Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Can you shoot…?

….when shooting in the field, from various shooting positions, significantly better with <1 MOA rifles and loads versus 2 MOA rifles and loads?

(Would an observer watching you shoot from ordinary field positions be able to tell which rifle/load combination was better based on your performance?)

No. Can you?

I'm pleased that most of my hunting rifles are sub MOA. Work on that. Also work on my field position shooting and think I'm pretty good, better than most.

But honestly, in the field, no... I don't think it would matter often if I was using a 1 MOA rifle or a 2 MOA rifle, not out to 300 yards anyway.

Regards, Guy

Nope.

The gun fit and sights seem to rule, else we'd all be toting huge glass and a 20 pound BR 6 PPC....

No, but it seems pretty common to hear people advocating sometimes marginal bullets for applications where better terminal results but less precision would be preferable. Missing by 2 is never more difficult with a 1/2 MOA combo that with a 2 MOA combo.

I've shot the south end of a deer to take out a heart with a 3-4MOA wheelgun where I wouldn't send a tackdriving 22-250 with the "best" of hunting bullets for its std. twist.

I agree....unless we are talking the same arms at 150 yards and a "window" through the trees and a broadside heart shot.

It gets laughed at a lot sometimes, but Elmer's "worst case scenario" for bullets and at times cartridges always seemed to fit the way I've had to hunt most of my life.

Klik the answer is a qualified"no" and bottom line is all the accuracy differences we discuss on here depends on our ability to hold perfectly from a solid rest. The less steady the position the more we become the overriding factor.

If you're a 3 MOA shooter from a given field position, then a 1 MOA rifle/load is not going to make you any better. Many folks might not realize this because they never leave the bags and shoot from less sturdy positions.

Off topic, but its amazing to see some really good shooters at matches that are totally worthless at shooting offhand. if I cant shoot a 3-6MOA (depending on the range) size target offhand i'm pretty pissed about it , the goal being the size of deer vitals. match guys think its magic if you can do it.

after seeing it done,some see the value in a "hybrid" rifle..I'm a hunter first, gong shooter second. you can have your cake and eat it too.

The question in the OP is a moot point to me tho..I want sub-MOA if i bag up with it. I need that to build trust in it for all scenarios.

Platform does matter tho, I dont expect my Krag or 99 to turn in sub moa at 500 yards, but thats a different animal.

No. It would just limit the range at which I would attempt a shot. With a sub MOA rifle I feel confident out past 300 yards. With a 2 MOA set up my shots would be limited to 150. With a 4 MOA set up my shot would be limited to 75.

Occasionally I'll be in a field position with a rest that I think I could shoot as well from as I do when working up loads. One stands out in my mind where a thick fallen tree with my pack on top was the rest and I was able to sit on a limb...was perfection. For the last year I've done all my under 200 yard load work from prone...so it could be that my load work rest isn't that solid. If shooting a group in one of those rare cases with a solid rest someone might be able to tell the difference....with one shot on game, resting on my knee or the side of a tree, I doubt it.

I have to think that an accurate gun will work better most of the time, otherwise why even sight them in? miles

Probably not the casual observer. Most are amazed folks hit anything really.

But while 2 moa will suffice for a lot, some prefer to tweak it down so that the wobble area gets the most benefit of the doubt.

I have a couple of rifles I"m not totally thrilled with, but you saw the results of one on Alces Alces last fall. So it works. And it put the bullet right where I was holding.

Still the group size limits the gun, IMHO, to a 400 yard max gun for most purposes. Luckily thats probably all the power its good for too...

I confess I'd be much happier if it was a tack driver. Suffice it to say its an easy moose gun to 300.

And then in hunting, when the distance gets much past 200, we should be looking for a good rest of some type, IMHO. That means the accuracy could be useful again... prone over a pack gets yer wobble down to almost nothing again fairly quickly.

Greetings Klik,

My input would be, "I'm not sure."

Off a pack I'm about the same as off a bench but leaning against a tree or just standing my groups expand a lot. I would think that a more accurate rifle would give better results but I do not think it would be obvious to an observer.

I do practice off a pack, a stump, and standing and there is quite a difference from that to a bench rest - for me. At 100 yards standing I'm good for MOSP (moment of sandwich plate - or about 6-8 inches), that may seem like a lot but it is harder than it sounds.

I should add WHY the gun limits my distance. Its 2moa or less and sometimes scares 1 moa. But take the worst, 2 inches, at 400 yards, is 8 inches. Add a field wobble from a rest into that and you can likely double that. 16 inches, thats a large group. IMHO.

If shooting prairie dogs at long range, the answer is a definite YES.

The choice of weapon and my confidence would limit range, and in the field I can shoot. We do big sky country mostly, so I can pick my approaches and typically secure solid rests to shoot from. The last snap shot I took at big game was in about 1981. Off hand, and I missed.

Yes.....confidence=success.

I shoot "good enough" away from the bench, always have.

For the first 35 years of my big game hunting life, I couldn't tell you the first thing about MOA in my hunting rifle. All I knew is I was able to hammer the crap out of about 150 head of big game.

Nope. That is why I use shooting sticks.

Yes. I agree with a gun shooting nice tiny bug holes helps with confidence. Will 2 MOA get it done in the field though. Yes again. So a 2 MOA rifle in the hands of someone who can shoot and more importantly someone who knows their limitations and can hunt will put meat in the freezer every time. It isn't hard to get a modern rifle of any decent quality to shoot sub MOA from the bench with hand loading though. Will I lug a 15 pound rifle into the field because it shoots 1/2 MOA and flings a 250 gr bullet over 3000 fps? F to the no! I'll take a 7 pounder that shoots 2MOA over that any day. Just my 10 cents, the 2 cents is free.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "field positions."

To me, prone over a pack with a rear bag is still a field position. As is shooting with sticks.

shooting sticks, especially with a back rest will effectively double the distance you can accurately shoot when compared to kneeling, leaning against a tree, or off hand shots. And I will take an accurate rifle, and the confidence it instills every time.

Yep, all field positions. My original query was related to what is typical for any given person. Obviously, that will vary from one individual to another.

Well then, my answer is yes. Especially when you stretch it out and are shooting from a solid position. That and even when shooting from off-hand I think you naturally concentrate better when you know the rifle is dead on.

Off hand no. Solid rest, sticks or prone probably yes.

I hunted with dads old 06 (2.5" with everything) once for sentimental reasons, one good shot at 100 on a buck and 3 mediocre shots on a moving cow at 250. In similar shot opportunities with my 1/2 moa 7mm RM I have had more confidence and better results. I practice quite a bit out to 600 yards or so from field positions, running shots on squirrels, and dimes at 50 yards once in a while so that hitting shots when it counts is easier.

Confidence is very important in shooting especially while your adrenaline is running high and time is limited. I'm not sure an observer could tell out to 200 or so but maybe on longer shots. It is very nice to have a spotter on longer shots, particularly on elk where reactions to hits can be minimal and that kind of casual observer has less distraction than the shooter.

With all that practice I still have very little confidence off hand past 75 yards and always look for a rest even one knee is a hundred times better for me. Shooters are different I hunt with a guy who feels good off hand to 300 yards, a real advantage in taller grass or brush. My son in law always uses a tall bipod with excellent results out to 400 yards.

Off hand at any range an observer wouldn't be able to tell a difference. They would probably recommend more practice...



Prone(or even sitting with a bipod) at 400 yards I think an observer would definitely notice.


Like Pat says, confidence is key. I'm not confident past 400-450 yards so I wouldn't shoot past that range.

If you're spotting for me on steel targets you will definitely notice a difference based on what rifle I'm using.

Off hand on silhouettes? You might notice a difference but it won't have schit to do with the accuracy of the rifles.



Travis

I agree Jeff and I look at predicted impacts based on radius of the group from a mechanical standpoint. With no external conditions (shooting in a tunnel) at 400 yards our 1moa rifle will be within roughly 2" from point of aim, our 2moa rifle will be within 4" from POA. Add in 8" of wobble and the real difference is an impact between 10" and 12" from the intended point of impact despite the first rifle being "twice as accurate".

Now take a simple 5mph wind, whether someone guessed it at 10mph and its really 15 or any read was missed because it was calm at the shooting position. At 400 yards with my .270 load a 5mph wind is already a .4 mil correction (5.7" of drift). I understand wind is a horizontal dispersion issue but a 2-3mph error negates the accuracy difference between a 1 and 2moa gun.

I remember spending way to much time on a bench trying to get a rifle from X group size down to Z group size and in reality I was wasting far to much time over an issue that really did not matter. My load work ups are much simpler now and I spend my time in other aspects of being a better field shot.

The obvious answer is yes. Suppose you can hold a 7 MOA group with a 'perfect rifle' offhand (i.e. a 0 MOA rifle).

Make it a 1 MOA gun and now you can hold a 8 MOA group. Make it a 2 MOA gun and you can shoot a 9 MOA group, etc.

You may have to fire a substantial number of shots for an observer to detect the difference, but I'm pretty sure I can use a tape measure to tell the difference between an 8" and a 9" group.

If those are your big game, I hope you're using FMJs so you don't starve.

I don't think the obvious answer is actually an answer however, therefore the reasoning behind my question. What are your actual results, not what do you theorize the results should be? (Read what a couple of the previous posters wrote for clues.)

I read them, I just don't see how you can say there is no difference. What it really comes down to is a matter of sample size. It may take hundreds of shots to detect a discernible difference, but one will be detectable with a large enough sample size.

Does it matter in the field? Well, that depends on what you are shooting at, at what range, and how important accuracy is to you. To put it another way, a 6 MOA shooter with a 1 MOA gun shoots approximately a 7" group at 100 yards. A 6 MOA shooter with a 3 MOA gun shoots approximately a 9" group at 100 yards.

A 9" group is approximately 65% larger in area than a 7" group, which is a clue that the difference is hardly trivial.

I agree with all the replies.......

The brief answer to your post Mark is "no". Inside 300 yards. A bit better with a good prone field rest.

I've a TC Hawkin that goes 6" at a hundred.; And that's across a rest, and as far as I'd shoot it at game. With a rest.

I've a couple MOA rifles that are good to beyond 500, but I'm not. And that's with a rest (wind screen, ATV seat, etc).

Got me BogStcks for x-mas. Could have used them several times the last couple years after leaving the machines for a foot stalk. Looking forward to practicing with them with my MOA rifle....

If things go south it ain't gonna be the equipment's fault.

I don't think it works that way,i.e. that shooter error and rifle grouping ability are cumulative;that we add the shooter error onto the grouping ability of the rifle.

If it were, it means that, if you shoot(say) an 8" group off hand at 100 yards with a 1" rifle, that you will shoot a 16" group off hand at 100 yards with a 2" rifle.I have never seen that relationship materialize.

Shooters have this thing called a cone of dispersion.It's smaller for a more skilled shooter and will vary from one position to another,and how much support he has. In fact, he might shoot just as well off hand with that 2" rifle as he does with a 1" rifle,because both rifles are more accurate than he is from that position.

The skill of the shooter becomes a greater factor than the inherent accuracy of the rifle.

Bob, that's not what I said. Imagine you can hold an 7" group with a 0 MOA rifle. That means your wobble zone traces an 7" circle. Now using a 1 MOA rifle and tracing the same 7" circle, the 1 MOA 'bubble' enlarges the circle in every direction by 1/2", which turns the circle into an 8" circle. A 2 MOA rifle enlarges the circle by 2" in diameter, etc.

Nowhere did I say an 8" shooter with a 1 MOA rifle turns into a 16" shooter with a 2 MOA rifle. If you can shoot 8" groups at 100 with a 1 MOA gun you can shoot 9" groups with a 2 MOA gun.

^ That.

A lot of it is in my head I know, but confidence dictates an awful lot.

I am not too clear on what you consider field positions but here's a try.

Prone with a tight sling or over my pack with a hat-etc. for a rear rest yes.

Sitting with a tight sling maybe.

Sitting w/o a sling, kneeling [even with a sling-left knee is toast] and off hand I don't think so. Same for thee LW sniper stix.

I have only had a bog pod for a short time and haven't done enough shooting with it to tell for sure. With it and sitting with my back against a tree it seems really steady. We'll see more this spring.

K1500: OK even given that I misinterpreted what you said,I still don't agree with that portion of your post above. It's largely theoretical.

How "big" the group is depends on the skill of the shooter and the size of his cone of dispersion.

And the distance, and whether he has some kind of rest, which, given the opportunity he should always take advantage of, including carrying one with him.

No, I would shoot the same. Whether I hit anything might be different.

As someone already mentioned, p-dogs are an example of where 1 MOA difference can make a difference between pink mist and brown dust.

Coyotes at 500-600 yards? I'll take the 1 MOA gun.

Elk, deer, antelope, not so much.

It's ok you don't agree, but it seems to be a matter of rather indisputable elementary math. The diameter of your cone of dispersion plus the cone of dispersion of your rifle equals your realized cone of dispersion on target. I don't see how it can be argued any other way.

Now, whether it amounts to a hill of beans on a game animal is another matter. Prone with a bipod/sling/rest it would be pretty easy to ferret out the difference in a fairly small number of shots. Off hand, the difference would still exist, but you would probably have to fire lots of shots on target to be able to detect a difference, but there *would* be a difference.

It isn't elementary math.

People aren't machines and vary in skill sets. Go shoot them both a few thousand rounds....I have. Report back.

Thanks.

OK, if you say so.

I don't get what you are really saying. That you can't tell the difference between a 1 and a 2 minute rifle? Why is that? Is it that you can't detect the difference because your cone of dispersion is so much bigger than the rifle that you just can't see the difference?

I can tell you that my grouping ability off hand is poor enough that the difference between a 1 and 2 minute rifle would be hard to detect with only a handful of 5-shot groups. Elementary statistics says it absolutely will be detectable given enough rounds. Thousands are enough, and it doesn't matter if people are or are not machines.

Maybe you are saying you can shoot a smaller group off hand with a 2 minute rifle than I can with a 1 minute rifle. If so, I have no argument. But you will shoot a statistically smaller group with a 1 minute rifle than you will with a 2 minute rifle.

No. Not a bit. You have a good point.

To take it a bit farther, most of us shoot offhand most of the time and would be lucky to get near six MOA without a lot of luck without a rest.

Most of the MOA bullshit we hear about is just plain old dumb bragging and posturing and pretending.....and it gives us something to talk about.

Which is a legit need.

One caveat is that my above does not apply to real snipers and shootists who have near superhuman skills.

I know there are a few around.

It seems,... but it's not. Not sure what a good analogy would be, but thinking it's like adding a salt and water. 1 cup plus 1 cup does not equal 2 cups, though the simple math would suggest that it should.

Are you saying that your average group size with a crappy rifle is the same as your average group size with a good one?

I'm suggesting that most people, from average, ordinary field positions (like the last dozen big game animals they shot...at )would probably be hard pressed to tell whether they had had been shooting a <1 MOA rifle vs a 2 MOA rifle. I'm sure there are people who virtually always get themselves set up with a solid rest for whatever big game quarry they pursue, but I doubt that that is even close to what is average.

I would contend that most field shooting obscures the potential accuracy of any reasonably accurate (=/<2 MOA). IOW, you won't see the difference until you approach conditions of the familiar, bench-rest-solid position from which to shoot.

You don't need to be a sniper to take shots from better positions than offhand.

I agree with this ^. To say there is no difference is mathematically/statistically false. To say the difference is hard to discern or is of little consequence in the field is likely true in most cases.

You are correct and I'd add two things.

1. It probably extends to three or four MOA. A lot of game gets MISSED totally in offhand shooting (which can get pretty sloppy with a lot of people). After all, if people can miss an entire ANIMAL.....the question of MOA accuracy is moot.

2. This may be less of a real life factor being that hunting deer and some other game from elevated stands has become the norm rather than walking and stalking....most people probably shoot deer from a rest because they're in a stand.

You're confusing "field positions" with off-hand.

That's a common mistake among people who don't shoot much.

Those that can, do; Those that can't, talk about it...

I think that rifle fit might have way more to do with field accuracy than the difference between a 1 or 2 moa gun. I have a bar in 270 that after sending back to the factory and spending a couple hundred on components would shoot 1&3/8" for 5 shots. I had several rifles that shot better but I had confidence in that rifle and shoot it better by far than most that I have.

Fred

True, but shooting is beyond fit, is mostly mental. That work you did, may not have actually been beneficial, but you THOUGHT it was beneficial and so it was.

I agree completely. Shooting a lot breeds familiarity and confidence. I built a dulling tree for rifles and my friends and I shot it to pieces. I did some of my best off hand shooting during that time frame. Amazing how much more pressure there is when another guy is standing next to you banging away.

Fred

Shot NRA competition for a while, did well with a rifle in the Marines too, competed in some other rifle matches. All that stuff adds to marksmanship skills.

I thoroughly enjoy shooting a rifle. Handguns too. Take a day almost every week and head to the range. Usually take a .22 rifle and some swinging metal targets with me. I'll shoot them from 25 - 50 yards, standing, sitting, kneeling (ugh) and prone. Don't spend a lot of time in prone.

As hunting season approaches, I'll bump up from the .22 to my .308 and other rifles, and put the gong out at 300 yards. Sure makes great practice, position shooting at steel, out at 300 yards. Helps with marksmanship & confidence a lot. With the .308 I 'll often go through a whole box of 50 rounds in a practice session like that. If I move up to the .375, I settle for 20, that's plenty.

Am not a perfect shot by any means, but am pretty good. Have learned about heat & cold, mirage, winds, overcast & bright sun and what they all mean to the marksman. Have learned my rifles well. Have learned myself pretty well too. Can tell when I'm not shooting particularly well. The steel gong makes it real obvious.

I truly do enjoy the shooting. Calling it practice for hunting just helps me justify it a bit. Mostly I just enjoy.

Regards, Guy

I still may or may not understand your getting at?

But I can offer in field conditions - I'm good to 100 yds offhand, good to about 200 yds if I can find some type of a front rest and good to whatever the rifle can do with both a front and rear rest (like in a shooting house).

That said, there a concentration factor in offhand shooting that I don't completely understand. For me, I can muster a lot of concentration into a shot after which I'm drained and can't do it again. I don't try this type of offhand shot in the field. But can hit a 6" steel plate at the range offhand at 500 yds consistently - Requires sling technique, time, concentration, focus (refocus) several times and a real good feel for the trigger. Just holding a rifle until everything is just right will wear on me. However, It can be done with a 1/2 MOA rifle whereas couldn't be done with a 2 MOA rifle.

I hear what you're saying…good thoughts I can identify with in many respects. I'll bet that long distance effort and concentration might really be useful for the typical 200-300 yard shots where the target might be only momentarily still and the crosshairs never actually settle perfectly but you need a well-timed trigger break.

I know that most or many of us could certainly tell a 2 MOA rifle from a sub-MOA rifle if all the field shooting we ever did was prone or otherwise solidly rested. That, however, isn't the field reality for many folks, where getting prone might mean looking at vegetation of some form at a distance of about 2 yards.

I do not think an observer would be able to tell which rifle you were shooting even at a bench. The human factor of all but the finest trained shooters could negate any one minute advantage of one weapon over the other as far as observation would be concerned. "Field conditions" adds a substantial number of variables that make it highly unlikely a casual observer could tell the difference.
Given a "blind test" using two identical rifles it would seem to me even an experienced rifle shooter would be hard pressed to identify which was which without being able to evaluate the performances over several outings and multiple shot groups on paper. It is just as easy or difficult to "pull" a shot to open a group as it is to tighten one.
A true < MOA rifle would need to be tested in a controlled environment far removed from "field conditions" eliminating any and all variables.
That said, rifles that have or can shoot to MOA give shooters added confidence that, given their individual skill, a given shot on a given day gains in probability of success on the range, in competition or hunting animals. I sure would rather have the one MOA rifle just for the CYA factor if nothing else.

im prolly a decent shot on average....know alot of people that are better....do know i tend to shoot better with my guns versus someone elses when shooting offhand....apparently most dont like the combination of a straight comb and tall rings like i do but its what lines things up naturally for me....

Most can't hold 8" at a hundred yards off-hand. Field positions is definitely a different story.

I can hold my own, but wouldn't shoot at an animal off-hand at any real distance. Sitting, prone off a pack, hat on a log, stix, etc. and the critter is in danger...

Good post.

We hung up on terminology here?

Off hand is used in the "field" all the time.It's simply less well supported.

I shoot a lot and found it requires much more practice to be good at it than just about anything else. Is there some official definition of "field position" that I missed?

What's the difference between a "field position" and "off hand"?

In my case, pretty close. Which is why, 1. I like to think of myself (however false this may prove in the field) as a "carefull" shooter, rather than a good one,

and 2. I always try to get a rest if possible, at any range, even inside 100 yards, where I am confident of my off-hand shooting. My rifles are all near or below MOA. Im not.

And knowing the actual range vs guestimating (I had 'way too many years of that!)....

The trots in public would sum this up.

kawi can you quit the bong?

I shall try.

eh76 I tried to be funny bad rabbit.I am sorry .

Hay No bong needed plum nutts

A more precise rifle was noticeable for me on the firing line shooting highpower matches.

Not so much in the field, especially at the distances I shoot big game. Heck, my longest shot on a deer in the last 10 years was with a 44mag handgun. From a practical standpoint, there has been no difference at all between my 1.5 MOA shooting .270 and my .75 MOA shooting .308. (MOA being measured at 1-300 yards, no further)

The best advice I ever got about off hand shooting came from an army competition shooter. He said zero a 22 off the bench at 50 yards then stand up and shoot 100 rounds off hand and look at the off hand group. Take the heaviest group of holes and rezero that to your bullseye. Then shoot 10 rounds and correct it if its heavy to one side. by doing this several times I found my off hand zero was very different from the benchrest zero. So I tried a sitting zero and found it to be in a different spot. One other thing I found was that by doing this I could get even moderatly price Aquila standard velocity ammo to shoot well enough to be competative in shooting the 50 yard 22 silhouette shoots. Beyond that range I shot Lapus, Ely or Wolf for a lttle more consistancey. A very accurate rifle with a very light trigger helped compensate for some of my bad habits like rushing the shot a little. It enabled me to win more shoots than I lost. This technique works for my centerfire rifles as Well.

rvp, that is excellent info! Thank you!

I don't think so.
It is a question that causes one to pause and ponder.
<1 MOA vs 2 MOA is a big difference.
Shooting paper, various positions, various ranges, yes I think that would show.
Most hunting I do is pretty close, good margin of error, and prolly wouldn't notice there.
Prone position open country - sure.

No, not even maybe. I do a lot of shooting at SR-1 targets (the 200 yd. standing target reduced for use at 100 yd.) standing at 100 yd. with all my rifles, and keep track of the results. The bench rest accuracy of one of my rifles doesn't mean better standing scores for me with that rifle.

Actually, no. Without offense to rvp, that's terrible advice. With a free-floated barrel your zero is your zero. Changing zero basesd on position is some golf course non-sense. It would be the equivalent of zeroing based off of where your rounds hit when flinching instead of correcting the flinch. If your zero changes based upon your shooting position it is because your shooting fundamentals are off.

Maybe you should try it before you criticize. When suporting the weight of an Anchutz 64 and standing in the broiling sun or in the cold it is very different than shooting off the bench free recoiling. Thats not my magic it was the expert Army rifle teams shooter that shot 2 perfect scores back to back at our range magic. Maybe it was his imperfect golf course shooting fundamentals that allowed him to clean the round twice. He had a whole trunk full of Eley 10 x and said he tried to shoot several hundred rounds each day when he could. He was shooting an Ancutz 54 with a 10 x scope. My barrel and his were floated. I shot a 38 and a 39 and he shot 40 both times. Its not the rifle changing so much as it is the holding position and trigger pull variance. Along with cheek pressure which varies as you get tired. Which might be construed to be shooting fundamentals. IT works well for me rimfire and centerfire. Its probably my 70 yr old eyes and old stiff back.

Need to see more targets posted in the positional match Carl Ross started a few months back

This..

First you got to bring the right ammo for the rifle...

Nothing in my post was directed at anyone. I just stated my observation after years of shooting, observation of others, and instruction. I guess off-hand is considered a field position, though it is the one that few can hit accurately with at any real distance. It takes mucho practice (agreed) to be decently proficient.

All (other) field postions are more desireable in my opinion/experience, though off-hand may be the only choice in certain conditions/environments.

Better?

deernut: Sure! I wasn't directing my comment to you or anyone in particular....just wondering out loud why off hand is not considered a "field position" since a significant amount of game is killed from that position "in the field"...if you get my drift.

I understand that a lot of people will hunt and almost never use it;and that it's "hard" and takes lots of practice. But I also don't understand how anyone who hunts a lot will not at some point have to do it;and to be reasonably "complete" as an all round game shot,should have some proficiency at it.

That's all.

I found it fascinating over the years to see comments from guys like John Plaster (Sp ?) and Jeff Cooper about the need for accuracy in the rifles they were fond of.
Plaster's comments were that 1 MOA was plenty for sniping. and that 75% of such shooters couldn't use .75 MOA accuracy.
Cooper stated that 2 MOA, even 2.5 MOA was enough for Scout Rifle use. He went on to say that the difference was only one quarter of he difference in group sizes.
Over the years I've had lots of fun chasing MOA or better groups in my hunting rifles. I've got plenty of them that do that or better.
When it comes to shooting critters in the field, I seldom have the time or the location where I can use a prone position. That's one of the major reasons why I don't put bipods on my rifles. They are simply too close to the ground to get a clear shot most of the time.
That leaves off hand, sitting, with or w/o a shooting sling, or perhaps kneeling.
In the last 20 yrs., I've practiced a good bit with everything from sub-MOA ammo to stuff that shoots 2.5 MOA. The only differences I've noticed is rifles with a little extra weight, or at least those that balance on the front guard screw make a difference. Using a shooting sling makes a signifcant difference as well. But I can't honestly say using much more accurate ammo does out of the same rifle.
That's out to 300 yds. or so. Beyond that, I need to have a solid rest, such as a prone position, accurate range information and to make a good wind call. That comes first. I also draw the line at 1.5 MOA ammo or better. In truth, I have not done any significant shooting beyond 300 yds. with 2-2.5 MOA ammo. E

All things being equal, a better shooting rifle is a better shooting rifle.

What's the difference between a "field position" and "off hand"???

I'm surprised you have to ask that question. If you look at my original statement, you'll see it was directed to "gutshotbuck" who equates "field position" with "offhand."

They are not one and the same. Offhand is just one of many possible field positions. The question the OP posed was about field positions, not offhand shooting. In the context of the original question, there's a big difference.

Confidence is never as shallow as that which is derived soley from ideal positions. (There is nothing to ruin one's confidence like a rifle/load combo which shoots little bitty groups from the bench, but fails consistently from more typical hunting positions; nor is there a better way to gain confidence than to shoot well a rifle of undetermined grouping ability in typical positions.)

"Off hand is just one of many possible field positions".....Uhh that would be correct,and was my point.

So, when the OP asked about "field positions" we can reasonably infer that "off hand" is included in any discussion about field positions.

I'm surprised by a lot of things.

Here's the original question:



Sure, off-hand is included, I never said it wasn't. But if you're attempting to answer his question, the answer would apply to all the positions, not just "off-hand."

If you answer the question thinking "off-hand" like gutshotbuck did, you're not really answering the question. Because prone over a solid rest is a different answer altogether.

Besides, anybody who chooses a handle like that deserves a kick in the ass at every opportunity. And I'm happy to oblige.

That's sig material.

I don't notice any practical difference between 1 and 2 MOA bench rest accuracy when using that rifle in the field for big game. But I don't normally shoot at stuff more than 300 yds or so away. And our seasons often include snow (or long grass or brush) so prone shooting of big game is a rarity in my hunting grounds.

What I do notice is how well a rifle handles in field positions. Accuracy from offhand and kneeling are affected far more by handling dynamics and ergonomics than the actual benchrest potential of the rifle.

With a slightly different focus on the same basic topic, I will choose a bullet that is less accurate than one that is extremely accurate every time for hunting critters the size of elk or moose if the less accurate bullet does a better job once it arrives.

I've read way too many times on internet forums "just choose what shoots best in your rifle" and "placement is everything" - I don't agree. Any bullet I use for hunting big critters must expand reliably, stay together without losing too much weight even when big shoulder bones are hit, and penetrate deeply. Rifle / bullet accuracy is not as important as bullet performance as long as the hit is somewhere in the vitals.

Lets see it, 8" paper plates are cheap and will show up down range,kill that first than move on.Just me on this.Kawi