Acceptable accuracy in a rifle! What’s that mean??

[poco]

I’m still looking at wood stock BSA & Parker Hale rifles in .243 & 6.5x55
And keep getting the answer “ acceptable accuracy “ WTH does that mean?
I know some are 50/60/70 years old, what is average or best for these rifle
I like wood vintage but vague description's about them are driving me nuts

 

[wyosteve]

I don't know the answer, but for me if my 50 yr. old rifles shoot a 1 inch 3 shot group at 100 yds. I consider it acceptable accuracy.

 

[mdwest]

Depends on the gun and the caliber for me…

Most of my AR’s I’m happy if I’m getting 1.5 MOA… 2 MOA is acceptable…

Most of my hunting rifles if I’m getting around 1 MOA I’m happy.. but 1.5 MOA for the distances I typically shoot is acceptable..

For my more modern bolt guns, I expect sub MOA accuracy.. that’s what most manufacturers like Christensen, fierce, seekins, etc all “guarantee”.. but truth be told if I can find a good hunting load that reliably produces 1 MOA I find that perfectly acceptable..

 

[FlyGuy]

They’re both excellent rifles, built on strong actions.
Is “acceptable accuracy” based on factory loads?

With a good bore, both are easily capable of 1/2-1.25” groups at 100m with hand loads. Getting a decent 6.5x55 to shoot 1/2” isn’t hard.

If the barrels are questionable, it’s often still worth it to have a good gun smith screw on a new one. They don’t make wood and steel like that anymore.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Get the Parker Hale. The BSA Majestic rifles in .243 Winchester used somewhat softer steel in the barrels. And they had comparatively shorter barrel life. The beastly muzzle brakes are another major turn off. Why BSA opted to put a muzzle brake on a .243 Winchester is completely beyond me. If a man can't handle the recoil of a .243 Winchester, then he has no business owning firearms.

Acceptable accuracy should be 1" groups out to 50-60 yards in a good condition BSA Majestic.

 

[uplander01]

Factory loads 1-1.5", even 2" @100 will get the job done at reasonable hunting distances.

 

[375Fox]

I’d consider 1.5” at 100 acceptable accuracy for hunting inside 300 yards. I’d prefer at or under 1” though for my rifles.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I’m still looking at wood stock BSA & Parker Hale rifles in .243 & 6.5x55
And keep getting the answer “ acceptable accuracy “ WTH does that mean?
I know some are 50/60/70 years old, what is average or best for these rifle
I like wood vintage but vague description's about them are driving me nuts

All the above answers are true. To complicate the obvious...

Acceptable accuracy is salesmans speak much like "good condition for it's age".
That means it's old and worn out but not broken or covered with rust.

If you are collecting and not going to shoot it more than a couple times, then acceptable accuracy should be fine.

If one is serious about what is acceptable accuracy, one must consider their functional requirements.
1. Dangerous game at 50 yards or less
2. Large plains game at 150 yards or less
3. Duiker at 200 yards?
4. Baboons at 600 yards?
5. North American woodchucks or prarie dogs at 300 to 600 yards?

Because recoil is not conducive to consistent accuracy, add to that the power requirements of the bullet at range of impact, i.e. bullet travels xx yards to hit animal, how many foot pounds of energy remain? In the same configuration and weight of rifle, more power means more recoil!

Are your power requirements for:
1. Elephant
2. Buffalo
3. Eland
4. Kudu
5. Smaller antelope/whitetail deer

Finally, how accurate can you shoot?
1. Off the sticks
2. Off a firm rest
3. Prone position which is doable with a 375 H&H, perhaps with a 416, but not for me shooting a 458!

Where are you hunting?
1. Thick brush where 100 yards is a long shot
2. Open country where getting closer than 300 yards is very difficult?

A dangerous game double rifle may be regulated to a maker's standard of both barrels producing hits within a 3" circle at 50 yards. Personally, I'd like a 1.5" group at 50 yards for both barrels but that IS NOT necessary for stopping a large, charging, angry, wanting to kill you creature.

For the same or similar cartridge in a bolt action dangerous game rifle acceptable accuracy for me would be half or less of what is acceptable for a double rifle. Why? A bolt gun has a lot less variables that does a double rifle. I'd also expect to be capable of much longer shots with the bolt action. For those, one can try different factory or handloads until a small group is repeatable. Without having to worry about the two barrels maintaining regulation, the possibilities are almost endless!

To the above with a flat shooting cartridge, I expect to be able to accurately hit a small target at 100, 200, or even 300 yards. Now, 300 yards with a 458 Win or Lott is pushing it because they start dropping quickly after 150 or so yards. With a 375 H&H or similar shooting at small to medium size plains game, 300 yards is doable if one can't get any closer. For a duiker, 300 yards with a 375 may be stretching your luck. The same shot with a "fast" cartridge somewhere between a 22-250 and 300 magnums is easy for a good marksman.

Varmint and target accuracy is certainly higher than that for dangerous game. One minute of angle (MOA) is the least accuracy for these rifles, if not a half MOA.

For military service rifles, 2 MOA is probably enough. Sniper rifles of today are much more accurate, perhaps 1/2 MOA for most.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi Poco,

As uplander1 say: "... 1-1.5", even 2" @100 will get the job done at reasonable hunting distances."
The most important, even with a 2" 100 yards or meters rifle, is what can do YOU with that rifle from hunting field positions.
I will be happier with a rifle that ALWAYS put 3 shoot in 2" from a bench at 100 meters AND FIT YOU AS A GLOVE than anything else.

Good luck!

CF

 

[One Day...]

An objective data-based view of acceptable accuracy...

I am on record for saying that it is a rare modern (i.e. CNC machined) hunting rifle that does not hold 1 MOA with decent ammunition. All my Blaser R8 barrels do, and that is good enough for me because the stark reality is that virtually nobody, me and AH crowd respectfully included, shoots reliably and predictably less than an MOA from a field hunting position*.
* would-be game sniper generally included...

I can also vividly remember reading in the 1980's and 1990's all sorts of great gun writers (e.g. Finn Aagaard, Ross Seyfried, Ken Waters, Layne Simpson, Craig Boddington, Bob Milek, Ken Elliott, Gary Sitton, and all the gang at Petersen's Publishing) for whom the Holy Grail was a 1 MOA hunting rifle, and who were perfectly willing to accept 1.5 or even 2 MOA from a factory Win 70 or Rem 700.

Older rifles, and even older military rifles, can shoot just as well, or better, or can shoot ... all over the place. What with worn out barrels (e.g. too many solids, or too much vigorous barrel 'cleaning' with steel rods), corroded bores (e.g. mercury primers and cordite); poorly rifled barrels or poorly reamed chambers from commercial high-volume, or military war-time production on worn out machinery and/or blunt cutting tools, etc. etc. etc.

But what is the definition of "acceptable accuracy"?

Acceptable accuracy means hitting the target where intended, and in hunting terms, killing the game cleanly (i.e. ethically).

The question is: what accuracy is required to hit the vital area of the game?

This is related to the size of the game.

Tiny Ten: ~4 to 6" vital area.​

A 6" circle represents 2 MOA at 300 yards...​

A 2" group at 100 yard is technically acceptable.​

Pronghorn / small deer / small African antelopes: ~8" to 9" vital area.​

A 9" circle represents 3 MOA at 300 yards...​

A 3" group at 100 yard is technically acceptable.​

​

Medium size deer / medium African antelope: ~10" to 11"vital area.​

A 11" circle represents 3.6 MOA at 300 yards...​

A 3.6" group at 100 yard is technically acceptable !?​

​

Large deer / North American wild sheep / mountain goat: ~11" to 14" vital area.​

A 14" circle represents 4.6 MOA at 300 yards...​

A 4.6" group at 100 yard is technically acceptable !?!?​

​

Elk / large African antelope: ~14" to 16" vital area.​

A 16" circle represents 5.3 MOA at 300 yards...​

A 5.3" group at 100 yard is technically acceptable !?!?!?​

​

Moose / Eland: ~18" to 21" vital area.​

A 21" circle represents 7 MOA at 300 yards...​

A 7" group at 100 yard is technically acceptable !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?​

Of course all the above numbers need recalculation if the maximum shooting distance exceeds 300 yards, but few folks among the millions of licensed hunters have any business attempting to shoot past 300 yards from a field position anyway*.
* I would add that the AH crowd should generally not consider itself as the shooting baseline. I have verified many times that our shooting skills are vastly superior to that of the average hunting Joe who shoots 3 to 5 rounds per year.

Do not rush to lick the stamp on the hate mail, I am not advocating that 7 MOA is "acceptable accuracy", but the fact is that I have shot as a kid many captured 8mm K98 or .303 SMLE parachuted to the French Alps resistance in WWII, that shot 5 rounds in 6" at 100 meters (6 MOA) with stowed away WWII military ammo and were considered by their owner perfectly acceptable for Chamois hunting (as in: 'got the job done') out to 150 to 200 meters, and sometimes farther, with their original military iron sights. A case in point where 6 MOA was considered perfectly acceptable accuracy...

But this was then, and now is now, and I would venture to say that "culturally" the modern objective meaning of desirable accuracy is probably 1 MOA or less, and acceptable accuracy is probably 2 MOA or less.

Never mind that many (most?) hunters have difficulty holding 2 or even 3 MOA from the bench, and 6 MOA from a hunting position*
* see above note.

If you doubt me, grab a sample of any 10 hunters in any hunting camp, be it in America, Europe or Africa, put a 6" steel plate at 100 yards, and invite them to shoot. I will wager that results will be better in Africa due to folks using sticks (which remain less used in America and Europe), but results are still bound to be fascinating*
* see above note.

And when it comes to used rifles, "acceptable accuracy" is in the eyes of the beholder, or should I say the seller, so it mean exactly ... nothing, zero, zilch, pure snake oil.

But then again, it is not all that different from buying a new rifle: you have no idea how it will shoot until you shoot it. Not to mention that your preferred load / bullet may or may not fly well from that pipe.

In summary, while you can rarely get a proof target with a used rifle (and not necessarily trust it if you get it), it is easy to get decent quality pictures of the bore to verify that it is still in decent shape with crip lands and grooves. If that is the case, you stand a very good chance that a post WW II rifle will hold 2 MOA, or maybe 3 MOA at worse, which is still technically acceptable for about any hunting out to 300 yards, aside from the Tiny Ten.

 

[WyoBull]

Acceptable accuracy to me means different things depending on caliber, distance hunted with said caliber and longest range you will shoot the rifle.
If you rifle will never be shot beyond 100 yards and will only be hunted on dangerous game, that is a completely different scenario than me hunting here in Wyoming and shooting much longer distances on a regular basis. As an example, if my rifles don’t shoot 1/2 MOA at 100 yards with loads I work up for them they don’t have a place in my safe. Shooting coyotes at 300+ yards requires better than 1-2 MOA.
Maybe I am just an accuracy junky but that is the way I have always approached it.