Rethink on Accuracy and Rifles
- Thread starter Heym SR20
- Start date
Not necessarily in a ghillie suit but yes in hill stalking you do crawl on your belly in to 200 yards or ideal!y considerably less and yes most shoot off a bipod or even just off their elbows but whatever the shot will be taken prone, if you have done your part the deer should be unaware of your presence,and the shot will be taken broadside you wait until it is can take sometime to move into that position but that's all part of the game.
As for two hours often considerably longer have often spent more than double that stalking into an old red stag in the rut
who maybe completely unaware of what's going on his mind on other things, but he is accompanied by thirty or forty hinds who are not so easily fooled avoiding all those eyes is the art of hill stalking.
Last edited:
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Of course it is if you've crawled in and are only 50 yards away, be difficult to miss!
Carlsen Highway
Active Member
In my opinion, after owning new and vintage rifles and reloading for all of them extensively, (and not being a tinkerer with rifles, just a reloader) it is not the rifles barrels or actions that are particularly improved, it is the ammunition that is better.
A .270 in 1958 that could only at best shoot a 2 inch group at 100 yards, today will shoot into less than an inch with no special difficulty - not because the rifle has aged well, but because modern ammunition is more accurate.
Particularly I think, it is the bullets that are better. Competition and modern manufacturing has resulted in much better made bullets today.
So saying I have never shot a deer in the field that I couldn't have killed outright with a rifle that shot no better than three inch groups at 100 yards. But I still test them at the range to get them to shoot as well as they will. After many years I have developed what I think of as realistic accuracy expectations for different rifles.
I will expect three inch groups at 100 yards and be satisfied with them from old .303s, .30/30's, .44/40's etc. I will still take them hunting if they shoot 4 inch groups at 100 yards. The type of rifle dictates its uses and the performance required.
A modern full bore bolt action I will be satisfied with anything under 1.5 inches. A rifle that shoots consistant 2 inch groups can still live at home if I like it.
A .222 or .223 I expect to get under an inch for five shots and will be disappointed if they don't.
A .270 in 1958 that could only at best shoot a 2 inch group at 100 yards, today will shoot into less than an inch with no special difficulty - not because the rifle has aged well, but because modern ammunition is more accurate.
Particularly I think, it is the bullets that are better. Competition and modern manufacturing has resulted in much better made bullets today.
So saying I have never shot a deer in the field that I couldn't have killed outright with a rifle that shot no better than three inch groups at 100 yards. But I still test them at the range to get them to shoot as well as they will. After many years I have developed what I think of as realistic accuracy expectations for different rifles.
I will expect three inch groups at 100 yards and be satisfied with them from old .303s, .30/30's, .44/40's etc. I will still take them hunting if they shoot 4 inch groups at 100 yards. The type of rifle dictates its uses and the performance required.
A modern full bore bolt action I will be satisfied with anything under 1.5 inches. A rifle that shoots consistant 2 inch groups can still live at home if I like it.
A .222 or .223 I expect to get under an inch for five shots and will be disappointed if they don't.
Last edited:
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Debates like this often become either circular, polarise, or even alienate members of the forum and that's a great shame. FWIW, I think that some of the more salient points have been missed, and not a little, by those on opposing sides of this debate because of entrenched views on "what makes a stalker" or why the prowess of shooting small groups matters. It isn't the groups size that matters; it's the shooter's ability and skill in the field and it's pretty much a given despite what some seasoned stalkers might think, that the more skilled shots are those who can with great confidence, and without (necessarily) the aid of sticks for example, can cleanly take an animal every shot, in all conditions to about 300 yards every time humanely.
There's a book that one or two of you may have come across called the Gun Digest "Shooter's Guide to Rifle Marksmanship" written by Peter Lessler, a very well respected hunter and a very well respected shot.
In that book, he teaches the basics of dying skills such as shooting using a loop sling from various field positions, shooting using field expedient rests (trees, rocks, your rucksack etc) and things like skill in range finding, reading the wind, and above all building competency for a human kill first shot every shot. He doesn't advocate long range sniping and concedes that those capable of pulling off such shots first time represent possibly one or two percent of all shooters, not the vast majority that think they can snipe from 500 yards with modern kit. It's not that easy now and never was.
He makes some very interesting observations, such as writing off shooters he witnesses making shots in the field using steadies such as bipod/tripod sticks who don't demonstrate in their shooting first and foremost that the aid is only acting as an extra steady. He's rather disingenuous towards such shots claiming that he can say with confidence straight away that "that guy cannot shoot". Foremost should be skill already honed to steady shooting technique, using slings or correct body position or both, without which some shooters just plonk a rifle on sticks such that the rifle see-saws over the fulcrum little steadier than if the rest weren't there at all! He notes positions taken on standing off-hand shots, particularly the positioning of the bolt hand for a rapid follow up shot, the cheek weld and stance for steadiness etc. These seem to me to be skills that many shooters just aren't developing these days, and there's no shortcut to gaining them other than practice.
A good competent shot, he claims, should off-hand, using a sling or other field expedient rest or from sitting in one of several prescribed steady positions, should shoot at least 2moa at 300 yards. I've seen some people shooting from bipods at the range who can't manage that!
He also states that in spite of technology, what happens when your rangefinder battery goes flat on the hill, or your annomometer battery does the same. There's some interesting and useful pointers such as the USA Army's WW11 guide "Marksmanship with the M1 rifle, Part 2" (google is your friend), to accurately determining wind strength and depending on cartridge, rule of thumb for windage allowance at 100, 200 and 300 yards. Determining the wind strength is essential once past 200 yards, and guesswork is not good enough unless informed. The aforementioned guide goes something like this: Take a piece of dry grass or a leaf and drop it from shoulder height. Point with a straight arm to where it falls. The horizontal angle from your body is wind direction, and the angle between your arm and your body divided by 4 is roughly the wind speed in mph. Then take the range to target in 100 yards (200 yards becomes "2" for example), multiply that by wind speed and divide by a constant which should be approx 10 (derived from wind drift resistance of a 150 grain hunting bullet, 30 cal) for cartridges such as the 30-06 or 270, about the same for .308, and about 7 for smaller lower BC cartridges such as the .223. the answer is your minutes of angle windage compensation for that cartridge at that range. If your batteries go flat, then you'll find little snippets like this invaluable guides, remembering to 3/4 values at 45 degrees or less to the angle of the line of sight, and half values for shallower angles such as 11, 1, 5 and 7 o'clock winds.
He also repeatedly mentions stalking and keeping downwind out of scent, so you see, all of this matters. Your rifle's condition and fit, your skill with not just the rifle on a still day plonking three shots into a bit of paper at 100 yards and saying "that'll do" because really, that will not do on it's own. The truth, as with all these debates, it ALL matters. Your rifle accuracy, the quality of your sights mounts, the fit of your rifle, your skill in using it first and foremost WITHOUT shooting aids like sticks to build muscle memory and knowledge of how to shoot steadily from prone, kneeling, sitting and standing, your ability to shoot using field expedient rests, then using sticks etc but applying them as additional steadies, not the sole arbiter of your ability. Shooting a good, accurate rifle that is capable with your limitations being taken into account without artificial rests, of 2moa at 300 yards in windy conditions matters. A rifle that cannot shoot into 6 or 7 inches at 300 yards has no place on a stalk at those distances. All of this matters EXCEPT being kit obsessed. Whether you use a Browning X-Bolt, a CZ, a Tikka, Mauser or Blaser is all pretty much irrelevant.
The only people, he claims, that ought to attempt shots further out, are those skilled and practiced LR shooters (yes, the paper punchers) who have real, demonstratable skill at longer distance shooting, be that in the field OR on a range since the skill sets are the same for good shots, and also for seasoned varmint hunters who can shoot the eyebrows off a ground squirrel at 400 yards first shot. I don't know too many people that can do that first shot every time.
In summary, perhaps the best advice comes from an American Army Colonel mentioned in the book...."If you can get steadier, GET steadier....if you can get closer GET closer".
There's little to be gained by anyone on tit for tat circular arguments, but I'm sure that both sides can see the sense in perhaps going back to basics a bit and conceding that both the rifle and the shooter's skill, both as a stalker AND a shot both matter equally.
There's a book that one or two of you may have come across called the Gun Digest "Shooter's Guide to Rifle Marksmanship" written by Peter Lessler, a very well respected hunter and a very well respected shot.
In that book, he teaches the basics of dying skills such as shooting using a loop sling from various field positions, shooting using field expedient rests (trees, rocks, your rucksack etc) and things like skill in range finding, reading the wind, and above all building competency for a human kill first shot every shot. He doesn't advocate long range sniping and concedes that those capable of pulling off such shots first time represent possibly one or two percent of all shooters, not the vast majority that think they can snipe from 500 yards with modern kit. It's not that easy now and never was.
He makes some very interesting observations, such as writing off shooters he witnesses making shots in the field using steadies such as bipod/tripod sticks who don't demonstrate in their shooting first and foremost that the aid is only acting as an extra steady. He's rather disingenuous towards such shots claiming that he can say with confidence straight away that "that guy cannot shoot". Foremost should be skill already honed to steady shooting technique, using slings or correct body position or both, without which some shooters just plonk a rifle on sticks such that the rifle see-saws over the fulcrum little steadier than if the rest weren't there at all! He notes positions taken on standing off-hand shots, particularly the positioning of the bolt hand for a rapid follow up shot, the cheek weld and stance for steadiness etc. These seem to me to be skills that many shooters just aren't developing these days, and there's no shortcut to gaining them other than practice.
A good competent shot, he claims, should off-hand, using a sling or other field expedient rest or from sitting in one of several prescribed steady positions, should shoot at least 2moa at 300 yards. I've seen some people shooting from bipods at the range who can't manage that!
He also states that in spite of technology, what happens when your rangefinder battery goes flat on the hill, or your annomometer battery does the same. There's some interesting and useful pointers such as the USA Army's WW11 guide "Marksmanship with the M1 rifle, Part 2" (google is your friend), to accurately determining wind strength and depending on cartridge, rule of thumb for windage allowance at 100, 200 and 300 yards. Determining the wind strength is essential once past 200 yards, and guesswork is not good enough unless informed. The aforementioned guide goes something like this: Take a piece of dry grass or a leaf and drop it from shoulder height. Point with a straight arm to where it falls. The horizontal angle from your body is wind direction, and the angle between your arm and your body divided by 4 is roughly the wind speed in mph. Then take the range to target in 100 yards (200 yards becomes "2" for example), multiply that by wind speed and divide by a constant which should be approx 10 (derived from wind drift resistance of a 150 grain hunting bullet, 30 cal) for cartridges such as the 30-06 or 270, about the same for .308, and about 7 for smaller lower BC cartridges such as the .223. the answer is your minutes of angle windage compensation for that cartridge at that range. If your batteries go flat, then you'll find little snippets like this invaluable guides, remembering to 3/4 values at 45 degrees or less to the angle of the line of sight, and half values for shallower angles such as 11, 1, 5 and 7 o'clock winds.
He also repeatedly mentions stalking and keeping downwind out of scent, so you see, all of this matters. Your rifle's condition and fit, your skill with not just the rifle on a still day plonking three shots into a bit of paper at 100 yards and saying "that'll do" because really, that will not do on it's own. The truth, as with all these debates, it ALL matters. Your rifle accuracy, the quality of your sights mounts, the fit of your rifle, your skill in using it first and foremost WITHOUT shooting aids like sticks to build muscle memory and knowledge of how to shoot steadily from prone, kneeling, sitting and standing, your ability to shoot using field expedient rests, then using sticks etc but applying them as additional steadies, not the sole arbiter of your ability. Shooting a good, accurate rifle that is capable with your limitations being taken into account without artificial rests, of 2moa at 300 yards in windy conditions matters. A rifle that cannot shoot into 6 or 7 inches at 300 yards has no place on a stalk at those distances. All of this matters EXCEPT being kit obsessed. Whether you use a Browning X-Bolt, a CZ, a Tikka, Mauser or Blaser is all pretty much irrelevant.
The only people, he claims, that ought to attempt shots further out, are those skilled and practiced LR shooters (yes, the paper punchers) who have real, demonstratable skill at longer distance shooting, be that in the field OR on a range since the skill sets are the same for good shots, and also for seasoned varmint hunters who can shoot the eyebrows off a ground squirrel at 400 yards first shot. I don't know too many people that can do that first shot every time.
In summary, perhaps the best advice comes from an American Army Colonel mentioned in the book...."If you can get steadier, GET steadier....if you can get closer GET closer".
There's little to be gained by anyone on tit for tat circular arguments, but I'm sure that both sides can see the sense in perhaps going back to basics a bit and conceding that both the rifle and the shooter's skill, both as a stalker AND a shot both matter equally.
Last edited:
Personally I do enjoy persuading my rifles to shoot tiny little groups and enjoy punching paper at much greater distances than I would shoot a deer at. It's a hobby and as far as I'm concerned part of the sport of shooting.
I also enjoy with the same rifles getting in as close as I can to a deer, even when it does involve a long slow crawl. Fieldcraft is as much as part of the sport as accurate reloading is as far as I'm concerned. I am very confident that I can hit a 6" target at 600 meters with a bit of breeze on, but I wouldn't get any pleasure in doing that in the field.
I shoot off bags when load developing, usually a bipod or sticks when hunting. Hardly ever shoot freehand in the UK but practice it. Never shoot sitting, never found a need for anything between bipod and sticks. I use a sling and forend hold whatever position I'm shooting in. Just good discipline as far as I'm concerned.
The subjects don't have to be mutually exclusive, we are allowed to enjoy all aspects of the sport if we want to. And we can all do it the way WE want to do it as long as it works for us and put's the deer down humanely.
I also enjoy with the same rifles getting in as close as I can to a deer, even when it does involve a long slow crawl. Fieldcraft is as much as part of the sport as accurate reloading is as far as I'm concerned. I am very confident that I can hit a 6" target at 600 meters with a bit of breeze on, but I wouldn't get any pleasure in doing that in the field.
I shoot off bags when load developing, usually a bipod or sticks when hunting. Hardly ever shoot freehand in the UK but practice it. Never shoot sitting, never found a need for anything between bipod and sticks. I use a sling and forend hold whatever position I'm shooting in. Just good discipline as far as I'm concerned.
The subjects don't have to be mutually exclusive, we are allowed to enjoy all aspects of the sport if we want to. And we can all do it the way WE want to do it as long as it works for us and put's the deer down humanely.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Agree 100%. I'm of the same opinion as to ammunition being the key.
Have a '63 M98 action Browning in .270 and a mid '60's Steyr Mannlicher in 8x68, apart from refinishing the stocks neither have been tweaked in any way. Both consistently shoot less than 1" in field conditions.
Similar threads
