Rethink on Accuracy and Rifles

[The Singing Stalker]

I'm pretty sure my rifle with the right ammo will shoot sub moa and maybe even touch. Using bags and steady rest and all that. The issue is then coming to the real thing where I am in the field and shoot off sticks. Then the group opens.
When shooting at a target I can see where the issue is as my breath goes in and out, the target moves up and down. So my ideal range is 100 yards, I have gone out to 150. I was shooting at the 200 yard target at the blaser open day resting my rifle in my arm only and I was hitting the plate every time. So I can do it.

just need more practice.

But as Muir rightly says, too many gadgets and not enough range time. I do have issues with having somewhere to practice at 100 yards, never mind 200. Even if it was only to shoot 3 every week or so. Luckily I shoot a lot or rabbits and that has helped give me time to improve technique. Not ideal as HMR and 30.06 are different but anything is better than nothing and it has helped me to improve.

As as long as I am hitting close enough to where I'm aiming and it kills then I am not worried. When I stop breathing then that will be all the variables removed.

 

[Shootist]

I spend a lot of time shooting from benches with a rest for all my rifles. The main reason is that I can establish how well the rifle shoots. All that is left then is to discover what a lousy shot I am. At least that way you know.

 

[bowji john]

Also if your rifle shoots half inch groups at 100, then you can confidently assess your ability when shooting in the field and monitor your progression with practice on the range

You can see the results of the influence of your breathing, stance, rest and wind etc

However if your rifle is shooting 5 inch groups when in a vice on a bench (I'm exaggerating for effect here) once you add in the errors from your own technique, then ....

a) you could easily end up with compounded errors and a huge miss or gut shot animal

b) the inherent lack of accuracy makes learning from practice very much harder as you don't know whether your shot has gone 6 inches high and left because of poor technique, wind, rifle inaccuracy or a combination of both

Knowing that your rifle is a sub MOA beastie allows you to be pretty sure that that 4 inch group was down your own limited ability - you can then do something about it

If your rifle is chucking them anywhere in a 4 inch plate due to its own issues, then it is a struggle to develop any confidence at all

For example..

My 10 22 thinks it is a born again shotgun and I dare not take a shot at a rabbit from any distance greater than 60m !

 

[Klenchblaize]

Spot on. I observe few folk practising and even fewer folk competing with their stalking rifles. I do note that at least two Forum members are competing and doing well at this competition.

2017 F-Class World Championships

Regards

JCS

And with respect that isn’t overly representative of a real-world stalking scenario so may I venture even less stalkers are actively engaged in competitive position shooting. Something that above all else would do wonders for their confidence when faced with the real deal.

K

 

[Southern]

I only shoot from a bench to adjust a scope or check ammunition, like new loads.

The rest is all from four standard positions, plus hunting positions ( using fences, trees, and logs for support ).

I try to rove and plink with a .22, as I did as a boy. And I hunt small game with a .22 rifle and handgun. This makes me feel how my rifle shoots, and I estimate range not in yards, but how it looks to my eye and sights. One of these days, I will buy a laser ranger.

I am lucky enough to have grown up on a farm, where I could shoot farther than my rifles could, to live and work within 10 minutes of 10 indoor ranges, and four outdoor ranges up to 200 yards. I belong to a club which has 1,000 yard range.

The simple fact is that if you sight your centerfire properly, you can put all shots into 2 inches from 25 to 250 yards without worrying about the exact range, which is good enough for fox, groundhog, badger, coyote, deer, elk, moose, bear, buffalo.

The other simple fact is that the fundamentals of proper technique are the same for most rifles, and area best formed and tuned on air rifles and .22 LR. These slower bullets will show up your mistakes very quickly.

 

[Tom D]

I'd be disappointed if a rifle wouldn't shoot under an inch, both my centerfires shoot half moa groups from a prone rest with the right load. Can I do that off sticks? No. Off a fence post, log, grass tussock? No. But does that mean I should be happy with a 2 moa gun? No!

As has already been mentioned if your rifle has 2 moa of potential error, and you then add your own potential error on top you then have something that is probably a larger margin than you'd like.

I do think that a lot of people think that it's always about the rifle and that maybe if I buy this or that I will suddenly be able to shoot the head off a match at 100 yds. This is I suspect why so many rifles come up for sale with only 200 rounds through them, often really nice custom builds or ones that have had a lot of money spent on them.

I'm not one for blinging up my rifles, but I really ought to spend more time practicing from awkward field type positions. That would be way more worthwhile than spending money on gadgets.. oh and if I had a rifle that would shoot the head of a match at 100 yds I wouldn't be selling it.

 

[CarlW]

This is the root of the problem - many people are obsessed with tinkering and "custom" this and "measuring" that when what they are actually buying into is more variables and, therefore, more variability.

The Black Dot of Doom (tens of thousands of reads, probably less than 200 rounds fired at the actual target!) and various other bits of messing about indicate that most people shoot something around 3 inches from a stalking rig, and that most of us can't hit a 1 inch dot at 100 yards with any reliability. However, the internet gives the impression that everyone shoots half inch groups at six hundred yards all day every day and this is also a factor both in expectations and also in the accuracy people claim. I remember an accuracy thread some years back where, with a quick application of Google, I found that the groups people were shooting off a bipod on the bonnet of their car in horizontal sleet were quite literally world beating - there was no one on the thread who was shooting groups that wouldn't have put them in the top ten in the world at benchrest at that distance. A beginner seeing all these tiny groups is then lead to believe that their rifle needs some gadget, or they need to measure something else when reloading using some gadget, and this spirals out of control with the beginner adding more and more variability to their shooting through gadgets. They then end up in a situation where they've no idea how to identify the problem, because they've added so many variables, and this covers up for the fact that 3 inches worth of the problem is the person trying to measure the bullet seating depth to a level way beyond that which it is actually possible to do with the gear and components they own.

It is the case that if you've bought a faulty or badly engineered rifle then you will need to repair it but that is completely different to the "fiddling" that many people are doing. In truth there is no actual direction behind this fiddling in the sense that if you ask someone what impact their latest reloading fetish has upon point of impact the answer is always that they have to shoot it to see - they can never tell you that if they make adjustment X to the variable on the reloading bench then this will result in their impact point changing by 1.2mm to the left on the target. If you can't predict the outcome of your actions then you are acting randomly and so the only significance in your actions is in adding more randomness to the outcome.

Conversations you never hear:

"That new Forth Crossing Bridge thing, do you think the bits will meet in the middle?"
"No idea mate, we read on the internet that painting the handrails blue reduces the distance it is likely to be out so we've done that."
"Right, how does that work then?"
"No idea, but we've given it a try."
"And does that mean it will meet in the middle?"
"Oh we still can't say until we put it up."
"Does the blue paint move it left or right?"
"Oh, we don't know, it just makes things better. There's a bloke on the internet and his bridge was exactly aligned once he'd done it."
"Did he do anything else?"
"Yeah, he got an engineer in who did some calculations and survey work and made some adjustments to the construction. Plus he makes his dog wear a special collar and his wife only drives black cars, these things all helped but he says the blue paint was the key."
"So do cars now cross his bridge now?"
"Oh no, not cars. Because of harmonics he only allows a special type of truck to cross. The blue paint makes the bridge very sensitive to the type of vehicle on it."
"Right, how does that work?"
"We don't know."
"So, is it safe?"
"He's no idea. He sawed a bit out of some of the beams as a bloke on the internet said that helps with the harmonics but the design engineer is a bit worried it might not be a good idea."
"So are you going to do that on the Forth Crossing?"
"Yeah, we've already started."
"Why?"
"Because it says on the internet."
"And does that move it left or right?"
"Oh, we don't know that, we just have to keep sawing until it meets up."

Can't stop laughing at this.

 

[tarponhead]

Or even better - "we guarantee this 243 T3 rifle to shoot 1 MoA or better with Sako 243 100gn ammunition"

Would save a huge amount of em-buggerance and cost.[/QUOTE]

Great point. i asked the Blaser man at the Braces Open day why they don't do this and he said they wouldn't want to upset the ammo makers, by favouring a particular make. I would have thought it would make good marketing.
That said, wouldn't it be great if they could sell the current kits of rifle scope and bipod, together with ammo the rifle liked as a complete deer set up, as that's what most are used for, so the bullets would be appropriate for the quarry.

 

[Jagare]

Such melancholy!

I think the current situation is this: Most people can't shoot as well as their rifles are capable of. They DO spend thousands on their shooting rigs and then hardly shoot them. When their gun doesn't live up their hopes they look for another bolt on trinket to make them shoot better. A new reloading tool that is 'guaranteed' to shrink the very occasional and often singular group they shoot. Some people seem to indicate that practice is 'unnecessary' shooting: a waste of components. They fire one good group and call it done. No sense in wearing out the barrel!

No. We don't expect too much from our weapons, we simply don't expend the effort to master them. JMO ~Muir

Another common sense post and so true.

I shoot all my rifles from the bench and they all shoot very well. This only tells me they are on target. I do shot a lot down the range. Its the type of shooting that simulates shooting in the field. I do it because it hopefully makes me a better shot and its a lot of fun. Last Saturday i shot a, Kulajaktstig competition, thats animal targets at hunting distances. I,m always in the top 20% on the score sheet. When you look down the score sheet you realize that the bottom 50% need a lot more practice. I shoot the running moose range and the running boar range with the .22. All good fun.
Every year, down the range just before moose hunting the old boys are there with their rifles that have not seen the light of day since last shooting season. My word, there's some crap shots out there.
I used to practice a lot when i lived in England as well. Same people down the range chasing a group round the target month after month and twiddling the nobs on their scope. The clue less, who have owned guns for years. A few who were consistently good shots. Such is life.

 

[kenbro]

For an interesting read on the accuracy of rifles, google 'Secrets of a Houston Warehouse' and download as a PDF.
Ken.

 

[Selous]

I cannot see how pursuing accuracy can be a bad thing. It really does allow shooters to focus on the errors they are making and correct them accordingly. With an inaccurate rifle you never know whether your technique has improved or not. The best you can hope for is the occasional good group filled by a string of bad ones. With no rhyme or reason to follow, how can you isolate the fundamental aspects of marksmanship and improve. I accept that a 1.5 inch group will give you a dead deer but with a 3 inch aiming error you could get a point of impact between 4.5 inches and 1.5 inches away. Hardly a recipe for consistent success!

 

[RCS Deer Management]

I would say over reliance on shiny kit. Any rifle made after 1890 will out shoot the human using it.
And i would say bench rest shooting does nothing to aid stalking. One target lives and moves the other does not.
Any kill shot only requires a three inch target to be hit, so no need for clover leafs to be shot on to paper.

Yes, but when that 3 inch kill zone is over 300 yards away cloverleafs at 100 yards are completely nessasary. Well, this thread has given me much amusement. Well done folks

 

[TOMMO.B]

Yes, but when that 3 inch kill zone is over 300 yards away cloverleafs at 100 yards are completely nessasary. Well, this thread has given me much amusement. Well done folks 

But who said any thing about cloverleafs at 100 yards. So not nessasary after all you only shoot the deer once. never heard any one trying to get grouping in a heart or neck shot? The range and the field are two totally different places.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Yes, but when that 3 inch kill zone is over 300 yards away cloverleafs at 100 yards are completely necessary.

and there is the rub
people who shoot sub MOA at 100yds are appalled when they see their 200yd and 300yd groups as they use the extrapolation of
"well I can shoot 0.75 MOA at 100 so at 300 it will be 2.25 or 3" right?"

it does not follow and the stalkers shooting tests, competitions and DSC1 shoot results prove that

300 yds is probably the most useful range to shoot at to give people a real world view of what a rifle (and shooter) can actually do
There is a reason its the minimum effective range for a ladder test
It exacerbates and emphasises any input whether it be weather, shooter, rifle or load.

Shoot more
Get closer

 

[JTO]

You need to have confidence in your kit's capability, then you can concentrate on your own capability.

 

[mchughcb]

150mm at 200m is more than adequate for a chest shot on a fallow using my 416 Remington magnum and 400gr Woodleigh RNSP.

 

[RCS Deer Management]

But who said any thing about cloverleafs at 100 yards. So not nessasary after all you only shoot the deer once. never heard any one trying to get grouping in a heart or neck shot? The range and the field are two totally different places.

Because if you can't cloverleaf at 100 yards I doubt you could hit a 3" target every time at 300 yards. The trouble with this thread is that a lot of people think 'I only shoot out to 150 yards, so there is no need for anyone else to ever shoot further. If I don't need to then no one else does' A lot of the places I shoot where animals are under pressure all the time i need to shoot out past 300 yards regularly. A gun that offers 1 moa+ accuracy would be next to useless for me. If a 2moa rifle is good enough for your application on the land you shoot then good for you, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.

 

[TOMMO.B]

Because if you can't cloverleaf at 100 yards I doubt you could hit a 3" target every time at 300 yards. The trouble with this thread is that a lot of people think 'I only shoot out to 150 yards, so there is no need for anyone else to ever shoot further. If I don't need to then no one else does' A lot of the places I shoot where animals are under pressure all the time i need to shoot out past 300 yards regularly. A gun that offers 1 moa+ accuracy would be next to useless for me. If a 2moa rifle is good enough for your application on the land you shoot then good for you, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.

What. like the first post I put up. Any rifle made after 1890 will place a shot at 300 meter in the kill zone no bother. Rifles are tools for the job. its generally the tool behind that canny shoot. There has been far more deer shot using early rifles with 4x mag scopes ( if you were a yuppy x6) than all the modern crap. 300 meter is standard and what I was trained at, and beyond. With no gadgets and some times iron sights. While you are messing about trying to blat a piece of paper, others are out getting deer. horses for courses n that.

 

[RCS Deer Management]

What. like the first post I put up. Any rifle made after 1890 will place a shot at 300 meter in the kill zone no bother. Rifles are tools for the job. its generally the tool behind that canny shoot. There has been far more deer shot using early rifles with 4x mag scopes ( if you were a yuppy x6) than all the modern crap. 300 meter is standard and what I was trained at, and beyond. With no gadgets and some times iron sights. While you are messing about trying to blat a piece of paper, others are out getting deer. horses for courses n that.

Okay..

 

[pj1]

I feel this may all be getting a little touchy so here goes...............

Im a yuppy with 6x mag and if i dont hit the intended target whether paper or animal it is.................... wait for it............................ ME.

There that feels better now ive got that off my chest