Practical Accuracy

[Picher]

I've long been a rifle shooter, hunter, and gunsmith; not the best of any, but better than many. I'm not into 1,000+ yard shooting, but have extensively shot rimfire benchrest and dabbled in several other shooting sports.

Practical accuracy to me means that a rifle, and it's ammo can hit what they need to be able to hit to be able to win, whether to harvest game at reasonable ranges, or to make the owner happy at the shooting range.

I'm not happy with my rifles unless they shoot 1/2 MOA with the ammo I'm using. Is this practicable for every hunter/shooter? Certainly NOT. I do it because I can improve store-bought rifles and make handloads that shoot great. But, it's not necessary to have such equipment to harvest a deer at 200 yards or so, nor is it necessary to practice as much as I do.

No, practical accuracy means that a person can buy a rifle, add a scope, sight in with factory ammo (or have someone do it right for the ranges to be encountered.) and with some shooting talent, go out and shoot with enough accuracy to cleanly kill game, or be satisfied at a range or gravel pit, etc.

When growing up, after wearing out several BB guns, we used to shoot .22LRs, etc. at tin cans and other junk at reasonable ranges in gravel pits found along the Kennebec River in central Maine. I started 22LRs shooting my brother's Remington 514 that had a cheap Mossberg scope mounted on it. That seemed quite accurate to me, though I don't recall ever shooting it on paper targets.

My first new gun was a Stevens semi-auto with a cheap scope. I shot lots of small game with that rifle, but finally shot it on paper and was extremely disappointed that it wouldn't shoot better than 2" at 25 yards. I then bought a Marlin 39A Mountie and installed a receiver sight and it was deadly on squirrels, and from a rest, could group about 3/4" at about 50 yards with it.

I've gone on to own some very impressive target rifles including: Anschutz 54, Winchester 52C, and my latest custom Rem 40X rimfire benchrest rifle that shot at one match, two, 250X250s and a 249X250, missing by a hair on the last shot. My varmint and deer rifles also shoot extremely tight groups.

The point is that, at various stages in our shooting careers, we develop different expectations for accuracy. At some point, even once great shooters often lose ability due to eyesight, tremors, or other problems, but as long as we enjoy shooting/hunting, we accept a different "normal" expectation. Some of us aren't over-the-hill yet, but can see down the other side somewhat. LOL

How about your needs vs. expectations?

 

[MrBorland]

To me, practical accuracy is simply about hitting what you need to hit, when you need to hit it, and from the position required.

Though they may seem miles apart, I found the transition from Run&Gun handgun competition to target rifle competition (High Power) to be pretty straightforward, because I understood that shootin's shootin', i.e. the fundamentals are the same: I just needed to figure out the "what" and "when" part.

At some point, even once great shooters often lose ability due to eyesight, tremors, or other problems, but as long as we enjoy shooting/hunting, we accept a different "normal" expectation.

Well, as noted, I tend to enjoy shooting matches, and my normal expectation now is to be competitive in whatever I shoot. I started off late in life, though, and I have responsibilities outside of shooting, so while I enjoy being competitive, I understand it's unlikely I'll be hanging with the really big dogs .

 

[AllenJ]

No, practical accuracy means that a person can buy a rifle, add a scope, sight in with factory ammo (or have someone do it right for the ranges to be encountered.) and with some shooting talent, go out and shoot with enough accuracy to cleanly kill game, or be satisfied at a range or gravel pit, etc.

I agree with this but for some reason I never stop trying to get better results by trying different things. It could be me trying a different shooting technique or by trying a different reloading component. An elk hunting rifle that shoots 2 MOA is fine to me, as long as you know that really long shots are not allowed.

Picher, I'm on the downhill side with you too

 

[Picher]

When I was young, I always shot standing up. Wore out three BB guns doing that. Shooting in gravel pits was the same. I only rested guns to sight them in. Hunting varmints, it was standing out to 150 yards, sitting or prone with rest beyond that.

I still shoot deer and varmints offhand to about 200 yards, depending on circumstances.

Attachment: A typical target shot offhand with an old Rem 521 sporter with scope at 50 feet.

 

[Bart B.]

Any rifle will shoot a few bullets into 1/100th MOA accuracy at short range once in a while, a very long while. That happens when all the variables cancel each other out in all directions so all the bullets land atop each other. Problem is, the time and expense of doing it. And they'll never get any smaller than zero, which is a long way from what the average or biggest ones are.

I think resources are better spent making the largest groups shot smaller. They're the ones that show all the inaccuracies and there's no limit to their size.

 

[Picher]

I think that people get hung up on group size and don't pay enough attention to getting the rifle to shoot the first shot or group where it's supposed to at a particular range, regardless of rest or hold.

It's a fortunate owner who has a rifle that is tolerant of various variables and puts the 1st through 5th shot very close to the same place. Such rifles, especially centerfire rifles to be used at ranges at or beyond 100 yards, obviously have great bedding, and a barrel that is awesome.

The shooter is also using ammo that's apparently very compatible with the harmonics of the rifle, and he/she can obviously hold/aim/shoot consistently.

 

[Bart B.]

Note that the first few-shot group has the same chance of being the smallest one of several fired as being the largest one. Small chance either way.

Same chance for the first shot being closest to or furthest from point of aim of any number of shots being fired.

 

[Picher]

From experience, the first shot from a clean bore isn't usually near the center of the group with average sporting CF rifles/ammo.

It's about never near the center of a small group with very accurate .22LR rifles. All the rimfire benchrest rifles I've shot usually print the first few shots from a cold clean bore about 3/4" higher than subsequent shots at 50 yards. Some rifles take fewer shots to warm the barrel enough to print at group center than others.

 

[Husqvarna]

I don't NEED to harvest game for survival so I don't partake in long range hunting

I have shot one deer at a bit over 200 meters, but now realize that getting closer is much more fun.

I am and need to be able to shoot off hand at maybe a max limit of 100meters, and my rifles do, with irons if needed, all my rifles have qr mounts because I go thru som heavy brush sometimes just following the dog.

Shoot some 300meters stuff as a teen but never really got into it, not the patience for it, and don't think I'd excel at longer range stuff, I just imagine it is alotta math involved

What I am constantly training and getting better at but slowly is more driven game type shooting, aiming is easy compared to swinging, aiming is more concentrating, swinging is instinctual. it is very much a skill that needs regular training so it is fresh in your motorskills to be adequat

If I ever get the time I am gonna develop loads in 223 and maybe 300winmag or something similar with trajectories and bullet speed. i already have the same rifle in different calibres so I think it will help

 

[Colorado Redneck]

Clean bore shots don't make any difference for a hunting rifle, because you can fire fouling shots (at the range or in your field) before ever drawing a bead on game.

Tiny groups can become an addictive pursuit, for sure. Every year I have to switch the gear ratio in the shooting standards sector of my feeble mind, because 1/2" groups at 100 yards don't mean a thing for a 300 yard shot on a mulie. 1.5" groups are fine unless you intend to do one of those youtube shots on something at 600 yards.

For prairie dog rifles, 1/2" groups are my goal, but as Bart says, the average isn't 1/2" for me most of the time.

 

[Picher]

I'm blessed to have a hunting rifle that shoots it's first shot from a clean bore near group center.

Sighting in for optimal hunting accuracy within 300 yards, I subscribe to the point-blank sighting method for my rifles. The bullet is never higher or lower than 3" from muzzle to 320 yards with my load in the .270 Win. It's predicated on the quick-kill zone size of a deer. Yes, for close shots on small targets, I know enough to hold a bit low, but when the animal is out there from 200-320, no holdover is required.

I don't like shooting beyond 320 in most cases, but in my fixed blind there's a stable platform that allows accurate shots to about 400. I have the load's ballistics taped to the stock, should the good shot present itself beyond point-blank. It has in the past and I was successful, but have also passed up shots at those longer distances, preferring to stay under 320.

Not only is the Point-Blank system good, it's much faster and more accurate than trying to estimate holdover if there isn't time to use a rangefinder. That's often the case when shooting down old roads, narrow fields, or power lines.

 

[riflemen]

I remember when I started hunting with a bow, I had shot bows before but never "seriously", always hunted with firearms UNTIL it got too easy!!!

I remember hunting with a buddy, walking through the woods, pushing for another group on our last day this big 8 is in another field FAR away, I pointed him out and my buddy said "that has to be 500yards" I replied "more like 9" while pulling out my range finder, he was just over 800, I pulled my sling and set my stix, my scope was zero at 300 and went to 500, I have shot that gun close to 1000{never at an animal} so I read my scope notes {if anyone has a bad memory, lol these are priceless http://www.midwayusa.com/product/220391/leupold-retractable-ballistic-chart-for-30mm-rifle-scopes best $30 I ever spent} and I dialed it in, the wind was calm and I squeezed, I didn't hold in the scope, I quickly reloaded a second cartridge, but by the time I got back on him he was stumbling to the ground, 1 shot and done...,

We walked out there and the entire time my buddy was like," man that was a heck of a shot" taking a whitetail 800 yards out dialing in 5ft of bullet drop lol, that was the day iI figured out hunting with a rifle was too easy...

So I went to bow, I still hunt rifle and shotgun, but now I added another season and it is much harder..

BUT ANYWAY, when I started hunting bow, I was an ok shot, now I can robin hood every arrow at 30 yards, granted the equipment is amazing now and I have a 32" draw 72lb pull so my arrows don't drop much, but I am more than efficient enough to take animals out to 50 yards and drink a coffee at the same time...

So how accurate do you have to be? For hunting, not very, you hit a 8" pie plate at 100 yards with a rifle, you are ready for the woods, and since I can hit a penny at 10 hopefully even when I start shaking and cant see for **** in a few years I will not be too far off...

Being accurate with a pistol has always been a passion of mine, but in the case I will ever have to use a pistol for defense, while I have practiced and hope I will keep my calm and be able to throw precision rounds, no one knows until they are in that position, god willing that will never happen, but I still practice...

Now being accurate for target shooting, there is no limit, once you group is the size of your ammo, you start using wadcutters for cleaner holes, then once you have a ragged single hole for 5 shots, you start trying to do it faster, it will never end if you are chasing accuracy... This is how I figure it by the time you have enough trigger time to be amazing, your body and eyes are not no where near as good as the first time you pulled the trigger.

 

[tobnpr]

Your point is well made, in that the need for "level" of precision or accuracy depends on the application of the rifle/shooter.

Accuracy of a "hunting" application rifle can vary from near minute-of-barn door for a close quarters brush gun where no shots are going to be over 50 yards, to the same requirements as a long-range target rifle for those that have the ability and conditions to take game at 500 yards or more.

OTOH, a rifle used for "target", IMO, is purely a precision instrument (within the shooter's financial means), and ammunition must be match grade or precision handloads. Anything less, and it's impossible to distinguish the shooter's ability (which is what "target" shooting is about) from the rifle and ammunition. As such, it's difficult if not impossible for the shooter to evaluate and improve his abilities (did I screw up the wind call, or was it the ammo?).

That said, there's a differentiation between actual "target shooting", and those that like to plink with relatively inaccurate hardware. Nothing wrong with that, but it ain't target shooting...

 

[Picher]

Our club range is one of the more challenging ranges, but is only 200 meters long. Rimfire benchrest competition, which I introduced and managed at the club for about 17 years, is especially difficult due to the longitudinal berms and tree gaps. It's a windy location and the wind seems to come up just about the time the first morning match begins.

Certainly, there are more difficult ranges and I've shot at several, but this one is pretty bad and the rimfire benchrest game is probably the most difficult shooting venue to shoot really good scores.

That said, the rimfire benchrest venue is not what I consider "practical accuracy".

I recently bought a factory "used" Rem 700, "Light Varmint" SS, fluted, .223 Rem. I'd been looking for a fairly light "walkabout" rifle to carry around the property to shoot varmints including coyotes, crows, and woodchucks, among others. It had to be light, accurate, and potent enough to 300 yards, plus be easy to load for and economical.

This rifle fits the bill. It's shot crows, woodchucks and three coyotes, so far, and has proven to be quite accurate at the range. That's a rifle that provides "practical accuracy" for me and it's a really fun rifle to have around the property.

 

[jehu]

Practical Accuracy should never be acceptable! Always strive for better, IMO. Practical Accuracy leaves less room for shooters mistakes! It is just an excuse for inferior equipment.

 

[jimbob86]

I think that people get hung up on group size and don't pay enough attention to getting the rifle to shoot the first shot or group where it's supposed to at a particular range, regardless of rest or hold.

Jeff Cooper adressed this decades ago, in his book, Fireworks .....

Practical Accuracy, on the other hand, is the measure of what the shooter can do with the weapon

What the man can't do, the rifle can't do either.

Sometimes I think that we Americans are "equipment happy", believing that gadgetry is a good and proper sustitute for skill."

Let us by all means continue the excellent goals of Colonel Whelen, but let us not forget that it is the man, not the gun, that places the shot where it belongs.

It is these last two quotes that 90+% of us need to remeber: the shooter is, for the vast majority, the variable that can use the most improvement in most practical applications...... I for one passed on shots this deer season I know I could have made in previous years: I spent little time shooting further than 300 yards in practice this year, so I limited myself to that.... in my case, my gun and load were capable of making the shot, but I was not confident in my ability to do so .....

 

[jimbob86]

Practical Accuracy should never be acceptable! Always strive for better, IMO. Practical Accuracy leaves less room for shooters mistakes! It is just an excuse for inferior equipment.

Dollars to doughnuts, you can't stand up on your own two feet and shoot up to the intinsic accuracy of your rifle to your rifle ...... those who can are either shooting a really crappy rifle, or are doing it for a living.

 

[Bart B.]

Any good marksman can sight in an accurate rifle at 100 yards with one shot while standing upright without a rest and not hit the target dead center. It'll be within 1/2 MOA of perfect. A second shot may well get it more refined but at least confirm it.

 

[MrBorland]

Any good marksman can sight in an accurate rifle at 100 yards with one shot while standing upright without a rest and not hit the target dead center.

Because said marksman will have called the shot, I presume?

 

[Bart B.]

Yes, Mr. B. And very precisely, too.

And they're not surprised to see a zero obtained shooting that same rifle hand-held from a bench be at a different windage setting; and also in elevation.