What irritates me about sub MOA

[Mikecr]

As a walking varmint hunter I couldn't care less about grouping from my guns.
I need cold bore accuracy. Every shot. No matter the hot grouping capability.
-Forget MOA, it always comes down to IPHY(even if 1.047198" per 100yds), like it or not.
-Forget stretches to connect competitive shooting with hunting shooting. There is no useful correlation between preconditioned precision, and field accuracy.

1-IPHY don't get it for groundhogs across multiple fields. For their killzone of 3-4", my accuracy has to be twice that for most shots. That's [+or-] 2" per body shot. So 1-IPHY of accuracy would be limited to 200yds, head shots at [+or-]1.5", 150yds.
Them little 20cal plinkers cover this kind of stuff, and if your 338xx shoots no better than 1-IPHY, then you'll do no better with it for GHs.

I was offered $100 one day to eliminate a GH from a cemetery. 'Gray Ghost'. It turned out this was a serious challenge.
Nobody could get a clean shot, traps & gassing & filling holes didn't work, the cemetery was on a steep incline next to and facing a busy highway. I glassed it that evening & saw that this marmot understood effective use of cover, as if it knew it was safe only near those headstones. This is in a valley with a mountain across from it. I waited for a rainy day and then camped half way up that mountain on a big rock providing a clearing to the cemetery. About noon, still raining, he came out moon walking like a pop star. The rain was his cover that day.
624yds, 15deg down bubble, he sat up between stones and I put a Berger 95VLD through his chest.
This is a Browning A-Bolt action I had rubber bedded into an Eclipse stock, and had rebarreled to 6br. Not a BR gun, I would not count on it's button rifled 26" pencil to 5-sht group consistently better than ¾-IPHY. A lot of folks around here wouldn't put up with it.
But it's cold bore accuracy is far better: 2" from mark at 610yds(effective) is 1/3-IPHY, no sighters, or barrel warm-ups, and Harris bipod off a wet rock.
I couldn't do it 5 times fast. But I need to do it once for sure.

I had a $4500 tube gun(T2000, tactical, 6XC)(and way more invested incl scope) that grouped competitively(well under ½ IPHY hot grouping at 600yds). It was the most comfortable, fun shooting gun I ever owned. But it was never accurate enough for hunting. Not even close. From one 1st shot to another day 1st shot, maybe 1-IPHY, maybe worse..
I do have 2 other guns that are both great in grouping and also cold bore accuracy. One is a BR gun, the other a hunting gun, both cut rifled barrels.

My point is; you can find that a gun providing nice groups sucks for field accuracy, or that a gun which won't group for **** is the most accurate gun you've ever shot. You don't want to miss either attribute.
For LR hunting you need to know what you're actually capable of in the field -with one shot.
Like Bryan mentioned, and you should at least understand, precision and accuracy are different.

 

[Jeff32]

One other thing is confidence, a fine line between eragance lol. Another one of my favorite guns was a 280 in a model 70 action. I bought this gun from a friend of a friend for 240 bucks because although he had shot numerous animals with it one day he missed a hog and it just had to be the gun. At that point he hated it after that. I bought this gun with a cheap bushnell scope for the 240 with all intentions of changing the scope out. But after test shooting the gun and shooting just barely under an inch I left it on. This was a favorite gun I hunted with for years UNTILL I had a house fire and lost all my guns.

I've noticed that when I buy or set up a gun using factory ammo and I get lucky and just happen to hit the right ammo and weight out of the gat and the gun shots a MOA or better I then have tremendous confidence and will tend to always shoot this gun well. I know once I find an ammo and have it shooting MOA I know I can spend just a little time and reload a round that will shoot 1/2-3/4 of an inch at 100.

Confidence is everything and I never imagine not making the shot the first time no matter the animal or distance. Even as a young boy I was capable of shooting javelina out to 350 yards with no effort, why??? Just for the fact I was confident and for very little other reason. I Never worry about missing and missing is not an option, thinking back on my almost 40 yrs of hunting I can only remember missing 2 deer in 40 yrs. it was never an option to miss. This confidence level has allowed me to make some great shots on deer at a full run at well over 250 yards. When I managed a ranch for a living myself and other guides would sometimes have to shoot a couple of does at the end of the season, we had 3 rules as we drove around, had to be a head shot, had to be with my 222 and had to be over 200 yards. These little games built tremendous skill and confidence ( this was my second miss ever on a windy day at 250 yards)

No matter what the shot maybe always play the shot in your mind and always invasion it being perfect, when you squeeze the trigger half of the battle is done, you have made that shot already in your mind.

I am fortunate that I started shooting at the age 5 and was lucky growing up that my dad was a well decorated marine sniper so I was lucky to have an in house professional coach

 

[Prieto9000]

There are just a few manufacturers that have a 1 moa guarantee. And if every gun shot moa or better, all gunsmiths would be doing bluing jobs and fixing the occasional stripped screw.
If you expect every factory rifle to shoot 3/4 moa with factory ammo and maintain that at long range, then you will be very disappointed With just about every factory gun made. There are exceptions I happen to have one but I searched along time and shot a lot of rifles to find it. And I didn't find it with factory ammo.

Absolutely right. I had a Remington Sendero SFII 7mm RM that shot great, but not with factory ammo I had to spend a lot of time in the reloading bench.

 

[Pdvdh]

Like Bryan mentioned, and you should at least understand, precision and accuracy are different.

I think these statements are true...

A lack of precision will degrade accuracy. So if the rifle can't print small (precise) groups, it can't repetitively provide high accuracy at longer yardages. Which is why I want the most precision possible when engaging long range game (or varmints/targets).

A lack of accuracy doesn't necessarily degrade precision. A rifleman can miss his POA repeatedly and still shoot a nice, tight group (high level of precision).

 

[Mikecr]

A lack of accuracy doesn't necessarily degrade precision. A rifleman can miss his POA repeatedly and still shoot a nice, tight group (high level of precision).

This is true, accuracy and precision are different.

A lack of precision will degrade accuracy. So if the rifle can't print small (precise) groups, it can't repetitively provide high accuracy at longer yardages.

This is not true at all. Read again: accuracy and precision are different. They are ALWAYS different.
For example:
5 shots hit a 1moa dot at 100yds(top, bottom, left, right edges, and center). This could be considered near 1moa 100yd precision, but the accuracy is near 1/2moa. That is, POI of no more than 1/2moa from center of mark.

A gun can be very accurate while poor in grouping.
A gun can group really well while poor in accuracy.
For LRH we need repeating cold bore accuracy, regardless of hot or cold grouping.

There is a local accuracy contest here(semi-annual, for hunters). This is drop your money in a hat and get in line to take 1 shot on a 1"bull at 200yds. It's off a bench & rest, and if you hit your dot you go to the back of the line for round 2, etc. When you miss you're done. Last man still hitting the bull gets the hat. Oh, and the bull is changed to 1/2" at round 6 just to speed it up. Usually ~45-50 shooters.
One day someone had brought & shot their 6PPC(actually, several ended up shooting it). Before the contest began, there was a fouler session for folks who needed it, and old 6PPC fella put a bunch into a ragged hole for us. Lotta crowd murmuring..
But on cold bore shooting, he missed on round 3,, couple others shooting the gun were out by rounds 5&6. The gun was not accurate enough.
Biggest contender that day was a plastic stocked *** Savage in .243 and what looked like a Walmart brand scope. He finally missed at round 12.
That was my 1st entry, about 10yrs ago, and I was lucky enough to win at that round.

With that perspective it's funny to read BR competitors joking at the notion of hunters shooting 1/2moa 'all day long'. What these folks don't realize, is that it's not actually a stretch for hunters to hit a 1" dot at 100yds, all day long, and this is ~1/2moa of accuracy.
I also suspect these same charactors know little more of cold bore shooting than old 6PPC fella.

 

[Pdvdh]

This is true, accuracy and precision are different.

This is not true at all. Read again: accuracy and precision are different. They are ALWAYS different.

Yes, accuracy and precision are different by definition.

For example:
5 shots hit a 1moa dot at 100yds(top, bottom, left, right edges, and center). This could be considered near 1moa 100yd precision, but the accuracy is near 1/2moa. That is, POI of no more than 1/2moa from center of mark.

A gun can be very accurate while poor in grouping.
For LRH we need repeating cold bore accuracy, regardless of hot or cold grouping.

The following is for purposes of discussion and illustration. Not to prevail in being right. I might learn something.

Yes, for LRH, we desire first shot accuracy. This is a reason your example of non-stellar precision providing great average accuracy when 5 shots center around the middle of a 1" dot while target shooting begins to unravel when applied to a single and initial shot on game for the long range hunter. We may not get to print the last four rounds on the game animal. The first shot is the one that counts the most. The only accuracy measurement that comes into play may need to be measured by the location of a single shot relative to the aiming point, rather than an average of the locations of 5 shots when firing on game.

No matter which why I analyze this, statistically day in and day out - over the long haul, a rifle capable of greater precision will be capable of greater accuracy in the hands of an equally prepared and capable shooter, than a rifle capable of lesser precision.

I think a rifle capable of 2 moa precision [determined based upon a statistically significant (sufficient) number of cold bore first round hits] is limited to a potential maximum accuracy of 1 moa [again, with accuracy determined over a statistically significant (sufficient) number of first round hits]. This maximum accuracy is only achieved if the average of the locations of all of the cold bore hits happens to be centered directly on the point of aim.

A rifle capable of 4 moa precision [determined based upon a statistically significant (sufficient) number of cold bore first round hits] is limited to a potential maximum accuracy of 2 moa [again, accuracy determined over a statistically significant (sufficient) number of first round hits]. And again, maximum accuracy is only achieved if the average of the locations of all of the cold bore hits happens to be centered on the point of aim. Accuracy decreases as the average location of all hits moves from the aiming point.

Which illustrates why I continue to think my original statement was, and is, correct:

"A lack of precision will degrade accuracy. So if the rifle can't print small (precise) groups, it can't repetitively provide high accuracy at longer yardages. Which is why I want the most precision possible when engaging long range game (or varmints/targets)."

Note I included the word repetitively. Reliably, consistently, and commonly could also be used. "other than by a stroke of luck" could also be substituted.

Some ballistic programmers are now including statistical formulas and equations that allow a shooter to determine the statistical likelihood of successfully placing a bullet in the lethal zone at various yardages. I think Mr. Litz discusses this sort of statistical determination in one of his books, if not also providing equations for calculation in his ballistics program. ColdBore 1.0 software now includes this type of statistical analysis. I'm certain the precision of the rifle is a primary factor in determining if the rifle and equipment is capable of sufficient accuracy at any given range. And I'm certain that a rifle with less precision (larger moa groupings) will have it's maximum range reduced compared to a rifle providing higher precision (smaller moa groupings).

 

[MMERSS]

Precision, Accuracy, Uncertainty Analysis. This thread with response knowingly or unknowingly tie all three together.

There is correlation between Long Range Hunting and an endurance race. A fine-tuned body (precision) requires mental tenacity (accuracy) to drive the body thru the finish line. Both fitness and mental tenacity complement each other yet neither independently complete the endurance journey alone. The most important of the two is the mind (accuracy). A fine-tuned body relies on the mind to keep the race on course. The most fit body mentally taken off course results in an endurance finishing at an undesirable location, a long failure to an unwanted finish. Likewise, an unfit body driven on course will most likely not endure also resulting in an unwanted finish.

Unfortunately, the majority of newcomers to LRH want to discuss the body first rather than the mind. Talk is surrounded by how fit one can or should be (precision) with little regard to how one attains the skills toward the driving principles behind accuracy. Additionally unique to LRH, the race can be completed as a team. One member performs precision while another member determines accuracy parameters.

As an individual or as a team everyone wants to break the tape across the finish line. What's unique about LRH is the ability to not only stress endurance with body and mind but also the ability to ensure both are successfully taken across the line. This is where uncertainty analysis comes to play. Precision and accuracy parameters are evaluated to determine the maximum length of the race. There is limited value with entering an endurance race with little to no probability to finish. Likewise, those that want to stress the body and mind may not want to run a one block race. Programs such as Applied Ballistics WEZ provide an estimate with shot probability or percentage. This allows the Long Range Hunter ability to determine the probability of success and if necessary, to reposition shots according to a range. Setting up that long range shot toward a successful finish.

 

[Barrelnut]

Cool story there Mike.

 

[Capt RB]

Another aspect not mentioned much if at all is how your zero will change with time of day and day of year when it is bright sun. I had mapped my zero changes for years. I always assumed that it was changing temps that moved my zero around the target during the day. It wasn't until I read a thread or article on how the position of the sun changes point of impact due to the light bending differently. As soon as I read that I knew I had the data to confirm that statement.
Flat light like cloudy or rain it's a rock solid zero. Map your zero through out the time of day and year and your cold bore will stabilize to a predictable pattern

 

[Mikecr]

phorwath, there is no averaging in accuracy, nor in precision.
An average of 'accuracy' is called 'trueness', which is not in discussion here.
I only mentioned 5 shts in earlier example for association with a group measure. The accuracy I implied was qualified as "POI of no more than 1/2moa from center of mark". No average, every single shot was stated within 1/2moa of mark.

Capt RB, I have seen shifting like you describe with changing light, and haven't figured out if it's angle, or color, or what else.

 

[nctta]

I'm sure this is a dumb question, but...

If you change the poi on the precision target would you not have both precision and accuracy?

 

[Capt RB]

phorwath, there is no averaging in accuracy, nor in precision.
An average of 'accuracy' is called 'trueness', which is not in discussion here.
I only mentioned 5 shts in earlier example for association with a group measure. The accuracy I implied was qualified as "POI of no more than 1/2moa from center of mark". No average, every single shot was stated within 1/2moa of mark.

Capt RB, I have seen shifting like you describe with changing light, and haven't figured out if it's angle, or color, or what else.

Impacts will be opposite side of the light source. How much depends on position in the sky (time of day). Sunlight color does change through out the day and year due to the different angle of the lights path through our atmosphere. It's another data point you can use to better center up that cold bore.

 

[Mikecr]

Impacts will be opposite side of the light source.

Thank You, I will remember this.

 

[Greyfox]

Another aspect not mentioned much if at all is how your zero will change with time of day and day of year when it is bright sun. I had mapped my zero changes for years. I always assumed that it was changing temps that moved my zero around the target during the day. It wasn't until I read a thread or article on how the position of the sun changes point of impact due to the light bending differently. As soon as I read that I knew I had the data to confirm that statement.
Flat light like cloudy or rain it's a rock solid zero. Map your zero through out the time of day and year and your cold bore will stabilize to a predictable pattern

This is so true and shows up radically in 300 yard egg shooting. Compounding the isssue is the lighting effect on the curved surface of the white egg. Overall scores are significantly higher on an overcast day. I have spent many years observing this and trying to figure out how to minimize the effect. While not conclusive, I believe the scopes optical quality plays a big role in this effect. I have though this makes sense because the inaccuracy is caused by the eye viewing a change in the reflected light passing through the lenses of the scope. The image ultimately appears on the focal plane. A few years ago I mounted a Nightforce Benchrest 32x scope on my rifle. My prior optics were Weaver K36 and Leupold 36x scopes. Since that time and numerous matches in different lighting conditions, I have seen a definite reduction in this effect with few if any changes in zero. Since observing this I have payed careful attention to this with my LR hunting rifles and there seems to be a similar result. As I stated previously, this is not conclusive, and more of a theory than a fact because there can always be other variables at play , but I do believe the quality of the optics can minimize this effect. I would be interested to hear other viewpoints on this.