Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters JOC: Range Accuracy vs Hunting Accuracy

Lately I've been reading some Jack O'Connor books. This was spurred by the recent thread asking for favorite books, which prompted me to pay Amazon a bunch of money...

Anyways, this is the first time I've delved in JOC's writing in any depth, and it's been illuminating, to say the least. I've learned that the accusations leveled against JOC as a 270 whore are unjustified, for instance. And I've also learned that unlike many modern writers, JOC was pretty frank about the kind of expectations a hunter should have in the field.

For instance, he's unabashed about describing his missed shots, or the shots he and others took that wounded game. You won't find many modern writers owning up to such things in print (or on video) and the "hunting shows" on TV are even worse (how many times have we seen an animal clearly gut-shot with an arrow sticking out of its flank that is found allegedly only a few moments later dead on the ground?).

And I have to say that JOC's views on hunting accuracy aren't far from my own, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

JOC wrote in the 1970's: "Shooting at game animals under hunting conditions is not the same as shooting from a benchrest-or settled donw in a sling on a target range. Under hunting conditions there are few people who can keep all their shots in a one-foot circle at a hundred yards, and a two-foot circle at 200 yards... When you get down to it, anyone who can keep all his shots in a two-foot circle at two hundred yards is not a bad shot."

Keep in mind that JOC was writing this near the end of his life, after 50+ years of hunting, and having personally shot and killed far more animals than most hunters could hope to kill. And you also have to keep in mind that this 1-foot-at-100/2-foot-at-200 rule of thumb was something that he applied to his own shooting. And while the rifles he was writing about over the course of his career were hardly the MOA tack-drivers that everybody (ahem) hunts with nowadays, most of his rifles were capable of shooting 1.5 inch groups or better at 100 yards.

Note that he's not saying "some" of one's shots on game. He said ALL of one's shots.

FWIW, I've worked "sight-in" days at my club range for years, and in my experience, most of the folks who take rifles into the woods are hard-pressed to keep their shots within minute-of-whitetail, never mind minute of angle. If JOC's rule is applied to such folks, it's a miracle any of them ever bring home winter's meat. But bring it home they do, and from the sounds of repeater rifle fire in the deer woods on opening day, I'd say they do so more by luck and firepower than by accurate riflery.

I will also say that from my field experience, guys who have true MOA rifles that can shoot them to that standard off a bench do tend to have their bullets fly a bit wider than minute-of-angle in the field, myself included. I wish I had started a detailed set of field notes from the early days, but I didn't. So I only have memory to rely on, and memory is notoriously unreliable and self-serving in us mortals. But at best guess I would say I probably fit into JOC's definition of a "not bad" shot. Yes, I can occasionally pull of some pretty fancy shots, but I've missed clean and wounded a few head of game as well. So, "not bad" is probably all I can honestly claim.

Now, I'm curious what our resident gun writers have to say about that: pro, con, or otherwise. Anybody else who cares to weigh in, feel free. But try to keep the BS to a minimum, please!

Not a gun writer but I agree with what he had to say.

And probably due to reading that years ago plus a strong mentor(dad had never shot a deer rifle before we bought one or a deer) I just was taught to never take a shot I was not almost 1000% confident in. The chance of wounding was not worth not shooting.

I"ve pretty much stayed along those lines.

And I"m for some reason( see above I'm sure) just anal about accuracy and shot placement.

And yes I've muffed and missed a bit here and there. But I"m pretty much down to the point of not missing since I won't take a shot no matter the size of the game, unless I know its a slam dunk.

And trust me, its cost me a few times... once on a book mule deer, but felt it better not to fling one trying... I still sleep fine even though its the only mule deer book wise I'll ever see in my life. Probably at this point I"ll never shoot at another mule deer ever and don't even have one on the wall other than a small bow kill. Fine with me.

If Jack was referring to shooting offhand here, then I would tend to agree. That would be pretty poor shooting from the sitting position - from anyone.

No one shoots offhand anymore, they would rather pack around a set of shooting sticks and a light mountain rifle and talk about the weight they saved on their rifle...

Some of us do.....

Only offhand shots I recall were "finishers" on buffalo and a few at running hogs, otherwise like Shrapnel mentioned, shooting sticks or whatever I can use for me. My hunting accuracy consists of shooting sticks (or tree/branch) at one gallon jugs filled with water. I figure they're about the average kill zone for most animals I hunt.

While I can certainly keep my shots inside a foot, offhand, at 100 yards, at the range, I have missed shots in the field which I would have made if my shot had been within that 1 foot circle. Nerves, awkward positioning, out of breath, nerves again, were all factors.
In conversation the other day, I admitted that I don't expect too much from my hunting rifles. I want them to drive the bullet of my choice at a speed I find acceptable and I want to be able to reliably hit a deer sized target out to three hundred or so. This means I din't need a half inch rifle and a 1 1/2moa rifle, well sighted, will do evrything I need it to do. If it does happen to shoot sub-moa, well, I'm happy about it but that alone isn't what will make me choose that rifle for the hunt of the day. GD

My mentality says I"m the weak link. If thats the case, then the most help I get is the most accurate rifle I can have.

If you follow this... If I miss by 4 inches with a 1 inch gun, i might miss by 5. If I miss by 4 inches with a 4 inch gun I"ve missed by 8... there could be some difference on the animal, on results by the 3 inches of a "worse" hit. Or I could screw up and hit the head.

The rules at many ranges are a death to marksmanship. When you have to shoot off a bench it's hard to really learn how to shoot.
I have yet to have time for anything but a quick offhand shot when elk hunting. Granted the ranges in the dark timber are not great, but the idea of carrying a rest in that environment is laughable.

All things being equal, I'd always rather have a rest. I just don't find them very practical all the time. I did shoot off sticks for one animal and a fence post for another in S. Africa. The others I just shot offhand. Longest is a deer at 175, shortest is my elk this year at somewhere closer to 40.

The scientific method for summing errors is the Root Sum Square. If you have a 1" gun and 4" hold, you have a 4.12" solution. If you have a 4" gun and 4" hold, you have a 5.65" solution. Thus the idea that statistically there really is very little real world difference in .75" rifles and 1.5" rifles in real shooting circumstances. Yes, there is the one very rare occasion where the errors perfectly add up, but there is an equal percentage that the errors are actually cancelling each other out.

I have 3 blanks loaded up that I cycle through while sighting on various targets. Repeat a few times a night for a month prior to hunting and the sight picture really steadies out. Likewise, if I don't prepare, I know my shots will be further limited.

DocRocket: Jack O'Connor was a major influence on my Hunting philosophy and dedication.
I think I have a complete set of Jack O'Connors books, and his novels - something of which I am very proud.
It's been SO long since I shot at a game animal standing/off hand that I actually do not remember ever doing so - if I ever did?
I went through some phases through my 5 1/2 decades of Hunting - starting with shooting game animals from the sitting position with a carefully adjusted military type sling then trying more prone shots again with a carefully adjusted sling and then (and continuing to this day) I now ALWAYS carry my Big Game Hunting Rifles equipped with Harris Swivel Type bi-pods and slings!
I to have worked MANY days at various ranges for "Hunter sight-in days" and spend MANY days each year at public ranges observing other shooters.
I sometimes worry about and feel sorry for the game animals due to a noticeable percentage (20% or maybe more) of shooters/Hunters who just are NOT competent to a level with their Rifles that I think is minimal for humane Hunting.
Sad that.
I do so wish that all "Hunters" would practice shooting more and not succumb to the temptations of today's trend toward "LONG range" shooting at game animals.
I live and Hunt in game rich country with long seasons and the numbers of wounded animals I see and find each year seems to me to be increasing of recent.
Indeed range accuracy is one thing and Hunting accuracy is another - Jack O'Connor was right about that also!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Seems to me if you do any amount of BG hunting, eventually you are going to be faced with a situation where you simply have to shoot from an unsupported, or less than ideal,shooting position.

Not that we don't do our best to quickly assume a rest or some support if we can, but it's going to happen because we are dealing with unpredictable animals and situations. So, it only makes sense to have some degree of proficiency in a variety of positions. Our own practice sessions will tell us what our proficiency levels are.

This does not mean you get wild eyed about it, but seems to me most of us know almost immediately which shots we can, and cannot make, on an animal.

I have a lot of shootign under my belt. Wife does too. Lots of it was offhand but in competition which is not the same as hunting.

Over the years I found that if I really started looking and thinking, that while I was trying to solidify the standing shot and get it to calm down enough to break the trigger, I often could have found SOME kind of rest to help just a bit.

As to the errors.... I understand the math, but I run on worst case... which is why I'm pretty picky about shots and just dont' care if I go home empty, rather that than mess one up.... passed a nice bull moose once, stayed on him for almost an hour or so one morning trying to get a good solid shot... he walked off... I waited, actually until dark that night to see if they would come out of the thicket they went into... yes I had shots that morning, nothing I was 200% confident in...
At least in that case, 2 days later I had a mostly wide open 125 yard kneeling shot that took the neck. I'd have let him walk again if I had not had a clear shot in all the old burn timber too.

Re the dummy shells, that is one of the BEST if not the best idea for training to ever come along.

Thankfully I don't have to deal with ranges... that would suck. Though sometimes I want to be at a range during deer season to check things so I don't spook the deer off our place....

I have passed every shot at elk I've ever had, in timber, just nothing reliably comfortable.

prm, how did you get within 40 yards of that bull elk. The story man. powdr

My first moose was such... 125ish steps... offhand. Was the only choice and a quick choice... bull was going to leave. I put the gun up and knew i'd have to make a choice. But they are so big it was easy and I was not out of wind at the time...

I still think that most times you benefit more from practicing field expedient shooting....

And in hindsight had I been thinking that morning... I could have quickly sat down and popped a shot off as quickly and more accurate... it did not dawn on me that quickly... though a knee or butt would have been damp or wet...

+1 Bob. Good post. My experience mirrors yours in the fact that while I always desire a rest, there have been times and I'm sure there will be more to come, where a rest just isn't possible if I'm to take a shot. Therefore, offhand is what you have. I've missed a few of those offhand shots and I've connected as well. The circumstances are always different though. Because of this, I try to practice offhand as well as sitting, prone, off rests, etc. when I can.

Doc, good post about JOC. I've found that those that criticize JOC the most are usually the people who have hardly, if ever, read his stuff. Even though the man has been dead for almost 40 years now, it's always amazing to me just how much knowledge he had and how much it still applies today.

JOC did not specify offhand shooting; rather, he specifically stated ALL a hunter's shots need be considered.

O'Connor describes many of his own shots, and and for the most part these seem to have been taken from supported or seated positions.

I agree, although with the caveat this applies to competent, experienced shooters, and there are a lot of guys out there in the hunting field (and perhaps one or two here on the 24HCF) who are neither competent nor experienced.

Perhaps another way to think of JOC's quote in the OP is that until a hunter can meet those standards, he's not a guy he'd call a "not bad shot"... or if you remove the double negative, he's saying you are a bad shot. And until a hunter can say he's capable of hitting at least that standard, he will continue to be a bad shot.

I've seen a lot of guys who think they're pretty good shots make some pretty bad shots on game. I think JOC's point was something along these lines.

IIRC he was a strong proponent of taking a seated position and using a sling wherever possible, explaining how it could be quickly assumed and would get the rifle above most brush or intervening obstacles. IOW, take the steadiest position you can.

He was far more a fan of placement than power, albeit given "enough" power.

Jeff you're an experienced shot....you knew right away you could do it.


Doc good thread!

Doc,

I've seen a large number of hunters shoot rifles, but making a guess about what the average group of the shooting public at 200 yards would be just that, a guess. I know if you count Joe Average with his see through mounts, no-zero-holding scope, lack of training and zero practice, then the average group size at 200 would be pretty sad.

There are a lot of MOA rifles (and more sub MOA than ever) but not a lot of MOA shooters from field positions. Most hunters I've seen have too much gun and have had far too little practice. Most practice from field positions only rarely - if ever.