Hunting Rifle MOA Rant

[Deviant]

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

 

[huntsman22]

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....

 

[J E Custom]

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

As a builder of accurate rifles I have the same problem with statements like that also. To me it makes no difference what the rifle is used for, It should be as accurate as possible and as I can make it.

I can't control a persons ability to shoot well, he has to do that. A rifle is a tool, the better the tool the better the performance if in the right hand.

A good Smith can't make a poor shooter look good, Just like a good shooter cant make a poor smith look good. "BUT" a good Smith and a good shooter can make it look easy.

All my life I have heard 'that's good enough' or 'It's Ok' and seen the results of this thinking.

Just Me

J E CUSTOM

 

[COBrad]

I've heard that since I was a kid; "close enough". If my bolt rifles won't shoot half MOA they're gone, so I shoot customs and have had good success with several Coopers as well. A guy doesn't have to be a long range hunter to utilize an accurate rifle. Some years ago I was sneaking through the woods looking for a nice young cow elk for the table. I came across a spike lying in the shade and after looking around for a few minutes spied a cows head sticking up out of the grass. After watching her for a while and waiting for her to stand up it occured to me that at a range of just under 150 yards I could shoot her in the eye if I wanted... so I shot her in the neck at the base of the skull and she dropped without so much as a kick.

 

[adam32]

There's a lot more 1/2 MOA rifles in the world than there are 1/2 MOA shooters...that's where the "good enough" statements come from...

 

[26Reload]

Not everyone has the ability to shoot .5".....i have shot since i was old enough to sneak out of the house with a gun of Some kind...got my butt blistered a few times for just that reason....
But not everyone can pull that trigger at the optimum time in the heartbeat...
I find Myself fighting my glasses...heatwaves...too many people around me...
There are lots of variables to affect one's accurized trigger finger....
But if my rifle shoots .75 at 100 yards what would it do in a real shooters hands........i am able to keep that .75" at 200 yards also....once I was able to shoot .75" at 300 yards......havent ever done it again....but i sure as hell keep shooting....maybe I just don't wait long enough between shots...as i normally shoot 3-4 rounds within that same time period of 3-4 minutes....real hunting scenario..who knows....just shooting....

 

[An Idahoan]

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, "0.5 MOA is 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 the left ventricle 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 0.25 MOA 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 1000 yard shot at the animal of a lifetime with a 0.5 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 0.25 MOA if you put the time and effort into it.

 

[Ckgworks]

I don't know the numbers, and I'm not going to guess......BUT I know the majority of animals killed every year are killed at very short ranges. This is where good enough comes to play. As huntsman said, most people would be ahead to spend more time shooting as if they were hunting than worrying about eking out the last bit of accuracy out of a rifle that they can't shoot better than anyway. Very few people actually get the opportunity to shot at game long range.....I brought my daughter rifle elk hunting in Western Washington last year, and we were loading up after our morning hunt when another hunter pulled up to go into where we just were. He had a heavy, long barreled rifle, with bipod and a yard of scope mounted on it...... the area we just hunted was Washington second growth, and I don't think you could have found more than a 60 yard shot. I feel he would have been much better served with a fast handling rifle with a low power scope that shot "good enough". I still try squeezing everything out of my rifles regardless of use, but for the majority of people, "good enough" kills game. Be thankful you can shoot every single decent rifle .25 MOA, because from my view, you are in the elite class of shooters......I'm no where near that, on most days I probably hover between .5-.75 MOA.

 

[An Idahoan]

Be thankful you can shoot every single decent rifle .25 MOA, because from my view, you are in the elite class of shooters...

Usually I am the one missing the joke.

I found it funny that someone didn't get how other people could say "good enough" and in the same post let everyone know what his "good enough" was. For the record I am striving for 0.5 MOA or better, but my point is that everyone has a good enough and as long as you know what the limitations are of your system (rifle+shooter) then you're fine!

 

[26Reload]

Well if we are looking at good enough...is "drawing blood" "good enough" with a bow and arrow....is good enough shooting and hitting a target at any range with a bb gun....now with high velocity pellet rifles where's good enough.....my personal best at "shotgun good enough" is not missing a bird..period......absolutely no reason to miss...tail, butt, body, head, bang....
Do you shoot geese in the body or head......seems logical....
How many .5moa rifles can change bullet pathes in flight to hit exactly where it was aimed..when the animal moves just before you pulled the trigger.....theres just too many variables to the PERFECT shot placement...
For long range killing of animals..are you seeing and shooting at the exact spot you aim...or is it off by more than .5moa.....
A sighted rifle will only shoot as well as the shooter....be it target anxiety or game fever.......or too many cups of caffeine.....

 

[Ckgworks]

I should add....I do think one should never stop trying to improve, but I can think of a few times I have seen that said recently, where you have someone stressed out about going hunting because their gun is not shooting .5 MOA. I think the rifle was shooting 1 moa in this case.......Go hunting, enjoy it, and know Your limits. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I have seen it used on this form, it hasn't been said for over 1 MOA, has it?

 

[WildRose]

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

The kill zone on a mature WT deer is about 2' wide and 12" tall. The larger the animal the larger that zone becomes.

Put your crosshair in the middle of that and measure the MOA at any distance to decide if MOA is accurate enough to suit you.

 

[WildRose]

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, "0.5 MOA is 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 the left ventricle 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 0.25 MOA 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 1000 yard shot at the animal of a lifetime with a 0.5 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 0.25 MOA if you put the time and effort into it.

Not 1:1000 rifles manufactured today is capable of .25 MOA no matter how much work you put into load development.

 

[User4302021]

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

Were you intending to be hyperbolic? If so, you nailed it.