Can handloading drastically change a rifle's accuracy? What is the expected accuracy from the typical hunting factory load?

[Morkai]

What kind of answer is this? I almost never take pics of the targets because i absolutely don't care about groups on paper other than for testing rifle to be later used in the field. If i take a pic is just to show it to my brother. I have only this one on hand right now. 100 m, geco softpoints out of my bergara b14 hunter.

I don't get why you are so surprised that someone can actually shoot his rifles. I didn't think that shooting a rifle decently, especially off a bench, was something so unbelievable.

Ignore it, and ignore the 1000 words in post #19 that could have been one sentence.

You'll get the answers you are after.

 

[randello88]

I am not at all surprised after just approaching towards 40 years rifle shooting competitively in many disciplines from FT from its early starts through most things rifle out to 1000 and some . I have just never heard a gun described as such as a third of moa .
My 22 rf did eight shots at 100 yards through the exact same hole , not more than a couple of tho' of edge nipped . Lapua subsonic . It could so easily have been ten but the truth is i thought i was missing after the first shot off paper and a got someone to spot me on the sand ( yeah both hit same place ). The rifle i still have of course 20 plus years on a second hand CZ 452 varmint .
My point is really is i dont say that old CZ is "0.00?" and we do not bother calling it anything but accurate and is still expected to shoot . However well shot and it is respectable we do not generally term a rifles accuracy 1/3 moa we would maybe say " sub half moa " , " sub quarter " or just "well under one moa accurate" . Why ? well because we need to do that almost every time and repeat that performance std a lot further out , this is why precision bench rest shooting goes to average group size of a number of shot targets. 20 plus years on i am very glad i haven't been describing my 22 LR as zero moa. what we tend towards is my rifle is capable of " its group average of .." on a good day and that is sub 1moa , sub 1/2 moa , sub 1/4 moa . Some times its just a one off like my eight shot hole shot with the .22 and sometimes conditions prevailing mean we need to accept less and know what a good result looks like ( on average )
To do otherwise we set ourselves up for a fall how most would describe your group would be sub moa group and if it does that practically to order in fair conditions the gun is sub moa , we dont fraction it up more using 1/3 moa purely because MOA is about one 60th of a single degree of angle without 3/4 moa being mentioned - pretty amazing enough really when repeated
Sometimes I am a bit blunt for that please except my apology

No problem man, that rifle shoots that load, in range conditions, very well. It's incredibly repeatable. Hot barrel, cold barrel, summer, winter, rain. It shoots very well. I was just lucky with that partocular rifle, a bergara b14 hunter in 308

 

[paul o']

Yes .. most factory Can produce a buckshot group on target and being within a 4" or less after all most are happy with a 2" group for a 100yrd Hart shot. This is why I reload as I required .5 or better knowing if I need a tight shot I have it to hand already built in .

 

[Bowland blades]

It's been said already, but putting a "good" powder, primer, case and bullet combination together, with a high degree of consistency will generally produce accurate ammunition. There are a lot of variables to consider, twist rate etc. The main one being the trigger squeezer! If he can't shoot in the first place......
The best ammo in the world won't miraculously turn a poor shot into a benchrest champion. Just my opinion of course.

It is perhaps best to say there are more MOA or better rifles produced today than folks that have the ability to shoot them to their best " consistently " Lucky we can make good with 2 moa or a fair amount more out to what most will call maximum range on deer

 

[randello88]

It is perhaps best to say there are more MOA or better rifles produced today than folks that have the ability to shoot them to their best " consistently " Lucky we can make good with 2 moa or a fair amount more out to what most will call maximum range on deer

The fact is that i shoot roes up to 350, maybe 400 meters. I am comfortable with 3/4 MOA (repeatably), not less. I think I can get there with that rifle, i just shoot 30 rounds or so through it. The fact is that i need a decently aerodynamic bullet, not a soft point for this. I will try again with winchester ballistic silvertips for sure. Any other bullet that you guys found to be accurate with most rifles? For example, I have always had rifles shoot well rws dk but again they are not as aerodynamic as I want

 

[Foxyboy43]

The fact is that i shoot roes up to 350, maybe 400 meters. I am comfortable with 3/4 MOA (repeatably), not less. I think I can get there with that rifle, i just shoot 30 rounds or so through it. The fact is that i need a decently aerodynamic bullet, not a soft point for this. I will try again with winchester ballistic silvertips for sure. Any other bullet that you guys found to be accurate with most rifles? For example, I have always had rifles shoot well rws dk but again they are not as aerodynamic as I want

Can I ask why and where you have to shoot roe at those distances?

 

[randello88]

Can I ask why and where you have to shoot roe at those distances?

Of course you can ask! I have been recently assigned to a new hunting district and, even if I hunted all the last year with very good results with a rifle with a range of 220 meters, i found that in this district a rifle with a couple hundreds meters of additional range would be very useful. The rifle i am using now is setup for woody and swampy areas in the northern italian plains and it's perfect for stalking in the woods, this one will be used also in the hills and mountains where a 300 meters shot is very common for example. I don't like random holdovers so this rifle is a bit heavier and more set for longer shots, with a more suitable scope and stock.

 

[Drum123]

A friend of mine has an old .223 that was a bit of scatter gun with hornady factory ammo. We worked up a load and when working out the jamb length it was a piece longer than the factory. I suspect it has some throat erosion, the home loads brought back to grouping more than well enough for his needs.

I never buy factory ammunition as a rule but I do book down 200 ,223 rem factory for work use. I couldn't get my normal Norma load so got some Remington 50 grain accutip.They were gash. Pushing 2 inch groups . Not really useable and I had bought 200 . In the end I popped them all out in a bullet puller ,not completely out so neck tension wasn't a problem .I then reseated 40 thou longer
Now shoot ,consistently under an inch. Proud as punch. I did try doing the same with some 90 grain sako in the 243 and that didn't work at all.

 

[NP435]

Now for some pot stirring, after working up a load for first safety then accuracy I will almost never shoot it on paper ever again. Field accuracy in my definition is did you. hit the target as intended. If so all is well, if not why not? could the wind have been a factor, flinch or did the fever of seeing a magnificent animal in your sights cause some heartrate increase and you shot while not either on target or in the guts not in the heart lung area? There are more ways to screw up shot than I will cover.

 

[Bowland blades]

The fact is that i shoot roes up to 350, maybe 400 meters. I am comfortable with 3/4 MOA (repeatably), not less. I think I can get there with that rifle, i just shoot 30 rounds or so through it. The fact is that i need a decently aerodynamic bullet, not a soft point for this. I will try again with winchester ballistic silvertips for sure. Any other bullet that you guys found to be accurate with most rifles? For example, I have always had rifles shoot well rws dk but again they are not as aerodynamic as I want

The deciding factor at a roe at that range is not going to be a really high BC bullet , it going to be the nut behind the butt . Reading when a shot is on or not on is paramount , are your Roe deer way out in the fields where you have no chance of stalking in ? or something else ?

 

[Foxyboy43]

Of course you can ask! I have been recently assigned to a new hunting district and, even if I hunted all the last year with very good results with a rifle with a range of 220 meters, i found that in this district a rifle with a couple hundreds meters of additional range would be very useful. The rifle i am using now is setup for woody and swampy areas in the northern italian plains and it's perfect for stalking in the woods, this one will be used also in the hills and mountains where a 300 meters shot is very common for example. I don't like random holdovers so this rifle is a bit heavier and more set for longer shots, with a more suitable scope and stock.

Thank you.
Interesting difference it seems between how Roe are stalked here, even on the glen - in order to get as close as possible before taking the shot as opposed to the much longer shot taken in your place. Is it that ground conditions prevent getting in closer or are long shots just the norm?

 

[VSS]

What kind of answer is this? I almost never take pics of the targets because i absolutely don't care about groups on paper other than for testing rifle to be later used in the field. If i take a pic is just to show it to my brother. I have only this one on hand right now. 100 m, geco softpoints out of my bergara b14 hunter.

I don't get why you are so surprised that someone can actually shoot his rifles. I didn't think that shooting a rifle decently, especially off a bench, was something so unbelievable.

If I could shoot like that I wouldn't be worrying about much else. I'd just keep on doing more of the same

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Have had several rifles that hated some am and were 3-4moa but 0.5 with home loads
Too many variables to make any predictions n that basis though

 

[Koenig]

In my VERY limited experience of home loading it’s a matter of making very minor adjustments in all components and especially bullet seating until the planets align with your rifle. For example a mate gets very tight groups in his Tikka T3 with said load whereas I get 1MOA ish - the same as cheap PPU. Unless you shoot a lot homeloading seems more effort than it’s worth to me anyway given the price of powder. I’ll now put my tin hat on……..

 

[Bowland blades]

In my VERY limited experience of home loading it’s a matter of making very minor adjustments in all components and especially bullet seating until the planets align with your rifle. For example a mate gets very tight groups in his Tikka T3 with said load whereas I get 1MOA ish - the same as cheap PPU. Unless you shoot a lot homeloading seems more effort than it’s worth to me anyway given the price of powder. I’ll now put my tin hat on……..

The powder is cheap if you look at how much the actual individual charge costs . In fact look at the cost of a primer , powder and bullet and consider that without annealing brass is good for 20 firings ( depending that last one on your chamber ) . Of course you can also make economy rounds , cast lead , lower fill of different powder etc . One factor many dont think of is the cost of travel to pick up factory I know some of my Scottish mates take quite a long drive to Tain .

 

[randello88]

The deciding factor at a roe at that range is not going to be a really high BC bullet , it going to be the nut behind the butt . Reading when a shot is on or not on is paramount , are your Roe deer way out in the fields where you have no chance of stalking in ? or something else ?

I am very confident up to that distance. You said something very very very true. Shots taken at a relatively small target past the usual 200 meters and especially after 300 meters have to go through very strict esclusion criteria. Very slow wind, very good rest, no cant of the rifle, good visibility, very accurate rangefinder reading, calm animal, etc.

I get as clise as 15 meters sometime and, if i can, i always get close. Taking several animals every year and not wanting to harvest them always in the same areas of my district, sometimes i have to move to some areas where there are many animals but a shot between 300 and 400 meters is often required.
Of course, there is a long work before these hunt which goes way beyond finding a good load and zeroing the rifle at its mpbr. Extensive testing of dope and scope tracking is necessary. If i take the responsability to shoot an animal and take his life, i make sure to recover it in order not to get it wasted and, more importantly not to make it suffer. A high (or at least not below average) bc bullet is gonna help in 3 regards: 1) flatter trajectory (the least important in my opinion) 2) less wind drift 3) more energy downrange

 

[Utectok]

I’m No expert but in recent years from bitter experience I have found 95% accuracy is dependent on the the basics being in order. Good quality rifle and barrel. Good quality bullets and primer and powder. The fiddling with reloading stuff has minimal effect on accuracy and is hard to detect in normal testing. I get competitive shooters may slight improve their scores and confidence by fine tuning but they start with amazing guns and equipment and then get almost undetectable improvement from messing with the load.
That said some rifles won’t shoot poor quality ammunition and others will. I’ve had bullets group at 5” then tried another bullets at it was 1” but that was poorly made bullets in my view.

 

[randello88]

If I could shoot like that I wouldn't be worrying about much else. I'd just keep on doing more of the same

I genuinely tought that the difficult part was being accurate in unsteady positions, not shooting accurately when the rifle is basically still, leaning on my two caldwell sandbags.

I have always found an accurate load to be very accurate and an inaccurate one to be inaccurate. If you shoot the accurate one the holes appear where you want and very close to each other, otherwise bullet holes don't appear where you want. I also read many suggestions on shooting foundamentals but, maybe 10 years ago, i found out that, the more i focus on them consciously ("remember the follow through", "remember to hold the rifle the same as you did for the last shot"), the worse i shoot. When i just shoot as it comes natural to me, i shoot well enough for me. Maybe all this is because i started shooting air rifles since i was maybe 6 or 7 years old and i never stopped swinging lead downrange ahah!

My brother is the same, actually this is interesting and i never talked about this. Me and my brother are more or less the same height, same body shape, same fitness. He find himself good with much shorter stocks (10-15 cm shorter!) with scoped rifles.. he has a totally different way of shooting than mine. He also put the support hand very close to the magazine when shooting a hunting rifle off hand. Overall he NEVER wanted to know anything about shooting foundamentals even when i tried to talk to him about what people says are the rules to shoot accurately. He never bothered. He zeroes his rifles using targets like rocks and coca cola cans but one time we went to the range to check the drop of his bergara ba13 in 308 (16 inch barrel i think) and he printed a 0.5 MOA 3 shots group from a cold bore at 200 meters. I suggested to try a couple other groups just to confirm the zero and he said "nah, it's good"!

I see that many shooters at the range can't take advantage of the accuracy of their rifles but i think they 1) don't feel to need to improve it for their uses 2) started shooting when they was too old and, in order to get proficient with their rifles, it takes much more time and effort.. just like playing the guitar or any sport

 

[randello88]

I’m No expert but in recent years from bitter experience I have found 95% accuracy is dependent on the the basics being in order. Good quality rifle and barrel. Good quality bullets and primer and powder. The fiddling with reloading stuff has minimal effect on accuracy and is hard to detect in normal testing. I get competitive shooters may slight improve their scores and confidence by fine tuning but they start with amazing guns and equipment and then get almost undetectable improvement from messing with the load.
That said some rifles won’t shoot poor quality ammunition and others will. I’ve had bullets group at 5” then tried another bullets at it was 1” but that was poorly made bullets in my view.

Some people here said that they experienced the opposite. Same rifle, premium hunting ammo, factory loads grouping very bad, handloads grouping very well

Why the hell on forums you always get opposite opinions and even experiences?

 

[Bowland blades]

I am very confident up to that distance. You said something very very very true. Shots taken at a relatively small target past the usual 200 meters and especially after 300 meters have to go through very strict esclusion criteria. Very slow wind, very good rest, no cant of the rifle, good visibility, very accurate rangefinder reading, calm animal, etc.

I get as clise as 15 meters sometime and, if i can, i always get close. Taking several animals every year and not wanting to harvest them always in the same areas of my district, sometimes i have to move to some areas where there are many animals but a shot between 300 and 400 meters is often required.
Of course, there is a long work before these hunt which goes way beyond finding a good load and zeroing the rifle at its mpbr. Extensive testing of dope and scope tracking is necessary. If i take the responsability to shoot an animal and take his life, i make sure to recover it in order not to get it wasted and, more importantly not to make it suffer. A high (or at least not below average) bc bullet is gonna help in 3 regards: 1) flatter trajectory (the least important in my opinion) 2) less wind drift 3) more energy downrange

My own 1,2,3 are 1. Accuracy 2. Terminal performance on the beast 3. with the ability to exit the other side
The rest i can deal with shot selection within my personal ability
1. Without great accuracy we are on the back foot to start
2. Without reliable terminal bullet performance , we might not do the damage enough to kill swiftly
3. Without an exit hole we will have a poor to none existent blood trail and we will not get that sucking chest wound we require if its a Lung shot missing the hart
Wind and trajectory can be managed, with practice and stalking . In truth under perfect conditions i could likely double my range maximum but then time of flight will catch me out so i don't! But I can cut my range limit right back and not suffer poor results- if its blowing real hard as the stalk is easier!
Just my personal take on it mind