Unreasonable accuracy

[TRanger]

On another forum, I was reading the post of a shooter who was distraught over the fact his brand new Ruger Hawkeye .308 was producing "only" 3 1/2 inch groups at 200 yards. He was asking for advice on cures for this "terrible" accuracy. I started to respond that his rifle was fully accurate enough for any hunting to which it was suited; but then realized it was a waste of time. It was not what he wanted to hear.
Like anyone, I appreciate fine accuracy in a rifle; and have been very fortunate that most of the rifles I've owned have been highly accurate, far more so than necessary in most cases. But I think many shooters have grown to expect unreasonable accuracy, which most cannot use. The above shooter had a rifle which would group five rounds of factory ammunition into 3 1/2 inches at 200 yards. This is smaller than a deer's heart. I doubt very much he could hit a 3 1/2 inch target at that range under field conditions. I think the obsession with "sub MOA" groups is resulting in good rifles being denigrated without cause. A particular rifle may not be match-accurate; but if it feels good, is reliable, and you consistently hit with it, I feel that is more important than one-hole groups.

 

[sargents1]

On another forum, I was reading the post of a shooter who was distraught over the fact his brand new Ruger Hawkeye .308 was producing "only" 3 1/2 inch groups at 200 yards. He was asking for advice on cures for this "terrible" accuracy. I started to respond that his rifle was fully accurate enough for any hunting to which it was suited; but then realized it was a waste of time. It was not what he wanted to hear.
Like anyone, I appreciate fine accuracy in a rifle; and have been very fortunate that most of the rifles I've owned have been highly accurate, far more so than necessary in most cases. But I think many shooters have grown to expect unreasonable accuracy, which most cannot use. The above shooter had a rifle which would group five rounds of factory ammunition into 3 1/2 inches at 200 yards. This is smaller than a deer's heart. I doubt very much he could hit a 3 1/2 inch target at that range under field conditions. I think the obsession with "sub MOA" groups is resulting in good rifles being denigrated without cause. A particular rifle may not be match-accurate; but if it feels good, is reliable, and you consistently hit with it, I feel that is more important than one-hole groups.

Internet Commandos and Mall Ninjas. :roll:

If this dude was really that ignorant, I would be surprised if he had actually achieved the kind of group you describe at 200yds. He's probably a troll.

 

[Heliman]

I may have rifles capable of better accuracy, but not with me behind the trigger......I would be happy if I could group 3.5" at 200 yds in the field...my longest field shot hunting was a measured 225 yds or so, I think, and I have been hunting 50 years.......

Dave

 

[picketpin]

I'm old enough that the move towards the expectation that ALL centerfire rifles shoot MOA out of the box happened in my lifetime. I don't ever remember O'Connor or Kieth or Whelan or any of the writers of the time writing about sub MOA rifles and thinking it was something that you simply expected.

I try really hard to shrink groups with most rifles I own. I also recognize that it's a goal so I can putter. In reality most of us can't hold minute of deer standing on our hind legs much beyond 200-250 yards.

One doesn't honestly expect a 30" mule deer each time he hunts, if you hunt much. Nor do you think every rifle shoots sub MOA unless you either don't shoot much or own many rifles.

Ross

 

[Bob/Olallawa]

In reality most of us can't hold minute of deer standing on our hind legs much beyond 200-250 yards.
Ross

Very true, all the more important to try all the tricks and load development to shrink group sizes. After all shooting from the bench, in the good weather, and taking all the time needed between shots, is sure different than most any field conditions while hunting. Why not have the rifle tuned up to shoot one hole groups if possible. The better the rifle and the shooter can shoot, the better the chances of hitting the intended game at any distance.

 

[David-R]

I have two offshoot questions.

1. How does someone find out what is a reasonable group size for a given rifle or handgun at a given distance?

2. As newbie I am having a hard time deciding if I am doing OK for my experience level or suck royally. In other words, deciding if I just need more practice or have a technique problem I need to work out.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

problem wiht settling for "good enough" accuracy in the field is conditions vary. Add a strong wind or a poor rest or a increase in heart rate all things that can add to inaccuracy and its just nice to start out with all the accuracy you can muster. Add a 3.5 inch groupt to a couple inches of wind shift and some excitement causing not perfect trigger pull and compared to a one inch gun the differnce can result in a wounded or missed animal. A 1.5 moa gun is exceptable to me but anything worse and im at the loading bench or at the deal dumping the gun and 1 moa is really my goal with a gun thats going to be shot at 200plus yards. Alot of this depends too on the use. I have no qualms about hunting with a lever action that shoots 3moa if i dont intend on shooting past a 100 yards. To me a gun is a tool and just like I wouldnt go into the woods to cut trees with a dull chain saw im not going into the woods with a dull shooting gun! Both might get the job done but which would you rather use.

 

[RJ556]

I agree with you totally Lloyd. I don't know of anyone that carries a bench rest into the field when he hunts, excepting some varmint hunters. Add 4" to 6"of human error ( which is very realistic without a solid rest) to that 3.5" at 200 yards and now that shot from that 3.5" at 200 yard gun could be "iffy". Your odds of good shot placement would be a lot better if that 4" to 6" of human error was added to a shot from a 2" at 200 yard gun.

 

[TRanger]

Lloyd and RJ, I can understand and appreciate your thoughts; but I suspect in the field it will not matter. To illustrate what I mean, I have an old Winchester M61 22LR. It will not group half as well as my 77/22, but it has a redeeming quality: I never seem to miss with it. It just has an uncanny ability to hit in my hands. I believe this is more important than one-hole groups; yet I know there are some who would dismiss the old Winchester because it will not group on a dime. At any rate, to each his own. I just think the above shooter is wringing his hands over nothing.

 

[RJ556]

TRanger, I understand what you are saying. Confidence in a rifle does make a lot of difference. And I suppose an M.O.A. rifle could make a hunter over confident in his field shooting capabilities. I think both of our opinions on this matter are reasons to not stretch the distance of the shot beyond the shooters field shooting skills.

 

[jpdesign]

I always thought the point was to try to reduce the amount of human error. You are really talking about 8 inches verses 9.5 inches. I think you would do better to try to control your bodies reactions than to shrink you guns groups. Spend a lot of time watching deer. With out a gun near by, you won't get so excited when they show up. I know it doesn't effect my hesitate or breathing when they do. I will admit that if a monster buck walks out it does effect me somewhat. Point is, it is a lot easier to shrink 4-6 inches than it is to shrink the 2-3. And if you cannot adjust for wind at least a little what are you doing shooting out past 200 yards. I have had the wind blowing so hard I had to adjust at less than 150 yards ( it was a 30-30).

 

[wunbe]

While everything said so far is obviously true, it misses some key points that paint the picture in some different lights. Consider that...

Gun making technology and manufacituring techniques are vastly different than 50 years ago and allow for more precision at very little extra cost. Any number of relatively cheap rifle lines out of the box now regularly deliver near MOA performance that our beloved Model 70s of yore never achieved. Savage, for one. The SAKO and WBY low end rifles also manage consistent near MOA results.

Expectation standards are higher for a reason. Even among the stalwart old school gunmakers -- Ruger for one-- that still tell you 4 MOA is "good enough" accuracy, many if not most of their products shoot much better than that. Why SHOULD you pay increasingly higher MSRP and get an expensive rifle in a crap shoot that throws rounds all over the place?

The ethics and econcomics of clean kill are far more persuasive today than they were 50 years ago. MOA and 3-4 MOA on a stand up shot at almost any distance can make the difference from a clean kill and a wounded or lost trophy. We do everything possible to avoid this outcome -- practice, use shooting supports, buy high end glass etc -- so why buy and carry a rifle on an expensive, once in a lifetime, hunt that has inherently lower reliabilty just to accomodate a belligerent, brain dead, company's shoddy and sloppy quality controls and flagrant disregard for its customers' feedback.

The explosion of information about shooting -- from inet. shooting rags, and TV-- and shooting competitions has inexorably driven a pursuit of improved accuracy across the board in the shooting sports -- just as NASCAR has raised the bar both on our epectations of engine performace and actiual improvements in those engines. Accuracy is the most glaring demonstrration of such advances in gun making. To argue that noone needs all that horsepower or accuracy is to whistle into a force 10 gale.

The trend has about run its course as MOA is probably the extreme attainable goal but 3-4 MOA is a laughable standard that it is not going to sell many new rifles these days at any cost, even with gun writers shilling for the gun maker/advertisers at full speed.

wunbe

 

[SteelShooter]

Well said Wunbe!

Most people want both accuracy and precision in a rifle. Aim at a 1/4" dot at 100 yds, and hit the dot repeatedly within one inch or less.

This becomes a value proposition (quality x cost) what are you willing to pay to get the quality (precision and accuracy) you want.

Go to a local Rifle or Pistol Silhouette or bench rest match. Look for guns similar to yours, see how well those guns are doing and then ask the person who owns them after the match, what was done to get to that level.

For hunting accuracy, it may be very little to the rifle and careful had loading. As you start to hit that 1/4" dot, it generally becomes work on the rifle and the ammunition. For rimfire silhouette, you are generally talking about a 1" (highly desired) to 1-1/2" group at 100 yards, repeatedly (10 shots group) with both precision and accuracy demanded.

The folks at these matches are really friendly and typically love to talk about their guns and the sport. After that, decide what value you really need.

 

[picketpin]

My point was , how hard do you work at getting sub MOA? I have quite a few #1s that shoot sub MOA. A couple shoot into the high 3s and low 4s. It also took years of tinkering to getting that level of accuracy. I have a bunch in various "Hunting" cartridges and configuration that shoot at or near MOA and a WHOLE bunch that shoot about 1.5" five shot groups at 100 yards.

Now, how hard should I work and how much time does a guys spend making a rifle that shoots 1.5" five shot groups with a hunting load at a fairly high velocity. It may very well NEVER do it. Optimal accuracy is NOT always conducive to optimal hunting accuracy and bullet performance.

The most accurate 25 caliber I own us a semi custom #1 "V" in 257 Roberts with a Shilen tube and designed around tiny little 5 shot holes with a 70 grain match bullet. It'll shoot that load, under perfect conditions into .500 all day long. It would also be just about worthless as a big game rifle. I'd much rather have my #1 "B" in 257 Roberts with a 115 grain Nosler at 2900 fps that shoots at or very near MOA on hand when an animal gets up. Unless you are standing in hurricane Mike wind drift is pretty much a non issue at reasonable hunting ranges. If it's blowing 15 mph in a dead cross wind that still 5 - 6 inches of drift and that's minute of deer.

We have an absence of trees here in the Great Basin and hunting mule deer from a stand would be iffy at best, anyway. Shooting sticks? One more thing to pack around and worry about beploying when the buck gets up and is moving. Prone? Yeah that'll work in the sage brush.

On a few rare occassions you might get to brace up on a fence post or maybe off the hood of the pickup. The chances are few and VERY far between.

The original poster was shooting 3 to 3.5 groups at 200 yards. That's 1.5 at 100 or so. If shrinking group size to 1.0 (with a 5 shot group) non of this 3 shot stuff) is that .5 REALLY the determining factor as to whether you have meat on the ground? I would think that in most cases the answer would be, NO.

Like most guys I try for MOA, but I don't obcess over it. That goal may well not be attainable with the correct bullet and load in THAT rifle for the animal hunted.

If you can't hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards standing on your hind legs, 1/4" isn't going to make all that much difference.

Rather than spend a zillion dollars shrinking the group off the bench from 1.5 to under MOA, a guy might be better off shooting the same amount of money down range from various actual hunting positions and becoming proficient.

Cousin Wayne and I were watching one of the outdoor shows some years back. The "expert" postulated that you should NEVER shoot at running game> We looked at each other and burst out laughing. If you can't hit a moving deer or antelope in this country out to 250 yards or so, you might as well stay home. Sometimes you get a chance to take a sitting or kneeling shot, but certainly not always.

As for ethics, I'll put our shooting skills and animals shot thriugh the heart/lungs up against anybodies. WE don't "Go t the range" we live in the middle of a 6 million acre range and shoot nearly every day.

I've certainly managed to kill more than my share without ever owning "The very best optics available". I simply refuse to spend more for glass than the rifle and in hunting weather all that light transmission and clarity BS goes out the window. Hype for guys with money to spend. In 50+ years of hunting I've never failed to hit ANYTHING because the scoep was the problem.

We tend to over think this stuff some times, it isn't rocket surgery. ;-)

Ross

 

[Chief 101]

We tend to over think this stuff some times, it isn't rocket surgery.

Well said Ross...on the entire subject

 

[Lloyd Smale]

I got a simular accuracy bs story from ruger themselves when i was fighting over my last 257 ultralight. I wouldnt shoot anything into less then about 2.5 inches at a 100 yards which wasnt exceptable to me. I sent it to them twice and both times got a run around. Finally got them on the phone about it and the guy said my rifle shot 2 inch at 50 yards and that was considered exceptable accuracy for that caliber. I got a bit angry with him and said ive got 3030 lever guns with open sights that will shoot 2 inch at a 100 and a bolt gun should at least do that. They wouldnt budge a bit and sent it back to me again with nothing done. I sold that rifle and lost alot of respect for ruger over that deal. Sure that gun might have been fine for a whitetail rifle but I lost all confidense in it. Bottom line is if i have to use a gun with accuracy on that level id rather use a lever gun. About the same goes for scopes with me. I dont buy 1000 dollar scopes all the time but i dont buy many 100 dollar ones either. The cheap ones might work just fine but i like the advantage a good one gives in low light and even more so like the feeling of confidense i have in a gun with a scope on it that is a bit more then a kids toy. I dont cheap off brand replacement parts for a vehicle i need to trust and wont buy cheap off brand stuff when it comes to guns or loading either. Ive just learned over the years that you get what you pay for and ive found if anything that this applys to optics even more then most things.

 

[wunbe]

Ross,

On the optics issue, the "very best availalble" is way out of my price range too.

But there are affordable "high end" scopes in terms of reliaiblity in the field, durability, performance, and customer service. Leupold makes a bunch of them and they are on most of my rifles. None cost more than the rifle itself.

wunbe

 

[picketpin]

Wunbe: I run the last generation El Paso Micro Tracson a bunch of #1s. Decent glass at a fair price that fit #1s without a bunch of messing with rings and mounts and the like. I run Burris Fullfields Ones made in the USA for the same reason. Decent glass at a reasonable price that fit #1s without all the trouble of exstended rings and Weaver mounts or rails or............. By the way the engineers at Burris tell me that the 6x18 Fullfield I is probably the finest "Piece of glass we ever made". I run them on nearly all my varmint cartridge #1s and the factory is great about still working on them.

A quick count, looking around this room shows 19 #1s wearing Leupolds.
Most are hunting rifles with scopes that cost less than $500 new. There are a couple that are very specialized ala 22PPC that wear pretty big and hugely exspensive Leupolds, $1000+ given my tendancy to be frugal, but if you can't SEE 1/4" you can't shoot 1/4". ;-)

I'm broke enough as it is. If I insisted on spending the most I could for the very best glass made, for a couple hundred rifles.....................I'd be a Hell of a lot broker than I currently yam. ;-(

Especially when you figure maybe 20-25 get shot in any given year?? ;-)

As soon as I spendy a gazillion dollars on a hunting scope for that special trip, the temperature will drop to 20 below and we'll getting freezing sleet and rain for a couple of weeks and all the wonderful light transmission will go right out the window and the ability to see a bunch of little Mil dots will no longer exist. I'm more likey to take the 6-284 with the 8x-56 Weaver Micro Trac with the German Post and Cross hairs that you can actually see and put on an animal in nearly ANY weather,

It isn't the Olympic Biathalon, it's deer hunting. ;-) They would probably cancel the day at the Olympics.

Lloyd, bet you could have made the Rl shoot at or near MOA. I can see Rugers point they'd go broke trying to get MOA out of everything that goes out the door and as soon as they did, It wouldn't be the load you want to use. We own 6, 77 RLS and mostl shoot near MOA but all took some tinkering, usually load work. The little 250 Savage shoots 100s well under MOA.

Ross









Most are smaller fixed powers 4x throu

 

[four70nitro]

I think the last paragraph of Ross' post gets to the real issue here -- and that is the fact that Ruger (or any of the other major manufacturers) is not in the business of making bench-rest rifles. They can't afford to be. If we expect them to produce that kind of rifle we should also be willing to pay the cost of production. There are a lot of custom-smiths out there that do nothing but, and have long waiting lists to build just those kind of rifles at a cost of many multiples of what we pay for an off the shelf rifle from any of the major manufacturers.

When Ruger says that their requirement is for the rifle to shoot 2" or less at 50 yards (apparently the length of their test range) it is really a cost/time, self-preservation issue. They aren't willing to turn any particular rifle into a match-grade rifle that will shoot any off the shelf ammunition into a single ragged hole at that distance because they can't afford to do that and stay in business. They aren't saying that 2" is the best the rifle will do at that distance, they are saying that is the best they will guarantee it to do at that distance before they will commit more resources to the project to make it shoot smaller groups.

In my limited experience hand-loading and shooting the last 50 years or so I have seen only a very few rifles from quality name-brand manufacturers that wouldn't shoot some variety of factory or hand-loaded ammunition well enough to be a great hunting rifle. Some of them were astoundingly accurate and others would consistently shoot minute-of-pie-plate out to 300 yards or a bit further. Now minute-of-pie-plate does not equal MOA, but it certainly equals minute of deer (or elk). Those few rifles I have had personal experience with that wouldn't shoot generally had some identifiable problem such as a bent barrel, an off-center chamber, no rifling, etc.

I've seen any number of posters on this forum and others that decided that a given rifle from Ruger/Remington/Winchester/"Insert company name here" was unworthy because it wouldn't shoot a given load into MOA at a specified distance. I even saw one post from an individual that had a specific bullet/powder combination designated and if the rifle wouldn't shoot that it was no good to him. I think he must be the guy that they named all those streets after -- One Way!

If teeny groups at 100 or 200 or 300 yards is where your interest lies then you should buy the appropriate action and take it to a smith experienced in such things and spend the time and money to have that type of rifle built. Then spend a whole bunch more money on the right kind of dies, neck-turning equipment, and other reloading goodies to build the kind of ammunition that makes the investment in that kind of rifle worthwhile.

There is a reason that we don't see guys carrying those rifles around the woods whilst hunting deer or elk. There is also a reason we don't see whip-py barreled, light-weight mountain rifles competing in bench-rest competitions. Do I want a light-weight mountain rifle that will shoot with the big-boys in a bench-rest competition and hold its own -- you bet! Do I have any semi-realistic expectation that it will happen - absolutely not. Doesn't mean that I won't do my part working up loads and shooting the rifle enough to know it well, but I don't expect it to happen. If it will shoot inside 2" at 100 yards that is acceptable, if it will shoot MOA or better that is great! If it won't do either then I probably need to work on my handloads a bit more.....or check the scope mounts, or scope, or tighten the action screws.....

If you and your rifle don't perform well enough to make a clean kill on game at some distance -- then quit shooting at that distance or move closer.

Dave

 

[DavidMc116]

If teeny groups at 100 or 200 or 300 yards is where your interest lies then you should buy the appropriate action and take it to a smith experienced in such things and spend the time and money to have that type of rifle built. Then spend a whole bunch more money on the right kind of dies, neck-turning equipment, and other reloading goodies to build the kind of ammunition that makes the investment in that kind of rifle worthwhile.
Dave

..or just buy a pre-Garcia Sako Vixen or Forester.

 

[gunners]

What about Tikka, Sako, Thompsen Center some Weatherby's they guarrentee moa for at least 3 and some 5 shots . The Tikka, T/C and weatherby ain't that much dearer than a Ruger especially if you get one you have to tinker with to get it to shoot. I'm crossing my fingers that my new Ruger will be a good one if I'd bought the Tikka I would Expect it to deliver the goods straight up. I guess we would all love the same guarrentee from Ruger, even if they did a moa line like Weatherby does and charged a premium for the extra cost

 

[Lloyd Smale]

thats odd as ive had one 6x18 fullfied go bad right out of the box. the crosshairs came loose with the first shot out of a 22250. My buddy had one on his 300 mag sendero go bad and sent it back and got a replacement and put that one on his single shot 50 bmg and it lasted 10 rounds and went bad. This happened around the same time and when he got his back the second time he sold it and i sold mine about the same time when it came back. I dont know if a bad batch got out or there just junk but it was the 3rd burris fullfield i had that has had to go back and it was at least 10 years that i wouldnt buy one. I just picked up a 3x9 from cammeraland because the price was just to good to pass. Its been ok so far but the 300 wby its on has only been shot maybe 20 times since i swapped it onto it. They might be good scopes and ive just had bad luck but my buddy who owns the gunshop says more burris have been sent back by him then all the others combined if you leave out bushnell. He absoulutley detests bushenells. Like i said I bought another but to say i dont have alot of confindense in the brand is an understatement. Personaly i think a leupold is a better built scope hands down.

Wunbe: I run the last generation El Paso Micro Tracson a bunch of #1s. Decent glass at a fair price that fit #1s without a bunch of messing with rings and mounts and the like. I run Burris Fullfields Ones made in the USA for the same reason. Decent glass at a reasonable price that fit #1s without all the trouble of exstended rings and Weaver mounts or rails or............. By the way the engineers at Burris tell me that the 6x18 Fullfield I is probably the finest "Piece of glass we ever made". I run them on nearly all my varmint cartridge #1s and the factory is great about still working on them.

A quick count, looking around this room shows 19 #1s wearing Leupolds.
Most are hunting rifles with scopes that cost less than $500 new. There are a couple that are very specialized ala 22PPC that wear pretty big and hugely exspensive Leupolds, $1000+ given my tendancy to be frugal, but if you can't SEE 1/4" you can't shoot 1/4". ;-)

I'm broke enough as it is. If I insisted on spending the most I could for the very best glass made, for a couple hundred rifles.....................I'd be a Hell of a lot broker than I currently yam. ;-(

Especially when you figure maybe 20-25 get shot in any given year?? ;-)

As soon as I spendy a gazillion dollars on a hunting scope for that special trip, the temperature will drop to 20 below and we'll getting freezing sleet and rain for a couple of weeks and all the wonderful light transmission will go right out the window and the ability to see a bunch of little Mil dots will no longer exist. I'm more likey to take the 6-284 with the 8x-56 Weaver Micro Trac with the German Post and Cross hairs that you can actually see and put on an animal in nearly ANY weather,

It isn't the Olympic Biathalon, it's deer hunting. ;-) They would probably cancel the day at the Olympics.

Lloyd, bet you could have made the Rl shoot at or near MOA. I can see Rugers point they'd go broke trying to get MOA out of everything that goes out the door and as soon as they did, It wouldn't be the load you want to use. We own 6, 77 RLS and mostl shoot near MOA but all took some tinkering, usually load work. The little 250 Savage shoots 100s well under MOA.

Ross









Most are smaller fixed powers 4x throu

 

[Lloyd Smale]

The weatherbys i have are guaranteed 1.5 inch for 3 shots cold barrel. Thats ALL theyll warantee and it has to be with there overpriced ammo. Ive got a 257 that shoots 3 shots cold clean barrel into 1.5 and after three rounds it fouls so much that groups double. they wouldnt do a stinking thing about it even though after ten rounds it has about a lb of copper in it the barrels so rough. Yes ruger should get real about there accuracy standards but i just had the barrel replaced on my 264 hawkeye because it was rough and ruger never even asked how well it shot. Personaly i dont think either one of them is great when it comes to backing a rifle but i have to admitt that ruger was better then weatherby. By the way weatherby told me just to look at my gun they wanted a 100 bucks to range test it and that was non refundable. So there gurantee comes at a price. 30 bucks to ship and a 100 to test before they even think about rebarelling a bad gun

What about Tikka, Sako, Thompsen Center some Weatherby's they guarrentee moa for at least 3 and some 5 shots . The Tikka, T/C and weatherby ain't that much dearer than a Ruger especially if you get one you have to tinker with to get it to shoot. I'm crossing my fingers that my new Ruger will be a good one if I'd bought the Tikka I would Expect it to deliver the goods straight up. I guess we would all love the same guarrentee from Ruger, even if they did a moa line like Weatherby does and charged a premium for the extra cost

 

[wunbe]

My one experience with a Burris was also bad. Tw was a 3x8 Signature with terrible design features -- towers way up front, poor eye reilef (which they lied about in the specs for the scope), and zero customer service in terms of adressing the problems. US made or not , never again.

wunbe

 

[Major T]

The last generation El Paso Weavers were/are so good that they are what put Weaver out of business. They cost a bit more to manufacture and with the inflation that was going on at the time, Weaver had to sell them at a price that folks were not accustomed to paying for Weavers. Thus came resistance, sales dropped, and Weaver sold. I still have two - a 3X and a 4x. They do not have modern lens coatings, but the images are clear and sharp (and for those to whom it is important, they track.)) I bought a NIB 6X at a Dallas show a few years ago. Three or four moves later with jobs and finally retirement, I don't know where it went. I would be really pleased to find it somewhere stashed away in my "good stuff."

Accuracy is good but as others have stated, hit ability is better. My favorite '06, shoots Hornaday Light Magnum 180s at around 1.25 inches. Tinkering with hand loads might get it better, but why bother? It hits everything that I put the cross hairs on out to around 300 yards without giving serious thought to holdover. 2" high at 100, a little low at 300 is all I need to remember. And as age takes it's toll, I may have trouble hitting stuff any farther anyway. I stocked up back when I discovered this loading. I sure hope the revamped Superperformance does as well, because I am about out of the initial purchase.

jack

 

[6GUNSONLY]

A rifle that groups 3.5" at 200 yards will strike within 1.75" of point of aim... I think that is plenty good enough. Yes, I want my rifles to shoot as tight as possible, too, and am always looking for better groups through handloading, better shooting technique, rifle tinkering, etc... but as others have stated, we can get carried away with the pursuit. JMO.

I posted a picture on another thread in this forum of a recent group shot with my flatbolt M-77 .308, 3 shots at 100 yards measuring .690" C to C. I was very pleased with that from a stock hunting rifle, and realize it is by no means typical or to be expected from every out-of-the box bolt action. That's my best so far with this rifle, and I've had many that wouldn't do nearly that well, despite my best handloading and tinkering efforts.

DavidMc116 wrote: "..or just buy a pre-Garcia Sako Vixen or Forester."

... got one. That'll work, too. :wink: Actually mine's a L61 7mm Mag with no importer markings, dates to about 1970. It'll shoot.

 

[Bayouhunter]

No use to enlighten him with all the available info out there already. Since he he is so disappointed inthe gun offer to buy it low price of course and use it for was it is designed for.

 

[RJ556]

6gunsonly, there is still a flaw in that statement. If a rifle will hold 3.5" at 200 yards, it may strike only 1.75" from its mark, FROM A BENCH, not in the field. And before I get slammed about, "practice your field shooting", All of the practice shooting from field positions in the world, is not going to enable a shooter to shoot as precise as he can from that bench. I'm not saying that it won't improve your probability of better field shot placement. I'm just saying that you have to add that human error on top of that 1.75". And it's going to be considerable.

 

[wunbe]

Another apples an oranges argument.

3.5 MOA at 200 yards is NOT 4 MOA at 100 yards which Ruger says is "acceptable hunting acciuracy". That Ruger standard works out to @8 MOA at 200 yards which often causes a missed or wounded game animal! If you want to restrict your clean kill zone to 100 yards almost any ML and many modern shotguns will do the job.

What an ad campaign that would make. "4MOA is good enough for Ruger but it is not relaible beyond 100 yards."

wunbe

 

[Chief 101]

Another apples an oranges argument.

3.5 MOA at 200 yards is NOT 4 MOA at 100 yards which Ruger says is "acceptable hunting acciuracy". That Ruger standard works out to @8 MOA at 200 yards which often causes a missed or wounded game animal! If you want to restrict your clean kill zone to 100 yards almost any ML and many modern shotguns will do the job.

What an ad campaign that would make. "4MOA is good enough for Ruger but it is not relaible beyond 100 yards."

wunbe

I think MOA is an inch at 100 yds...feel free to correct me if need be.