- Location
- Fraser Valley BC
In a world where optics are common and factory ammo is generally very well made, is the accuracy of a given rifle or load important to you, or do you just accept that modern rifle/optics /ammo is "good enough".
How Important is Accuracy in a Hunting Rifle?
- Thread starter effinggoof
- Start date
I never shoot factory loads, and I do make an effort to find an accurate load for my hunting rifles, but then again, I will shoot to 500 yards on game animals. If 100 or 200 yards was my maximum limit, I suppose that I might look at things differently.
tylerjwitty
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Ontario
i rarely rarely rarely rarely shot factory ammo and if i do it just cause i wanted the brass.
i hate having guns that don't shot moa. i have a savage thats on its last legs and if it dont get its act together its going down the road kicking stones
i hate having guns that don't shot moa. i have a savage thats on its last legs and if it dont get its act together its going down the road kicking stones
- Location
- Yellowknife, NWT
I see your point. Well, if I had an out-of-the-box rifle and scope that shot MOA with factory ammo, I might leave well enough alone. And if this were not a forum for shooting enthusiasts, lots of other hunters would say the same. But think about your audience. Seriously.
Optics are expected on a rifle today.. even for close range shooting they are a plus for obvious reasons.
Putting on a quality scope with quality rings adds to the accuracy experience.
Tailor made ammo just brings it all together for total trust in youre equipment, but not everyone has the time or knowledge to make their own bullets.
You may get lucky with some factory loads, even cheap ones if everything else is good quality and you are in good form to shoot.
So for most its prolly "good enough" with factory loads and they have at'er at any range.
You cant hang meat with bullets in the magazine or laying cold in the chamber.
Based on what?
Troll logic , its his favorite kind.
Good enough is dependant on what and how i am hunting. eastern deer hunting good enough is probably about 4 moa where it obviously isn't for western yote hunting
Not expected by everyone and they don't often make one a better shooter.
I suspect the hunting firearms industry has cheaped out... Letting scope companies make the scope saves on them having to make iron sights. Which is a shame IMHO.
My rule of thumb is not the rifles accuracy but rather how far I can hit an 8" dinner plate from field positions, not a bench. For me its 100yds standing , 250 sitting and 300 prone without a bipod. These are 100% hits with no excused flyers. With supported field position I am comfortable to 350 yards or a little more. My go to rifle shoots a bit better than 3/4" at 100 yards so the limiting factor is my ability to hit the target. There are better shots than me that can go much further but each must decide their own limits.
That makes alot of sense. I look at it a little differently. You are hitting the 8 inch plate at 350yds using a rifle that shoots 3\4 moa. That means that your rifle is grouping about 2 1\4 inches at 350yds. Now lets say your rifle shoots 2 inches at 100 yds, that's a little over 6 inches at 350yds. That would make it alot harder to consistenly hit that plate at 350yds. So for me the accuracy of the rifle is the most important factor. If the gun is accurate, technique can be learned. If the gun is not accurate the best technique will not make up for it.
Most hunting rifles are more accurate than they need to be. The kill zone on animals is pretty large, really. Even if a rifle shoots 2MOA, you will still easily be in the kill zone of a deer out to 300 yards.
Reading older hunting magazines and books you often see things like "the rifle was very accurate, keeping 3 shots under 2" at 100 yards"
Of course these days that's just not very good, but it still kills animals.
Reliability is more important than sub MOA accuracy, although these days we can have both.
Reading older hunting magazines and books you often see things like "the rifle was very accurate, keeping 3 shots under 2" at 100 yards"
Of course these days that's just not very good, but it still kills animals.
Reliability is more important than sub MOA accuracy, although these days we can have both.
True enough, but if offered two identical rifles one shooting sub MOA and the other shooting 2MOA most would choose sub MOA.
I like to be able to hit that coyote at 350 when I'm out deer hunting.
