Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles The Accuracy Benchmark....

The be all, end all, final straw of a "good" rifle vs. a "bad" one. Thread after thread, accuracy wins. Light rifles, budget rifles, custom, this brand, that brand, yada, yada....

All the "other" components / pieces / parts certainly play into the picture. Trigger, balance, stock materials, mags, finishes, and whatever else.

But....

The humbler is always tight groups.


What say ye?

These years, I am just a big game hunter that has only once shot out to 300 yards. I am more than happy with multiple three shot groups inside 1 1/2' though all but one of my "long range" rifles (as opposed to my lever guns...) run the same closer to an inch. All at 100 yards. Never "range shoot" beyond 100 yards. The few times I have had a problem was clearly mine.

Tight groups are overrated when it comes to hunting rifles. Folks will get frustrated with a one inch gun yet revel in the .6 inch group their Tikka delivers. Most folks will hunt a lifetime and never encounter a situation where that .4 inch difference will ever be a factor. My favorite gun, the one I have killed more deer with, is a Ruger Ultralight 257 Roberts. I found a load that delivers 1.5 inch groups and quit my load development.

My mentor when I was first learning.. Told me if you can reliably hit a paper plate at 100 yards offhand you will get your deer. Not sure if that is Minute of deer or Minute of paper plate.. Much older now, and I do believe that he was right. For myself, I like MOA at 100 yards, if I can't get a rifle to do that then most likely it will go down the road.

Accuracy is about number four on my list, after functionality, feeding, and rifle fit. If a hunting rifle has those first three things right, I can live without the utmost in accuracy. If a rifle doesn't have those first three attributes, I don't really give a damn about how well it shoots.

Also.....good groups off the bench are nice, but if I can't shoot the rifle well in the field for whatever reason (too light, kicks too hard, etc.) then I'm not interested.

Just wondering who would choose a 1.5 MOA rifle over a .75 MOA rifle? Not a chance for me. Sub MOA shooters are quite common nowadays. Yes, Tikkas kick most everything's ass in the ease of accuracy department.

I'm perfectly happy with a 1.5 MOA rifle from a big game hunting rifle - more is ok but no big deal for shooting basketball sized targets. That means 10 shot groups of 1.5 MOA, and it should be able to duplicate those groups when asked.

For me if it can put a few of my favorite bullets in a 1 moa or less 5 shot group it's a keeper.

Accuracy is most important in the smaller calibers that might be used for smaller targets or get more fun time at the range.
If I bought a .222 or .223 and couldn't stack a couple of five shot groups in a one inch bull from a hundred yards I'd be a little disappointed. Of course I'd expect a mistake out of myself more often than from the rifle.

From a more powerful rifle I'd be ok with 2 or 3 shot groups near an inch at 100 yards.

To each his own. I agree on the large targets though, but could care less about a 10 shot group. I've never had a rifle group 3 shots at .7, then spray one 10 inches away.

For a hunting rifle, it needs to do three-shot groups under 1” with a bullet I like.

I simply cannot understand why people would shoot animals with target bullets just because it shoots.45” with them and .89” with a good bullet like a TTSX or Accubond.

My varmint and small game rifles need to be very accurate. My deer rifles not so much. Virtually all of the deer I've killed in the last 20 years were less than 125 yards away and could have been taken easily with a 2-3 MOA rifle. Of course I prefer they shoot better than that but it really isn't needed.

I agree, A rifle must be accurate above all else if its going to be a keeper, My rifles have to shoot consistant 3 shot MOA or less groups with a hunting bullet i like and in todays rifle market thats not a whole lot to ask as almost any modern made quality bolt action should do this with good factory ammo, if it dont you probably bought a turd.........Hb

My 30-30 is 4 moa and I'm fine with that because it's open sighted with a 16" barrel. I wouldn't expect to need it beyond 125 yards.

All other things being equal, of course I would take the more accurate rifle. Recently I decided I wanted a new rifle. I decided on the 6.5 Creedmoor chambering. I already had a Ruger Hawkeye Predator for a long range/target kind of rifle, but I wanted a good carrying weight rifle. Tikka was on the list with several other rifles. A Savage LWH on the low end of the price spectrum and an MRC on the high end. I finally narrowed the field to the Tikka and the Savage LWH. I reckoned the Tikka would be the most accurate based on what I had read here. But based on my experience with a 223 LWH I felt confident the Savage would be accurate enough. I also like that Savage has some skin in RKBA game here in the USA. If Tikka is doing things to help keep 2A alive and strong, I am not aware of it. After rebate I could get the Savage into my hands for about $450. That was about $200 less than the cheapest Tikka stainless I could find. I went with the Savage being pretty sure the Tikka would be more accurate. My first load with the Savage was close to an eyeballed inch. I'll be able to do better than that. And with that I wouldn't take a Tikka that shot ragged holes over the Savage that creeps into sub MOA territory. That extra accuracy would never do anything for me other than give me bragging rights on a forum.

If you shot 10 shot groups, you'd likely find out that a bunch of your 3/4 MOA guns really aren't.

We've gone over the math of 3 vs 5 vs 10 shot groups numerous times on this forum, but I wouldn't expect a Texan to understand.

That's the best you've got?

Was that considered a clever comeback in Texas?

You're doing good. Keep trying.

Some rifles will group 2 or 3 shots fine every time from a cold barrel. But then as the barrel heats up may start stringing vertically.
Which should be fine for most big game hunting.

Ideal? no. Perfect? hardly.

Would I like to always have better? Of course