What do you consider good accuracy?

[SRMohawk]

You are men after my own heart, to be sure! But because I have for so long allowed several friends of mine who are obsessed with what a rifle can do when saddled in a monolithic rest and rear bag on a concrete bench weighing half-a-ton and with 6" steel pipe stantions, I have drifted far afield from what really matters.

It seems that less and less I spend time at the range shooting from either a prone position or off-hand and more and more in the above mode. What am doing when already I had it down as far back as several years ago, when from a prone position and off a Harris bipod, I was shooting 20-round groups 600 yards out that were a small as a softball. And the load with which I was doing that wouldn't shoot under a 1/2" under any circumstances!

 

[rockstar.esq]

After trying my hand at 1000yd shooting with more experienced shooters I was surprised that they weren't all that concerned with 100yd group size. Of course their sport (and in time, mine) is to make a one shot hit at a man sized steel target at an unknown (albiet distant) range. They said that 1 MOA comes to 10" groups at 1000 yds which fits well in the chest area of the 18" wide target. Someone above surmised that a 4MOA shooter with a 1 MOA rifle could/would result in a group as large as 10 MOA I've not seen that to be the case in actual shooting situations. Although the aggregate MOA comes to 5 MOA, keep in mind that if the rifle is sighted properly that 5 MOA should be centered on the target. The shooter is more often than not the limitation when it comes to results. The added inaccuracy that get's attributed to the rifle is hard to assess because many shooters fail to comprehend the relevence of "benchresting" their rifle. I believe that WAY too much stock is placed on the misconception that the greatest accuracy of both shooter and rifle will be displayed there. This is probably true for out of shape shooters and for people unwilling to learn how to properly use a sling, however I've achieved repeated three shot groups that were sub MOA from the sling assisted prone. What I consider more valuable about using the prone position is that the optics are dialed in for the conditions where I'll actually do my shooting, I'm not worried about where my chair was relative to the bench nor am I concerned about how long it takes me to shoot. My height above the ground is the distance from my elbow to my shoulder, with a tight sling I don't have much variance in my setup. The real deal benchrest shooters differ tremendously from "Joe Blow" in that they are typically using rests with micrometer adjustments that are painstakingly monitored to ensure repeatability. My final point is that although a great deal can be said of the relative precision of a given rifle, I've not experienced a single case where tailored handloads failed to measurably improve performance. My groups went from .6MOA using match grade BHA to a .19MOA best ever group using my own handloads! That's nearly a 30% improvement and the handloads are cheaper (not including labor) than the BHA match stuff.

P.S. I honestly do not intend to sound as though I am down on folks who use a benchrest to assess accuracy, nor do I wish to sound as though I'm unusually talented. I've spent considerable time practicing in prone, sitting, kneeling, and offhand using the book "The Art of the Rifle" as my main resource. I belive more improvement in my shooting is attributable to practicing my form than any other component.

 

[wanderinwalker]

I think the true test of a rifle (or any firearm) is how well you can shoot it without the sandbags. I don't care if my rifle shoots one-holers all day long off of sand if I can't shoot it offhand because it doesn't fit or feel right. It doesn't do me any good if my rifle is cutting the X-ring from the bench if it hits the 9-ring offhand.

Case in point: I had a Remington Mountain Rifle in .260 Remington. Great shooter, wicked accurate when I did everything right. Problem was, I was inconsistent with it firing offhand or prone. Some days I couldn't miss; other days I couldn't hit. The stock was just a pinch too short for me and scrunched me down.

Solution: I traded it for a T/C Encore (actually a muzzleloader now, but hey). Even though this rifle isn't scoped, I am far more comfortable and confident with my ability to hit things with it. It fits!

And between the two rifles I'm out only about $900 over the past 4 years!

Of course, I still love the ergonomics of an AR-15. I can't seem to miss much with it. When I'm practicing and actually in form to compete, a BAD day of rapid fire is a group edge-to-edge on the 9-ring!

 

[1911 guy]

That's just it.

What were all discussing is the definition of accuracy and what were willing to do to get it. I'm going to assume a well fitted rifle here.

I'm a firm believer in benching a rifle to see what it does. Also for working up a handload. Take the human component out as much as possible and see what it's mechanically capable of. Now your skill comes into play and becomes the limiting factor. When you know your setup is capable of a certain level of accuracy and your groups show less accuracy, you know it's you that's the problem. That's the advantage of a bench.

I'm also a firm believer in choosing an adequate caliber for the job. I shoot varmints out to 300 yards. A .223 works well. If I was a better shot and had more open country I'd opt for a .22-250, .243 or .25-05. I shoot prone from a bipod and get tiny little groups, whack 'chucks all day long.
My .308 is a deer rifle. Capable of better range and accuracy, but I limit myself to not much over 200 yards because bipods aren't useful in 2 feet of snow and benchrests aren't common in the woods. Offhand, sitting or using a tree are my shooting positions. The failing is in my skill. I expect and get a certain level of accuracy this way. I push the envelope on paper, stay within my limits on game.

 

[Brad Clodfelter]

Here's my definition of an accurate rifle.

Suhl 150 original factory barrel stamped for date of 11/74, McMillan benchrest stock, factory trigger adjusted to 2oz, Hoehn 4000 tuner, Weaver T36X scope

That group above measured .021ctc.

 

[gbran]

I am constantly on a conquest to obtain the most accurate firearms I can afford. Not for bragging rights about how good a shot I am or will be, but because I'm not the world's best marksman, so I need the best equip I can afford.

 

[_N4Z_]

My idea of accuracy today.

With my revolvers (.357's) - I think 8" paper plate from 7 to 25 yards is real world acceptable. Moment of man at 50 yards also acceptable. Thats standing, no rests or supports.

With my AK 7.62 clone - Again I think 8" paper plate @ 100 yards is real world acceptable. Moment of man out to 200 yards. This time prone or sitting, no optics.

Mr. Marlin 336 30-30 the last time out did a 1" group @ 50yards and a little under 2.5" @ 100 yards. This was rested, iron sights. Real world unsupported it's good to go wacking big coffee cans at 100 yards. Good nuff for me.

Mr. Marlin 925 is a scoped .22LR - I think anything under a quarter size @ 50 yards with this rifle is plenty accurate. This is rested typically as the rifle is a paper punching fun plinker only. No fancy expensive ammo either. Mostly Fed510 bulk pack, 500 rounds for 8 bucks.


My idea of accuracy 16 to 20 years ago was dropping the pop up minute of man at 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters, with an M16A1, open sights, atleast 36+ out of 40 times. .....those intermediate distances may have varied some, but it was out to 300.

 

[10-Ring]

I have a buddy coaching me in the art of shooting a rifle. Me, I'm happy right now just staying in the black at 100 yards. Him, well, no matter what the long gun, I've consistently seen him shoot 3 shot groups & have all three rounds at least touching each other.... I find that too be good...maybe very good!...accuracy.

 

[rangerruck]

for me, as long as I can take my stock stuff, and smoke the guys shooting higher end custom rigs to the left and right of me...

 

[BinkyBoyJason]

My idea of accuracy would be taking 3 shots at a target at 1,000 yards away with a .50 BMG and having the last 2 shots go through the same hole.

 

[dragongoddess]

0.0 MOA

 

[SRMohawk]

Now DG, if you're realizing that level of accuracy in a man-portable .30 caliber firearm (not an 80-lb rail gun) without having to spend 20 hours at the reloading bench for every hour you spend on the range, then invite me out to your place on the other side of the state and I'll write you a blank check for the secrets to it all!

Brad Clodfelter,
I've got four rifles very similar to that one. And while they're VERY accurate, they're also HUGE liabilities under just about any circumstances wherein a man REALLY needs a rifle. What are we gonna do with such arms when SHTF . . . carry around our MTM maintenance centers and cleaning rods along with the rifle?!?!?

After trying my hand at 1000yd shooting with more experienced shooters I was surprised that they weren't all that concerned with 100yd group size.

I've found that this is often because the heavier projectiles used by 1000-yd shooting enthusiasts aren't as accurate as lighter, faster projectiles at closer ranges. And I mean within the same calibers as well! No one ever informed me in advance of serendipitously discovering this for myself either. I got alot of; "Well, of course!" responses from authorities in 1000-yard shooting, however, when I started telling them that I had a .300 WSM that would consistently shoot a given load incorporating 167-gr Scenars into ragged holes at 200 yards but couldn't hold under 1 MOA beyond 600 yards; while another load I'd worked up using 185-gr Scenars would only shoot 0.75 MOA groups at 200 yards, but held this level of accuracy out to 1000 yards. They all explained it the same way, too, saying: "Heavy projectiles stabilize less readily than lighter ones, but lighter projectiles de-stabilize more readily than heavier ones."

 

[Legionnaire]

Forget this 0.3moa nonsense. That's strictly benchrest type shooting. Those conditions simply DO NOT EXIST in any real world application. Not in the field, not anywhere except on a concrete range bench with fancy bags and a rest.

Don't Tread On Me, I disagree to an extent. For the record, the group in my earlier post was shot prone from a Harris bipod with a field-ready bean bag under the toe of the stock. Prone may not be a position from which many hunters shoot (although I took a six-point in NY last fall from prone), but it is definitely a field position. Kind of depends on your definition of a "real world application." Military and LEO marksmen would disagree with you, I believe.

That said, I don't disagree with the implied difference between "technical" accuracy and "practical" accuracy. It's just that practical accuracy is more difficult with a firearm that won't go under 2MOA or, for 500 yards plus, 1MOA.

 

[Clipper]

I feel that with modern metalurgy and the repeatability and accuracy of CNC machining equipment, there is no excuse for accepting a modern turnbolt rifle from any major manufacturer that won't hold MOA or better with good over the counter commercial ammo. I would not hesitate to demand a repair or replacement from any one of them if I couldn't generate MOA groups from a rifle that cost $700.00 or so. I'm a toolmaker/machinist by trade, and I can tell you it all boils down to quality control. Dimentional accuracy breeds uniformity of components. The true test would, in theory, be to interchange major parts within a product line without hand-fitting, and maintaining accuracy and reliability of function. CNC is making this a reality if the manufacturer does his part and spends the time and money to maintain the equipment. That's where you'll see some fall down on the job, and as a consequence, quality fluctuates from piece-to-piece.

 

[redneck2]

I'm a toolmaker/machinist by trade, and I can tell you it all boils down to quality control.

There was a pretty good article in Handloader maybe a year ago about accuracy (rifles). Thirty years ago a real 1" rifle was pretty much unheard of. Now we fully expect it, so what changed??

Actually, it's the bullets. They took older rifles with new bullets and shot superb groups. Took new rifles with old stock ammo and shot bad groups.

There some kind of machine (Juenke maybe, dunno about spelling) that measures concentricity of finished bullets. Running bullets thru the machine and sorting them made all the difference in the world. He even had a box of bullets that had been dropped off a table onto a concrete floor. You could tell the difference with the machine.

 

[dragongoddess]

The question was:
What do you consider good accuracy?

My answer was
0.0 MOA

I don't reload. I don't have expensive tack drivers. I forgot what I was thinking about. Nevermind. Oh I remember now. Darn it forgot it again.
Oh everyone is invited to visit El Paso. Thats it.

If you are making that long trip west and feel the need to do a little shooting and you happen to be in El Paso drop me a line. The Ft. Bliss Rod and Gun Club is open from sun up to sun down 6 days a week. They are closed on Monday. There are rifle only ranges, handgun ranges, LEO range, Plinking, and several Trap and Skeet ranges. No .50BMG's even though one range goes out to a 1,000 yards. The kitchen in the clubhouse is open on the weekends for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Through the week its chips,snacks,sodas and beer. Do I not have it good or what.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

I look at it this way-

Off a bench a bolt gun better do under 2" at 100 yards.
The other end- an iron sighted ak that will hold 5" at 100 is accaptable.

This is concerning the average guy off-the-shelf guns- not $2,000+ custom stuff.

Then there's practical accuracy-

IE: deer hunt 3 years ago-

Nothing moving in the woods so we figured a little trigger time was needed. So we picked a white rock out on hillside that was "out there" a ways.

We all shot standing with slings, without rangefinding the target.

I missed the rock with my new scoped 700 bdl 30-06, brother missed it with his scoped 2 year old ruger m77 300 mag. Buddy missed it with his scoped bolt action savage 308. Dad- he did what he alyways did- pulled the trigger and SMACK!! puff of white dust off the rock.

Yet all 4 of us at the bench can hold 1 inch or better @ 100 yds. with the loads we were shooting that day.

Turns out it was the shoulder of a BIG chunk of granite sticking out of the ground measuring roughly 16" in diameter. Distance? Right at 411 yards. The impact mark? About 2" off center at 2 o'clock.

Why did this happen?

Because dad was using his Winchester 30-06 XVR that he's had since before I was around,(I'm in my 30's) using a load he developed before I was around, looking through a redfield 3X9 that he mounted on that gun the day he bought it.

The point? He KNOWS what that gun will do. The rest of us were(and are) still on a learning curve with our guns. And obviously he's better at range estimation.

 

[MJ]

4 out of 5 in the same hole @ 100 will do

but with a 60 year old rifle 1.75 MOA out to 400 is OK.




MJ

 

[P0832177]

Accuracy is all relative, it is more about the nut behind the gun then the gun. I have shot with people that are just plain good! Of course they need a decent rifle. Bench shooting is not field practical shooting either now is it?

I have shot enough HP knowing that shooting awful hand is not as easy as it seems that is for sure!

The problem is that you introduce wind, light, and accurate judgement of distance into that equation and it gets dicey with hunting situations!

I have moved my load devolopment to 300 yds. That seems to be much more realistic. I have loads that will drill holes at 100 yds, but then that is sort of boring!

Defining acceptable accuracy takes many issues into account.

Hunting grade rifles need to be 1.50 MOA or less at 200yds

Target/Precision grade rifles need to be 0.50MOA or less within their realistic ranges and cartridge characteristics.
IE 6ppc is good 300yds, where ass 6BR is good to 600 yds or more?
IE 308 is should hold less then MOA to 1Kyds

223 in the varmint slaying business needs to be MOA out to 500 yds or so depending on twist limits of the bbl!

Then you look at 22 Target rifles, and well some are boring they are just that accurate!

 

[SRMohawk]

DG,
Kickass range, gal! Better than the gun club I just joined for sure!!! Hell, I'd feel like I had 'arrived' if I could shoot all morning and then just amble over to the 'ole mess hall on the same grounds for some chow!

MJ,
I hate you, man! My $5,000+ rigs don't shoot better than that unless I labor over the manufacture of the ammo for them all night!!!

 

[MJ]

Sorry!

How about another rifle on air rifle targets at 100 yards?



Everyone should know that an Enfield lays in after 200~300 yards. I sight all of mine in at 200 but in real life they use 350 and shootlow. It's knowing your rifle.

Cheers
MJ

 

[vmfrantz]

i get upset with my self if my shots dont all atleast touch each other. i'm spoiled though, i mostly shot rem 700 varmint special 223. i love it

 

[cmb3366]

For bolt action deer rifles, I demand that they shoot at least a 1" 3shot group at 100Yds with Handloads and Sierra's. Factory HB varming guns are expected to run at leaast .75" 5 shot groups at 100yds. I've had to sell a fair number of rifles that wouldent meet these standards.

There's no such thing as a quarter inch rifle, untill you get into BR setups in the PPC , BR, and 222 chamberings.

 

[TimboKhan]

To be perfectly honest, my interest in printing small groups has diminished substantially over the years. While it is fun to shoot a tiny little group, it boils down to the fact that I just don't care anymore. Generally, I know what my rifles are capable of doing with me shooting them, and thats really all I am concerned about. Of course, to say that grouping is useless would be dumb. I have and will again in the future sit down and group my rifles off the bench (because, as rockstar.esq says, I am out of shape and the prone position is quite uncomfortable for me), because I enjoy doing so from time to time, and because it is a good way to make sure everything still functions like it did before. However, if a particular rifle prints at MOA or even slightly over, I just don't care. I am not now, nor to I intend to be a bullseye shooter, and neither am I a sniper. Thus, tiny little groups, while interesting, are not indicative of overall function for me. Besides all that, I think that working on technique is far more useful than worrying about itty-bitty groups. Speaking for me, I can hit or get close to hitting most things I can see (within a reasonable range. I can see out to 800 yards, but I don't know that I can just start ringing gongs at will at that range) and I am 100% sure that the misses are entirely attributable to technique flaws over the weapon or the ammo. I can't tell you how many times I have taken a shot, only to realize the instant the trigger breaks that I jerked it a little bit, or I got impatient (that happens a lot, unfortunately for me), or whatever.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Minute of Blue Helmet