This is also worth taking into consideration, in my post above the accuracy I was talking about was shooting offhand with nothing but a sling for stabilization, not from a rest.
What level of accuracy (lunacy) are you aiming for with hunting loads?
- Thread starter Walleyewhiz
- Start date
- Status
This is also worth taking into consideration, in my post above the accuracy I was talking about was shooting offhand with nothing but a sling for stabilization, not from a rest.
For all the talk about rifles and calibers I think a good scope is mandatory to get the best out of your rifle. Even the most accurate rifle in the world will struggle to get MOA with open sights. You would struggle to see an aiming mark at 100 yards even with a 2 or 3 power scope. So my point is it's all relative - a tack driver with crappy sights will shoot no better than an average rifle with high mag quality optics.
I would go with your faster load, otherwise you shooting a 30-06 and there is no advantage to shooting a magnum. Personally If a rifle shoots 1 Moa or better, then Im happy with it for hunting at reasonable distances( to me thats out to 600 yards or so) If Im planning to shoot beyond that then 1/2 Moa or better.
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
I have one rifle ( chambered in 303 Brit)that I can hit clay birds with at 200 yards fairly consistently with the express sights- there is not a deer living that needs more accuracy than that at 200.
I've owned several that would go 1/2MOA on a good day, but they were guns set up for long range shooting and hunting.
most of the guns in my rack will do MOA on a good day or a bit bigger, some will shoot 2" on a very good day.
I have no issues taking any of them hunting.
Cat
I've owned several that would go 1/2MOA on a good day, but they were guns set up for long range shooting and hunting.
most of the guns in my rack will do MOA on a good day or a bit bigger, some will shoot 2" on a very good day.
I have no issues taking any of them hunting.
Cat
This divergence from the question of rifle accuracy to field position accuracy gets me somewhat miffed. Every time someone asks about a rifles accuracy for hunting someone pipes up about field position accuracy, these are two completely different topics and I fail to see what one has to do with the other. A rifles accuracy is the best group the firearm is capable of after removing as much human influence as possible, this tells us exactly what the rifle and load ALONE is capable of doing. Important information in my opinion as I wish to know the accuracy potential of the firearm in question, not my proficiency with that firearm, which is a whole different topic entirely.
It is nice to know that your hunting rifle is capable of 1/2 moa, 1 moa or 2 moa, even if the shooter is only capable of 20 moa shooting off hand. So those of you who say who cares if the rifle is capable of shooting 1/2 moa because I can't shoot better in the field that 4 moa, does this mean that you'd be happy with a 4 moa accuracy threshold from your rifle? Gentlemen please, let's stop confusing firearm accuracy with shooter proficiency, they are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination and do not belong in the same conversation, especially when the OP was asking about the accuracy of the firearm he intends to hunt with.
OP, regarding your question, I have said many times that I would give up the 1/2 moa from 1/2" groups to 1" groups if I could get another 200 fps and still get 1 moa. The higher the velocity the shorter the time of flight and the less effect the wind has, the greater the energy on target and the flatter the trajectory AND with 1 moa accuracy, you can still hit a sheep or deer in the heart at 500 mtrs if you do your part. In my opinion, the gains realized by gaining 200 fps drastically out weigh the accuracy compromise from 1/2" to 1" groups at 100 mtrs.
It is nice to know that your hunting rifle is capable of 1/2 moa, 1 moa or 2 moa, even if the shooter is only capable of 20 moa shooting off hand. So those of you who say who cares if the rifle is capable of shooting 1/2 moa because I can't shoot better in the field that 4 moa, does this mean that you'd be happy with a 4 moa accuracy threshold from your rifle? Gentlemen please, let's stop confusing firearm accuracy with shooter proficiency, they are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination and do not belong in the same conversation, especially when the OP was asking about the accuracy of the firearm he intends to hunt with.
OP, regarding your question, I have said many times that I would give up the 1/2 moa from 1/2" groups to 1" groups if I could get another 200 fps and still get 1 moa. The higher the velocity the shorter the time of flight and the less effect the wind has, the greater the energy on target and the flatter the trajectory AND with 1 moa accuracy, you can still hit a sheep or deer in the heart at 500 mtrs if you do your part. In my opinion, the gains realized by gaining 200 fps drastically out weigh the accuracy compromise from 1/2" to 1" groups at 100 mtrs.
I agree with all of that...
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Douglas and I have had this discussion before, and I disagree. Tight groups have a purpose, and was alluded to . . . its nice to know, it inspires one's confidence. On the other hand, it can disillusion the shooter if his rifle or load doesn't quite make that magical MOA, and when he forgets what the mission of his rifle really is. Too often shooters claim miraculous accuracy from their hunting rifles, but what happened once is not the same as doing something on demand. I'm not pointing a finger at Douglas, in fact I've never heard him make a claim that wasn't true or that he couldn't back up. But if I went around boasting that my factory full stock CZ-527 could dump them all in one hole at 200 yards, my honesty would be suspect, although it occurred once, and not from the bench or prone, but off the hood of my truck! If only I could do that on demand. So if a rifle is deemed capable of a specific degree of precision, how many groups must then be fireds to determine that is in fact the case, and how many rounds should be fired in each group?
The wisdom of getting away from worrying about tight groups came to me, not when rifle shooting, but on a Ranger exercise when we did a familiarization shoot with the Hi-Power pistol. I'd been a decent pistol shooter for a long time by then, and when my turn came to shoot, I fully expected to clean house as no one else had even held a pistol before. I fired my first shot, asked the GIC to indicate where my first round landed, he obliged, but as it turned out, he lied. So I shot a pretty little group, 2" below my first bullet impact, which was already low, with all the holes touching, into the 8 ring I think it was. I came in second. The gal who beat me scattered her rounds into a wide pattern, but none of her shots extended outside the 9 ring. Ahhh, see, its not the size of the group that wins the day, its the distance your rounds land from your intended point of impact; the length of your shot string. But who measures the length of their shot strings?
So, if your rifle with it's pencil thin barrel, always puts the cold bore shot right on the money and every subsequent round were to open up half a minute, does that mean your rifle is incapable of precision? If you put up a 300 yard target, and fired one shot every morning for 5 days, and that group measured .75 MOA, then I'd say you had something, and that information is nice to know and should inspire confidence. But neither that level of precision, nor the confidence it exuded, would ever be realized by shooting a quick 5 shot or even a 3 shot group. But precision only matters within the parameters of target size, range, environmental conditions, the quality of the ammunition, and time. If you intend to shoot a deer at a half mile, precision is extremely important, but that is, at least for now, well outside the ability of both the typical hunter and his equipment.
When Townsend Whelen measured rifle accuracy at Aberdeen, it was with numerous 20 round groups fired at 300 yards. If he said that such and such a rifle was a 2 minute rifle, that level of precision fell within a very specific definition, and only applied to one lot of ammunition. Certainly that rifle would show better accuracy if it fired a group with fewer shots, and would show better or worse accuracy with a different lot of ammo. Typically 80% of the rounds would be in the 10 ring, yet the overall group size is determined by only 20% of the rounds fired, in fact by the worst two rounds vertically and horizontally of the 20%. What about the other 80%? If you measured your shot string, they'd be taken into account.
Precision in a hunting rifle is frequently determined by firing a 3 shot group. Why? Because under typical hunting conditions its reasonable to assume that it might take 3 rounds to finish the job, despite our preference for one shot kills, and the barrel shouldn't heat up enough to throw a wide shot with 3 rounds. So what of the hunter who fires 15 rounds to put his animal away, should his rifle's level of precision then be determined by 15 shot groups, and if it were, would that provide him with useful information? He and his quarry would be better off had he put in more trigger time that more closely represented true hunting conditions. Some might recognize the name Carlos Hathcock, winner of the Wimbledon Cup and legendary USMC sniper during the Vietnam War. Hathcock carried a heavy barrel .30/06 M-70 Winchester for much of his time in country, and made some startling shots with that rifle. The fact that it was a 2 MOA rifle didn't seem to help Charlie when he caught a round in the face from half a mile away across some rice paddy. The key is that rifle usually put the first round where Hathcock needed it to go.
The information the practical shooter needs under typical big game hunting conditions is the trajectory of his bullet for a given range, relative to his rifle's zero, the wind drift, and the deviation from zero for a high angle shot if he hunts in steep country. Having a good grasp of that information, and the knowledge that the first shot is the money shot, will do more for one's confidence, than a shooting a couple of 1" groups at 100.
The wisdom of getting away from worrying about tight groups came to me, not when rifle shooting, but on a Ranger exercise when we did a familiarization shoot with the Hi-Power pistol. I'd been a decent pistol shooter for a long time by then, and when my turn came to shoot, I fully expected to clean house as no one else had even held a pistol before. I fired my first shot, asked the GIC to indicate where my first round landed, he obliged, but as it turned out, he lied. So I shot a pretty little group, 2" below my first bullet impact, which was already low, with all the holes touching, into the 8 ring I think it was. I came in second. The gal who beat me scattered her rounds into a wide pattern, but none of her shots extended outside the 9 ring. Ahhh, see, its not the size of the group that wins the day, its the distance your rounds land from your intended point of impact; the length of your shot string. But who measures the length of their shot strings?
So, if your rifle with it's pencil thin barrel, always puts the cold bore shot right on the money and every subsequent round were to open up half a minute, does that mean your rifle is incapable of precision? If you put up a 300 yard target, and fired one shot every morning for 5 days, and that group measured .75 MOA, then I'd say you had something, and that information is nice to know and should inspire confidence. But neither that level of precision, nor the confidence it exuded, would ever be realized by shooting a quick 5 shot or even a 3 shot group. But precision only matters within the parameters of target size, range, environmental conditions, the quality of the ammunition, and time. If you intend to shoot a deer at a half mile, precision is extremely important, but that is, at least for now, well outside the ability of both the typical hunter and his equipment.
When Townsend Whelen measured rifle accuracy at Aberdeen, it was with numerous 20 round groups fired at 300 yards. If he said that such and such a rifle was a 2 minute rifle, that level of precision fell within a very specific definition, and only applied to one lot of ammunition. Certainly that rifle would show better accuracy if it fired a group with fewer shots, and would show better or worse accuracy with a different lot of ammo. Typically 80% of the rounds would be in the 10 ring, yet the overall group size is determined by only 20% of the rounds fired, in fact by the worst two rounds vertically and horizontally of the 20%. What about the other 80%? If you measured your shot string, they'd be taken into account.
Precision in a hunting rifle is frequently determined by firing a 3 shot group. Why? Because under typical hunting conditions its reasonable to assume that it might take 3 rounds to finish the job, despite our preference for one shot kills, and the barrel shouldn't heat up enough to throw a wide shot with 3 rounds. So what of the hunter who fires 15 rounds to put his animal away, should his rifle's level of precision then be determined by 15 shot groups, and if it were, would that provide him with useful information? He and his quarry would be better off had he put in more trigger time that more closely represented true hunting conditions. Some might recognize the name Carlos Hathcock, winner of the Wimbledon Cup and legendary USMC sniper during the Vietnam War. Hathcock carried a heavy barrel .30/06 M-70 Winchester for much of his time in country, and made some startling shots with that rifle. The fact that it was a 2 MOA rifle didn't seem to help Charlie when he caught a round in the face from half a mile away across some rice paddy. The key is that rifle usually put the first round where Hathcock needed it to go.
The information the practical shooter needs under typical big game hunting conditions is the trajectory of his bullet for a given range, relative to his rifle's zero, the wind drift, and the deviation from zero for a high angle shot if he hunts in steep country. Having a good grasp of that information, and the knowledge that the first shot is the money shot, will do more for one's confidence, than a shooting a couple of 1" groups at 100.
Last edited:
MoD..Minute of Deer as provided by the factory loads by Wby.
Nothing shoots faster, hits harder than a Weatherby.
Your two choices seem like a no brainer, but thats just me and my practical attitude with or with out coffee added logic.
Tight Groups,
Rob
Nothing shoots faster, hits harder than a Weatherby.
Your two choices seem like a no brainer, but thats just me and my practical attitude with or with out coffee added logic.
Tight Groups,
Rob
I wonder how those Palma shooters get MOA at 1000 yards with iron sights?
You have a point. Quality glass is important; however magnification is not an indicator of optical quality.
Like many of you, I keep wondering at what point I am getting carried away with accuracy for hunting. I go through a lot of guns and have been doing this game for a long time. Recently I picked up a Sako A7 in 300 WSM. Typically, I am looking for 1" accuracy for a hunting rifle, as my experience is that almost all guns will do that with handloading. Anyhow, this gun shoots 165TTSX quite well. With 64 gr of IMR 4350 it is .500' and doing about 2900fps. With 66 gr (max in Nosler manual) it is .850" and doing about 3100 fps. So my question is, which would you go with?
I know what I am gonna do, but I wanted to see what you guys are gonna do?
We are ridiculous with this stuff
To me it is a no-brainer too, but I wanted to see the way others think.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I try and fiddle with loads to get MOA or better, and usually succeed. Because I can; and no other real reason than that.
However, I am fine hunting with a 1.5" rifle.
90% of the big game I shoot is right around 100 yards, even though I practice out to around 500.
I have just found the absolute accuracy of a rifle to really be a fairly minor factor in actually getting game home.
I've seen guys who shoot sub MOA 5 shot groups at the range all the time miss a moose completely at 100 yards broadside with a whole magazine of ammo, and I've seen guys who cannot shoot a 3 MOA group to save their lives, consistently hammer big game time after time with one or two shots.
It ain't the gun that really maters....
However, I am fine hunting with a 1.5" rifle.
90% of the big game I shoot is right around 100 yards, even though I practice out to around 500.
I have just found the absolute accuracy of a rifle to really be a fairly minor factor in actually getting game home.
I've seen guys who shoot sub MOA 5 shot groups at the range all the time miss a moose completely at 100 yards broadside with a whole magazine of ammo, and I've seen guys who cannot shoot a 3 MOA group to save their lives, consistently hammer big game time after time with one or two shots.
It ain't the gun that really maters....
pisces-guy
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna, B.C.
For the guys that don't roll their own, I haven't yet owned or know of a rifle that doesn't shoot well with EITHER Barnes Vor-tx OR Nosler Accubonds...so if you're not happy with your rifle's accuracy and you've eliminated other possibilities like loose screws or scope issues, then I'd recommend you try these with mid-weight bullets. For example, 165 grain Accubonds or 168 grain TTSX in a 30.06. Some rifles, like my '54 Husqvarna, shoot both equally well but with a different point of impact, of course, so you have to sight in if you switch. I've yet to see a rifle that hates both of these excellent bullets.
i agree with this ^^
I've taken a few guys hunting who are really good shots off the bags on the bench or laying prone. In the field though, shooting at an animal, that rifle/shooter range performance goes to the wind LOL Fortunately for some, experience usually starts to trump that once those guys hunt for a few years tho.
For my "long range hunting rifles" being 7mm RM and 338WM , I like to see an inch or better 5 shot groups at 100 yards but most importantly the first 2 cold bore shots dead on point of aim at 250.
In your case i would stick with accuracy rather than a bit extra speed.
If FPS is really important maybe play with OAL a bit and see can you squeeze the groups.
I always look for an 1", 3/4" or less but not satisfied with anything over an inch.
There is guys that say moose or deer is huge target but shooting from table and with some front and rear rest in perfect condition is not same as looking into trophy on a windy or rainy day from who knows what position...
If FPS is really important maybe play with OAL a bit and see can you squeeze the groups.
I always look for an 1", 3/4" or less but not satisfied with anything over an inch.
There is guys that say moose or deer is huge target but shooting from table and with some front and rear rest in perfect condition is not same as looking into trophy on a windy or rainy day from who knows what position...
I'll take as much accuracy as I can get, but there is a point where it get's silly and you should be spending time practicing shooting rather than fine tuning loads. I'm as guilty as the next guy of this of course.
Back in the day 2" groups at 100 were considered quite accurate. The reality is, if your bullet hits within about 3" or so of where you are aiming, chances are the animal will die quick (assuming you aren't aiming at it's ass).
Back in the day 2" groups at 100 were considered quite accurate. The reality is, if your bullet hits within about 3" or so of where you are aiming, chances are the animal will die quick (assuming you aren't aiming at it's ass).
- Status
