how many need the accuracy they are chasing?

[mickb]

I support any style of gun enthusiasm, if blokes love chasing accuracy more power to them, I see a trend the last 10-15 years or so of longer range shooting rigs and people talking sub moa or desperate to find 'the load' that can tighten a group at 200m etc. I have to admit I have never chased nor gotten nor even cared if i get a Sub moa group with anything. But then I dont target shoot or head shoot small game at hundreds of metres. How about everyone else, is getting that most accurate load a necessity for your type of hunting or is it more the enjoyment of load development itself?

[Bello]

Hi Mate

I like to hand load my ammunition for a little more accuracy form my rifle. I also like to hand load as a pass time. It's something I don't mind doing.

I initially chased that one ragged hole group, on my targets. But I came to realize that; my rifles were hunting rifles not F class rifles. My rifles were for hunting! I was reading on forums about having to do 5 shot groups .
I have been hunting on and off for years, and I have NEVER, take more than 2 shots before animals I was targeting ran off. (Rabbits at a rabbit warren) (A mob or pigs) etc.

I now shoot 2 shot groups, because that for ME is realistic shooting, in my hunting applications.

I load a little less, as I have found over the years the ADI 223 ammo and the 308 ammo are very accurate, no need to load for them any more. These are the two calibres I hunt with the most.

My advice for people hunting is; find a store bought ammo that shoots well in your rifle (a bullet with the projectile of a weight and structure that will do the job on the game you hunt) and stick to it.
I have gone hunting on occasions and only fired one shot. You have to ask yourself, is it worth the expense of buying several different powders, projectiles, primers loading equipment (Loading press, dies shell holders, de-primers etc etc) to get a little more accuracy when you only fire a handful of shots on any given hunting trip.

I could go on about this for ages
For a newbie I say: buy quality ammo of the Above description (of the above blue writing) and sight your rifle in as best you can and go have some fun.

My 2 Cents worth

[mchughcb]

Best way to waste money is pretending your 22/250 is a bench rest rifle.

The answer is not many.

[JimTom]

I definitely chase sub Moa accuracy when I am developing a load mate, which has also morphed into buying a chronograph and analysing SD, ES.
To answer your question mate, I mainly shoot pigs and a few chital under 200m, so I’d say I go overboard chasing accuracy. Still it’s nice to know your rifle and ammo are capable of sub moa.

[bigpete]

For most of my shooting ½ to 2" groups at 100m is ample. It is nice however to have a load in my 22-250 that shots ½" at 100m though.
I think people spend a lot of time faffing about with getting pinpoint accuracy that they should spend out hunting

[on_one_wheel]

Guilty
There's nothing like using up a large chunk of barrel life and a mountain of hand crafted ammunition to find that .3" grouping load only to go stomping around the scrub shooting goats at 50m or less from a unsupported standing position.

However, it's nice knowing that my rifle is capable of impressive consistency out to 500m and I did enjoy the process of accurising the rifle and working up loads.

Did I need that level of consistency?
Perhaps 1 in every couple hundred shots the answer is YES.

[Jorlcrin]

I probably go overboard on the reloading, because I know I'm a sub-par distance shooter.

If I know the ammo is more consistent than my shooting abilities, then I figure that I've got a better chance of nailing the target out in the paddock.
And it's one less variable to blame if I miss the shot..

By being a bit anal with my reloading, I also think I've learned more about what's happening when the bullet is in transit, which has helped me understand how to do my part better.

[Billo]

Challenging yourself and honing your skills on the reloading bench is a rewarding past time.

If you take advantage of the increased accuracy in the field then good for you.

My last 7 pigs and 1 deer where all shot with my 6mm light target rifle, 2 of the shots wouldn't have been possible with any of my other rifles.

[bladeracer]

I support any style of gun enthusiasm, if blokes love chasing accuracy more power to them, I see a trend the last 10-15 years or so of longer range shooting rigs and people talking sub moa or desperate to find 'the load' that can tighten a group at 200m etc. I have to admit I have never chased nor gotten nor even cared if i get a Sub moa group with anything. But then I dont target shoot or head shoot small game at hundreds of metres. How about everyone else, is getting that most accurate load a necessity for your type of hunting or is it more the enjoyment of load development itself?

For something I'm likely to want to use for small targets at longer ranges I like to get consistent sub-minute at 100m, but for most stuff all I need is reliable one-minute 100m groups, that's sufficient for anything I'll be trying to achieve with it.

[Lazarus]

Like Jolcrin, I need tight groups at 100m because I'm not crash hot past 300m

[bigpete]

Just don't shoot past 300 lol

[Lazarus]

Or maybe just at reeeally big things

[bigrich]

colonel whelen once said "only accurate rifles are interesting" . this is true for me . i do comps in field positions , so having a rifle shoot under a inch means if i don't do well, it's me not the rifle
i like the technical aspect of loading and ballistics , i'm a little OCD in nature , so tinkering with rifles and loads is a good fit for me . knowing my rifles accuracy and ballistics has paid off for me out in the paddock .

as for the title of the post , why wouldn't i chase good accuracy ? i do draw a line though when it's "good enough".
once bedded and floated , some rifles in 222 and 308 can give freakish good accuracy with very little work . just saying........

[bigpete]

I've literally watched a mate spend months faffing about with a deer rifle because he didn't think 1 moa was accurate enough to shoot deer with.....
Meanwhile I'm dropping deer and goats on the regular with a rifle that struggled to get 2 moa on a regular basis....

[Vince24]

Think everybody agrees it's not worth getting into handloading if you're only going to shoot 100 rounds a year, unless of course you like the science of it.

As far as I am concerned, I shoot 1000 rounds a year or more at paper targets and accuracy is only 1 of the 5 reasons why I am into handloading:

- AVAILABILITY. I shoot old military rifles and for many of them you can't even find ammo in your regular gunshop.

- BUDGET: by being patient and smart in my component acquisitions, each of my rounds costs less than $1 to assemble, on average. And that's gonna remain true in the next 5 years, with the stocks I have.

- LESS RECOIL. Factory ammo is often unecessary hard hitting in those old military rifles. Reducing recoil preserves the brass, the rifle, the shoulder and helps to be more accurate by reducing fatigue and flintching otherwise induced by the combination bad military trigger/recoil.

- ACCURACY. Following a basic load development my handloads are almost always as accurate as factory loads, often a bit more accurate actually, and sometimes DRAMATICALLY more accurate, notably in rough barrels or in high performing rifles such as refurbished 1903 A3 or similar. Military comps are up to 300 yards, so for the rifles I use at that distance, accuracy does matter a little bit. If it does not group decently at 100 yards, it is not going to do better at 300... Of course not talking about BR accuracy here...

- INTEREST - handloading is a science in its own. Really interesting for whoever trully likes rifles & shooting.

[mickb]

Good post Vince, I'd also add power preferences. Those of us shooting subsonics, which can be real trial and error to get the results. Also hotrodding rounds, we are all supposed to pooh pooh doing it but chasing power is a legitimate interest, some blokes like to see what a case can do.

[bigpete]

While all that is true,the post isn't really about reasons for hand loading.

I barely fire 100 rounds a year and I handload, for all the reasons above and because I always have

[Blr243]

I haven’t got the time to reload one charge let alone 3 or 4 to find the most accurate one . I like 1.5 Moa. I can tolerate 2 moa . Then it’s night , they can’t see me coming. I have thermal so I sneak up to 30 metres away before I shoot 95 per cent of the time. Long shots for me are 120 m on cats and foxes. As long as my rig can hit them every time that’s all I need.

[Oldbloke]

I enjoy reloading. Improved accuracy and cheaper too.
But 1.5 is plenty for most situations.
Only rarely shoot past 150yards.
Try walking closer I say.
And animal welfare does need to be considered.
People waste time and components trying to achieve the impossible but can't shoot in the field, so, what's the point.

[mchughcb]

When I look on Facebook people posting foxes shot at night out to 300m are just shooting at a red mass and any shot is resulting in death on a small body. People shooting deer from 300- 800m have 8+kg rigs they spend hours on fine tuning their accuracy.

For the average Joe chest shooting witha 223 to 308 off a rest to 200m will get away with 1.5moa accuracy at 100m. Sure you can fine tune that but for hunting purposes I'd say why?

[bigpete]

When I look on Facebook people posting foxes shot at night out to 300m are just shooting at a red mass and any shot is resulting in death on a small body. People shooting deer from 300- 800m have 8+kg rigs they spend hours on fine tuning their accuracy.

For the average Joe chest shooting witha 223 to 308 off a rest to 200m will get away with 1.5moa accuracy at 100m. Sure you can fine tune that but for hunting purposes I'd say why?

Exactly

[SCJ429]

I enjoy shooting and need the practice so when I am hunting I am confident about making the shot. Might as well do some load development while I am practicing.

[animalpest]

When I look on Facebook people posting foxes shot at night out to 300m are just shooting at a red mass and any shot is resulting in death on a small body. People shooting deer from 300- 800m have 8+kg rigs they spend hours on fine tuning their accuracy.

For the average Joe chest shooting witha 223 to 308 off a rest to 200m will get away with 1.5moa accuracy at 100m. Sure you can fine tune that but for hunting purposes I'd say why?

Yep, especially if they dont have top of the line thermals etc. Even then, they cant compare to a decent scope.

[bigrich]

When I look on Facebook people posting foxes shot at night out to 300m are just shooting at a red mass and any shot is resulting in death on a small body. People shooting deer from 300- 800m have 8+kg rigs they spend hours on fine tuning their accuracy.

For the average Joe chest shooting witha 223 to 308 off a rest to 200m will get away with 1.5moa accuracy at 100m. Sure you can fine tune that but for hunting purposes I'd say why?

why didn't take me much effort at all to get my 308 shooting .75"-.5" at 100. i know my firearms accuracy and have no hesitation attempting 300 yard shots with a rig i'm familiar with , and confident in it's accuracy . what's 1.5 moa at 300 ? the difference between a wounded animal and a dead one in some cases . just saying......

to be poo-poo-ing people who aspire to good accuracy and skill is the opposite of what i believe hunting skills to be

i've known people in the past with 30-30's with the cheapest ammo they can buy . they ended up embarrassed cause my game dropped, and theirs run off into the scrub with a gut wound . just saying .....

[bigrich]

I enjoy shooting and need the practice so when I am hunting I am confident about making the shot. Might as well do some load development while I am practicing.

exactly

personally i'm always trying to improve my skills . and that includes tuning my rifle for accuracy .

"she'll be right" and "near enough, good enough" don't cut it with me. all it takes is a little effort

[Lazarus]

Talking of precision, I was working on a load this afternoon, using the Rexem 62gn.
Being somewhat anal with the loading, I batch brass and pills, I grabbed some 62s out of the box and weighed them and they were all 62.0.
So what?
OCD surfaced, I weighed 200 of them.
There was one at 62.1gn, two at 61.8, two at 61.9, and 195 at 62.0

This deeply satisfied some neurotic part of me.

Ended up with a decent group as well.

IMG_20240709_173402.jpg (140.38 KiB) Viewed 58212 times

An irreverent thought just occurred to me.
In a group other than shooters, the term "working on a load" would probably wedge panties

[mchughcb]

When I look on Facebook people posting foxes shot at night out to 300m are just shooting at a red mass and any shot is resulting in death on a small body. People shooting deer from 300- 800m have 8+kg rigs they spend hours on fine tuning their accuracy.

For the average Joe chest shooting witha 223 to 308 off a rest to 200m will get away with 1.5moa accuracy at 100m. Sure you can fine tune that but for hunting purposes I'd say why?

why didn't take me much effort at all to get my 308 shooting .75"-.5" at 100. i know my firearms accuracy and have no hesitation attempting 300 yard shots with a rig i'm familiar with , and confident in it's accuracy . what's 1.5 moa at 300 ? the difference between a wounded animal and a dead one in some cases . just saying......

to be poo-poo-ing people who aspire to good accuracy and skill is the opposite of what i believe hunting skills to be

i've known people in the past with 30-30's with the cheapest ammo they can buy . they ended up embarrassed cause my game dropped, and theirs run off into the scrub with a gut wound . just saying .....

Normal chest shot on a pig or bigger sized animal is 150mm circle. 1.5moa at 300m assuming a benchrest is 130mm. I'm not poo pooing anything. They are just facts. Use a big enough calibre with the right bullet selection for the animal with a shot through the CNS and that's it.
If you can shoot 70mm group at 300m fantastic but the 150mm is the bare minimum and a 1.5moa setup will do that at 300m.

[Oldbloke]

The fact the rifle is capable of a 300 yard shot means SFA.

People forget to add the human error when shooting in the field. Just not the same as a bench at the range.

[bigrich]

The fact the rifle is capable of a 300 yard shot means SFA.

People forget to add the human error when shooting in the field. Just not the same as a bench at the range.

yup true, but some folks at the range do comps practicing field positions . like the comp i'm doing this coming weekend . out to 300

accurate rifle, plenty of practice doing comps . made a difference to my abilities out bush

[Oldbloke]

The fact the rifle is capable of a 300 yard shot means SFA.

People forget to add the human error when shooting in the field. Just not the same as a bench at the range.

yup true, but some folks at the range do comps practicing field positions . like the comp i'm doing this coming weekend . out to 300

accurate rifle, plenty of practice doing comps . made a difference to my abilities out bush

I'm sure it does.