what is the most accurate 1000 yard deer caliber

[rdavidsonjr]

Thanks Brian Pfleuger for the info and also several others that have made positive posts on the subject, forgiving me for sometimes being unable to state myself clearly. I'm not dreaming of world class results out of myself because I realize at 54 I've lost a lot of my eyes and steadiness. I've never really have done a lot of long range bench time. But in another post Bart B. pointed out if your going to bench shoot you just as well get as good a gun as you can so you can see your flaws, its the only way to know the absolute truth. In my older years I could see doing a lot more time with a low recoil caliber at the bench. I have a son that will eventually enjoy the gun anyways. He is about to get out of the Marine Corp. and I see spending some time with him doing what he knows best,weapons. He is capable of shooting the groups that Bart B. spoke of earlier in the post. He was over the range at 29 stumps for a good while earning one of his 2 Naval Achievement Awards for improvements to the Marine marksman scores and a list of other things. Well right now the 6.5 seems to have the edge unless anyone else can weigh in on the matter with some other details. And by the way I know the gun can out shoot me.

[RC20]

The 260 Remington seems to have a reputation for being easier on the barrels than others so that would be my choice (at some point enough shooting that becomes a factor. More energy with a larger bullet for the deer part and very good capability for the 1000 yd target shooting.

I disagree with Brian, I think you need a good rifle and a scope to shoot good groups. Can you take full advantage of a rifle as good as one of the premier shooters of course is not. Something more than today's econo rifle is needed for 5 or 10 shot good groups though. Call it the $800-1000 class.

In other words, a world class shooter is not going to take a Rugger American and do the kinds of groups they do. He would get the best out of it you could, but it would not be world class (and if he had a poor one vs a good one an average shooter would beat him). If you both had equal one he would score the best.

The 30-06 is just a 308 on steroids.

I disagree, 30-06 came first so the 308 is the skinny kid at the beach trying to bulk up. It does ok but its no 30-06 (grin)

[Jimro]

Once you get past 200 yards the wind separates the accurate shooters from the rest.

Rifle caliber has very little to do with it at that point. Looking at the last F Class mationals, the F Open and F/TR shooters had plenty of overlap in their scores, with a TR shooter placing in the top three.

Think about that, the wind put a 308 shooter over several 6.5x284s and some 7mm Magnums.

For actual hunting, a well fitted 308 is as good anything else out there. However I wouldn't want to lug a 308 designed for 1k match shooting around in the woods.

Still, a 308 with a 20 or 22" barrel will get you there, as it has for tens of thousand long range High Power compeitors with the M1A and AR-10.

Jimro

[5RWill]

A .243, .260, .308 with a 20"/22" Sendero/Rem Varmint contour in a lightweight stock actually balances quite nice. A couple pounds heavier than a designated hunting rifle but still. Slap a mark 6 on there and go.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by RC20

I disagree with Brian, I think you need a good rifle and a scope to shoot good groups. Can you take full advantage of a rifle as good as one of the premier shooters of course is not. Something more than today's econo rifle is needed for 5 or 10 shot good groups though. Call it the $800-1000 class.

Brian didn't say you can shoot good groups with a bad rifle. Brian said almost any modern rifle is better than most any shooter. A shooter who can't beat 1 MOA doesn't need a 0.1MOA gun. Will they shoot better than they will with a 1 MOA gun? Yeah, but not as much better as you might think. With modern guns, you'd be hard pressed to find one that bad.

Look at the price difference though, between even a 1/2 MOA gun and a 1/10 MOA gun. Almost any modern center-fire rifle will shoot 1/2 MOA, certainly 5 shots, and with the right ammo most will do it "all day long".

My $400 Ruger M77 MkII in .204 Ruger topped with a $230 Mueller Eradicator hasn't put a bullet farther than 1/4" from POA at 100 in my memory, when I shoot for groups and use rests/bags. I'm no world class marksman either. The gun is better, I just don't know how much because I'm not better.

So, I ask myself why would the average guy want to spend $1100 on the action alone? Go about adding a $4-500 barrel, a $400+ stock, a $200 trigger, a couple/few hundred in gunsmith charges and a $1200 scope? If he's an average shooter his groups with that rifle might be 0.1-0.2 smaller than mine, they might be bigger than mine. He's got a $3,700+ setup versus my $630 setup and it gains him what?

Whatever that gain is, if he's got the money and wants to spend it, great! Have at it! No ordinary guy needs it though. A $400 Savage and a 1/2 decent scope, certainly total budget around $1,000 at most is better than most shooters.

[Bart B.]

Brian says almost any modern center-fire rifle will shoot 1/2 MOA, certainly 5 shots, and with the right ammo most will do it "all day long".

I agree. Once in a great while they will do that. And seldom, if ever at ranges past 300 yards with modern commercial center-fire rifles. It'll happen at 100 yards much more often than it does at longer ranges.

'Tis my opinion that one should determine the accuracy level required of their stuff by deciding what the greatest distance they'll accept the bullets missing their point of aim; where ever that is on the target when the round fires as they shoot it. Double that and that's the level your stuff has to perform at when you shoot it.

[Jimro]

Bart B. and Brian are quite correct that most rifles are more accurate than most shooters, and that accuracy standards change with distance. Pretty much every rifle is accurate from a rest, if it isn't then change the load or fix the rifle.

The shooter is the weakest link in any system. Can the shooter take the recoil the exact same way every time? Can the shooter hold the rifle stead every time? Can the shooter get the exact same sight picture every time?

I like to use the example that if you give my AR-15 Service Rifle to David Tubb or Shirley Gallagher (or Bart B. or Kraigwy) it will be much more accurate than when I shoot it, even if they end up using my handloads.

Jimro

[wrecksj]

A deer-sized target at 1000yds? I suppose if you really think you can hit that. But don't forget the Coriolis effect. The rotation of the earth will move you by 1" at 1000yds.

Perhaps it would be better to look into F-Class target shooting to tune up for that 1000yd deer.

I can do neither anymore; my eyesight isn't up to it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

You'll notice that he's not talking about shooting deer at 1000 yards...

[old roper]

Sure giving David Tubbs your rifle and he may shoot it more accurate but that's not what he using in a match.

I'm not saying a factory rifle isn't accurate but there a point your not going to get that type accuracy that's needed in a match rifle.

About the only time you see factory rifle in BR is for the factory class that may be offered and you don't see a factory 308 in a Palma match.


The weak link has always been the shooter look at match result only one winner.

[JD0x0]

Get a Weatherby Vanguard with their sub MOA accuracy guarantee. Should be well under a grand, and a sub MOA rifle should be more than accurate enough for 95% of shooters, unless you're one of those talented competition shooters that can shoot 1'' at 600 yards already, you wont need anything more accurate than 'sub MOA' as others have mentioned you can make hits at 1000 with a Mosin Nagant, a rifle not known for it's accuracy, and will generally shoot around 3-4'' groups at 100 yards. If a Nagant can do it, no doubt a rifle that is guaranteed from the factory to shoot .99'' or less @ 100 yards, can certainly do it.

[Jimro]

Sure giving David Tubbs your rifle and he may shoot it more accurate but that's not what he using in a match.

I'm not saying a factory rifle isn't accurate but there a point your not going to get that type accuracy that's needed in a match rifle.

About the only time you see factory rifle in BR is for the factory class that may be offered and you don't see a factory 308 in a Palma match.

My service rifle has a NM free float tube, NM sights, Giessele SSA trigger, and is fully capable of MOA groups in my hands, and better from a rest. There is nothing stopping the RIFLE from hitting the 10 ring every time on a High Power target.

Heck, swap out the shooter name to anyone on the AMU service rifle team and they'd still shoot better than me

Jimro

[Duzell]

personally 300 win is fine to do the job, but youll have to figure out which rifle is best suited to the task. i know howa, remington and some rugers are good set with the 300 win, and make excellent rifles for that range.

[5RWill]

While we're on the topic of accuracy i've always and continually asked myself...what's the difference between 1/2 MOA at a given difference between a 1000$ rifle and a 4000$ rifle? I've yet to figure it out. I have a firm belief that distance shooting is so much more dependent on you than the rifle that i would bet i can hand a world class shooter my 5R the way it is and he will be able to produce sub-MOA groups at distance. Yes i'm referring to past 600yds.

Don't get me wrong i'm not telling anyone to skimp on their build, my current rifle is going to be built ground up this year on a trued 700, bartlein #16 (or GAP #6), McM A5, etc. That said i currently own a 5R that has shot sub-MOA out to 400yds and held MOA out to 500yds. 600yds my groups start to open up but i don't put it on the equipment i think and know it's mostly me.

As the saying goes "it isn't the bow, it's the indian."

Some will disagree i'm sure, but this is JMO.

[Saltydog235]

None of them because 90% of deer hunters can't shoot a deer accurately at 200yds much less 1000yds. 1000yd shots are irresponsible to the majority of hunters, hunting is about the ethical harvest of the animal. 1000yd shooting is about punching paper or ringing gongs or killing bad men by those trained to do it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Saltydog235

None of them because 90% of deer hunters can't shoot a deer accurately at 200yds much less 1000yds. 1000yd shots are irresponsible to the majority of hunters, hunting is about the ethical harvest of the animal. 1000yd shooting is about punching paper or ringing gongs or killing bad men by those trained to do it.

And for the 3rd or 4th time, the OP is not talking about shooting deer at 1000 yards.

Folks really ought to read more than just the title of the thread.

[PVL]

There is no 1,000 yard deer cartridge for responsible, humane sportsmen.

If the OP was wanting to know about accurate 1,000 yard target shooting cartridges, that's what the title of the post should convey.

There ARE folks out there that will read the title to this thread and get all excited about 1,000 yard deer hunting. - And entirely too much of that kind of irresponsible stupidity is going around, these days.

It should not be encouraged.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Right, because there aren't threads here every day, titled "Question?...."

That totally conveys the OP's point, doesn't it?

The title of the thread conveys a deer caliber that can reach 1000 yards accurately, not *necessarily* a caliber that can shoot deer at 1000 yards, that's an ASSUMPTION by the reader. An assumption, by the way, that would be corrected by READING the thread.

Why is it the OP's obligation to make sure his title conveys the entire content of his question so no one has to bother to even read the thread but the responder has no obligation to ACTUALLY READ what he's responding to?

Again,

[MarkCO]

A rifle that is MOA at 1000 yards is WAY more than is needed for any game hunting, especially deer inside 400 yards.

Is there is difference between a $1000 rifle and a $4000 rifle? Yes, but there are few who can, or will, or even know how to take advantage of that difference. Most deer hunters pop a $100 scope on and have a combination of parallax and mechanical return (stock issues) inconsistencies that will keep those rigs at 1 MOA or worse even from a mechanical rest. A decent piece of glass and a solid stock added to most factory Remingtons, Weatherby's, Howas, Tikkas, Savages, Rugers will produce a sub MOA gun out to 400 yards. When you pass 400 yards, most factory rifles with the slower twists will start to leave 1 MOA and open up. Sure, there are now options of faster twist factory barrels and those can maintain 1 MOA further out. Long range matches have been won with $2K rigs and factory ammo over $10K rigs with carefully made handloads. There are many people who have a Remington 700 SPS AAC-SD with a $400 stock and $1000 glass getting 1/2 MOA out to at least 600 yards. It is probably the cheapest LR build you can get. If Remington would dump that crappy Hogue and put it in a stock with a mini-chassis, they would sell better to a small segment, but the $400 price increase would reduce their overall sales. So that $60 stock is actually a good deal for those who will dump it for a real stock.

The biggest difference between the $1k and the $4k rifle, besides the fact that they wear better glass, is in specific features. Usually bottom metal at $300 or so, some sort of chassis at $1K or so, scope rails with MOA built in and high grade mounts at $400 or so, and chambers cut with custom reamers to get the most out of heavier bullets, so $600 or so barrels. The most important part is the chassis system. With the ability to adjust the fit for different positions, it allows the shooter to be more consistent, keep the NPA the same, etc. and this results in better accuracy. IF you fired every round from a rack grade hunting rifle the exact same way with the exact same eye position and shooter to rifle interface, you would get a significant increase in accuracy.

Also realize that many of the best long range tactical shooters are running glass in the $3K to $10K range. They have more in their optic than I have in a whole rig. But I don't really want a 3 pound scope on a hunting rig either.

The average deer hunter probably has a 1 MOA capable barreled action. But they probably have 1-2 MOA added due to stock and optics and 3-4 MOA added due to their shooting technique. That leaves us at 5-7 MOA, which is what the average deer hunter prints at 100 yards.

[Bart B.]

MarkCO, it doesn't take hardware in the high price range your mention to shoot at the same accuracy level as those in that high price level you mention. But most folks think that's what they need thanks to the marketing hype of folks making and selling it.

Best accuracy attained these days is no better than it was decades ago with much cheaper hardware based on what a dollar would by then compared to now.

[rdavidsonjr]

Again I apologize for the ignorance of expression. The original thread was title to stimulate exactly the kind of debate that has gone on for over 40 posts . The reason it was so titled was to encompass both ideas in the short title. It has been fruitful in education and I will add more later as I have been given a little more education last night by my Marine Corp son. Thanks for all the education so far! Debate is good because from that improved ideas are generated. I will try to keep titles less confusing from now on.

[5RWill]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

The biggest difference between the $1k and the $4k rifle, besides the fact that they wear better glass, is in specific features. Usually bottom metal at $300 or so, some sort of chassis at $1K or so, scope rails with MOA built in and high grade mounts at $400 or so, and chambers cut with custom reamers to get the most out of heavier bullets, so $600 or so barrels. The most important part is the chassis system. With the ability to adjust the fit for different positions, it allows the shooter to be more consistent, keep the NPA the same, etc. and this results in better accuracy. IF you fired every round from a rack grade hunting rifle the exact same way with the exact same eye position and shooter to rifle interface, you would get a significant increase in accuracy.

Yes the question was rhetorical. My point was and is as Bart eludes to it is much more shooter based than people seem to think. 1/2 MOA is 1/2 MOA regardless of price, it doesn't subsequently change because one group is shot by a superior platform than the other. This is besides the fact though because for distance shooting we are and always will be the weakest link in the chain. There are few on this earth that can truly shoot the difference between a properly trued/barreled 700 and a custom action.

[MarkCO]

Bart, I agree with you, however...

Old days, we had wood stocks, and most were properly inletted. These plastic stocks just don't have the mechanical RTZ. I've taken inexpensive actions out of cheap plastic stocks and put them back in a decent wood stock, or a quality fiberglass stock and seen groups go from 2 MOA to under 1 MOA. $60 stocks of today are nowhere near as good as the wood stocks of 20+ years ago.

Parallax on these cheap scopes is also awful. I have old $100 Redfields on actions in old wood stocks that print sub-MOA. You can't go buy a $500 rifle in a plastic stock and stick a BSA on it and expect to print sub-MOA. Take the EXACT same action with a decent scope and a decent stock and you can be sub-MOA.

Trust me, I have never owned an optic that sells for more than $900, nor a $1500 action, nor a $1500 stock. No need.

The comment on the $2K rig beating the $10K rig, that was the point, it is more often the shooter, and not the gear. There will always be that guy that loses, and blames his gear, then spends more coin to get better gear, and still gets beat. I subscribe to the adage of a case of ammo is better than better gear. I wore out a .223 barrel, then a .308 barrel learning before I ever went to the .260.

[Saltydog235]

And for the 3rd or 4th time, the OP is not talking about shooting deer at 1000 yards.

Then why title is with the caveat of being the most accurate 1000yd deer caliber? You raise a whole host of differing opinions of what the best deer caliber is, the best chambering, what is too small, too larger, etc. Why not just say what is the best overall long range caliber to reach a 1000yds? There are a plethora that will reach 1000yds, in fact most all of them. Some however are impractical in hunting avenues either too big or too small. And seriously what's the point a asking about a "deer caliber's" 1000yd attributes if one isn't going to use it at 1000yds.

I don't know the OP, maybe he would take a 1000yd shot on a deer. Hopefully not, but there are all types of people out there that get their jollies trying to be "snipers" these days. Then there are those that watch shows like "Long Range Hunting" and say hey I can do that. While I applaud those fellows shooting skills and equipment, it takes a ton of practice to be that proficient. A 1000yds is a right far poke to make on a hunting situation, therefore, I answer none of them. I'd rather promote responsibility that hypotheticals.

Totally different answer and question if it was asked which makes the best 1000yd caliber to ring steel and punch paper.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Then why title is with the caveat of being the most accurate 1000yd deer caliber?

If you READ the thread, the OP is asking about a cartridge that is good to 1,000 yards and ALSO a good deer cartridge. NOTHING says he's shooting deer at 1000 yards. That's an ASSUMPTION from the title, which is clarified in...

The second sentence in the OP:

I would like to see what everyone thinks shoots the tightest groups at 1000 yards between say 243 ,25-06,260,270,280,7 mm 08,308 and also is a good deer rifle.

Then, just 7 posts later:

Let me clarify my statement a little better it may have been a bit vague.A gun with low kick on my end that would be as accurate as possible for a little fun at the range on the bench while being also a good still hunt deer rifle say out to 300-400 yards. Whats your best choice and why.

Then, just 11 posts later, another member once again clarifies the intent (which was already obvious):

OP re-stated his desires, 300-400 yards on deer, and the potential for 1000 yards on paper/steel.

Then, just 5 posts later, even though the OP WASN'T really unclear, he reiterates:

Sorry the OP was to broad and vague.Lets adapt the post to be more beneficial. I will try to do better in the future. Since the 1000 is an unrealistic target for a 300 -400 yard deer gun and scope without modification. And the weight of an actual competition 1000 yard bench gun is to much for hunting. I know the 308 is a top choice in 1000 yard and is more than adequate for deer.

There isn't the slightest confusion for anyone who took the time to read as far as the second sentence of the OP, say nothing of at least 3 clarifications in the next 25 posts.