Hunting Rifle MOA Rant

[gohring3006]

I see a lot of statements where they have a rifle that they can't get to shoot better than 1.5 Moa, but they don't have a possibility of a shot farther than 300 yards.
That particular rifle/load is just fine for that situation.

 

[Tyler Kee]

I'm of a different school of thought. 'Time and effort' would be better spent on learning to shoot from field positions(for hunting), rather than worrying about 1/2 moa accuracy from your rifle. Case in point, I went to a hunters shoot competition where EVERY rifle was a 1/2 moa gun. Of the 30-some shooters, only 2 were able to hit a 8 plate at 200 on the first shot, offhand. And they were no better offa shooting sticks. But when they were able to go prone with a rear bag, they shot great....

Much clapping over here. Years ago, a very kind man used the word "myopic" to describe the race to collect the finest gear among the hunting community. Others, less polished, have described it as gear queering. Either way, I think broad swaths of the hunting community focus really hard on mechanical accuracy and terminal performance when their practical accuracy is trash and the deer doesn't seem to care whether it was a 165 gr or 180 gr projectile that hit them.

I've always read "good enough for a hunting rifle" more as, "I've reached the practical limits of what I can achieve mechanically and the incremental difference between 3/4 MOA and 1/4 MOA will be lost on me when I can only hold 2 MOA in field positions"

 

[Bigeclipse]

I don't post on this site very often but I do however read a lot of posts. The one phrase that I just can't seem to get past is (that's good enough for a hunting rifle). I have to wonder where exactly does this thought process come from? I don't know about you guys but when I shoot an animal I want to hit my mark every time. It doesn't really matter whether it's the buck of a lifetime or just a doe for meat. I have great respect for all of the furry Critters in the woods and want them to die quickly and as painlessly as possible. A paper Target will never get up and run away wounded. Every rifle I own is a .5 MOA rifle or better or it goes down the road. I target shoot with the same exact rifles that I hunt with and I hunt with the same exact loads that I target shoot with. Who wants to take a 600 yard shot at the animal of a lifetime with a 1.5 MOA rifle? I know I sure wouldn't and maybe in a lot of areas you don't get the chance to take a shot that far away but if I ever do I **** sure want to rifle that can connect. I guess my point is that I spend just as much if not more time developing loads for my hunting rifles as I do for a gun that may only get shot at the range for the most part. I see absolutely no reason why every single rifle of decent quality should not be able to shoot .5 MOA if you put the time and effort into it.

Al

I am in the same school of thought as you but I'm trying not to be. Reason being is I'm tired of spending tons of time working up loads and spending lots of money to achieve sub .5MOA accuracy and honestly I only have one place where I can shoot about 475 yards. To this day a deer has not stepped foot at that distance in that field as it is a small wide open area. All other shots in that particular field are 300 yards and in. All my other places I hunt, shots are 200 yards and in. So now I'm in the mindset that I just want sub 1 MOA accuracy for new rifles. If I know I am going to hunt that one field, then I bring my best gun which does shoot .5MOA or better (savage semi-custom 7mm remmag) but all my other rifles I simply want to be light weight, look nice (haha) and shoot under 1 MOA out to 300 yards as 98% of my hunting is spent at short ranges now.

 

[Deviant]

I guess my point is that I don't think you should quit at 1 MOA when most firearms today are capable of more. Even my old $300 savage .308 would do better than .5 MOA. I guess I see the point that a lot of shooters probably don't have the skill or capability. I have military experience and have been shooting since as far back as I can remember (thanks dad) but I think we owe it to the animals we hunt to give it our best.

Thanks for all the replies. I like to hear everyone's input good or bad.

Al

 

[J E Custom]

This has been a good discussion and shows the difference in the way people feel about accuracy and how much effort is required to reach there goal. Some feel like there is never to much effort spent to pursue
excellence. To others there is a practical limit to how much effort is enough for the results wanted.

Just because I want the rifle As good as I can make it, doesn't mean that
good enough for them is bad. It just means that my standards are higher and that No amount of effort is to much to get the best out of a system.

Why do we reload? It used to be price and availability. Now most people re-load to achieve better accuracy. Some like to load ammo to shoot, others like to load accurate ammo to group. And lastly there are some that like to hunt and hit exactly where they aim. They get satisfaction from a perfect hit adding to the total experience of hunting.

Nothing worthwhile is easy and the more effort given, the better the outcome.

So "Good enough" may be fine for some, But not for others and there are those that will never stop trying for "The best They can Make it"
Its what makes the world go round.

J E CUSTOM

 

[KyCarl]

Killing deer doesn't require the "One Hole" accuracy that paper punchers strive for.
Will my 25-06 win any contest? I doubt it..Does it whack deer? Like a champion!
Good enough is just that..Good enough! My proof is laying on the ground!
Checking my log..In the last 3 years I have killed 32 deer with 33 shots?
I'm happy with that!!
Let me ad that 31 of those were does I hunt for the freezer!
Hormone infused bucks don't eat like fat little does.

 

[Vortex!]

Drives me crazy of I can't get one moa groups.

 

[memtb]

I certainly prefer sub-moa, but "if" I am determined to use a specific rifle or bullet, I will make exceptions....within reason! At one time I "settled" for just over moa with my AI, using the Barnes X (original), knowing that the Hornady 270 grain SP, was capable of 3/4" or slightly smaller groups. I was willing to sacrifice 1/2" at 100 yards.

I, want the best that I can get from my sporter weight hunting rifle. When/if I miss....I want "no" questions as to "why" I missed! "I" missed .....the rifle/ load/ scope "did not"! memtb

 

[Canhunter35]

If you're developing loads from prone without a lead sled, you're practicing field positions and hopefully perfecting ur load at the same time.
For myself I never feel the rifle or myself are good enough, but it'll have to do cause hunting season is here!
But once you've reached maximum accuracy on a load, you might as well start practicing higher from the ground field positions.
But to me: tuning a rifle equals trigger time equals practice

 

[6MM06AI]

After years of striving for one hole 3 shot groups with all my rifles, I have come to realize some of them just won't get there. Due to the cartridge and or bullet that you are loading. Makes no sense to me to burn up a barrel trying to get there. So I have come to the conclusion that Yeah sometimes .5 moa for a hunting rifle is close enough. These long range hunting bullets are not as accurate as target bullets, and don't think they are supposed to be. But the more accurate the rifle your packing, the more confidence you'll have when you take that shot. I won't take a rifle hunting if it won't shoot .5 moa. just for piece of mind if nothing else.
Great topic, enjoyed reading the different thoughts.
Ted

 

[rjtaylor]

Some people might not be able to afford .5 moa. Just the practice alone to get yourself to .5 moa would cost a ton of money. Some peoples budget might only allow them the ability to afford a 1 moa rifle with factory loads. Nothing wrong with someone that has a 1 moa rifle that they are confident they can ethically kill a deer at a particular distance.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Tuning is a skill. No different than loading or shooting. Knowing how to go about finding an accurate load and then keeping the load tweaked as weather changes and the barrel wears is something that has to be learned (you have to want to learn it). I shoot almost exclusively at 1k. I tune and shoot there often. Well over 10k rounds down range at that distance. Seeing the way things change and the way a load works at those long ranges has made me dislike the marketing associated with LR hunting. A consistent 1k yard load is not an easy thing to come by. Yes I am a lr hunter and I think its a great way to take game, but the notion the $$$ can buy those skills is pure BS. Tuning, shooting, connecting at long range, they are all skills that have to be practiced. They can not be bought, research is great but it does not replace actual range time.

 

[dok7mm]

Interesting opinions. I guess I fall on on the side of developing the most accurate and consistent load possible. I'm sure most of my round count is due to load development and practice. Few are actually sent into big game, but I am very confident in my load and rifle abilities. I believe any animal deserves my best.

I am lucky to own very fine rifles, 35 years of reloading experience and a lifetime of shooting. My goals are loads that are 1/2 moa to 600 yds, my self imposed limit for big game. I have been able to achieve that with each rifle under good conditions. The actual conditions determine how far, when hunting. The wind and pucker factor can make a big difference in POI.

For the average hunter, "good enough" is fine, as long as they know and abide by the range they are effective. I would hope, that any hunter, would try to use the most accurate ammo he could buy and reloaders, the most accurate they can build.

 

[memtb]

Seeing some of the demands that many of you place on the rifle, load, and yourselves....can these demands be met with a rifle that can be carried for miles, daily in the mountains. Or, is it a rifle that is carried to/from a shooting location via. a horse or vehicle....Assuming that most of us are "not" world class athletes.
I realize that this a "long range" section....but, IMO, the expectations from a carry rifle and a heavy, long range dedicated rifle.....would likely be a different standard! memtb