more rounds downrange, which is probably in the end, more important than using an expensive premium load that might not find it's mark due to insufficient practice.
IMHO, there's no "probably" about it...more practice = better shot placement, and that's more important than how much your ammo costs. And I'm one of those hard-core handloaders that uses what I figure are the best bullets I can find for the game I hope to shoot - regardless of what the bullets cost. Furthermore, using what I figure are the best bullets I can find for the job, I work up loads that give me the velocities I want, all the while looking for the smallest groups (within reason) I can get out of a rifle.
But that's me - it's what I like to do. I used to work with one of those fellers though that liked to brag that he'd been using the same box of 30-06 "bullets" for killing a deer "every year for 10 years." I don't know how long it took me to figure out he was only trying to get my goat by asking me why I handload. He never would accept my answer that I
enjoy handloading and looking for what I figure is the perfect ammo for what I hope to use it for.
However, as I stated in an earlier post in this thread, I used to hunt deer and elk with Remington CoreLokt factory ammo. That's the kind of ammo my dad swore by, and he was seldom wrong about such things. So that's what I used too. BTW, as much as my dad swore by Remington CoreLokts, he swore
at Winchester Silvertips, and I never did know why.
But I've had mixed results with Core-lokt's accuracy. Some are great, and some are 2" loads.
I'm not arguing, Newtosavage, but I
do have a question about the above line in your original post. "What do you mean by 2" loads?"
The reason I'm asking is because with a scoped rifle and factory ammo, I always considered 3-shot, 2" groups @ 100yards "good enough" for deer and elk. And 3-shot, 2" groups @ 100yards with open sights is probably better than I can do with
any ammo considering my eyes turned 71 years old last week.