Moa vs hunting?

[Deeker]

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

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.

The internet is a hard way to convey emotions, im not mad, ashamed , or emotional. I’m not even saying that I don’t believe that I shoot “ good”. I look at shooting a rifle as a never ending learning experience, and I am relatively new to it. And I am not looking for validation from RS, although it is nice haha. I was looking for correlation between moa and real world hunting. Quite possibly I did not articulate that well enough, just working off a high school education.

 

[Frozenlead]

Here’s couple of good in depth talks breaking down hit rates vs multiple factors.

 

[displacedtexan]

The law of diminishing returns always applies.

Returns are still returns.

 

[displacedtexan]

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.

It's not uncommon to be mad at results others would be very pleased with.

If you know you're capable of better.

 

[Smokinyotes]

For years I chased tiny groups burning out barrels. Finally come to the conclusion if I can shoot under a 2” group at 200 yards off my pack it should be plenty good for hunting. I know the drop in moa out to 600 yards on most my guns and if I can hit my steel coyote target at 500 yards I should be pretty good in most hunting scenarios.

 

[nm.otter]

Collect a statistically valid sample of the rifle's cone of fire -- and then apply some basic statistics to it.

Hint: ES is not the most important number.

 

[Dan Carey]

The vast of winning match shooters are using the same powder and bullet (6PPC). That's because they don't waste their time trying to work up some off the wall load that will be the next flop. There is a big advantage went using a real match grade barrel compared to a factory hammer forged barrel. Fine tuning a barrel that wants to shoot is a heck of a lot easier than a factory barrel that may never shoot. Talking about real accuracy not MOA.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Why are we talking about winning long range matches in a thread about hunting accuracy?

For most people, hunting is something that should be done at well under 500 yards and is going to be done with a 7 to 10 pound rifle, counting optic and all accessories.

Practice dropping down on your ass and shooting 6” groups at 300 yards in a hasty seated position and you will improve your odds of success far more than chasing another 10% decrease in bench rested group size.

And yet, all the little things and marginal returns that matter for the 10% of shooters trying to eke out the last 10% of performance at ranges and conditions far outside the norm become advice that Average Joe “should do.”

 

[ozyclint]

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

Off the hip or do you use the iron sights?

 

[BLJ]

Why are we talking about winning long range matches in a thread about hunting accuracy?

For most people, hunting is something that should be done at well under 500 yards and is going to be done with a 7 to 10 pound rifle, counting optic and all accessories.

Practice dropping down on your ass and shooting 6” groups at 300 yards in a hasty seated position and you will improve your odds of success far more than chasing another 10% decrease in bench rested group size.

And yet, all the little things and marginal returns that matter for the 10% of shooters trying to eke out the last 10% of performance at ranges and conditions far outside the norm become advice that Average Joe “should do.”

“Post of the Week” first thing Monday morning. Nice work.

 

[displacedtexan]

Why are we talking about winning long range matches in a thread about hunting accuracy?

For most people, hunting is something that should be done at well under 500 yards and is going to be done with a 7 to 10 pound rifle, counting optic and all accessories.

Practice dropping down on your ass and shooting 6” groups at 300 yards in a hasty seated position and you will improve your odds of success far more than chasing another 10% decrease in bench rested group size.

And yet, all the little things and marginal returns that matter for the 10% of shooters trying to eke out the last 10% of performance at ranges and conditions far outside the norm become advice that Average Joe “should do.”

Because it's the long range hunting forum...

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Because it's the long range hunting forum...

So the OP put it in the wrong section since he was asking about 500 yards and less? Makes a bit more sense now.

 

[TaperPin]

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.

Very nice.

 

[Dan Carey]

Why are we talking about winning long range matches in a thread about hunting accuracy?

For most people, hunting is something that should be done at well under 500 yards and is going to be done with a 7 to 10 pound rifle, counting optic and all accessories.

Practice dropping down on your ass and shooting 6” groups at 300 yards in a hasty seated position and you will improve your odds of success far more than chasing another 10% decrease in bench rested group size.

And yet, all the little things and marginal returns that matter for the 10% of shooters trying to eke out the last 10% of performance at ranges and conditions far outside the norm become advice that Average Joe “should do.”

Are you saying we can't learn something from guys that can do what we are trying to do.

 

[Dan Carey]

Off the hip or do you use the iron sights?

I'm well rounded, I try all positions.

 

[Deeker]

So the OP put it in the wrong section since he was asking about 500 yards and less? Makes a bit more sense now.

That is my bad, I was a bow hunter exclusively from 18 -32 ish years old. Only been rifle hunting for a few years now. 500 seems like long range hunting to me, and I believe it should be considered long range for nearly everyone.

 

[TaperPin]

There are two different “hit rates” concepts being talked about here as if they are the same and they are not.

One is a hit percentage less than 100% and in those situations accuracy doesn't matter as much - some hits that should be on target are off due to a big cone of fire, but as many that should be off target end up hitting. Much like taking a can of spray paint and holding it just off the very edge of a target and almost half the paint still hits. Even hitting 90% at the range creates false confidence, but is often sold as ideal. Misses are claimed to be “simply” spotted and reshot. Right?

The other concept that many of us prefer is what it takes for the shot to land 100% of the time. You can either hit a target every time or you can’t and that determines your maximum range. The idea translates to the range and the field - it’s much harder to hit 100% vs 90% or even 95%. A 2 MOA cone of fire will never connect 100% of the time on a 2 MOA target because of conditions are never perfect downrange. When keeping 100% of the paint on target, it’s easier with a squirt gun than a can of spray paint.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

That is my bad, I was a bow hunter exclusively from 18 -32 ish years old. Only been rifle hunting for a few years now. 500 seems like long range hunting to me, and I believe it should be considered long range for nearly everyone.

It is very long range for almost every hunter. I’d limit the “average hunter I’ve met or listened to at the LGS” to 200 yards from a supported position. There are a very few hunters who have any business shooting past that distance.

And that’s no shade at people who are good enough to shoot at animals way out there.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Are you saying we can't learn something from guys that can do what we are trying to do.

I’m saying that chasing the last 1% of accuracy and precision the way the professionals do is pointless in comparison to practicing shooting from field positions. The biggest source of error for most hunters is lack of stability in field shooting positions. Subtracting another .1” from your 10-shot bench-rest group is a waste of time and ammo for the average guy shooting at whitetails in the woods or an antelope in the sagebrush or whatever field scenario you prefer.

We aren’t trying to do what they are trying to do. They are doing a highly specialized and highly competitive simulacrum of what we are doing.

We should be focusing on fundamentals. For most hunters, the obsession with long range ballistic accuracy and precision is akin to practicing half court shots when we should be learning to dribble and make layups.

 

[displacedtexan]

So the OP put it in the wrong section since he was asking about 500 yards and less? Makes a bit more sense now.

Yeah, it's a somewhat confusing premise, made more confusing because of where he asked and the audience/implied context.