The
Fairy Tale of Muzzleloading Hunting Accuracy
Three muzzleloading hunters head into the
hunting woods on a very windy day. One fellow has a gun that he
has shot on paper, recording a one quarter inch group at 100 yards.
Another has a rifle that shoots about an inch at 100 yards, and
the last of our three amigos has a rifle that groups two inches
consistently at 100 yards. They are all shooting the same load:
a 250 grain bullet at 1800 fps with a static BC of .140. A decent
buck steps out of the woods at 140 yards. Who has the field disadvantage
and disadvantage?
Theoretically,
there should be zero difference. More likely, the difference is
not what we have been led to believe at all. The fellow that has
impressed himself with the quarter inch group is at a huge
disadvantage. He always shot his rifle from a bag and cradle at
the range. Now, he has to take an off-hand shot-and you can believe
that the point of impact is vastly different from his range work.
Where it might be, precisely, is unknown-he's never tried it or
confirmed it. Unfortunately, he never bothered to read the wind,
either, which happens to be a crosswind blowing at 20 mph. He's
thrilled with his paper target at home, but now-- he has no knowledge
of what that wind is doing to his bullet. At 140 yards under these
conditions, the wind drift alone is OVER eighteen inches at 140
yards. Gut shot or clean miss; who can we blame this one on?
Our one inch
shooter knows the wind; he also has shot offhand. So, he has a general
idea of what his field accuracy is. But, there were other problems.
Sadly, he forgot to confirm his rifle before the hunt that day.
Maybe it was the loose scope bases; maybe it was the dimestore scope
itself. Maybe it was the fact that he couldn't be bothered to start
hunting with a fresh powder charge that day-- that gun had a four-day
old charge inside of it. Due to some or perhaps all of these factors
he is poorly equipped to execute the shot. As Jack O'Connor and
some of the most experienced big game hunters "back in the
day" have noted-- the ayatollah of accuracy can be horrifically
over-rated in big game hunting. It often is.
When was the
last time you witnessed a big game animal cleanly dropped and the
successful hunter complained, upset that his bullet was one quarter
of an inch to the left of where he wanted it? A half inch? An inch?
Maybe somewhere, somehow that comment has been made-it is just that
I've never heard it, or heard of it. Obsession with accuracy for
its own sake is not necessarily a bad thing--those that fancy themselves
as trophy-winning bench rest shooters can't have too much of it.
I didn't bother to tell David Tubb that he wastes too far too much
time worrying about accuracy; certainly accuracy has its place.
However, accuracy
obsession can obscure the reality of field performance. When big
game animals are missed, they are not often missed by a fraction
of an inch or even a couple of inches-they get missed by a mile.
A big game muzzleloading hunter can ill-afford a few "spotting
shots." I'll do my best to touch on a few of the most bally-hooed
subjects.
POINT OF
IMPACT CHANGE
It is fundamentally
obvious that our 'point of impact' changes from shot to shot. If
it didn't, we would rarely have a group to measure at all-- it would
just be a hole. There has to be a point of impact shift to so much
as form a group. The list of what can cause a point of impact shift
is endless. The way we shoulder our gun can do it, a recoil pad
can do it, a change in forearm pressure on our stocks can do it,
loading bullets with a different amount of ramrod pressure can do
it, inconsistent projectiles by weight or dimension can do it. Shooting
off sticks, a bipod, off-hand, or bag and cradle can do it. Inconsistent
powder can do it; different ambient conditions (temperature,
humidity, wind) can do it, shooting uphill or downhill can do
it. Reticle float in our scopes can do it, loose or soft bases can
do it, poorly installed or machined rings can do it. They way we
feel can do it and the clothes we wear can do it. It is a cumulative
event; I've not tried to list everything that goes into it. Cocking
or canting a bullet during loading can certainly do it as well.
You've all heard the term "unexplained flyers." Well,
there is always an explanation-- even though it may be difficult
to discern at the time.
REALISTIC
HUNTING ACCURACY
By listing
all these variables, you might think I'm trying to make things sound
more difficult than they really are. They really are not. One of
my favorite coffee cups stands a bit over three and one half inches
tall. If we can manage to place a bullet into that size of an area
on a big game animal, it is highly unlikely that we can drop him
any faster. Certainly, shot placement is important and deer don't
care how fast you miss them. Deer are also generally not impressed
by paper group sizes. The kill zone of even a moderately sized whitetail
deer is about ten inches square or so. Many ballistic programs take
this into consideration; hence the "6 inch kill zone Maximum
Point Blank Range" designation where the bullet will not
go higher or lower than three inches from line of sight. A 2 MOA
muzzleloader is all the accuracy you can use to 200 yards. Few deer
will get any deader or any "deader quicker" if you can
achieve shot placement within six inches under field conditions.
For larger game (elk, moose, etc.) the vital kill zone size
increases substantially.
SO FAR, SO WHAT?
Accuracy has
its benefits. It inspires confidence; something I believe is important
to hunting success. Naturally, when working up a load, shooting
at paper is the only way to let your gun tell you what it likes
to be fed. We would all prefer to shoot tighter groups than not.
Chuck Hawks, friendly proprietor of Guns & Shooting Onlinehas
chastised me a bit for sending along representative groups and 'best
of day' group pictures with most of the guns I test. "Why,
Randy? It is presumed that most people have seen targets before!"
Chuck commented. Well, Mr. Hawks does have a point-- although it
also has a bit to do with Chuck's continued efforts to keep his
site simple, clean, informational, and fast loading. What is far
more important is what type of field accuracy an individual is able
to achieve, out of his gun, under his conditions.
A great deal
of the shooting and testing other than centerfire rifles, rimfires,
shotguns, and handgun has been with my favorite muzzleloader: the
Savage 10ML-II. I've studied the factory test targets for several
years by now. The three shot groups direct from Savage in-plant
shooting has ranged from .562 in. to about 1.3 in. at 100 yards
that I have seen. The load with rare exception is 42 gr. Vihtavuori
N110, Winchester W209 primer, short "MMP sabot," and a
.452 250 grain Hornady XTP-- though 42 gr. Hodgdon / IMR SR-4759
is also used. This is far more accuracy than you can use in most
big game hunting situations, of course, and better than the "capable
of 1.5 inch 100 yard accuracy" that Savage promises. Naturally,
the folks at Savage are just shooting their generic load and not
in the middle of working up a load for an individual rifle.
A pleasant
fellow dialed up from Hawaii a few weeks back; he happens to be
a dentist. He mentioned that both he and a friend has identical
Savage 10ML-II's (plastic stock / Stainless) that both shot
5-shot, 3/4 in. @ 100 yard groups with regularity (using the
above 42 gr. N110 load, as a matter of fact). After reading
a few of my articles, he wondered what he (they) needed to "tweak,"
adjust, and change. Of course the answer was nothing at all-- sooner
or later we just have to accept complete success, whether we are
inclined to or not. If the groups were 1.25 in. @ 100 yards, the
answer would naturally have been the same. Paper target accuracy
is not unimportant, but it is often over-rated and distorted to
the point where the ghost of Jack O'Connor might start to shiver
a bit.
Sometimes
we really might not want to continue to try to fix what isn't broken.
