For much rifle hunting hitting the game with the first shot from a cold barrel is paramount.

It's 'everything', It's all that's needed!

The statement below by Mule Deer agrees with what I have found.

I have kept records of where each rifles cold, barrel hits, ie. does it stay sighted in with that cold fouled barrel and many do!

Statement by Mule Deer:
"But also started experimenting with not cleaning bores, and seeing how long accuracy held up. Of course, it depends on how accuracy is defined, but found a lot of barrels could go a long time, often several hundred rounds, before accuracy dropped off."

We can count ourselves as fortunate that the SPCA isn't concerned with the beating of a dead horse. GD

Just curious how many guns of yours don't stay sighted in with a cold fouled barrel? And what is your definition of a hot fouled barrel?

I've always let mine cool between 3 shot groups. Never had any issues with them not staying sighted in.

Hunting accuracy 'range' with chosen weapon is what you can do shooting prone off your elbows, belly-flopped over a large rock or bracing against a tree, not what can be achieved off a bench with heavy bags.

You seem to miss understand!

A current rifle obsession is shooting 'groups'.

The 'want' should be:

Hitting the game with the first shot. Staying sighted in!

OK, but how do you prove you're sighted in?

I'm not sure how posting a quote by someone else that's taken out of context proves anything you have to say, especially when the topic from which you quote is about removing copper fouling.

There are probably as many definitions of ‘hunting accuracy’ as there are hunters.

For me it varies depending on the rifle, sighting method and game in question, but it gets measured at the range. The best I can do consistently with the buckhorn sights on my Browning B92 .44 Mag is about 3” at 100 yards. I believe the rifle is more accurate than that and I am the limiting factor. I have an Ithaca Model 49 in .22LR with similar sights but the blockier front sight limits me even further to the point where clay pigeons at 100 yards are about a 20% proposition. With the factory ghost ring on my Ruger .308 Scout I’ve managed 24 of 26 pigeons at 100.

With glass I figure anything inside 1-1/2” at 100 yards is accurate enough for 90% or more of my big game hunting. With my scoped lever guns I run out of useful range before I run out of useful accuracy. For prairie dogs I want a fraction of that. Anything less than .5” is gratuitous – appreciated but really not very useful.

I shoot "groups" over a "chrony" during load development to determine a velocity/accuracy quotient. I tend to favor accuracy over velocity. I've been fortunate that most of the rifles I've owned will shoot groups around 1" at 100 with some combo.

After I determine the load/bullet combo for a particular rifle, I'm much more interested in 1st shot out of a cold barrel.

Some rifles I zero at 100. Others at 200. I typically shoot 300 yds or less and "hold over" vs. dial.

I do know that after reloading for 25 years or so, I'm much less anal about the process than I was a couple years after I started. I counted the other day. I've loaded for 81 different cartridge iterations.


Best,


GWB

I fall into this camp also !

Are we talking about a cold barrel on a 90 degree day, or a hot barrel on a -20 degree day?

Me too.
And I always go hunting with one fouling shot down the bore. Maybe it's a leftover old wives' tale I grew up with, but that's what I do.

Hunting accuracy for me is 2MOA. I once had a rifle that that's how it shot. I knew it would hit within 1MOA of where I aimed. My first elk came from that rifle at a ranged 400 yards. I had a nice berm so the shot was about like a bench. I dialed the Tasco Trajectory model scope and aimed at the middle of the chest. The 160 Nosler Partition took out the arteries leading from and into the heart.

By the way, I installed an adjustable brake on it and promptly started firing 1" groups at 300 yards. Even on a bad day it fired 2" groups at 300 yards. No load tuning, just dialing.

3 moa is hunting accuracy but I won't keep a 3 moa rifle around.

LMFAO!!!

I just sighted in a 1970's Savage 99 using Speer bullets that were made before Omark added their name (1967) that put the last three under an inch.
I would call that "hunting accuracy."

Felt kinda good too, after I found some idiot had left the rear mount loose, that had the gun shooting all over the place.

My pet .308 wears an older 4X Zeiss ( not well thought of by some). I generally clean it once a year after the season. For some twenty years, when I check the sights, I clean the oil out of the barrel with denatured alcohol or carburetor cleaner, and fire two shots. They usually touch, one inch high. A third shot is usually within a half inch. I go hunting and stuff dies. Yes, the test shots are from a bench, but it hits where I look in the field. I have been known to sit, use a rock, tree, or whatever is handy, to eliminate wobble, I don't go prone unless forced to, an age thing.

Can I shoot the 1/2 - 5/8" groups in the field? Not likely, but my regular hunting friends think that I can shoot. The proof is in the shot. Good enough!

Same routine for my other hunting rifles. Once sighted from a bench, they shoot good enough from improvised rests, stands, hasty slings or wherever. To me, this is hunting accuracy.

A few years ago, I got a bad batch of bullets, or perhaps I made a poor choice of bullet, and ended up with some .270 ammo that just punched holes in deer. I shot this buck three times behind the shoulder. He would hump up as if gut shot or flinch, but stayed in his feet. Distance was about 120 yards. I finally neck shot him to end it all. Upon inspection, my first three shots were easily covered by my hand. The bullets had not expanded and zipped on through. Hunting accuracy was fine from off hand.

Jack

Well, he shoots 2 shot groups... Damn man, where you been???

John, is that you? I didn't know you moved to grants pass.... I remember coaxing you into going to a centerfire rifle shoot, where we shot 4" steel plates at 100 yards. For money of course. Your rifle shot "1/2" groups at 300 yards", according to you, so I was extremely happy to get you on the firing line. Watching you shoot that Sako TRGS in the offhand position with no sling support was worth the price of admission. Funny thing is, you didn't hit any 4" steel plates, but started out on the 12" gong. Needless to say, you didn't go home with the money. I still laugh my azz off over this one...

My goal is 3 rounds from a rest into 1-1.5" consistently. I'd prefer 1"or less, and most of my rifles will do so for 3 shots. But in the real world even 2" is probably acceptable. But it is no great feat to get 3 shots in 1" anymore. I could care less what the groups look like for 5 rounds. I'm not shooting a target rifle.

I've shot a lot of 1/2" groups (and even smaller) over the years with my hunting rifles. But not consistently and I'd not give up 100 fps nor sweat the details to improve on 1". Once I find a load that will give near max speed and 1" groups my load development is over.

As long as I know what the rifle, scope and load is capable of the rest is up to me. At this point my goal is to hit a 9" paper plate consistently from field positions. Once I reach the range where I can't do that then I have no business shooting at that range.

Hunting accuracy is a term people use to make themselves feel better about whatever rifle/shooter combination they want to elevate or reinforce. YMMV.

"Hunting accuracy" is the ability to hit your target without the use of a bench rest.

Apparently my old smooth bore Ithaca 37 Deerslayer had adequate hunting accuracy because I killed a double shytload of deer with it. It would print 4-5" groups at 80 yards and proved wickedly deadly on any whitetail inside that range many times.

Laffin...c'mon. We don't really believe that. Do we?

Ken - Does that mean you can hit the 'deer' w/o throwing the bench too ?


Jerry

Not for me it isn't. I'd never try a 400 yard field shot on deer with a 3 MOA rifle.

Yup.

"Hunting Accuracy" is a term synonymous with "good enough".

Its a level of accuracy of which hunters are content and confident with their rifle and ammo to a point where they believe it is good enough to get the job done.

It is a step below "accurate" and a step above MOPPFTHOMT (minute of pie plate off the hood of my truck).

Well...I'm close to that!
Only exception is; I want both accuracy and velocity.
Get it by experimenting with the rifle if accurate but at lower than desired velocity.

Anyway... Only have one rifle that still wants to shoot a cold barrel flyer. But had 3 that shoot a clean barrel flyer (now 2 - I fixed 1). And a bunch that do neither As do friends. So take you want from my experience, but I see many more rifles that shoot CLEAN barrel flyers than COLD.

So yes, I also sight-in and leave'em dirty for hunting.

So long as my rifle hits in a consistant manner and 1" or less....time and time again....I'm cool with that. Now, they may not get to hang around because we only like guns that are more accurate than 1". Funny thing is, day to day with our intervention, many folks can't consistantly shoot 1/2" groups(me included). I think the take away is, if you can confidently squeeze th trigger and hit where you are aiming, you can go hunting. Just my 2 cents. I've killed a bunch of white-tails and I've used rifles from sub 1/2" guns to 3" guns at 100. Deer has no idea what it shoots like when you hit them in the pump house....and an average Georgia white-tail pump house is WAY bigger than and inch or two.

My Dad hunted deer in the Ozarks with a Trapdoor Springfield during the '30s. I have it today and it's only minute of dinner plate at 100 yards. I'm sure he knew his rifle and chose his shots well. He never worried about MOA, he just knew if he could make the shot. That was hunting accuracy - what one is capable of with the tool in hand in field conditions. If the tool is crap it will hinder you. If your skills and judgement are crap it will hinder you no matter the accuracy of the tool.

Hunting accuracy is not the rifle, it's the shooter. The rifle doesn't know if it's shooting paper or game. The shooter's ability to shoot from field positions means way more than what the rifle prints off a bench.
Cracks me up when people brag about their rifle's little tiny groups but can't hit a bull in the azzz with a scoop shovel off hand.

What's hunting accuracy?

I aim at the animal and hit it where I want.

Yup.

I don't like a rifle that gets in the way of what I'm trying to hit! That often means something different in the field than on the bench, and vise versa.

Ya'

with the rifles I hunt with, If I miss, 99% of the time its the operator, not the rifle.

Just sayin'


GWB

GW ain't it the truth!

I generally prefer not to respond to your posts but I am desperately bored tonight, so here goes;


It is the term used by those who cannot otherwise explain why their rifle doesn't hit what they are aiming at unless the rifle is tucked into the left ear of the target.

Nope,there was an earthquake when I pulled the trigger.

A grain of sand got in my eye.

A bird pooped on my scope and could not see the target when trigger was pulled.

We have the same rifles!
Wouldn't life be grand if animals had orange targets on them, always stood broadside at exactly 100 yards, and the wind never blew? Then it would be boring, no?

There's almost nothing worse than a rifle the works so well on a solid bench but "ain't worth a crap" from so many of the usual field positions. And it's amazing what some people will put up with because "it shoots itty bitty groups". (And bullets aren't immune from that justification either.)

Hunting Accuracy - I have a good friend who has hunted elk and deer for over 60 yrs, he rarely fails to get one of each every year. His sight-in procedure consists of setting a 5-gallon bucket "somewhere around a 100 yds and taking a shot at it" if the shot hits the bucket his sight-in is done.

His reasoning - "a 5-gallon bucket is a lot smaller than a deer or elk so if I can hit it I can sure as heck hit a deer or elk." Seems to have worked out ok for him for many years. Gist of the story - hunting accuracy means different things to different folks.


drover

Klik anything I own is planned to work from field positions and intended to be carried....mostly one handed. And will see as much time off bags and unsupported except by me as possible.This does not make us goof proof but has helped over the years.

Amen brother. Especially the sentence regarding the bullets.

once a year around thanksgiving, my dad would haul out his rem 141 35 pump, lay it across the bags and deliver one 200 grain corelokt dead center into a quarter sized dot on a paper plate 100-ish yards down range. for our hunting area, that was hunting accuracy.

meanwhile, my brothers and i would shoot round after round from our 270's, 7 mags, 308's etc, spinning dials, moving the POI all around the dot until the barrels were roasting hot and we still didn't do what the old man did. he just sat back and watched. i miss those days.

For every deer he brings home there are probably 30 walking around with holes in them. Hunting accuracy definitely means different things to different people.

5 gallon bucket accuracy does not allow "hitting where you want". It takes a lot more "better".

I'm not at all sure it worked out well for the deer and elk. How many did he wound and lose?

If a 5 gallon bucket at 100 was the best a person could do, I would not hunt with them.

I also knew an old hunter that checked the sight-in of his old 30-30 on a 5-gallon bucket. He knew he couldn't shoot very well and he had rather poor vision. Yet he frequently got a deer and I never knew him to wound or miss one for one simple reason: he never took a shot over 50 yards. That was how close he had to be to be certain the buck was legal, and that was the range he was comfortable shooting within.

He was one of the most enthusiastic deer hunters I ever knew and a great guy to have in camp. He always showed up early and got things set up, and always did more than his share of the work. He hunted the thick stuff others avoided and was very patient and willing to wait for a good, clean shot.

Hunting accuracy means different things to different people.

Best statement on this thread.

Nah'

I think it can be beat some more IMHO..........





NEF 12 ga. Slug Gun, 1oz rifled slug @ 17 paces.




Not only did it knock this kitty cross-eyed, it removed most of his spots, and happy to say, starting with the one I aimed at.

How's that fer huntin' accuracy???

Ya'


GWB

You would be wrong. I have hunted with him quite a bit over the years and have never seen him lose an animal or have to take more than one shot at them. DRT in most cases.
But to clarify a bit - he does not take long range shots, which seem to be all the rage these days, he rarely takes a running shot and he is a good shot. He has been using the same rifle for all of the years I have known him and the ammo he uses is the remainder of a 100 rounds I loaded for him many years ago. He just does not make a big deal out of hunting, he just goes out, finds the animal and shoots it - end of the hunt.
He probably would not be a welcome member on the 'fire because he does not talk about his shooting skills or get caught up in the ballistic gack. His rifle is a Savage 99 in 308 with a 4X Weaver (El Paso) and if you told him he needed more gun I suspect his response would be - Why?

drover

It used to be 4 MOA was considered good accuracy for a hunting rifle. I've been hunting whitetails for 35 years, and 4 inches on a pie plate at 100 yards seemed to be regarded as acceptable by many. Truthfully, I never came close to testing it, because all my shots in the first 25 years were well within 80 yards or so. I hunt in thick eastern woods. I've had more shooting opportunities inside 20 yards than beyond 150.

I never did like that 4 MOA rule of thumb. In a way, it made sense that if you planted a bullet within 4 inches of where you were aiming, no one (including the deer) was going to know. On the other hand, 4 MOA allowed for so much room for error, I could never tell if it was the gun, the load, or me. This was especially true for non-supported shots.

Once I got to reloading, I found a lot of my rifle that had probably been pushing that 4MOA limit were now shooting 2 MOA or better, and it became a lot easier to see the effects of better form, better loads, different bullets, etc.

The other aspect of this is sighting in. If you have a 4 MOA rifle and sight in 2 inches high at 100 yards, now you have a bit of a conundrum. By sighting 2 inches high at 100 yards, a lot of deer chamberings of not having to worry about distance until well out past 200 yards. However, if you couple that with a 4 MOA rifle, now you have a much larger potential spread. 4 MOA can end up minute-of-bushel-basket in a hurry.

35 years into it, I find a session at the bench is much more productive with a 1-2 MOA hunting rifle than a 3-4 MOA rifle. It is just so much easier to see what's going on. Even on windy days, I can shoot more productively. My ranges have also lengthened, because I now trust that I can accurately hit something beyond 200 yards. Even the rifles I use from a treestand are all probably pushing 1-2 MOA. It takes me 50% fewer shots to get a new rifle or new load wrung out. It costs less and I have more time for scouting.