Hunting rifle accuracy past 100m

[sally-bee]

Hi guys,

I see it's standard to report a hunting rifles accuracy at 100m.

I know it will be different for every gun, but can someone give me an idea of what accuracy you expect from a good hunting rifle at 200, 300, 400 and 500 metres?

Thanks again, you guys are always helpful

[tom604]

dont shoot to 500 but out to 200/250 i want moa if they are much further than that i walk closer

[handofcod]

All things being equal, if a rifle is accurate at 100m, it is also accurate at 500m. The difference being, it's MUCH harder to shoot accurately at 500m because of variables not related to the rifle itself, ie. wind, technique, solid rest, shooter competence.

If your rifle can shoot into a 1 inch circle at 100m, it can shoot into a 2 inch circle at 200m but the effect of each and every variable is amplified the further and further away your target is.

[brett1868]

.5 MOA seems to be what most manufacturers advertise so assuming it's consistent you could assume 1/2" @ 100, 1" @ 200 1.5" @ 300 and so on....

Also depends on what you call a hunting rifle cause I've hunted with everything from .177 air up to 50 BMG

[sally-bee]

Also depends on what you call a hunting rifle cause I've hunted with everything from .177 air up to 50 BMG

Just a normal off the shelf one if you know what I mean?

Not a heavy barrel, no benchrest stock etc.

[brett1868]

Also depends on what you call a hunting rifle cause I've hunted with everything from .177 air up to 50 BMG

Just a normal off the shelf one if you know what I mean?

Not a heavy barrel, no benchrest stock etc.

The most popular calibres (in general) in this country appear to be 22-250 & .243 and both are capable of 0.5 MOA outta the box and used by a capable hunter. When you start targeting specific game such as deer, pigs or goats then most hunters will choose the calibre first then the rifle.

[Bourt]

As said.... 1 MOA is usually considered good enough. (Some would say they wan't more but whatever).

And what the rifle is capable of an what people can shoot are two different things.

On paper a rifle will shoot
1" at 100
2" at 200
3" at 300
4" at 400
5" at 500.

Actually shooting it though, an average shooting might get.

1" at 100
2.5" at 200
4" at 300
7" at 400
10" at 500.

Number are made up but you get the idea.

[tom604]

As said.... 1 MOA is usually considered good enough. (Some would say they wan't more but whatever).

And what the rifle is capable of an what people can shoot are two different things.

On paper a rifle will shoot
1" at 100
2" at 200
3" at 300
4" at 400
5" at 500.

Actually shooting it though, an average shooting might get.

1" at 100
2.5" at 200
4" at 300
7" at 400
10" at 500.

Number are made up but you get the idea.

this is true i do like to get small groups on paper, it gives me confidence that when im hunting the "gun" can shoot what im aiming for
but i also know that the groups will get bigger, twice? as big? when im leaning on a tree after walking/stalking up a hill blowing like a whale while my heart is trying to beat its way out of my chest

[ebr love]

i also know that the groups will get bigger, twice? as big? when im leaning on a tree after walking/stalking up a hill blowing like a whale while my heart is trying to beat its way out of my chest

Puffing and wheezing like the unfit buggers we are always does wonders for accuracy

[Hercl]

MOA becomes minute of barn door at 500m for a lot of shooters, especially for freehand/hunting.

Rifles often shoot better than their owners.

[sally-bee]

Sounds a lot like me at the moment

[Pom]

Only takes practice to improve.

[Herdsman]

On paper a rifle will shoot
1" at 100
2" at 200
3" at 300
4" at 400
5" at 500.

That's why you just shoot at 100m.

So you can say in theory I can shoot MOA at 500m, I'm a top shot!

[Baronvonrort]

If you do some load development it's possible to get better than 0.5MOA with a good rifle.

400-500m+ is a long way, use google earth to measure the road you live on for an idea,probably best to limit yourself to 300m until you get pretty good then start pushing it further out.

Over 300m/y I would be looking at projectiles with good BC, it doesn't matter as much up to 300y/m, the higher BC means a crosswind does not affect it as much as a lower BC projectile

The heart is a bigger target compared to brain with some animals,i prefer heart shots for long distance

[BBJ]

The heart is a bigger target compared to brain with some animals,i prefer heart shots for long distance

Better than trying for a headshot and just getting a jaw or grazing neck wound and having the thing run off.

[Zilla]

Stepping back for a sec here,,,,

Vital area on a deer is 9" square or something around that size. Most couldn't hit that consistently while free shooting at 200m and would be metres off at a freehand 500m shot. Half the chances for a brain shot.

A body shot on a small goat or fox is about the same, anywhere on a rabbit will do.

If you can shoot an inch at 100m you're ready to hunt. Most shots are taken at 50m - 150m or there about's and that'll do all the above.

[North East]

The country I hunt in you would be pushing it to get a shot in passed 100 yards....otherwise you'd be hitting trees. Generally shots are taken at about 50 yards. That's why I use an Aimpoint 1X red dot scope and a .30-06 on deer and most shots are taken off hand in to the heart/lung area. I haven't used the .30-06 beyond 100 yards.

[deanp100]

On paper a rifle will shoot
1" at 100
2" at 200
3" at 300
4" at 400
5" at 500.

That's why you just shoot at 100m.

So you can say in theory I can shoot MOA at 500m, I'm a top shot!

This is the rifle component. If it shoots a group of 1inch at 100 it has done everything possible to land a group of 5 inch at 500.
Everything else then comes into play, including the shooter and generally stuffs things up. Of course occasionally the rifle error to the left is compensated by your error to the right and you end up with the odd spectacular group. Everything in shootiñg should be taken as an average. The old school acceptable factory performance with old school factory ammo used to be 1 inch but these days things are probably marginally better. People can,t shoot any better though.

Deano

[bigfellascott]

For me I'm only interested in the first shot, if I get that right follow up shots aren't needed, so long as that first shots on the money anywhere from 50m out to 350ish I'm happy.

I'm still shooting handloads I haven't even tested on paper, seem to do the job out to 300m on bunnies so I figure they are accurate enough

They probably shoot like s**t on paper If I was poking paper I'd of course want to get the best I can out of the ammo but for fur you really don't need that pin point accuracy as you generally aren't shooting groups, its the first shot that really counts in a hunting type situation.

[Boatman]

That's why I use an Aimpoint 1X red dot scope and a .30-06 on deer and most shots are taken off hand in to the heart/lung area.

Good setup for hunting in the bush

[AlanK]

I wouldn't turn one down but that $800 price tag hurts.

[headspace]

There's truckloads of BS about shooting at long distances. The majority of responsible hunters won't shoot further than 250m to maybe 300 but that's if you can guesstimate the range accurately, and there's not two different crosswinds blowing. I get a little tired of hearing about people shooting deer at over 400m because in my opinion, it's not hunting, it's sniping. If you do actually hit the animal at that range there its a high probability of a non fatal wound, and the distance involved means another factor of difficulty in following up the wounded animal.
I don't care if you shoot a 308 or a Barrett 50cal, if the bullet is not placed correctly the animal suffers, and a responsible hunters first duty is clean kills. I also get tired of people equating the skills of military snipers in regard to hunting. It's a totally different scenario. If you wound a combatant you've done your job and taken him out of the fight. A big part of being a good hunter is to stalk, get as close as you can and make the first shot count. Therefore if your hunting rifle will group an inch and a half at 100m you are good to place a shot into the vital area to at least 200m. Just try to get as close as you can.

[bigfellascott]

There's truckloads of BS about shooting at long distances. The majority of responsible hunters won't shoot further than 250m to maybe 300 but that's if you can guesstimate the range accurately, and there's not two different crosswinds blowing. I get a little tired of hearing about people shooting deer at over 400m because in my opinion, it's not hunting, it's sniping. If you do actually hit the animal at that range there its a high probability of a non fatal wound, and the distance involved means another factor of difficulty in following up the wounded animal.
I don't care if you shoot a 308 or a Barrett 50cal, if the bullet is not placed correctly the animal suffers, and a responsible hunters first duty is clean kills. I also get tired of people equating the skills of military snipers in regard to hunting. It's a totally different scenario. If you wound a combatant you've done your job and taken him out of the fight. A big part of being a good hunter is to stalk, get as close as you can and make the first shot count. Therefore if your hunting rifle will group an inch and a half at 100m you are good to place a shot into the vital area to at least 200m. Just try to get as close as you can.

Personally I think a lot of it comes down to ones skill level and how good they are at shooting stuff at those ranges, plenty of fella's are capable of doing it and do it regularly with very consistent results.

I've seen plenty of animals wounded at close range too so I don't see long range shooting as increasing that potential for injury as such, as I said it comes down to ones skills - plenty out there that can shoot long ranges with good consistency and those that can't shouldn't be out there doing it until they can get the results on paper with good consistency.

Like Harry say's - ones got to know his limitations.

[Blackened]

There's truckloads of BS about shooting at long distances. The majority of responsible hunters won't shoot further than 250m to maybe 300 but that's if you can guesstimate the range accurately, and there's not two different crosswinds blowing. I get a little tired of hearing about people shooting deer at over 400m because in my opinion, it's not hunting, it's sniping.

I'm not mocking anyone here as it's just a case of lack of information and experience (we all suffered from that at one time).

"Sniper movies" definitely play a part in the unrealistic expectations of some new or prospective shooters.

Movies go for the nice round numbers with a ring to them. A 1km shot, 2km shot etc. (or miles as American movies have it).

We've had our share of posts first posts here along the lines of "what .308 for 1km hunting" which go to show.

[Combat_Wombat]

Never hunt past 150-200 but for sh**s and giggles I put 4 rounds into a 44 gallon drum at 400 a couple of times with the .270 and it was a big group but was also leaning on a tree so not too shabby.

[Wes]

I get a little tired of hearing about people shooting deer at over 400m because in my opinion, it's not hunting, it's sniping.

That's assuming they got the distance right anyway.

Could be more likely 200m instead of 400m with how bad people are at estimating

[headspace]

My point in that post was not to say 500m shots are not possible, but in hunting there are a lot of variables, which increase along with distance. I don't want my recreation threatened by someone from the newly militant RCPCA finding a wounded animal and accusing all hunters of being careless mongrels. The ethic is clear; clean cleanly and if you make a balls of it follow up the animal. When ranges get out past 200m it gets a lot harder to do any of those things. If people want to see how far the rifle will shoot , oil drums and paper don't bleed. Let's say you do have a clear shot a 500m but as you squeeze the trigger the animal moves or the wind shifts, that can mean the difference between a clean kill and a gut shot. Think about it, Hunting fur is a lot different to hitting a target. The targets don't move.
JD

[Gwion]

Sally. Theoretically 1moa is as described above and 0.5moa is better (i for one need all the help i can get from my rifle). A rifle that shoots 1/2" at 100 wont always shoot 1.5" at 300 though. Many variables like bullet choice (BC), velocity, barrel twist etc, will effect accuracy over range due to projectile stability: how long does it take to stabilise and how long will it remain stable. All this before you consider wind, angle, etc. All these things need to be set up with intended range and target in mind. For instance, my 223 can shoot pretty damn well to 300 odd yards but i shot it at 600 (range shooting) for the first time recently and it was right on the edge of its limits (mine too) and even with little to no wind it had a 2-3moa variation in elevation, or maybe more. The light little 50gn bullets just lost too much velocity at that range and had gone trans-sonic. With a faster twist barrel and heavier/longer bullet (better BC), it may have been more consistent. Also, a light barreled hunting rifle might look at 3 shots for testing accuracy before heat may cause the barrel to "whip" a bit more (or differently) and open groups up. A heavier barrel will be less effected. So with load, cartridge, rifle and skills all set up for intended range and target, yes, a rifle that shoots 1/2" at 100yd will shoot 2.5" at 500yd.


So, that's the rifle, this next bit might be a bit off your original question but: for hunting accuracy, you may find it helps to practice how, where and when you are going to hunt. That is to say get to know your location, rifle and terrain. If you have access to a place to hunt, go out and have a practice session or three there, or somewhere similar. You will find out what the wind does, what the light does, what angles you are likely to be shooting, what cover is usable for stalking, what is available to use as a field rest. Practice closer offhand shots, longer shots with a field rest. Use some targets that are easy to set up and take down and place them at various ranges/shooting angles. For example, set one at about 30m, one at 50, one at 110 and one at 200. You might practice standing off hand shots at 30 & 50m (i'd go a 22lr for this until you can ping it easily), sitting/kneeling at 50 &110, and a low/stable field rest at 110 & 200m It will all be a lot different than shooting on a range or clearly set out target.

Some might say it's a waste of a trip or ammo or whatever, but once you can set 3 or 4 targets in the field and ping them first shot you will be much more prepared and confident and accurate of all ranges when you actually go out for a real hunt because you will know what you and your rifle are capable of.

My rifle can shoot 0.5MOA and so can i under comfortable, calm conditions but as the BigFella says, the first round out the spout needs to hit the kill zone. In one outing i've been known to take a head shot at 200m but then completely miss a chest shot at 75m. Why? I had been practicing too much at a set range with a nice, comfortable, set rest. Good for practicing fundamentals and working on rifle accuracy but no help in improvised field conditions. So, i started collecting empty cans, filling them with water (stability in wind and fun exploding can factor) and setting them up at various ranges around the paddock i use for practice and shooting as described above. It helped a lot.

Work on your skills and learn your limits for range with various rests and stay with in them.

[Wobble]

It certainly doesn't scale as neatly as the paperwork suggests.

I get less than an inch at 100m but dinner plates at 500m.

[Josh Smith]

I am OK with 2moa.

In the State of Indiana, we used to only be able to use shotguns for deer when I was growing up. This meant foster slugs and smooth bore barrels at that time.

I got pretty good groups, but nothing like your average rifle. It did limit practical range, too, but the 3" or so we got at 100 yards was plenty good enough.

Josh