Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Hunting Rifle Accuracy

mathman: Exactly and well said in my view.

Another "swamping" factor is shooter skill.A lousy field shot is not really helped much by a 1/2" difference in grouping ability in a rifle.

Rifle shooting is a primary focus of mine. As a senior rifleman, hunter and competitor I shoot rifles outdoors as a hobby weekly weather permitting.

Staying sighted in or that the first shot from a rifles cold barrel hits where I want it at 200 yds has become primary for me with the hunting rifles. For target competition groups are more important.

A current pet is my 30-06 custom on an old mauser. Just before the season started last year I checked it at 200 yds. and it put it's first shot 1" high and 1" to the left at 200 yds.

The second confirming shot hit 2" high hitting about where I want it at 200 and making a 2" group there. I gave it a positive check mark on the notes.

It's the second from the top.

Among the multiple reasons I don't believe 1-inch accuracy isn't needed for big game shooting even at 300-400 yards is the multiple animals I've killed over the decades at those ranges with rifles that would only average 1-1/2". And as I mentioned in my first post, I can't remember one I missed except through shooter error.

I do prefer a little more accuracy, but gun writers are often invited on hunts where they're handed a rifle, get to shoot maybe a dozen or so shots with it, and then go try to kill an animal. I've been on plenty of these, and not only shot quite a few animals but been with my fellow writers and other people when they killed quite a few. So far damn few animals were missed or wounded, and when they were it was also due to shooter error. The reality is that shooting skill is a far bigger factor in the field than relatively small differences in a rifle's accuracy.

Of course, shooting skill among gun writers isn't equal. Probably the least practiced are those who due to their job have to live in or near big cities. As a result they don't get to shoot as much, especially at varmints--and any shooting at actual animals, at varying distances, teaches more about field shooting than any sort of inanimate target. The really good rifle shots among the gun writers I've hunted with are John Haviland, Brian Pearce, Ron Spomer, Dave Scovill and others who grew up hunting in rural areas, still shoot and hunt a lot, and consequently know how to shoot game.

Most of these also don't care very much about minor differences in accuracy, or the cartridge, exact poundage of the trigger, the exact power of the scope, etc. etc. This is because they've used so many different rifles, and usually have no control over any of those things--and yet manage to kill almost all the animals they shoot at quite neatly.

Yet another reason is that most hunters who claim their rifle always shoots inside an inch at 100 only shoot 3-shot groups. Five-shot groups will open that up to around 1-1/2", and no, this is NOT usually due to the barrel heating up. Instead it's due to statistics: Shoot more than three rounds and you'll find out more about the consistent accuracy of a rifle. The group diameter tend to level off more above five shots, but most half-inch rifles are 3-shot wonders.

I think that Bob's previous comment is spot on. In the late 70's and all through the 80's we used 1 1/2" at 100 yds to be the benchmark for our coyote hunting rifles, shots to 300 or a tad further once every 5 years. We killed hell out of coyotes with these rifles that printed 1 1/2" at 100, and a deer is a lot bigger than a coyote.

If you are only shooting 200 yards, chances are the vast majority of your shots will be shorter. So, I would say that 2" groups at 100 would be more than adequate and would probably produce 3 1/2"-4 1/2" groups at 200...plenty good enough.

Now, practice, practice, practice

Bob,

I keep that inch standard because when it comes to making a hole in an animal I take the conservative approach and make the assumption that half the of my error will be additive and half subtractive If have four inches of wobble with a 3 inch gun at two hundred yards, then half my shots will be at 5-1/2 inches off my mark. It's a simplified way to do the numbers, but it's not too bad if you want to stay on the conservative side. I look at it like that and consider my mistakes in wind and distance do nothing to decrease the miss and can push half my shots that much further out.

Accepting that half my shots will help me and the other half hurt that much more makes it hard for me to accept a variable that I can minimize.

Yeah, but in the 70's everything sucked so you didn't have much choice.

You probably even had to listen to the BeeGees on the way to the range.


Travis

keith,

That parallels my experience with varmint shooting.

One of the other factors I forgot to mention is that a lot of rifles are more inherently accurate than typical 100-yard targets show. This is because VERY few shooters use wind flags when at an outdoor range, and even fewer have access to indoor ranges. An erratic 3-5 mph breeze will increase group size noticeably at 100 yards, even from a big game rifle shooting heavy-for-caliber bullets.

A friend who works for an optics company that has an indoor range were talking about this just the other day. We both have Remington 700 Classics in .221 Fireball, and with their favorite loads both rifles will average around 1/2" for 5-shot groups at an outdoor range. With the SAME loads my friend's rifle will average .3 or less on the indoor range. I've seen the same thing with larger rifles as well.

I would have to agree with this the most. Even with archery tackle I strive for the best tuned and accurate bow and arrow set up I can muster. I just role the same line of thinking over to my rifles. However you look at accuracy you are only as good as the day.

On any given day in the field it is my job to put that projectile in the pocket from whatever angle and distance I am at the shot. To me that's the hard part. Making the shot at that moment in time that you have to.

Every hunter learns this. There is a time you either miss(screw it up) or you pull it off with confidence. You also know when you have missed your opportunity as your confidence is tested. My shot sequence is a learned reaction not a guess.

So to the OP - I feel my rifles are accurate to whatever range I have built them for. An iron sight lever gun or a scoped speed demon. I would like to say I am proficient at 300 yards but I am a heck of a lot better at 75. So I try and stalk closer. If I cannot get closer and I know its time for my shot, then all of that practice and time in load development come into play or (what happens way to many times)I just don't take the shot.

I can live with this. I have done it long enough to know when its a missed opportunity and no I don't care for it. But that's hunting. I really don't want that to change either.

Yes an 1.5" or better for 3 at 100 yds is great and certainly acceptable. I have a BLR in 358 Win. that will do 2" consistently at 100 yds. I have shot many animals to 200 yds with this gun. This past Jan a Tom bobcat went down at over 180 yds. I like consistently in my hunting rifle. Will it do 1" groups every time with no excuses.

Eh, 1.5" is acceptable. However my OCD only accepts 1".

A few years ago we had a couple of guys show up at our range with a 30-30 that they needed to sight in for deer hunting. From their accents, it was clear that they came from the same rural part of Utah as my wife.

They put up a paper plate at 100 yards, and proceeded to scatter shots across it. Then they agreed, "Yep. She's hittin' good."

My bet is that those boys brought home the venison.

In the field, if you have a perfect rifle, but are limited to 3" groups because of wind, lack of an adequate rest, etc., then switching to a rifle that shoots 1.5" under ideal circumstances will only open your groups up to 3.35". That's not a lot of practical difference.

I tend to follow the advice of the renowned outdoor writer Patrick McManus. He once stated that his theory was to randomly scatter your shots since you never could be sure which way a deer may jump just as you let off a shot. I find that Mr. McManus and I have very similar hunting, fishing and camping/woodcraft skills and I have come to respect his lifetime of experience greatly.

Hunting rifles = <2MOA
Internet rifles = <.5MOA

Time to bring out the old man in the green pickup story again. Have posted this about three times before but it bears repeating. And yes, this actually happened.

About 1977 I was going to Utah State U. One early fall day several folks were at a range alongside US 89 south of Logan, Utah, sighting in our rifles before hunting season. We were all making those final 1/2" adjustments to the point of impact on our high powered scoped rifles, me with my .25-06 #1 and a Redfield scope. You know, fire three from a solid rest, tweak the scope two clicks, fire three more, one more click windage and so forth.

A beat up old green pickup pulled up and a "grizzled old timer" straight out of Central Casting gets out. The pickup probably dated from the late '50's or so, the old guy had stereotypical grey stubble, sweat stained hat and clothes, etc. He took a big cardboard box to the 100 yard line, looked big enough to hold a stove or maybe big console TV. No aiming point, just the box. When he got back to the firing line he fired three shots - offhand - from a Model 94 .30-30 about as equally grizzled as he was.

When we went to check targets he had about a 12" triangle of a group square in the middle of the box. "Lookee there, Martha", he said to the lady in the pickup cab, "still shoots where she did last year."

With that he got in the truck and drove off.

As I drove home I passed a ranch house with that same green pickup parked out front. On the barn were nailed more deer and elk antlers than I had time to count driving by. Basically the front of the barn was covered with them.

Now, just circumstantial evidence, maybe he was just visiting someone, but I tend to believe that that old timer had shot all those deer and elk with that same .30-30.



I always wondered how folks ever shot game when a factory rifle that put three shots into 4" was about standard.

They knew how to hunt close.

Like all of you guys I like my rifles accurate as possible and 1 1/2" at 100 yds for 3 shots is a good starting place for a hunting rifle. I have several that will do 1" or better, and I paid a lot of money for a couple of them.

But I will big game hunt with a 1 1/2" rifle without any worry if it is consistent. My first big game rifle was a used Rem 760 30-06 that my mother purchased from my uncle for me when I was 13 years old. She paid $80.00 to him for it. That rifle would shoot any 180 gr. round into 2" every day, rain or shine, this year or next, bouncing in the truck (you get the picture)and I never adjusted the scope more than one or twice in the 20 years I had it. It did not seem to matter what brand I could put the whole box into a 2" circle. Like a dummy I sold it to a friend of mine who was down on his luck and needed a rifle for his son to start hunting. NOW THAT WAS A HUNTING RIFLE.

Have high expectations of my hunting rifles. Those that go into the field meet or exceed that expectation. I load my own ammo an am meticulous without being OCD. That said, 1 cup of coffee to much will throw the equation off in the field or at the bench.

It you want to get technical, neither 3 shot or 5 shot groups is statistically significant. A statistical sample is 30. Nobody is going to shoot 30 rounds at a target, there is no point because the barrel would get too hot.

I also think there is no point of going over 3 for a hunting weight rifle. 3 shots rules out the flier, and that is good enough.

Lets face it. the only reason why we are so obsessive with the "one-holer" or some xx" is because this is stated all over the 'net. Where I came from in KY many old timers used levers to bring home vension and probably never shot recreationally.

I think there is nothing wrong to chase better accuracy when we have the time and money do it. This is just another hobby we shooters like to partake in.

The sad thing is that some guys taken 2" rifles and send them down the road in order to satisfy their quest to get that one-holer. If that is what you want to do then that is ok, nothing wrong with that but for sure those old timers had rifles for hunting only and filling their ark for winter meat. Nothing more so in reality it does not take xx accuracy to hit a deer. Just hit them and bring home the meat. Of course all of this one-holer is fed by not only the 'net but by magazines and general shooting looneyism. and many of us have more than 5 rifles to play with :-)

I hunt more with a lever gun than anything else. I hunt in swamps, and in thick cover.
If my Marlin 30-30 or .44 Mag keeps under two inches at 50 yards, I'll not be blaming the rifle if I miss.
Never was a paper puncher, for the sake of making little bitty groups.

Mule Deer is right. On average, 5 shot groups will be 1.27 X the size of 3 shot groups. It comes from the fact that as you add shots, the group size never gets smaller and sometimes gets larger.

The old saw about needing 30 items for statistical significance is something that comes up a lot. Actually, that's the minimum number of samples needed for Z tests to work. Everybody gets taught that in college stats, and for some reason it sticks. It's not too important, because practically nobody uses Z tests since the invention of the T Test back in about 1925. College courses are slow to change. If colleges offered careers in hunting, I swear we would be learning about the 50 Sharps and the best place to shoot a bison.

People who favor 3-shot groups are usually asking the wrong question. They often seem to reason that they never shoot more than 3 shots at a critter. The better question is, how well does a 3 shot group predict future performance of the firearm? The answer is, not very well at all.

The average of three 5-shot groups is a decent estimate of the long term accuracy of the rifle. I'd have to look back at my notes, but IIRC that will get you a plus or minus 25% estimate. Getting a much better number than that requires a lot more shooting.