Thread: Accuracy is Relative

G'day, it's been a while.

Alot of my first posts on this forum related to my Rossi .357 magnum and the trouble I was having in trying to attain a load that grouped well.

I've been thinking about accuracy. When I first started hunting and target shooting, I didn't really think about hand loading or fine tuning. And scopes didn't really interest me much as they seemed like an expensive 'extra' you had to take special care of and you could never be sure that they hadn't moved (probably because the only centerfires I had much experience with were military Lee-Enfields which weren't simple to mount scopes on).

As a teenager I went to the range with my Dad... and to compete in secondary school shooting competitions. We mostly used Lee Enfield No4 Mk1 rifles with aperture sights.... shooting at 200 an 300 yards. I was pleased to shoot a 'possible' where all bullets landed inside the 'five' ring. I can't remember for sure how big that five ring was at 200 yards... was it six inches in diameter maybe.... or eight? Perhaps someone here knows for sure what the dimensions were back in the early 1970s.... how about you 6x47?

But a six or eight inch group at 200 yards would not please a bench rest shooter. In fact it probably wouldn't please the owner of a new hunting rifle which advertised a guaranteed accuracy of 1.5 minutes of angle. But such a group was the standard for accuracy for me, and it was fine for sensible shots on deer and pigs.

"Ignorance is bliss" can apply to someone like me. Knowing the level of accuracy that is attainable nowadays can be a bit unsettling when your hunting rifle doesn't always group under 3/4 inch at 25 yards.

Anyway... I've had some serious mental discussions with myself, and I figure that my guns and ammo only have to perform well enough for the job assigned to them. And rather than chase the last few fractions of an inch through cartridge and hardware research and experimentation, I'm probably better off practising thoughtfully with my working firearms and knowing my practical and ethical limits.

So... for 'rabbit accuracy', my shots need to ideally land inside a 1.5 inch circle at 75 yards. For bush stalking larger animals, I'd like my bullets to stay inside a four inch circle at 100 yards. And for long shots - say 200 yards - consistent grouping of six inches or less is what I'm hoping for.

I finally got to shoot my Howa .223 at a 200 yard range the other day. When I walked up to the target I was delighted to find a three-shot group of just under an inch. (It was Hornady factory ammo, and I had a nice new scope). So this is accuracy which would have seemed miraculous to me back in the early days.... and I'm still fairly surprised today. I guess it is a bit unfair to compare these results with what I've been doing with my .357 magnum handloads in my open-sighted lever gun ... and my old No4 using aperture sights and 65 year old ammo.

While what I've found out about accuracy on the internet has made me feel a bit inadequate at times, I'm pleased that there are dedicated shooters out there who are striving for perfection. Guys like me can learn from you.

Very few of us are totally self-sufficient when it comes to our hunting or shooting equipment. Sure, I cast my own bullets... but I don't have access to a lead mine and I can't make primers. I have hunted successfully with home made bows and arrows, but I mostly used synthetic cord for my string and steel for my points. So I have to decide on what degree of self-sufficiency is right for me.... and how much time and money I want to spend. Near one end of the scale I could mine my own ore and make my own muzzle loader.... or I could (like I have) buy an almost perfect rifle and ammunition from the local gun shop.

Back to the .357 magnum topic. About nine weeks ago I ordered a Henry single shot .357. They look beautiful and seem to have great open sights. But the danged thing didn't arrive as expected, so I finally cancelled that order and bought a new Bergara break-action single shot .357. It comes with a scope rail, threaded for a suppressor... and open sights. It has a nice heavy (but short) barrel. I figured, fitted with a scope, it was ideal for testing my hand loads. Yesterday I shot a bunch of different loads and I think I've finally found a winner... I'm using my home cast Lee 358-158-RF bullets (158 grain, flat-nosed) with a maximum load of Trail Boss powder (from the ADI data sheet). I can only get about 945 fps from them, but they shoot well. I did try some using a bigger load of AP70N powder.... and while they travelled at the speed that I wanted (around 1060 fps), the ones I shot didn't seem to be as consistent as the full load of Trail Boss.

It is great to have found a 158 grain hunting load for the Bergara. Now I'm saving up for a barrel-forward suppressor. And once I've loaded up a moderate stock of hunting cartridges (in reality, about 30 should last me a couple of years), I can relax into further reloading research. I'd like to try gas-checked bullets and go for some maximum velocity just to be able to extend my effective point-blank range.

The Rossi still seems to shoot best with 125 grain cast bullets. But I have years ahead of me to fiddle around trying other recipes. A short while back I wrapped the Rossi in kitchen cling film and pushed the film down over the big buckhorn rear sight. I then cut the horns off the sight using my disc grinder and a 1mm disc. I should have done it right at the start. While I like the idea of a buckhorn, I seem to shoot much better with a flat-topped sight, like I've done all my life.