Acceptable hunting rifle accuracy... (excluding varminting)

What accuracy is necessary for hunting:

  • sub-MOA

    Votes: 20 12.8%

  • 1-2 MOA

    Votes: 87 55.8%

  • 2-4 MOA

    Votes: 36 23.1%

  • minute of pie-plate

    Votes: 13 8.3%
  • Total voters
    156
manbearpig

manbearpig

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
72   0   0
Location
Somewhere in the Third World
i just read a post on another forum where some guy said someting along the lines of 'my rifle shoots .75 MOA with factory ammo, which is the least i consider 'acceptable' for a hunting rifle'. :jerkit:

yeah, we all compare rifles and discuss accuracy, and it seems that in most decent modern rifles 1-1.5 MOA is pretty much average.
its certainly a lot more fun to shoot an accurate rifle.

but when it comes down to it what would you folk consider acceptable accuracy for a hunting rifle (not varmints)? at average deer hunting ranges why do so many people these days feel that they need sub-MOA accuracy to kill a deer?

has marketing changed the focus of the average modern hunter?
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have a consistent 1-2MOA accuracy hunting rifle that was totally reliable, dependable, functions in any conditions- with a good trigger- Than a .5MOA rifle that wasn't 100% reliable under any conditions.

Fortunatley for us, we live in a great age of accuracy, where most facotry rifles will shoot around MOA if bedded and fed some good ammunition. Accuracy is easier to obtain than 100% reliability, IMHO.:)
 
more questions to ask. if you are one of the guys that will take a 500 yard shot then obviously you need better accuracy then the guy that limits himself to 200 yards. i would say on average a gun that you can put into a 4" diameter at 100 yards is more then enough to do the job under 200 yards. i say this because my dad's 20-30 year old browning bar with thousands of rounds through it shoots 4" at 100 yards and he has shot more moose then anyone i know, some up to 400 yards...but he shoots fast and lots.
 
manbearpig said:
i just read a post on another forum where some guy said someting along the lines of 'my rifle shoots .75 MOA with factory ammo, which is the least i consider 'acceptable' for a hunting rifle'. :jerkit:

yeah, we all compare rifles and discuss accuracy, and it seems that in most decent modern rifles 1-1.5 MOA is pretty much average.
its certainly a lot more fun to shoot an accurate rifle.

but when it comes down to it what would you folk consider acceptable accuracy for a hunting rifle (not varmints)? at average deer hunting ranges why do so many people these days feel that they need sub-MOA accuracy to kill a deer?

has marketing changed the focus of the average modern hunter?
Click to expand...

It is rather a loaded question, on a firearm that is being used to hunt large game(deer size or larger) out to 250 yds 2.5 moa is sufficient, however it is nice to CONSISTENTLY produce 1 moa so as to show off to ones mates.
The question is, is the firearm to be used to belt big things in the ribs or small things in the head.

(on my work rifles I am looking to replace the barrel at 1 moa).
 
thats why i specified 'not varmints', since varmint hunting is where small targets at long ranges necessitate an accurate rifle.

i should have specified in the poll text that it excludes varmints - i did so in my thread but not the poll title.
 
That moa accuracy is also under ideal conditions, and now being used in the field under less than idea conditions you can't expect those same results. Say you have a 2 moa accuracy gun shooting off a bench. At 300 yards, that's up to 6" of error under ideal conditions. Now add in the effect of the shooter, wind, errors in range estimation, and you have something potentially much larger in pattern than that original 6". Arguably, you are better off with the gun that shoots 0.75 moa and now your base circle of acuracy is almost 4" smaller. So for that 75 yard shot, maybe it makes no difference, but the guy who expects to shoot and only hit vitals at great range, it makes a lot more sense. The majority of hunters I know use scopes, and that goes part in parcel with intent to make further shots (in most cases).
 
I said 1-2, if it's not that good my confidence in my shooting drops like a stone. If it groups around and inch at 100 yards I am a happy man, I shoot a fair bit at the gongs on our range at 200 & 300 metres. Beyond that I am NOT a sub MOA shooter, several of my rifles are though.
 
If you have a rifle that will shoot 4" groups at 100yds, then it will hit within 2" of your point of aim. That means it will hit within 6" of point of aim out to 300yds. I'd take that hunting in a pinch.......
That being said, I shot a deer close to 450yds (it was lasered) with a rifle load combo that did 1.5 to 2 MOA, and it did just fine. It is nice to have sub MOA, but not needful. I am kinda in the same boat as Gatehouse.
 
A 1 moa rifle shoots a 6" group at 600 yards. Some hunters that I have seen can't hit a 6" group at 100 yards! The rifle might be able to do it but it's the widget behind the trigger that makes the difference!

Scott
 
I like to see 1 moa, anything less is gravy

2 moa is fine for most shooting inside 400 yards

anything larger and its usually a gun problem that should be looked at
 
If the rifle plus the shooter can consistently produce a 6" group at the range they wish to shoot at, then that is acceptable. For example, if a hunter wishes to shoot offhand at 100 yards, he should be able to consistently put all his bullets in a 6" circle. The gun may be capable of 4" groups or .5" groups at that range .... it's irrelevant. It's the shooter plus the gun that is relevant. A Whitetail deer could care less if the bullet goes through the heart or through the lungs, or hits the left side of the heart, or a half inch further in.
 
There are no bench rests in the field. Sub MOA might be a great confidence booster, but it doesn't have much practical value in the field. Stewart Edward White was said to be able to shoot about 2 MOA from any position, at rest or out of breath, regardless of circumstance, with his Lyman 34 sighted, custom 1903 Springfield. Shot for accuracy, the rifle grouped 3.5" @ 200 yards, 7.25" @ 300 yards and 11.5" @ 500 yards. Clearly this man could shoot up to his rifle. On his first safari he killed 185 head of game.

For the rest of us minute of pie plate is an important measurement, because it is a measure of our ability rather than our rifle's. In the field that is what matters. Can you hit an 8" circle? Yes? Great! Now, how far away can you hit it? Under what circumstances can you hit it? Knowing what we cannot do is as important as knowing what we can.
 
Last edited:
^ this is why i nearly stopped shooting off the bench altogether. i just do it to sight in, although the last rifle i sighted in was off a fencepost in a field.

i practice with my varmint rifles off the grass, sitting with a bipod, and i practice with the hunting rifles either offhand with a sling or off the side of a tree/post, which ill always prefer if i can get it. being in Ontario you usually can :)
shooting .5" groups off a bench with a rifle only instills a false sense of confidence if you can only shoot 12" groups offhand.

that said, i think rifle FIT can be as important as its actual accuracy when shooting offhand. might just be me though.
 
Firstly all rifles on the internet will shoot .5moa all the time with factory ammo. The reality is about 5% of the people holding them can do the same (off a bench). My hunting group has shot approximately 180 deer in the last 11 years with shotguns and most at best would shoot 4-6moa @100yards with a skilled shooter at the wheel. Point being I'll gladly take moa of pie plate offhand, over pretty bench groups any day because I have never shot any game animal from my bench. I would rather someone learn to hunt better than to buy a match rifle, a deer at 25 or 50 yards has less chance of surviving moa of pie plate than .5moa @ 400 yards. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
I'm fussy. I'm only interested in rifles that are sub MOA. MAybe a hair over depending on the rifle. 2 MOA rifles are extremely uninteresting and beg a trip to the smith, or the EE.
 
I'm with BUM. It's not so much a question of needing MOA or below for hunting -- my test to see what my max range is is whether I can hit the 6" gong from field positions at that range -- it's more about the range work. Most of us probably don't shoot that many shots at big game in a year (I shot 8 times this year, but that was unusual), but I probably shoot more than 1000 centerfire rounds at the range in a year.

For me at least, doing that much work at targets with a rifle that won't shoot really damn close to MOA isn't much fun. Not cause I'm that great a shot -- I'm not -- but when you're shooting at paper, even from field positions, with a rifle that's up around 2 MOA, it's difficult to figure whether it's you or the gun. That's both annoying, and it also makes it more difficult to improve.That's also the reason I don't really shoot my Savage HMR anymore -- I don't see the point of practicing with a 2 MOA rifle. Really gotta get rid of that dead weight...

So I set MOA or below as a minimum with my practice ammo, and like to get the same from hunting loads, though I'm willing to do less load development with pricey premium bullets, provided they're close to that standard.
 
I see lots of guys bragging at the local range about how their rifle will shoot MOA at 100m.

How about 200, 300?
Most of these guys don't shoot past 100m anyways.

Face it, a chain smoking monkey with a heart murmur can shoot reasonably well with a scoped rifle off the bags at 100m.:D

Not too many people actually practice field positions, at least not at my local range.

I shoot a 22 in the indoor range during the winter to practice my offhand, which I actually really suck at:redface:. But near the end of the indoor season I see myself improving considerably.


IMHO MOA doesn`t mean much if you`re a hunter!

Just my $0.03
 
Last edited:
Depends on the game you are hunting. If I was going to be shooting long range, the best I could get is what I would prefer. Limits variables.

If I was going to be hunting under 100 yards.. pie plate is fine.
 
Gatehouse said:
I'd rather have a consistent 1-2MOA accuracy hunting rifle that was totally reliable, dependable, functions in any conditions- with a good trigger- Than a .5MOA rifle that wasn't 100% reliable under any conditions.

Fortunatley for us, we live in a great age of accuracy, where most facotry rifles will shoot around MOA if bedded and fed some good ammunition. Accuracy is easier to obtain than 100% reliability, IMHO.:)
Click to expand...

This "great age of accuracy" has been going on for a hundred years. Ever since Mauser invented the bolt action rifle. :popCorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom