Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Hunting Rifle Accuracy

Col. Townsend Whelen said, "Only accurate rifles are interesting." Ok, setting aside any debate as to whether or not what he said is actually true, what was acceptable hunting rifle accuracy when he wrote it? What is acceptable hunting rifle accuracy today? I know that everyone talks about rifles that shoot little cloverleaves at 100 yards; but is that really necessary when shooting at deer-size game within common hunting ranges? Say 200 yards or less?

My guess is that while many rifles today are sub-moa, even untweaked from the factory, the average hunter probably isn't. So practically speaking, what is acceptable hunting rifle accuracy?

I'm posting this here as I hope some of the professional gunscribes will chime in as well.

Whelen liked accurate rifles both for their own sake, and because he was a New Endgland woodchuck shooter. But I doubt he was so picky about his big game rifles.

My experience is that any rifle that averages 1-1/2", 3-shot groups at 100 yards will kill big game a lot further than most hunters can. Have used several to take big game neatly out to 300-450 yards on numerous occasions, and the only problems encountered were when I read the wind wrong or had a brain-fart. The accuracy of the rifle was never a problem.

Of course, I'd shot them all at longer ranges, so knew they'd keep their shots within 3" of point of aim out at 400. With typical heart-lung shots all you need to do is hit a volleyball-sized area, and even a pronghorn's chest is larger than a volleyball.

I like accuracy as much as the next guy, but suspect a lot of the obsession with "deer rifles" shooting sub-inch groups is that the average hunter/handloader spends a lot more time shooting off a bench than he does hunting, and counts his loading room and bench time as part of the game.

Two hundred yards or less? Anything that would group within 6 inches would be good for that.

As for the rest, I think anything two inches and less is good for practical accuracy out to five hundred yards or so. At four hundred yards your crosshairs take up several inches in themselves on an animal.

You know, those old buffalo rifles were considered excellent long range rifles and there were some fantastic shots made with them. I would be surprised if many of them grouped less than three inches at 100 yards given the quality of ammunition and everything else back then. But who knows? They didn't shoot many groups back then and they used iron sights for the most part.

Enough said! Agreed.

I like all my rifles to group under a inch at 100 yards not because i need this accuracy for hunting Big Game but because accurate rifle give you more confidence in shooting ability , which leads to your performance in the field improving , nothing helps shooters like have confidence in their shooting equipment .

That is a good point, but I don't think you have any reason to be less than completely confident if your rifle will only group under two inches instead of one.

I think this describes me. The mental aspect certainly impacts a great deal of shooting for me.

My hunting rifles are also my prairie dog/coyote/gopher/steel shooting rifles and I like them to be under MOA to the 500 for three shots. If they can't do that consistently I start drinking and begin gunsmithing.

And quite frankly, with as good as schit is today this is not a difficult thing to do.



Travis

bea: Agree with that,too. The 1.5" thing is more a minimum standard kind of thing.

But more importantly (for me)I tend to run rifles pretty quickly to the 300-400 yard lines(and further after I get a feel for them),and see how we both do from field positions and various rests and positions.

One thing for sure is I am not much for sitting at the 100 yard line and squeezing groups,unless I sense there is something really "wrong" with the rifle/load.

Pretty much where I'm at too. If I can get MOA-ish to 300-400yds with three shots, using the bullet I desire, then that's plenty good enough for me in a general-purpose, sporter-weight hunting rifle.

Pretty much any rifle with a suitable caliber/bullet combination that will shoot a 1 1/2" group at 100 yards is going to take any deer within 200 yards. I specify "suitable caliber/bullet" because a .30/30 will readily shoot the rquisite group at 100 yards, but 200 yards is stretching unless the shooter has a lot of familiarity with the trajectory.

I've owned my share of deer rifles; bedded actions, good triggers, worked up handloads. Off a bench some were more accurate than others. Shooting targets from field positions without any kind of rest there wasn't enough difference to make a difference.

Agreed!



Yep!

Back when I was young and inexperienced I hunted with a thutty-thutty topped by a $29 Tasco scope (that was painful to admit. Not the Tasco part, the scope part). I used whatever ammo was on the shelf at K-mart and if you'd asked me how many MOA my rifle shot you would've drawn a blank stare.

That rifle is the one I killed my biggest deer with. These days my rifles are much more accurate and I'm a better hunter, but the two are not that closely related.

If any of my rifles won't do 1" at 100 consistently, then they get a new tube or sent down the road. A 2" group at 100 is an 8" group at 400 best case scenario. With the shakes or a little wind you are more likely in the 10-12" range. No thanks.

Same here. My rule is 3/4 of an inch. And I very rarely have one that can't do it between bedding and handloading.

Guess my thought are as a whole the hobby includes loading and I love the whole process.

I agree that out to 200 an inch and a half will do.

For me, 1 inch or less or the gun stays home. In fifty odd years I've never violated that standard with a rifle/load that I intended for anything more than fifty yards. I almost always stay inside 200 yards when I kill deer. I do however keep that standard so that I have "insurance" in case I make a mistake judging distance, judging wind, or the light is just messing with my head. That I know the rifle is that accurate allows me a lot more range if I have tested the gun/load and I decide I need the range. I am hunting with a rifle I can do whatever I might need to within reason. I trust that and I am more comfortable making much more difficult shots when I chose to do so. With the vast majority of today's rifles, that is no longer such a high standard, nor hard to attain.

MILES not directed at you.It's the notion I dispute, not your opinion.

Caveat: If you have a rifle that stacks them all at 100 into one hole, more power to you.I love rifles like that.(You have to say that on here or someone will jump down your throat for settling for low accuracy standards ).

And I agree that it isn't hard today to do better. In truth it never has been in my lifetime.

But let's look at this for the sake of those poor slobs who feel inadequate because their rifle nudges over an inch with their factory fodder.Can they kill BG animals past 200 yards with such "shoddy" performance? Of course they can.

The rifle that throws three shots into 1.5 inches at 100 will theoretically put them in 3" at 200,4.5" at 300,and 6" at 400.

This means that at 400 yards, any one of those three shots will land within 2" of where the cross hairs rest( valid since we never kill animals with "groups"). And is likely less than many reticles will subtend at that distance.

Given Mule Deer's standard of a volley ball,you should hit it every time at 400 yards with a 1.5" rifle and a solid rest.

Drop the group size at 100 yards to 1",and we have(theoretically) a 4" three shot group at 400 yards...which places all three shots within 1.33" of the center of the reticle....so we are shooting a whole 3/4" tighter at 400 yards.

I would submit, that if you miss with one, you are going to miss with the other...and it won't be the rifle nor the load that needs work...it's the shooter.

I come to this conclusion having killed BG animals with rifles capable of both types of accuracy at 300-400 yards,so believe the notion is valid.YMMV.

It's all about how errors combine, and it isn't straight addition. The errors accumulated in the less sterile environment of field shooting tend to swamp the difference between a 1 MOA rifle and a 3/4 MOA rifle as measured from the bench. And this is coming from an inveterate handload tinkerer who loves to shoot from the bench.

I can't help thinking about the weighed vs. thrown powder charge or scope magnification discussions either. I've done enough shooting at 300 yards with thrown charges of long stick IMR 3031 and 4064 and lower powered scopes to know if you can't get well below MOA at typical deer hunting range, then it isn't lack of magnification or imprecise powder charges holding you back.

Like most I like accurate rifles, they instill confidence. However that said I get bored sitting at the 100yard line. Much prefer shooting steel plate at distance and from field positions.
If what I witness at the public range prior to hunting season most hunters are happy with a rifle that will group within the black at 100 yards and that is a far cry from 1 inch.JMO