How much accuracy do you NEED?

[LoonWulf]

So with all the vs and comparison threads lately accuracy always comes up.

Im curious how much accuracy we all personally require from a gun for us to like it?
Does it out weigh some other factors....all???

Personally from highschool till fairly recently accuracy was the number one requirement for any gun i owned. Sub Moa was my minimum. If i couldnt get that in a couple tries of handloading, or factory ammo, i got rid of the gun.

Recently ive stoped caring as much, a consistent 1.5-2" is accurate enough for the distances i actually need to shoot. If i cant land rounds on target with that, its too far. Now how the gun handles, looks, and its how interesting it is to me, maters more than how many bullets it can stack.

But realizing everyone is different im curious how you guys feel about accuracy and how that relates to your enjoyment of a particular rifle.

And this is just a generalized question, i realize competition guns will require only the best.

 

[Captcurt]

If it will not shoot MOA or less it doesn't take up room in my safe. I know that I could do just as well with a gun that shoots 2 or 3 MOA since most of my game is taken at less than 100 yards. Many of my 300 + whitetails have been under 50 yards, but I want a gun that I can thread a needle with if I need to.

 

[horsey300]

I reckon it depends on the application. Some days, 1.5 moa Max is good enough (deer season, milk jugs etc) other days, I want to say I NEED 3/4 moa so that I can destroy any ponderings of an afterlife that varmints may be contemplating at longer distances. Plus, I REALLY like to stretch the distances and pop stuff I can't see without a scope zoomed in to 16x.......... plinking with the kids allows for more forgiving margins.

 

[chicharrones]

Back when I hardly shot paper targets, as long as I hit what I was aiming at I was supremely satisfied. Let's say anything 4 MOA or less would have been good enough for what I was shooting at.

Now that I shoot predominately paper targets, 2 to sub MOA (depending on the gun) is good enough.

That's for rifles.

 

[Blkhrt13]

I have guns for certain purposes. Mostly the 2moa on my mini thirty is good enough for my lanes where I hunt. But I want a bit better and want to practice farther out.

 

[browningguy]

hunting bolt actions and any .223 - 1 moa
hunting semi's - 2 moa
target rifles - .75 moa

 

[Mn Fats]

I voted under 1 moa. But i own rifles that can't pull that off, that I like more than the ones that can. Any open sight rifle for example. But Im with ya when you said if you couldn't handload to sub moa, the gun went down the road. For me, these were scoped bolts. Im no competitor but its an obsession for me to reload for my scoped guns and find that perfect, tiny group. If I can't, I sell it.

 

[bearman49709]

Depends, you shooting a deer at 50 yards or a prairie dog at 500?
Most deer I shoot are 75 yards or less, 4 moa would work I want 1.5 or less.
When I squirrel hunt I head shoot out to 50 yards that takes less than 1 moa.

 

[jmr40]

Around 1 MOA. And I'm content with 3 shot groups that hover near 1 MOA as long as I can repeat that over multiple range trips. A rifle that shoots 1 MOA occasionally is luck, but if it does it time after time even for 3 shot groups I'm happy.

I know that 2MOA will be enough for most uses. But there are just too many rifles today that will beat that. I know lots of guys scoff at less than 5 shot groups, but 3 has always told me what I needed to know.

I'm not overly concerned about trying to squeeze the last bit of accuracy out of a round either. I wouldn't trade 100 fps from my hand loads in order to turn a 1 MOA load into a 1/2 MOA load. In the field it is hard to take advantage of anything better than about 1 MOA.

This is an interesting link that I found a few years ago and saved. It predicts the probability of hitting a 10' target at 700 yards with rifles shooting 1 MOA, .5 MOA, .3 MOA, and .1 MOA. The odds of making a hit with a .1 MOA rifle just aren't significantly better than a 1 MOA rifle. And I'm not going to be shooting game at 700 yards.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/15/how-much-does-group-size-matter/

A graphic from the article.

 

[Newtosavage]

Recently ive stoped caring as much, a consistent 1.5-2" is accurate enough for the distances i actually need to shoot.

So you kinda answered the whole question right there. If you had said "and the size of the target" it would have completed the answer.

IOW, if I'm trying to shoot a whitetail at 500 yards, I want a 1MOA gun or better. But if it's an elk at 500 yards, 1.5 or even 2 MOA will still put a bullet in the kill zone.

Likewise, a deer at 300 yards will have about the same MOA kill zone as an elk at 500, so "same diff" as the kids say.

Whenever questions of cartridge or accuracy come up, the answer will always be "it depends" - depending entirely on the distance and size of the target.

My .22 rifle is certainly not an MOA gun, but then again it doesn't have to be. I'm not going to try and pick off a squirrel or rabbit further than 40-50 yards with it anyway. On the other hand, my 30-06 handloads carry 1000 ft. lbs. past 700 yards. Not that I would ever take a 700 yard shot at a whitetail, but if I did, I'd want less than a 1MOA gun for that target at that range for sure, if not better!

 

[Bfh_auto]

I have a few rifles that have sentimental value that shoot poorly, but I won't keep a rifle that won't put the first 3 shots under an inch.

 

[Newtosavage]

I know lots of guys scoff at less than 5 shot groups, but 3 has always told me what I needed to know.

I have arrived at the same conclusion. If the first 3 rounds aren't sub-MOA, there really is no point in shooting the next two. If they are, then I'm going to reload it and try it another day anyway, just to check for consistency, in which case it will be a 6-shot group spread over a few days. And that is a lot better judge of round IMO.

 

[LoonWulf]

Most of the rifles ive got are more than capable of shooting out side my "need too" range. I appreciate the accuracy but its mostly put to use shooting rocks lol.

Honestly, most guns ive seen are capable or moa accuracy. Ive had a few that just wouldnt, still wish id kept the very pretty 7400 06 that didnt.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Minute of 2-liter.

 

[z7]

Bolt action, 1moa

Ar15, i like 1 moa capable but general purpose ammo (55g fmj or sp) is around 2moa

 

[BSA1]

It depends on what kind of gun we are discussing.

My Ruger M-77 .270 consistently delivers 3 shot 1/2" groups at 100 yards from bench rest.

My Pedersoli Rolling Block 45/70 delivers minute of buffalo out to 600 yards shooting from crosssticks.

My AR .223 that I built last year is a work in progress. I am handicapping it at the moment using Magpul BUIS which is fine for it's intended use at the moment. While it's true accuracy can not be fully determined until I scope and bench rest it I will expect 1 m.o.a. or better with the right bullet/powder combination.

What about muzzleloading rifles?

 

[FL-NC]

It depends on what I'm going to use the rifle for. A 10" AR pistol for HD? 3 MOA. A deer rifle to use in Fl? 2 MOA will do it. A rifle I will use out west? Need my 1 MOA.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I wanted to say 1 moa but didn't. For me that's just a benchmark that I hope every rifle I buy can achieve. I have one rifle that can't do 2 moa and that is disappointing. I really like that rifle and have tried lots of things to get it to 2 moa but no enchilada. Probably trade it or sell it soon. So I would say 1 moa for anything I'm going to shoot from a bench and 2 moa for everything else. 2 moa is good enough for a deer. I can see where it wouldn't be if you had to make a 300 yd shot on something like a goat or antelope.

 

[Sav .250]

Not all are equally gifted. Paper targets vs what ever game one is hunting and the situations involved
at times vary greatly. Hence accuracy at the point of impact is what it is.
Acceptable accuracy, Is what ever the shooter can get out of his/her equipment .
JMO.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Simple answer,

As accurate as possible. Most of my hunting rifles are tuned to shoot sub MOA. I love a rifle that shoots tiny little clusters off the bench. However at normal hunting range, under normal field conditions we are not able to shoot MOA reliably. I hunt with iron sights quite a bit. With useable hunting style iron sights I am happy with about 4 MOA at 100 yards. I've killed game out past 200 yards regularly with iron sights.

Super accurate rifles are fun and they build confidence but I can grab a minute of grapefruit rifle and go out and put food on the table without any drama at all.

 

[Axis II]

All the accuracy i can get! I have owned scoped rifles only for about 8-9yrs as everything else was shotguns, iron sights, etc. I didn't become that obsessed with accuracy until i got my savage HB 223rem and started reloading to shoot more for less $ and the very first day that i put 5 55gr v max all touching and was never able to get factory ammo to do that i became obsessed with accuracy. Its a sickness i tell ya. Before hand loading if it shot within a 2 inch group it could kill a coyote, woodchuck, etc and i was happy. Deer rifles grouping baseball/softball groups were sufficient until i started hand loading for my 44mag carbine and got 5 to touch at 75yards so now its an absolute requirement that the gun/ammo will shoot that well. If the gun wont do it or the ammo wont do it i move on. Its even getting bad with handguns too and these aren't target handguns either. Work up a load until all 18rds in the mag will group in a 5x5 card at 15ft last night but i want more!

 

[Telekinesis]

For me it depends on the rifle and it's intended use. For a bolt action rifle that I intend to use at long (ish) range, I want the gun to be able to do 1moa or less at 100 yards, and hopefully less with good handloads. This let's me track my progress as a shooter. If I know my rifle is capable of 1moa, I know that the rifle should be doing about 6" at 600 yards, give or take. So I know that for instance a 10" group means the error is more on me and my form/ability than on the rifle. So basically, I want the gun to be better than I am, so that I can improve/see my improvement. A 2moa gun won't let me do that.

For an AR or AK, while I'd like it to keep 1moa, I'm fine with 2-3 moa using plinking ammo. The goal being to hit man sized targets (so a steel IPSC target) at 400 yards if I do my part.

 

[someguy2800]

It all depends on the purpose of the gun. For a varmint gun I want it to shoot at max a .75" center to center 10 shot group at 100. Anything over that and it just isn't really interesting enough to me to want it. For a hunting rifle I am fine with 1.5" though I am much more fond of it if it can hold under 1 moa. My 444 handi rifle shoots about 2-3" or so and I love it. Its purpose in life is a 100 yard deer rifle and to bruise my shoulder so its perfectly adequate. If groups were any bigger than that though I couldn't love it.

 

[bassjam]

I'd probably be upset with any bolt action centerfire that didn't at least shoot 1 moa or less.

But I'm also content with my lever action .357 that seems to be a 3 moa gun. I'll probably never shoot past 50 yards at a deer, so that'll still put a round in the vitals.

I've never put a scope on my AR, but I'd want it to be capable of 2 moa or less.

 

[Varminterror]

I consider it this way - when rifles are readily available capable of 1MOA or better, why in the world would a guy spend the same money on a rifle which isn't? Unless a guy is just making noise with a semiauto, like a mil-spec AR carbine, any application has SOME expectation for delivered accuracy, and if there are two rifles of the same price on the table, but one is a subMOA shooter and the other is a 2MOA shooter, why would you pick up the 2MOA rifle?

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. If a guy is delivering 2MOA offhand, I can say with certainty the rifle is capable of considerably better precision than 2MOA. I also often hear guys talk about rifle precision with Rem Corelokts or with "cheap surplus ammo," and lean on those as excuses for why their groups aren't smaller.

I do have platforms which don't lend themselves to long range precision which get a pass for groups larger than 1MOA; I don't have a need or use which dictates subMOA from a 9mm carbine. I also do have older rifles at the end of their barrel life which have crept up over 1MOA, some even 1.5MOA, but you can bet they don't get shot much compared to the more precise rifles in my safes. Typically, my only justification for keeping those around is subjective sentiment.

But overall - I tend to consider buying/owning a rifle which will only do 1.5MOA to be like buying/owning a car which will only do 55mph. Some people never leave their city, so they don't need to run 75mph on the interstate, but when it costs just as much to buy either, why in the world would you limit yourself?

The odds of making a hit with a .1 MOA rifle just aren't significantly better than a 1 MOA rifle.

I've read that article a few times through, which is supported by the graphic you copied over, and I don't agree with this sentiment. 70% hit ratio vs. 80.7% - that's a 15% improvement. So if you were missing 3 out of 10 shots, a more accurate rifle would let you give back one of those misses as a hit on target.

The important part, for me, is the fact it usually costs somewhere around $1000 today to buy a rifle and optic reliably capable of 1MOA, whereas it costs somewhere on the order of 5 times more, plus a schittload of luck, skill, and reloading expertise, to come anywhere near a reliable 0.1MOA at any range.

BUT... What I get out of the AB WEZ/Monte Carlo sim's: there's a marked gap between 1MOA and 1/2MOA, then anything else a guy does to improve rifle precision is simply chasing his tail.

And I'm not going to be shooting game at 700 yards.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say. Some people do.