Acceptable accuracy

Gene L

What is your standards for "acceptable accuracy?"  A general question, I know, and variable.  My acceptable accuracy with iron sights is maybe 2 1/2 moa, with a scope, a lot less.  For hunting (I don't hunt) what is acceptable?  I've had bughole guns with a scope, and 5 moa with a Mosin Nagant, and 3" with a K 31.

I think it depends....I don't shoot scopes much any more.  I know I can hit far more than necessary with a scoped rifles and find irons to be more challenging.  On another forum, I noted a post for  Russian ammo ammo that was related to about 3.1 inches at 300 meters with a PU sniper rifle which is pretty damn good.  This was on the package, it was noted that this was "competition ammo" not necessarily sniper ammo...according to the informed poster.

How about you?

earlyagain

Three to four inches at 50 yards with my hawken caplock put 9 elk in the freezer.

1.5 th 2.0 inches with my scoped bolt action at 100 yards put three elk in the freezer.

A 6 to 8 inches for ten shots at 50 yards with my SKS feels good.

When I took my Ruger SBH with me bear hunting I was happy with 3 to 4 inches at 25 yards. Same size at 7 to 15 yards close to POA with my other handguns.

Both rifles used for elk would hit within a one inch circle at the designated distance for the first shot consistently. More important than groups for the intended use.

It takes practice to be accurate. Im not willing to sacrafice whats necessary right now. Maybe later in life I hope.

Jayhawker

For my bolt guns and gas guns if it's not sub-moa it's going to get that way or go down the road.
My Sharps are 3" guns at 100 yard as are the lever guns.

I find that with a lot of rifles, folks get what they settle for...

Bigslug

They all get the same accuracy work up treatment that has usually resulted in very good things, however, I no longer lay awake nights, rip my hair out, or threaten to sell it if I can't cover five shots with a quarter.  If the gun does that, I'm giggly like a six year old who ate too many Fruit Loops, but I don't go to ridiculous lengths chasing the Cloverleaf Dragon.  I always ask myself "what is this thing FOR?", and if it will exceed what is needed for that job, I am willing to let it be.

What it does off the bench is pretty meaningless for field shots where the human factor is the bigger limitation.  I'm more concerned with my own ability to hit a simulated deer heart (soup can) with nothing supporting the gun but my noodly arms.

jbp-ohio

As the late Potter Stewart said of obscenity................ I know it when I see it.

It depends on the individual gun. I expect more from a heavy barrel target rifle than a lightweight

JerryBobCo

What are these "iron sights" of which you speak?  Must be some sort of shotgun thang.

All of the rifles I use have scopes, so that's my baseline.  For hunting larger antelope, I want 1 1/2 MOA or better.  For prairie dog size varmints, divide that by 3.

jaywapti

Accuracy is a relative thing, depends on the gun, cartridge, and shooter, all my BG hunting rifles will put 3 rounds into 1 to 1 1/2 MOA @ 100yds, prairie dog rifles 1/2  MOA @ 100yds. off the bench which proves nothing under real hunting conditions. The shooter also has to be able to do his part, case in point , I have a friend that is impervious to recoil and could put 5 rounds from my 340 Wea. into 1" , the best I could do was 3 into about 1 1/2".

JAY  

Linefinder

Big game rifle, .75 MOA or less.

Pdog rig, .375 or less.

Benchrest....... .25 at least, and I'm not thrilled with even that.

Handgun......if I can load it, I'm happy.

Mike

jbohio

Linefinder said:

Big game rifle, .75 MOA or less.

Pdog rig, .375 or less.

Benchrest....... .25 at least, and I'm not thrilled with even that.



Mike

This.

orchidman

As a hunter, acceptable accuracy for me is the first shot from a cold bore having a POI within .5 of my POA at 100m.

That means I can pick up any of my hunting rifles and know that if I do my part, the rifle will put meat on the table.

( I guess that means MOA performance) 

Gene L

• I enjoy the challenge of shooting with iron sights, so acceptable for me is different from a lot of you.  I have a lot of scopes I no longer use.  Some are necessary for the rifle since the have no irons.  I know how well my rifles shoot with scopes, acceptable (depending on the rifle) is about 1 MOA.  Which is good enough since I don't hunt...I only shoot paper.  So the question is probably academic. .
  

snake284

What I see here are SOME mighty honest people here and I see SOME mighty skillful and  Honest people here. I see myself as somewhere between the average.

snake284

In the last year I have discovered that for many years I could have done better. In my old .270 Winchester I have shot 56.7 grains of IMR 4831 under a 130 Grain Game King for 38 years and grouped it in about 1inch for 3 shots pretty regularly when I wasn't high on caffeine and shaking like an out of balance washing machine.

However, recently (last year before the 2017 deer season) I ran out of IMR and the place I buy my powder was out. But they did have some Hodgdon's 4831. I took it because I really was in need to get ready for deer season. I loaded up some rounds and progressed from 57 grains to 59 grains (Either Hodgdon's is slower and you can get away with at least two more grains for a top load or IMR is more dense, not sure) and took them to the range.

WOW! At the top end I was getting 3050 FPS and well under an inch for three shots at 100 yards with Hodgdons.The IMR with 56.7 grains was giving me 3100 FPS with 1" for 3 shots on average. It's been about 25 years since I tried Hodgdons in it and I don't remember it being that much better. The Hodgdons is 50 feet slower for my top charge of 59 grains but has better accuracy and the recoil is somewhat less.

Now with a 150 grain bullet it's a different story. The IMR gives me a bit better performance and groups about the same, plus I can't tell any difference in the recoil. Both of them slam my teeth. But the 130 is plenty for deer and that's what I use on them, so I think I got myself a new deer load.

Now I realize that in a hunting situation this don't seem to mean Jack. But I figure the better I start out, the better I'll do in the field and every little bit of advantage could make a difference some day. Besides, the lesser recoil is worth it.

Armoredman

I like accuracy but I'm a lousy shot, so I'll settle for things like this;

..."scopes"...what are those?

Johnny reb

Snake if a  270 is slamming you’re teeth something is wrong. The rifle doesn’t fit correctly or something. That should be a easy recoiling rifle.

JerryBobCo

Johnny reb said:

Snake if a  270 is slamming you’re teeth something is wrong. The rifle doesn’t fit correctly or something. That should be a easy recoiling rifle.

I used to shoot a 270.  I've shot 130, 140 and 150 grain bullets at pretty much max velocities.  I have never understood writers who talked about the light recoil of the 270.  It's always seemed to me to be about on a par with the 30-06.  But maybe that's just me.

Even shooting 150 bullets, the recoil is not as bad as my 358, 7 mag with 175 grain bullets, or my 338x284 loaded with 225 grain bullets, but it's still enough to get my attention.

earlyagain

Stock shape, design, weight, barrel length, and shooting position can dramatically effect percieved recoil.

I have a heavy long barreled double barrel 12ga shotgun and a light short barrel 12ga pump gun. I'd rather shoot heavy loads from the smaller lighter pump gun any day. For some illusive reason the double barrel gun kicks like a mad karate instructor.

BigDanS

Scoped centerfire rifles... 1 inch or better at 100 yards.  Iron sighted rifles, 2 inches at 50 yards, Iron sighted hunting handguns 2 inches at 25 yards.  

Pegasus

Neat, a thread that conflates the concepts of "accuracy" and "precision" as the premise.

I love it when I read people talking about scoped centerfire rifles producing groups at 100 yards to handguns producing groups at 25 yards as if they were talking about the same thing, "accuracy".

Precision is the inherent ability of the firearm, sighting system and ammo to produce a certain size group.

Accuracy is the ability of the shooter to place that group on target.  Not the same thing at all.

I can accept the premise that you can measure the precision of a rifle at 100 yards as long as the rifle is on a rest or a solid bipod, with a rear rest and a high magnification scope.  I don't think conditions would have much effect in 100 yards.

For a pistol, that's when you pull out the Ransom rest or equivalent.  Anything that takes the shooter out of the equation.

Now once, you have the precision of the firearm nailed down, you can then introduce the shooter and conditions into the equation and measure accuracy, the ability to put the precision group on target.

I believe the OP was talking about precision of firearms and what standards people adhere to.  Then again, that could be wrong because the OP immediately jumps into accuracy by talking about putting meat in the freezer, which essentially has very little to do with precision.

In this day and age, as long as the bullet is not tumbling coming out of the barrel, the precision of modern firearms is really not the deciding factor in accuracy.  Some shooters may be able to outshoot a some firearms (ie, actually be limited by the precision of the firearm) but that's rare and even rarer as the distances grow, and conditions come into play, along with marksmanship.  This goes treble with handguns.

Pegasus

Armoredman said:

I like accuracy but I'm a lousy shot, so I'll settle for things like this;

..."scopes"...what are those?

That's an example of "precision" Vs "accuracy."  Three shots pretty close to each other (decent precision), but not near the V (lousy accuracy.)

Linefinder

My .270 A-Bolt (w/BOSS) shooting 160 grain Partitions at 2850 fps, while not painful, will get your attention.

Mike

Gene L

Pegasus, just for clarification, I'm the OP and don't recall mentioning meat on the table.  I couldn't care less about meat on the table since it comes to me packaged by my supermarket.

Fisheadgib

Pegasus said:

Neat, a thread that conflates the concepts of "accuracy" and "precision" as the premise.

I love it when I read people talking about scoped centerfire rifles producing groups at 100 yards to handguns producing groups at 25 yards as if they were talking about the same thing, "accuracy".

Precision is the inherent ability of the firearm, sighting system and ammo to produce a certain size group.

Accuracy is the ability of the shooter to place that group on target.  Not the same thing at all.

I can accept the premise that you can measure the precision of a rifle at 100 yards as long as the rifle is on a rest or a solid bipod, with a rear rest and a high magnification scope.  I don't think conditions would have much effect in 100 yards.

For a pistol, that's when you pull out the Ransom rest or equivalent.  Anything that takes the shooter out of the equation.

Now once, you have the precision of the firearm nailed down, you can then introduce the shooter and conditions into the equation and measure accuracy, the ability to put the precision group on target.

I believe the OP was talking about precision of firearms and what standards people adhere to.  Then again, that could be wrong because the OP immediately jumps into accuracy by talking about putting meat in the freezer, which essentially has very little to do with precision.

In this day and age, as long as the bullet is not tumbling coming out of the barrel, the precision of modern firearms is really not the deciding factor in accuracy.  Some shooters may be able to outshoot a some firearms (ie, actually be limited by the precision of the firearm) but that's rare and even rarer as the distances grow, and conditions come into play, along with marksmanship.  This goes treble with handguns.

You never miss an opportunity to jump up on your soap box. Not one person in the 20 posts previous to yours mentioned "precision". The thread relates to the level of accuracy that is acceptable to different people as was clearly stated in the title and it seems that you are the only one that didn't understand that. I don't see where anyone requested a book on firearm precision. Get over yourself.

Pegasus

Gene L said:

Pegasus, just for clarification, I'm the OP and don't recall mentioning meat on the table.  I couldn't care less about meat on the table since it comes to me packaged by my supermarket.

You're correct, that part was in the first reply.  Sorry for the confusion.

Pegasus

Fisheadgib said:

You never miss an opportunity to jump up on your soap box. Not one person in the 20 posts previous to yours mentioned "precision". The thread relates to the level of accuracy that is acceptable to different people as was clearly stated in the title and it seems that you are the only one that didn't understand that. I don't see where anyone requested a book on firearm precision. Get over yourself.

Thank you for making my exact point so brllliantly.

Fisheadgib

Pegasus said:

Fisheadgib said:

You never miss an opportunity to jump up on your soap box. Not one person in the 20 posts previous to yours mentioned "precision". The thread relates to the level of accuracy that is acceptable to different people as was clearly stated in the title and it seems that you are the only one that didn't understand that. I don't see where anyone requested a book on firearm precision. Get over yourself.

Thank you for making my exact point so brllliantly.


Glad I could help.

JasonMPD

Gene L said:

What is your standards for "acceptable accuracy?"  A general question, I know, and variable.  My acceptable accuracy with iron sights is maybe 2 1/2 moa, with a scope, a lot less.  For hunting (I don't hunt) what is acceptable?  I've had bughole guns with a scope, and 5 moa with a Mosin Nagant, and 3" with a K 31.

I think it depends....I don't shoot scopes much any more.  I know I can hit far more than necessary with a scoped rifles and find irons to be more challenging.  On another forum, I noted a post for  Russian ammo ammo that was related to about 3.1 inches at 300 meters with a PU sniper rifle which is pretty damn good.  This was on the package, it was noted that this was "competition ammo" not necessarily sniper ammo...according to the informed poster.

How about you?

It’s really a sliding scale of acceptable liability. 

Is it a lever rifle you only plink with in completely uninhabited woods?

Is it a home protection rifle?

Is it a precision duty weapon?

The questions are endless. 

bisley

My standards have changed a couple dozen times, over 50 years plus of trying to hit targets of various sizes, distances, and stability.

In the last few years, my former hawk-like eyesight has deteriorated to the point that I rarely shoot iron-sighted rifles, beyond about 35 yards. I just cannot see well enough to gain any consistency when trying to line up three fuzzy points.

Basically, I just tweak my guns enough so that I know the error is human - not an equipment deficiency. That means 0.5 MOA to 1.0 MOA for rifles that are actually capable of it, and I only use that as a standard because it is fun to tinker with loads and inexpensive trigger tweaks. I obsess over it until it is no longer fun to do so. Then, I just shoot it as well as I can, and forget about it.

snake284

Johnny Reb its light and the pad is old and hard as a rock.

Jerry Bob, I agree. I guess maybe iin some old sporterized Mausers thatn

JerryBobCo said:

Johnny reb said:

Snake if a  270 is slamming you’re teeth something is wrong. The rifle doesn’t fit correctly or something. That should be a easy recoiling rifle.

I used to shoot a 270.  I've shot 130, 140 and 150 grain bullets at pretty much max velocities.  I have never understood writers who talked about the light recoil of the 270.  It's always seemed to me to be about on a par with the 30-06.  But maybe that's just me.

,

Johnny Reb, the rifle, a model 70 push feed, is pretty light and the pad is very old and hard as a rock. It slams me after 3 or 4 rounds on the bench. In a hunting situation I hardly notice the recoil, but sitting down on the bench it can be pretty abusive.

Jerry Bob, you are so right. Maybe in a sporterized Mauser that weighs 9 pounds it may not be too bad, but in a relatively light sporter it slams me pretty good.

Sorry for the double speak here but either this computer is wonky or the forum soft ware is slow, but I repeated myself. But you get the idea.