I think the Hawks article is pretty much right on. I do agree that the end of the article that disparages cartridges that don't look like the .30-06 comes out of the blue and is unsupported.

With reference to how much accuracy is needed IN THE RIFLE to promote effective hunting, I think Hawks is right. In my big game hunting experience, more of my shots have been under 100 yards than have been over 200 yards. So how much accuracy do you need to hit a pronghorn in the vitals at 250 yards?

I also agree that typically the limiting factor on accuracy is the shooter. I am not a target shooter. I find it difficult to focus and shoot well. When I do, my rifles all seem to be able to shoot 1.25" five-shot groups at 100 yards or better. The problem is, I usually can't keep focused for all five of these shots. I lose my concentration and one flyer is 2" or even 3" away from the center of the group. That happens more often than I would like to admit. And this shooting if from the bench with a rest under my hand holding the rifle. I do shoot from a sitting position, and I do notice that my shooting is not as accurate in that position.

If I were to summarize Hawks's article it would be "If your rifle shoots 2.5 MOA or better, focus your attention elsewhere -- your own marksmanship, physical strength and endurance to be in good shape to take the shot, your stalking skills, the quality of the bullet in your chosen cartridge." For example, I think he says he would trade off 0.5" MOA for a quality bullet versus a mediocre bullet. I can't see that this advice is wrong or bad.

By the same token, like everyone else -- probably Hawks included -- I prefer that my rifles be more accurate rather than adequate. Still, I know I'm the weak link in the chain.