what do you consider accurate ?

[white eagle]

These are the reasons people shoot 3 shot groups:

They are not capable of shooting accurately.
Their guns are not accurate.
Their loads are not accurate.
They cannot afford to shoot.
To confirm sight settings have not changed once they have developed, and proven an accurate load.

they are confident enough that they don't need to be wasting time shooting more than needed
they hit where they need to
they dont need a follow up shot
they don't need to paint with a broad brush

[versa-06]

If I can get 5 cold bore shots where I want them, A 3-round group after this should be sufficient. I don't think anything will stay around for round 4. I try to always have a cold bore during set up. Takes a lot of time, but I live right beside my own range.

[cwtebay]

I think M-Tecs makes an excellent point. I didn't realize for a long time that guys shot groups (3 or 27 for that matter) without letting the barrel cool. My "groups" are typically 5-10 shots over an hour or so.
I also don't understand how shooting sub moa groups from a bench with sandbags prepares you for hunting where shots are generally taken quickly and offhand (beyond zeroeing the rifle).
I am a firm believer in making the first shot count, and have never understood how the 3rd shot meant much of anything in the hunting world.
My practice is generally done offhand with my open sighted rifles - if I can't get it done doing that, I probably don't have much business shooting at game.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[versa-06]

Key Words; Beyond zeroeing the rifle.

[dverna]

Some interesting reasons for justifying why we do things.

Some reasons are shocking....like not wasting time shooting more than needed.

But I can prove my point about three shot groups by suggesting a simple exercise that will not waste too much time. It is also relatively inexpensive. All you need is a .22, a box of decent ammunition plus 5 “warmers”, and a 50 yard range.

First, make up 5 identical targets with the aiming point in the same spot. Fire 5 warmers into a separate target. Then fire three shots on the first target and measure the group. Then affix the second target over the first, shoot three shots and measure the group. Do the same with third, fourth and five target. When done, measure the group of 15 shots on the first target. Compare the size of your 3 shot groups to the 15 shot group.

Now, prepare three targets as above and do the same exercise using 5 shot groups. Again 15 rounds will be expended.

Lastly, prepare two targets as above. Shoot a ten shot group on the first...measure. Then put the seconded target over the first and shoot the last ten shots. Compare the 2 ten shot groups sizes to the 20 shot group.

If, after doing this, you find that three shot groups are able to predict the accuracy of your gun and load, you have a match quality rifle, shooting match quality ammunition and an exceptional marksman on the trigger.

I doubt many people will waste the time. Like that statement in the movie, “You can’t handle the truth!” And the truth is....an excellent three shot group will not tell you much about accuracy.

I will make a prediction....the 15 shot group will be three times larger than your best three shot group.

Accuracy is relatively unimportant for most hunters. In 5 years, our 6 member camp has only harvested two deer at over 200 yards. If a 1 MOA three shot group is actually a 3 MOA load, it does not matter....unless you need to reach out past 300 yards.

[dh2]

I would first check my scope and bedding if the point of impact changes, the trouble may not be the ammo.
For my deer hunting if in the swamp my 45/70 a group of 3 at 100 yards less than 2 inches, in this case bear and pig is also posable.
for more open country my 280 AI a group of 3 at 100 yards less than 3/4 inch keeps finding yearling doe's this year.

[Winger Ed.]

[QUOTE=cwtebay;5300497]I also don't understand how shooting sub moa groups from a bench with sandbags prepares you for hunting where shots are generally taken quickly and offhand (beyond zeroeing the rifle).


It eliminates a couple of variables, builds confidence, and lets you know the rifle is doing its part.

Shooting is like riding a motorcycle, or flying an airplane--- the more you do it, the better you get.
The more practice you do with getting a sight picture & alignment, trigger control, the better you will be out in the woods too.

I'd heard somewhere:
If you hear a shot in the woods--- somebody probably got a deer.
Two shots--- somebody might have gotten a deer.
Three shots---- somebody missed a deer, and it ran off.

[cwtebay]

[QUOTE=Winger Ed.;5300693]

I also don't understand how shooting sub moa groups from a bench with sandbags prepares you for hunting where shots are generally taken quickly and offhand (beyond zeroeing the rifle).


It eliminates a couple of variables, builds confidence, and lets you know the rifle is doing its part.

Shooting is like riding a motorcycle, or flying an airplane--- the more you do it, the better you get.
The more practice you do with getting a sight picture & alignment, trigger control, the better you will be out in the woods too.

I'd heard somewhere:
If you hear a shot in the woods--- somebody probably got a deer.
Two shots--- somebody might have gotten a deer.
Three shots---- somebody missed a deer, and it ran off.

You are correct!!!! I could have been more succinct in my "zeroeing" remark. Assuming one has taken the time to familiarize oneself with his firearm of choice (zero, sight picture, sight acquisition, etc), my opinion still stands that shooting from a sand bagged bench / lead sled / ad nauseum will make sure that one is an excellent marksman......when conditions are perfect.
Your analogy to piloting an aircraft is excellent!! Would you say that hour upon hour of flight simulators or perfect early morning flying hours prepair you for actual real world flying conditions? They didn't when I got my license.
I'm not trying to put a burr under anyone's saddle, only saying that practice is only as good as what that practice prepares you for - and that's just my opinion.

(I had heard somewhere - one shot meat, 2 shots beat - and that's meant in jest!!)


Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Winger Ed.]

[QUOTE=cwtebay;5300700][QUOTE=Winger Ed.;5300693] Would you say that hour upon hour of flight simulators or perfect early morning flying hours prepair you for actual real world flying conditions?


Well,,,,,,, yes, and no... Sort of like when a 15 yr. old kid has to take driver's education.
I'd figure it was one of those deals where you'd be better off with that practice, than you would be without it.

I'm reminded----
One of the old, old hangers at MCAF Quantico had a big sign painted on the wall.
That hanger was where WWI era sea planes were parked, some of the research and development of jet engines was done, etc.

The sign read something like:
"Aviation in not inherently dangerous. However; it is very unforgiving of even the slightest transgression"

On another wall was:
"Aviation is comprised of endless hours of boredom, accented by seconds of stark terror".

[cwtebay]

[QUOTE=Winger Ed.;5300710][QUOTE=cwtebay;5300700]

Would you say that hour upon hour of flight simulators or perfect early morning flying hours prepair you for actual real world flying conditions?


Well,,,,,,, yes, and no... Sort of like when a 15 yr. old kid has to take driver's education.
I'd figure it was one of those deals where you'd be better off with that practice, than you would be without it.

I'm reminded----
One of the old, old hangers at MCAF Quantico had a big sign painted on the wall.
That hanger was where WWI era sea planes were parked, some of the research and development of jet engines was done, etc.

The sign read something like:
"Aviation in not inherently dangerous. However; it is very unforgiving of even the slightest transgression"

On another wall was:
"Aviation is comprised of endless hours of boredom, accented by seconds of stark terror".

Well said Winger Ed

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[M-Tecs]

For your hunting needs?
I am struggling with a rifle and it is not getting down to where I like it
Which is about 1" for 3 shots at 100 yards.
once I get it set and make up a box and retest it either moves or not what I had previously
What say You?

The OP is asking specifically about hunting and later stated deer hunting accuracy.

It always suprises me how many believe there is only one "correct" way.

Accuracy can be measured in many different ways and some methods are statistically superior. That being said the only only real statistic that matters when hunting is the kill to recovery rates. One shot one kill is just that and it matters little if it comes from a 1/4" MOA or a 2" MOA firearm. Understanding both the shooters and the equipment limitations and operating within them is just as import or more important than the difference between 1 cold bore shot, 3 shot, 5 shot, 10 shot or more.

[HD.375]

lets call it your deer rifle

some of my deer rifles are scoped, an some are lever gun opens,

1 inch for the scoped i like, but il take 2 inch hunting scoped .. at 100m

with the opens, 4-5 inches for 3 shots is good

[JLF]

5 shots within a 5 centimeter diameter circle at 100 meters, enough to kill anything.

[savagetactical]

A group is not made of 3 shots IMHO. 5 is bare min to be called a group 10 is better.

IMHO the 3 shotter's are afraid to fire more as the know it will grow in size Just MHO

This isn't quite correct . when you are dealing with a lightweight or ultralight weight hunting rifle that will be carried far more in it's life than shot a 3 shot group is more than adequate to determine its accuracy.

Never in my life have I fired more than twice at an animal and usually the second shot is to end it's suffering and has only been fired when the first did not put it down as intended . If you are on a target range I agree that a 9 shot group with a cold bore shot is a good metric for accuracy and precision .

In hunting situation though the cold bore shot is the one which matters most because that is the shot that will take the meat or not . Your mileage may vary , but I have yet to see a gun which will not shift its point of impact after a cold bore shot . Accuracy and precision aren't the same thing and it's nice to have both , but in a hunting rifle I would much rather have one that delivers the bullet accurately to guarantee a clean kill vs one that can place all the bullets into one hole repeatedly after a fouling or cold bore shot.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

We had a 4" gong at the 100 yard range at our club. I used to take my deer rifle there before deer season and give it a good whack. Was good to go then.

[Prodigal Son]

for me this is good enough to take deer and other critters!

[versa-06]

Prodigal son; Those 1st 2-shots were they cold bore or fouling shots & the rest of the group elevated after barrel warm or did you move your sight point of impact?

[Rapier]

Depends on the type of action and caliber, my heavy bolt guns about 1”, my light bolt guns about .5, my ARs about 3/4”, my single shots about .5”

With casting, everything effects accuracy, lube, alloy, consistency, powder, primers, brass, etc. One thing many fail to notice in a reduced load is powder location in the case. I started using fillers for low density loads, improved accuracy consistancy.

[Prodigal Son]

It was a warm summer day, but the 1st two were, Gun just bore sighted! Made a correction and over corrected to high! The 4th was to the right at 3 o'clock, one click left and the next five grouped to the left of center, but hits wear I aim, kills deer too!

[versa-06]

P-Son; Thanks for update, That load will hunt.