How accurate are rifle shooters

[someguy2800]

Among other avid experienced shooters I would say I’m a pretty average shot with a rifle from most positions, I’ve seen a lot better, I’ve seen a lot worse. I’m competitive among amateurs with a shotgun, I actually got 2nd place in state in my softmore year of high school sporting clays, but that was the best score of my life. I was a very good archer for a bit but haven’t done that in 15 years. I would say the only thing I can do that very very few people can hang with me is accuracy with a pistol. I’m pretty deadly at that game. Shooting small local IPSC styled matches I would almost always have the highest score and often would be the only person to clear whole stages with all hits in the A, or the only person that could clear some of the long distance obstacles that our range master liked to do, but never the fastest time and prone to getting technical fouls like stepping in the wrong spot or bypassing a target. A real competitive shooter will make me look like a slug, but you would really need to be on your game to out shoot me.

 

[Rodfac]

Not to disparage shooting from a bench...very necessary if evaluating load vs. rifle characteristics, and as a competitive stance for some gun games...I'll readily concede that it does take some attention to the details of trigger manipulation, recoil effect and optical conditions...shooting from a bench establishes a rifle/load combination that's worthy of merit and not much else.

That said, I'd opine that bench shooting is no way to measure a shooter's proficiency in 'real world' conditions...peace or war, field or woods, or just friendly 'pick up' competition while plinking on a Saturday AM. The difference is comparable to patterning a shotgun on a 40" circle board vs. running 25 straight at skeet.

Learning the mechanics of body support (bone vs. muscle), control of breathing, sight vision problems due to lighting changes, effects of wind over range and bullet selection, not to mention grip, stance and trigger work are just some of the minute variables to be overcome while shooting unsupported. And unsupported is the name of the game for meat, defense or competitive fun.

My vote for the closest regimen to assess them all is High Power Competition, over the National Match Course: at 200, Standing offhand & rapid fire from sitting, rapid prone from 300, & slow fire at 600 really sort out the good from the bad & ugly.

Lastly, I'll add that I've never seen a competitive rifle shooter who was not also a good field shot on game....note the "rifle shooter" comment....my own miserable dove shooting exploits vs. credible clay bird work not withstanding....

Best Regards, Rod

 

[Dale Alan]

.shooting from a bench establishes a rifle/load combination that's worthy of merit and not much else.

Haha,
Obviously you have strong opinions and little experience/knowledge .

 

[Slamfire]

My vote for the closest regimen to assess them all is High Power Competition, over the National Match Course: at 200, Standing offhand & rapid fire from sitting, rapid prone from 300, & slow fire at 600 really sort out the good from the bad & ugly.

That's how I learned to shoot. It is a lot harder than placing the rifle on a rest, with a sandbag rear, on a 600 lb concrete bench. All the good across the course shooters I know are now competing in F Class, because it is easier on the body. Unfortunately, unsupported shooting is extremely rare now. If you go to the range, the firing points have concrete benches. So many shooters can't shoot without rest, sandbag, or hard support that the market has developed portable six foot high tripod rests, just another thing to cart out in the field and get tangled up in the gear you already have.

But then, no one walks anyway. It used to be, you parked your vehicle and walked several miles to hunt. Now, hunters pile hundreds of pounds of gear in their ATV or UTV and drive to their hunting location. Take a look at WW2 era hunting rifles, they were lighter. Humans had to carry the things, now they don't. Times have changed.

 

[trackskippy]

That's how I learned to shoot. It is a lot harder than placing the rifle on a rest, with a sandbag rear, on a 600 lb concrete bench. All the good across the course shooters I know are now competing in F Class, because it is easier on the body. Unfortunately, unsupported shooting is extremely rare now. If you go to the range, the firing points have concrete benches. So many shooters can't shoot without rest, sandbag, or hard support that the market has developed portable six foot high tripod rests, just another thing to cart out in the field and get tangled up in the gear you already have.

But then, no one walks anyway. It used to be, you parked your vehicle and walked several miles to hunt. Now, hunters pile hundreds of pounds of gear in their ATV or UTV and drive to their hunting location. Take a look at WW2 era hunting rifles, they were lighter. Humans had to carry the things, now they don't. Times have changed.

Stop! Youre being a meany! Youll probably have to go to counseling now.

 

[FL-NC]

I guess by strict definition, the "average" would be an analysis at the halfway point of performance between an olympic- class competitor, and someone who couldn't hit a barn if they were inside of said barn, using a rifle and ammunition of the highest quality. Some of the targets I have seen at 100 yards on the various ranges where I have shot over the years leading up to deer season have been horrific, and speak for themselves to the reason(s) why most deer are killed at 100 yards and closer, or wounded and never recovered. When these "marksmen" are actually on the line shooting these "groups", I have seen some very cringe-worthy performances.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Haha,
Obviously you have strong opinions and little experience/knowledge .

Quite the opposite actually.

 

[Dale Alan]

Quite the opposite actually.

How do you figure that ? The guys is looking for a pissing match .

BTW...From the OP, here is the subject .

Thinking, how accurate is the average rifle shooter. If you took at random 100 rifle shooters sat them at a BENCH at 100 yds and they shot a 5 shot group what would be the mean group size?
What percent 2" or more
1" or more
1"or less

 

[taliv]

So many shooters can't shoot without rest, sandbag, or hard support that the market has developed portable six foot high tripod rests, just another thing to cart out in the field and get tangled up in the gear you already have.

while it may be true that many shooters can't shoot without support, it's also true that good shooters perform even better with a tripod. I think the tripod is an incredible advance, and worth the weight in the field. I think the CMP stuff is great for fundamental marksmanship, but for practical shooting, it leaves a lot to be desired because it's soooo focused on just 3 positions. For example, i'd bet you could take a line of High Master shooters and change the firing point to a 15* down sloped hillside, and none of them would even shoot an expert score. I bet they probably wouldn't even get half their rounds off, as they try to find their NPA when one leg needs to be longer than the other, or sitting where their elbows suddenly don't reach their knees anymore. And that's before recognizing that most things that really need to be shot don't typically stand still very long.

I can shoot fast off a tripod, so I can adjust and transition between multiple targets, and far more accurately than I can unsupported. And I can accommodate a very wide variety of terrain.
beyond shooting, if you get into field craft stuff, the tripod is also useful for observation, and shelter (splay one leg out and toss a tarp over it), and lots of other stuff.

 

[taliv]

@H&Hhunter @Dale Alan

before you guys throw down, please note rodfac significantly edited his post. I think Dale responded initially to the original version, and H&H is probably responding to the edited version.

 

[Dale Alan]

@H&Hhunter @Dale Alan

before you guys throw down, please note rodfac significantly edited his post. I think Dale responded initially to the original version, and H&H is probably responding to the edited version.

Thank you, that is correct . Feel free to delete my input . Not worth arguing over after editing .

 

[AJC1]

Shooting offhand and off a bench is the difference between shooters and marksmen. I learned my place when I shot my first NRA steel siloette match in pistol caliber lever gun. I hit some but it was very humbling. Shooting with a bench is a money game as much as a skill game. A guy with a mini-14 will never shoot .5 moa groups. Eric cortina's rig cost more than my truck and the bullets in one match is most likely my yearly budget.
As an average I would say 3 moa as a whole, but the subset of hunters would be 2moa and competition shooters 1moa or better. Your location having a huge impact on what your local range capability.

 

[shafter]

One hundred yards is very close for a rifle, especially one with a scope. With a scope,I would say that most could shoot a sub two inch group if the gun and ammo were up to it.

Without a scope, I'd say the majority of shooters wouldn't shoot very a very tight group at 100.

 

[IdaD]

I haven't shot at an animal and not gotten it since I was a teenager. So I'd say I'm pretty reliably minute of deer/elk out to about 300 yards in field conditions. I will also say that shooting in the field at a target that moves is quite a different skill than shooting paper or steel off a bench. If I'm rating myself I think I'm probably above average at hunting accuracy in the field compared to the guys I've hunted with, but if you put me in with a group of more target oriented guys at a range I bet I'd drop below the average in measured group size.

 

[CryptKeeper5]

Although I do hold a "Master card" in competitive high power shooting, and have made the Presidents 100 years ago...I don't consider myself a "master" at all disciplines by any stretch. Give me a shotgun and I'm below average at hitting moving targets. I just don't do it. I chased leg points in pistol competition years ago but unlike the rifle, it was a MUCH tougher sled for me so I retired my box and only really shoot them for "fun" now. I found my niche' which was rifle shooting and made the most of it. There really was nothing like Camp Perry for the national matches. Even if you shot poorly, "Commercial row" was worth the price of admission if for nothing else but to buy your "I survived the huts" T-Shirt!lol! I gave up once optic sights were allowed because I just don't think it's the same "game" anylonger. I don't regret the "pistol years" but found it not only wasn't as enjoyable, but I just wasn't as gifted as others in that arena. I think everyone finds their "place" with shooting and that's fine. We all don't need to be "best" or even "better" at all of it. I grew up in Wyoming shooting rifles far more than pistols so that's probably where it all started. I still deer and elk hunt along with handloading for all of it. I consider myself to be "above average" at field shooting with an optic but I credit my rifle and my loads as much as my own skill for some of that as well!

 

[GNP]

I'm not a group shooter. I can hit a steel IPSC plate at 600y with my AR and I killed my first deer last season in one shot at 325y. I'm fairly accurate.

If you can do this you can shoot groups if you want to. It takes a good bit of practice to get to that level.

 

[Jim Watson]

A friend took several successful hunters out on his surveyed personal range.
They were pretty well out of gas at 300 meters.

 

[CryptKeeper5]

A friend took several successful hunters out on his surveyed personal range.
They were pretty well out of gas at 300 meters.

I believe that. I also have a few friends and acquaintances who I've been to the range with and none of them had shot competitively. The 300yd line was about all they could handle accurately and consistently. We backed up to 600 and that is a WHOLE different ballgame on a cloudy day with a little wind. 600 isn't twice as difficult, I'd say it's a couple orders of magnitude difference under the same conditions and expecting similar results. Even in match shooting it can make or break your day. It's broken me a couple of times in the Lake Erie wind at Perry late in the day....and then beyond that, 1000yds is orders of magnitude more difficult than 600.

 

[MacAR]

I would assess myself as "average", and I can shoot offhand w/sling at 100 using a scoped rifle at around ~2 MOA on a good day. Rested, I can (usually) do better than that. Is that good enough? I don't know, but I put 2 to 4 deer in the freezer every winter, and uncounted numbers of smaller game animals as well. It's good enough for me, at least.

A 3-shot, 3" group at 100 with my Model 94 is good enough for me,

That ought to be good enough for anybody to bring meat home with. I've never grouped my 30-30; I shoot it at a 6" plate at 100 yards. My feeling is, I won't be shooting it over that with the iron sights anyway, and a 6" circle will get you in the vitals of a deer. So that ought to be good enough. I group my 30-06 at 100 and 200; as long as I can put 5 shots in a 2" circle I'm happy. For killing white-tailed deer out to 350 yards, that's plenty good enough, and I must be doing something right since I've not had one run off from me in a long, long time. On the other hand, I'm about 1/2 fanatical about the groups I get out of my 222 and 243; I've spent quite a lot of time tweaking handloads for each of them. But they are varmint rigs that I will shoot out to 400 yards, and so I want them to be as accurate as possible. That way when (not if) I miss, I know it's me and not the rifle.

Mac

 

[someguy2800]

A friend took several successful hunters out on his surveyed personal range.
They were pretty well out of gas at 300 meters.

Was that because they couldn't shoot accurately enough, or because they didn't know their elevation and windage? Most people have no idea what to do past their point blank range.

Case in point one of my hunting partners has an infatuation with 270 winchester and he always repeats this story about the time he shot a deer at 400 yards with his. He always tells it that he held a foot over its back and let fly and him and his son just saw a poof of fir in the sunlight and it dropped right there. I have measured the distance from the stand to the trail where he shot it and it is like 395 yards. Here is the kicker though, he has been shooting the same 150 grain round nose federal load for 25 odd years and I have been there when he sights it in for the last 15. If you plug the ballistic coefficient, and his zero, and the muzzle velocity (which I know to be true because I have chrono'd his rifle), into a ballistics calculator, he would be 36" low at 400 yards. So if he had actually shot a foot over its back he would have missed under its belly by several inches. I don't have the heart to tell him.

 

[CryptKeeper5]

I think people need to temper their expectations taking into consideration their experience. Technology and modern out of the box MOA accurate rifles are nice but the "jerk behind the trigger" in the end determines consistent accuracy as much as their equipment. Practice is key. I'm a huge proponent of dry firing. I coached all of my juniors to dry fire every day after school. They would simulate a match each day it was amazing to see their scores increase on live fire practice days at the range. So even IF you can't get to the range, you can keep up some of that coordination at home. In the hunting world, Leupold has their "CDS" system which makes it seem that all you need to do is "dial-a-range" and you'll be killing things. Well, that CDS is nice and fine under sterile conditions but out in the wilds of Wyoming where the wind is blowing, the clouds are overhead and your fingers are cold....it's NOT that simple. Shooting over valleys or downhill are very real concerns...not just a known value of bullet drop need to be dealt with.

 

[Robert]

If you can do this you can shoot groups if you want to. It takes a good bit of practice to get to that level.

I find shooting small groups on paper to be tediously boring. It absolutely has its place and I do it when I must. But it's boring to me. To each their own. I will never tell someone not to do what makes them happy. But that's not it, at least for me.

 

[Varminterror]

My vote for the closest regimen to assess them all is High Power Competition, over the National Match Course

You’re casting a stone at bench borne shooting, then promoting Service Rifle as the best proving ground? You must be joking? I can tell you, I’ve never seen a deer with a 6MOA aiming black standing in a field of wind flags, and I’ve certainly never worn my Creedmoor jacket while hunting.

I’ll tell you, there are far better “real world analogies” being simulated every weekend than Highpower Competition.

 

[.308 Norma]

I'm about 1/2 fanatical about the groups I get out of my 222 and 243; I've spent quite a lot of time tweaking handloads for each of them. But they are varmint rigs that I will shoot out to 400 yards, and so I want them to be as accurate as possible.

Yeppers, in my previous post in this thread, I only spoke of how I am about my non-scoped rifles. When it comes to most of my scoped rifles (including my .22-250 "varmint rig") I too am "about 1/2 fanatical," or OCD, or whatever someone wants to call it.
I "tweak" my handloads for even my big game rifles until I'm getting 3 or 4 shots in an inch or less at 100. And I know full well that kind of precision is probably not necessary in the field. For that matter, I'm probably not even capable of shooting that well in the field.
On the other hand, for me, working up accurate handloads for my hunting rifles is part of the fun. Unlike a lot of other things about big game (or varmint) hunting, I can control how accurately my rifle shoots from the bench, under perfect conditions.

I don't know, but I put 2 to 4 deer in the freezer every winter, and uncounted numbers of smaller game animals as well.

That's one thing that's different about deer hunting out here in Idaho compared to where you are, MacAR. I've stated in other posts that only 1 in 3 Idaho deer hunters even gets a deer - and that's in a good year. Of course we have elk, antelope (pronghorns) and moose (if I ever draw a tag) out here in Idaho too. So 1 deer every 3 years isn't so bad. Nevertheless, if the season's open, and I spot a deer standing out there at 350 yards or so, I'm darned sure going to be shooting a rifle and load that I know will do the job - if I do my part, the wind cooperates, and I have a decent rest.

 

[someguy2800]

I find shooting small groups on paper to be tediously boring. It absolutely has its place and I do it when I must. But it's boring to me. To each their own. I will never tell someone not to do what makes them happy. But that's not it, at least for me.

I gave up on that a long long time ago as a form of entertainment, but I still do a lot of it as I really enjoy doing load development and I have a lot of rifles to do load development with.