The pursuit of accuracy - a blessing or a curse?

[vancewalker007]

I think having a rifle that is consistent is slightly more important than one that shoots a great group once in a while. For most hunting I'd rather have a 1 MOA rifle that is a 1 MOA rifle every time I get behind it. This type of consistency helps build confidence which is critical when shooting at game. I do a lot of Coues deer hunting. Been doing it for about 30 years now. In the Coues game supreme accuracy can really pay off as shots tend to be farther on average than in most other hunting situations in the US, and the target is about an 8 inch-ish target at best in rough country across canyons. My father and I have evolved and strove over the years to do plenty of long range shooting practice, have the most accurate rifles we can afford in our hands, and carefully loaded ammo when going after Coues deer. For years we were able to get our 7mm STWs down in the sub MOA area, ie. 0.7-.9 consistently. As technology has advanced, better bullets and rifles have become available we have squeezed that accuracy down quite a bit, but you still have to practice, practice, practice. Shooting steel at 1000 can make those 500-600 yard shots, and occasionally longer, a lot easier. The hardest thing to do on any longer field shot is and likely always will be to call the wind right.

 

[postoak]

It was Col. Townsend Whelen that said only accurate rifles are interesting, but I think they had a different standard for accuracy, plus I think he meant, not so much groups, but consistency.

 

[WAB]

It was Col. Townsend Whelen that said only accurate rifles are interesting, but I think they had a different standard for accuracy, plus I think he meant, not so much groups, but consistency.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[1dirthawker]

So that's my philosophy. Balance the faff and expense of the process against what you actually need the rifle to do, and don't get too hung up on that extra half an inch (unless, of course, your situation demands it).

Al,
i am pretty much in exact agreement with you. however, i see the need for that extra 1/2" if one shoots at steel at long range. (not a real fan of long range hunting) getting the wind wrong on a 600 yard shot on a game animal seems a bit wrong to me.

i am pretty much a practical accuracy guy. I do like very accurate rifles, but alas, in actual hunting conditions i suspect i cannot do the super accurate rifle complete justice while shooting over my pack, off sticks, offhand, etc.

somebody above argued that a 1 inch rifle will shoot better than a 2 inch rifle, they are right. mostly tho, with my 1.5" rifles or better ( i generally consider that a safe minimum) i am not shooting super far or at gophers so am adequately set up to hunt. truthfully, i am an ok shot, not a great shot and i suspect i am as much the problem for the 1 inch groups as the rifle.

an interesting conversation tho. much like favorite rifle calibers, i suspect there will be a wide variety of opinions.

don

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I see many post on here about the pursuit of accuracy in handloading. I thought I'd share my opinions on this topic and leave the floor open for you fine gentlemen to chip in. My tin hat is firmly in place, so don't hold back!

So many times I see folks saying on the internet "I've got a nice hunting load that does MOA, but I really wanna shrink that down to 0.5MOA, what do?" Now this is in some ways a noble cause, but on the other hand... why?

Personally, I like to think in terms of 'practical accuracy'. Namely, what accuracy does a given situation require, and even more importantly, what accuracy can I actually make use of under those conditions. I use this to guide my reloading process.

For an example, I have only 1 rifle, of 4, that is genuinely 'sub-MOA'.

It's a 6.5CM Tikka Tac A1. I use it for Precision rifle and (casual) F class comps at the range, from 300 to 1500yds. It shoots roughly 0.5MOA 5 round groups all day every day, maybe as small as 0.3MOA if I'm on form and the wind is co-operating.

Now for this rifle, that is genuinely 'useful' and 'necessary' accuracy. I need a rifle that'll put 20 rounds into a 5 inch circle at 1000yds. To even have a chance of being competitive therefore, one needs a rifle that'll do 0.5MOA.

To achieve this consistently involves a whole heap of faff, kit and expense. Loading the rounds is a highly involved, time consuming process with many many steps and much weighing, sorting and checking. The development of the load was equally involved and one must constantly be on the look out for factors such as batch to batch variation in components that can mess things around. Component cost is also high.

But, in this case it's worth it. The rifle is easy enough to shoot that I can make use of the performacne and the use case of the rifle demands it, so needs must.

In contrast, my .270win hunting rifle does an honest 5 round group MOA. I could probably improve this a bit using the process above, but why would I? The use case of that rifle dictates a load that'll put 1 round from a cold barrel into a 6 inch circle at ranges from 0 to 300yds. That's all the accuracy I actually need. Equally, when I shoot that rifle, it's often not under ideal conditions. I can be tired, I can have an awkward position, I can be under considerable time pressure, suffering from adrenaline and shooting at uncertain ranges. In almost all cases, even at 1MOA, the rifle is not the limiting factor, I am.

Therefore, I choose to cut out a huge load of faff, save time in loading, save on components and do a much less in depth load development procedure. Does this produce 'the best possible round' for that rifle? Probably not. But it allows me to get to a point where the kit is not limiting. At the end of the day, that's the goal here.

Taking this to extremes, I also have a 44Rem Mag marlin 1894. It shoots my plinking loads into maybe 2-3MOA off a bench at 100.

But then, I only ever shoot this rifle over open sights, invariably in dynamic disciplines at large targets and from unstable positions. I'll also never shoot it past 100 except, perhaps, for a laugh. Again, I could probably stick a scope on it, do a load of load development work and reload to the best of my ability and improve this massively. But once again, why?

The rifle gives all the accuracy I can practically utilise with pretty much any random load (my load development involved picking a random powder which was cheap and in my local shop from the book, a cheap hardcast bullet, picking a charge from 1/3 the way up the book values, loading to standard COAL and giving it a go. It did a couple inches, so I left it alone), any components, cheap dies and with thrown charges. It's cheap and incredibly quick and easy to make up ammo, which is good, as I shoot fair bit through it!

So that's my philosophy. Balance the faff and expense of the process against what you actually need the rifle to do, and don't get too hung up on that extra half an inch (unless, of course, your situation demands it).

What's your view, people of AH? Am I a heathen for not demanding 0.1MOA of everything, or does this more pragmatic approach appeal?

Al

Alistair
That sounds about like my method. I consult load from a disc pick a powder that matches the projectiles and give good velocity with the least pressure. I work out the cartridge overall length and work up from 3 grains below max up to max load. Usually I find the mcg load most accurate.
I will sight that load in and leave the rifle alone. The next time I go to the range I fire a one shot group from a cold clean barrel. If it is on target where it is supposed to be all good.
It is the first shot that counts on game not the 3rd, 4th or 5th. So as long as my rifles are putting the first shot where it's meant to be that's fine.
All my rifles group from 0.25 to 0.75 for 3 shots.
Cheers mate Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I lean more toward what Rem700stw says.
My opinion: If your rifle can only shoot 2” groups and you can only hold a 2” group in the field, then you shoot a 4” group in the field. This is only a 200 yard capability I believe.
Thus I try to get the smallest groups off the bench possible to help as much as possible in the field.
One example is croc. The brain is about the size of a golf ball and the neck spine maybe twice that. Small targets at 100 yards. If you can only shoot a 4” group, you Likely don’t get your croc.
Also, my groups are only 3. Reasoning is except for coyotes and prairie dogs I have never fired more than 3 shots at any big game. I do occasionally shoot more than 3 shot groups just to see what heating the barrel up does. My coyote and prairie dog guns I will group as many as 10. They usually start opening after 5-6 rounds.

If you’re comfortable with 2”, it’s your money go out and hunt. JMO, but the kill tends to be a bit anticlimactic with the possible exception of DG.

Ridgewalker
I remember an interview with a gator shooter in America. They askeked him why he used a 35 caliber rifle on them when everyone else uses a lot smaller.
His reply was when I'm shooting at a goofball size target I like to leave baseball size holes. It allows for my mistakes.
Cheers mate Bob

 

[Shootist43]

My reason for seeking accuracy probably comes from my association with competitive pistol shooting. I always wanted / demanded that anything less than a "X" be my fault, not the gun's or the ammo. To me, knowing that my firearm is accurate is a confidence builder. The level of accuracy required is more or less dependent on the "game" you are playing. I.e. a 1 MOA rifle is all but useless to a long range hunter or a 1,000 yd. target shooter let alone the Bench Rest guys. Yet for those of us that consider three or four hundred yards a long shot, it is more than capable of getting the job done.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

If I cannot get a hunting rifle to consistently shoot 1 MOA or better, I get rid of it. That’s just my personal standard. Understand that I was fortunate enough to have employment that allowed/required me to shoot weekly on Uncle Sam’s dime for several years. As a military sniper, my rifle/ammunition had to be accurate if I wanted to hit my target at extended ranges. Later, as a police marksman, the ranges that I trained at weren’t nearly as far, but I needed the ability to “thread the needle” if you will. I needed to hit exactly where I wanted, and 1 inch off was absolutely unacceptable. My work sent me to Army Sniper school and later to two different law enforcement dedicated marksman schools. Hence, I gained a lot of experience with rifles that allowed me the ability to consistently shoot very small groups. I suppose I grew accustomed to accurate rifles.
Although I understand that a 2 MOA hunting rifle will, under most circumstances, be sufficient to get the job done...I just can’t stand it. An inaccurate rifle is like nails to a chalkboard to me.

Let me put it this way...if rifles were women, I got to party with the likes of Paulina Porizkova, Heidi Klum, Elle Macpherson, and Farrah Fawcett. A night with Roseanne Barr isn’t going to put led in my pencil.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

If rifles were women, Roseanne would be a scattergun.

If I cannot get a hunting rifle to consistently shoot 1 MOA or better, I get rid of it. That’s just my personal standard. Understand that I was fortunate enough to have employment that allowed/required me to shoot weekly on Uncle Sam’s dime for several years. As a military sniper, my rifle/ammunition had to be accurate if I wanted to hit my target at extended ranges. Later, as a police marksman, the ranges that I trained at weren’t nearly as far, but I needed the ability to “thread the needle” if you will. I needed to hit exactly where I wanted, and 1 inch off was absolutely unacceptable. My work sent me to Army Sniper school and later to two different law enforcement dedicated marksman schools. Hence, I gained a lot of experience with rifles that allowed me the ability to consistently shoot very small groups. I suppose I grew accustomed to accurate rifles.
Although I understand that a 2 MOA hunting rifle will, under most circumstances, be sufficient to get the job done...I just can’t stand it. An inaccurate rifle is like nails to a chalkboard to me.

Let me put it this way...if rifles were women, I got to party with the likes of Paulina Porizkova, Heidi Klum, Elle Macpherson, and Farrah Fawcett. A night with Roseanne Barr isn’t going to put led in my pencil.