|
Good article about accuracy!
Here is interesting artical from a author I have great respect for. Alot of you probably wont like it, but he speaks the truth! I agree with him 100%, I like long range shooting, but shooting paper is alot different than shooting animals, too many variables to try to do the same in the field as you can do on the range.
I didnt want infringe on any copyright laws by pasteing the whole artical, so I removed it and replaced it with a link to the site, http://www.chuckhawks.com/practical_accuracy.htm |
Originally Posted by fritz1
(Post 3779732)
Many other factors are more important to a successful and humane hunt, the functional reliability of the rifle and load being among them. This mitigates against hunting cartridges derived from PPC-type bench rest cartridges, for technical reasons that I don't have time to go into here. Examples of inappropriate hunting rounds include the WSSM, WSM and Rem. SAUM cartridges. Examples of cartridges designed to feed reliably from bolt action rifles include the .270 Winchester, .30-06 and .375 H&H Magnum. Compare, say, a .300 WSM to a .30-06 and note the differences in design, then buy hunting rifles chambered for cartridges that look like the latter.
|
You have great respect for Chuck Hawks???? Okie dokey
|
Originally Posted by BCRules
(Post 3779861)
You have great respect for Chuck Hawks???? Okie dokey
|
Originally Posted by jeepkid
(Post 3779866)
You the real BC again? haha you gotta quit arguing about archery!!
whodat?:lolabove::confused0024: |
I don't shoot anything that "looks like a 30-06" so everything I shoot is inappropriate. What an idiot.
Some of us who hunt and shoot alot of single shot rifles couldn't give a rats axx about how the round feeds thru a bolt rifle. The mythical status of rifle accuracy on the internet is not nearly as big a joke as the idiot that wrote this piece. And he "can read absurd discussions". How about he "generates" absurd discussions. |
The guy's premisis is that every shot touched off at a game animal was dead-ceter on ignition. Hence the 6" kill zone ideaology. If the sight was a tad off at whatever range, suppose at the edge of the "kill zone", the 4" MOA gun could result in a gut shot. Now, expand that to the 400 yd. shot. Even the 1.5" MOA gun could launch a troublemaker.
... I'll still continue to strive for the ultimate accuracy in anything I carry to the woods, and regardless of what Chuckie thinks, 1" MOA is just borderline acceptable for my junk. |
Originally Posted by jeepkid
(Post 3779855)
That moron just never ceases to amaze me!
Do you need a sub moa rifle to kill deer with? No. However, is it nice to have? Yes. Plus not all of us only hunt. Some of us like to have accuracy for when target shooting too. Not to mention if you have a rifle that shoots 4-6" groups and have a kill zone that's 8", sure you can hit it if you aim perfectly dead center. What about if you pull a few inches though. Then you could miss the kill zone. If you have a rifle that shoots .5" groups and it's sighted in to shoot the bullseye and you pull a few inches you will still be in that kill zone. |
I agree with "most" of his writings. His articles seem informative to me anyway.
|
Originally Posted by hometheaterman
(Post 3779951)
+1
Do you need a sub moa rifle to kill deer with? No. However, is it nice to have? Yes. Plus not all of us only hunt. Some of us like to have accuracy for when target shooting too. Not to mention if you have a rifle that shoots 4-6" groups and have a kill zone that's 8", sure you can hit it if you aim perfectly dead center. What about if you pull a few inches though. Then you could miss the kill zone. If you have a rifle that shoots .5" groups and it's sighted in to shoot the bullseye and you pull a few inches you will still be in that kill zone. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.