The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 9, 2002, 03:32 AM   #1
Roman Knoll
Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Location: Lidingö, Sweden
Posts: 95
Hunting rifle accuracy redefined.

As a freelancing gun-writer, I am quite often asked to “test” hunting firearms. Great fun for me but as far as providing useful information for my readers it is exercise in futility. It is simply impossible with available means and basing on single example to form any educated opinion on durability of given model of a rifle or shotgun.

The usual part of such test is shooting for accuracy from the bench. Some people shoot three shot groups some other five shot groups. Whatever the routine, it is more a test of tester’s shooting skills than objective evaluation of accuracy of the firearm. After seeing how accuracy tests are conducted at some manufactures’ shooting ranges, I am fully convinced that almost none of gun writers is able to duplicate such conditions.

In most cases, so called test are just a loose impressions about general “feel” of the firearm in question, biased by writer’s own preferences. Of course, “field test” when gun writer is send on expensive hunt paid by manufacturer is even more suspicious.

In my opinion, the whole idea of checking and evaluating hunting rifle accuracy solely by shooting groups from a bench is seriously flawed. Not that it is something wrong with tight groups. Tight groups are better then big groups. Unfortunately, miniscule groups, shot at controlled condition from the bench cannot fully measure usefulness of a rifle for hunting.

Hunting rifle is not just a rifle but a whole rig, consisting of rifle, sight mount and optical or electronic sights. Properly selected ammunition is also a part of the whole system. Practical accuracy of hunting rifle is combined product of all aforementioned elements as well as ergonomic properties of the stock and its fit to shooter’s anatomy.

Hunting rig is a tool enabling the operator to hit a target of given size on given shooting distance. Flaws in single element of such system, seriously limit its usability or in some cases render it totally unusable.

In real hunting scenarios, most shooters can fire no more than two consecutive shots with reasonable possibility of hitting game at the right spot. I most instance full magazine cannonade is panic shooting after fleeing, wounded game in vain hope to hit something. In this circumstances it simply does not matter what size groups the rifle prints from the bench.

Ability to hold zero regardless unavoidable rough handling in the woods or during transport is far more important than spread of groups shot from the bench. This is dependent on quality of sight mount and scope. Type of reticule and scope magnification dictate practical distances. For example, it would be difficult to shoot far with rifle equipped with scope with thick crosshair. On other hand, whatever magnification, a scope with thin duplex crosshair is practically useless for night hunting, typical for Central Europe.


Roman
Roman Knoll is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 07:51 AM   #2
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Greetings!

No argument, overall, with your comments.

One of the reasons I've liked many of the rifle-test reports in Guns & Ammo is that they have three people comment on their opinions of a new rifle. Fit and feel, while a personal thing, still has more meaning if several different body sizes are comfortable with the rifle.

By and large, I know of no rifles from reputable factories which don't have "hunting accuracy". With today's precision machinery, it's difficult to build a "non-shooting rifle".

As to plastic, IMO it's bad for use inside the action of a rifle. I know that wood and steel are good for at least a couple of hundred years of use. There are certain areas of "cost savings" in manufacture which strike me as penny-wise and pound-foolish. As for other facets of durability, I imagine the jury is still out on such as the Remington 710, for all its reported accuracy.

I'm in full accord with you as to the need for quality sights, quality scopes and mounts. I've posted here many times that if a rifle can produce reasonably tight three-shot groups, it's sufficiently accurate for hunting. But proper bench-rest technique is designed to minimize the shooter's own flaws.

Where I would have some mild disagreement is with respect to crosshairs of a scope. When the duplex crosshairs first came out, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. In poor light the thicker part of the hairs provide a sort of ghost ring effect for centering an aiming point.

In the U.S., varmints/predator control is the only legal night-hunting. My pet coyote rifle has been a little Sako .243 with a Leupold Vari-X II, 2x7. I have shot coyotes to maybe 100 yards, using a strong flashlight. (Aside from "brush burner" spotlights powered by a car battery, I use a 20,000CP "Streamlight" for hunting at night.)

I started in with a .22 in around 1940, and began reloading for my first .30-'06 in 1950. I guess I've fondled and felt and shot a fair number of different sorts of rifles...Doesn't make me any sort of guru, but I think I've learned a little bit...

Regards,

Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 11:27 AM   #3
C.R.Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Location: Dewey, AZ
Posts: 12,858
Yep.
No argument with Roman or Art.

I lean toward......meat gettin gun should put first two shots from cold in nearly same place and hold zero with or without sling, standing, leaning, kneeling, sitting or prone.

Varmint gun......want it to hold zero for bout ten rounds or so before havin to take a cooling break.

Sam
C.R.Sam is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 12:23 PM   #4
JB in SC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2000
Location: Upstate
Posts: 375
I, for one, am very interested in "mechanical accuracy". It's all about the game being hunted. Rifle balance and the subjective "feel" are also important. Most serious hunters (including myself) take such things into consideration when evaluating a perspective purchase.

A big game rifle capable of 2 moa is certainly acceptable to most hunters, thousands are sold every year.

Would I want a rifle with that level of accuracy?

Nope, I would prefer one that is capable of 1 moa (or less) with good balance, ability to hold zero, and 100% reliability. Judging from the length of delivery from many custom gun makers, a lot of others feel the same way.

Would you want to take a (once in a lifetime for most of us) shot at a sheep 350 yards distant with a 2 moa rifle or one that will shoot sub moa?
__________________
"We have seen the enemy and he is us", Pogo
JB in SC is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 05:06 PM   #5
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
JB, you always gotta remember that probably 90% of all shots taken while hunting are under 100 yards at a fairly plain-vanilla Bambi. That's a "two-minute market", where less-than-one-MOA ain't needed.

I remember back in 1986 when I was griping at a Toyota salesman about the change in the 4WD pickups from a solid front axle to double wishbones. Yeah, they ride better and handle better, but they're less sturdy for back-country off-road work.

"Art, you're 20% of the market. We gotta sell to that 80% that never goes off the pavement."

When you think about it, it's sorta nice that the gunmakers give us as good of products as they do!

Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 05:42 PM   #6
Sisco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 1999
Location: KS
Posts: 1,558
Most of the hunters I know are satisfied with "minute of pie plate" accuracy at 100 yds. I'm a little pickier, I like to see nice tight groups on paper, pumps my ego some.
__________________
"I don't mind it when stupid people say stupid things. Stupid people should be encouraged to say stupid things, that way we always know who the stupid people are." ~ Ted Nugent
http://www.awbansunset.com/awcountdown_sm.gif
Sisco is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 07:26 PM   #7
JB in SC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2000
Location: Upstate
Posts: 375
Art,

I know a lot of the 80% you're speaking of

I see them heading to the woods every year after shooting at the local public range (3"- 4" groups @ 25 yards).

I also usually head in the other direction

But that leaves 20% of us who will not be happy until we own accurate, dependable rifles.

I agree that we have some nice rifles available, and there is definitely a huge market for affordable rifles. I just think the major manufacturers could produce an accurate affordable rifle with a little more care.

JB
__________________
"We have seen the enemy and he is us", Pogo
JB in SC is offline  
Old June 9, 2002, 10:43 PM   #8
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
The problem is, define "affordable". About as bad as defining what the do-gooders call "affordable housing".

Fifty years ago, you could buy a Super Grade Model 70 for around $75. Fifty years ago, my gross salary as a Junior Inspector for the Texas Highway Department was $230 per month.

Nowadays, minimum wage is about $900 a month.

Basically, if you can't afford a $1,000 rifle, plus scope, you aren't getting decent wages. Simple as that. To be anywhere near the economic "middle class" in today's U.S. of A., you need to gross at least $60,000 a year or more--to live as good as I did on a whole bunch less, twenty and thirty years ago.

Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 11, 2002, 07:15 PM   #9
JB in SC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2000
Location: Upstate
Posts: 375
I have to admit that I don't own a rifle that cost under a $1000. Matter of fact, I don't own any factory bolt actions.

My point (if I have one) is that our big three riflemakers can build a more accurate and reliable rifle.

Savage does, as does Tikka and Steyr (none of which will win any beauty contests, but also won't break a bank account).
__________________
"We have seen the enemy and he is us", Pogo
JB in SC is offline  
Old June 11, 2002, 11:25 PM   #10
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Whoa up a sec, JB. I'm mostly a bolt-gun fella. I've yet to own one which I would not happily call "reliable".

In my roughly three years here at TFL, I've read beaucoup posts from folks who are getting well inside one MOA out of box-stock, basic bolt-guns. Savage is about the least expensive of the lower-cost critters. However, the Remington 700 has a bunch of devotees.

Heck, how about the NEF? Lots of reports of 1/2 MOA!

Now, I won't argue that the final polish and all is not what it used to be, in a basic rifle. However, I remember a lot of J.C. Higgins centerfires, from 40 or 50 years back, that were no things of beauty--but shot tight groups.

It takes a lot of money to do better than what the gunmakers are turning out as "mass-produced" critters.

, Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 12, 2002, 11:26 AM   #11
Poodleshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2000
Location: Floating down the James River in VA
Posts: 2,599
I don't own a single rifle worth $1000. My Colt AR ran about $700, and my A-bolt about $580 on sale. Weatherby aside, what hunting rifles are available that run that high? Kimbers? Dakotas? Lazzerbys? Parker Hales? Heck I don't even see Tikkas and Steyrs on local gunshops walls, and they're fairly affordable. Sure, military and "tactical" rifles run past $1k easily, as do various double rifles, and breechblock single shots, but honestly, I just haven't seen to many of those past the ranges here in the east. Most everything I see runs from $300 to $800. My hunting rifles shoot off the bench 5 round groups from .75-2MOA with reloads. That's good for me.
Inflation isn't all that hopeless Art. There are still some places where things are much cheaper...even in the east. The main problem is that people are outspending their means via credit more than in the past. I barely make your middle class criterion, but due to thriftyness, old cars and inexpensive huntin rifles, the wife and I get by pretty well!
Poodleshooter is offline  
Old June 12, 2002, 01:40 PM   #12
HankB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2000
Location: Central Texas, outside of Austin
Posts: 1,698
I'm of the opinion that "Only accurate rifles are interesting."

While a big game rifle that will - barely - hit a teacup at 100 yards is adequate for 90% of big game hunting, it's not for me. I want to KNOW that the rifle will shoot MOA or close to it. And it has to deliver that accuracy ON DEMAND from a bench. So at least one variable is known. (Yes - there ARE a lot of other variables in the field . . . but when I'm hunting, I DON'T want to give my rifle's inherent accuracy a second thought.)

I've lost count of the excuses I've heard at the range from guys who brag about their "super accurate" rifles . . . until I just happen to witness their teacup-sized groups!

Then there was a custom gunsmithing firm accurizing rifles that had a satisfied client with a .308 that, after accurizing, started shooting one-hole groups. With iron sights. At six hundred yards.

As far as the accuracy of today's rifles . . . well, try reading the past couple of years of tests in The American Rifleman. It's amazing how many rifles - many of them FAR more expensive than the $1000 figure mentioned earlier in this thread - don't come anywhere near even the modest MOA standard I like to apply.
__________________
To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself - Sun Tzu
HankB is offline  
Old June 12, 2002, 05:25 PM   #13
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: May 2, 1999
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,611
Hank, I've noticed the, um, "situational dependant" accuracy types too. Funny how they always crop up in BS sessions and can't seem to get to the range..

My take on rifle accuracy is that benchrest accuracy is interesting and my requirement vary quite a bit with the rifle's mission. I have one great gun that routinely puts three rounds in 4 inches at 100 yards. I'm very happy with that performance.

To me the ability to shoot the gun well takes precedence. I had a HK 91 that was one of the most stone cold nice shooting rifles I've ever owned. I put two boxes of ammo through it, cleaned it and sold it. Actually owned it, maybe two months total. Problem was it shot well off the bench but that squirt gun trigger drove me
nuts. (yep, tried the sniper trigger in a bud's HK 91 too)

My '06 has a crisp trigger and a stock that fits me well. It took some $$ to get things like I wanted them, but the results are super. I'm sure that with tuning the loads, I could get the group size to shrink more than it's current 1.25 inches at 100y, but I'm satisfied.

Oh yeah, the rifle that's a 4 MOA rifle? My .44 Marlin, iron sights, used mainly for swamps and thickets..
__________________
http://www.scfirearms.org/
Al Thompson is offline  
Old June 12, 2002, 08:53 PM   #14
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
I imagine that most of us who will frequent a website like TFL are more likely to want pretty much the maximum accuracy we can get. Whether new or used, I haul some new toy home and start "meddling" with it.

Check it out for a basic test and sight-in. Maybe re-work the bedding of the forearm. Fiddle with a load or three. It's amazing how a bit of TLC will shrink groups down to "acceptable".

I gotta admit that for me, a "keeper" hunting rifle (bolt action) needs to get at least that occasional three-shot group of 1/2" and even maybe 3/8"--if I do my part. But it's gotta always stay inside of an inch...

Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 09:40 AM   #15
Jason280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2002
Location: Athens,Georgia
Posts: 355
Accuracy is WAY OVERATED in hunting rifles. I have been hunting deer for thirteen years, and out of all the deer I have killed, only three have been over 100 yards away. All this obsession with accuracy was perpetrated by the gun magazines, simply as a reason to say one rifle was better than another. Fact is, accuracy isn't even really that important in a hunting rifle, especially considering virtually any rifle on the market will do 2.5 MOA at 100 yards. This is more than enough accuracy for the common man. Now, there are extremes, but most of them can be made up by good hunting skills. Its more important to learn how to shoot under field conditions, not to see how well you can shoot off of a bench under ideal conditions.
Jason280 is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 12:53 PM   #16
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Jason, you're absolutely right for the hunting you do, in the area of your "playground". Trouble is, that's not also true for a lot of folks in the western states.

Where I hunt, populations are sparse. Mule deer don't wander around during the rut nearly as much as white tails. You gotta go walking for them. to save your legs, you hunt areas where Ol' Bucky is most likely to bed down. It's easy to wind up with a ten- or twelve-mile day.

Shots may range from right under your feet to 300 to 400 yards. Even more, for optimists and the highly skilled.

My longest have been at 350 and 450. The first was a high heart/lung hit; the latter was a center-punch to the heart. I've never shot at a running deer beyond about 175 yards, but the couple or three I shot while running went down and stayed put.

I mostly go for neck shots. I want to tweak and fadiddle with my rifles so I can justifiably have the confidence to take those shots. That's what my father and uncle impressed upon me, back in 1950.

Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 05:22 PM   #17
BigG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,334
I've found you can usually tweak a reputable garden variety bolt gun to give sub MOA accuracy if you care to. I would say the members of this forum would be the type that would go the extra mile to glass bed, shim the forend, or whatever it takes to bring out that fine accuracy, unlike your once a year hunter.

Another variable that hasn't been mentioned is finding the right load to get the best accuracy. Winchester white box in most cases is not going to be the one. Usually dedicated riflemen are handloaders unlike your weekend hunter.
__________________
o "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC

o "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

o "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" Paul Harvey

o TODAY WE CARVE OUT OUR OWN OMENS! Leonidas, Thermopylae, 480 BC
BigG is offline  
Old June 14, 2002, 06:52 PM   #18
JB in SC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2000
Location: Upstate
Posts: 375
After thirty years of fooling with various rifles, the two brands I now own are Ultra Light Arms and Cooper, both are what I would term semi-custom.

I also have a handicap, I'm left handed

I don't have a safe full of average rifles, I have a few well above average rifles.

I'm below the middle class income specified, but I did send two kids to college without borrowing a dime (my last graduated in May), own my home, and have no debt other than my mortgage.

Living frugally doesn't mean living poorly

And even in South Carolina we have some 300-400 yard shots, so I want mine accurate.
__________________
"We have seen the enemy and he is us", Pogo
JB in SC is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11817 seconds with 8 queries