"Only accurate rifles are interesting"

BigUglyMan said:
The thing is, Whelen was a consummate rifleman. A rifle that could just keep its shots on a pie plate at a hundred yards would have bored the #### out of him, as it would me and probably you. If I'm being honest I would sell a rifle that was only that accurate so fast that it would leave a dust trail.

Some people are just perfectly satisfied with the pie plate rifle. They probably even kill a deer or two with it every year. But they're just consumers looking to put meat in the freezer, which is a great thing. But I'm not just trying to put meat in the freezer. I want to test a rifle, to see what it is capable of. What powder does it prefer? What bullet? Brand and type of primer? Brand of case? Neck size of FL? That's the real fun part for me, and that's the difference between a rifleman and a hunter. One person will buy whatever brand of ammo they have at the local Co-Op or Canadian Tire and be happy so long as it goes bang and kills a deer. A rifleman won't. Neither one is more right or wrong than the other...it just depends what game you're playing at.

So, from Whelen's perspective, I agree 100%...only accurate rifles are interesting.
Click to expand...
Enough about how hunters aren't real "riflemen."
 
I like an accurate rifle like everyone else, but I also like a rifle that I feel something for, a rifle that when I pick it up it’s like an old friend, a favorite tool. I have a few that are like that, most of them are actually. I have a few that I want to like, they are accurate enough(all of them are 1 1/2” or better. I had a husqvarna 649 in 9.3x62 that I sold, I would never see games when out with it, so I decided fvck it out it goes and it was accurate averaging 7/8”@100m, handy, well balanced, a pretty fast barrel to but it had to go. I think if a rifle get me meat it add to the attraction.
I use to have a bunch of Ruger no1, loved those rifles a lot, all were accurate enough none were 1/2 a minute rifles but none were more than 1 1/2” either, most of them brought meat home but after buying more and ore rifles I figured they didn’t fit me that well and maybe heavier than they needed to be so off they went.
As for accuracy I really think that most of my current rifles are moa or better all day long and I certainly think that most if not all factory hunting rifle would do the same, but that doesn’t mean it will with you or me behind it, of course strap it down on a ledsled and it will increase your chance to make tight groups but that ain’t totally you shooting then!
I only own hunting type rifles, and I’m not really happy with 1 1/2” or bigger but in reality I will live with it w/o remorse since I know it does better then most people can do with there rifle on any given days! Just like my 458 win mag, I wouldn’t say it is an accurate rifle in my hands, I can’t get it to shoot better than 2”@100m but I know it has more to do with me than with her, I need more practice with it, it is a lot of gun in only a 9lbs 12oz package slinged scoped and loaded…. But damn I like that rifle, it clicks all the boxes other than the one inch at 100 thing…. But for bison inside 250m that is plenty good accuracy if you ask me… for grouse at 100m it would not do the trick!!
As for my 22’s they definitely need to be minute of rabbit to 100m so probabaly 3” or less that is!
Anyway that is a great thread Rob, hope fully we don’t derail it too much.
 
Accuracy today isn't necessarily the same as when he wrote that.
Cases, powder, primers and bullets have come a long way since the 50s. Thats to say nothing about the rifle and barrel manufacturing.
2 moa was a good rifle back then. Sure a guy could tweak loads and play with bedding but it wasn't off the shelf.
 
I think the attitude of the Whelan expression is actively damaging. I have seen many discussions on this and other forums where people are making decisions based solely on perceptions of accuracy. I have read guys who have just received their PAL, have never owned a gun, coming here and discussing their first acquisition. I have read things like, "I don't know what I'm going to do with it, I don't know where I'm going to shoot it, but I want 0.5 MOA". They then go out and buy $8k worth of stuff they have no idea how to use, in a calibre that is entirely impractical for them. I see threads like that and think, there goes a guy who will never get into shooting.
 
For myself, it all depends on what I bought the rifle to do. It wouldn't be fair to compare a bench shooting tack driver that is 0.5 MOA to a collapsible stock lightweight backpack rifle that shoots 2 MOA. I adjust my expectations of "accuracy" accordingly. Sometimes it's all rounds through the same hole and other times it's whatever I hit, is HIT.

As far as only accurate rifles being interesting, wouldn't you find it "interesting" if you aimed dead centre of your shooting lane and landed a bullseye 3 shooting lanes over? I know that would definitely catch my interest haha.
 
Last edited:
As 'interesting' means different things to different people, I've only considered the statement as an opinion. This discussion shows that even the definition of accurate is somewhat unique. I find Thompson's machine gun to be intensely interesting, but I wouldn't call it accurate.
 
Rob said:
Of course not, but Col Townsend Whelen didn't say, "Only accurate benchrest rifles are interesting." He said, "Only accurate rifles are interesting." And it gets quoted ad nauseam by many who should know better.
Click to expand...
There's a standard of accuracy for purpose. If I'm firing offhand then so long as the accuracy-limiting factor is how steadily I can hold it then the rifle is doing great. And as the OP noted, there are other qualities like balance, weight, and ergonomics that are important then too and it's not just raw accuracy.

But the balance of qualities changes if I can park the rifle and be barely touching it as I shoot a bug's eye out way downrange.

And that's why many of us need more than one rifle.
 
homslice said:
I have a minimum requirement for accuracy in center fire rifles . In bolt I want it 1.5" at 100 and a lever I want it 3" at 100 .
In rimfire I want it 3" at 50 yards.
Click to expand...
do you mean this from Iron sights? Then I agree with you.

Scoped, I desire 3/4" @50, 2" at 100 for rimfire for some level of consistency.


the main purpose of a gun is to reliably put a bullet in a location. If it can't do that, it's not a good/"interesting" gun.
 
I’d say, for some folks, they feel above spending time using something not overly accurate, and highly accurate firearms are novel / interesting.

And for others, the methods and tools used to make a firearm which is only moderately accurate to being balanced and accurate is novel / interesting.

The latter involves both, but is more about how to attain accuracy and apply broadly.
 
It is always gratifying to have a handy hunting rifle that will shoot sub-moa groups, but in practice,
that is not necessary. The good thing about an accurate rifle is the fact that the rifleman becomes the
variable factor, not the rifle and load. But a rifle that consistently shoots 1½ moa will be adequate for
90% of the hunting we do in BC. Dave.
 
I've missed 7 coyotes this winter with the most accurate rifle I have ever shot

giphy.gif
 
What I enjoy about handloading is the act of handloading, load developments, trips to the gun-range and to repeat it two or three times over to achieve my goal. The same applies to organizing my annual hunting trip, or even a day trip in the goose blind.

The end result for handloading and hunting is 1/2" groups or kill game, however equally, I truly enjoy the journey.
 
BattleRife said:
I think the attitude of the Whelan expression is actively damaging. I have seen many discussions on this and other forums where people are making decisions based solely on perceptions of accuracy. I have read guys who have just received their PAL, have never owned a gun, coming here and discussing their first acquisition. I have read things like, "I don't know what I'm going to do with it, I don't know where I'm going to shoot it, but I want 0.5 MOA". They then go out and buy $8k worth of stuff they have no idea how to use, in a calibre that is entirely impractical for them. I see threads like that and think, there goes a guy who will never get into shooting.
Click to expand...
BattleRife said:
I think the attitude of the Whelan expression is actively damaging. I have seen many discussions on this and other forums where people are making decisions based solely on perceptions of accuracy. I have read guys who have just received their PAL, have never owned a gun, coming here and discussing their first acquisition. I have read things like, "I don't know what I'm going to do with it, I don't know where I'm going to shoot it, but I want 0.5 MOA". They then go out and buy $8k worth of stuff they have no idea how to use, in a calibre that is entirely impractical for them. I see threads like that and think, there goes a guy who will never get into shooting.
Click to expand...
 
A peep sighted 30-30 lever gun that will put 3 shots into a clay pigeon at 100 yards kneeling and similarly drive 3 shots into a well head chart at 200 sitting, is an accurate rifle!

A Hawken 54 cal percussion rifle that will put a patched round ball into the same clay pigeon at 50 yards standing, and keep 3 balls on a well head chart at 100 yards kneeling is indeed accurate.

A No 4 kk 1 Enfield in full military dress, flogging reloaded 174 Matchking’s into a 11 inch gong at 300 yards from kneeling is a very accurate rifle.

While an aperture sighted .308 Win Palma rifle, putting 5 shots from prone into 4 inches at 300 yards is again very accurate.

Or perhaps a 22-250 heavy varmint rifle driving 5 shots into 1” from a full BR bag set up at 300 meters is indeed accurate.

How bout a 84 year old scoped 6.5 Swede Mauser drilling a 25” main beamed double drop tine whitetail buck at 300 ish yards, with a single shot from a mono pod, that there is accurate.

Or how bout dropping a coyote at 150 yards with a scoped 17 HMR….. dead right there!


It’s all a reference point, and accurate is different to everyone.

Just get out and shoot!
 
Last edited:
Only accurate rifles are interesting, bolt action preferred.

I would not own a light weight hunting rifle if it did not shoot 3/4 inch groups or less, 1/2 inch or less preferred.

Nothing attractive about a "3" inch rifle nor a semi for me.
 
All a gun has to do for me is what I need in that application, for hunting, most of the time, I can get closer, if not, it'll probably be there the next day or day after. For a match, it'll have to be competitive, even that depends on what the comp is, some are fine with a 2-3" grp at 100. I like playing with making groups tighter, but, also realize I may not be up to what the gun can do, and 'ol Mother Nature has a big say in things. Some guns are not built to shoot tiny groups, some are reasonably easy to get to about 1/2MOA pretty consistently, lots are not, but, will hold MOA. It also depends on how much time and energy and loot I want to put into a given application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom