Out of the box accuracy

Gatehouse

Gatehouse

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
145   0   0
Location
Pemberton BC
I hear this term alot : Out of the box accuracy.

usually, I hear it referring to Remingtons, Savages and Tikkas. Maybe a couple of others.

What does it mean? Well, to a hunting rifle- Not much.

it seems that virtually any hunitng rifle these days will give you 1.5 MOA or less , out of the box- if fed decent ammo.

Now, that is good enough to kill a deer or a coyote at 300 yards.

Most will do even better. Actually, I haven't run into a decent bolt action in some time that couldn't get to 1.25 MOA or less, with minimal effort and good ammo.

Alot of the "old time" gun writers woudl be thrilled to get a rifle that will shoot 1.5 MOA consistenly. Apparently we need more, now, and we judge a rifle by it's Out Of The Box Accuracy (OOTBA) to determine it's worht a s a hunting rifle.

Unless you get a lemon- and they *do* exist- virtually every factory rifle out there will give you accuracy that will do the hunting job at hand, with good ammo. You will kill your deer just fine with that super OOTBA Savage, or your other gun. It's usually up to you and your ammo to mak any difference.

Frankly, most rifles have more OOTBA than thier operators can use, whetehr form the bench or in the field. Yep, it's true. Most guys can't ue that extra .25-.5 MOA of OOTBA.

If you are an accuracy freak, then it's unlikely that you are going to stay put with a *stock* rifle, and you will mess around wiht the stock, bedding, trigger, etc

I say we drop OOTBA as a criteria for a good HUNTING rifle. I like accuracy the same as the next guy, but since all the guns out there these days have OOTBA that is suffiecient to kill an animal, it is really a moot point.:)
 
I wonder if this improvement found in modern guns has more to do with the better ammo and components we have today, rather than the guns Seems some of the old Mausers do pretty well now.

On the other hand, many of the old timers measured accuracy based on 10 rounds. Any of the accuracy guarantees we see today refer to 3 rounds at 100 yards. Townsend Whelen in an article about the then brand new .308 Winchester said 20 rounds at 200 yards was the proper measure of accuracy. A shiny new Weatherby Mk.V .300 magnum with it's willow weight barrel would be hard pressed to give 2 minutes under that criteria.
 
The only time it might be worth sweating for that extra .25" is if you are shooting benchrest or long range varmint hunting and even in those cases learning how to judge distance and dope wind is a better use of your time.

I learned to reload from a benchrest shooter and went through a period of being an accuracy freak. It was a Ruger #1A that changed my thinking. This rifle would not put 5 shots under 4 inches at 100 yards no matter what I did. What I noticed however was that it consistently put the first shot to the point of aim, the second within half an inch, the third within 1.5" and the fourth and fifth shots stretched the groups out. Because it was a single-shot rifle I stopped worrying about accuracy of shots that I'd never get a chance to take in the field. What mattered is that the first shot from a cold barrel went to the point of aim every time.

Both of my current rifles will shoot five rounds well inside an inch at 100 yards with either factory ammo or handloads which is nice to know but not all that important. In advance of the hunting season a typical range session starts out with few rounds from the bench to ensure that the scope is properly adjusted and that the rifle shoots to the point of aim. After that I get off my behind and start shooting steel plates at 200 yards offhand, sitting and using improvised rests.

Shooting from the bench is like patterning your shotgun. Both need to be done but neither make you ready to actually hunt.
 
I like factory rifles in the MOA or better range, got a couple :D
field-of-red-poppies_13300.jpg
 
Claybuster

If you still got the ruger #1 loosen off the forend till it rattles and see if it makes a diff. on a 3 shot group.

OOTBA is just a starting point for guys to tweek a gun. Does it make a better hunting rifle, it does if the guy is more confident in his rifle----Cowboy
 
Gatehouse, you could'nt have said it better in my opinion most people that can get an honest MOA at 100 yards should consider them selves lucky. We all have days where we shoot well but i think most people can not acomplish that as often as they want, When you have gun writers saying 1.5'' group or a little better at a 100 yards is average for a hunting rifle i find it hard to believe that when we get an 1'' were not happy, I am.
 
Right or wrong, OOTBA is also used as a sign of quality when someone is shopping for a new gun. A rifle that shoots 1 MOA gives the impression that it has better parts/build quality/design/etc than one that will shoot 1.5 MOA. That may not necessarily be true, but it is often used as a way to judge these things.

And while almost any decent gun available today is more than capable of taking most any game available to us. Unless there is a certain feature or something about a gun that you absolutely must have, not many people would choose the rifle with less percieved accuracy.

OOTBA may not be a valid measure of a hunting rifle, but I don't think it's something that people will stop looking for.
 
Yuri Orlov said:
Unless there is a certain feature or something about a gun that you absolutely must have, not many people would choose the rifle with less percieved accuracy.
Click to expand...

Not true, people buy Remingtons all the time. :p :D
 
we're all gun nuts, of course the majority of us are going to tweek our guns to better suit our needs. the average joe out there doesnt care if his barrel is free floating, or that his trigger is 5 lbs instead of 2.

odds are his rifle isnt the limiting factor in his shooting success either
 
Most of my factory rifles would do 1" at 100 yards with proper loads and would be more than adequate for most hunting situations.However I had a friend bring over a new remington 7400 that could not do 2" ,while another friend had a model 70 that would do no better than 1-3/4".Neither of these would be suitable for longer range shooting in my opinion,but either would suffice for many hunters.The worst that I have seen was an older remington semi auto that shot 5" patterns.Reguardless of the load,we could do no better,so the gun was sold at an auction where he bought it in the first place.I could never bring myself to hunt with a gun that was so inaccurate.
 
I agreee with most of what is being said, the key to success with a hunting rifle is finding a bullet that does the job and shoots reasonable groups out of that particular rifle, then its practice that is the key, from the sittting ,stand ing ,kneeling and prone positons, you should be comfortable with the postitions you are going to use, and be honest with yourself, if yhou don't shoot well from a position do not use it in a hunting situation
 
todbartell said:
...odds are his rifle isnt the limiting factor in his shooting success either
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHA.........sounds like a Shooting Bud I've got.
He had a Beautiful 7mm Mag Weatherby Lazermark(?) whatever.....Anyways he sold it because he could not get it to shoot better then 3" groups.

He bought a Sako 75.....same calibre, same scope etc.

Guess what ? The new Rifle is No good either ! ! !

He still Shoots 3" Groups :rolleyes:
;)
 
out of box

To me it's a matter of confidence in your rifle in the field. I bought a Kimber Classic Model 84M in 7mm08 this fall and was surprised (pleasantly) that it will shoot a 5 shot guoup under 1/2" at 100 yds. This is a very light rifle and is the most accurate I have ever owned. None of my Husquvarna's will come close to it. :D
 
Gatehouse:

100% fully agreed with you. Accuracy is no longer a consideration when buying a hunting rifle for 99% of hunters. A gun that will do 8-10" at 300 yards is sufficient for the vast majority of hunters out there. And virtually any new gun is capable of much better accuracy than that.

But OOTB accuracy will NEVER go away. Hunters and shooters are bull####ters, and admitting that a 300 yard gun is enough is admitting that the '1000 yard deer' you took last season was really more like a 1000 foot deer, or even less. This is one of the reasons Magnums are so popular when they're usually unnecessary.
 
I need .25 MOA for deer hunting.
And nothing less than a 300 Win Mag.


Its the perception that its better than the other guys.
 
I have a 1948 Win70 in 250-3000 that I am sure will shoot 1" at 100 yards. It even has the original scope that the Winchester gunsmiths mounted on it for my grandfather. It is still one of the most accurate guns I own or have ever shot. I guess it could be "truly" called out of the box, never being modified at all from the day grandpa recieved it. I would not call it a long-range shooter but I have witnessed my grandfather drop coyotes with it at well over 600 yards. I remember him hitting more than he missed for sure. Amazing how those old cowboys got so used to their old faithful that they can pull of shots like that.

I believe that if I only ever used one or two rifles instead of hopping through dozens of guns I would certainly be a better shot. Getting used to the trajectory of one cartridge and sticking with it would be a key factor. It will never happen with me. I have too much fun and enjoy the challenge of jumping from a 17hmr all the way to the 50bmg in one shooting session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom