I know this is probably going to start a river of s^*t but why is hunting accuracy so much different than benchrest accuracy? Shouldn't hunters strive to get the best possible accuracy they can rather than be satisfied with hitting a milk jug at 100, 200, or 300 yds? Granted not everyone feels this way, but I read a lot of posts on here when it comes to hunting rifles, bullets, powders, or accuracy where people will post something about "not trying for bench rest accuracy" and "1.5 M.O.A. is good enough for a hunting rifle." To me it seems backwards. Bench shooter shoot paper or steel, as hunters we are shooting at something "real" shouldn't we strive for the absolute best accuracy we can accomplish. It just seems that with all the discussions about "would you shoot something at this range" or will "x" bullet work on brown bear, moose, etc., and all the discussions about the ethics of shooting at "x" range people would be more inclined to try and get the most out of their rifles and loads instead of settling for "well I can hit a 6 inch plate" 6 inches is a lot of room for error especially if the animal you are shooting at happens to shift its weight forward/backward at the same time the shot goes off. They don't even have to outright move, just a weight shift and you are chasing a wounded animal. I know this is not going to go over well with some, but I expect there are some out there who have wondered the same thing and maybe can explain why it is okay for us as hunters to be satisfied with 1.5 inch groups at 100 yds and someone who shoots paper is satisfied until they are sub .5 inch. I enjoy reloading and trying to find the perfect powder,bullet, primer, seating depth combination for my rifles. If I am going to shoot something I want to know that even if it shifts its weight to a different leg my bullet is still going to kill it.