Unreasonable accuracy

[Major T]

Minute of angle remains constant as distance increases. In theory, a minute of angle rifle should be able to maintain that level of accuracy over longer distances. Minute of angle (just a tad over 1" at 100 yards) rifles should shoot just over 2" at 200, 3" at 300, etc. The inches get bigger over distance, not the angle. The problem is that some bullets do weird things as velocity drops off, sighting equipment may not be precise, and there is always the nut behind the butt. His skill, vision, heart rate and several other factors enter in even from a bench, not considering field shooting. I use a quality airgun to hone my offhand skills - works for me and I can do it in the garage.

I do not know that I (or my rifle) can still shoot a small paper plate group at 300 yards, but if not, I will just stop shooting that far or get a rifle that will. I see Roger's point. They cannot control all the variables. Most of their stuff will do better than their standard. Best wishes, jack

PS: what Ross said. Shoot varmints, or plink to sharpen skills. Sight in on benches.

 

[Hank in Indiana]

Accuracy is a relative term. 3.5"@200 is OK but not great. For a Ruger is as good as I have seen. Recently I spoke to a target shooter with a Rem 40X in 6mm PPC. He was dissapointed that his rifle shot groups of.200-.300"@ 100. I told him that was great. He responded "You should see the groups from the good shooters." For some people 3.5"@200 is great, to some its OK, and for some its dissapointing.

 

[BikerRN]

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.

I'm starting to agree with you.

For years I have been obsessed with one hole groups but I'm starting to see the futility of it. The standard for accuracy for years was 6" at 100 Yards back in my Grandfather and Great Grandfather's day. There sure were a lot of game animals killed with inaccurate rifles back then.

I'll take 2" at 100 Yards as more than acceptable for hunting.

Biker

 

[wunbe]

Major T,

I was indeed inaccurate in my use of MOA. Sorry. The numbers are still right. 4" at 100 yards is 8" at 200 yards in most cases. (The odd rifle will actually shoot tighter groups further out.)

wunbe

 

[Tx gun runner]

I'm sorry 3 1/2" at 200 yds is not acceptable for a hunting rifle . I built this in 1978 to carry on my dirt bike for hunting coyote at over 300 yds with scope on it . With a 3 1/2" group , only a lucky shot would ever bag a coyote at 300 or 400 yds .

 

[RJ556]

A rifle that shoots 3.5" at 200 yards off of a bench rest is good enough for game shooting at 200 yards? For those of you who think it is, I have a question for you. Can you take that rifle into the field and hold even 6" at 200 yards from field positions, consistiently? I think not.

 

[pcgod]

When I was in my 20's I searched for the mythical sub 1" groups. Me and my friends were crazy about accuracy and if a gun didn't produce .5 or less we felt it was crap. At the range there was an old guy with a Winchester 30/06, it had a old redfield 2 power scope with a post reticle. The rifle was either a feather weight, if they made them back then, or it was something he modified because it was very lite.
He told me to get off the bench, stand up like a man and learn to shoot. His groups ranged from 1.5 - 3 in. offhand at 100 yds. He believed if you can hit a paper plate at hunting ranges you were good. He was retired and hunted several states in the fall and normally ended up with 4-6 deers for the season.

Living in the Northeast I find shots above 200yds are extremely rare and I heeded this old mans advice. I regularly shoot my 77/22 at 2 inch plates at 50 and 75 yds and it has made me a better shot. Prior to any hunt I start 2 months before with dry firing everyday and ONLY offhand pratice on the weekends at the range.

I am still working with the loadings for my 308 compact and it is a solid 1.25 inch gun. I have only shot a couple 200yd groups off the bench and they were just under 3 inches. This will work for its intended purpose. I guess as I have gotten older I trust my skills more than my equipment.

The take away here is don't worry as much about groups with your hunting rifles. If your hunting range is 200 ensure you can hit a pie plate and your fine for larger game, if coyotes are the game shoot at clay pigeons. If you reliably hit these you'll do fine.

 

[mattsbox99]

I almost wish I knew what it was like to have an inaccurate ruger.

 

[Tx gun runner]

I never bench my hunting guns . These are the 1st 3 shots ever at 200 yds using cross sticks ,
which is the way I shoot 200 or more yds with a rifle hunting . These are hunting loads not target .
A far cry from 3 1/2"

 

[Major T]

Back In my younger days, our community was in need of a good place to shoot. We formed a shooting club and the city (imagine that today!) allowed us to build a rifle range to 200 yards, a handgun range to 50 yards and a regulation skeet field, on the back side of the municipal airport. We needed some funds for more improvements, so we held a "turkey" shoot. All kinds of shooting games, including shots at live turkeys behind a barricade where only the head and a little neck were exposed. We were making money hand over fist on the live turkeys as they bobbled up and down. Off hand at 50 yards. Then one of my old friends showed up with a .30-06 Remington 740 (or whatever the Model of the day was.) I suspect friend had a couple of drinks under his belt to steady his nerves, but anyway that former Marine (an airplane driver at that) almost broke us. I finally told him that enough was enough after he killed five or six with only a couple of misses. One of those birds showed up in my refrigerator a couple of days later - oven ready. I think that was the only rifle Mr. H owned and he could use it OFF HAND. jack

 

[RJ556]

TX gun runner, I'll respond to your post first. It is obvious that your rifle shoots MUCH better than 3.5" at 200 yards. And it's also obvious that you are an exceptional field shot with those cross sticks. If the best bench rest accuracy your rifle could demonstrate was 3.5" at 200 yards, then obviously, it would not be possible to shoot groups any where near the one shown on your target.
And Major T, If Mr H. had a rifle that, at best, would group 3.5" at 200 yards, bench rested, he too could probably shoot groups not too much larger than that 3.5" , off hand at 200 yards.
That is because these two examples are exceptional shooters. Those guys and others that shoot as good as them can get by fine with a 1.75 MOA rifle. The other 95% of us that are planning on shooting animals at 200 yards in the field should strive for a little more accuracy AND practice more.

 

[mattsbox99]

Precisely why I practice throughout the offseason offhand at steel targets. Most of my guns will deliver sub MOA accuracy off the bench, and while I've never missed a game animal that I had a good shot on, I still practice constantly. I owe at least that to the game I intend to harvest.

Now, I'm not saying I've never missed. I've taken poor shots or misjudged range (common with me). When I settle down and put the crosshairs in the brown, I've always hit my target.

 

[Carl]

Interesting discussions and lots of inputs worth reading!

But in my humble opinion, bench accuracy is fine and important, but not the most crucial issue. I would like to add ergonomics to the discussion, as the gun has to be shootable in the field. Stocking, weight, balance, trigger, optics, sling - all that which make the rifle comfortable and trusty to shoot. Without that, there is no use for the bench accuracy. In fact one will hit a deer at 125 yards better with an ironsighted old .30-30 than with a bad balanced ½-MOA carbon fibre stocked rifle which doesn't fit you.

Carl

 

[wunbe]

Carl,

Nice post.

And that explains my fixation on and collection of Ruger 1Bs. They balance, carry, point and hold like no other rifle I have tried. Fitted with a 3 pound trigger and serious recoil pad in the heavier kicking calibers, they fit and serve me better than some custom guns I have had made. And there is somnething to be said for shooting riflles in calibers from 22 Hornet through .405 Winchester that all feel pretty much the same.

wunbe

 

[chucknbach]

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.

Wow 1.75 MOA is bad "for me". Not everyone is shooting their animals at close range. Give us a link so we can ask the guy his intended purpose for the rifle. It maybe he wants to shoot a little farther than the 200 yrds he's trying to group at. The closer in your target is the less effect an inaccurate rifle has.

Most out of the box rifles now days are sub MOA. Well at least 3 of the 4 I've bought in the last 3 yrs. These are all new off the shelf guns with factory ammo..
Tikka T3 7RM sub MOA $550
Browing Xbolt .243 sub MOA $850
Remmington 770 .243 sub MOA $300
Ruger M77 .243 3" at 100 $650

I would like to say my demand for accuracy would change if all of my game was taken under 200 yrds but it wouldn't. I would hate to have shooter error of 4" then have a 2" error in my rifle producing a miss. A 10" kill zone it only takes 5" to be off of it.

If it doesn't shoot sub MOA it gets fixed or it goes down the road.

 

[Major T]

Back in the days when I roamed the foot hills of the High Sonoran Desert on my own two feet, I practiced a lot at home with a very accurate scoped airgun, It really helped my off hand marksmanship. I mostly hunt from a stand or hide any more, so it becomes more like improvised bench shooting.