hunting accuracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old age has made me depend on the quality optics available today. I wouldn't be able to hunt without them. I shot a coyote at 218 yards last year and before that a pig at about 225 yards. I use a 3X9X40. I shoot at 3X but I use the higher magnification for spotting. Old age is hell....
 
I like a 3 X 10 scope and 90% of the time I will have it on 10 power.Has nothing to do with what I need to kill the animal,but often there are small differences in antlers that effect my decision to shoot or not that I simply cannot see at low magnification.I also think that if you are having problems finding your target in the scope at any magnification you need to practice more with that rifle.If you can shoot a bird out of the air with a shotgun,surely you can put a rifle on target.Also,any equipment inaccuracy is added to your own shooting flaws,so the less the better.But,the difference between 1/2 inch and 1 1/2 inch is usually irrelevant.Now,I'll probably miss an artery by 1/2 an inch on the biggest buck in North America.
 
For no more practice than they put into it, some hunters should trade their rifles for scatterguns. Too often they compensate for lack of range time with more precise equipment thinking one will offset the other.
 
Fish, I think we see eye to eye on this. I dont sill hunt with my long range rigs and I dont expect .3MOA out of my still hunt rigs. But one way or the other, I do expect sub MOA out of any or them. For the short range rifles I expect .75MOA from my load development. I generally use a high quality 3x9 that rarely leaves 5X. For the long range stuff, I like a 6.5x20.
 
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.
 
rifle accuracy

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.
 
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! :D:D:D

Art
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 :o 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:D . 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).
 
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
 
Aim Small - Miss Small

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.
 
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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top