What Accuracy Do You Require from Your Deer Hunting Rifle?

[25 Sharps]

An inch or under does it for me, apart from the 45-70 which is around 2.5” but I wouldn’t push the range much past 100 with that.

 

[LesC]

I think the more accurate the set up is on the bench it will reduce error when shooting in the field. I always strive for 1" group when loading a new powder and bullet combination.

 

[Beretta V]

At 100 yards I can put 3 shots on an area the size of my thumb nail. I’ve hardly had to shoot anything over 150-160 yards and it’s always been dead on the shot.
When I tested it out to 250 yards it opened up but only to about 2” which I would still be overly happy with.
In the field there are more chances of pulling a shot and it’s why I try and use fieldcraft and stalk in closer to ensure a clean kill

 

[bogtrotter]

First round on a cold clean bore must be spot on with two more within 1/2-3/4 MOA group. Sako rifles do this consistently

The real question is how many stalkers can,the truth is not that many!

 

[Tim.243]

That’s because your rifle IS ZEROED anyway and you put all your bit into the shot that counts. Good place to be

Think the "pieces" reference are the bits cut off Phil

Time for a tune...

 

[John Gryphon]

Sako rifles do this consistently

But do Sako owners?

 

[Bavarianbrit]

MOT?

 

[jcampbellsmith]

I’d say that a rifle / ammo combination that can produce 2 MOA off the bench is adequate....

I don't agree. It depends what species you are pursuing, but small roe with carcass weights in single figures require much better accuracy. My objective is to produce carcasses that won't get marked down by the game dealer and to do this consistently requires an accurate rifle and practice.
Regards
JCS

 

[harrygrey382]

I don't agree. It depends what species you are pursuing, but small roe with carcass weights in single figures require much better accuracy. My objective is to produce carcasses that won't get marked down by the game dealer and to do this consistently requires an accurate rifle and practice.
Regards
JCS

The thing is - as the OP points out, a 2MOA rifle is only fractionally less accurate than a true 0.5MOA rifle (which is in itself a very rare thing - despite what the best 3 shot group says) in the field from realistic hunting positions. Unless you’re carting a bench and bags or lead sled around that 0.5MOA rifle doesn’t translate to a meaningful improvement to field accuracy in real world deer stalking situations.

 

[NullMac]

I would go hunting with anything <= 3/4.

Over the years it seems to me that factory ammo should do 3/4" at 100 yards off a bag on the bonnet. Handholds seem to do ~1/2" without messing about with seating depth etc. That's 308, 270 and CM. 243, 223 and other lower recoil rounds I would expect better even though there isn't really a practical benefit.

When you have been lying in a puddle with a thistle up yer bum for an hour you are not going to shoot wee groups. Better shots than me would say I should be aiming for 2 moa in field conditions so being a bit better than 1" gives a bit more confidence.

 

[Utectok]

Shooting deer is nothing like shooting targets. I think a 1 moa rifle gives you confidence but in the field it’s a lot about feel and experience. I mean every setup is different and conditions vary sometimes you think I’ll get that at 360m and other times your thinking this is a risky shot at 90m with the rifle all over the place and no time to get settled. I think the whole theoretical maths approach is not that helpful time in the field is. You get a feel for what’s achievable with your experience and equipment after a few 100 deer

 

[terrier1]

I expect the bullet to go where I put the cross.

 

[Tim.243]

I would go hunting with anything <= 3/4.

Over the years it seems to me that factory ammo should do 3/4" at 100 yards off a bag on the bonnet. Handholds seem to do ~1/2" without messing about with seating depth etc. That's 308, 270 and CM. 243, 223 and other lower recoil rounds I would expect better even though there isn't really a practical benefit.

When you have been lying in a puddle with a thistle up yer bum for an hour you are not going to shoot wee groups. Better shots than me would say I should be aiming for 2 moa in field conditions so being a bit better than 1" gives a bit more confidence.

Poor excuse but gives the game away...

 

[John Gryphon]

I`ve seen plenty of blokes turn up with the most wonderfully built accurate rifles that shoot 1/2 inch or better in a Lead Sled then go to water in the field when a decent deer fronts up and then they have shot very poorly. I still rag my main hunt mate about the "three in three weeks" (misses ha ha)

Btw the .220 swift is for head shooting rabbits at 200-300 yards not the magnums.

 

[old 30-06]

Having a rifle that is accurate is imperative. Its all about confidence. If you absolutely know that your rifle is "spot on" then you fully commit to the shot. It will help when you push out a bit further than normal. Target practice helps build this confidence. How accurate a rifle shoots is subjective, but shooting off a wing mirror, I like a one inch group at a hundred yards.

 

[VSS]

Shooting deer is nothing like shooting targets. I think a 1 moa rifle gives you confidence but in the field it’s a lot about feel and experience. I mean every setup is different and conditions vary sometimes you think I’ll get that at 360m and other times your thinking this is a risky shot at 90m with the rifle all over the place and no time to get settled. I think the whole theoretical maths approach is not that helpful time in the field is. You get a feel for what’s achievable with your experience and equipment after a few 100 deer

Absolutely this ^^^

 

[NullMac]

We might term this 4” at 100 yards practical field accuracy and is a combination of rifle accuracy and what we may term shooter accuracy.

If you are getting a 4 moa group then it isn't a simple as 1.5" from the gun therefore its 2.5" from the shooter that's not how random errors work.

This level of field accuracy (4” at 100 yards) is actually pretty good in typical field conditions.

No it's not. Better shooters than me would say you should be aiming (sic) for 2 moa in the field

So ignoring conditions like wind, you can keep your shots within a 12” circle at 300 yards with this rifle. The question arises as to whether you should seek more rifle accuracy, say a true 1 MOA rifle.

Obviously the dominant error is the shooter rather than the rifle so you would be trying to reduce the non-dominant error. You should try to improve shooting skills . Marginal improvements in rifle precision will be lost.

It turns out that given your shooter accuracy and under field conditions, this new 1 MOA rifle will now put your shots into a 3.84” circle at 100 yards (instead of the earlier 4” with your 1.5 MOA rifle)

That's not how it works. Using your terminology then the variation of the shooter error has to be combined with the variation in the rifle precision errors. These are probability driven effects so cannot be analysed by simple addition or subtraction. In practice some of your shots will be closer to the poa but the overall group will not actually change very much. You would need to run a monte carlo analysis a bit like the WEZ analysis tool does in the Applied Ballistics solver to get a true reflection in the reduction in group size. But as I said above, pick the biggest error first ie the Shooter.

Accuracy is a chain and if you reduce one error you do not necessarily get a better result as the improvement is overwhelmed by the dominant errors. In this case a marginal imporvement in the inherent rifle accuracy will be overwhelmed by the shooter error.

and will put your shots into a 11.52” circle at 300 yards (instead of the earlier 12” with your 1.5 MOA rifle). So you gain less than ½” smaller impact zone at 300 yards with the more accurate rifle. And just for fun, let’s consider a super-accurate ½ MOA rifle. What advantage do you have at 300 yards under typical field conditions? Well, it turns out that your earlier 12” circle at 300 yards with your 1.5 MOA rifle has been reduced to a 11.22” circle, so a net gain of about a ¾” smaller impact zone at 300 yards.

No, a crap shooter will still shoot a 4" group even with a 0.25 moa rifle. The rifles error will be dwarfed.

So the question is: will you benefit in a meaningful way with a 1 MOA or ½ MOA, rifle for deer hunting under typical field conditions? Seems to me that the answer is pretty clear. What do you think?

Learn to shoot is the answer.


It's the same point with reloading. People get lost down that rabbit hole trying to produce ever "better" ammo but the reduction in errors in the ammo are dwarfed by other errors in the system.

A similar analysis of the typical medium calibres for improved ballistics on the WEZ calculator will show that the improvement of hit probability from the shiny new cartridge isn't worth it unless you are shooting very small targets and can shoot small enough to reap the benefits. ie waste of time for stalking.

The WEZ calculator has saved me a fortune !

 

[NullMac]

Shooting deer is nothing like shooting targets. I think a 1 moa rifle gives you confidence but in the field it’s a lot about feel and experience. I mean every setup is different and conditions vary sometimes you think I’ll get that at 360m and other times your thinking this is a risky shot at 90m with the rifle all over the place and no time to get settled. I think the whole theoretical maths approach is not that helpful time in the field is. You get a feel for what’s achievable with your experience and equipment after a few 100 deer

Well it can be done at the table without pushing risky shots. And if you do it right it always says the biggest error is the shooter so go practice shooting in the real world.

 

[Merlyn]

.243. Cold barrel. Good bench rest with supports. Three shot group in a thumb nail at 100 yards does it for me.
If I miss or screw up in the field then it is down to me not the Tikka T3.

 

[Utectok]

Well it can be done at the table without pushing risky shots. And if you do it right it always says the biggest error is the shooter so go practice shooting in the real world.

Did I mention taking risky shots? I don’t think that’s what I meant at all. Sure do the maths if it makes you happy I’m just adding my experience that’s all.