shooters cannot stand on their hind legs and average groups that size either. Yet they whang away at 220 yards or wherever else they see game, and think that because their rifle may be capable of 1" groups at 100 yards from a bench rest they are justified in taking those shots.

The reason I ask this question is because of all the threads I see where some particular brand of rifle or another is called a POS because it won't shoot under 2-1'2" groups at 100 yards "out of the box".

Well, just how tight will it have to shoot to make up for a shooter who can't hold 8" or `10", or even 12" groups at 100 yards when shooting standing?

I'm convineced most shooters would do a lot better by ignoring the ultimate accuracy capabilities of their rifle, and learning to shoot. And they should be banned (by their own self discipline) from shooting from a bench once their rifle(s) sighted in...at least until they really CAN shoot.

True grouping ability takes "rounds down range", shooting from the actual positions their sport requires.

In real hunting (not sitting in a tree or a raised hut), those positions are mainly offhand (standing) and sitting...seldom prone, almost never from a rest as solid as a bench. In hi-power it means prone, sitting, & standing. In "free-rifle", it means prone, sitting, kneeling, and standing. In silhouette, it means standing. Etc., etc.

Only in short or long range "benchrest" competition, or firing from an artificial stand, does it usually mean shooting while sitting at a solid rest, for most people.

So, why all this fretting over 1" grouping or less?

What say YOu all?

I guess the theory goes something like this.....

If the rifle is capable of MOA accuracy the shooter has the opportunity to develope his skills up to the level of the rifle‘s capability. Conversely, no matter how developed the shooters skills an inaccurate rifle is still going to be inaccurate.

It could also be argued that those groups you are shooting might be much larger were it not for the accuracy of your rifle.

In practical terms you are probably correct that most people cannot shoot anywhere near the capability of the average rifle under field conditions.

I say you're right from a pratical standpoint BUT... when someone puts down hard-earned money for a factory rifle that by most standards looks the same as its competition, then accuracy relative to other products is a measure of quality the buyer can understand.

It may not be be useful in the field but it is a measurable standard of quality.

Those 2&1/2" rifles open those 8-10" groups up to 12-14" groups.

quote:

Originally posted by Walker:
Those 2&1/2" rifles open those 8-10" groups up to 12-14" groups.

So what? Even rifles that would group 0.0" would still give groups too big in their hands to justify shooting at a living creature unless the shooter was starving or about to be eaten alive..

And Rick, I used to pretty much think as you say...but sometimes these days I have to sit back and say...well, if his rifle will shoot 2-1/2" groups, why can't he learn to shoot 2-1/2 groups with it? If he is still shooting 8"-10"-12" groups, why? Sounds to me like he needs more rounds down range before he worries about his RIFLE'S accuracy. The major inaccuracy factor is in the mirror, No?....

I've noticed that it is difficult to have a deer hold still for such groups. Perhaps it would be better to shoot a box of shells, one each day? At the same target? With a field rest. Benchresters may not understand my thought on that though.

OTOH, if a rifle won't shoot to some practical level of accuracy(fill in your own blank) it is necessarily range limited. Makes no sense to have a 300 yard shooter and a 75 yard rifle.

Fellas have you ever heard of a Moron like this ? reloaded 30-06 ammo weighed every grain weighed every bullet , blackened the bullet to set to rifling for his chamber , he goes hunting shot once and downed a buck came back to me and said he wanted his money back for the remainder of the ammo , Why he shot at a deer running up hill and he claimed that the bullet did not hit where he was aiming !

quote:

Originally posted by DigitalDan:
I've noticed that it is difficult to have a deer hold still for such groups. Perhaps it would be better to shoot a box of shells, one each day? At the same target? With a field rest. Benchresters may not understand my thought on that though.

OTOH, if a rifle won't shoot to some practical level of accuracy(fill in your own blank) it is necessarily range limited. Makes no sense to have a 300 yard shooter and a 75 yard rifle.

Hi, Dan - I certainly agree with your whole post. There comes a stage of skill development where a more accurate rifle becomes useful.

It's just that I rightfully or wrongfully get the impression that most of the complaints I see are from people who have read about the "holy grail" of 1" hunting rifle groups as being the norm in Joe Gunwriter's hands, and think they have been "screwed" if trheir rifle won't do that. Hell, most of THEIR rifles wouldn't do it in their hands even if the rifles were so accurate that firing one at a piece of paper would MEND any holes already in the target!

lots of talk about small group.......thats because most of shots fired are from a Bench and just a few in the field. With it being harder to find shooting ranges for the public that allow off hand shooting the Bench has become the measure, not the shooter. Just depends if your looking at it from a rifle shooters perspective or hunters presective I guess.

Now I won't say I don't want my guns to shoot, cause I do. But as I've said on this fourm before........after a fellow runs his middle age butt up a hill and is blowing like a bull a sub moa rifle doenst carry a lot of water , I havent found a bench in the field yet....lol, but wish I had of a time or two

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

For the average shooters, who CANNOT consistently hold 2-1/2" groups at 50 yards offhand, and definetly not 5" groups offhand at 100 yards, just how important are rifles capable of 1" groups?

personally I like your thinking! It may not be all inclusive but it is a good start and I see there have been some suggested rethinking already. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Walker:
Those 2&1/2" rifles open those 8-10" groups up to 12-14" groups.

quote:

Originally posted by Albert Canuck:
So what? Even rifles that would group 0.0" would still give groups too big in their hands to justify shooting at a living creature unless the shooter was starving or about to be eaten alive..

All the big game I've ever hunted had at least a 10" killzone. When you get out to 14" and larger then hitting the kill zone becomes iffy at best on smaller game like pronghorns.

Is an MOA rifle important? I guess the question depends on whether or not you NEED an MOA rifle.
I would guess most people might be better served by regular practice with the rifle they have, rather than going to extremes over shrinking groups that extra 0.001".
I'm the first to admit that I usually shoot deer at under 100m, closer to 50m, so MOA performance is not quite so important to me.
If I was shooting small critters at 300m+, MOA performance would become a whole lot more important.
JMHO.

Merry Christmas.

Cheers, Dave.

I have the following requirements for any rifle I build for myself or someone else.

The 1st shot must go where I expect it too. The 2nd shot..right next to it. After that I dont really worry about it. I do shoot 3 shot groups and if the first two go right then typically so does the 3rd. However, even if it is not inside the one inch circle Im not going to sweat it. Ive only ever one occassion where I got 2 shots at game in the field. Typically I only get one. If you cant hitem with the first chances are your rifle needs work or you do. Flame on boys.

1" groups are very important. Take your guns inherent accuracy, then place your personal circle of wobble on top of that. That 1" gun will give you a smaller total group size than the 2 1/2" gun every time, it's amazing what a little geometry can do for you.

Having an accurate rifle, personally I like to have mine under 1 1/4" at 100 yards, makes my total group size smaller. It doesn't matter if you have a 5" wobble or a 1/4" wobble, the accurate rifle will give you the best groups.

Everyone else can feel free to hunt with their POS 2 1/2" grouping rifles if they want.

Personally I almost never shoot game offhand. I was trained to never stand when you can sit, and never sit when you can go prone. When I do shoot standing up it's invariably leaning against something, a tree, a fencepost, the door of the truck, there is almost always soemthing to brace against where I hunt.

I couldn't disagree more.

How well an individual shoots (ability) is irrelevent to how well a rifle shoots (accuracy).

That being said, an accurate rifle can compensate for a poor shooter more so than an inaccurate rifle can be counted upon by an experienced shooter.

Nothing can help one's hunting prowess more than practice, whether that be bench rest shooting or simulated field positions on the range.

Given though the inherent lack of a steady rest in the field (for arguments sake 2-3in +/- hold in the field compared to 0 on the bench) one would want the most accurate rifle to compensate for this "inaccuracy." (2-3in bad hold PLUS 2-3in shitty rifle EQUALS 4-6in that sucks!)

All the practice on the range can only PREPARE for a shitty field rest/position. It cannot COMPENSATE for a shitty rest/position.

A more accurate rifle will in essence take out or limit one of these variables.

The most important variable though is the 90% between the ears. If I know a rifle will shoot, i.e. it shoots better than me, then I know where that bullet is going to hit...........It's the Injun not the arrow....

I'm not a bench rester, but I do head shoot spikes and hogs-I do so because I know I can. My deer rifle (pre war mod 70 270win Krieger barrel) shoots under 1/4in groups. The last elk I shot (different rifle Sisk 300 win) was 279 yards away, if you think you'd feel comfortable shooting with a 2-3in rifle in the field on a shitty rest at a trophy elk, more power to ya.

I don't believe in 1 in groups, I'm a bit more picky: if a rifles shoot over 1/2in I think that's a shitty rifle and I'll get rid of it.

quote:

Originally posted by browningguy:


Personally I almost never shoot game offhand.


So, I take it, you never learned to shoot offhand 'cause you figger you'll never have to?

---------------

I was trained to never stand when you can sit, and never sit when you can go prone. When I do shoot standing up it's invariably leaning against something, a tree, a fencepost, the door of the truck,



Well, you sure wouldn't shoot much prone in hunting most of the terrain in the world. And, In this state as well as all of the Canadian Provinces I am aware of, you'll lose your hunting privileges if you are caught shooting from against the door of a truck. The basic rule in much of the world is that you have to be at least 50 feet from the nearest vehicle. (That's to keep the unethical amongst us from chasing down game with a motorized rig until the animals are too tired to run any more, then taking shots until one finally makes at least a wound somewhere...then some more 'til the animal finally falls.)
-----------------


There is almost always soemthing to brace against where I hunt.

You are very lucky then in your circumstance.

But, if you can always take a rest, why are 1" groups so important from your rifles? Do most folks only shoot animals the size of mice in that area?

quote:

Everyone else can feel free to hunt with their POS 2 1/2" grouping rifles if they want.

HEE HEE! I do, I do! I can even give the average critter a running start and still put it next to Jesus with a Model 94...inside 100 yards. Slow down a bit and I can run it out to 150. In Southern bottom country you're going to take offhand shots, your range is seldom over 75 yards and a 1 MOA rifle is a waste of money.

I still own more'n my share though...of accurate rifles. For everything there is a time, and a place.

[QUOTE]

"That being said, an accurate rifle can compensate for a poor shooter more so than an inaccurate rifle can be counted upon by an experienced shooter."



Sorry, but I'll have to disagree strongly with this statement.

You could give David Tubb any rifle out of your local shop, and unless the shooter has become a very excellent shot, you could give the shooter David Tubb's rifle (which IS a half-inch rifle) and David would still beat him soundly when it comes to accuracy. Ditto Tony Boyer, in the benchrest discipline.

Likewise, any truly practiced and accomplished hunting field shooter can more than make up for a basically 2-1/2" shooting rifle, when put head-to-head with the average shooter, even if that average shooter DOES have a rifle capable of 1"groups. The tool simply will not compensate for the lack of skill of the craftsman, whether in shooting, driving, flying, or cabinet-making.
------------------------------


!)


"A more accurate rifle will in essence take out or limit one of these variables.

The most important variable though is the 90% between the ears............It's the Injun not the arrow...."




My point exactly.
---------------------------



"I'm not a bench rester, but I do head shoot spikes and hogs-I do so because I know I can. My deer rifle (pre war mod 70 270win Krieger barrel) shoots under 1/4in groups."

You really oughta take thst rifle and either shoot benchrest with it, or sell it to someone who does. If it will truly average under 1`/4" all the time, it could win msny benchrest matches. There's many a day when NO rifle and NO benchrest shooter can do that.
-----------------------


"The last elk I shot (different rifle Sisk 300 win) was 279 yards away, if you think you'd feel comfortable shooting with a 2-3in rifle in the field on a shitty rest at a trophy elk, more power to ya."



Actually, I have two 6x6 AZ elk heads hanging in my downstairs as I write this, both killed with one shot each from a .300 WBY Mag, and I have been a benchrester and a member of a Palma Team, as well as a big-game guide, a cop and a soldier.

I can tell you, the rifles I shot in all these venues (except benchrest) were not 1/2-MOA rifles, but they did the job. Probably because I shot up to 70 rounds a day of centerfire practice 4 days a week for a number of years.

But that is not important or even relevant. We are talking here about why so many folks complain about not having accuracy that they can't even approach using with their skills....and whether MOA accuracy is really important to their use of their rifles.
--------------------------------------


"I don't believe in 1 in groups, I'm a bit more picky: if a rifles shoot over 1/2in I think that's a shitty rifle and I'll get rid of it"


That certainly is your privilege. My point is that for most shooters, the 1" capability is not important, as they can't shoot well enough to use that capability anyway. If you ARE capable of shootng to a better standard (and I have no reason to doubt that you can), I think that's great. Too bad most can't.

A helluva lot more 1" groups are shot on the internet than ever were shot at the range.....

A gun that actually shoots 1.5" groups is ready for any hunt I go on.....

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
A helluva lot more 1" groups are shot on the internet than ever were shot at the range.....

A gun that actually shoots 1.5" groups is ready for any hunt I go on.....

I do like the <1" groupers, who wouldn't?? What has not been touched on is the varmint/big game rifle. To be all it was intended to be, these sporters must shoot MOA, or else they aren't a varmint rig, period! Keep in mind I'm talking .308 calibre and below here.

It is also true that not too many hunters are dragging around heavy bench rest type guns to harvest game with, but that has somewhat changed the last decade or so, with guns like Remington's "Sendero" and the new crop of super-mags. For about a grand, I do expect something better than the run of the mill bolt gun -that something is accuracy.

From a hunting standpoint a hunter owes it to the game to make sure his equipment is functional as are his own abilities. A 1 MOA group (actually 1.047" @ 100 yds) is not necessary for hunting accuracy. What is necessary is for the sportsman to know the limitations of his equipment and abilities. If a rifle only shoots a 2-1/2 inch group at 100 yds - no problem. But to what range is this rifle reasonably accurate to take game with a certainty to make a clean, humane kill.

And if a rifle groups 1 MOA at 100 yards what does it group at 200 yds, 300? 400? 500? Very few hunters actually know - they shoot their 1" group, set the scope 2" high at 100 and call 'er good.

There is nothing wrong with tuning a rifle to shoot a 1" group - it's fun. At least the hunter is making an effort to make sure his rig is ready for the hunt. However, I'd like to see more hunters make sure THEY are ready for the hunt. Tune the rifle on the bench then shoot it. Offhand. Over a log. From stix. Resting on a rucksack. Over your shoulder using a mirror - ha gotcha.

There is benchrest accuracy - this gages the rifle by itself. There is hunting accuracy - this gages the hunter shooting the rifle. The latter is what is important for hunting - IMO.

If the shooter knows where the first shot will hit group size is almost meaningless.Now if he also knows how to deliver that first shot, what ever the shooting positing, we have a useable situation. The second shot might be important but only a small portion of the time if the shoter and rifle do their part the first shot.

Now the meaningful truth based on what I see at the range; most of the shooters who are avid are retired and can be shooting when ever we please; some of us maybe for not too long.

The group size with rifles that mostly are not bench rest competion type has become important and has absolutly nothing to do with placing a bullet into a game animal. They just are in love with the repeatability. Most of these guys will never again kill anything but time.

For the most part the majority have served their time in the field but the focus now is not getting equipment ready to kill a what ever, but to use that equipment as much as possible to enjoy what they like best, and that is shooting wherever it takes us.

Personally I enjoy popping a 2" rock off hand at 135 yards and than handing the rifle to a young Turk and telling him "let's see what you can do".

Hell , I think that 2" rock is harder to do than a 6 point Mule deer and a lot less work after you shoot it. roger

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clem:
"From a hunting standpoint a hunter owes it to the game to make sure his equipment is functional as are his own abilities. A 1 MOA group (actually 1.047" @ 100 yds) is not necessary for hunting accuracy. What is necessary is for the sportsman to know the limitations of his equipment and abilities. If a rifle only shoots a 2-1/2 inch group at 100 yds - no problem. But to what range is this rifle reasonably accurate to take game with a certainty to make a clean, humane kill."

Clem- I wish everyone thought as clearly as you (I wish I did...)!


---------------------



"There is nothing wrong with tuning a rifle to shoot a 1" group - it's fun. At least the hunter is making an effort to make sure his rig is ready for the hunt. And for many of us, that's a lot of the fun."



I sure agree with you on this. It's clear you realize as most of the experienced members of this forum do, that getting the true accuracy a rifle is capable of usually takes some time and effort...some individual rifles more than others.

----------------------

"However, I'd like to see more hunters make sure THEY are ready for the hunt. Tune the rifle on the bench then shoot it. Offhand. Over a log. From stix. Resting on a rucksack. Over your shoulder using a mirror - ha gotcha."


Amen, brother.

I tend to agree that at some point a hunter needs to get off the bench and spend more trigger time shooting from practical field positions. Some hunters may even need fundamental training on techniques and positions.

As far as big game hunting accuracy is concerned, it may be fair to say that the average hunter's shooting ability from field positions may be a weaker link than the accuracy of their rifle. Both are important, but ultimately it is the shooter's skill that is credited or discredited when making the shot.

Gary

Just remember, if your rifle shoots a 2 in group at 100 yards that means it will hit within an inch of where you are aiming.

Because only accurate rifles are interesting.

Who wants to blow a bunch of dough on a new gun and have it produce less than optimal groups. Who wants to blow a bunch of dough on the hunt of a lifetime and take a 3" gun? Not to mention the mental effects an inaccurate rifle leaves behind.

Having said that, I agree that a 3" gun will out-shoot almost all of the hunters that arm themselves nowadays. We put too much stock in our equipment and not enough into ourselves. I have personally killed dozons of animals with a 3" rifle and most were one shot kills. I also agree that most of the guys that bragg about their sub-moa rifles are the same guys that bragg about having the same box of ammo for 5 years. Is a sub-moa rifle required for hunting? Absolutely not. What is required is lots of shooting and position development. Highpower shooting will humble anyone on a 20 shot 200 yard offhand string no matter how good the gun shoots. Like mentioned earlier, give a great shooter a shitty rifle and he will out-shoot a shitty shooter with a 1/4 moa rifle EVERY TIME. I generally use the bench to get my zeros and for load development and then shoot practical positions.

I will still take a 1" rifle over a 2 1/2" rifle if given the choice.

Nothing special about a MOA rifle, that's a VERY medicore performance

quote:

Originally posted by mousegun:
Because only accurate rifles are interesting.

A statement that was, and still is true. However, by some of the standards professed here.............Whelen owned some distinctly uninteresting rifles.

quote:

I will still take a 1" rifle over a 2 1/2" rifle if given the choice.

As would I. And I'd likely prefer a 1/2" rifle over a 1.5" performer. But I wouldn't spend a dollar more to attain that difference......much less a few hundred dollars more.

As mentioned previously, a rifle that groups 1.5" is shooting within an inch of your point of aim. That's certainly sufficient, if not admirable for a big game rifle.

That said, bless the guys that continue to demand more. They also demand improvements in rifle components, optics, and ammunition. That benefits us all.

GV

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Soverns:
I have the following requirements for any rifle I build for myself or someone else.

The 1st shot must go where I expect it too. The 2nd shot..right next to it. After that I dont really worry about it. I do shoot 3 shot groups and if the first two go right then typically so does the 3rd. However, even if it is not inside the one inch circle Im not going to sweat it. Ive only ever one occassion where I got 2 shots at game in the field. Typically I only get one. If you cant hitem with the first chances are your rifle needs work or you do. Flame on boys.

Got it in one!
The cold zero is the most important thing. If that first shot, from a cold BBL, goes EXACTLY where you think it should, then in most cases, it's game over.
Keep in mind, I'm not talking varminting, or match shooting here, just hunting big game.
My rabbit/fox rifle (Rem 600 with HB in 222Rem) will regularly shoot .4 MOA, with it's preferred handload. But it's not the rifle I would take on a deer hunt.

Merry Christmas.

Cheers, Dave.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:
Nothing special about a MOA rifle, that's a VERY medicore performance

I've always been a bit puzzled by these statements.

"mediocre" in it's ability to reliably take game?

Or "mediocre" because a much higher standard is capable of being attained?

GV

<1" gun means my handloads are optimal for my rifle. That's it, but that means something to me.

After that, it's a matter of learning how to shoot PROPERLY from off-hand, sitting and prone positions.

Then take a gun out into the field and shoot groundhogs out to 200 yds off hand, and take the .22 after squirrels in the fall so by the time dear or bear season is here, your practiced and ready for hitting the pie plate on that big buck's shoulder.

quote:

How Important are 1" Groups?

Vital to my keeping the rifle!

I agree with most of your logic Alberta Canuck, but I still like a sub 1" rifle, for the following reasons:

1. pride of ownership
2. I like to tinker
3. confidence in my equipment.

I do not class myself as any better than an average shot. I compensate by being a very conservative shot. My longest shot to date was 225 paces, and that was from a kneeling position. Unless an animal jumps up right in front of me, I never take an offhand shot. I never take a running shot. Whenever I sit and wait for the animal to come to me, I establish the rest I will use. I have gone an entire season without firing a shot, because I did not like any of the presentations I was offered. So while my marksmanship may be mediocre, I compensate by only taking certain shots.

I still like an accurate rifle - just because!

quote:

Originally posted by Wooly ESS:
I agree with most of your logic Alberta Canuck, but I still like a sub 1" rifle, for the following reasons:

1. pride of ownership
2. I like to tinker
3. confidence in my equipment.

I do not class myself as any better than an average shot. I compensate by being a very conservative shot. My longest shot to date was 225 paces, and that was from a kneeling position. Unless an animal jumps up right in front of me, I never take an offhand shot. I never take a running shot. Whenever I sit and wait for the animal to come to me, I establish the rest I will use. I have gone an entire season without firing a shot, because I did not like any of the presentations I was offered. So while my marksmanship may be mediocre, I compensate by only taking certain shots.

I still like an accurate rifle - just because!

Wooly -

I certainly agree with all you have said. It takes a mature, good rifleman to learn and work within the limits of his rifle and opportunities.

I also like (and have a bunch of) rifles which will shoot sub-MOA. I think we all like inherently more accurate rifles, so long as their handling is not too downgraded in achieving that acuracy.

Pride of ownership which you mention is a good reason to my way of thinking. But we are not crippled nor gypped if that's not what pops out of the new box brought by the Brown Truck.

The whole reason(s) for this thread were to remind us that:


- the world does not come to an end, nor is a rifle a POS if it does not shoot MOA. Matter of fact, it is an opportunity to "play" with it a bit and see if we can get it to do better.

Still, it is probably good enough for most uses from a practical standpoint...at least until the rirfleman gets better than his rifle...which not too many do.


The obvious exceptions, which were pointed out, are for target competition or varmint hunting, where even a shooter who CAN wring all the potential out of a 2.5 MOA rifle still needs something more.

I can't recall whether it is Gunsite, or Thunder Ranch, but one of them has as its stated goal the teaching of folks to shoot "accurately enough, quickly enough".

That really says it all for me.

quote:

I do not class myself as any better than an average shot. I compensate by being a very conservative shot. My longest shot to date was 225 paces, and that was from a kneeling position. Unless an animal jumps up right in front of me, I never take an offhand shot. I never take a running shot. Whenever I sit and wait for the animal to come to me, I establish the rest I will use. I have gone an entire season without firing a shot, because I did not like any of the presentations I was offered. So while my marksmanship may be mediocre, I compensate by only taking certain shots.

Now here we have an ethical hunter. Only Mavericks shoot in the run and are normally the oaks that either do not have to pay or don't care a shit if the animal is wounded coz they will chase it down (read adrenalin making the meat tough)and shoot till it falls down - no matter how many shots are needed. A Maverick is far more reckless than a Cowboy.

Since I hunt mostly in bushveld (less than 100 paces) I shoot mostly off hand, but given the opportunity I go down on my bum and shoot off my elbows positioned on my knees, or I just kneel on one knee and shoot within 3 seconds. I cannot shoot offhand at 200 paces with any degree of confidence - because I am paying and do not wish to destroy a weekend for my friends.

Chris

I think rick0311 just about sumed it up. I look at it this way,all my firearms shoot,on a bench 5 shot groups wilthilng 1/2 at 100yds. I know that i am a good shot and when my ability is on the line in the field if i miss its MY fault not the rifle. I accept that responsibility of missing if i do! Most people won,t and blame there firearm. Its the scope,stock,sights,bullets ect ect. van

Poor shooting skills are poor shooting skills...and they are not going to produce better results just by using a more accurate rifle.

I would like the gentleman to explain how
"an accurate rifle compensates for a poor shot". Also the rifles errors do not add directly to the shooters erors.
Good Luck!

Alberta, back in October on a big bore hunt I shot a coyote (actually I think it was a chupacabra) at about 80 yards with my .458 Win. We were heading out to the hunt when it crossed the road ahead of us. The ranch hand of course wants all coyotes shot where possible so he asked one of us to take him. I hopped out of the truck, loaded a round, took a side rest against the open door and popped him through the chest.

Absolutely nothing unethical about that.

If you read my post I said "almost never", I started shooting 42 years ago in NRA small bore. And since then I've shot at my share of game, offhand when required, but using some sort of rest whenever possible (90% of the time).

Using a rest whenever possible, and using a good gun, is the ethical way to hunt. That way I can be much more sure of where the bullet is going.

If someone wants to shoot a 2 1/2" gun, standing in a stiff breeze, without using a rest, then let them have at it.

But why try to convince anyone else thats the best way?