I like what he wrote because it is refreshing.
I hunt with revolvers many times. 4 MOA is probably better then I can hold an iron-sighted revolver even when I rest both arms full length, and I have a thick pad under my shooting hand. Yet, I have always killed my game (deer, antelope, bear, elk and buffalo) with my revolvers and I have never even needed to fire twice with any revolver I ever killed a big game animal with, and only 1 time I fired 2 shots with a 45 automatic.
So when I read and reread and reread all the time about 1/2 MOA and 1/4 MOA and even less at times, and how that is so much better, I grin and shake my head. It's not a matter of how accurate the gun is near as much as it's about how accurate the man is and how well he can hunt.
Shaman said he learned to hunt as an archer. That means his 4 MOA rifle was just fine. I'd bet he can't hold a 4 MOA group at 100 yards with his bow and arrows, but somehow that didn't stop him from using them.
Kudos to you Shaman.
There is nothing wrong with super accurate rifles. So that's not the point I am trying to make here. I shot all my center fires today to confirm zeros and in some cases re-zero --- after I had used the rifles to test ammo I am not going to use for this years hunts. I have several that shoot sub-MOA and a few that shoot WAY Sub-MOA. But in the hands of a shooter that can hold 2 MOA any 1/8 MOA rifle gives him about 2 MOA. And a man that can shoot 2 MOA on demand with out a bench rest is a very good shot.
It's always 98% the shooter and 2% what he shoots.
