How many of your can hold 1 MOA from your typical shooting position while hunting?

[Bear44]

Glad this old thread came back to life...it started me to thinking. The OP seemed to be making the point that hunters are obsessed
with sub-moa rifles when most of them are poor shots offhand at 100yds. I'll buy that. I would counter, however, that sub-moa rifles are a good thing, especially when taking shots at longer ranges (200yds+). If you are hunting the thick GA woods then any pie-plate lever gun will do...but if you are hunting South GA bean fields, power lines or Kansas rolling plains...you better have a sub-moa rifle.
The thread got me to reminiscing over the last 45 years of my deer hunting experience. The first big buck I shot at was right at dark in a swamp...from a tree stand. Hit him but never found him. From there I took many deer in Georgia in the woods...can't remember another miss.
When I got in my 40's and could afford it I got a chance to hunt out west...Kansas, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, etc.
I quickly learned the value of a sub-moa rifle. My best recollection in those 15 or 20 years of western hunting is two misses...both difficult shots in mountainous terrain. I can't remember exactly but I know I have taken at least 50 animals out west that were all one-shot kills...not bragging (maybe a little) but just the facts, ma'am. Out of all of those animals only 3 were shot off-hand at a moving target...one of the misses was an off-hand shot. I don't consider myself a spectacular shooter...I'm sure many members here would best me in a long-range precision rifle match. But in my opinion there is shooting match accuracy and then there is hunting accuracy. I agree with some of the above posts that encourage hunters to not fool around waiting on the perfect shot at big bucks. I have tried that a few times...and the buck is still out there. My biggest trophies were taken when I literally shot the deer within a second or two after seeing him...both 250 - 350 yd shots at last light...one while chasing a doe.
I think one of the reasons for not having more misses is that I passed up many shots when I knew that my crosshairs were not stable enough to ensure an ethical shot...especially at longer ranges.
Thanks for letting an old man ramble...and I will add one thing for you young whippersnappers that will add to your long range shot success. Get some shooting sticks and a monopod. And practice with them. 70-80% of my deer taken at ranges over 100 yards were taken with shooting sticks from a sitting position...the rest were taken prone using my backpack as a rest. And when using shooting sticks find the sweet spot of tension when leaning them forward just a bit...makes a big difference.

"I think one of the reasons for not having more misses is that I passed up many shots when I knew that my crosshairs were not stable enough to ensure an ethical shot...especially at longer ranges."

That is the key right there! I don't care if it is a 20 yard shot or a 400 yard shot, I don't make the final decision to pull the trigger until I see how stable those crosshairs are. You can't "will" a bullet on target. If it's not right, let it go and it doesn't matter if it's a doe or the buck of a lifetime.

 

[SOLGardener]

Its serendipitous that this is revived because I recently picked up a 700 SPS Tactical on a deal. I haven't shot it yet and will get a chance to soon. As I play with getting back in to precision shooting, it crosses my mind that there are updmgrades I'd consider on this rifle.

Once I traded into a 700 LTR that the PO had sent to Hart for a 20" heavy barrel. I loked it and got a deal on a Macmillan m40A1 stock, so paid the money to have the barrel threaded and have APA bed the stock. It shot fairly consistent around .62 to .75" groups. I wasnt really happy because I knew I could shoot better and I'd had a 10FP that shot the same for much less money. I ended up selling it and built an Armalite AR10T that was a drill. Consistently 1/2 moa to 500, and best groups in the .32- .43" for 5 at 10 .

All that to say, suppose this SPS shoots .70" 5 shot groups consistently and hold at or about 1 MOA to 6 or 700 yards, as is. I can chase 1/2moa and dump grand into it in barrel and thicker lug and better stock (it's in a B&C light tactical now), but how much is a 1/4MOA improvement really worth? I question myself to ask how do I quantify investing $900 in a stock, 500 plus in a barrel, 2 or 300 in a trigger to gain what amounts to small margins that are difficult to realize outside of a shooting bench?

These are rhetorical points, but it's to say that I get amused when I hear a guy tout how his rifle is such and such accurate if he does his part. It seems disingenuous to suggest that he is the consistent weak link, but the rifle is worth the expense.

If you shoot consistently 2moa or 1moa, what good is a 1/8moa capable rifle on your hands. How often can one exploit the best that such a rifle can do?
I guess it depends on the type of shooting one does.

 

[mfoster]

"I think one of the reasons for not having more misses is that I passed up many shots when I knew that my crosshairs were not stable enough to ensure an ethical shot...especially at longer ranges."

That is the key right there! I don't care if it is a 20 yard shot or a 400 yard shot, I don't make the final decision to pull the trigger until I see how stable those crosshairs are. You can't "will" a bullet on target. If it's not right, let it go and it doesn't matter if it's a doe or the buck of a lifetime.

I with you,i simply don’t shoot unless I’m 100% confident in the shot.

 

[Bear44]

Its serendipitous that this is revived because I recently picked up a 700 SPS Tactical on a deal. I haven't shot it yet and will get a chance to soon. As I play with getting back in to precision shooting, it crosses my mind that there are updmgrades I'd consider on this rifle.

Once I traded into a 700 LTR that the PO had sent to Hart for a 20" heavy barrel. I loked it and got a deal on a Macmillan m40A1 stock, so paid the money to have the barrel threaded and have APA bed the stock. It shot fairly consistent around .62 to .75" groups. I wasnt really happy because I knew I could shoot better and I'd had a 10FP that shot the same for much less money. I ended up selling it and built an Armalite AR10T that was a drill. Consistently 1/2 moa to 500, and best groups in the .32- .43" for 5 at 10 .

All that to say, suppose this SPS shoots .70" 5 shot groups consistently and hold at or about 1 MOA to 6 or 700 yards, as is. I can chase 1/2moa and dump grand into it in barrel and thicker lug and better stock (it's in a B&C light tactical now), but how much is a 1/4MOA improvement really worth? I question myself to ask how do I quantify investing $900 in a stock, 500 plus in a barrel, 2 or 300 in a trigger to gain what amounts to small margins that are difficult to realize outside of a shooting bench?

These are rhetorical points, but it's to say that I get amused when I hear a guy tout how his rifle is such and such accurate if he does his part. It seems disingenuous to suggest that he is the consistent weak link, but the rifle is worth the expense.

If you shoot consistently 2moa or 1moa, what good is a 1/8moa capable rifle on your hands. How often can one exploit the best that such a rifle can do?
I guess it depends on the type of shooting one does.

First of all, accuracy flaws are cumulative, so the accuracy of the rifle does have some impact regardless of the shooter's ability. Obviously a difference of a 1/2 MOA isn't going to mean much if the shooter is only capable of 3 MOA accuracy while hunting. That hunter shouldn't be shooting at anything beyond a 175 yards anyway.

On the other hand, if the shooter has real capability and plans to use it, those little MOA difference add up. For competition it's all about how competitive you want to be. A 1/4 MOA difference in the rifle's capability can make the difference between a win and being in the middle of the pack. As for hunting, again it's all about what you are shooting at and at what range you want to be able to do it.

One of my precision rifles is specifically for extreme range hunting. It's a 300 RUM that consistently shoots .05 to .063 groups while I'm prone with a bipod. I spent over a $1000 dollars to get that rifle to do it, rather than the .75 to 1.0 it was shooting before the work was done. That doesn't seem like much of a difference, but the real world effect was to extend the maximum range I would be comfortable taking a shot (as long as all other conditions are perfect) from 700 yards before the work to 1000 yards after the work. That's a big real world difference.

 

[benjamin]

I have a $100 against a dollar, as how many shots you want to shoot here at house. Bring a lot of money I have all day

 

[SOLGardener]

One of my precision rifles is specifically for extreme range hunting. It's a 300 RUM that consistently shoots .05 to .063 groups while I'm prone with a bipod. I spent over a $1000 dollars to get that rifle to do it, rather than the .75 to 1.0 it was shooting before the work was done. That doesn't seem like much of a difference, but the real world effect was to extend the maximum range I would be comfortable taking a shot (as long as all other conditions are perfect) from 700 yards before the work to 1000 yards after the work. That's a big real world difference.

That's precisely what I'm talking about. You spent the $1k, but the precision of your rifle improved ten fold. That's worth the money, IMO.

Was it not Cooper that said "only accurate rifles are interesting"?

My point was that one can easily spend a couple thousand and see little if any gains over a $30 remington barrel and when they spend the money and dont shoot better they cop out by giving the old when I do my part. Who cares how accurate the rifle is If you can't make it do its best?! See cmshoot's sigline.

In my experience with precision shooting, I want to see that I'm at the limits of the rifle. I can be honest enough with myself to know whether it's me or the gun.

In your case you know that your 300 RUM will shoot at least as good as you. Is it capable of better than .05?

 

[mcdougmd]

I need a rifle that is perfect to make up for my inadequacies.

 

[Bear44]

That's precisely what I'm talking about. You spent the $1k, but the precision of your rifle improved ten fold. That's worth the money, IMO.

Was it not Cooper that said "only accurate rifles are interesting"?

My point was that one can easily spend a couple thousand and see little if any gains over a $30 remington barrel and when they spend the money and dont shoot better they cop out by giving the old when I do my part. Who cares how accurate the rifle is If you can't make it do its best?! See cmshoot's sigline.

In my experience with precision shooting, I want to see that I'm at the limits of the rifle. I can be honest enough with myself to know whether it's me or the gun.

In your case you know that your 300 RUM will shoot at least as good as you. Is it capable of better than .05?

Truth be told it's already capable of better than .05. I know this because it shoots groups that size when I'm shooting it and there is always some element of human error regardless of how good the shooter is.

I did some serious messing around with load development before and after I had the work done to get the best groups I could. There might be a more accurate load for it, but I'm happy with where it's at now. Especially when you consider I'm using a hunting bullet, rather than a match bullet. 210gr. Nosler LR Accubond.