What Accuracy Do You Require from Your Deer Hunting Rifle?

[Klenchblaize]

First cold/dry shot has to be on the money. Thereafter it's nice to have them touching but not essential in a deer rifle unless you're also shooting sporting rifle competitions. Whatever they are!

K

 

[Tim.243]

You're not odd! If you put a deer head out at 100 yards,you would probably be chilled because it's what you are used to. But,when shooting at an inch or less bull at 100 yards,it looks really small. I had the same problem when trying to shoot a 4 pint milk bottle at 1000 yards. I had to forget it was a thousand yards away,and just concentrate on my hold,breathing and trigger control. The Same applies to any range.

 

[Nickb]

I wouldn't class a rifle as zeroed if you cant get an inch grouping at 100yds. I am not the best on paper but can achieve that with factory ammo.

One shot check does me

 

[Klenchblaize]

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

I have to agree and disagree as it depends what you're evaluating: Is it 'A' the rifle's ability to group within 1MOA at 100 yards if you remove all shooter error? Or 'B' the shooter's ability to 'hold' that perfect aim under feild and buck fever-like conditions?

K

 

[ASl sniper.177]

I have to agree and disagree as it depends what you're evaluating: Is it 'A' the rifle's ability to group within 1MOA at 100 yards if you remove all shooter error? Or 'B' the shooter's ability to 'hold' that perfect aim under feild and buck fever-like conditions?

K

Pick the bones out of this! A bog standard Bergara b14 Hunter in 6.5 Creedmoor apart from a trigger upgrade to a triggertech unit. Bullets used were 120 grain Eld-m factory Match. The orange bull was to check zero after one of my dogs knocked my rifle over. Range,60 yards,3 shot group. The other group is the same rifle and bullet combination,on a different day at 100 yards.

 

[South Pender]

After some 105 posts, it seems that my main point in starting this thread has perhaps become obscured. More directly, it is that having a 1 MOA or better rifle buys you almost nothing when considering practical field accuracy. More specifically, a 1.5 MOA rifle will do essentially as well in the hunting fields as a 1 MOA rifle when you factor in all the aspects of hunting that eliminate bench-level accuracy—uneven and unstable terrain, obstructions that require shooting offhand or from less-than-ideal positions with no solid rest, fatigue, shortness of breath after physical exertion, sudden excitement upon seeing the game animal, a sighting that may last just a few seconds, etc., etc. So instead of obsessing over getting your 1.5 MOA rifle shooting tighter groups or acquiring a new rifle that will, the key to improving practical hunting-field accuracy is to forget about benchrest accuracy, sight-in your rifle to the desired range, and then practice (a lot) on your range shooting from field positions and under simulated field conditions.

It’s been stated that knowing that one’s rifle is capable of gilt-edge accuracy instills confidence in the shooter, and there may be something to that; and shooting tiny groups off the bench is fun, but it will make next-to-no difference to your performance in the field under rough field conditions.

Here’s an article I've just run across that discusses this. In this article, the author, Jon Sundra, uses the term “hunting accuracy” for what I’ve labelled “practical field accuracy.”

Hunting Accuracy: How Much Do You Need?

 

[jcampbellsmith]

After some 105 posts, it seems that my main point in starting this thread has perhaps become obscured. More directly, it is that having a 1 MOA or better rifle buys you almost nothing when considering practical field accuracy. More specifically, a 1.5 MOA rifle will do essentially as well in the hunting fields as a 1 MOA rifle when you factor in all the aspects of hunting that eliminate bench-level accuracy—uneven and unstable terrain, obstructions that require shooting offhand or from less-than-ideal positions with no solid rest, fatigue, shortness of breath after physical exertion, sudden excitement upon seeing the game animal, a sighting that may last just a few seconds, etc., etc. So instead of obsessing over getting your 1.5 MOA rifle shooting tighter groups or acquiring a new rifle that will, the key to improving practical hunting-field accuracy is to forget about benchrest accuracy, sight-in your rifle to the desired range, and then practice (a lot) on your range shooting from field positions and under simulated field conditions.

It’s been stated that knowing that one’s rifle is capable of gilt-edge accuracy instills confidence in the shooter, and there may be something to that; and shooting tiny groups off the bench is fun, but it will make next-to-no difference to your performance in the field under rough field conditions.

Here’s an article that discusses this. In this article, the author, Jon Sundra, uses the term “hunting accuracy” for what I’ve labelled “practical field accuracy.”

Hunting Accuracy: How Much Do You Need?

I still don't agree. Jon Sundra wasn't shooting deer with larder weights of less than 10kg and he wasn't having the carcasses graded and marked down by picky butchers who then pay slowly. Without practice and a very good rifle, I'm going to get next to nothing from the game dealer.
Regards
JCS

 

[South Pender]

I still don't agree. Jon Sundra wasn't shooting deer with larder weights of less than 10kg and he wasn't having the carcasses graded and marked down by picky butchers who then pay slowly. Without practice and a very good rifle, I'm going to get next to nothing from the game dealer.
Regards
JCS

The size of the game animal has nothing to do with a hunter's practical field accuracy. If, under rough field conditions, the best he can do is a 4" impact circle at 100 yards, that will be true when hunting small animals as well as larger ones. Reducing his benchrest groups to 1.0" from 1.50" will reduce that 4" impact circle at 100 yards to about 3.84"--a truly trivial improvement. That was the point I wanted to make. The way to be more effective on tiny deer like muntjac or small roe deer is to (a) improve your marksmanship from field positions and (b) get closer to your target. Futzing over tiny benchrest groups is, for the most part, wasted time.

 

[ASl sniper.177]

I still don't agree. Jon Sundra wasn't shooting deer with larder weights of less than 10kg and he wasn't having the carcasses graded and marked down by picky butchers who then pay slowly. Without practice and a very good rifle, I'm going to get next to nothing from the game dealer.
Regards
JCS

I have to disagree with you, jcampbellsmith. Confirming your rifle and bullets ability at 100 yards. If you're only chest shooting deer,then maybe,you have a point. But,if you shoot a dual purpose rifle,as I do,on foxes and deer,a really accurate rifle comes into its own when shooting at extended ranges. I can't risk a fox living a few extra days when it could kill lots of Partridge or pheasants,in the mean time. I know it's not comparing apple's with apple's,but some people have to deal with multiple problems.

 

[Tim.243]

The size of the game animal has nothing to do with a hunter's practical field accuracy. If, under rough field conditions, the best he can do is a 4" impact circle at 100 yards, that will be true when hunting small animals as well as larger ones. Reducing his benchrest groups to 1.0" from 1.50" will reduce that 4" impact circle at 100 yards to about 3.84"--a truly trivial improvement. That was the point I wanted to make. The way to be more effective on tiny deer like muntjac or small roe deer is to (a) improve your marksmanship from field positions and (b) get closer to your target. Futzing over tiny benchrest groups is, for the most part, wasted time.

After 108 post we have yet to see any vids or pictures from the op.... only type font
Fallow Buck 140 yds .243 95gn Rem 700 Digital scope.

 

[KimE]

I think if someone can only achieve 4moa groups under field conditions then there is something wrong. They need to practice under field conditions until they improve. A lot of people are saying there is a vast difference between shooting targets and shooting deer. I disagree, the lead up to the shot might be different and the consequences if it goes wrong are more of an issue but the technique of the shot should be as near as possible the same. Platform, breathing, trigger control and follow through.

Field condititions are as example standing shooting within 12" at a moose sholder at 100m. Or sitting/kneeling shooting at a roedeer at 100m with your elbow as rest. Shooting at a walking deer at 40m range in a 5m gap between trees.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

All these tiny groups mean diddly squat in the field
Its a field rifle.
Practice field shooting
Field positions
Fields distances
Indeterminate distances
First round hits

Deer sized target
You should be able to hit a clay pigeon sozed target (or the centre of one if you want to step it up) at any range you expect to engage targets and any position you expect to use, in any of the conditions you will be out in.

If you cant do that you need to get closer and practice more

Very very few rifles are worse than MOA with appropriate ammo

Where the wheels come off is when the operator is asked to replicate the 100m “1moa” at further distances….

 

[User00056]

I have absolutely no idea how theoretically accurate my rifles are. As @VSS states though, as long as I manage to put a bullet into the few square inches I'm aiming at, and the result is a deer dead on the ground, I'm happy. I'd actually be really interested to see just what my rifles are capable of, but I just have no interest in range work. I guess that's why I just use factory rounds in my .223 and .308, and stick to reloading what I know works in my .270. I think the variables involved when it comes to where, when, and how the shot is taken are too great to rely purely on the knowledge that your rifle can cloverleaf in ideal conditions.

For example, I shot a buck this evening. First time at live quarry off quad sticks, and in wheat at around 130 yards. I had to take a neck shot, and the bullet broke the bucks neck perfectly. Could I now tell you exactly where I'd aimed? Not on your life. There were far too many other things going through my mind, but the point is confidence in yourself and your rifle has a greater impact on performance than knowing what your rifle can do on paper. At least to my mind

 

[rem284]

I just don't get the talk of rifle 1.5 moa plus shooter moa. You surely aren't going to know one from the other

 

[South Pender]

fter 108 post we have yet to see any vids or pictures from the op.... only type font
Fallow Buck 140 yds .243 95gn Rem 700 Digital scope.

View attachment 374835

Not sure just what pic or video would add anything to this discussion. Maybe the attached pic will help a little--showing the impact coverage at 300 yards for three rifles, 1.5 MOA, 1.0 MOA, and .50 MOA. Should make clear just how very little a 1 MOA rifle outperforms a 1.5 MOA rifle under realistic field conditions.

 

[rem284]

Not sure just what pic or video would add anything to this discussion. Maybe the attached pic will help a little--showing the impact coverage at 300 yards for three rifles, 1.5 MOA, 1.0 MOA, and .50 MOA. Should make clear just how very little a 1 MOA rifle outperforms a 1.5 MOA rifle under realistic field conditions.

I don't fully understand what point you are trying to make. When I shoot at a target at 100m, I normally get between 1/2 to 3/4 inch groups. I also check occasionally at extended range. Normally at 300m myself with the rifle achieve 1.5 inch groups. If you are suggesting that the attached diagrams is acceptable then I would not shoot

 

[Klenchblaize]

After 108 post we have yet to see any vids or pictures from the op.... only type font
Fallow Buck 140 yds .243 95gn Rem 700 Digital scope.

View attachment 374835

@ https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/members/tim-243.6621/ Trophy Hunter!

K

 

[ASl sniper.177]

I don't fully understand what point you are trying to make. When I shoot at a target at 100m, I normally get between 1/2 to 3/4 inch groups. I also check occasionally at extended range. Normally at 300m myself with the rifle achieve 1.5 inch groups. If you are suggesting that the attached diagrams is acceptable then I would not shoot

If I want a group that big l'll use a shotgun. Better to have the ability to shoot a small group and not need it,rather need it but don't have it.

 

[Tim.243]

Not sure just what pic or video would add anything to this discussion. Maybe the attached pic will help a little--showing the impact coverage at 300 yards for three rifles, 1.5 MOA, 1.0 MOA, and .50 MOA. Should make clear just how very little a 1 MOA rifle outperforms a 1.5 MOA rifle under realistic field conditions.

The old saying " A picture paints a thousand words" works for me, I zero/check off my sticks as those are my field conditions,
all well and good sitting on a bench knocking holes in a piece of paper but when a shot you might have been waiting a year for presents it's self then "you" are the fly in the ointment with a list of things as long as your arm to pull the shot from your bench checked rifle.

@Klenchblaize

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Its great to see everyone is so precise and accurate all the time in the field and in practice

Please come to my range
We have some 0.5 MOA targets that haven’t been hit yet
Some are inside 200m, some are all the way out to 1000m

Yet to attend a range day full of stalkers and come away with firsthand evidence of them all (or any significant proportion of them) shooting 0.5moa….