What Accuracy Do You Require from Your Deer Hunting Rifle?

[wildfowler.250]

It’s an interesting point. I’ve got two rifles, both exact same apart from .270 and 6.5x55.

.270 is 3/4 of an inch at 100,(maybe a little better).
6.5x55 clover leafs.

.270 at 200 is about 2”. Out to 300 though my groups really open up. But that’s off a bipod, in heather, on a hill.


250 yards is my current max. I’m still unsure whether a new barrel, better scope etc would pull my groups in. I know a deer inside 250 is comfortably dead . But I do feel a lot of Americans think 400 yards across a canyon is reasonable and I do scratch my head as to why I’m nowhere near that. I have had the .270 second hand for 18 years so maybe time for a bore scope? It’s still faultless in the field though.

 

[VSS]

Out of interest, how do you zero your rifles?

Infrequently, and with difficulty!
I only zero after fitting a new scope or something like that. So that's 5 years ago for the 243, and 2-3 years ago for the 270 (although they both need rezeroing now, as I've just swapped the scopes over).
I don't know what it is, but I just go to pieces shooting paper targets. Maybe I put too much pressure on myself? Shooting deer is totally different. I'm completely "in the zone" mentally then. Perhaps it's because doing things with animals is what I do all day, every day, and have done all my life?
Strangely, I can often get better groups on paper under adverse conditions, such as wind, rain, sleet, hail, etc than I can under "ideal" conditions (as a few members on here who I've shot with could testify). Maybe because compensating for the conditions distracts me from the pressure of trying to shoot a small group?

Anyhoo, back to your question:
First I boresight, so I can be reasonably sure of getting my first shot on the paper.
Then I set up a target at 50yds. Why 50? Partly because it's less daunting, snd secondly because I have a handy spot at the bottom of the garden for doing so.
For my 270 I'm looking to be 0.75 inches high at 50yds. That gives me a comfortable MPBR of 30-230yds, according to my calculations. (Actually I think it's more like 20-250yds, but I like to allow some margin for error).
Next I fire one shot (using sandbag rests) and, without moving the rifle, I adjust the reticle to the desired point relative to the actual POI.
Then I fire a group of five shots. By this time I'll be completely stressed out, so it'll be a pretty awful group. But nevertheless, I make the necessary adjustments and fire another group. And so on. No matter how big the groups are, I stop when the centre of my group corresponds with where I want my shots to go. And then I pack up and put the rifle away.
A couple of days later (when I've stopped stressing about it) I go and shoot just one shot, off sticks at the same 50yd range, and it's spot on.
So I go stalking, which I find very calming!

As far as practice goes, shooting paper targets seems to be counterproductive for me. I just get worse with each successive shot. But I do spend a lot of time practicing rifle handling. I'm fortunate in having my own farm, so I can just carry my rifle around all day if I want to, until it becomes second nature. Plenty of practice getting it off my shoulder and onto sticks, negotiating obstacles, improvising shooting positions, dry firing, etc etc.
When it comes to things like head shots, it's confidence in handling the rifle that makes all the difference, imo.

I have heard of plenty of people who are outstandingly accurate on paper, but it all goes to pot when they're faced with a live deer. I'm just wired the other way around.

 

[kenbro]

I’m currently doing that with my “new” Twipple2, but they’re now in the centre of the bull
Kb.

Typo in there, meant to say
‘Not in the centre of the bull.’

 

[bowji john]

Two things that don’t lie when it comes to precision and accuracy

The bullet
Paper

We, the shooter, tend to be legends in our own minds

 

[Border]

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.

This. A widely available chambering also allows the option to buy target/ practice ammunition for training. Either that or 22LR or air rifle.

 

[25 Sharps]

L

Infrequently, and with difficulty!
I only zero after fitting a new scope or something like that. So that's 5 years ago for the 243, and 2-3 years ago for the 270 (although they both need rezeroing now, as I've just swapped the scopes over).
I don't know what it is, but I just go to pieces shooting paper targets. Maybe I put too much pressure on myself? Shooting deer is totally different. I'm completely "in the zone" mentally then. Perhaps it's because doing things with animals is what I do all day, every day, and have done all my life?
Strangely, I can often get better groups on paper under adverse conditions, such as wind, rain, sleet, hail, etc than I can under "ideal" conditions (as a few members on here who I've shot with could testify). Maybe because compensating for the conditions distracts me from the pressure of trying to shoot a small group?

Anyhoo, back to your question:
First I boresight, so I can be reasonably sure of getting my first shot on the paper.
Then I set up a target at 50yds. Why 50? Partly because it's less daunting, snd secondly because I have a handy spot at the bottom of the garden for doing so.
For my 270 I'm looking to be 0.75 inches high at 50yds. That gives me a comfortable MPBR of 30-230yds, according to my calculations. (Actually I think it's more like 20-250yds, but I like to allow some margin for error).
Next I fire one shot (using sandbag rests) and, without moving the rifle, I adjust the reticle to the desired point relative to the actual POI.
Then I fire a group of five shots. By this time I'll be completely stressed out, so it'll be a pretty awful group. But nevertheless, I make the necessary adjustments and fire another group. And so on. No matter how big the groups are, I stop when the centre of my group corresponds with where I want my shots to go. And then I pack up and put the rifle away.
A couple of days later (when I've stopped stressing about it) I go and shoot just one shot, off sticks at the same 50yd range, and it's spot on.
So I go stalking, which I find very calming!

As far as practice goes, shooting paper targets seems to be counterproductive for me. I just get worse with each successive shot. But I do spend a lot of time practicing rifle handling. I'm fortunate in having my own farm, so I can just carry my rifle around all day if I want to, until it becomes second nature. Plenty of practice getting it off my shoulder and onto sticks, negotiating obstacles, improvising shooting positions, dry firing, etc etc.
When it comes to things like head shots, it's confidence in handling the rifle that makes all the difference, imo.

I have heard of plenty of people who are outstandingly accurate on paper, but it all goes to pot when they're faced with a live deer. I'm just wired the other way around.

Sounds a right pain, but I do get it. I shoot with 2 clubs and often see situations where someone is having an off day, starts shouting badly and the more wound up they get about it the worse they shoot, has happened to me.

 

[KimE]

I sight in my rifle in a position close to hunting position from a bench, resting on my front hand (with a rest/pillow under the hand) no rear bag I realise I dont get as good groups as other do but its close to a real hunting position 1,5-2" at 100m works for me with a good bullet. For birds I sight in laying down with the rifle on my backpack the same as while hunting 1" are ok.

 

[South Pender]

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.

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

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.

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.


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


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 !

Some of what you have said is true and some, I believe, is not. You have correctly noted that shooter accuracy dominates the practical field accuracy equation. That is, after all, the main point I was trying to make. However, you are wrong on a couple of points. First, reducing the error on one of the two contributing factors (either rifle accuracy or shooter accuracy) does necessarily lead to an improvement in practical field accuracy. It's just that reducing rifle accuracy (that is, achieving smaller groups from the bench) contributes very little to the overall outcome whereas reducing shooter error (the dominant factor of the two) contributes much more--again the main point I was trying to make (and one with which you appear to agree).

Second, there are several ways to model overall field accuracy from a combination of rifle accuracy and shooter accuracy, these latter two components being statistically independent phenomena. I chose one model that I believe will yield accurate results. I have framed the equation in terms of average rifle and shooter accuracy, with the outcome (practical field accuracy) also as an average. I don’t see that a stochastic model is called for and haven’t conceptualized the issue this way, but I’ll look into the WEZ system.

Finally, you have stated that a 4" group under field conditions indicates a "crap shooter." I disagree. Certainly, if the shooter has a rock-solid rest in the field and can take his time and remain calm, a 4" hit diameter is poor, but, when I defined field conditions, I noted that this could include offhand shots in rough terrain with no external support. I indicated that this 4” accuracy should be seen as an average and therefore should include all field conditions a hunter might encounter.

 

[VSS]

L

Sounds a right pain, but I do get it. I shoot with 2 clubs and often see situations where someone is having an off day, starts shouting badly and the more wound up they get about it the worse they shoot, has happened to me.

I'd rather it was that way around than be ace at shooting paper and crap at shooting deer!

 

[Tim.243]

Some of what you have said is true and some, I believe, is not. You have correctly noted that shooter accuracy dominates the practical field accuracy equation. That is, after all, the main point I was trying to make. However, you are wrong on a couple of points. First, reducing the error on one of the two contributing factors (either rifle accuracy or shooter accuracy) does necessarily lead to an improvement in practical field accuracy. It's just that reducing rifle accuracy (that is, achieving smaller groups from the bench) contributes very little to the overall outcome whereas reducing shooter error (the dominant factor of the two) contributes much more--again the main point I was trying to make (and one with which you appear to agree).

Second, there are several ways to model overall field accuracy from a combination of rifle accuracy and shooter accuracy, these latter two components being statistically independent phenomena. I chose one model that I believe will yield accurate results. I have framed the equation in terms of average rifle and shooter accuracy, with the outcome (practical field accuracy) also as an average. I don’t see that a stochastic model is called for and haven’t conceptualized the issue this way, but I’ll look into the WEZ system.

Finally, you have stated that a 4" group under field conditions indicates a "crap shooter." I disagree. Certainly, if the shooter has a rock-solid rest in the field and can take his time and remain calm, a 4" hit diameter is poor, but, when I defined field conditions, I noted that this could include offhand shots in rough terrain with no external support. I indicated that this 4” accuracy should be seen as an average and therefore should include all field conditions a hunter might encounter.

Unless you have stalked in the UK (England) then you will not have come across muntjac a small deer who rarely keep still
larder weight adv 10kg Moose are like a Barn Door
UK fox for scale

 

[David Barker]

1.5 Inch high at 100 and plum with the centre cross. My gun is capable and on deer i shoot even better but don't ask my butcher hes a liar.

 

[25 Sharps]

I'd rather it was that way around than be ace at shooting paper and crap at shooting deer!

Absolutely!!

 

[Cranborne]

An inch at 100 yards is fine for me.

 

[John Gryphon]

If you can comfortably shoot your rifle off hand or with using a rest then you are in good stead to shoot sizes from rabbits to buffalo, even muntjac in a spotlight with a one moa rifle.

 

[ASl sniper.177]

If you can comfortably shoot your rifle off hand or with using a rest then you are in good stead to shoot sizes from rabbits to buffalo, even muntjac in a spotlight with a one moa rifle.

I reload for all my rifles,and I want a minimum of .250 moa at 100 yards,or better. Does that mean I'll shoot more than a rifle that shoots an inch at 100 yards,probably not. But,when you're faced with a really difficult shot at extended range,those small groups come into their own. From my own point of view,if my rifle,bullet and scope will shoot .250 moa or less,and it goes pear shaped,it's down to the nut behind the butt!

 

[John Gryphon]

and I want a minimum of .250 moa at 100 yards,or better.

Are those groupings with .300 mag and up calibres in 'standard' stalking rifles?

 

[cooksey]

Infrequently, and with difficulty!
I only zero after fitting a new scope or something like that. So that's 5 years ago for the 243, and 2-3 years ago for the 270 (although they both need rezeroing now, as I've just swapped the scopes over).
I don't know what it is, but I just go to pieces shooting paper targets. Maybe I put too much pressure on myself? Shooting deer is totally different. I'm completely "in the zone" mentally then. Perhaps it's because doing things with animals is what I do all day, every day, and have done all my life?
Strangely, I can often get better groups on paper under adverse conditions, such as wind, rain, sleet, hail, etc than I can under "ideal" conditions (as a few members on here who I've shot with could testify). Maybe because compensating for the conditions distracts me from the pressure of trying to shoot a small group?

Anyhoo, back to your question:
First I boresight, so I can be reasonably sure of getting my first shot on the paper.
Then I set up a target at 50yds. Why 50? Partly because it's less daunting, snd secondly because I have a handy spot at the bottom of the garden for doing so.
For my 270 I'm looking to be 0.75 inches high at 50yds. That gives me a comfortable MPBR of 30-230yds, according to my calculations. (Actually I think it's more like 20-250yds, but I like to allow some margin for error).
Next I fire one shot (using sandbag rests) and, without moving the rifle, I adjust the reticle to the desired point relative to the actual POI.
Then I fire a group of five shots. By this time I'll be completely stressed out, so it'll be a pretty awful group. But nevertheless, I make the necessary adjustments and fire another group. And so on. No matter how big the groups are, I stop when the centre of my group corresponds with where I want my shots to go. And then I pack up and put the rifle away.
A couple of days later (when I've stopped stressing about it) I go and shoot just one shot, off sticks at the same 50yd range, and it's spot on.
So I go stalking, which I find very calming!

As far as practice goes, shooting paper targets seems to be counterproductive for me. I just get worse with each successive shot. But I do spend a lot of time practicing rifle handling. I'm fortunate in having my own farm, so I can just carry my rifle around all day if I want to, until it becomes second nature. Plenty of practice getting it off my shoulder and onto sticks, negotiating obstacles, improvising shooting positions, dry firing, etc etc.
When it comes to things like head shots, it's confidence in handling the rifle that makes all the difference, imo.

I have heard of plenty of people who are outstandingly accurate on paper, but it all goes to pot when they're faced with a live deer. I'm just wired the other way around.

Same way as I do things my normal go to testing target a few days later is a lickblock bucket and shoot at the sheep on them I can't shoot a paper target to save my life but have shoot plenty of live quarry

 

[RCS Deer Management]

Are those groupings with .300 mag and up calibres in 'standard' stalking rifles?

Are you not a real man unless you shoot a .300 mag? You do seem obsessed with pointing out that in Australia you shoot bigger deer, in harder conditions, making more difficult shots with bigger rifles than Us brits could comprehend. Are you compensating for something?

 

[John Gryphon]

Are you not a real man unless you shoot a .300 mag? You do seem obsessed with pointing out that in Australia you shoot bigger deer, in harder conditions, making more difficult shots with bigger rifles than Us brits could comprehend. Are you compensating for something?

I asked a valid question and if you are unable to answer it pack your bag and head off to your tree stand in that ten acre field, btw take your 22 mag with you.

 

[CBH Australia]

As a hand loader I like my hunting rifles to be print groups of 1moa or better at 100 verified on the range over a bench.
On a good day I have had a hunting rifle clover leaf 3 shots.
The cartridges I load for range from .223 to .375H&H.

The 3 rifles that I consider my hunting rifles that I would "Stalk" with are .308, .280 Ackley improved and a .300wm.


The same rifles might also be used to despatch any feral animal that I can confidently take a shot on too. But they are all Tikka rifles configured for hunting purposes with scopes fit for purpose.