Accuracy is a funny thing as it relates to hunting. We generally measure accuracy based on the group size of so many shots fired at such and such a range, from a bench or other solid rest, but what does that tell us? Look at the groups printed by your rifle, and you'll note that the majority of the holes are near the center (if you're a competent marksman) with a few holes on the periphery of the group, yet its these peripheral shots what we measure to give us the average of the rifle/load accuracy potential, ignoring the cluster of shots nearer center. Additionally, the first two shots tend to be the most accurate from a rifle barrel, though from time to time we hear about a rifle that throws the first shot wide of the subsequent group. I've never seen a rifle that would fire a doughnut shaped group, though I've shot some that didn't instill confidence in my ability to place a first round center hit on a 12" 100 yard target, but at 50 yards it would put meat in the freezer. Groups size also neglects the concept of the distance of the point of impact from the intended aiming point, in hunting, this is the measurement that matters.
What we are talking about though isn't accuracy as much as it is maximum range. What is the maximum range at which you can hit a target of any particular size with that particular rifle load combination. Some rifles do pretty well out to a half mile or better, others aren't much good beyond 25 yards. "Oh, I wouldn't hunt with a gun like that!" you say. Well, what does it take to hit the foot wide vital area of a big game animal in heavy cover? If your smoke stick printed 6" at 50 yards, but you encountered a buck at 20, why wouldn't you shoot? Besides, that first shot has as good a chance of landing right on your point of aim, as it does of landing 3" away.
Now add to the accuracy issue field marksmanship. This is far more critical than is a rifle/load's intrinsic accuracy, but it can be effected by such things as our level of exertion, our level of excitement and our ability to control it, the bulk of our clothing, and the temperature we're exposed to. If you're hunting at -30, have you been out shooting to see if you can hit anything . . . at any distance? Weather is perhaps the greatest challenge to field marksmanship. Wind shifts the bullet from its intended flight path, mirage blurs the image and displaces the target, rain, fog, and snow limit visibility, and temperature changes air density and determines how we must dress, which in turn effects how the rifle fits us.
I own some reasonably accurate hunting rifles. I've fired some groups that cause me to puff out my chest and strut around like a peacock for a day or two, but I've also made some shots in the field that would make a rank novice hang his head in shame. If I can take credit for the former, then I have to accept the blame for the latter, the real question is what to do about it. One answer might be as follows. On the range you can fire two shot groups from field positions, but ideally, go shooting in your hunting area prior top the season opening. Put out targets along a trail, that replicate how you might encounter game. Then walk the trail with your rifle, and see how you do on each target. Some some force you to shoot off hand, some should force you to shoot prone, some should provide a natural rest while others won't, some targets should be passed up due to range or an inability to identify or ensure a solid hit. Allow a fixed period of time to run the course. Hits count as 2, misses -5, no shot taken = 0, and a 2 point penalty for each minute over the nominal course time. This will teach you much more about field marksmanship then shooting groups will.