Rethink on Accuracy and Rifles

[Benji53]

Yes, but when that 3 inch kill zone is over 300 yards away cloverleafs at 100 yards are completely nessasary. Well, this thread has given me much amusement. Well done folks 

Exactly that, as above it's fine if your deer is a 100 meters away but what happens if a second shot is required at 250 plus yards your not hitting the kill zone with such accuracy

 

[TOMMO.B]

Aim up? Thats when knowing your scope comes in to play. what crazy comments. One shot for yer deer whether it be 100 yards or 1000 yards. When have you ever tried a 3 shot group at a beast? thats right never. There is the problem with just shooting at a range. there is little resemblance to real life stalking. Too much over thinking with the range bunnys.

 

[ChesterP]

The problem with accepting that a 3 inch group is acceptable TOMMO is that the above statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny IF you consider the POI of your shot within a group and when shooting beyond 100 yards. Had your 3 inch variation (lets say for argument's sake, it would be 3 inches in 10 rounds if you shot a 10 round group) been at the upper or lower edge of that group (ie 1.5 inches from the intended POA at 100 yds), then at 200 yards, with wind adding say another inch or two for a 10mph wind, you could be 3 inches high and 2 inches to one side. If the POI was to the right of your POA, you could be easily 5 inches out, so fall outside of the kill zone. Add in shooter technique errors and you can easily add several more inches to that. At 300 yards, it would be even worse; so one can argue that a 3 inch group performance is not "alright" for anything other than 100 yards or less at live quarry. We ought really to strive for the best accuracy in terms of our set-up and preparation that we can, so as to reduce the risks of a miss and an injured animal.

As for those saying "get in closer", it's not always possible, especially when hill stalking when quite often your closest shots might be 150 yards distant and average shots at 200 yards. For lowland woodland stalking, it's more understandable not to worry so much providing that off-hand, using a fence-post or tree as a steady, you can reliably hit the kill zone every single time at 100 yards (there's something wrong if you can't at 100 yards or less). I find that practicing technique makes a big difference and is more important to me than punching paper at the range, even though I do that too.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Post #40 reminds me of something else:-

How many of these 100 yard keyhole groups are shot with a scope mag' above 18-power but when the same rifle/scope combo heads to the woods & meadows it's left on 6-power or less as the shooter "feels more comfortable" with less (visible) wobble?!?

K

 

[Tom D]

I just did the Black Dot test, from real stalking positions, the group has doubled in size from when I shot it from my bench when I developed the load...

 

[Apthorpe]

The problem with accepting that a 3 inch group is acceptable TOMMO is that the above statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny IF you consider the POI of your shot within a group and when shooting beyond 100 yards. Had your 3 inch variation (lets say for argument's sake, it would be 3 inches in 10 rounds if you shot a 10 round group) been at the upper or lower edge of that group (ie 1.5 inches from the intended POA at 100 yds), then at 200 yards, with wind adding say another inch or two for a 10mph wind, you could be 3 inches high and 2 inches to one side. If the POI was to the right of your POA, you could be easily 5 inches out, so fall outside of the kill zone. Add in shooter technique errors and you can easily add several more inches to that. At 300 yards, it would be even worse; so one can argue that a 3 inch group performance is not "alright" for anything other than 100 yards or less at live quarry.

The problem with this argument is that you explain how from a 3inch group rifle one could be 5inches plus several more out at 200yds - yet only 1.5 inches of this is attributable to the fact that the rifle isn't absolutely perfectly accurate. Are you really that much happier firing at a deer when you expect to be 3.5 inches plus several more from the point of aim?

I'm not sure that I wouldn't find that I wasn't led into complacency by an absolutely accurate on paper rifle.

 

[ChesterP]

I get that. The point though is that there's enough variation potential without an inaccurate rifle, to be complacent with one, which is sort of your point...and ironically, mine too. The bottom line is that these days, most factory rifles are good for moa potential so the whole debate becomes academic.

 

[mchughcb]

Who on this forum has a rifle that is shooting more than 75mm groups at 100m when shot by a reasonably competent person on a bench in still conditions?

 

[deeangeo]

You either know & understand your rifle/scope/ammo combination and your own ability at various quarry taking ranges, or you don't.
If the latter work at it more to understand fully what you & your rifle combination will or will not do.

The biggest problem is the difference between shooting on a range and in the field where a comfortable shooting position is almost guaranteed not to be available.

 

[Mungo]

Who on this forum has a rifle that is shooting more than 75mm groups at 100m when shot by a reasonably competent person on a bench in still conditions?

I've had one. Fortunately no longer. Sako 75 that grouped like a shotgun regardless of what you shot with it or who was shooting.

 

[mchughcb]

Thats disappointing from a sako.

 

[Mungo]

Thats disappointing from a sako.

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that it's far more common than people care to admit.

 

[ejg]

An accurate rifle is no fault, except for those who do not have an accurate rifle and are looking for excuses. How is one supposed to achieve "shot placement" without knowing where the bullet is going to.
There is nothing wrong in trying to improve accuracy at least you get more practice.
If one doesn't shoot at targets also at differing ranges how is one supposed to know the capability of the setup including the shooter?
There is nothing wrong with higher mag scopes, who say's seeing something better and recognising wobble is bad? Modern scopes often have more mag range than older type scopes offering lower as well as higher mag.

Some old school stalkers with their 4 mag scopes actually think they are the only ones shooting deer. Sorry lads...

edi

 

[Tom D]

Did you ever find out what was wrong with it?




I think what is important is the accuracy of the rifle and shooter combined, field conditions certainly open groups up, mine roughly doubled from what I can do at the bench. So starting from there if you want to consistently shoot inside a 6" circle at 200 yds, which I suspect is as far out as most stalkers go, you need a rifle that will group a minimum of 1.5" at 100yds. I.e. Double the 1.5" for field conditions , that's 3" at 100, 6" at 200. I'm sure the vast majority of shooters on here can group 1.5" in ideal conditions even with factory ammo. Although the take up on the black dot test is pretty disappointing.

 

[VSS]

The accuracy of my rifle is of no concern. It isn't going out stalking on its own! However, the accuracy of the combination of myself and my rifle concerns me greatly. All rifles and all people have their own idiosyncrasies, and familiarity born of plenty of practice (as opposed to tinkering) should give the desired result. However, the rifle is inanimate and can't self adjust. The person is the biggest variable in the partnership, not the rifle. It is us who maintain the rifle in good functional condition, adjust sights as necessary, choose appropriate ammo, make allowance for windage, estimate range, etc etc, so it stands to reason that any accuracy issues are far more likely to be our fault, not the rifle.
Having said that, even if a particular rifle is a bit quirky, the familiarity of frequent use will override that. As an example, a friend of mine has a cranky old air rifle. He's had it since he was a boy, and it was probably an antique when he got it. I've seen the same model in a vintage firearms collection. He routinely uses it to head shoot magpies on his garden bird table, but when I tried it I couldn't hit a 3 gallon bucket at 15 paces. In contrast, my daughter has a custom built pcp, a fine piece of precision engineering, with which she can knock a fly's eye out at extreme range. My mate with the cranky air rifle had a go with it and couldn't achieve the results that he gets with his own.

 

[Muir]

My mate is the general manager for Beretta and out of the several thousand tikka T3 he has sold which come with the 5 shot MoA guarantee using quality factory ammo and of the hundreds that have come back for further testing because the customer couldn't get them to group he said he's only replaced a handful. So yes, I'd expect 1" groups at 100 yards with a Tikka T3 using quality factory ammo otherwise they will replace your rifle if they can't get it to shoot as per the promise.

I believe this. I have five Tikka's in my cabinet: 223x2, 204, 308, 7-08, and two more that I load for in 30-06. They are all sub MOA rifles at worst.~Muir

 

[Subsonic]

Coming more from a target shooting background I have observed the following.

Match grade barrels produce better groups than standard barrels.
Factory / off the shelf rifles are supplied with standard barrels
Consistant 1/4 inch rifles are a rare commodity sub 1/2 inch is expected from a good quality sporting custom rifle (3 x 5 shot group average)
Achiveing consistantly small groups requires practice and is a perishable skill
Practising enough to know how grip, cheek weld and shoulder pressure effect your poi and group size is a significant advantage
5 shot groups provide statistically better data than 3 Shot groups
Focus on impoving the bad groups and good groups will naturally follow
Skills accuired while practicing on paper are not wasted in the field

SF

 

[Mungo]

Did you ever find out what was wrong with it?.

This directed at me?

Never worked out what was wrong with the Sako 75. Sold it to someone who rebarreled and rebedded it.

The Heym in .308 had unstable bedding and a narrow barrel channel that rubbed against the barrel on one side. After getting those fixed, it shoots very well, providing the shooter is any good (which I am often not).

 

[Tom D]

This directed at me?

Never worked out what was wrong with the Sako 75. Sold it to someone who rebarreled and rebedded it.

The Heym in .308 had unstable bedding and a narrow barrel channel that rubbed against the barrel on one side. After getting those fixed, it shoots very well, providing the shooter is any good (which I am often not).

Cheers, I just wondered. I have a rebarreled 75...

 

[Dalua]

How is one supposed to achieve "shot placement" without knowing where the bullet is going to.

You can't, of course - but 'knowing where it's going to' is a relative concept. If all you're doing is shooting into a 6" kill zone within 150yds, then a 2" group at 100yds from field positions would seem to tick the accuracy box.

There is nothing wrong in trying to improve accuracy at least you get more practice.

If you mean 'improve accuracy of the rifle/ammuntion combination' then I think I must disagree, because people tend to improve that by shooting from a rest, sitting at a bench - which is no kind of practice for the field at all unless that's the set-up from which you'll be shooting deer.
Once the rifle/ammuntion combination is shooting well enough for a particular application people would, as other have said also, be better avoiding the bench when on the range and shooting instead off-hand, off their sticks, sitting, prone off a bag etc. and seeing what they can do with the rifle and how that can be improved.
You could say that everyone should work their load to 0.25MOA as well: but realistically chasing even 0.5MOA at either the shooting-bench or the reloading-bench is not so helpful to most stakers as proper field-postion practice, I think.

If one doesn't shoot at targets also at differing ranges how is one supposed to know the capability of the setup including the shooter?

Definitely. With a rifle of demonstratedly-adequate accuracy, this also needs to be from field positions.

There is nothing wrong with higher mag scopes, who say's seeing something better and recognising wobble is bad? Modern scopes often have more mag range than older type scopes offering lower as well as higher mag.

There's nothing wrong with good scopes of any kind. However, I don't think one ever needs to see the target better than well-enough to shoot it cleanly and safely. Higher mag reduces field of view, the now-common SFP reticles reduce the ability of the shooter to estimate range by relative size of ret and target, and things on scopes which one has to twiddle can give rise to unneccessary distraction, error and mechanical frailty.

Some old school stalkers with their 4 mag scopes actually think they are the only ones shooting deer. Sorry lads...

4x sounds sensible for woodlands. On the hill, though, these people should move with the times and get 6x42s.