Today's Daily Bulletin Article entitled "What Level of Accuracy is Good Enough for Your Discipline" is very much worth reading in my opinion. It just might save you a lot of time, money, and "stomach acid" 
. It might even improve your performance by encouraging you to focus on improving your performance rather than spending hours on the bench seeking the "perfect" load and / or "perfect" cleaning procedure.
I embraced this concept many years ago with a goal of keeping my involvement with the shooting sports as simple as possible without compromising performance. For me, results are all that matter.
But the first key question for me was the level of accuracy that I really needed to be successful in my chosen discipline (varmint and predator) hunting at the distances where most if not all of the shot opportunities exist at the places I hunt. For me, it was a system (rifle/scope/load) that was capable of 1/2 to 5/8" moa on average.
The second key question for me was the kind of practical practice I needed to verify my performance after I had a confirmed system that will deliver that level of accuracy needed. For me, it was shooting off my cross sticks at various distances using a target that simulated the game I would be hunting. So, I adopted a 3 x 5 card with 1", 2" and 3" circles inscribed on the card to give me a scoring system. I later change to a 5 x 8 card but with the same scoring criteria. I adopted the larger card so I could see misses (outside the 3" circle) easier against brown cardboard but yet retain a close resemblance to the size of the overall target I would be shooting at in the field.
The third key question which the article discusses is the sustained accuracy level needed for the shot sequence in your discipline. For me was unquestionably the "cold barrel" shot. Most if not all my shots for eastern groundhogs, foxes, and coyotes are one shot situations with an occasional but rare follow-up shot. So, my practice program is focused on "cold barrel" or at least "cool" barrel shots.
You may find some value in going through a similar analysis of your shooting discipline. Best wishes and good shooting.
. It might even improve your performance by encouraging you to focus on improving your performance rather than spending hours on the bench seeking the "perfect" load and / or "perfect" cleaning procedure.I embraced this concept many years ago with a goal of keeping my involvement with the shooting sports as simple as possible without compromising performance. For me, results are all that matter.
But the first key question for me was the level of accuracy that I really needed to be successful in my chosen discipline (varmint and predator) hunting at the distances where most if not all of the shot opportunities exist at the places I hunt. For me, it was a system (rifle/scope/load) that was capable of 1/2 to 5/8" moa on average.
The second key question for me was the kind of practical practice I needed to verify my performance after I had a confirmed system that will deliver that level of accuracy needed. For me, it was shooting off my cross sticks at various distances using a target that simulated the game I would be hunting. So, I adopted a 3 x 5 card with 1", 2" and 3" circles inscribed on the card to give me a scoring system. I later change to a 5 x 8 card but with the same scoring criteria. I adopted the larger card so I could see misses (outside the 3" circle) easier against brown cardboard but yet retain a close resemblance to the size of the overall target I would be shooting at in the field.
The third key question which the article discusses is the sustained accuracy level needed for the shot sequence in your discipline. For me was unquestionably the "cold barrel" shot. Most if not all my shots for eastern groundhogs, foxes, and coyotes are one shot situations with an occasional but rare follow-up shot. So, my practice program is focused on "cold barrel" or at least "cool" barrel shots.
You may find some value in going through a similar analysis of your shooting discipline. Best wishes and good shooting.
