Acceptable accuracy

[270elk]

A little clarification on my previous post. I am in awe of some of the target shooting pictures that get posted. It takes real skill to shoot little bug-spots with high power rifles. Being a reloader and hunter I just focus on a different set of goals for my practice time. Yesterday I went to the range to check on my Leupold CDS system at 300 yards. I was shooting my SAKO 30-06 (165 grain Hornady SST with 56.5grains of RL-17) and my Forbes 270 (150 grain Hornady SST with 54.8 grains of RL-26).
The CDS system works as advertised. I then got off the bench and shot prone, sitting with a sling, and off of shooting sticks.

 

[Songdog]

Acceptable accuracy.... to what end?

For hunting.... I don’t judge rifles by “group size”... I judge rifles by what I can hit with them. For a rifle to go afield, I have to reliably hit 2 MOA sized targets, out to the max range I feel a situation may call for.

This past fall.... I took a little 7/08 elk hunting, that I had fired exactly 3 times... and that was on the way to camp. The first two were sighting it in, the third shot hit the top of the 1” dot... and round number four pounded a bull at 65 yards. I knew I’d only have sub-100 yard shots... so I was sighted in enough... and accurate enough.

A month later, I grabbed the rifle that I’d been wringing our all summer. A Rem 700 in 7 Mag, KS stock, SWFA 3-9, etc. It probably averages right at 1” for 5-shot groups.... but it’s capable of hammering 2 MOA size targets out to 1/2 mile.... with 160 Accubonds. I ended up killing a nice mule deer buck at 560 with it... and it put two of those Accubonds right where I wanted them.

Accuracy is kind of relative.... and of varying necessity. Hitting stuff is always necessary, and a much better method for determining the usefulness of a rifle/load.

 

[Charlie-NY]

I have become an accuracy snob. If my hunting rifles won't shoot 1/2 moa at the anticipated range they will not go afield.

Field conditions bring in enough variables of there own. The last thing I want to think about at the last second is how my rifle had been grouping. A 1/2 minute gun gives you a lot of confidence.

However, "acceptable accuracy" in a hunting rifle would be much more like 1.5" moa.

 

[69gto]

Bench rest sub moa is great if you have time to get a solid 2 point rest in a hunting situation, but in 60 years of hunting most of my shots have been off one point wobbly rests or no rest. So I try to pull the trigger when the cross hair passes into the kill zone. Not sure if sub moa or 2" moa would make any difference. Don't get me wrong as all of my hunting rifles are sub moa which builds ones confidence in his weapon.

 

[Elkman]

My last 8 or so elk have been taken prone using a bi pod. I am usually hunting fairly open country where 300 yards or better is the norm. They don't even know I am there, in most cases.

 

[PJGunner]

I guess I'm a bit more pragmatic about the situation. Fortunalely most of my rifles shoot one MOA or better and mostly better. But what if you have a rifle you really really like and it won't shoot good groups? I have three, all Ruger tang safety RSI's and all in .308 Win. :roll: I got into every one of them cheap as their previous owners said they were totally inaccurate. Guess what, they were right.Using conventionally accepted loads and bullets accuracy just plain old sucked. A four inch groups was considered a good day. The first rifle which is one of my pet rifles took a little over two years before I found a load I considered acceptable. The 165 gr. Speer Hot Core over a very stiff load of W760, a powder I consider a tad too slow for the .308 Win. I figured if I could get a consistent 1.5" it would be good to go. Well that load worked. It wasn't too long after that that I came across the deals on the next two rifles and that load worked in them as well. I took quite a few deer with that rifle with shots running from about 35 feet to 250 yards. Velocity BTW was a whole rip snorting 2550 FPS average. The same load from a 22" barreled M70 was 2610 FPS.
One day I decided to try a gamble and removed the metal nose cap from one of the rifles and relieved it's contact with the barrel. The next trip to the range and groups ran 1.25" average for four 5 shot groups. I did the same on the other two and got the same results. :mrgreen:
I don't mind groups in the 1.5" range as long as they're consistent. Smaller is as always even better but if 1.5 is the best a favored rifle will do, so be it.
A short explanation; many years ago I had a nice Mannlicher-Schoenaur 6.5x54MM that was stolen. I searched for years looking for one that was as nice as mine at a price I could afford with no luck. That Ruger RSI came very close to that old 1903 M/S so I was determined to make it work. It did.
Paul B.

 

[Anonymous]

Paul- I think you're spot on with that comment. I had a Kimber Longmaster that would print everything into 1.5"- any factory load regardless of bullet weight or style. Seldom better and never worse. It was the most consistently accurate rifle I've ever owned. At 1.5 MOA, it killed a number of critters and I would extremely confident any time I put the crosshairs on an animal that the bullet was going to do the job.

Whenever I switched loads, adjusting was a matter of 3 shots, one for confirmation and off hunting I went.

Out of all the ammo I tried in the rifle, probably 20+ loads...the only one that wouldn't group 1.5" was Portuguese Milsurp machine gun ammo!

 

[Ranger1911]

Great responses! As previously stated, I have become an accuracy snob. For every animal I have killed, a 2 MOA rifle would have sufficed. My current rifle, a Nosler M48 in 300 win mag, currently shoots 1/2 to 3/4 moa at 200 yds if I do my part with 200gr AB. Yet, for me, I am still not satisfied, I continue to tweak seating depth, and charge because I enjoy it, not really because I think I am going to wring much more accuracy from the rifle. I chalk it up to another previous comment, confidence in your rifle and familiarity with shooting it. The field will throw enough mechanics at you to try to make you miss, you shouldn't have to worry about the rifle and load. I hunt out west, even with the openness, 400 yds or less is my comfort zone. Having said that a 2 moa rifle would have worked on my animals, I would not take a 2 moa gun to the field. Better to have accuracy and not need, than need accuracy and not have.

 

[FOTIS]

I want all the accuracy I can get...

...but, in all reality a 2 MOA gun will kill stuff for about a far as I'll shoot at it.

Very very true. That said I personally will not hunt with a 2 MOA gun where I usually hunt..

 

[PJGunner]

Nice groups off the bench are one thing. Funny thing though, I've never seen a bench rest out in the field.
Paul B.

 

[Songdog]

Would you take a gun hunting... if you could consistently hit 2 MOA size targets with it to say 600 yards?

My point is.... I think we often fail to make a distinction between accuracy, and consistency. A rifle that shoots bullets very close together, is consistent. A rifle that hits appropriate sized targets with regularity, is accurate.

Can your “1/2 MOA gun”.... hit 2 MOA targets out to 400... or 600 yards? If not.... then it certainly isn’t a “1/2 MOA gun”.... heck, it’s not even a “2 MOA gun”.

 

[salmonchaser]

Would you take a gun hunting... if you could consistently hit 2 MOA size targets with it to say 600 yards?

My point is.... I think we often fail to make a distinction between accuracy, and consistency. A rifle that shoots bullets very close together, is consistent. A rifle that hits appropriate sized targets with regularity, is accurate.

Can your “1/2 MOA gun”.... hit 2 MOA targets out to 400... or 600 yards? If not.... then it certainly isn’t a “1/2 MOA gun”.... heck, it’s not even a “2 MOA gun”.

Absolutely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk