Does accuracy matter?

More important than the accuracy itself is the confidence that comes with it. Hard to qualify this in measurable terms.

Takes lots of shooting over time to gain confidence.

And it only takes one miss to bugger it all up.

Who hasn't been there, done that one?

;)
 
X-fan said:
LOL! :D

Well....Glad you have it all mastered brother.

If you ever shoot beside me you will hear me mutter quietly as I shoot.
What I am doing is calling my sight picture as the rifle recoils..Something like "2 inches left" from prone or "1/2 inch left" from the bench.

It helps me with body position, trigger control, follow threw, you name it.
Click to expand...

Note the sarcastic icon :rolleyes:
I'm Far from having it mastered far from it, so far I cant even see it LOL!!!!
 
If a guy had a .338 Lapua (lots of horsepower, good long range ballistics, etc...) that will shoot 1.5 MOA from 100 to 600 yards (farther than most will shoot at game) he still has a rifle capable of putting a killing shot in a deer, and more than capable of a killing shot at moose.

The gun is capable. The rest is up to the shooter.
 
for me, any hunting rifle used beyond 150 yds MUST shoot sub-MOA from the bench, in a rest that takes me completely out of the picture. If I could rig up a remote trigger squeezer, I would do that as well and BOLT the rifle down!! LOL!
I will never take an off-hand shot at an animal beyond 75 yds, I know I can't hit it reliably. I spend my time shooting gophers in the off season and the ones I kill off-hand are killed more often by shrapnel, not by the 110gn or 150gn or 220gn bullet I am shooting at them from 50yds away. Granted, that's a small target, but there are so many other things that can go wrong, that I like to eliminate everything I can. That's why I carry shooting sticks. In any type of supported position, I am extremely confident out to 400yds.
2 years ago, I missed four shots on a deer. With 2 different rifles!!! Complete misses at 75 yds!!! She stayed right there waiting for me. I had just sighted them in and was confident about where they shot. SKS with it's 3" group missed the first two shots. Then used my trusty .303. I shot 2' under the deer. I packed everything up and went home. Then to the range. I could not get the SKS to group under 10", I never knew where the round was going to go! The .303 had been sported eons before I got it and the owner had put a nice set of Lyman peep sights on it. It grouped at 3", still, just 2' low. I looked at it closely and discovered that when I was raising the rear sight, I forgot to lower the locking screw to change the height. When i took the rifle apart to clean it after the original sighting in, I shoved the sight back into it's original, 215gr sight position! I spent the next 3 evenings at the range fixing this in my head. Went out the next weekend and shot a buck at 125yds with the .303. Didn't get the SKS to shoot well until last year when I drilled out the muzzle 3/4". The rifiling had been badly worn over the years it had seen service and I had finally finished it. It now shoots 1.5-2" groups with surp ammo. What a difference.
 
I recall when I was in the Canadian Rangers we had a shoot one year where I got trounced by a girl shooter. My group was round and tight, it split the center of the target, but it hit a might low just inside the 7 ring. The gal shot's were scattered around the center of the paper and she scored higher, hitting 7s, 8s and 9s, yet her extreme spread was close to a foot. On a game animal its the same deal. Your rifle might put them all in a thumb sized group, but if nothing hits the kill zone, you have a wounded animal. Thats why the guy who shoots the shotgun pattern groups stands an equally good chance of putting meat in the freezer. Big game animals are not killed with 5 shot groups. Big game animals are killed by the bullet that disrupts the flow of oxygen to the brain, and it is the first shot fired that stands the best chance of success.

I don't care how tight a group a hunting rifle can put on paper, but I care a great deal how repeatable the first shot is. If I have a 4 MOA rifle, provided the first shot from a cold barrel always lands within an inch of my POA, I have the makings of a really good hunting rifle. As hunters we should be less concerned with the group diameter and more concerned with the length of our shot string. This is what beat me on the Ranger shoot, not the diameter of the group, but the length of my shot string (the sum of distance of each hole from the target center divided by the number of shots). That goblin visited me again in Africa when the rifle, a custom shop .375 M-70, that I was unfamiliar with, printed much lower than I expected. I had no opportunity to shoot it prior to hunting and the first shot I took with it was on a wildebeest at 200 yards and I hit low and left which put the bullet in front of the front leg but hit no bone. I fired a number of shots, and knowing my hold was good, I held for the same place each time. The unfortunate wildebeest finally lay down, giving us the opportunity to approach him, and I put my 7th and final shot into his shoulder from a few feet away. I could cover my hits with the palm of my hand, but none of them were good enough. Had my "group" been half or even a quarter of that size, the outcome would have been exactly the same. Had my "group" been twice as big, at least some of those bullets might have done some good.
 
Boomer said:
Accuracy must be taken in context with the size of the target and the conditions under which the shot is taken. Certainly a popcan sized varmint at 500 yards requires a higher level of accuracy and marksmanship than does a moose at 50 yards. If the hunter can always put his bullet within a 6" circle, no shot will ever be more than 3" from his intended point if impact. There's not much wrong with that level of accuracy on a 12" target. It also provides an index for the hunter to determine his maximum range. If he can hold 6" at 800 yards, then that is the longest shot he can ethically take. But if the best he can do is hold 6" at 50 yards, any shot beyond that range is unethical for him to take. If the hunter can stay within 6" or for that matter 8" on demand under any condition he will encounter within the range limitations of his cartridge and his own ability, he is not only a fine marksman, but also an ethical hunter. Anyone who thinks this is insufficient hasn't tried it. So get off the bench, and try shooting off your hind legs or from supported field positions.
Click to expand...

I totaly agree
 
There is a mathematical relationship between rifle accuracy and shooter accuracy. Wish I could remember where I read this. I can shoot 3moa offhand with a rifle that shoots .250 moa. If I switch to a rifle that shoots 2 moa, my group size does not open up to 5 moa, it opens up to about 3.8 moa. The article I read explained the reason well so non-mathematicians could understand it. I know it works since I have rifles that shoot anywhere from .250 moa to 2.5 moa. Offhand I shoot between 3 and 4 moa with them. I always thought that I just shot some rifles better than others and that explained why the less accurate rifles shot almost the same as the tack drivers.

Any mathematicians out there who can explain this so we all can understand it?
 
When I test my hunting rifles I'm with Boomer. That first cold barrel shot is the most important thing. And if that rifle puts a second shot within an inch of the first at 100 yards it's perfect for the hunt.

I've hit moose well that stood there and quickly cycled the gun and shot a second one to be sure and get'em to drop right there. And I've seen plenty of 2 shot groups on animals a few inches apart that did their job. Some guns are for paper and some guns are for hunting IMHO. If you happen to have a hunting riflle that groups well, count yourself lucky, but it means squat to a seasoned hunter that isn't a range member anywhere.
 
Dogleg said:
In the spirit of "Does cartridge matter", does accuracy matter? Apparently the average range is 100 yards or less, game animals are big and dead is dead. There's nothing between dead and missed so no worries there.
A 6 MOA rifle will keep them in the kill zone to 200, maybe a bit more. (If you do your part) You should be able to get 6 MOA with your bullets seated upside down. I'm thinking a Nosler Partition would make a nice wadcutter with a long boat-tail, satisfying any legal soft-point requirements.
The "average shooter" couldn't prove that his rifle was shooting minute of hubcap from field positions, so why bother? I shudder to think of how much time has been wasted on this accuracy thing.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. I shot a moose last week at 130 yds. I knew the rifle was shooting to the left about 3 inches and about 2 inches high at that distance and intended on going to the range before we left but didn't have time and said to myself, hell it's a moose it doesn't matter. I didn't make any corrections just put the crosshairs behind the shoulder and let go.
 
ricksplace said:
There is a mathematical relationship between rifle accuracy and shooter accuracy. Wish I could remember where I read this. I can shoot 3moa offhand with a rifle that shoots .250 moa. If I switch to a rifle that shoots 2 moa, my group size does not open up to 5 moa, it opens up to about 3.8 moa. The article I read explained the reason well so non-mathematicians could understand it. I know it works since I have rifles that shoot anywhere from .250 moa to 2.5 moa. Offhand I shoot between 3 and 4 moa with them. I always thought that I just shot some rifles better than others and that explained why the less accurate rifles shot almost the same as the tack drivers.

Any mathematicians out there who can explain this so we all can understand it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's garbage.
 
ricksplace said:
Any mathematicians out there who can explain this so we all can understand it?
Click to expand...

Statistics. Mixture of Gaussians. There is no such thing as a 1 moa rifle. Only a rifle that puts a certain percentage of its shots into 1 moa. So you have a bell-like curve for mechanical accuracy and a bell-like curve for shooter accuracy.
Combining the bell-like curves does not add the width of the 2 curves in a linear manner.

Edit: A group size game: You have a bag holding an even number of coins. Empty them on the floor. Take number of heads minus the number of tails. If the number is 3 you hit 3" left, if the number is -3 you hit 3 inches right. The average shift is zero. Lets say the average left/right shift is 4.
Double the number of coins. The new average difference is not 8, it is closer to 4.

Someone who says they have an 1 moa rifle has no idea what they are talking about. That is like saying your muzzle velocity is +- 10 fps without knowing what standard deviation is.
 
Last edited:
sure it does.........I took one of my hunting partners to the range this weekend so he can check his rifle and I would practice with mine. Im not sure if he had planned to go before Deer season but he was barely on paper at 100 yards.....not even sure how he filled a tag last year (he may of bumped the scope during moose season a few weeks back). Now i have only two more Hunting partners to check sight in with.......(sigh)

You cant shoot past 100 yards where I hunt deer so I wont' be hard on these guys for a 2 MOA group but 6 minutes can be a hard track that would rather avoid.

I handload for my rifles so if I cant achieve MOA at 100 yards with a big game rifle then I see that as a problem .
 
Last edited:
Interesting about the guys who can shoot well off the bench, but lack the accuracy in the field. I know a fellow in his 60's who has a bad flinch. Shot too many heavy loads in earlier years. It does not affect every shoot he takes off the bench, but every four or five rounds he will throw a bullet, and therefore is not a great bench rest shooter. On the other hand, he is a crack shot in the field. Takes his deer cleanly every year at distances between 20 and 250 yards. I guess he is concentrated enough on the deer, and not on his flinch, and it doesn't affect him.
 
To me, accuracy is a matter of personal pride. Plus doing your best not to make an animal suffer, is even more important.

The original question you asked about accuracy, just seems odd to me. Why wouldn't want to make the best shot you can while hunting?
 
The importance of the accuracy of the rifle is almost insignificant when compared to the performance of the shooter when hunting.

We've likely all seen good shots miss completely on animals at reasonable ranges; and 99% of the time it's completely human error and nothing else to blame.

Likewise, many of us have probably seen fellows shoot at the range and barely keep three rounds in 4" at 100 yards under perfect range conditions, but out hunting, when their rifle goes "bang" something dies. Those guys aren't good shooters, but they are good hunters. They don't get excited, don't rush, don't try to show off, or take shots they aren't sure of. And, if they do happen to miss, these are usually the first guys to admit they missed, and not blame their rifles.
 
Northman999 said:
The importance of the accuracy of the rifle is almost insignificant when compared to the performance of the shooter when hunting.

We've likely all seen good shots miss completely on animals at reasonable ranges; and 99% of the time it's completely human error and nothing else to blame.

Likewise, many of us have probably seen fellows shoot at the range and barely keep three rounds in 4" at 100 yards under perfect range conditions, but out hunting, when their rifle goes "bang" something dies. Those guys aren't good shooters, but they are good hunters. They don't get excited, don't rush, don't try to show off, or take shots they aren't sure of. And, if they do happen to miss, these are usually the first guys to admit they missed, and not blame their rifles.
Click to expand...

Amazing! You and I have observed nearly identical patterns in the world of shooting and hunting. I agree on all counts.
 
I think there are two factors on both the shooter and the gun:

Precision: the ability of the shooter and the gun to place a bullet into the right spot
Repeatability: the ability of the shooter and the gun to repeat the same precision.

I agree that the shooter far outweighs the gun, but both are factors.

A half-minute gun that doesn't scatter as the barrel heats does no better in the hands of a shooter who can't consistently hit a pop can at 55 yards.

A 'tack driver' is helpful to the good shot and the bad shot. If the gun works, everything else is shooter error, which helps the shooter identify problems and improve marksmanship. This makes an excellent case for a target-quality rimfire rifle with target ammo as a training tool. Among field rifles, a Savage or CZ bolt gun with good quality ammo will expose a poor shot quickly.

Buy the most accurate rifle you can afford.
 
Eagleye said:
Accuracy does matter. An accurate rifle takes one of the negative factors out of the formula. If you have a 6 moa rifle, and a shooter who, at best can only hold inside of 6 moa, you now have a potential spread of 12 moa. The same shooter with a moa rifle is only at 7 moa. For the vast majority of hunters who never see shots outside of 200 - 250 yards, 2 moa accuracy is adequate. For the guy who practices and can use the potential of a moa or less rifle, shots out to 500+ are well within reason. Regards, Eagleye.
Click to expand...

what he said.
 
Many guys at my camp use the "minute of moose" and "minute of deer" theories. Meaning they fire off a handful of shells freehand or semi free hand at 100 yards, and if most of them are in the kill zone they're happy.

Myself, I get all worked up if my gun doesnt shoot MOA, when in all reality it means nothing in terms of a big game animal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom