How much accuracy do you NEED?

The same answer as for almost any question...............it all depends.
2MOA for a field gun
1MOA for a long range or target rifle
off a bench?
prone?
improvised rest?
A "hit" or the X ring? Shooting the pin out of the spotter disk?
MOA(s) where? 100yds? 300yds? 500yds? or the legendary K?
"They" say Carlos Hathcock's M70 was a 2MOA rifle.
It seems like 1MOA has become a de facto factory "standard". Probably a 21st century phenomena.
IMO, definitions that extend to the right of the decimal point are a bit much.
It's interesting how some folks will cut an AK's accuracy some slack in deference to it;s purportedly reliability, but will diss a Mini into next week for it.
meh

Doesn't really matter to me. All the rifles I own are more capable than I am.

I balance accuracy against use in all my rifles, if a 10lb bolt gun with a 26" barrel won't shoot 1.5 moa, its gone or gonna get modified. On the other hand, a 16" carbine or pistol cal carbine can hit a clay pigeon inside 100 yards, im happy. My 44 lever action rifle is harder to hit things at long range than my Redhawk revolver, but its still a keeper. I also like practical accuracy, what's the point of a scoped 3moa gun, or a .25moa gun with open sights. I like to configure my rifles to the use i intend, and to the accuracy level they are capable of. And at the moment I don't have a place to shoot over about 300 yards, so almost any new rifle would work for me...

The accuracy standard I shoot for (pardon the pun) is whether I can consistently get at least 9 out of 10 rounds in the circular divot of a plastic milk jug at 100 yards firing offhand.

I had never thought to compute what a two and a half to two and seven-eighths (depending on who made the jug) group would work out to in terms of minute of angle, but whatever it computes to, that's what is acceptable to me.

Sub Moa or 1" groups being insisted upon comes from years and years of gun rag writers claiming anything they were given to shoot(they called it testing) was no good if it didn't shoot one hole groups with any ammo. Said groups were usually fired off a bench in ideal conditions and not any ammo. Once.
A rifle that shoots 2 or 3 inches, in all conditions, consistently, is waaaay better. And few entry level hunting rifles have barrels or triggers that are capable of 1 MOA. Neither are most hunters.
"...a car which will only do 55mph..." Funny how the car makers are allowed to churn out thousands of cars that are designed to break the law with no hue and cry from government and assorted do-gooders. But a companies like S&W, Ruger and the rest are blamed for the crimes they had nothing to do with.

I voted 2 moa, the generally accepted military standard. I like to shoot, a lot. I'd rather take 2-5X the shots at a 4moa steel plate with 2moa ammo as opposed to fewer shots at smaller targets with more expensive ammo. I basically have a set dollar amount to spend for ammo so I rarely choose to shoot expensive ammo at tiny little targets. Whatever floats your boat.

Bottom line, since I rarely shoot sub-moa quality ammo I've no real idea what my guns could shoot (although I'm pretty consistently 1 moa with my RPR and Hornady Steel Match ammo on days without a lot of wind), but other than some pistol caliber carbines & SBRs and most of my AKs they'll all shoot about 2moa with any ammo I've tried.

If I had a place to shoot steel at ranges greater than 500 yards I could develop a shooting interest that needs "better ammo" or custom hand-loads, but that is not on the horizon.

Bolt action: sub-moa but I'm not talking milsurps.
Lever Action: ?
AR-15: ?

I want my bolt action rifles to shoot sub-moa. Doesn't have to be 1/2 MOA, if it's under 1.047 I'm happy.

With AR's and levers I don't know what I'm supposed to want because I only have one of each. My Marlin 336W shoots consistent 1.5" groups but, I installed a Wild West Happy Trigger and loosened the barrel band before I ever fired it. My DPMS A2 Classic shoots right under MOA. I dry fired it a couple of times and went holy sh$t. Saved for a couple of months and bought a Timney 3lb which was installed before I shot it. I'm also shooting handloads with 64 grain PP's and having an A2 stock doesn't hurt. Without all that I bet it wouldn't come close to MOA. I also think I just got lucky with the Marlin.

I also believe good optics can help. It is overkill but the Marlin has a VX-3 1.75-6 and the AR has a VX-R 2-7.

I don't have much interest in a rifle that won't allow me to hit what I'm aiming at. I sold an FAL for that reason along with a bunch of other rifles but I've also sold two custom rifles that were F-Class tack drivers because other aspects of the rifles annoyed me, so excellent accuracy won't necessarily keep a rifle off the chopping block. In general though, unless the rifle has some feature that I really like, or the rifle/cartridge combination limits range and accuracy in some way, e.g. Marlin 1894 in .45 Colt with iron sights, I'll part with a rifle that I don't consider accurate enough for the given application. For example, my objective for every hunting rifle (deer, elk, moose etc.) with my handloads is that from 100 yards to 400 yards it shoots 1 moa or better from a cold, clean bore and the 5-shot group center must be within 1/2 moa of the point of aim. I expect that level of performance from a hunting rifle once a good load is worked up, the optic has been properly adjusted, the conditions are "ideal" and I'm shooting off a good bench and rest or prone with a bipod. I have two hunting rifles that meet that set of criteria and two more that are under "review". I have tactical rifles that will exceed that set of criteria.

On rare occasions I get lucky and find a factory load that will meet my hunting rifle objectives and shoot a group like this from a cold, clean bore with similar results at 400 yards.

Right about now I'm thinking minute of jihadi...

M

I'm more interested in hitting targets than printing groups. If the gun can consistently keep all its rounds on a kill zone sized target at a resonable distance for a cartridge's trajectory, I'm happy.

For example, I found it far more gratifying to put a mag full of slugs into a paper plate through a smooth bore at 50 yards from an offhand position than I did trying to make a rifle print cloverleafs at 200 hards.

I'm of the mind that paperwork (whether that be filing my taxes or grouping bullets on a paper target) may be necessary, but it isn't fun (for me).

The chest width of a 50 percent male that is the distance between left arm pit to right arm pit is 13.1 inches (from https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm)

Seems to me that a 4 MOA weapon would be adequate out to 300 yards to hit a human in the chest.

stoky said:

The same answer as for almost any question...............it all depends.
2MOA for a field gun
1MOA for a long range or target rifle
off a bench?
prone?
improvised rest?
...

Click to expand...

This. My go-to hunting rifle is a Model Seven in .308; it will do 1.5 to 2.0 MOA with relatively inexpensive Remington Core Lokt ammo, which is sufficient to my needs.
I have more accurate rifles. My long range / target guns are sub-MOA with match ammo or hand loads.
I'd probably not keep a centerfire rifle that couldn't get under 2 MOA with suitable ammo.

Varminterror said:

These silly traps of considering only "field position groups," or off hand groups are exactly that; nobody should be measuring the precision inherent to their rifle from a position where the shooter alone makes the race.

Click to expand...

And why's that? Is someone going to airlift me a bench next time I line up a shot on an elk?

The reality is that the practical limit on how far you can accurately shoot animals (or for that matter humans) from field positions is hold inaccuracy, wind call inaccuracy and target movement. Historically ranging inaccuracy would be on the list too, but laser rangefinders have changed that. Those factors cannot be overcome by a rifle no matter what you do. For hunting where 100% hit probability is required, that generally limits ethical shooting to about 400-450y for bottleneck big game type cartridges. In military situations where a lower hit probability is still valuable, you can reach out much farther obviously.

Something that's rarely mentioned is that bench group size is a poor metric of how well a rifle can be shot in the field. On the one hand once you get below about 1.5MOA your hold inaccuracy is the dominant factor and further bench improvements are hard to measure. On the other hand, there are many issues that arise in the field that are minimized or eliminated on the bench:

• Does the POI shift based on sling or forestock pressure? What about with downward pressure on the scope (rucksack prone)?
• What's the trigger lock time?
• Does the stock fit?
  
• Does your eye naturally fall in the scope eyebox in prone? Sitting? Standing?
• Is the stock comb the right height for the sight system?
• Is a good shooting aid sling (ideally a fast model like a Ching or Rhodesian) equipped?

I'd much rather be shooting a rifle with 1.5MOA bench groups and all of the above squared away than one with 0.5MOA bench groups and a whole bunch of practical problems. About 99% of rifles I see at the range in various capacities do NOT have those issues under control, which leads me to believe the vast bulk of rifle shooters have limited practical shooting experience.

My expectations keep changing the further I'm sucked down the accuracy death spiral.

Putting aside any requirements to qualify with what ever weapon or system issued to me by the Army, putting 4-5 rounds in a paper plate at 75-ish yards was good enough for most of my life. That was all the confidence I needed to deer hunt with.

Then one day I bought an M1A. I got obsessed with shooting it, learning it's idiosyncrasies, how to make it print smaller groups. I got to where I could consistently shoot 1.5"-2.0" 5 shot groups with store bought ammo. That lead me to reloading. My first 5 reloads shot a best ever 1.01" at 100 yards and I was instantly hooked.

Next I bought a FN SPR for no other reason than to develop loads for it. Any excursions outside of 0.75" was a cause for frustration and self-doubt.

Then I went and did something really stupid and had a custom rifle built. After developing a few accurate loads for it, every 5 shot group is between 0.6" 0.3", so now I'm trying to get all 5 through the same hole.

Let me know if you guys start a 12 step program. I might sign up for it

Nature Boy said:

Let me know if you guys start a 12 step program. I might sign up for it

Click to expand...

Nature Boy, you're in the WRONG place to find a 12 step program. We're just a bunch of enablers - the ones your sponsor warns you about

I'm really just getting started with long range shooting. About a month ago a few friends took me out to the new CMP range in Talladega, AL to do some shooting at targets further away than 100 yards (my range's max distance).

I never really cared about small groups at 100 yards so my bolt rifle just wound up sitting in the safe, but small groups at 600 yards are much more interesting, especially when wind is in play! I was just shooting junky ammo because it was available, but now I'm browsing reloading gear and new optics, and maybe a new trigger... it's madness I tell you!

My name is Telekinesis.... and I have a problem

Varminterror said:

These silly traps of considering only "field position groups," or off hand groups are exactly that; nobody should be measuring the precision inherent to their rifle from a position where the shooter alone makes the race.

Click to expand...

@Llama Bob - read it again, presumably for the 3rd time since you read it AND quoted it already.

Field position shooting tells you how well the shooter manages the rifle. It does not, however, tell you how accurate the rifle can inherently be in and of itself.

So your post questioned mine, since you failed to read it, but completely solidified the point I made.

Shooting in field positions is a test of the shooter and is a requirement for field shooting, but "nobody should be measuring the precision inherent to their rifle from a position where the shooter alone makes the race."

Varminterror said:

@Llama Bob - read it again, presumably for the 3rd time since you read it AND quoted it already.

Field position shooting tells you how well the shooter manages the rifle. It does not, however, tell you how accurate the rifle can inherently be in and of itself.

So your post questioned mine, since you failed to read it, but completely solidified the point I made.

Shooting in field positions is a test of the shooter and is a requirement for field shooting, but "nobody should be measuring the precision inherent to their rifle from a position where the shooter alone makes the race."

Click to expand...

You, as expected, still don't get it. In the real world there is no bench.

As others say, it depends on the target. I kill prairie dogs out to 300+ yards, head shoot squirrels and deer. I know some are Ok with less accurate deer rifles, but since I really prefer the clean kill of a head shot deer, I build loads and work with my deer rifles until they hit a silver dollar or better at 100 yards. My prairie dog rifles will hit a quarter at a hundred and my squirrel rifles will hit a nickel at 50. I just got rid of a Ruger 77/17HMR that wouldn't perform to that standard. Once I achieve that standard at the range off sand bags, then the real test happens in the field. Sometimes I actually miss that squirrel eye

I like a hunting rifle to be extremely accurate. This helps making up for heavy breathing and a strong pulse rate while slogging about in the bush. A half MOA rifle, plus my 2.0 MOA heart attack only add up to 2.5 moa. But if I started with a bad rifle, Lord only knows where the shot would go. Sometimes there is only a small part of a big critter showing itself.

Llama Bob said:

You, as expected, still don't get it. In the real world there is no bench.

Click to expand...

Take heart - I understand your blind eyed position. Never did I say there were.

Field shooting doesn't measure the rifle. It measures the shooter. This thread is about measuring rifles.

This is EXACTLY the silliness I was referring to in my first post. Someone comes in and tries to drop some mystic sounding sage wisdom like "in the real world, there is no bench," like Bruce Lee dropping "boards don't hit back." What importance does that offer in a thread about tolerance for rifle precision?

Equally - how do any of your statements and mine not agree? You are arguing for the sake of it at this point - again, quoting myself:

Varminterror said:

If a guy is delivering 2MOA offhand, I can say with certainty the rifle is capable of considerably better precision than 2MOA

Click to expand...

Maybe I need to elaborate on that - if a guy can deliver 2MOA in a field shooting position without a bench, it's plain and simple common logic the rifle could shoot better than 2moa from a bench. The shooter determines the group size once the rifle leaves the bench. In that, we appear to agree, but you don't want to agree that we agree.

So how are we in disagreement, other than the fact you just don't like me or what I have to say, even when it agrees with your statements? Your comments about lack of shooting supports (benches) in the field ABSOLUTEY agree with my own - rifles are easier to shoot when supported, so rifles should be measured from the bench.

If you want to measure YOUR marksmanship skill, fire off hand. Your statements agree with that paradigm.

If you really want to call your rifles 2moa rifles because that's the best you can shoot them off-hand, fine. I don't really care. Measuring a rifles accuracy in field shooting - not measuring the shooter, just the rifle - makes about as much sense as measuring how tall someone is when they're standing knee deep in mud.

But keep arguing against your own position if you choose.

Varminterror said:

Field shooting doesn't measure the rifle. It measures the shooter. This thread is about measuring rifles.

Click to expand...

First off, you're wrong. There are many aspects of a rifle that have everything to do with field shooting. They're just aspects you've proven you don't understand and which have little or nothing to do with bench shooting.

Second, the thread was about the required level of accuracy. You assumed, wrongly again, that that was a property of the rifle when in reality it's a property of the whole system.

See a pattern? You keep being wrong...

I do believe Varminterror got the point from the get go.