Hunting Rifle Accuracy

[Art Eatman]

Between TFL and THR, there must be 17,641 threads about the Mini-14 and its accuracy. That's had me thinking about the importance of the size of the groups a rifle can give you.

We've had a lot of discussions about groups and group sizes for different types of rifles. Sub-MOA; three-shot and five-shot and all that.

My point, here, pertains only to rifles where the primary use is for hunting. Not bench rest, not competition of any sort:

The first shot from an ambient-temperature ("cold") barrel is the most important. If that first shot always goes very close to the point intended impact, it's a good rifle. Heck, it's an excellent rifle.

Lightweight rifles have thin barrels. Thin barrels heat up fairly quickly with repeated shots. Stresses due to heat can cause widening of group size. No mystery there.

But if that thin-barreled rifle always puts the first shot where you want it, the size of a five-shot group is meaningless. If it happens to be a tight group, that's good--but it's irrelevant to the use of the rifle.

, Art

 

[ID_shooting]

your observations are correct.

For a big-game hunting rifle, I want that first shot to be right on the money, I like the 2nd and and 3rd shots to be right there too because somtimes "stuff happens" but I am not as picky about it as I am with target or varmint rifles.

The varimnt hunters need the consistent tight groups 'cuz it is common to make many reapeded shots and heat things up a bit when you find that magic over populated prarie-dog town.

My primary hunting rifle (Rem 700 adl) can only put 2-3 shots in a 1in group at 100, more than that and hit gets too hot and that is acceptable to me.

Others will disagree, but I yet to have to shoot more than twice at one big game critter.

 

[dakotasin]

art - you are right, of course... but that is only half the story. the other half is shooting the rifle for fun (informal target shooting/competitions, etc etc). a rifle is so much more fun when it shoots itty bitty groups during practice sessions. also, little groups are great confidence boosters...

first shot accuracy is important... but i shoot my rifles frequently, and my hunting rifles are more than 'mere' hunters. so they must shoot well; in addition to providing first shot accuracy, they must provide good groups, too.

 

[Stinger]

Someone once posted "minute of paper plate" on this forum or another.

I think that is probably good enough for most hunting rifles, so long as the first shot consistent. Like Art said, if the first shot is on the money, it doesn't matter where the next 1-4 would end up.

Varmit and target rifles obviously differ somewhat, but you almost usually use a different rifle for those occassions.

Regards,

Stinger

 

[Jaywalker]

I'm with dakotasin on this one. Group size does matter, since I shoot 1000 - 2000 times more at paper than I do at meat. I wouldn't do that if it weren't interesting. I don't say the guys who shoot four times (a three-shot group and a one-shot kill) a year are wrong, but that aspect of hunting doesn't interest me. I like rifles and shooting.

Jaywalker

 

[Third_Rail]

I was at the WSA in Burlington yesterday, and there was an older gentlman there, as usual. I see him there every time I go, so I wasn't surprised.

I was, however, surprised to see him shooting something other than a .22 rimfire. He was plinking away slowly with a .223 bolt action, maybe one shot every 25 seconds. Fired at 200 yards, you could've covered this group (which was DEAD CENTER) with a dime!!

I was quite impressed, to say the least.

 

[sumpnz]

Back before he went to subscriptions, Chuck Hawks had an excellent article on his website. It may still be available in the "free" portion. The title was something along the lines of "Hunting Rifle Accuracy - Enough is Enough." I though he made a whole lot of sense in that piece.

The basic thrust was that it was pointless for a rifle, whose primary use was big game hunting, to worry about how to shrink group sizes from 0.36" to 0.34".

If you take the smallest big game animals commonly hunted in North America, the pronghorn antelope, it still has a kill zone (heart-lung area) of more than 6" diameter. So, if you assume that is the same size as the kill zone for all big game (thus giving some room for additional error in larger game) you can easily figure out how accurate your rifle needs to be depending on the range of the shot.

If all your shots will at 100 yards or less, a 6 MOA rifle is therefore adequate. If 400 yards is the outside limit (as it should be no matter what), a 1.5 MOA rifle will get the job done. Anything better than that is just gravy, and is largly irrelevant to practical hunting.

If your rifle is primarilly a target shooter that you occasionally take for a hike, your accuracy needs are different than that of a typical hunter. I submit that it is better to have one dedicated paper killing rifle, and one dedicated critter killing rifle than to try to get one to do both jobs. If you don't have the money for that, then just work with what you have but don't complain that your thin barreled hunter shoots lousy after the second shot, or that your target rifle is heavy PITA to carry in the field.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Another thing to remember is a rifle can never shoot better than its operator. I know of no one that can keep 2 inches under field conditions.

 

[Art Eatman]

I wuz focusing more on what I need than what I want. I've spent a lot of time working up loads and tweaking the rifle itself to get those 5-shot, half-inch groups out of a hunting rifle. It's not always all that easy.

IMO, all too often we who do a lot of shooting lose sight of the fact that not everybody really needs the ultimate tack driver. I guess I'd not want to push somebody into spending more money than is warranted for his goal.

Art

 

[444]

I agree with you Art.
My primary big game hunting rifle is a Remington ADL that I bought at Wal-Mart topped with a Vari-X III. I have taken the lions share of my big game animals with that rifle and consider it my "hunting rifle". I have a few dozen rifles, but for some reason, when I go hunting, that is the rifle I usually grab. And, it isn't accurate at all when discussing "accurate" rifles. It might be capable of 1 1/2" at 100 yards. I usually get closer to 2" because I usually am shooting it off the rear fender of my pickup to confirm my zero. I almost never fire the rifle other than when I am hunting. I fire maybe 50 rounds prior to the season to confirm zero and get used to the trigger.
Now that is not to say I don't own much more accurate rifles. And that is not to say that I don't shoot rifles the rest of the year. I do. But, that particular rifle is basically for hunting and that's it.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

You have it right, Art. I only take the target rifle hunting when I think I may run into silent black helicopters Otherwise, it is the Ruger lightweight every time. That extra 2-3 lbs really can affect the off-hand shot after running up a hill. However, the lightweight is held steady in almost all conditions. Accuracy doesn't do much good if you can't hold the barrel still

 

[WhiteKnight]

My primary big game hunting rifle is a Remington ADL that I bought at Wal-Mart topped with a Vari-X III.

Ditto.