Moa vs hunting?

[Deeker]

At what point does shooting for a smaller and smaller group become self gratification? Is there a point where tweaking a gun / cartridge has no real world effect on your hunting abilities, lets say out to 500 yards. Does a 1.25 moa group kill less then say a 1 moa group. And I am talking about just the gun, not the shooter. I understand the need for the shooter to practice and be able to make the shot. What I am curious about is just the weapon system. Same shooter, one gun shoots 1 moa and another that shoots 1.25, would there be a measurable difference in the amount of animals that will be put in the freezer. And if so what would you say the tipping point would be?

 

[Dan Carey]

I own 10-1 varmint over game rifles. Accuracy in everything in a varmint gun and spills over to the game rifles. I like 1/4 MOA varmint guns and well under an inch in my hunting rifles. That not to say if others are happy with a 2 MOA rifle it would offend me.

 

[displacedtexan]

1.25moa at 500 yards is still in the vitals.

 

[jaredg]

I own 10-1 varmint over game rifles. Accuracy in everything in a varmint gun and spills over to the game rifles. I like 1/4 MOA varmint guns and well under an inch in my hunting rifles. That not to say if others are happy with a 2 MOA rifle it would offend me.

is 1/4 MOA for a 20 or a 30 round group?

 

[Deeker]

I own 10-1 varmint over game rifles. Accuracy in everything in a varmint gun and spills over to the game rifles. I like 1/4 MOA varmint guns and well under an inch in my hunting rifles. That not to say if others are happy with a 2 MOA rifle it would offend me.

I agree. I would love a rifle that shoots into the same hole I think everyone can agree that a better shooting rifle is better. But at what point does it become not beneficial inside of 500 yards.

 

[displacedtexan]

I agree. I would love a rifle that shoots into the same hole I think everyone can agree that a better shooting rifle is better. But at what point does it become not beneficial inside of 500 yards.

A more accurate rifle is never bad.

 

[ckleeves]

Use a hit probability calculator and see. Bison Ballistics has a free one.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

A more accurate rifle is never bad.

The law of diminishing returns always applies.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I own 10-1 varmint over game rifles. Accuracy in everything in a varmint gun and spills over to the game rifles. I like 1/4 MOA varmint guns and well under an inch in my hunting rifles. That not to say if others are happy with a 2 MOA rifle it would offend me.

I completely agree with this approach, if not the exact numbers. To achieve a consistent level of success, a varmint rifle should be about twice as accurate as a deer rifle. I’m content with 1.5” groups for factory ammo, 1” groups for reloaded deer ammo, and .5” groups for reloaded varmint ammo (assuming 10-shot groups). That makes my shooting abilities the limiting factor out to as far as I shoot.

 

[TaperPin]

I agree. I would love a rifle that shoots into the same hole I think everyone can agree that a better shooting rifle is better. But at what point does it become not beneficial inside of 500 yards.

We go to war with the rifles we have, not the rifles we wished we had. In some ways we’re all making do with imperfect equipment. Everything is a trade off.

Before I saved enough for an accurate rifle I focused on shooting skill to make up for the rifle’s short comings. I still believe an accurate shooter with a mediocre gun will outshoot a mediocre shooter with a top quality gun.

At 500 yards between the wobble of the shooter and accuracy of the gun, it takes 2 MOA. A 1-1/2 MOA gun and 1/2 MOA shooter, or a 1/2 MOA gun and 1-1/2 MOA shooter have the same result. The better gun allows a slightly wider variety of less stable positions to work.

Wind affects most shots out west, and wind estimation error now requires the rifle/shooter to be better than 2 MOA to keep all the shots in the vitals.

Not every animal is completely still - if it is slowly moving, most will take the shot, but it increases the error of the shot.

The rifle is hopefully functioning at 100%, but I’ve had a bolt freeze up at timberline and require dropping the firing pin a couple times to get it to fire. Inconsistent ignition is well known to create low velocities and I tagged the deer at 450 yards, but it was low/outside the normal kill zone even though the rest was perfectly stable, no wind, and the rifle normally shot a consistent 1/2 MOA.

One of the main reasons I highly suggest an accurate rifle isn’t even for its abilities on game. During practice you don’t have to waste time wondering if a flier was you or the gun. Checking zero requires fewer rounds. When shooting in the wind where the bullet lands is all your estimation ability and in slight breezes a few inches of wind drift might have been overlooked in the fog of an inaccurate rifle. A 1/2 MOA gun lets you also see slight differences in point of impact from hand pressure, shoulder pressure, forend pressure, tripod loading, etc. that can be hard to see in that fog. You will learn the subtle things at least twice as fast.

Most importantly is the confidence it inspires. Knowing in your bones you can make a shot definitely allows you to subconsciously shoot better. Even with a crappy rifle shooting it enough to be confident is a powerful thing.

 

[Dan Carey]

is 1/4 MOA for a 20 or a 30 round group?

Actually I don't fool around with 20 or 30 round groups. It's 100 or nothing from a standing position at 1500 yards.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I usually won't shoot over 500 yards and conditions sometimes dictate an even closer shot. But that doesn't mean my hunting rifles should shoot less accurately. Anything less than 1 moa is my goal and if it won't do that somethings wrong with my rifle, it's optics or my reloads........OR ME! Everything I hunt with meets that standard. I have a 25-06, .257 Wby, 2 30-06's and a .300 Wby that I hunt with. My varmint and fun guns all shoot 1/2 moa or even less. I have a .220 Ackley Improved Swift, a .17 rimfire and a .22-250.

 

[Deeker]

We go to war with the rifles we have, not the rifles we wished we had. In some ways we’re all making do with imperfect equipment. Everything is a trade off.

Before I saved enough for an accurate rifle I focused on shooting skill to make up for the rifle’s short comings. I still believe an accurate shooter with a mediocre gun will outshoot a mediocre shooter with a top quality gun.

At 500 yards between the wobble of the shooter and accuracy of the gun, it takes 2 MOA. A 1-1/2 MOA gun and 1/2 MOA shooter, or a 1/2 MOA gun and 1-1/2 MOA shooter have the same result. The better gun allows a slightly wider variety of less stable positions to work.

Wind affects most shots out west, and wind estimation error now requires the rifle/shooter to be better than 2 MOA to keep all the shots in the vitals.

Not every animal is completely still - if it is slowly moving, most will take the shot, but it increases the error of the shot.

The rifle is hopefully functioning at 100%, but I’ve had a bolt freeze up at timberline and require dropping the firing pin a couple times to get it to fire. Inconsistent ignition is well known to create low velocities and I tagged the deer at 450 yards, but it was low/outside the normal kill zone even though the rest was perfectly stable, no wind, and the rifle normally shot a consistent 1/2 MOA.

One of the main reasons I highly suggest an accurate rifle isn’t even for its abilities on game. During practice you don’t have to waste time wondering if a flier was you or the gun. Checking zero requires fewer rounds. When shooting in the wind where the bullet lands is all your estimation ability and in slight breezes a few inches of wind drift might have been overlooked in the fog of an inaccurate rifle. A 1/2 MOA gun lets you also see slight differences in point of impact from hand pressure, shoulder pressure, forend pressure, tripod loading, etc. that can be hard to see in that fog. You will learn the subtle things at least twice as fast.

Most importantly is the confidence it inspires. Knowing in your bones you can make a shot definitely allows you to subconsciously shoot better. Even with a crappy rifle shooting it enough to be confident is a powerful thing.

This is what brought the question up in my mind today. ( ignore the bottom shot. It was my son with his .223). These are two five shot groups. 200yards right at about or under 1 inch. This is with my hunting rifle, off a bench, in zero wind, factory ammo. The part that pissed me off and got me thinking was on the upper dot I flew a shot higher and further right than the rest of the shots. I was legitimately mad about it until I started actually thinking about the level of accuracy “needed” to hunt at my self imposed max range of 500 yards. I was curious if there was a rule of thumb when it came to moa off a bench and hunting distances. I fully understand that more accuracy is more better.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

View attachment 938929This is what brought the question up in my mind today. ( ignore the bottom shot. It was my son with his .223). These are two five shot groups. 200yards right at about or under 1 inch. This is with my hunting rifle, off a bench, in zero wind, factory ammo. The part that pissed me off and got me thinking was on the upper dot I flew a shot higher and further right than the rest of the shots. I was legitimately mad about it until I started actually thinking about the level of accuracy “needed” to hunt at my self imposed max range of 500 yards. I was curious if there was a rule of thumb when it came to moa off a bench and hunting distances. I fully understand that more accuracy is more better.

Nice shooting.

 

[Formidilosus]

At what point does shooting for a smaller and smaller group become self gratification? Is there a point where tweaking a gun / cartridge has no real world effect on your hunting abilities, lets say out to 500 yards. Does a 1.25 moa group kill less then say a 1 moa group. And I am talking about just the gun, not the shooter. I understand the need for the shooter to practice and be able to make the shot. What I am curious about is just the weapon system. Same shooter, one gun shoots 1 moa and another that shoots 1.25, would there be a measurable difference in the amount of animals that will be put in the freezer. And if so what would you say the tipping point would be?

Hit rates in vital sized targets- 12” or so, do not materially change from 1.5’ish MOA to .5 MOA. On top of that, there are functionally 0 .5 MOA field guns.

Even the difference between a true 2 MOA system and a 1 MOA system is not that great in the field on a 12” target at 600 yards.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Hit rates in vital sized targets- 12” or so, for shot materially change from 1.5’ish MOA to .5 MOA. On top of that, there are functionally 0 .5 MOA field guns.

Even the difference between a true 2 MOA system and a 1 MOA system is not that great in the field on a 12” target at 600 yards.

Did you mean “do *not* materially change from 1.5’ish MOA to .5 MOA?”

 

[RancherJohn]

View attachment 938929This is what brought the question up in my mind today. ( ignore the bottom shot. It was my son with his .223). These are two five shot groups. 200yards right at about or under 1 inch. This is with my hunting rifle, off a bench, in zero wind, factory ammo. The part that pissed me off and got me thinking was on the upper dot I flew a shot higher and further right than the rest of the shots. I was legitimately mad about it until I started actually thinking about the level of accuracy “needed” to hunt at my self imposed max range of 500 yards. I was curious if there was a rule of thumb when it came to moa off a bench and hunting distances. I fully understand that more accuracy is more better.

Nice shooting. I'm curious, why would that group make you mad? Even with the "flier", your group is a reflection of you as a shooter & your rifle. Removing ego, there is nothing to be ashamed of (or emotional) in that group at 200. Stick another dot, shoot another group. Do that XX times. Staple another target on that one, line up a dot over the previous and shoot again. You're a good enough shooter that validation isn't needed from RS, an aggregate group on the rearmost target will tell you what you are capable of in that position at that distance.

Start changing things up and see what happens. Find the limits of yourself as a shooter and the rifle on your own, and go from there. I would caution listening to anyone that claims a .5MOA rifle without caveats, let alone a hunting rifle.

 

[Formidilosus]

Did you mean “do *not* materially change from 1.5’ish MOA to .5 MOA?”

Yes. Thank you. Edited.

 

[eric1115]

Hit rates in vital sized targets- 12” or so, do not materially change from 1.5’ish MOA to .5 MOA. On top of that, there are functionally 0 .5 MOA field guns.

Even the difference between a true 2 MOA system and a 1 MOA system is not that great in the field on a 12” target at 600 yards.

This is an uncomfortable truth. WEZ analysis and field experience agree, the gun is rarely the weak link in the system. Even if a true 0.5 MOA gun is real, it doesn't really improve hit rates over a 1.0-1.5 MOA gun. My 2 MOA (30 shots) SPR-ish AR-15 frequently put 3 into a 0.5 group, but the true cone of fire that I can count on every shot landing in is much bigger. It's still pretty damn effective at pretty long range.

 

[Deeker]

Hit rates in vital sized targets- 12” or so, do not materially change from 1.5’ish MOA to .5 MOA. On top of that, there are functionally 0 .5 MOA field guns.

Even the difference between a true 2 MOA system and a 1 MOA system is not that great in the field on a 12” target at 600 yards.

Thank you, This is exactly the type of info I was looking for. And it is what I had suspected.