Most accurate hunting rifle out of the box

[Damfino]

I love this thread! Always interesting to see the responses. So many variables and the answer can be a moving target that depends on a company's business model at the time and the buyer's budget.

Many years ago I worked in a local gun shop here in Alabama that also sold hunting, fishing, and archery equipment. Guys would come in and ask to see a "deer rifle" because they wanted to hunt deer. We'd sell a few Savages or the occasional Sako, but Winchesters, Marlins, and Remingtons of all varieties were very popular is those days. Guys would sometimes want a scope, usually, some 3X9 Redfield or Leupold. We installed and boresighted the scopes for free. Company policy required we had to tell them to be sure to "sight the rifle in with the ammo of your choice." They would then purchase their ammo and out the door they went. Of course, sometimes they came back with tales of glory, but sometimes they came in and complained about the poor accuracy of the rifle/scope or our poor boresighting effort. We would ask about how the rifle acted when it was being sighted in, or the distance the deer was shot at, or the weight of the particular bullet they were using. The troubling part was often they would just start blankly at us, not having done any sighting in, or not being able to accurately estimate the distance away from the deer, and no idea about cartridge specifications, bullet weights, or ballistics. I talked to many, many of this type.

Hunting, like shooting, or even running is a sport that is very easy to participate in, but extremely difficult to do well in. Those things, like many others, require commitment and dedication for the participant to be reasonably good or effective. Hunting is also a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly. It's not the arrow, but I bet every great bow shooter knows his arrows very well and that can make a real difference, YMMV.

 

[Rsadams]

I agree! The shooting sports are most similar to golf in the following respect - All kinds of folks think that you can just buy a better game. Top shelf equipment offers more than a marginal contribution to the results, IF you know what you're doing, but that stuff ain't self-executing.

If I may share a range experience in support of the general point. Last year I was sharing the 200 m. line with a fellow that was shooting a nicely turned-out F Class rifle. BAT, Brux, Shehane, Jewell and Nightforce components, a very nicely assembled 6 BR. I was shooting something much more modest in terms of components yet my groups were quite a bit smaller than his. He started to carp about his rifle, saying that there must be something wrong with the bedding or the barrel, etc., etc. We got to chatting and he asked me to shoot a group with his rifle, just to validate his observations. I got behind his rifle and quickly put three into something in the neighborhood of 3/8" to 1/2" (nice trigger, that 2 oz. Jewell!). He asked me to shoot another group because he'd shot 'flukes' like that a few times. Three more on the target, same result. As politely as I could, I offered the opinion that the rifle seemed to be performing very well. I'm certainly not the best rifleman around, but I believe my fundamentals to be solid, and I found his rifle very easy to shoot well. I suggested to him that the problem could be inconsistent rifle handling and, to his credit, he admitted that he never thought about how that could be important. He's enjoying his 6 BR very much these days, shooting much better than he did a year ago.

Yup.. I see it all the time myself I have gotten were I hate doing that..lol... People ask me all the time well what do you think is wrong , it must be the gun.. my next question is how much do you shoot per month?? This applies to both pistol and rifle I am never shocked to hear hardly never or maybe once a month... They buy great equipment and shoot a box or two a year and just can't believe that they can't shoot like some one who has 40 years experience who shoots more than that per day at least 2 to 3 times a week in both pistol and rifle...

I love to take my friends who want to get their CHL/LTC here in Texas and ask me to help them get better before they take the test.. I have gotten were I just laugh when I hear oh I can shoot a pistol because I shot a rifle alot when I was a little kid... Then laugh again when they just can't figure out why it's so hard and they can't shoot their high dollar pistol like an ex LEO with a Glock 19 who shoots more pistol rounds in a week than they do in a year.. I am always shocked when I see targets left that look like buckshot has hit it...I also have friends that say as long as I hit it somewhere I am happy.. If my pistol target has a group larger than 2 inches and my rifle over 3/4 of an inch , the day was a fail and I will pick it up hard that week. And to some that's to big but I am shooting factory guns...

If you're going to carry a handgun you need to be sure you can shoot well and not be letting bullets fly everywhere if you need to protect yourself to keep from hurting the wrong person.. Some people I know with that same CHL leave targets that are so bad if I am anywhere near them and it breaks out I am hitting the deck.. You have a responsibility to shoot very well if you have a license to carry...

 

[M14AMU]

IMO anyone that takes 'head shots' on deer as a regular practice......has a screw loose!!

 

[Gabe22BR]

IMO anyone that takes 'head shots' on deer as a regular practice......has a screw loose!!

.... unless they want it to lay down ...

 

[long40shot]

Head and neck shots are bestest.

 

[people]

IMO anyone that takes 'head shots' on deer as a regular practice......has a screw loose!!

Like I have said over a dozen times. There are many ways to hunt. If it is not right for you then don't. I don't rag on anyone for how they are hunting. Unless they are on my land then I will say something.

 

[KenOath]

Rem 700 Sendero in 300WM, HS Precision stock. I reloaded for that rifle shooting 185 Berger VLDs no problem shooting 1/2" groups and it held tight right out to 1000. Only changes I made was a Jewell Trigger.

 

[222 rem]

I love this thread! Always interesting to see the responses. So many variables and the answer can be a moving target that depends on a company's business model at the time and the buyer's budget.

Many years ago I worked in a local gun shop here in Alabama that also sold hunting, fishing, and archery equipment. Guys would come in and ask to see a "deer rifle" because they wanted to hunt deer. We'd sell a few Savages or the occasional Sako, but Winchesters, Marlins, and Remingtons of all varieties were very popular is those days. Guys would sometimes want a scope, usually, some 3X9 Redfield or Leupold. We installed and boresighted the scopes for free. Company policy required we had to tell them to be sure to "sight the rifle in with the ammo of your choice." They would then purchase their ammo and out the door they went. Of course, sometimes they came back with tales of glory, but sometimes they came in and complained about the poor accuracy of the rifle/scope or our poor boresighting effort. We would ask about how the rifle acted when it was being sighted in, or the distance the deer was shot at, or the weight of the particular bullet they were using. The troubling part was often they would just start blankly at us, not having done any sighting in, or not being able to accurately estimate the distance away from the deer, and no idea about cartridge specifications, bullet weights, or ballistics. I talked to many, many of this type.

Hunting, like shooting, or even running is a sport that is very easy to participate in, but extremely difficult to do well in. Those things, like many others, require commitment and dedication for the participant to be reasonably good or effective. Hunting is also a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly. It's not the arrow, but I bet every great bow shooter knows his arrows very well and that can make a real difference, YMM

Like I have said over a dozen times. There are many ways to hunt. If it is not right for you then don't. I don't rag on anyone for how they are hunting. Unless they are on my land then I will say something.

Rem

Remington 788 in 7/08

 

[Someoldguy]

Head and neck shots are bestest.

I agree. I won't try that shot unless I'm confident I can make it, but if I can, I'll take it.

 

[CTK]

Oh 100% true on the 2 Moa rifles. Some rifles will not ever be better than a couple MOA. This is excluding military surplus rifles and just focusing on "traditional hunting" rifles. Down south lever rifles are very popular a person would be hard pressed to get a 1" rifle. Up here those budget rifles are very popular. You know the ones that all the big chain stores carry. They come in several "dear" calibers and are less than $400 with a scope. I have shot a few of them and lack luster comes to mind. Heat affected them all. Out to several hundred yds they work fine.

Ammo makes a huge difference in a rifles capability. A friend of mine used my r700 in 223 to test different factory ammo. WPA would hold a very nice 5inch group. Not surprising at all as it is poor quality ammo. What I did find interesting was some what should be good ammo did not shoot very well at all. Then some ammo that you would think would be questionable shot very shot surprising well.

I shoot long range in the field very frequently. I try to shoot as far as I can. What I do is setup and take aim on my target (rock or steel) and fire a shot maybe 2. I will then move so it is a different shot. Angle, distance, sun, wind it is a new shot. I will also hold enough so my barrel will cool down. While it is not a true dirty cold bore shot, in my hunting rifles the accuracy will be the same. Then fire just one or two shots. I will do this a few times. I am only interested in that first shot. I regularly shoot 800 to 1,500yds. I am not bragging at all just explaining what I do as many will read this. I am not focused on shooting only long range when hunting but I like being prepared for that long shot when it comes up. My personal experience has proved to me that a 400yd head shot is very do able. Yes the deer plays a huge factor in this.

I could easily and consistently hit a deer in the middle of the head at 400 yards...
From a good bench rest, With no wind, Perfect loads, outstanding and proven rifle, cooperative/still deer, absolutely no flinch, lightly fouled bore, steady heartbeat with no anxiety over a flyer or pulled shot, etc...

I will never take a head shot hunting. Too many things can go wrong. I do not have confidence in my ability to pull this shot off every time. One tiny variable at 400y could result in blowing the nose off of a deer. I have hunting rifles that average under .3" 3 shot groups @ 100y.

 

[people]

I could easily and consistently hit a deer in the middle of the head at 400 yards...
From a good bench rest, With no wind, Perfect loads, outstanding and proven rifle, cooperative/still deer, absolutely no flinch, lightly fouled bore, steady heartbeat with no anxiety over a flyer or pulled shot, etc...

I will never take a head shot hunting. Too many things can go wrong. I do not have confidence in my ability to pull this shot off every time. One tiny variable at 400y could result in blowing the nose off of a deer. I have hunting rifles that average under .3" 3 shot groups @ 100y.

It is good you are not working out of your skill set.

 

[CTK]

It is good you are not working out of your skill set.

I saw someone blow the lower jaw off a buck. It left an impression. I have misjudged the wind and hit a deer several inches back on a long rifle shot. That deer ran and died just like most other heart/lung shot deer. I have taken quartering away shots with no concern. I have wanted to take a head shot on a doe. I just do not think I ever will. The margin for error is squat. The risk vs. reward does not make sense to me. I have friends that practice 70 to 90y shots with their bows. They claim to be good to go at that distance. Same deal. Lots of difficult to control variables in the field shooting at a live animal. I am guessing that the majority of the posters on this site are master technicians with their rifles. The average Joe out there is not. I think tactical style rifles and their associated shooting disciplines are having a positive impact on the shooting sports. The new emphasis on accuracy and long range shooting is very cool. My concern is that the average Joe thinks he can pull off a 400y head shot on a deer. Average Joe, with his "long range tactical rifle", would need at least 5 shots to hit a deer in the head at 400y under field conditions . As you pointed out, I am considering this out of my skill set. You are right to point out that this is a good thing. You may be so skilled that a 400y head shot is a tap in for you. For most it is an irresponsible shot.

 

[dolek]

CTK

I saw someone blow the lower jaw off a buck. It left an impression. I have misjudged the wind and hit a deer several inches back on a long rifle shot. That deer ran and died just like most other heart/lung shot deer. I have taken quartering away shots with no concern. I have wanted to take a head shot on a doe. I just do not think I ever will. The margin for error is squat. The risk vs. reward does not make sense to me. I have friends that practice 70 to 90y shots with their bows. They claim to be good to go at that distance. Same deal. Lots of difficult to control variables in the field shooting at a live animal. I am guessing that the majority of the posters on this site are master technicians with their rifles. The average Joe out there is not. I think tactical style rifles and their associated shooting disciplines are having a positive impact on the shooting sports. The new emphasis on accuracy and long range shooting is very cool. My concern is that the average Joe thinks he can pull off a 400y head shot on a deer. Average Joe, with his "long range tactical rifle", would need at least 5 shots to hit a deer in the head at 400y under field conditions . As you pointed out, I am considering this out of my skill set. You are right to point out that this is a good thing. You may be so skilled that a 400y head shot is a tap in for you. For most it is an irresponsible shot.

...."For most it is an irresponsible shot"...I agree 100%. Actually,I believe it is irresponsible for anyway . I hope all this talk about those long neck/head shots is just BS chest pounding and that people are not wounding all these animals like their lives don't matter anymore than a paper or steel target. I surely hope our young shooters find ethical hunters to learn from,not the narcissistic sniper wannabe. I once shot a deer from 220 yards,it died a horrible death...not all shots hit where you want them to. A pulled shot on paper hurts nothing,an animal is a whole different story.

 

[LHSmith]

I saw someone blow the lower jaw off a buck. It left an impression. I have misjudged the wind and hit a deer several inches back on a long rifle shot. That deer ran and died just like most other heart/lung shot deer. I have taken quartering away shots with no concern. I have wanted to take a head shot on a doe. I just do not think I ever will. The margin for error is squat. The risk vs. reward does not make sense to me. I have friends that practice 70 to 90y shots with their bows. They claim to be good to go at that distance. Same deal. Lots of difficult to control variables in the field shooting at a live animal. I am guessing that the majority of the posters on this site are master technicians with their rifles. The average Joe out there is not. I think tactical style rifles and their associated shooting disciplines are having a positive impact on the shooting sports. The new emphasis on accuracy and long range shooting is very cool. My concern is that the average Joe thinks he can pull off a 400y head shot on a deer. Average Joe, with his "long range tactical rifle", would need at least 5 shots to hit a deer in the head at 400y under field conditions . As you pointed out, I am considering this out of my skill set. You are right to point out that this is a good thing. You may be so skilled that a 400y head shot is a tap in for you. For most it is an irresponsible shot.

Did a head shot once in my "young and dumb" younger years......and after witnessing the result changed my focus on taking an animal ethically vs. bragging rights at camp as THE club sharpshooter. I was the only one at camp who reloaded and shot target weekly since I could drive. I eventually got into competitive short range BR and to this day, I wouldn't attempt a headshot on an animal EVEN if I was sitting at our concrete shooting bench with my BR rifle and rest with windflags out. Why? ........Because that deer head is a moving target. I went from tagging out every year in my early years to long dry spells because I did not like the shot(s) offered. Just my concept of what's ethical that allows me to sleep well every night.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Head shot- 4" target
Vital shot- 14"+ target
Nothing to do with skills, choosing the target with less margin of error shows lack of respect for the animal in my opinion. But people are free to do as they choose, like I am free to give them my unwanted opinions Carry on.

 

[dolek]

Did a head shot once in my "young and dumb" younger years......and after witnessing the result changed my focus on taking an animal ethically vs. bragging rights at camp as THE club sharpshooter. I was the only one at camp who reloaded and shot target weekly since I could drive. I eventually got into competitive short range BR and to this day, I wouldn't attempt a headshot on an animal EVEN if I was sitting at our concrete shooting bench with my BR rifle and rest with windflags out. Why? ........Because that deer head is a moving target. I went from tagging out every year in my early years to long dry spells because I did not like the shot(s) offered. Just my concept of what's ethical that allows me to sleep well every night.

My way of thinking also,

Head shot- 4" target
Vital shot- 14"+ target
Nothing to do with skills, choosing the target with less margin of error shows lack of respect for the animal in my opinion. But people are free to do as they choose, like I am free to give them my unwanted opinions Carry on.

Very well said,"choosing" is the key word...we all approach hunting in our own way.

 

[rardoin]

Pooh! Wait. I'll modify that. "I'm sorry, I think I thought I heard you say Ruger?"

My most accurate out of the box/no modifications is a Ruger M77 .22-250 VT. Very easy to find loads for it and very small groups at 100yds. It was given to me as a gift by a patient and started this slippery slope I currently am sliding down.

 

[Mark W]

Head shot- 4" target
Vital shot- 14"+ target
Nothing to do with skills, choosing the target with less margin of error shows lack of respect for the animal in my opinion. But people are free to do as they choose, like I am free to give them my unwanted opinions Carry on.

Best post in this thread!

 

[hogpatrol]

Head shot- 4" target
Vital shot- 14"+ target
Nothing to do with skills, choosing the target with less margin of error shows lack of respect for the animal in my opinion. But people are free to do as they choose, like I am free to give them my unwanted opinions Carry on.

Yep, Why go for a marginal shot when there's an easy one to take? That and I like the animal to bleed out as a domestic animal is when butchered. I do the same with everything else, aim for the boiler room.

 

[people]

I saw someone blow the lower jaw off a buck. It left an impression. I have misjudged the wind and hit a deer several inches back on a long rifle shot. That deer ran and died just like most other heart/lung shot deer. I have taken quartering away shots with no concern. I have wanted to take a head shot on a doe. I just do not think I ever will. The margin for error is squat. The risk vs. reward does not make sense to me. I have friends that practice 70 to 90y shots with their bows. They claim to be good to go at that distance. Same deal. Lots of difficult to control variables in the field shooting at a live animal. I am guessing that the majority of the posters on this site are master technicians with their rifles. The average Joe out there is not. I think tactical style rifles and their associated shooting disciplines are having a positive impact on the shooting sports. The new emphasis on accuracy and long range shooting is very cool. My concern is that the average Joe thinks he can pull off a 400y head shot on a deer. Average Joe, with his "long range tactical rifle", would need at least 5 shots to hit a deer in the head at 400y under field conditions . As you pointed out, I am considering this out of my skill set. You are right to point out that this is a good thing. You may be so skilled that a 400y head shot is a tap in for you. For most it is an irresponsible shot.

I have also seen this kind of shot. It was a cousin taking a maybe 80 to 120yd shot. He took the jaw off. Then was such a soft person he could not shoot it again to kill it. I shot it by just holding out my M1 like a handgun. This goes back to what I said about your skills. Who knew someone from Wisconsin would not be ready for a 100yd shot? In reality he had zero skills to come out to the plains for hunting.

I could go on and on but it will fall on deaf ears. You can not so do not! It is out of your skill set.