Alistair
AH fanatic
- Joined
- May 25, 2018
- Messages
- 713
- Reaction score
- 2,327
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Media
- 2
- Articles
- 1
- Hunted
- Scotland, Ireland & England
I see many post on here about the pursuit of accuracy in handloading. I thought I'd share my opinions on this topic and leave the floor open for you fine gentlemen to chip in. My tin hat is firmly in place, so don't hold back!
So many times I see folks saying on the internet "I've got a nice hunting load that does MOA, but I really wanna shrink that down to 0.5MOA, what do?" Now this is in some ways a noble cause, but on the other hand... why?
Personally, I like to think in terms of 'practical accuracy'. Namely, what accuracy does a given situation require, and even more importantly, what accuracy can I actually make use of under those conditions. I use this to guide my reloading process.
For an example, I have only 1 rifle, of 4, that is genuinely 'sub-MOA'.
It's a 6.5CM Tikka Tac A1. I use it for Precision rifle and (casual) F class comps at the range, from 300 to 1500yds. It shoots roughly 0.5MOA 5 round groups all day every day, maybe as small as 0.3MOA if I'm on form and the wind is co-operating.
Now for this rifle, that is genuinely 'useful' and 'necessary' accuracy. I need a rifle that'll put 20 rounds into a 5 inch circle at 1000yds. To even have a chance of being competitive therefore, one needs a rifle that'll do 0.5MOA.
To achieve this consistently involves a whole heap of faff, kit and expense. Loading the rounds is a highly involved, time consuming process with many many steps and much weighing, sorting and checking. The development of the load was equally involved and one must constantly be on the look out for factors such as batch to batch variation in components that can mess things around. Component cost is also high.
But, in this case it's worth it. The rifle is easy enough to shoot that I can make use of the performacne and the use case of the rifle demands it, so needs must.
In contrast, my .270win hunting rifle does an honest 5 round group MOA. I could probably improve this a bit using the process above, but why would I? The use case of that rifle dictates a load that'll put 1 round from a cold barrel into a 6 inch circle at ranges from 0 to 300yds. That's all the accuracy I actually need. Equally, when I shoot that rifle, it's often not under ideal conditions. I can be tired, I can have an awkward position, I can be under considerable time pressure, suffering from adrenaline and shooting at uncertain ranges. In almost all cases, even at 1MOA, the rifle is not the limiting factor, I am.
Therefore, I choose to cut out a huge load of faff, save time in loading, save on components and do a much less in depth load development procedure. Does this produce 'the best possible round' for that rifle? Probably not. But it allows me to get to a point where the kit is not limiting. At the end of the day, that's the goal here.
Taking this to extremes, I also have a 44Rem Mag marlin 1894. It shoots my plinking loads into maybe 2-3MOA off a bench at 100.
But then, I only ever shoot this rifle over open sights, invariably in dynamic disciplines at large targets and from unstable positions. I'll also never shoot it past 100 except, perhaps, for a laugh. Again, I could probably stick a scope on it, do a load of load development work and reload to the best of my ability and improve this massively. But once again, why?
The rifle gives all the accuracy I can practically utilise with pretty much any random load (my load development involved picking a random powder which was cheap and in my local shop from the book, a cheap hardcast bullet, picking a charge from 1/3 the way up the book values, loading to standard COAL and giving it a go. It did a couple inches, so I left it alone), any components, cheap dies and with thrown charges. It's cheap and incredibly quick and easy to make up ammo, which is good, as I shoot fair bit through it!
So that's my philosophy. Balance the faff and expense of the process against what you actually need the rifle to do, and don't get too hung up on that extra half an inch (unless, of course, your situation demands it).
What's your view, people of AH? Am I a heathen for not demanding 0.1MOA of everything, or does this more pragmatic approach appeal?
Al
So many times I see folks saying on the internet "I've got a nice hunting load that does MOA, but I really wanna shrink that down to 0.5MOA, what do?" Now this is in some ways a noble cause, but on the other hand... why?
Personally, I like to think in terms of 'practical accuracy'. Namely, what accuracy does a given situation require, and even more importantly, what accuracy can I actually make use of under those conditions. I use this to guide my reloading process.
For an example, I have only 1 rifle, of 4, that is genuinely 'sub-MOA'.
It's a 6.5CM Tikka Tac A1. I use it for Precision rifle and (casual) F class comps at the range, from 300 to 1500yds. It shoots roughly 0.5MOA 5 round groups all day every day, maybe as small as 0.3MOA if I'm on form and the wind is co-operating.
Now for this rifle, that is genuinely 'useful' and 'necessary' accuracy. I need a rifle that'll put 20 rounds into a 5 inch circle at 1000yds. To even have a chance of being competitive therefore, one needs a rifle that'll do 0.5MOA.
To achieve this consistently involves a whole heap of faff, kit and expense. Loading the rounds is a highly involved, time consuming process with many many steps and much weighing, sorting and checking. The development of the load was equally involved and one must constantly be on the look out for factors such as batch to batch variation in components that can mess things around. Component cost is also high.
But, in this case it's worth it. The rifle is easy enough to shoot that I can make use of the performacne and the use case of the rifle demands it, so needs must.
In contrast, my .270win hunting rifle does an honest 5 round group MOA. I could probably improve this a bit using the process above, but why would I? The use case of that rifle dictates a load that'll put 1 round from a cold barrel into a 6 inch circle at ranges from 0 to 300yds. That's all the accuracy I actually need. Equally, when I shoot that rifle, it's often not under ideal conditions. I can be tired, I can have an awkward position, I can be under considerable time pressure, suffering from adrenaline and shooting at uncertain ranges. In almost all cases, even at 1MOA, the rifle is not the limiting factor, I am.
Therefore, I choose to cut out a huge load of faff, save time in loading, save on components and do a much less in depth load development procedure. Does this produce 'the best possible round' for that rifle? Probably not. But it allows me to get to a point where the kit is not limiting. At the end of the day, that's the goal here.
Taking this to extremes, I also have a 44Rem Mag marlin 1894. It shoots my plinking loads into maybe 2-3MOA off a bench at 100.
But then, I only ever shoot this rifle over open sights, invariably in dynamic disciplines at large targets and from unstable positions. I'll also never shoot it past 100 except, perhaps, for a laugh. Again, I could probably stick a scope on it, do a load of load development work and reload to the best of my ability and improve this massively. But once again, why?
The rifle gives all the accuracy I can practically utilise with pretty much any random load (my load development involved picking a random powder which was cheap and in my local shop from the book, a cheap hardcast bullet, picking a charge from 1/3 the way up the book values, loading to standard COAL and giving it a go. It did a couple inches, so I left it alone), any components, cheap dies and with thrown charges. It's cheap and incredibly quick and easy to make up ammo, which is good, as I shoot fair bit through it!
So that's my philosophy. Balance the faff and expense of the process against what you actually need the rifle to do, and don't get too hung up on that extra half an inch (unless, of course, your situation demands it).
What's your view, people of AH? Am I a heathen for not demanding 0.1MOA of everything, or does this more pragmatic approach appeal?
Al
