Your points are your opinions about what other people do, not facts that need to be countered. But since your logic is fundamentally flawed, let's play.
Most 'hunters' use off the shelf components and watch their costs.
Many real hunters also use projectiles that that are not off the shelf and don't watch their costs. Many of us subscribe to the theory of "why would you go cheap on the one thing that actually touches the animal?" Your strawman don't hunt. (That's an American idiom saying your explanation is fundamentally flawed. Punny because it used "hunt" but not in the context of actually hunting. I crack myself up.)
Those using CNC machined projectiles aren't the norm,
Monolithic bullets are very normal and are mandated for use in enough places that mono-only companies have grown to fill that need. Again, you're making assumptions based on where you are and are not considering that we're aren't there with you.
also no matter how the projectile is manufactured the QA process needs to be flawless. Plenty of garbage gets produced on the most expensive and accurate machining centres LOL that's something that I know all about unfortunately.
That's nice, but your logic is flawed when applied to Cutting Edge, Hammer, Makers, and Berger. Their QC has been proven to be excellent, and their customer service likewise. Your overly broad statement is correct, but not in relation to the specific manufacturers you were shown and are rebutting. If you doubt this, I bet you $50 that if you call Hammer and ask for Steve, he'll assuage your fears that monolithic hunting bullets aren't a niche fad, and that there is physiological evidence from hunted animals supporting that his bullet design is better at inducing exsanguination than traditional cup-and-core bullets that mushroom.
In the real world taking a shot at game over long distance there probably innumerable other genuine concerns for the hunter other than having the ultimate projectile, just saying.
Completely disagree, at long distance the terminal performance of the bullet is paramount, and is quite literally the only concern. Significantly more important than shorter range hunting where retained energy will cover for poor bullet performance differently than low energy long range shots. What the bullet does is of primary importance, how it gets there is secondary because if it doesn't get there that's an immeasurably better answer than it gets there and wastes a harvestable animal.
A tired and stressed hunter is far more inaccurate than someone who's relaxed and shooting off a bench.
Correct, but again overly broad. What tired and stressed hunter will ever perform better than he can in controlled situations? Not necessarily shooting from the bench (which is disingenuous of you, as I and many other shoot off the ground whether hunting or competing), but if their fundamentals and equipment haven't been proven to work before they're in the field, what level of confidence can they have? When I take a shot at an animal, I've literally made longer and harder shots hundreds of times, specifically to overcome the stress and fatigue I'm feeling at the time. Training is a fundamental aspect of hunting.
There's a myriad of factors involved with hunting animals humanly at longer ranges and where say a rifle that's shooting 1/4 MOA consistently probably isn't the #1 criteria.
Again, overly broad, but pairs with a specifically narrow fallacy. Confidence in ability and ALL equipment is fundamental to the mindset required to perform at the level required to make long distance shots. A rifle capable of making the shot is just as important as wind reading skills, an appropriately selected caliber, the shooting ability to manage recoil, woodcraft, and the dozen other things that come together. Maybe not #1 ahead of things like "will I have a heart attack hiking in" or "am I dressed well enough to not freeze to death setting up for the shot", but a rifle that shoots well is an inarguably important piece of equipment in the sport of long range hunting.
As for being specifically narrow, 1/4 MOA is an accuracy description you introduced that you're trying to use to knock down a strawman that heretofore hasn't been raised. We didn't say that 1/4 MOA was the required accuracy, you did. My opinion would be a rifle no less capable than the shooter, but if the shooter is consistently capable of exceeding 1/4 MOA accuracy, then yes a commensurate rifle would be an important criterion.
There's theory and the cold hard reality out in the field, literally a world of difference.
And your conjectures are nothing more than your opinions of what is best in your world. You're in a technical section of a forum that is not populated by average hunters or shooters, complaining that the nitpicking doesn't apply to you. Please disregard and move on then. Or if you're here to play, pull out something better than your opinions and fallacies. Hopefully you have something meaningful to offer because people here are surprisingly receptive to non-canonical thought. Hence Veteran here pushing the logic and determinative boundary on suppressed shooting.
