How much accuracy is needed?

[dpevey]

Hey everyone. I have a question I've been pondering for a while. How accurate is accurate enough? I know the more accurate the better but realistically, how accurate should a rifle be to shoot say, 600-800 yards? Not trying to make anyone angry with this post either. Is .75-1.0 MOA accurate enough for the "average" shooter out to 400-500 yards? Just want to hear some of yalls replies on what the minimum would be for y'all as I have VERY little experience with shooting past 350 yards.
Thanks
David.

 

[dpevey]

And if I posted this in the wrong section I apologize.

 

[IdahoCTD]

It depends on the size of the target to some degree. Varmints require a higher degree of accuracy for consistent kills then deer, elk, or moose. Basically if a rifle wont consistently group less than the kill zone of whatever your shooting at the distance your shooting at it then it's not accurate enough IMO (personally I like much better accuracy then that). Consistenly is the key. Just because it shoots 4" at 800yds one day and 16" the next doesn't mean it's a 1/2 MOA gun. Knowing beyond a reasonable doubt your going to hit the animal where you want to hit it is the most important thing. Taking the risk of wounding an animal just to say you hit it at XXXX yds is foolish.

 

[Greyfox]

I agree with everything Idaho CDT said. I would add that striving for the best genuine accuracy achievable will assist when dealing with uncontrollable variables that come into play with LR. For example, while 1 MOA could suffice with a + 500 yard shot on a whitetail, add a difficult wind read that could add an additional 5"+ of wind drift, you could have a cripple. The goal of long range shooting is to optimize as best you can the contollable factors in order to minimize the uncontrollable ones. Accuracy/precision is one of the more controllable factors.

 

[Max Heat]

Taking the risk of wounding an animal just to say you hit it at XXXX yds is foolish.

Foolish just doesn't sound right. It goes deeper than that. I think that what you meant was:

-unethical-

 

[dpevey]

I definitely agree with y'all that more accuracy is better and on the unethical part. The only reason I asked is I've met people who put more emphasis on accuracy than practice. I feel that it's better to have a rifle that shoots 1 MOA and the guy behind the trigger shoots a lot and feels confident than a rifle that shoots .5 MOA and the guy shooting it doesn't practice at all. A lot if people down here think that a tack driver replaces practice.

 

[LouBoyd]

Feeling confident is not the same as being certain of capability. Shooting 1/2" groups at a range once a week may give a person great confidence that they're an excellent shooter. But that may not translate into keeping "cold barrel" shots in an 8" kill zone at 500+ yards when they spot a deer. That takes a different form of practice. Having the skill and judgement to know when wind or other conditions may not allow a clean shot is not helped by feeling confident.