hunting accuracy

[geez768]

im with most of you. i think most modern rifles from good companys will out shot most normal people. and even though i have vari-scopes i find myself using a fixed 4X or maybe fixed 6X for almost all my hunting needs.

[bcarver]

Someone once said "The only interesting rifle is an accurate rifle"
I like having a hunting rifle that can shoot to within an inch of where I point the sight with a cold barrel.
I have a favorite rifle that I had "accurized" (glass bedded, Frozen, free floated, Bore-honed, installed faster firing pin and spring, locking lugs honed)
I bought 30mm German scope and had the bases epoxied and the rings trued.
I bought new dies and brass putting them through a 12 step program to get them ready. I shot several style and weights of bullets with several different powders ans primers. I did a breaking on the barrel that took hours of shooting and cleaning. I ended up with a gun that will shoot 5 rounds on five days within 1/2" of the bulls eye at 100 meters.
I then took it hunting and shot a deer at forty yards.
But from a solid rest I am confident out to 250 meters.

[fisherman66]

Hunting accuracy, not target practice nor load development.

[zeisloft]

Confused...Load development has nothing to do with hunting accuracy?
Please explain.
~z

[fisherman66]

That's my point Zeisloft (hence "nor").

[Art Eatman]

Zeisloft, to a great extent it's a given that almost any decent rifle will shoot accurately enough that it's reliable for deer hunting. So, "load development", generally, is to find some combination that changes "plenty good enough" to "much better".

Hey, us handloaders, we're anal-retentive nit-pickers!

Art

[fisherman66]

Dead is dead, can't get much better than that. I've got nothing against target shooters as the trickle down effect gives hunters greater confidence, but 95% of hunters don't have the skill to use MOA in the field on an 8" vital zone to it's maximum range. How many hunters know the ballistic path of their load at 500-800 yards? How many are skilled enough to take that shot with that knowledge? I'd guess 1 out of 20, and I ain't one of them.

[WeedWacker]

That kill zone isn't always the same shape either. Depending on game, angle of impact, and folige (if any) your target is different and not clearly marked. It's almost all approximation. Pretty much every kill shot I have mead so far has been a lung/heart shot combo. Mostly through luck the heart has been hit. But all my shots have been through and through vital zone hits with one spinal shot when tracking a wounded animal.

[Jseime]

My theory on hunting accuracy is that if the first shot from a cold bore hits a pie plate somewhere about the middle at whatever range you are shooting you are good to go.

Having a gun that shoots little wee groups is great fun but for crying out loud its not necessary. My .270 is a Ruger M77MkII which doesnt have a great reputation for accuracy compared to a Remington 700 but it will shoot 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards and that is minute of deer for longer than I care to shoot. I have made some kills in the last couple of years right about 300 yards on a couple coyotes and a deer and that is as far as I'll shoot.

As for optics my .270 wears a 3-9X40 Bushnell Elite 3200. I hunt large open areas with coulees and gullies and its about right for me. If I hunted more in the bush then I would want irons.

[zeisloft]

Fish, I'd say it is much much less than 1 in 20. I suppose for the "shoot 1/2 a box of ammo a year and go kill a deer from under a feeder at 75-100 yds" type, sure 4 moa is plenty. Call me lazy, I just dont like blood trailing a gut shot animal.
And "the trickle down effect gives hunters greater confidence" I believe this is bad. I think it gives a false confidence. Just because the seasoned target shooter has done it, and can do it again in the field does not mean the avarage shooter should try it for the first time in the field. I dont believe this is what you are advocating. Sorry for the rant.
~z

[fisherman66]

You have misunderstood me Zeisloft. There is a line between confidence and arrogance. That's why you see so many new hunters wanting a sub MOA rifle. They are clinging to anything that will tilt the odds in their favor. After a few years when the itch to get a new rifle sets in they will remember carrying that field cannon around and look for alternatives. Later the desire to tilt the odds away from their favor sets in and the bow hunter is born.

You are probably right about the number being less that 1:20. I try to be conservative when I pull numbers out of my ass.

[srtrax]

With the rifle i hunt with now it will shoot .5 or.75 inch groups from a bench all day long if i do my part. The part is when you get up from the bench and start shooting offhand, where did thoes .5 groups go! Oh, thats right 2" out and around. Just before the deer season starts (for a week or two) i go out and fire one round every day from a cold barrel to see where the sweet spot is and go for the same spot everyday, this breaks me from the bench and gets me ready for that offhand shot from my tree stand. I have to start telling myself the moment i get on stand, (pick a spot, over and over again) because the minute i flip the safty off the nerves kick in. If ive had to watch him for a half hour before he gets in range, i,m all tore up . I have yet to track an animal and the day i flip the safty off and make a kill with no jitters, it will be my last tag!
Do i need a .5" gun,(no, but it helps) Do i need a half mile of glass (not where i hunt) would a nerve pill help (Hell Yes, but i'll pass).

[zeisloft]

Fish, I see your point, and could not agree more about the bow hunting comment. I hunt with a bow and "harvest" with a rifle. The rifle seems almost too easy (up to a certain distance). I guess the quest for accuracy and the confidence from 100s of Ks of rounds fired at targets and varmints has taken alot of the "chance" out of hunting with a rifle of pistol. However, it has not deminished the thrill. Thanks for the clarification, and again, sorry for the rant.
~z

[popndrop]

I follow that old adage, ASMS - and I try to keep all my rifles in that category. I recently took a Javilina in south Tx from over 480 yards - with a factory remington 700 in 300wsm topped off with a Leo 3-12X VX2. It may not be sub-moa, but it's pretty damn moa - while my normal hunting rig, a Steyr .270 is a solid sub gun.
I can't for the life of me seem to get them to perform at the same level in the field as they do on the rest, but that's user error I'm sure.

[Desertfox]

My little worthless two cents on the subject. I have a 30-30 with a 4X scope and I have a 270WSM wtih a 4.5-16X40. I started the whitetail hunting with an aged compound bow.

I love bow hunting and rifle hunting. I choose my weapon according to where and what I am hunting. I shoot my rifles from a bench to ensure they are sighted in. I know my limitations while hunting with whatever weapon I am carrying.

For long range hunting, I use the long range scope/rifle combo. For shorter range woods hunting, I use the short range scope/rifle combo.

I do not believe this to be rocket science. I can hit what I am aiming at with all the above. If it is too far away, I use my hunting skill not my shooting skill to get closer to the game. Hunting and shooting are not the same thing.

A good hunter can take most game within 150 yards, unless he is open range. If he is hunting the wide freakin open spaces out west, he should utilize the best available and combine his skills. One rifle for everything is in this day and age kinda silly unless you compensate for long or short range on the scope choices. One rifle and two scopes maybe.

40 yards in the brush or 450 yards across the mountain makes for an impossible scope choice if you are looking for perfection.

It is, what it is. Everyone is right to some point. At least we are all hunting and shooting. That makes us allies. Sign up now! Tell all your friends! Hunting and fishing is the going rage!

[Art Eatman]

A mild disagreement about scopes. I walk with a variable set on the lowest power. My last mule deer buck was at 30 yards (3X). My longest-ever one-shot kill was 450 at 9X; one other long one-shot at 350 at 3X.

I'm sorta empirical about all this. If it works, it's good. If not, it's bad. I'm not saying the old 3x9 or 3x10 is the absolute best, but the silly things have worked for me.

But so have Weaver K4s.

Art

[Wayfaring_Stranger]

Is sub-MOA nesessary for hunting: no.
Do I want a sub-MOA rifle for hunting? YES!!!

Not because its necessary, just because I think it would be fun to shoot one and see those nice little cloverleaf groups at 100 yds. The deer dont care, but I do.

Incedentally, I don't have a sub-MOA rifle. I shoot an A-bolt that with my best hanloads make 1.5' groups. I've killed 3 deer with 3 shots out to 244 yds with it so far. The only complaint is its so light sometimes its hard to keep those crosshairs still. My next rifle (whenever that will be) will be sub-MOA (just for fun) and about 9 lbs fully loaded to hopefully better my offhand shooting.

[lockedcj7]

I want the best of both worlds. I don't "need" ultra-accurate rifles any more than I "need" premium bonded bullets. I've killed lots of deer with 2 moa rifles and promo loads and I'm sure I'll kill many more.

For that matter, why does anyone "need" anything other than a 12ga, single shot? That one gun will kill everything on this continent and most others as well, right? Not using the right tool for the job is just limiting what you can do or where you can do it unnecessarily.

I prefer sporter or light-weight rifles for most hunting situations but I have slug guns for up-close-and-personal and I have beanfield rifles for long-distance.

Periodically, money will get tight and I'll sell off many of my guns. Guess what rifle I always keep? A Remington mountain rifle in 7mm-08 with a Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 scope. That combo is light, easy to carry and will print 1" groups all day long with factory loads and will do .75 moa with my best-effort handloads. (It has been free-floated, glass bedded, trigger honed and re-crowned)

[Shoestring]

There is a line between confidence and arrogance but that does not mean that the line connects the two. A hunter who wants an accurate rifle may only want one portion removed from the equation of misses. The problem is that most hunters that purchase the "accurate" rifles then don't practice because, "hell the rifle is accurate so the rifle will do all the hard work after the trigger is pulled" The arrogant believe that if they have the rifle that a buddy has or that they have seen in a movie then they can make the same awesome shots, without putting in the range time. The leveler for all rifles is range time. There is no excuse for not putting in the practice. I would have more faith in a guy that practices with his 2 moa rifle prior to taking the rifle to the field over the guy that purchases a 2,000 dollar rig that just sits in the safe until hunting season. So the real question is how accurate do you need? Should be = to how much you practice.

SS

[fisherman66]

old thread alert.

I started to say welcome SS but you've had a handle almost as old as this thread. How's about...."Welcome Back!"

[briandg]

In my opinion, since a hunt is a living, breathing, organic and dynamic thing, there can be no excess in your pursuit of accuracy. a little mirage, 50 yards of error in range estimate, a bit of fatigue, and too long in between practice sessions will be enough to send your shot 3-4 inches out of the kill zone. A person with a 1.5 moa rifle can count on accuracy on a 4.5 inch target at 300 yards. If you change that to a 2.5 moa rifle, an average shooter will be really stretching his abilities to hit an 8 inch circle at 300.

Since these hunts are, as I said, dynamic, what happens when several other factors add in their effects? A bit of wind, a slight downhill tilt, a bit of a twitch? add 4 more inches, and you will have either missed your shot, or wounded an animal.

I think a person who takes anything less than a 1.5 MOA rifle into hunts that will provide 300 yard shots is wrong. Same thing stands for one who chooses a non magnum velocity round for 300 round or farther hunts.

shooting is all about chaos. It is your challenge to overcome that chaos. shooting paper over iron sights in one handed rapid fire matches is one thing; aiming at an elk with a worn out 30-30 two hills over is a crime.

You need an accurate package, though, not just a rifle that can shoot peas off of a fork. a 1.5 moa rifle, a great clear scope, and top quality ammunition are enough for someone who is up to the challenges of 300 yard shooting.


I guess my problem is that I really abhor misses and wounded game. A lot of people don't give a darn if a deer gets away, but myself, if I shoot, I want it dead, there, now, not three days later and eaten by buzzards.

I also feel very badly about anyone who chooses to use really marginal cartridges for hunting. There is no such thing as overkill, it is a nonsense term. Underkill is simple, it means NOT DEAD. If you shoot something, do it accurately, and with an adequate cartridge, so that if you shoot something, you don't underkill it.

[themusgrat]

There aren't many people that are really "fooled" by the gun companies into buying the latest and greatest, the super nice barrels, the 6-20x scopes, super expensive bullets and brass and etc. It may be entirely useless, but it's fun...... More than buy what people's wallets will afford, people will buy what makes them happy. And I really don't think they care if you bash them for it or not.

[TXGunNut]

I've won't keep an inaccurate hunting rifle. I don't insist on MOA for hunting but "Minute of Whitetail" won't cut it. I only get to hunt once or twice a year, the rest of the year enjoy reloading, load development and generally the pursuit of a tight cloverleaf group. I don't own a serious target rifle and don't expect my hunting rifle to be one.
I recently sent a beautiful new Super Grade back to Winchester because of poor accuracy. Can't recall ever seeing a prettier piece of wood on a production rifle, seldom even on a custom. The rifle they sent back is not quite as pretty but it delivered 2 sub-MOA groups on it's first outing and averaged 1.308" for all 8 initial "try" loads. I miss the pretty one but this one shoots and looks good doing it. I felt for the price it should deliver MOA, they all but promise it in their ads.
Do I need a sub-MOA rifle to shoot a TX whitetail or 200# hog at under 100 yds? No! Do I want a very accurate hunting rifle? Yes!
Have 8 more "try" loads in my shooting bag, ready to go to the range tomorrow. Too bad it's too wet around here for yard work.

[Fat White Boy]

I recently changed scopes on my Rem 700VLS From a Leupold 3-9X40 to a Weaver 4X38 fixed power. I realized I always took my hunting shots on 3X. I did a little research, discovering the Exit Pupil on the 4X is 9.5, lots of light coming through.I have no regrets. It still shoots tight groups with the Weaver...

[Gunplummer]

Here is some real sacrilege for you, I like those little Leapers 6x40 scopes. I usually like to hunt the second week and walk around. I have a couple really light short rifles and I top them off with those scopes. I have been in downpours, snow storms, freezing rain, and fog with minimum problems. Really, nothing you would not have with any scope. It is easy to pick up a moving deer with them, and count points.( In Pa. you now have point restrictions ) It is unbelievable how hard it is to count points on a deers' rack when they are standing in a thicket. I like to take my open sighted levers out, but can't trust my eyes to see if that doe is really a spike. You have to open your mind up to other hunters' ways, not all states are the same. In the coal regions we would never have heard of the .270 if it was not for some gun writer pushing it . We have no need for one.