Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Our obsession with sub-MOA hunting accuracy

Sleds: leave home without one.

Unless you're St. Nick.

Groups can shrink......and they often grow.....

What causes this we want to know....

On our keyboards we often blow....

Control your self, and squeeze it slow.....



I get my kicks from the aberrant double tap!

Fire away!!!

The standard for accuracy has shrunk allot in the last decade. MOA isn't needed for hunting but it's getting common to buy guaranteed moa rifles for cheap. I'm not ok showing up to the gun range with $1000+ rifles that don't shoot as good as my buddies Ruger Americans. If I can't get them to shoot, they don't stay. I've made plenty of friends happy selling my rejects and they have never had a problem getting their deer. Another man's trash is another man's treasure.

I have some hunting rifles which will consistently group five rounds into less than 1 MOA. I have others which won't, but are accurate enough for the particular use I have for them, or to meet my expectations. That wasn't really the question though, as I read it. What the OP asked was this:



My earlier comment, not entirely facetiously, was that he might consider cutting back on coffee. I guess it is impossible to be entirely free of some movement, but if the crosshairs are "dancing" then it is going to be hard to get the best out of that rifle. Off a decent rest, with a 9x scope, at 100 yards, the sight picture should be pretty steady, save perhaps for moving up and down as you breathe in a position like lying supported. FWIW I've always found that if you hold on aim too long, or hold your breath, you'll start to see a bit of wobbling. That is a signal (if you can) to stop and start the process over again. I'll also notice a bit if I've had a few espressos ;-)

In the field how steady the crosshairs are depends on a few things, including the position you're shooting from, how much magnification you are using and how quickly you take the shot. Often I see no wobble at all, though it must be there, simply because I pick out a point on the animal, raise the rifle and fire immediately the sights come to bear. It is usually only really those long shots, where you don't have a good position, and plenty of time to think about it, that the wobbles become noticeable. Scopes with more magnification also magnify it of course.

YMMV

I have always respected the wisdom from Mr. Whelen


Widely known for his quote “Only accurate rifles are interesting,” famed hunter, rifleman and writer Col. Townsend Whelen also developed several cartridges all using the Springfield .30-06 as a parent cartridge. Those cartridges included the .25 Whelen, .35 Whelen, .375 Whelen and .400 Whelen

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That lever is beautiful. And it's consistently beautiful. Target groups not so much. Some days, they can be downright ugly. Cast bullets are pretty too, and are good for the soul, but not so good for critters.



When I was teaching, I used a picture similar to the above. I called it the shooter's triangle. Most people were familiar with the fire triangle, and this one worked well. Like the fire triangle, take one of the sides of the shooter's triangle away, and your groups go for a dump.

In architecture, triangles are one of the most stable and strongest shapes in the universe, so if you are one with the universe - the whole cosmic thing - what's good for building powerful structures is good for building a good shooter.

I used to ask, "What is the weakest of the three sides?" Almost everyone agreed that it was the shooter.

I've seen the best felled by simple things like a cold or allergies. It happens to everyone. The best rifle and load can never make up for a poor shooter. A rifle and load do not vary as much as a human. If you practice, you can fight the affects of some of the shakes and shudders when you're under the weather. That is why MOA groups happen more often with practiced shooters than so-so shooters with snazzy rifles or the ultimate handload. We should be obsessed with shooting practice. That's the fun and faster way to MOA. (When was the last time you saw 'snazzy' or 'the ultimate handload' anywhere?)

Good shooters using off the shelf guns and factory bought ammunition will be more successful in the field too, because they do something that others do not - they practice. And it doesn't matter what rifle you shoot. 22RF are the best because they are inexpensive to feed and are comfortable.

MOA accuracy is most often gained or lost by the person jerking the trigger. Our obsession with it is one part personal desire and the other part bragging rights. Either by itself, or put together, is vanity. So, MOA accuracy is vanity. You know it's true. Nothing is finer than posting targets with a ragged hole where the centre of the paper used to be.

But have you noticed? Equipment/component failures are blamed for poor performance, but we claim total responsibility for tight groups.

Back when hunting magazines were still publishing hunting stories, and not the latest in crisp breaking triggers, or tactical hardware, plaid clad hunters with 30-30s were harvesting game using factory ammunition and 30-30s. The hunt was more important than having the latest cartridge, a custom rifle or overpriced scope. Somewhere along the line we lost sight of the purpose of hunting and became a group of people trying to keep up with the Joneses. Needing the best equipment took over. The rules changed. Before we raced to get the best trigger, scope or rifle barrel, I don't remember worrying about MOA. No one cared. If anything, MOA was judged by how much you enjoyed this year's deer camp. Did you fill your tag? It was the camaraderie of friends.

These days, people on this and other sites talk non-stop about trying the latest powder, bullet or scope to squeeze more accuracy out of their rifle. It's become de rigueur to buy bling. Because bling produces MOA. And everyone has to know that you only use the best. Could that be vanity?

We obsess over MOA rifles, but we pay little attention to reality. Your rifle will be "more MOA" if you practise.

That's a great post, Steve. Everyone should read it.

I have a little different, much less popular take on that. "Only shootable rifles are interesting".

By that I mean I'd rather have a rifle that I can shoot a 6 minute group from standing and a 3 minute or less group from any other position, at any reasonable distance, than a rifle that can shoot a 1/2 minute group from only one or two positions, such as from a bench or bipod.

For instance, I love FALs. But the rear sight bites my glasses and the barrel walks when you put it under sling pressure or use the (STG58) included bipod. An M1, on the other hand, is more interesting to me because it doesn't walk as much and it doesn't bite as much either. An AR15 A2 or A3 with a float tube is even more interesting.

Another thing that needs to be considered is the positions you'll be shooting from. I grew up in the woods. Back then, nearly every shot that wasn't a snap shot at running game was taken with some sort of hasty rest, like the side of a tree. That opens up a lot more rifles to "interesting" status.

I am not obsessed with MOA accuracy. I don't do any competitive shooting and don't have any hunting applications where accuracy is that critical. My Ruger ultralight 257 Roberts will give me 1.5-1.75 inch groups with H4350 and 115 Partitions. It's a trim little package with deep bluing and a nice walnut stock. I could buy a butt ugly foreign made Tikka and get better accuracy. I could post on the internet about how accurate it is. Beyond that though, the accuracy advantage would never play out for me. I do have some rifles that are more accurate, and there's a certain satisfaction in that, but as of right now I don't have a need for that greater accuracy.

Dogger, I don't think I've posted in your thread so far but I have an answer to your ? and 1 reason we are obsessed w/1 MOA.

Since 2012 I don't remember taking 1 shot at deer W/O my shooting sticks - even when sitting. I can tell you and anyone else.......
I'm NOT steady enuff ON the sticks to shoot 1 MOA @ 100 yds.

So someone would ask, Why use the sticks ? I have killed several deer and missed ONLY 1 shot and that was OVER confidence, pure & simple.


Secondly when I began shooting seriously, factory ammo accuracy was less than stellar. We were told by Gun Writers that 1 MOA was the Golden Crown to achieve. I took many hunting & shooting mags for many yrs and that theme was always OVER shadowing us.

Jerry

If y'all look at it as a simple matter of cost, you can see where my head has gone over the past 40 years.

When I first got started, the general rule was that Eastern Whitetails require about a 4MOA rifle for effective shooting. That would get you on a pie-plate offhand at 50 yards.

But what if you're not getting them all on the pie plate? Is it you, the rifle, or the ammo? Test, test, test, fumble, fiddle, test, trip to the store, test, fumble, fiddle, repeat. What's going on? In those days $8/box ammo seemed stiff, and the $1.25/gallon gas was precious. Minimizing trips to the range and the store made sense.

For a hunter that shoots (rather than the other way around) a 4MOA deer rifle meant a heck of a lot of head scratching, trying to figure out where it was going to print on a deer's hide.

Nowadays, I pull out all my deer rifles and run a few rounds through them before season off the bench. Even if there is a stiff wind (as there usually is) I can hit a shotglass-sized group at 100 yards without thinking about it. All my current rifles are better than 2 MOA, more like 1-1.5 MOA. Some are sub-MOA. If I start printing all over the target, I know it ain't the rifle. I spend a lot less on troubleshooting firearms and more on scouting deer. More accuracy means lower cost in money and time, both at the reloading bench and at the shooting bench.

A buddy of mine from Nuevo Laredo Mex has hunted all over the world with a Rem 700 bdl 30-06 with the pressed checkering and a 3.5x10 leupold and when I asked him what ammo he is shooting he said "the green box from Walmart" .

Lucio

Confidence.
When the trigger breaks on game, there should be no doubt about making the shot.
The better a rifle shoots, the more confident you are in the ability to harvest game cleanly. And IMO that confidence removes distractions and allows one to concentrate on the shot.
If a hunter is capable of holding 3 moa from a hunting position, adding another 3 moa due to an inaccurate rifle seems risky in all but the closest shots.
I am confident shooting a 1 moa rifle, OK at 1-1/2 moa and not so confident at 2 moa or worse.

Confidence in accuracy, power and shootability are paramount in a bear defense or CCW firearm and IMO, pretty important in a hunting rifle.

Thanks. People are still relying too much on their rifles, and not practicing. As if a Leupold or aftermarket trigger will make up for a lack of practice.

A 1 MOA rifle won't deliver if the person pulling the trigger doesn't shoot - regularly. In every other activity, irregular participation degrades ones abilities. Archers, pool players, baseball players, etc. Shooting is no different.

Bragging rights and removing as much of the man induced vomitry from field shooting positions as possible.

You, Sir, are correct in every aspect.
I don't shoot near as much as i would like, but i try to get out there as much as possible.

Ive seen this time and time again. Got a buddy that gets a new rifle, dies, Lapua Brass, BR primers, best powder that suppose to be proven, match bullets, and gets at it. Ask 10,000 questions and finally get to meet up to shoot their workup loads.
They get really aggravated when all their reloads shoot 3+MOA at distance and just cant figure out why. Change stock, scope, rings, bases, powder, primer, bullet and just cant figure it out. Spends thousands of dollars to improve everything thats not the problem.

Finally one day we would be out shooting and i happen to ask for them to walk me thru what they are doing and seeing and feeling. I ask "Is the scope staying on target rock solid or is there any movement?"
Most the times i hear that they are trying to hold it still. Which really means they not holding the crosshair on the target.
Or ill watch them shoot, then get my phone out and video their actions in slowmo. 99% of the time they slap the trigger. But talking to them they just thought they were pulling the trigger easy. After watching the video they are surprised.

I have days where i get in that zone and it feels like time slows down to a crawl right before the trigger breaks. Every time it happens i can shoot some awesome groups. Other days im just glad i can get out and shoot to relax.

Then get out there hunting and everything is second nature. Never get "Buck Fever" its just a process of figuring out if i want to take that deer, mental checklist, crosshair on where i want the bullet to go, safety off, fire. Hear the bullet flying thru the air, listen for Impact, watch deer fall. Game over.
Accurate rifles are very interesting. But so is everything else about it that makes it accurate. Which the Shooters Triangle makes a perfect analogy.
Now im ready to go shoot

except I'd pay more for anything, than to have to admit owning a ruger. LOL.

True accuracy is involved in this. True guns that hold say 1.5 Moa, will generally shoot 1 Moa most of the time. That isn't bad. 2moa and worse, I just don't like. Or I have to limit my range.

We know that we are not a benchrest. We wobbly. The target moves. The wind blows. We get excited. We deal with a pulse beat. We deal with our position moving and so on.

Even when I was tuned up the best I could do on laser trainers slung up tight with irons was still around 1/3 Moa wobble.

So the better the accuracy the more it helps us.

Now if we are not capable of 5 Moa off a rest, or 10moa offhand... well you get the drift, non matters.

Steve... cast bullets are good on game.

I just prefer accurate rifles. No need to settle for less. I wouldn't call it an obsession, just a preference.