How accurate does a hunting rifle need to be?

9.3mauser said:
The "write up" is from Jack O'Connor if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is correct. The book was copywrited /published in 1970 - so 51 years ago. A bit sad if the standards used in Botswana over 51 years ago were still considered to be appropriate here and now. Contemporary writers - similar books, at the time - included Elmer Keith. He considered the 338 Win Mag about an ideal long range antelope rifle. He had written he thought that the 270 Win might make an okay coyote rifle, but I am not sure if he was "sure" of that - certainly condemned it outright as an elk hunting rifle based on the guiding that he did. Jack O'Connor made his career using and writing about stuff he did with 270 Win, even though his wife, Eleanor, would be using a 7x57 on those same safari's, and he was often using a 30-06. So, what got written about, then, needs to be taken in context, perhaps? I still think that shot described was a "stunt" - his own words on that page pretty much admit to that - really not an attitude that we should want to be promoting today??
 
Last edited:
Accuracy is important for building the confidence needed to take the long shots. I like accurate guns but even then I won't push them too far. 300 meters is my personal maximum - it was much longer when I was much younger but if there is more than 300m to my target it means I haven't actually hunted, I'm just out shooting an animal.

If I have a MOA gun that shoots well off the bench and handles well, I'll practice rested over my backpack or off my monopod or slung from a kneeling position which is the most common shooting positions for me in the field, and if I'm still consistently putting them into decent groups, I've got my hunting loadout sorted.
 
I get 2 - 2.5 inch groups (it's me not the rifle ) but I've never had a moose or elk complain about my shooting.

But then I don't shoot much more than 200 yards at a critter.
 
Everyone talks a good game, but a look in any meat locker come fall and I'd say that most are hunting with sightless guns. Critters shot into dog food.
 
AlbertaJohn said:
I get 2 - 2.5 inch groups (it's me not the rifle ) but I've never had a moose or elk complain about my shooting.

But then I don't shoot much more than 200 yards at a critter.
Click to expand...

one of the more realistic replies lol. but its the internet so the debating is ...good for lockdown #6 in au.

inside 2 inch is good enough for me, horses for courses, preferably dont sling lead out too far with a 3-4moa gun, use that one an get close--- same with 2-3moa, keep it realistic -300m, an the 1moa seems to work pretty good out to 500-600m or so on most of these big gam we talk of an the occaisonal deerey ..id have thought anyway
 
Many hunters would benefit from European style shooting galleries with moving targets.

May will find that their budget rifles do not actually fit them and will be unable to perform at a high level.

A mediocre shooter with a poorly fitted rifle can usually get the job done on a stationary target at close range, but that does not say much about skill
 
Potashminer said:
Yes, I think that is correct. The book was copywrited /published in 1970 - so 51 years ago. A bit sad if the standards used in Botswana over 51 years ago were still considered to be appropriate here and now. Contemporary writers - similar books, at the time - included Elmer Keith. He considered the 338 Win Mag about an ideal long range antelope rifle. He had written he thought that the 270 Win might make an okay coyote rifle, but I am not sure if he was "sure" of that - certainly condemned it outright as an elk hunting rifle based on the guiding that he did. Jack O'Connor made his career using and writing about stuff he did with 270 Win, even though his wife, Eleanor, would be using a 7x57 on those same safari's, and he was often using a 30-06. So, what got written about, then, needs to be taken in context, perhaps? I still think that shot described was a "stunt" - his own words on that page pretty much admit to that - really not an attitude that we should want to be promoting today??
Click to expand...

It is O’Connor. I don’t think it was a stunt. In fact, I’d suspect he could hand most their derrière with a rifle and a field rest. Even today.
 
chuck nelson said:
It is O’Connor. I don’t think it was a stunt. In fact, I’d suspect he could hand most their derrière with a rifle and a field rest. Even today.
Click to expand...

Well, he passed on in 1978, apparently, but I agree - that guy was not your "usual" "part of a box of shells" before deer season kind of rifleman - I have been reading and appreciating his stuff since the 1970's. I think he had a column in Outdoor Life magazine for years - likely made "wannabe's" think they could be and do just like him, if they could just get a 270 Win - not realizing that I do not really think it mattered what rifle or chambering that he might have happened to be using. I am pretty sure in one article he wrote of taking a 425 yard elk with a single shot with his 270 Win and a 2 3/4x Noske scope. If my memory is not totally screwed up on me, that elk was laying down - in its bed - never got up. So not even close to what "modern" thinking is for the "ideal" elk rifle...
 
Potashminer said:
Well, he passed on in 1978, apparently, but I agree - that guy was not your "usual" "part of a box of shells" before deer season kind of rifleman - I have been reading and appreciating his stuff since the 1970's. I think he had a column in Outdoor Life magazine for years - likely made "wannabe's" think they could be and do just like him, if they could just get a 270 Win - not realizing that I do not really think it mattered what rifle or chambering that he might have happened to be using. I am pretty sure in one article he wrote of taking a 425 yard elk with a single shot with his 270 Win and a 2 3/4x Noske scope. If my memory is not totally screwed up on me, that elk was laying down - in its bed - never got up. So not even close to what "modern" thinking is for the "ideal" elk rifle...
Click to expand...

I’d happily hunt any Elk with a 270 and that scope at that distance. I’ve killed elk a bunch further than that with a 270. Big elk.
 
on798NX.jpg
 
Consistent accuracy is really nice to have. These are not all the same zero and in fact today’s group was with a new freshly mounted scope. But I’m pretty confident that the rifle is sound.

Ux1dDDb.jpg
 
Generally speaking most rifles are far more capable than the person taking the shot. Even a true .5 moa gun can become a complete rodeo when the operator tries an off hand shot at 80 yds.. IMO getting off the bench and shooting true field positions will give you an idea of your actual accuracy capability which is very likely way less accurate than the rifle you are shooting. I have personally watch tones of guys brag on thier equipment and accuracy only to miss or even refuse to try a shot within true hunting ranges in true hunting field positions under field conditions. I have almost all but stopped shooting groups unless its load development any more. I focus on first round hits on appropriate target sizes at different distances depending on the shooting position I'm using.
 
4fifty8 said:
Checked my 1 MOA ballistic reticle scope equipped 338WM at 200 & 300 yds to be sure groups like this. https://i.imgur.com/xYsIlSI.jpg / https://i.imgur.com/UNJDrww.jpg / https://i.imgur.com/bXaayXa.jpg / https://i.imgur.com/sO7N8Z0.jpg

At 626 yds exceptionally calm day groups like this: https://i.imgur.com/LMzw5KM.jpg
Click to expand...

Truth be known, which applies to every hunter, it's not groups that kill game, it's the first shot, knowing the POI at various distances is "key" to all other shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom