Practical Hunting Accuracy ( PHA )

Hales Smut

Well-Known Member
Having seen discussions on rifle accuracy and seen spending loads of money to gain almost nothing , I just wanted to know what you forum users see as practical hunting accuracy for stalking deer . Not for foxes.
This for body shots or head/neck shots at reasonable range .
I would see this in a deer rifle for UK use both on the hill and in the forrest . Rifles in the 243/270/308/30-06 class .
 
I think for body shots out to 300m on the larger deer 1.5" is probably good enough. Personally, I would want better than that, but that is confidence thing. For Roe and smaller, it would need to be 1" at worst.

Neck shots are a different ball game. 1.5" off POI on a neck shot is a complete miss or a complete cock up. for a rifle to be used on neck shots further than about 60m, both the rifle and the man using it need to be capable of sub moa all the time - under field conditions, not off the bench.
 
+ 1 what CD says.. Certain safe humane despatch is the object, not just "I can kill it". The rifles are usually capable , it is the human element that fails. Just my personal feeling.

Average Clients struggle to achieve 3 shots inside a 2" circle at the range, much more under field conditions. I don't enjoy cleaning up the mess they make.

Rant over.
 
Claret_Dabbler said:
Neck shots are a different ball game. 1.5" off POI on a neck shot is a complete miss or a complete cock up.

Could not agree more.

The first hind I ever shot, I hit in the neck, it spun round once and fell to the ground and did not move. I waited a couple of minutes and still no movement so I walked over. As I got to the hind it jumped right up and ran off never to be seen again.

I can only asume I hit it slightly high and grazed the back of it's neck.

I have not had this happen since thankfully but it has made me pay more attention if going for a neck shot.
 
A good eye opener is to shoot the DSC1 test at twice the distance ie sticks at 80m, sitting at 140m and prone at 200m. Forget group size, just look at whether or not all the holes are in the kill zone.

Now, whilst sat at the computer, most people would say 'no problem', meanwhile, back in the real world, an awful lot of people would pull one or two shots. I have seen plenty of people fail or take a couple of attempts to pass at 40m,70m and 100m.

To be fair, the standard of accuracy from stalkers has improved alot over the years. I may even go so far as to say that the standard of bench/bipod shooting (largely due to equipment/ammo improvement) has improved too much giving people false confidence in the field.

If I had to sumarise, DSC1 standard for occaisional stalkers, twice the distance DSC1 standard for those that consider themselves experienced is pretty realistic.

As for head and neck shooting wild deer, well, that debate has been overdone already but the best advise is to forget it accept for very occaisional circumstances. (please don't bother to comment on that last paragraph as life is too short!)

I'm standing by to be pelted with rotten fruit and veg but I'm just giving my opinion. JC
 
Why anybody could say OK, that'll do, I can't get my head round it, I want the best my rifles are capable of, (usually better than the nut behind the butt), I cannot imagine using a load / rifle combo that was in any way wanting. If my rifle & load can bughole (One of Muirs terms) at 100yds, then I know it's good to 400 with correct conditions such as favourable wind, ground etc. We, (Mike & Myself) headshoot rabbits with .223 around 200yds regularly, applying the same loading prep & practice to the larger calibres it's possible to smash clays set out on stakes at 600yds, On the other hand,if a rifle & load is only getting three in a four inch circle (just), then that translated to say 250 yards is going to be a shot in the dark & quite likely a miss altogether :eek:
 
This thread is a spin-off from the custom rifle thread. While "good enough" may well be good enough for most people, it does not inspire me with confidence.

My criticism of the majority of factory rifles is a lack of consistency. By that I mean predictable group sizes off the bench every time, without any unexplained shifts in POI. To be honest I have very rarely seen a factory rifle that would deliver a consistent group (whether that is .5" or 1.5"), to the same POI, week in week out. The weak links in the chain, ignoring the shooter for now, are the bedding, the scope mounts and then the trigger, in that order.

I would agree with Steve, I want the best I can get out of a load / rifle combination. I cannot shoot 0.5" from a field position, but it helps me to know that the rifle can so my mistakes are minimised.

If a rifleman can deliver 3" groups at 200m, he will get the job done every time, if he confines himself to chest shots.
 
I know that my Sako, with me shooting, will put up 3/4" groups @100yds on a still day off the bi-pod laid in a field with federal 140gn factory loads. I also know that I have seen competition shooters, as well as myself, struggle to post decent groups at the same distance in a gale.

But given reasonable conditions I am confident on heart lung shots on roe or fallow at 200yds. My 6.5 drops fast after 200yds so i find it better to try for 150yd maximum. The fun after all is the stalk.

Neck shooting for me is something done at very close range indeed, 10 to 50yds, and is only done if there is no alternative.

ft
 
I dont think the question is about what we would like, its about where we draw the line. My Sauer will consistently group sub MOA and my 375 is even better (had her free-floated sort of) but what happens if you have to borrow a rifle.
I had the most awful loaner of an estate rifle when I went to Botswana which grouped about 2". The stock was cracked etc etc
The 2" group was however very consistent so hunting was excellent with 16 impala down all clean heart lung shots. The rifle however was not very precise. The trick is assessing the rifle and working within its limitations.

There is a very interesting definition of accurate and precise in this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurate

Mark
 
Stalking in close is for most, the ultimate aim, to beat nature at her own game on her terms, just once in a blue moon your deer will be out of normal stalking" in" terms, say maybe 300 ish out on a clear fell, you won't close to anything like 70 yds on that stuff, (What fool decided to call it "clear fell anyway"), so if that deer is going to the larder, you need to be able to have confidence in your rifle & load.
 
+1 for CD & FB

If i can post .3 MOA out to 300Y of the bench then i can absolutely expect that massively to increase in field conditions, im happy with this.

However if my rifles were posting 1 MOA on the bench then thats 3 inches minimum in any direction off my estimated holdover for 300y. oh and thats without any factored wind which at 300y full factor 10mph is 6 inches. Its beginning to go all wrong.

Why would you not want the most consistant accuracy that you could get?
 
- Like Mark H says , this is more a question , where do you draw the line ?

- Personally I favour body shots and would only use neck shots very close ( 20/50 m ) and when nothing else would be possible or the keeper would ask me so.

- It's not that somebody or myself wouldn't want the most accuracy but not everybody reloads . A lot of stalkers have a factory rifle ( from the lower price range to the most expensive ) , buy factory ammo and shoot anything in between 10 and 50 rounds a year .
A decent factory rifle probably shoots about 3 rounds in an inch or slightly more . This will be the majority off the stalkers .
There will probably be more than a few Scottish professionals who have a factory 270 and shoot 130 grain Norma ammo ( just to give an example ) and kill hundreds of deer a year . Probably with the same " factory " accuracy .
 
Why would you not want the most consistant accuracy that you could get?

The mention of consistant 2" groups on the battered estate rifle validates one ares of my point. I would have been happy with that as it was consistant, i can on that knowledge factor everything else in , if it was all over the place thats very different.

Most people i have met who have traveled the path from budget to mid to high end factory and then custom usually stay there.

Owerneship of any premium product increases expectation, purchasing choices after averything else are unexceptionally govened by budget.
 
My criticism of the majority of factory rifles is a lack of consistency.

I would agree 100% that consistency is really what matters. To me if a rifle cannot consistently group then it is no good. By that I mean first shot with a clean barrel or second shot with a fouled barrel.

I know that I am capable of 1/2" group at 100 yards with iron sights. I am disappointed if any rifle I use can't manage 1" with a 'scope. If it can't it is got rid of.

I'll tolerate 3" at 100 yards in a service rifle but not for stalking. What are most disappointing are those rifles that need a few rouinds through them eact time shot before they "settle down". Quite useless!
 
One MOA. Three MOA.... all relevant to the rifle. Pardon me but it's not worth a damn to even argue about it. I agree that a rifle should be tuned to be all it can be but, as i've said earlier and elsewhere, I'd rather see a marksman with a 2 MOA rifle shooting deer than an unskilled person with a half-MOA rifle. How the rifle shoots is secondary to how well the shooter utilizes it. JMHO of course. ;) ~Muir
 
Muir said:
One MOA. Three MOA.... all relevant to the rifle. Pardon me but it's not worth a damn to even argue about it. I agree that a rifle should be tuned to be all it can be but, as i've said earlier and elsewhere, I'd rather see a marksman with a 2 MOA rifle shooting deer than an unskilled person with a half-MOA rifle. How the rifle shoots is secondary to how well the shooter utilizes it. JMHO of course. ;) ~Muir

well said Muir, well said indeed.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/practical_accuracy.htm

ft
 
The way I like to work with my rifles is to get them to shoot to the best of their ability. That way a slight error by myself is only going to be out by the degree of my error rather than error + an inch because the rifle wasn't so consistent.

I don't like to shoot large quarry at range because I don't feel that I'm good enough. I can head shoot a bunny at 250 yards with my varmint gun but if I slip up a hit anywhere in the main body mass will kill it with that class of firearm. On a Deer a poor shot will equal a runner and I'd rather not risk it.

I'm over cautious when I shoot and that costs me kills that I probably could have taken. I'm not under any pressure to reach a cull figure though so they'll be there for another day.
 
I love shooting, so when I get a new rifle do the standard things as epoxy bed, polish the barrel and clean. Then Start with standard ammo, if this shoots say 1.5" I go hunting with that in mind, then as time goes on I improve the ammo. My 308 shoots consistently well under 2" at 300m in field position, I use this rifle to 400yds. My 243 is very accurate but I don't trust the consistency as much so I stay under 250m with deer.

If one just mucks about trying to get a rifle to shoot smaller and smaller groups it will eat into valuable hunting time, not good either.
Just as iportant as accuracy is a bit of practice, also offhand shooting practice. This year again I'm at almost 50% deer shot offhand.

edi
 
There seems to be a degree of snobbery going on here. It appears that if you don’t get someone to build a rifle for you in a calibre that demands handloading and if you don’t spend your evenings sitting on your own in an attic, sweating over some powder scales and reloading tables that you are compromising animal welfare.
I entirely accept that improvements can be made, margins of error reduced and vast amounts of money spent, but I do not accept that a stalker with a factory rifle, shooting factory ammo is inferior in any way. I certainly believe that many people have taken a sport and turned it into an all consuming academic hobby. I was on a stalk with some guys off of another website a year or so ago and someone took a fallow off of a high seat from 180 yards. If memory serves it took three shots to eventually finish it off. Surely the point is, if you’re not confident in your kit (whatever it is) and/or your ability then you shouldn’t take the shot.

I thought stalking wasn’t elitist, and could be done on a modest budget.
 
Hi Howa243,

A number of points:

There seems to be a degree of snobbery going on here. It appears that if you don’t get someone to build a rifle for you in a calibre that demands handloading and if you don’t spend your evenings sitting on your own in an attic, sweating over some powder sales and reloading tables that you are compromising animal welfare.

Bollox. Thats not what is being said or implied.

I entirely accept that improvements can be made, margins of error reduced and vast amounts of money spent, but I do not accept that a stalker with a factory rifle, shooting factory ammo is inferior in any way.

Were are discussing accuracy of rifles not the user.

I certainly believe that many people have taken a sport and turned it into an all consuming academic hobby.

And so what if they do, does it affect you. Stalking is a combination of kinetic balistics which is physics and maths and ecology all applied; so to be comprehensive you have to understand certainly elements of this. . Personally Ive been hunting since i was 6 years old. I've hunted all over the world for most species, thats hardly academic. Its my passion in life.

I was on a stalk with some guys off of another website a year or so ago and someone took a fallow off of a high seat from 180 yards. If memory serves it took three shots to eventually finish it off. Surely the point is, if you’re not confident in your kit (whatever it is) and/or your ability then you shouldn’t take the shot.

Totally agree.

I thought stalking wasn’t elitist, and could be done on a modest budget

Of course it can, but you can also go nuts.


Personally I dont give a **** what anybody else uses or how accurate their rifle is. I dont care if they have a deer dog a 4x4 or are rich are poor. In the UK and Germany I hunt for me, my way on my leased / owned land. Im solely responsible for my actions including misses / woundings / follow ups etc. When im hunting in the States / Africa / EU its all very different, but i still govern my choices and actions.

I dont expect my views to resonate with everybody and when they don't thats fine, I seek guidance from people who know what i dont and if there is eliteism in anything i say thats potentially just a character trait.
I was attempting to give my opinion and some evidential proof for justification of that, and question others opinions and understanding in the process.
My rifles are my choices, thats all.

Life is experienced at many different levels.
 
Back
Top