What do you consider acceptable accuracy in a factory rifle?

[Reyn]

How accurate does a rifle have to be before you start tinkering or sell?

Im gearing this towards hunting rifles. I like at least 1.5 MOA. I average about 1.25in on my 30-06. Every once in a while i'll get a sub MOA but on the avg it seems to be around 1.25.

I know a 2MOA would be fine for deer but if i bought a Rem700 or any name brand and couldnt do but 2MOA id tinker or sell. Im not competing at benchrest but for some reason it bugs me to have an inaccurate rifle.

So whats acceptable for you?

 

[skinewmexico]

I like to think 1 MOA.

 

[cp1969]

It depends: Something you're going to shoot benchrest with is a lot different than a big bore hunting rifle.

I would think 1 1/4" groups in a .30-06 would be PLENTY good enough for hunting the size of game that cartridge is intended for.

 

[eliphalet]

1 1/2" for deer, although not perfect would be acceptable to me.

 

[JWarren]

It really depends on the platform as well.

I don't have as high expectations from most semi-auto rifles as I would from a bolt action.

If I had a Remington 7400 that did 1.25 MOA (at 100 yards) in perfect conditions, I'd be thrilled. If I had a Remington 700 that couldn't do better than 1.25 MOA (at 100 yards) in perfect conditions, I would not be happy.


-- John

 

[R127]

Accuracy is a good thing not a bad thing. If you can get more accuracy without changing any other attribute for the worse get all the accuracy you can.

Beyond that I'd say there are two criteria to consider. The first is what are you trying to shoot and the second is how far away is it? A chipmunk at 500 yards will take some pretty extreme accuracy. If you're hitting a deer within an 6 inch circle at 200 yards it's going to die. Accuracy is not what kills game. A hit to the vitals is what kills game and accuracy is only one component of that. There is also bullet construction and the power of the load to consider. What is the difference between quarter MOA and eight MOA against a hog at 50 yards in the woods?

Accuracy is a consideration but a hunting arm should be selected for the total package; size, weight, reliability, durability, adequate caliber, adequate accuracy, comfort, etc. The ability to print cloverleaf patterns on paper at the range isn't a realistic criteria to base a decision on.

 

[Walkalong]

If it can't shoot at least 1 MOA, it's junk as far as a real rifle goes. Now, for a fun plinker / close quarters defense weapon, that's not necessary.

 

[Reyn]

The first is what are you trying to shoot and the second is how far away is it? A chipmunk at 500 yards will take some pretty extreme accuracy. If you're hitting a deer within an 6 inch circle at 200 yards it's going to die

Thats what i mean by acceptable accuracy to you personally not acceptable to hunt with. For example if you bought a new, lets say Savage 110 and your averaging 2in groups at 100yds. Thats plenty accurate to hit the vitals but would you be happy with that type accuracy in the gun itself?

 

[Reyn]

If it can't shoot at least 1 MOA, it's junk as far as a real rifle goes

Lets say out of 10 3 shot groups you get 1 that is .75. The rest are around 1.25 to 1.5. Would you consider that at least a MOA gun?

 

[JWarren]

The point about the total package is valid.

However, I don't think I expressed this point well enough. I expect my rifles to perform at least on par to the typical performance of that rifle's make and model. Depending on my desires for the rifle, I may expect it to perform as an exceptional outliner of that make and model-- wherein tweeking may occur.

Bear in mind that I am talking about performance in perfect conditions-- benched, etc.

For example if you bought a new, lets say Savage 110 and your averaging 2in groups at 100yds. Thats plenty accurate to hit the vitals but would you be happy with that type accuracy in the gun itself?

Considering that it is not uncommon for a Savage 110 to be a sub-MOA rifle in perfect conditions, I would not be pleased with 2 MOA performance. I would expect more from that platform. Now, if I had a FAL or HK-91, I wouldn't consider 2 MOA that bad at all. In fact, I'd consider it acceptable.

That's what I am getting at.

I judge a rifle based upon what that make and model has been proven capable of doing. I don't want to be the one holding onto the sub-par performers. But around here, we take a lot of pride in accuracy-- and get a lot of ribbing for the lack of it from our peers.


To drive the point home... A Remington 40X is a multi-thousand dollar rifle. Remington Pro-shop guarentees each 40X they ship to do at least 1/2 MOA and send a target showing that performance. They don't ship one unless it has done at least 1/2 MOA.

If I ordered a 40X that shot out of a gun vise with no better than 1 MOA, how fast do you think it would be sent back for a replacement or a refund???

I'd send it back even if it did the job I wanted it for.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

If it can't shoot at least 1 MOA, it's junk as far as a real rifle goes. Now, for a fun plinker / close quarters defense weapon, that's not necessary.

OK... you have to explain this one. What exactly is a "real" rifle?

I'd shudder to think of how many wars have been fought and won with non-real rifles...

I also think there are a ton of hunting rifles out there that have taken MANY animals that are not MOA rifles. Oh, the hunter using it will tell you that it's MOA-- but exaggerations is not the sole realm of fishermen.

I frankly don't believe that my father's Remington 7400 is a sub-MOA or even MOA rifle. It may be close, but I've never seen it do MOA in perfect conditions. Yet, he's killed more deer with it that I have total.


So I still fail to see what consitutes a "real" rifle.


-- John

 

[R127]

If it was just a meat rifle and I got one that was less accurate than my neighbor's but it was still accurate enough then I may be a little disapointed but it still does its job and that's the main thing. If it was a rifle I wanted to take special pride in I'd hold it to a higher standard.

I do agree that if it is a rifle that is made to be and sold as being very accurate and it isn't then what you got is most likely a lemon and should be repaired or replaced under warranty as long as you know it's the gun and not you or the ammo.

When I decide I like a particular type of rifle I do make a deliberate effort to hunt out the best, most accurate example and sometimes that means buying and selling several of the same type. I have the money and the time to worry about that kind of thing. If I didn't and the warranty work wasn't an option I'd just accept that my tool performs its job even if it isn't quite as good as the next guy's tool.

 

[R127]

I also think there are a ton of hunting rifles out there that have taken MANY animals that are not MOA rifles. Oh, the hunter using it will tell you that it's MOA-- but exaggerations is not the sole realm of fishermen.

lol...... I know what you mean. The way I heard it was that people say they're getting more accuracy then they are. The same way they say they are getting more of something else than they are which I'll just leave to your imagination.

Some people get wound up really tight over this stuff because they are affraid their equipment or ability is inadequate because they are both largely untested. Some people are just accuracy junkies the way some people are speed junkies. Some people are just snobs or elitists and always have to be better than everybody else. That's basically who I had in mind in my first post in this thread.

Truth is I've never seen a rifle that would turn in sub-MOA that didn't pay for it in other ways be it weight or compactness, reliabilty, ease of cleaning, expense, whatever. Even then most of them won't do it forever and once things start getting banged around a lot accuracy starts going down. Depending on where and how you hunt babying your rifle isn't always an option and is seldom convenient.

IMO a real rifle is one that does the job you need it to do well. That job will always depend on different and often subjective criteria.

 

[rangerruck]

2 moa , out of the box, would do just fine, for any hunting purposes. I can tinker later.

 

[Art Eatman]

I figure that any modern rifle oughta be capable of sub-MOA groups. The manufacturing machinery is just too good.

Since the whole shooting/handloading/hunting deal has been a long-time hobby, anything "worse" than around 3/4 MOA starts me to tinkering. Forearm bedding and messing with handloads has pretty much been all I've ever needed to get a two-MOA rifle down to "Hey, it's pretty good!"

 

[Reyn]

Target pics Ammo was Remington factory 150gr Core-lok
100yds




4shots







220yds

 

[Markbo]

I would not own a centerfire rifle that will not shoot less than 1" 3 shot groups at 100 yards. If they don't, I tweak them until they do or send them on their way. I'm just anal that way. I cannot STAND a rifle that won't shoot.

 

[elmerfudd]

If it can't shoot at least 1 MOA, it's junk as far as a real rifle goes. Now, for a fun plinker / close quarters defense weapon, that's not necessary.

American Rifleman had an article earlier this year about Carlos Hathcock. Part of it quoted his armorer who maintained, repaired and accurized his rifles. According to his armorer, judging by the wear on the barrel his rifle probably didn't shoot any better than 2 MOA, yet he still managed to become the most successful sniper in US history.

 

[DiN_BLiX]

Its the anal "must shoot sub MOA" crowd that gives me so many deals on the local consignment rack, so far I havent found one yet that wont hit a man or dear size target at 300 yards. Ive shot a few garands and they do about 2-3moawith 1961 lakecity match, and a garand IS a real rifle.

 

[Sunray]

"... a MOA gun?..." Nope. A 1 MOA rifle shoots 1" at 100 yards, consistently. Consistent groups are far more important than the size. A rifle that is consistently accurate with a particular load, can usually be hand loaded to reduce the group size. Good ammo is essential. Mind you, a deer/moose/bear hunting rifle that will let you consistently hit a 9" pie plate at 100 yards, off hand, is accurate enough. Not so much for varmints or a hunting rifle used for antelope and other game normally taken at longer ranges than deer.

 

[tuck2]

After glass bedding the action, free floating the barrel, adjusting the trigger pull and maybe lapping the bolt locking and recutting the muzzle any Bolt Action rifle that will not shoot at least 3/4 inch groups with handloads hits the road. A big game rifle that will shoot 1 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards will take a lot of game but its fun to give them a tune up to see how small a group one can get out of them . If I miss a shot I know its me, not the rifle, scope, or my reloads. If I were to hunt in the woods where a long shot would be 100 yards or less any lever, pump, or semi auto rifle that would do 2 1/2 inch 100 yard groups would work for me but I hunt in the wide open country .

 

[1911 guy]

What's it for?

If I had a .22 rimfire that wouldn't put ten shots inside a dime at 25 yards, I'd sell it. Because I use them for squirrels and squirrels are small. I have a friend who competes smallbore. He expects one hole at that distance and would wrap my squirrel rifle around a tree before using it in a match.

My Ohio "deer rifle" is a 12ga and will put slugs into two inches at 50 yards. Plenty for deer at the ranges I shoot here in the Buckeye State. The .308 I take to W.Va puts five into half that size at twice the distance. It's needed there.

Personally, I don't do too much tinkering (other than handloading) and my buying/selling has more to do with what I want than what I need.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Let it pass the common sense test. I have some mosins that represent the whole spectrum of a target. Love them to death and won't get rid of them for nothing. I have a finn that shoots accurate. Its not going anywhere.
I have M1 garands that will not shoot MOA because they weren't designed to. They certainly aren't junk.
Hunting rifles, you will always get what you pay for. Seems that every wants an MOA shooter. There is a ton of ammunition that won't do it. Are You going to call that rifle junk? Not only that but from my experience in seeing people shoot. A majority of people can't shoot MOA if their lives depended on it. If they are lucky enough to shoot MOA or close to it they couldn't attribute how they did it. To the weather, bullets, heat of the barrel ect..
90% of anyone I have ever seen shooting can't shoot MOA and wouldn't be able. This isn't a flame on anyone but it is a fact. Not so many rifles ever shoot 3/4 MOA much less 1/2 MOA but its heralded about like practically achieveable by the average. I typically hear conversations concerning "putting it into the space of a dime at a hundred yards" If you are really doing that then go into competition. I actually heard a guy tell me that his rifle "placed 5 rounds into the same hole at one hundred yards and placed 5 rounds inside of a dime at five hundred yards". This was done with a $1200.00 gun. Barrel wasn't custom. Let common sense rule. If this guy was saying was true then he could be the next world champion.
If that rifle of yours was "junk" and hitting 2" MOA at 400 yards you are hitting an 8" target just fine. Ask yourself a question when was the last time you even shot at a four hundred yard target?

 

[Reyn]

Not only that but from my experience in seeing people shoot. A majority of people can't shoot MOA if their lives depended on it. If they are lucky enough to shoot MOA or close to it they couldn't attribute how they did it. To the weather, bullets, heat of the barrel ect..
90% of anyone I have ever seen shooting can't shoot MOA and wouldn't be able. This isn't a flame on anyone but it is a fact. Not so many rifles ever shoot 3/4 MOA much less 1/2 MOA but its heralded about like practically achieveable by the average. I typically hear conversations concerning "putting it into the space of a dime at a hundred yards" If you are really doing that then go into competition.

Thats been my experience also.

 

[Dobe]

I think it's great that we demand better and better accuracy. It is the quest, and manufacturers are listening. I can hardly wait to get my hands on a T/C Icon. It doesn't matter whether or not it is needed. I don't shoot every time with intentions of killing. I hunt, and I believe in protecting oneself, but I also love shooting just to be shooting...that means from the bench too.