What Accuracy Do You Require from Your Deer Hunting Rifle?

[HonestJohn]

Do much long distance shooting do you?

You always lay at a slight angle. At least, that’s how I was taught

 

[VSS]

You always lay at a slight angle. At least, that’s how I was taught

That's what I used to think. And then I was taught differently, on a course run by Bradley Bourner. The correct procedure, apparently, is to get in a straight line behind your rifle. Most people don't, though.

 

[HonestJohn]

That's what I used to think. And then I was taught differently, on a course run by Bradley Bourner. The correct procedure, apparently, is to get in a straight line behind your rifle. Most people don't, though.

Different schools I guess. I was taught by an ex Danish army sharp shooter and later championship winner - this was 30 years ago, maybe things change

 

[kenbro]

I was out of Sako, box was federals only. I forgot to bring them to Ed’s will bring when I see you at some point

It’s not causing me any insomnia .
Cheers, Ken.

 

[zambezi]

 

[timbrayford]

By accuracy in the title I’m referring to the kind of pure rifle accuracy you expect to get from your hunting rifle when shooting it off the bench with good front rest and rear support—in other words taking the human element out of it as much as possible. With all the talk and advertising surrounding 1 MOA accuracy (with this guaranteed from some rifle makers), is this the accuracy standard you require from your hunting rifles?

It might be informative to look at a typical hunting rifle scenario. When in the field shooting from typical field positions (kneeling, sitting, offhand) in usual field conditions (uneven terrain, the possibility of high grass or other obstructions, being out of breath, being excited when you see game, the need to get a shot off quickly, etc.), let's say that you are able on average to keep all your shots within a 4.0” circle at 100 yards, and this is with a rifle that gives 1.5” accuracy at 100 yards off the bench while well supported—so with what we may call a 1.5 MOA rifle. 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. This level of field accuracy (4” at 100 yards) is actually pretty good in typical field conditions. 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.

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) 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.

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?

4" circle @ 100 yards under field conditions is barely adequate

 

[Ronin]

Haven’t read through all the posts - but to answer the OP

My rifles all produce sub half MOA and in some cases a lot less (adequate accuracy, is the term I use)

What matters from my perspective is practical application of that in the field

I practice (not as often as I should) and using the Kraft system of training (seated, standing, kneeling, prone drills) I can return on average 2 moa from any position - in my time

Seated and kneeling are my weakest positions (I need a hip so either position can be painful)

I rarely kill deer from either position

On average I split 50/50 bettween standing and prone (standing using sticks)

Going full circle - if you don’t practice in practical positions on paper you will return inhumane shots on animals

 

[nun_hunter]

4" circle @ 100 yards under field conditions is barely adequate

Seeing as there is no definition of "field conditions" your statement means nothing to the rest of us unless you state what your idea of field conditions are.

Laying prone with a bipod and 30 seconds to take a shot then yes I'd agree but shooting offhand I'd say 4" is pretty good or taking 10 seconds to get down into a kneeling position and shoot off a low log without a bag.

 

[Fair Hill]

Seeing as there is no definition of "field conditions" your statement means nothing to the rest of us unless you state what your idea of field conditions are.

Laying prone with a bipod and 30 seconds to take a shot then yes I'd agree but shooting offhand I'd say 4" is pretty good or taking 10 seconds to get down into a kneeling position and shoot off a low log without a bag.

Very true, field conditions to me is two feet flat on the ground and trigger sticks at chest height.

 

[RCS Deer Management]

I was quite shocked reading some of the replies on this post. Granted I shoot every day of the year as it’s my job but i really do think that you should be able to shoot sub moa for 10 shots at 100m from stable prone position. This group is 5 shots at 100m freehand, no sticks. I tried with some old ammo that I wanted to use that I knew shot 1” to the left, the group measured 3.6” Center to Center.

 

[JTO]

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?

Of course you will! Without confidence in your tool, how can you be sure your technique is not fault when you miss.

 

[bowji john]

The point I was trying to make with my earlier post is that you do not suddenly become worse when shooting at paper

Paper reveals just how good you really are - be it bench at 100, prone at 1200 or in field conditions

Paper doesn’t lie

We do!

It is natural to over estimate our ability

Objectively is a great leveller and a benchmark from which to improve

 

[John Gryphon]

Paper reveals just how good you really are - be it bench at 100, prone at 1200 or in field conditions

I`m with VSS with this as for me paper pinging is a pita and the less I do it the better whereas lots of mates can sit down and shoot targets and play with loads for hours.

The highlighted "just how good you really are" I disagree with as we are after all here ostensibly for deer hunting and there are many many fine paper shots but their efforts don`t translate to being good deer hunters.
Shooting paper will never give one the trembles (of seeing a mindbender)

Like those fantastic clay target shooters that often are rather poor in the wild duck wing shooting field.

 

[bowji john]

I`m with VSS with this as for me paper pinging is a pita and the less I do it the better whereas lots of mates can sit down and shoot targets and play with loads for hours.

The highlighted "just how good you really are" I disagree with as we are after all here ostensibly for deer hunting and there are many many fine paper shots but their efforts don`t translate to being good deer hunters.
Shooting paper will never give one the trembles (of seeing a mindbender)

Like those fantastic clay target shooters that often are rather poor in the wild duck wing shooting field.

I can agree with much you say

Endless paper punching doesn’t appeal to everyone

I can also accept that the target shooter doesn’t necessarily make a good hunter

There are too many other elements to hunting

I can also readily accept that a target shooter can struggle with replicating performance against a live target

What I struggle with is that someone who can’t hit jack sh*t on paper suddenly turns into a sniper in the field

Or

That regular practice is not an essential element of shooting

 

[ASl sniper.177]

The point I was trying to make with my earlier post is that you do not suddenly become worse when shooting at paper

Paper reveals just how good you really are - be it bench at 100, prone at 1200 or in field conditions

Paper doesn’t lie

We do!

It is natural to over estimate our ability

Objectively is a great leveller and a benchmark from which to improve

An accurate rifle capable of .250 moa or less at 100 yards/metres,makes it at lot better in the much mentioned field conditions. Why,because if you add 400% extra in group size because of wobble or Harry Potter wand syndrome,it's still only around the inch mark. But if you start off with a rifle shooting 1.5 moa at the same range,and add in the same field conditions,you end up at a 6 inch group. And that doesn't even get into moving out to 150 yards or more! A really accurate rifle will kill everything a mediocre rifle can,and a lot more it can't.

 

[John Gryphon]

That regular practice is not an essential element of shooting

I believe that the blokes that are ripping field shots don`t lose their craft through inactivity, the 'good shot' factor stays with them.

 

[ASl sniper.177]

I believe that the blokes that are ripping field shots don`t lose their craft through inactivity, the 'good shot' factor stays with them.

I work up loads that get me .250 moa on Paper, because it translats to better performance in the field. My field craft is perfectly fine. In fact,I get as much enjoyment working out where my quarry will show up,being that deer or foxes,especially on new permissions. The strange connection people make that because a person takes the time and effort to get their rifle shooting small groups on paper,means they don't have field craft,or the ability In FIELD CONDITIONS,is twaddle. As in all sports,the people that put the most effort in,get the most out.

 

[John Gryphon]

is twaddle.

No its not. Its not always cut and dried but I maintain that there are many paper boys (not all) that go to water under field conditions.
I have stood alongside blokes that can shoot gnats nuts but have missed big deer,deer that the good bloke will shoot one handed.

 

[VSS]

I can agree with much you say

Endless paper punching doesn’t appeal to everyone

I can also accept that the target shooter doesn’t necessarily make a good hunter

There are too many other elements to hunting

I can also readily accept that a target shooter can struggle with replicating performance against a live target

What I struggle with is that someone who can’t hit jack sh*t on paper suddenly turns into a sniper in the field

Or

That regular practice is not an essential element of shooting

Why is it that you can accept that someone can be a good shot on paper, but a poor shot on deer, but you can't accept that someone can be a poor shot on paper but a good shot on deer?

They're two completely different disciplines.

 

[User00056]

This group is 5 shots at 100m freehand, no sticks. I tried with some old ammo that I wanted to use that I knew shot 1” to the left, the group measured 3.6” Center to Center.

That's pretty good shooting, in anybody's book. I think what a lot of guys fear about freehand shooting are the wobbles. The trick is to practice until you can let the shot go the moment the crosshair is on target, and trust your follow through, I reckon