Practical Hunting Field Accuracy: Is sub-MOA Rifle Accuracy a Benefit in Hunting?

South Pender

South Pender

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
75   0   0
Location
Vancouver
Interest in extreme accuracy is common among rifle owners. We all want a rifle that is capable of shooting .50 MOA 5-shot groups at 100 yards. And bench shooting our rifles and improving their accuracy is a legitimate and enjoyable activity in its own right. But in the context of hunting, how does this level of accuracy contribute to what we may term “practical field accuracy”? Let me define practical field accuracy as the diameter of a circle within which a shooter can keep all his shots in the field—with a particular rifle and load--at a specified range. This can be seen as approximately the shooter’s group size at that distance—when shooting from typical positions encountered in hunting situations.

Suppose you have a hypothetical perfect rifle, one capable of 0 MOA accuracy. With that rifle, what is the diameter of a circle at, say, 100 yards in which you could keep all your shots while hunting? In hunting situations, we have a number of issues that affect our accuracy: terrain problems (uneven ground, tall grass, etc.), wind, weather issues, and the shooter’s natural ability and his mental and physical state while hunting—being excited, out-of-breath, tired, etc. Out hunting in the field, we try to find a way to shoot from a natural rest or kneeling, sitting, or prone, but sometimes are forced to shoot offhand. For purposes of argument, let’s say that you can assume a kneeling position. What can a good field shot accomplish from that position with the perfect rifle? I would guess that a 3” group under those conditions would be very good. So, a good shot could be seen to be a 3” shooter (with the perfect rifle). We’ll call this figure Shooter Accuracy. From an offhand position without support, 6”-7” is more likely. So, just to reiterate, we are discussing here a hunter’s field accuracy with a perfect (0 MOA) rifle.

The point I want to get to, though, is just what the effect on practical field accuracy is of having a less-than-perfect rifle (i.e., any rifle). Let’s consider three rifles in each case being shot at 100 yards from a solid benchrest setup with good front and rear rests and under calm conditions:

(a) one capable of shooting 1.0” 5-shot groups,
(b) one capable of .50” 5-shot groups, and
(c) one capable of .25” 5-shot groups.

The 1.0” rifle would be considered accurate, and the .50” and .25” rifles, extremely accurate. We’ll call these figures Rifle Accuracy.

So, what is the effect of each rifle in the hunting field with a 3” field shooter (that is a shooter capable of a 3” group at 100 yards with a perfect rifle) or what we’ll call “Shooter Accuracy of 3”? There are probably several ways to model this combination of shooter accuracy and rifle accuracy, which are two independent phenomena, but I’m guessing that they will lead to very similar results. We’ll call the combination of these two figures Practical Field Accuracy. On the basis of one simple model, the results below give the practical field accuracy for each of the three rifles described--the 1”, .50”, and .25” rifles. The practical field accuracy is the group size for that shooter with that rifle and load.

SHOOTER ACCURACY: 3.0"

1. Rifle Accuracy: 1 MOA; Practical Field Accuracy: 3.16 MOA
2. Rifle Accuracy: .50 MOA; Practical Field Accuracy: 3.04 MOA
3. Rifle Accuracy: .25 MOA; Practical Field Accuracy: 3.01 MOA

The results above make clear (I hope) just how irrelevant super benchrest accuracy is in a hunting rifle—i.e., one to be used in the usual hunting field conditions. It can be seen that shooter accuracy almost completely dominates the equation. In practical terms, the .50 MOA rifle provides less than 1/8” of tighter accuracy at 100 yards than the 1 MOA rifle. Will this effective field accuracy of 3.04” vs. the 3.16” of the 1 MOA rifle increase the probability of a hit? Not likely at all. Even at 300 yards, the difference in practical field accuracy is 9.48” vs 9.12”, or only .36”. And what about that elusive .25 MOA rifle? Will this super-accurate gun be any better in the field than the .50 MOA rifle? No, not with the truly trivial .03” decrease in 100-yard group size.

I might add that if you are a 4” shooter (which may be more realistic in difficult terrain and from far less-than-ideal field positions), the differences produced by greater rifle accuracy are even less consequential. Here are the results for that state of affairs:

SHOOTER ACCURACY: 4.0"

1. Rifle Accuracy: 1 MOA; Practical Field Accuracy: 4.12 MOA
2. Rifle Accuracy: .50 MOA; Practical Field Accuracy: 4.03 MOA
3. Rifle Accuracy: .25 MOA; Practical Field Accuracy: 4.01 MOA

So at 100 yards, the .50” rifle buys you precisely .09” of improved practical field accuracy over the 1 MOA rifle.

So what is the bottom-line message here?

1. For practical game-field purposes, a .50 or .25 MOA rifle provides no real advantage over a 1 MOA rifle. Actually, a 1.50 MOA rifle will be more than adequate. Of course, as rifle accuracy declines, practical field accuracy does as well; if your rifle is capable of only 4” accuracy, your practical field accuracy will be noticeably affected.

2. To improve one’s practical field accuracy, the only activity that will produce noticeable benefits is practice from field positions. If you have a 1.0” rifle, you’re fine. Don’t waste your time obsessing over finding ways to reduce its benchrest accuracy to .5” if practical field accuracy is your concern.

Final notes: It’s often been stated that knowing that one’s rifle is capable of gilt-edge accuracy bestows confidence on the shooter, and this may be true. Perhaps a hunter’s shooter accuracy improves when he knows he has a sub-MOA rifle. And I might add to all of this that I actually enjoy obsessing over reducing the group sizes of my rifles, and shooting our rifles from the bench is fun. I get a real jolt of pleasure in seeing a hunting rifle turning in .5” groups (not that it happens all that often), as a lot of us shooters do. But that’s a completely different activity from improving my effectiveness in the field!
 
Last edited:
Many people pay attention to simply group sizing say at 50 or 100 Yards. While group sizing is a worthy thing to care about, too many people do not practice with their rifles at various yardages. Knowing, where your rifle hits at other yardages other then it's zero is also an important factor. Lots of people shoot at deer thinking they'll hit but are not zero'd for the distance and lack the hold over knowledge to get their rounds on target with good placement. I had a buddy do this very thing to a bear a few years ago with a 45-70. Missed about 1 foot low, due to not knowing his zero, and where to hold over for the range of the animal.

My hunting rifle zero'd at 100 is 0.3 inches high at 50, at 150 it's 1.5 inch low, and at 200 3.4 inches low. I haven't bothered much with learning what it does at higher ranges as the farthest I will ever shoot is 200, and that's almost never likely to happen.
 
Ribstaylor said:
Many people pay attention to simply group sizing say at 50 or 100 Yards. While group sizing is a worthy thing to care about, too many people do not practice with their rifles at various yardages. Knowing, where your rifle hits at other yardages other then it's zero is also an important factor. Lots of people shoot at deer thinking they'll hit but are not zero'd for the distance and lack the hold over knowledge to get their rounds on target with good placement. I had a buddy do this very thing to a bear a few years ago with a 45-70. Missed about 1 foot low, due to not knowing his zero, and where to hold over for the range of the animal.

My hunting rifle zero'd at 100 is 0.3 inches high at 50, at 150 it's 1.5 inch low, and at 200 3.4 inches low. I haven't bothered much with learning what it does at higher ranges as the farthest I will ever shoot is 200, and that's almost never likely to happen.
Click to expand...

This. A 1MOA rifle shot in field conditions by someone who practices at lot will approach 1 MOA in the field. Most people spend $$$
on the easy stuff and refuse to do the work that makes the most difference. A $700 Savage package rifle and $3000 worth of ammo combined with focused practice roll outshoot a Christenson with a Huskimaw(the local go to for new rifle snobs).
 
I think being able to successfully place first round hits on a vitals sized target is much more important than shooting teeny groups
 
More important than any "group" size is where that first shot from a cold barrel will go.
I hunt with a fouled barrel, but want the confidence that comes from knowing where the
first shot will land when I shoot at an animal.

I have used a standard sighting for scoped rifles for 40+ years. +3" at 100 yards.
For a 30-06 with a 180 Partition started at 2800 fps it looks like this:
100: +3.0"
200: +2.5"
300: -4.0"
400: -17.0"
The 270 Winchester, 130 or 140 will shoot slightly flatter, as will the 7mm Rem Mag.with 150-162 grain bullets
But this sighting has always worked well for me. My Bull Elk this year was at 308 yards,
basically a dead on hold for my 325 WSM and the 196 Oryx at 2975 or so. Dave.
 
If you start with an accurate rifle, your in better shape than having one that slings 4 inch groups. Having an accurate rifle can’t make things worse in the field. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t shoot at different distances and practice as much as you can afford. It doesn’t mean you have to a sub MOA rifle. But if I can’t get a gun to shoot consistent 1.5 inch group with hunting loads I will move it on. All my bolt guns are sub MOA. I have one rifle that shoot 1.5 inches with hunting loads and still gets carried. Anything less than this level doesn’t meet my criteria. I feel better in the field knowing the only errors will be my shaky hands, not the equipment.
 
Completely agree with the original post. Small group size is important for confidence in one's equipment, not so important for effective shots on game in the field. But it's much easier to develop or purchase precise equipment than it is to develop the skills to shoot accurately in the field. And so many urban hunters don't have easy access to a shooting spot, they are pretty much restricted to a formal range with rules about how shooting can be done. Many ranges seem to only allow shooting off a bench. People discuss what they know and can do.
I can't remember anyone writing on here about shooting off of sticks, shooting sitting with a sling, or kneeling. With the notable exception of shooting from permanent box blinds, all those positions are more useful for the hunting that I do compared to shooting off a solid rest. If you have the shooting skill, many hunting shots are best conducted offhand, at moving game. Few talk about that either. I've used a pack or padded rock while shooting game in the high alpine of BC and the Yukon, and sometimes on the short grass prairie or open fields of Southern Sask. Nearly everywhere else prone with a rest is a no-go, there is usually too much brush or grass or snow in the way. Shooting quickly without fussing and fiddling is often very important but also a neglected skill and seldom practised.
So effective hunting shots made from common, relatively unsteady positions depend mostly on the skill of timing trigger squeeze with a moving sight picture. Not on a rifles inherent accuracy.
 
THE biggest detriment to successful shot placement in the field is the inability to make things happen quickly. You need to be able to make shots accurately and quickly. And learn to reload the rifle after the shot in case you need to follow up. People lose all sense in the presence of game.
 
I test at the bench and test in practical field conditions. I am happy with 1-2 MOA at the bench and under 5 MOA in the field. Proper stock fit and practice are the biggest factors for success in my experience. I also don't take shots over 200 metres, and I am comfortable using quality iron sights under 50 metres--and that requires practice.
 
While a sub .5 MOA rifle is not necessary for 98% of most hunting successes, a .5 MOA rifle will give you confidence to make that 2% shot.

Necessary no, benefit to have yes :)
 
This is my first successful year as a self taught "hunter". I shoot 0.6moa off the bench and was the only person to pass my Mapleseed with a score of 224/250. I "know" I'm a good shot, and yet still totally missed on a deer last week.

I was so excited by seeing them on my walk-in that I mixed up my charts 4MOA as 4" and 200m as 200y and didn't hold over high enough. Disappointing for sure but I got a clean shot on another deer an hour later at an even 100y. There's so much more to this then just putting a cross hair on an animal's shoulder.
 
Last edited:
My favorite muzzleloader is my most inaccurate rifle I own. 5 shots in about 5" at 100m. The rifle has never let me down. Most of my shots are 30 yards or less though and deer offer a big kill zone
My coyote rifle if it shot half that bad would be rebarreled.
Smaller target at further ranges needs more accuracy
 
Practice and round count play a huge role in field accuracy. I know alot of guys who only take their rifles out a week before deer season starts. They'd be lucky to put a box of ammo through their hunting rifles each year, and are happy to be minute of pie plate at 200m. That being said, a couple of them wouldn't be minute of pie plate at 200m with my 0.5 moa rifles, shooting prone off bags. An accurate rifle won't automatically make a terrible shooter good, only practice will.
For me, 99.999999% of my shooting happens at the range. So I have little interest in rifles that aren't sub-moa. Does that help me while hunting? Hard to quantify, but it hasn't hurt.
 
This topic comes up at our range A LOT, and I always maintain not to get target accuracy mixed up with hunting accuracy, they are two different things altogether.

I don't hunt with my match rifles and I don't shoot target matches with my hunting rifles - unless it is a hunting rifle match of course! LOL

I once spoke with a very accomplished silhouette shooter at a rifle rodeo, he was using his favorite hunting rifle, a M77RSI in 250 Savage.
I remarked about how well worn it was and asked if it was very accurate " off the bench , no, but it is really accurate for offhand shots and hunting " was his answer.
He didn't use it to compete in silhouette matches, but rifle rodeo is a complete different ball game with movers, pop ups, weak arm and swinging targets!
It was perfect for that stuff and for hunting.
My main hunting rifle on a good day will shot a 5 shot 1MOA group off the bench , but I have made one shot kills with very little or no time to aim from 19 past 300 yards with it .
Cat
 
Last edited:
Root Sum Squared is a good way to predict the combination of two variables. While people tend to dwell on the possibility of their worst left wobble meeting their farthest left dispersion of the group, it is an unlikely scenario. It has the same chance of happening as your left wobble meeting your extreme right shot and putting the bullet back in the middle of the target.

Confidence is a thing; but so is false confidence. The confidence I might get from wearing my lucky socks will not really influence the ability to make an off-hand shot at an unlucky mammal at normal hunting ranges and neither will a 1/2" rifle as opposed to one that only groups 1 1/2".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom