Rifle Hunting Accuracy

[Trxxx]

2 MOA groups are plenty good, especially if keeping it within 300 yards.

Well..... I'd be a little more lukewarm. They might just be barely adequate at 300 yards, in ideal circumstances. Let's go to the bench and see why I say that.

We've got an 8" diameter paper plate out there at 300yds. It's facing us, dead on, so it looks circular. The rifle is zeroed at 300yds. Now, with PERFECT benchrest technique, the best you can hope for with a 2MOA rifle is for your group to fall in a 6" circle centred on the middle of the plate. Still, that's all the shots in the kill zone, even if some are pretty close to the edges.

Now let's turn that paper plate to an angle of 45 degrees facing us. That represents a deer standing facing us at that angle, and the kill zone is narrower. It's still 8" tall, but now it only looks 4" wide. Now, there is no way the 2MOA rifle can put all shots on target at 300yds. It might just do so off the bench at 200yds. In the field, we might manage it at 100, or even 150yds, but that's now our effective limit for a confident killing shot.

So, with the 2MOA rifle, you limit yourself with angled shots at longer ranges - shots that might be fine to take with a 1MOA rifle. It doesn't matter so much at shorter ranges, or if you only shoot at broadside deer, but it's not realistic to think of a 2MOA rifle as a 300yd rifle.

As I said in my earlier post, my personal comfort zone is 1MOA, and over the course of a season that translates into more shots taken and more deer in the larder.

 

[rlgarman]

Paper plates

The standard paper plate is 9". I use them all of the time for testing my "maximum kill range". I stick them up and walk away, turn and shoot using whatever rest/cover is available and only count the first shot and then check the range with my rangefinder. I have done this with my bow, open site handgun, dot sited handgun, scoped rifle, shotgun slug,etc. A paper plate represents the vital zone on all but the smallest Illinois deer.

 

[JMC]

I agree with the 9" paper "plate crew."
This has always been my "hunting accuracy standard" after I have found a load that shoots the best off a rest at 100 yds. thru any rifle.
If I can keep all my shots in the "plate" out to 300 yds. using normal hunting positions, I'm good to go. And yes, I totally agree with the above comment...And remember, it is not how tight the groups are, it is where the first shot goes. That's the one that counts the most.
This was the same standard that I used when sighting in for a black bear hunt some years ago using my S&W M29 out to 75 yds.

 

[smince]

If you read what the "experts" say in the hunting mags, the vital area of most larger game animals isn't the 8-9" of a paper plate, but actually an 18" circle. So paper plate shooters are more accurate than need be.

 

[Trxxx]

And just to keep this all in perspective...

...let's not lose sight of the fact that hunting skills are way, way more important than the difference between a 1 and 2 MOA rifle....

 

[Picher]

The grouping factor is only one of several when it comes to hunting accuracy. Another is the trajectory of the round and how the rifle is sighted in. If two rifles group 1 MOA, but one is a .35 Remington (200 gr) and the other is a .270 Win (130 gr), the long distance range estimation need is considerably different.

The .35 Rem drops so much that if the rifle is sighted in to zero at 100 yards, the round will be 12 inches low at 200, missing a deer. On paper, it could make a 2" group, but at least 4" below the deer's chest. It's definitely not a long-range caliber, but considered a very good close-range deer round.

Sighted in at 150 places the bullet about 7 inches low (probable miss) at 200; at 100 yards will be almost 3" above point of aim and that's the generally-accepted limit for that caliber (rule of threes-point blank range - no higher or lower than 3" from point of aim).

However, the .270 Win sighted in at 100 yards will hit only 2" low at 200...still on the plate. Sighted in at 200, the bullet trajectory will be within 3" of the crosshairs, from the muzzle out to 250 yards. (With handloaded 130 grain Nosler BT at 3,260, it's performance is even better.)

In the hands of a good marksman with good range estimating skills and a solid rest, the .270 can kill deer reliably out to 400 yards. That may or may not matter to you; it does to me because I've encountered and killed deer at all those ranges. The 30-06 is another great, relatively flat-shooting round and it can be used effectively for larger game than deer.

Bottom line is that a novice-to-average hunter is better off with a flatter-shooting deer caliber because it removes the need to estimate range out to 200 yards or more.

Picher

 

[JMC]

Simply put, it is the responsibility of the hunter to know the POI of his/her particular/caliber rifle at the ranges expected to be encountered and practice at those ranges well before a hunt.

As far as the 18" kill zone compared to the 9" paper plate method...the smaller target gives you that little extra margin of error. If you can hit within 9" at 300 yds., you should be able to hit 18" but, things change on an actual hunt.

 

[Magnum88C]

Aim small, miss small.

First, make sure your rifle is properly sighted in off a bench.
Then practice soley from field positions, if you don't your shooting in the field won't be all that good.

Next, learn the anatomy of the animal you're hunting. You can find "aim points" on the body to be able to put the bullet where you want.

I use 6" as my target accuracy. If I can't keep my shots within 6", Then I'm out of range.

The thing I see lacking in most hunters is hunting skills, not rifle accuracy. There's not that many places or conditions where you can't get close to the animal you're hunting. It's just a matter of learning to do it, and not being lazy. Yes, it's more comfortable sitting on the gluteous maximus in ye ol' deer stand than it is to do a stalk, but the stalker will generally get closer and get a better shot.
How about going out off-season and seeing how close you can get to your quarry? Shooting skills are easy to build, hunting skills take time, and they take practice.

 

[Picher]

I'd say that less than 1 in 20 hunters bother to shoot their rifle before hunting season, especially native Mainers hunting close to home. People who have to "make a trip out of hunting" tend to be more careful about rifles, sighting in, practice, etc. This is from 45 years of hunting, target shooting, and professional gun repair/tuning.

Most people will buy a rifle, maybe take it to the range and shoot it at 25 yards with factory open sights and if they can hit a milk jug, will call it good. They may never shoot it for practice or sighting in again, that is, unless they miss a deer with it.

It's a sorry situation, but with 40,000 hunting licenses sold, we should see at least 5,000 people in this general area sighting in each year. We don't see 200. The club held free sighting-in days at the range and and only 3 or 4 people showed up. The rifle and pistol club has 500 members and only about 75-100 ever go to the range at least once in a year. Yes, people shoot in the back yard, but not all that many.

Judging by the number of wounded and dead deer found in the woods that ran off and died from poor shot placement, the average hunter is a sorry shooter and his equipment isn't doing a lot for him. For hunters, a receiver sight with a large aperture is 100 times better than an open rear sight because it forces the user to look through the hole, while the tendency for an open rear sight shooter is to look right over the rear and shoot over the deer. Been there, seen that, too many times. A scope is much better, as long as it is a relatively low power and set up to be perfectly in line when the rifle is mounted.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Picher

 

[smince]

Picher is correct. I know hunters who have never fired more than a box of ammo a season, if that much. BUT, most always seem to harvest their share of deer.

 

[Olaf]

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents (it's all I have), as well.....

As many others have said, accuracy is somewhat relative. Obviously, the limitation of one's equipment does play a role. So does whatever standard the individual chooses to adopt. For hunting, the only real requirement is the ability to place shots in the "vital zone", (which, of course, varies with the size of the animal and the distance of shooting)...with enough regularity that clean kills are most likely. For target shooting, tighter standards usually apply.

As for myself, the standards have changed, over the years. With any rifle, I LIKE to have 1 MOA (1" at 100 yards) or better...that is, that the RIFLE is capable of this. I like a rifle that can shoot better than I - so then, the actual group sizes depend on ME. When I exclusively used modern, commercial, scoped rifles, I always endeavored to produce groups no larger than 1 MOA. Certainly, I did NOT always achieve this - but that was my standard. Now, in my old age, I have reverted to aperture-sighted rifles (modified milsurps, to be exact). My current favorite rifle is capable of 1.5" groups (I have mellowed a bit, with age)....but, I am happy if I can place all of my shots within a 6" diameter circle at 100 yards. Since I don't hunt as much as in the past..and never shoot at more than 125 yards...this standard works well for me.

In summary, there is no one, absolute standard, for everyone. If one is truly fanatic about accuracy, then I suppose, the only true standard would be "1 ragged hole". But, most of us aren't that good...and neither is our equipment. I liken this sort of thing to golf - if nothing less than 18 "holes in one" is acceptable.... then one is better off NOT playing....lest we lose our minds trying.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've never heard an argument wherein it's doubted that the vast majority of all deer are shot within 200 yards; even then, my own personal bet is that somewhere between 50 yards and 150 yards is the vast majority of kills.

IMO, that's why back in the 1950s, American Rifleman reviewers would declare that "It's a good deer rifle." if the rifle shot within two MOA.

As far as one's shooting skills with a rifle, I've always believed that offhand at 100 yards, one should be able to *usually* hit a beer can. Larger targets such as paper plates are getting near to *always*. With any sort of hasty rest, I'm back to the beer can idea.

, Art

 

[Picher]

That's true about most deer shot between 50 and 150 yards. My last five deer; however, averaged about 220 yards - two of those offhand...190 and 230 yds. That's not average. But I'm not average and neither are most of us on this board. That may be why we sometimes have trouble understanding the needs and problems of the "average" hunters. We tend to expect too much from them.

Picher

 

[Coltdriver]

You have an interesting question.

If you go to a driving range you can be a hero with a golf ball in a half a bucket. My experience is that I don't get the same result at the golf course.

The same goes for shooting damm near anything at a shooting range, especially a rifle on a bench. I can not imagine anything much easier to do than to park a rifle on a rest and nail a target. No criticism for the sharp shooting bench rest types out there but by comparison to field shooting, bench shooting is easier.

Shooting a rifle in the field is another matter. Now everything that did not matter as much when you parked it on a bench rest suddenly comes into play. The weight of the rifle, the balance, the eye relief, breathing if you have been moving to get into position, everything about the rifle.

If you have access to a place to practice in the field, give it a try. I end up kneeling if there is no tree handy. Having a sling that you can wrap around your arm to steady your fore stock grip is suddenly meaningful. Standing and making a long shot, certainly anything over 100 yards, is a tough proposition. I usually try to find a tree or a rock to steady myself on. I have not tried shooting stix yet.

I try to get dialed in to shoot a 6 inch square target. You get comfortable with that, shooting in the field, and you have good enough.

 

[Picher]

Guess I'm fortunate to be relatively steady, but find that I can shoot better offhand than kneeling. Sitting works for me, but sometimes I can't see what I'm trying to shoot if I sit.

However, I've given up stalking for sitting because we have some great stands where we often see several deer per day. I don't feel that stalking gives better shots very often. Usually deer hear/see/smell us coming and offer worse shots, if at all. The key is to find those stand locations where deer cross often. That's usually on longer, straight sections of old roads located between lowlands and woodland and field food sources. One stand where we build a blind every year has produced about 15 deer in the past 10 years. Fortunately, we have exclusive permission to hunt there.

JP