Practical Accuracy for a Hunting Rifle?

F

Fremmer

New member
I have a new Remington 700 Classic in .308 Winchester. I can shoot a benchrested .75 inch group at 100 yards.

I've been practicing shooting from field positions (off the bench!), and my groups sure do open up from that .75 inch benchrest group :rolleyes:. What I'm trying to accomplish is to quickly and reliably hit a target from a field position with reasonable accuracy (within 6 inches or so of the bullseye).

So here's the point: shooting a hunting rifle which produces sub-moa groups from the bench is, for the most part, irrelevant. Don't get me wrong here -- if the rifle shoots 4 to 6 inch groups from the benchrest, I'd be worried. But it seems to me that a hunting rifle which shoots a 2" group from the bench is, as a practical matter, just as effective as a hunting rifle which will shoot a .75" group from the bench. After all, unless you shoot deer/elk from a benchrest (an interesting idea if you have deer wandering onto the shooting range during huntin' season!:D), those tiny groups don't mean much when you are in the field and have to shoot fairly quickly at an animal and you use a modified rest (such as a tree, log, etc.), while kneeling, or even while standing.

Keep in mind that I know that sub-moa groups are important to the paper-punchers. And I'll admit I'm very happy that my rifle will shoot sub-moa groups from the bench (it will certainly outshoot me -- go Remington!). We all want to shoot an accurate rifle. But I'm talking about using a hunting rifle in hunting conditions, and what amount of practical accuracy a hunter really requires in the field.

The reason I'm raising this issue is that I often see threads from members who are distressed because their hunting rifle won't shoot a sub-moa group from the bench, especially when they see threads from members who shoot tiny groups with a sniper or varmit gun (which often weigh 11 pounds or more, have bipods, and huge scopes). For example: "my hunting gun will 'only' shoot a 1.75 inch group, what should I do...."

My question is this: does a hunter really need sub-moa groups to hunt effectively? What do you think?
 
My question is this: does a hunter really need sub-moa groups to hunt effectively? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think your groups need to be as big, or smaller than, the vitals of whatever your hunting. You also need to put that group in the vitals.
 
Agree with Trip. But, that group can and will be shrunk with alot of practice and bone on bone contact in your choice of positions.
~z
 
Not really. Sub-MOA is nice, and it can really help on some shots. For instance, if you find that you can shoot, say, a 6-inch group from your preferred field position, and one day you need to take that shot, but your rifle is only a 2 MOA gun, you could very well lose an animal. But for your average hunting situation, I don't think you need a sub-MOA rifle. Not unless you are using a supermagnumized whatever to make 800 yard kills from a benchrest.
 
good practice

Ive found that a good thing to practice on are plate targets set at every hundred yards out to the distance that you are comfortable shooting an animal off of any rest. For me this is 3 hundred yards. I know that whatever the wind and rest at 300 yards with a cold bore I have a very good chance of hitting that plate. I use a 10 power scope though which helps but I try to find objects like logs to shoot off of or shooting sticks or a sitting bipod and just practice works well for me. dont know if that helps but I've had some good luck with it.
 
It seems to me that if you are shooting sub moa groups at 100 yds on a bench, and they open up to 4 to 6 inch groups in field conditions,that if your gruops at the bench were say 4 inches your field conditions may open up to 8 to 10 inches. Same issue if you lengthened your shot to 300 yds your sub moa group may be 6 inches but if you can only benchshoot 4 inch groups you may be way off at 300 yards. In this perspective, the sub moa group is very meaningful and practical. These numbers are not solid ballistic information, just me spouting off my goofy logic and theory:rolleyes:
 
I think we're talking about the definition of Minute of Deer here...

Sure helps when you can shoot your rifle as well off the bench as on, but I don't know anyone who can actually do that unless they are plain bad both places. Reducing your groups when in the field is what practice is all about. I think most folks can do fairly well at the bench on any given day once they've got basics down, a good rifle and ammo, and a clear target down range of the bench... But put the same folks in the feild without a bench in sight and add uncertain weather, wind, a live target, unknown distances, and maybe just a touch of buck fever - and they (don't we all) suddenly find that minute of deer is every bit as challenging as that smallest group ever printed over the bench. ;)
 
I've been taking big game in Wyoming and South Dakota nearly every year since the late 1960's. Not meant to sound like a brag but simply stating my basis of opinion.

A super accurate rifle is a pleasure to own and hunt with. Not all are bolt actions either. But there is more to downing game than shooting tight groups from a concrete bench rest.

A hunter that can quickly get into a makeshift field rest and hit an empty gallon sized paint can at 200 yards each and every single shot will not face an empty freezer. This is a target about 8 inches tall and 7 inches wide. Benchrest is fine for sighting-in but practise from field positions is what consistantly brings home venison.

There are hunters reading this that rarely shoot beyond 75 yards because of terrain and other factors. Perhaps practising at the same target at 100 yards is more benefical and appropriate. But in any case, getting on target quickly and accurately is the goal.

Years ago, Jack O'Connor of OUTDOOR LIFE stated that a rifle which averaged a 3 inch group at 100 yards would work for all the hunting he'd experienced. I agree.
Jack
 
+1 Jack Oconnor. The only thing with good groups at the bench it might give you more confidence in the field, but the real test is as J OC says.
 
These are good things to remember, and I'm glad to see 'em stated here.

I've a sporterized Springfield that I probably couldn't get to do better than 1.75" at 100 yards off the bench, but with which I can give you off-hand hits with much more reliably at the same distance on killzone targets than my sub-MOA Sendero, in a timed contest. That Springfield has practical accuracy, whereas the Sendero has inherent accuracy.

The two kinds of accuracy (practical and inherent) are by no means mutually exclusive. For example, I've a friend with a 1963 vintage '94 Winchester that I sighted in after he put a trigger job and receiver ghost ring peep sights on it. From the bench it turns in honest 1.0" to 1.25" groups. (Yeah, I know. It borders on unbelievable, and I'm not actually sure that I would believe it myself, but for the fact that I was the one shooting it, over several groups.) That rifle is as handy as anything to carry, throw up to your shoulder, and toss a round somewhere into a 10" paper plate at 100 from offhand at a slick speed. Truth be told, it could do that job just about as well if it were a 3" rifle. But there's a lot of confidence that comes from knowing what the rifle can do, when you've got an accurate and practical rifle.
 
Coincidently, I've been throwing 165 grainers at various size paper plates for the past few weeks with Wally World $369 Rem. 700 in '06 topped with $200 3-9. Have integrated everything from Workmate bench to bipod to shooting sticks. And yes, when I do my part, the set-up has been good (with Hornady Light Mag BTSP Interlocks) for as little as 1 1/4" groups (of 3) at 100 yards.

Not completely comfortable with the software tables and/or ballistics charts before upcoming hunt in Colorado, I did some serious 300 yard shooting on 9" paper plates last Friday. Best "rest" under the conditions at hunting lease involved my standing next to and over pickup tool box, using sleeping bag below foreend and folded pillow below stock. I was quite satisfied after getting the "poor man's combo" tweaked to consistently produce 3-shot groups of around 4" centered on the plates at 300 yards. Now if I can just figger out a way to get that "rest" up on the side of the mountain ... ;)
 
practical or not, I dont want a rifle that wont shoot one inch or better at 100 yards with the right load, three shots a minumim, five shots better. A rifle like that gives me the confidence to use it...

WildialsopracticeproneAlaska
 
Back almost 60 years ago, scopes were very primitive as compared to today. More people "made do" with iron sights than is common today.

In those heyday days of "The Rifleman's Rifle", the pre-'64 Model 70, I read of no opinions that didn't believe that any rifle which could give five-shot groups of two MOA wasn't a "good hunting rifle". All the writers seemed to believe that two MOA was plenty good for Bambi. I grant that there were only four gunzines: The American Rifleman, Outdoor Life, Field & Stream and Sports Afield. We didn't have nearly so many "experts" as we do today. :)

Sure, I work to have my deer rifles at or within one MOA. But I don't worry about it from one year to the next.Two MOA will put you into the heart/lungs at out to 200 yards with no difficulty. Most deer are killed within 100 yards, anyway, plus the usual allowance for extra yards for bragging...

:), Art
 
Ah but Art, wasnt it one of those old timers who said that the only interesting rifle is an accurate one?

Me Im freeaking out because my supercool 1960s Husqvana gave me one measly five shot 1/2 inch group out of 100 rounds (different loads)...its got one last chance!

WildinafrenzyAlaska
 
coincidentally, that husqi has only been shot when i'm not in the lane to WA's left showering him with brass from my spray and pray.

methinks that maybe if WA shot his other swedes without my assisting efforts, he wouldnt be flinching and jerking those triggers so luckily.

p.s. what'd you score in the offhand clay contest again? who outshot you? :D



spacemanmydaytobemeantotheoltimerbtwhehadab-dayrecentlywishhimabelatedonewhydonchyall?spiff
 
"Ah but Art, wasnt it one of those old timers who said that the only interesting rifle is an accurate one?"

Yup. Whelen, wasn't it?

Anyhow, "out of the box" back then on average wasn't as good as what today's higher-quality tooling can provide. To a great extent, "accurate" meant "custom". As example, in the late 1940s my uncle built a Varminter, a Gebby barrel on a Model 98 action and regularly got 5-shot 1/2 MOA.

Art
 
Fremmer,
I have just started hunting mule deer out West over the past 5 years. I found out the hard way this year that it is imparitive that one knows how one shoots at 200 and 300yds - maybe 400 and 500yds for Elk. There is no linear correlation between bench and free-standing (which I'd recommend since rests aren't a given). So I'd suggest confirm your gun's accuracy by bench at 300yds according to the kill zone of your animal. Then I'd spend some serious time plinking away and understanding if wind or uphill/downhill trajectories significantly affect your ammo.
I hope that helps.
 
Mr. AverageShooter buys a new huntin' rifle. Shoots it from a nice comfortable benchrest at the range. Uh-oh --- it "only" groups 2" from the rest. Mr. AverageShooter says, hey, this gun ain't accurate; Fremmer's hunting rifle shoots a .75" group, and I won't be able to make an accurate shot at an animal unless my new rifle shoots a sub-moa group like Fremmer's rifle can.

So Mr. AverageShooter has the Smith lighten the trigger; bed the action; and free-float the barrel. Maybe he even has a new custom barrel installed. Naturally, this costs buckets of cash and takes a long time. Finally, the rifle is ready from the Smith, and Mr. AverageShooter takes it to the range for another benchrest test. Now, we'll say the rifle shoots a .5" group from the benchrest.

That November, Mr. NewShooter is hunting deer. He's inside a rickety old tree stand. The wind is blowing at 15 miles per hour and the stand is not-so-gently swaying in the wind. Plus, it is cold, he is tired from waking up at 3:00 a.m, and the edge of the stand doesn't seem to provide much of a rest for the rifle (sound familiar, anyone?;)). He spots a doe at 100 (or 200, or you pick the distance) yards standing still, but looking warily around, about to trot away. He takes the shot.

Maybe he hits the doe (well enough to kill and not just wound), or maybe he misses it (I realize that the definition of "average" in AverageShooter's name makes a difference). But I still think the result is almost always gonna be the same regardless of whether the rifle shoots a 2" group or a .75" group.

Help me out here, everyone. I must be missing the main point of the counter-argument, and I do want to learn. :)
 
Last edited:
"But I still think the result is almost always gonna be the same regardless of whether the rifle shoots a 2" group or a .75" group."

Yep, for Mr. AverageShooter, that's probably the case. But ... with all that wobble, insteada missin' by "only" 2 feet, he misses by 5 ... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top