Do we really need to be that accurate?

S

sks

New member
As much as we all (myself included) talk about accuracy and strive for it, I wonder if we are not to the point of tinkering with something that will not get much better. What motivates us to seek more accuracy?

We all want as accurate a rifle as is possible. But, is there really that much difference between a ½" group and a ¼" group? Are we trying to make it better "just for the sake of making it better" or just to be able to say "that we can"?

How many deer notice the difference? Or for that matter, squirrels, elk, bears, men, etc?

Do we try to shoot better just for ourselves or is there a real purpose behind what we do?

Your thoughts apprecited.
 
minute of softball is good enough for most hunting targets

if the target is smaller than a softball then you need minute of golfball

i was doing my yearly couple o 3 rounds at 100 with my 30.06 prior to deer season last year,
round 1 was dead on, center of bull

i figured any more shooting would be moot

;)
 
Ask that to someone who depends on their accuracy to save their lives or hunt for food and you'll get a different answer than those who just hunt fun or targert shoot.

I personally believe that if there is something I can do or a tweek that I can perform to make my accuracy better, then I will do it. Then again I've been known to go to extremes from time to time...
 
More Accuracy

SKS, depends on the job.............

One of the MAIN reasons for striving for more accuracy, is related to WHAT are you gonna use it for.

If you have a rifle that will hold moa@ 100 yards....that surely does not mean it will hold moa @ 500, or 700, or a 1000.

So, we take into consideration what is the best the rifle will do, in this example moa, add your shooting abilities, and you may add another moa in the equation, NOW you have a 2 moa rifle combo.

Is that good enough??...yeah, for hunting, is that good enough for Mil, LEO's??,,,,,,no.

So, we need to take this rig down to 1/2 moa, now you have a rifle capable of 1/2 moa@100, but you are still moa.........

So, instead of a 2 moa 100 yard rifle combo, you now have a 1-1/2 moa combo.

This, is WHY most folks strive for the most they can get...to compensate for THEIR error's, and l;ack of ability.

Or, on the rare occasion,you have a 1/2 moa shooter, ( or better)needs a 1/2 moa rifle, not a moa, not a 2 moa............

Bottom line, get the right toll for the job......one that fits YOUR skill level.
AND needs.
 
Accuracy is over-rated big time. Unless you're a sniper (civilian or military) small groups are for funzies and nothing more than a ego booster. In the REAL world, paper plate accuracy is all you need unless you're doin' prairie dogs at 300 yards. Have some fun...blow stuff up! Best, J. Parker
 
TSHOES - I agree with you as concerns the different job. If I was a sniper and had to hit a guy without hitting the hostage at 500-700 yds, yeah, the ¼" would make a difference.

I assume, after a couple of years at TFL, that most of us are hunters, plinkers and paper punchers so that was the real basis for asking.

I like to see one ragged hole, it makes me feel very good and satisfied. Unless I was actually trying to make some design with those scattered shots. :)

Thanks to all for the input.

sks
 
competition

Accuracy does matter if what you're shooting at has a "X" in the middle of it with numbered rings around it. Some people shoot for food.... some shoot for trophies, ribbons, and titles.
 
I shoot benchrest.

If a rifle won't shoot under 0.100" consistently in a windless environment (i.e., warehouse), that rifle is not competitive.

If you're shooting, and you've got a cross wind, and you keep shooting horizontal lines of bullets, that's a GOOD rifle. You're the one screwing up.
 
I think you have to distinguish between intrinsic and practical accuracy. Intrinsic accuracy is a mechanical quality. You check it by putting the gun in a machine rest and taking the human factor out. Some guns are better made, and the results are more repeatable shot to shot. If a gun is intrinsically inaccurate, no amount of marksmanship will make it any better. I'm a fair pistol shot, but when the Army handed me a 1911 so loose that you could see the barrel rattle around inside its bushing, I couldn't hit zip. I got the armorer to swap me for a better fitting gun and was back on my game at once.

Practical accuracy is what you can do with the gun. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself. If I'm shooting for a $10,000 marksmanship prize or an Olympic Gold Medal, of course I want to put them all through the same hole, smack in the middle of the bullseye. If I'm hunting, I have to know the anatomy of my quarry well enough to know how tight I have to be. There's a much bigger target area on a deer than on a rabbit.

The same goes for defensive shooting. The object is to stop an attacker. If I put one through his heart and one through his forehead, that's about 10 - 12 inches apart, but it gets the job done.
 
Well said DS.

Personally I think that for most shooters, although not all, the guns of today are more accurate than we can be. And for that special someone who comes along from time to time and can judge wind, humidity, temp, etc. and get it right under evey condition, hats off!

For myself, the "one ragged hole" is pretty much just to say that I can do it and to brag a bit. Of course I never show the other targets to anyone. ;)

sks
 
The need for accuracy is range dependant, as previously stated.
The closer you are to the target, the less accurate you need the weapon to be.

2MOA is generally adequate for battle rifles and other non precision weapons used on man sized targets out to 300 yards, where one would ostensibly show a 6 inch group.
Hence, in the extremes of the argument, you have the 2" snubby .38 being used regularly at distances under 15 feet, and the match grade 1/2 MOA sniper rifle being used at distances over 300 yards to achieve best results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top