Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Important Qualities in a Hunting Rifle

Debate with a friend, who can't live with a big game rifle, deer and up, that won't group under an inch for 5 shots at 100 yards. He's spent a lot of money in that pursuit. I said that just decent grouping, perhaps defined as 1.5 " - 2" for 5 shots would work for me IF:

1. Handling qualities, balance and weight, were what I liked and the rifle fit me

2. Rifle holds zero reliably year to year, and for all shots of a minimum 5 shot string. No first cold shot fliers (most important) and no walking as it heats up for a magazine full of quick, aimed shots.

3. Reliable feeding, extraction, and ejection whether working the action slowly or quickly.

I think in today's world, criteria 2 and 3 are harder to find than it is to find a sub MOA rifle, and wouldn't get rid of a rifle that met those standards even if a sub 1" group seldom happened. It would be the first rifle I'd grab for an important hunt.

How about you? I'm talking a general big game rifle, not a specialized long range rig.

You lost me at 1.5-2" for 5 shots. I'm like your buddy and require better accuracy than you do. Lets talk about why your rifles are shooting like schidt..

And it starts. Ideally, you don't have to choose. But if you did....which is is more important?

Depends where you're hunting I suppose. For what most guys do and places they hunt that accuracy standard is just fine.

For me: Durable design, reliable function, accurate enough, perfect fit, and good balance.

The rifle that made me pose the question is the one my Dad owned, his only deer rifle. Savage 99 with a K4, dead nuts reliable. An uncle had its twin, same thing. Though accurate, neither was sub 1 inch...but they always worked.

…..and there you have it. The vast majority of “successful” hunters in my location (Pennsylvania woodlands) take deer at less than 100 yards the need for 1” or less groups is moot. If a rifle can keep the majority of bulllets in less than 2” or so you have a rifle that will consistently bring venison home. I, like many on this site - that are full fledged rifle looneys, strive for the utmost in accuracy for various reasons (and all are good reasons if they make you happy) but it is unnecessary for most hunting situations encountered here. Your other criteria are extremely important and probably (in my opinion) just as important as accuracy. My grandfather and several other relatives stacked hundreds of deer up over the years - they rarely missed and don’t really know if any of them ever sat at a bench and fretted over group size (at least in all the years I was around them I never saw them shoot from a bench - I was the only one that did that😄)! Most of them used Savage 99s, Remington 760s and various bolt actions mostly in 300 Savage and .30-06.

Penndog

Interesting points, Penndog. My most important criteria are reliability of function and consistent zero. Fit and balance, along with ease of carrying are also important.
I sent an accurate rifle down the road because it just didn't carry well in my hand. But I also like accurate rifles! When it all comes together in one package it's a keeper!

Over all the years that I have shot and shot competitively by far and away the most important feature was “handling” which is primarily fit and feel in my hands. The competitive shooting that I have done (and still do) is offhand and if the rifle doesn’t fit/feel right to me then it hasn’t mattered how accurate the rifle is (and many have been/are extremely accurate) my results suffer. On the other hand, rifles that aren’t quite as accurate but do fit/feel right to me ALWAYS end up scoring better. This of course is just me and what I’ve noticed in five decades of shooting “seriously”. I think that this can be extended to hunting rifles.


PennDog

That is very interesting! Appreciate your observations

First, must go BANG reliably.

Second, tie…great trigger and retention of zero for duration of hunt. Silly to be concerned with holding zero for years.

Third, the first two shots are what count zero wise. Silly to be concerned about numbers 3-5 “walking” a small amount.

Fourth, group size…the first two shots in about 1” but 1.5” will work.

RinB.....excellent point. One of the first things I check is whether that 1st shot from a cold, fouled barrel is in the group. No use not being sighted in for the first, and most likely only, shot. I once read of a fellow (was it Mule Deer?) who shot one shot at the same target every day for 5 or 10 days. I have time now, just retired, and may try that

I basically do the same drill. I'll take a shot and rack the rifle, play with another gun for 30-40 minutes and repeat.

I think it all boils down to trust.

Kevin Jay; nice one word summary!

Holding zero, reliable function, consistent accuracy all equates to trust that the tool will work when required. Accuracy requirements vary on the intended uses for the rifle.

I expect different results from my .303 Lee Enfield frankenrifle and my 6.5 PRC or 7-08 because both have different intended uses.

Yep. The question is "How do you get there?" The answer might be in the elk-rifle criteria that someone here laid out several years ago.


You could flex on the second point if you're not hunting elk, but otherwise I'd keep them all.


Okie John

Under 7.5 pounds scoped. 1/2" gun at 100. Needs to be able to repeatedly hit where its supposed to out to 500 if i do my part. Make mine anything on an 06 case with a rem 700 trued action.

Priorities:

1. Enjoy carrying it

This is obviously "first world problem"... but if I can afford not to carry an ugly or soulless rifle, I'm not going to carry an ugly or soulless rifle! Walnut, steel, hinged floor plate for me.

2. Must go bang every time I pull the trigger with a round chambered

Duh.

3. MOA for a 3 shot group

I'm not worried about five shot groups for a hunting rifle... if I'm taking that many shots at something, it's already my fault, not the rifle. If I really liked a specific rifle, I could live with 1.5" groups, but thankfully, it just hasn't been an issue. Even my early 90s JM 336 will do an inch at 100.

As far as accuracy is concerned, I'm the guy that escaped Planet 4 MOA. See: Escape from Planet 4 MOA
What I can tell you is that 4MOA works, but when you can get a rifle shooting around 1 MOA, everything becomes much easier.


In looking over the OP's list there is nothing I want to disagree with. There are some additions I would like to make:

1) The rifle should be easy to hold without touching a lot of metal. The colder it gets, the more important that gets.
2) The rifle must have a sling. I want to have both hands free if I'm not actively hunting.



My response to the OP's #2:



I agree with no first cold shot fliers. However, after the rifle is settled in for the year. I'm not worried about strings. I normally load 3 rounds in whatever I'm taking. If it goes beyond that, I know I need a timeout to rethink the situation. As far as year-to-year reliability, I have found most of those problems solved in the scope and rings and not the rifle itself.

Well said

Typically when I go hunting I take one of my Kimbers because they are light, accurate and handle great for me. Hunting rifles for the most part are carried a lot and shot very seldomly at game.