Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Good Shot?

Here�s my question- What constitutes a good shooter with a rifle?
Before we get started let me apologize to all of you I will probably piss off. I�m sorry. Is a good shot a person who can hit a target at known distance? Is it someone who gets their deer every year? I was thinking, if a person gets their deer every year, it doesn�t mean that they are a good shot necessarily. Because maybe they just have a good hunting area with lots of opportunities or maybe they�re a really good hunter and they get close and don�t take risky shots. What about the guy who shoots targets at long distance? It is stationary at known distance with a solid rest, great gun/scope/equipment. Can that person shoot an elk walking/running off hand at an unknown distance (short)? I�ve known people who can shoot game very consistently but, are not very good at the range shooting groups. I have also known people just the opposite. Is a person a not so good (bad?) shot if they go to say Africa and use the shooting sticks provided to them by the PH? I mean why can�t they just shoot off hand? But maybe they are just smarter, and use every opportunity to get steadier. What about the person who shoots in some kind of competition. That person shoots in the top 50? 100? 1000? But never wins. Are they a good shot? What about time constraints? Should there be some or not? So, what constitutes a good shot? I�m sorry if this has already been discussed in a prior thread. Thanks for the feed back D.

In my opinion, someone with natural rifle talent should be able to do all of the above. A good shot should know how to calm his nerves, dope wind, know rough holdover instinctively, time the trigger break with his wobbles, and all that entails consisitently hitting. A good shooter should be able to expose the rifle's inaccuracies and shoot to the best of that rifle's capabilities. I believe a good shooter is good both in the field and at the range. If someone shoots poor groups at the range, but consistently kills game, it doesn't make them a good shot in my opinion, but it does mean they are staying within their limitations.

Wow this is gonna be a fun thread.

To me a good shot is someone who always seems to hit what they're aiming at, no matter the conditions they always seem to get the job done. I don't know of many people who are like this but I've always looked up to them and strived to be like them.

That's my take

Brett (Mac)

When excellent shooting can be consistently accomplished in the field under adverse conditions and pressure, just like you perform in practice.... your a good shot.

JM

Come on guys. Lets really define this. Exb-"natural rifle talent"? Consistently hit what? and at what range? Mac- "get the job done"? again what and what range? one shot? JM expand- let lose-- lets here it. D

I take the easy way out -

talk about a good field shot:

A hunter that knows before he pulls the trigger if he can make the shot and who, if assessment is negative, restrains him / herself.

Don't know what to tell you Dbone,

That is my definition of a good shot.

We all hunt in different terrain, that present different circumstances and challenges.

It's unrealistic to attempt to assign specific distances, conditions, etc. and say that if you can meet this criteria, you are a good shot, if you can't your not.

I consider myself a good shot out to 400 yds. when I'm hunting.

Does that mean I cannot hit you at 600 yds. Nope. If I have a good rest and am comfortable, there is a good chance I will drop one in somewhere from the bottom of your neck to the top of your belt, if I dope the wind correctly.

Some folks can make a kill out to 800 or beyond and 600 yds. is a chip shot for them. I won't shoot at any animal further than 400 yds. That will make him a better long shot than me.

Take that same person and see if he can kill a running deer with iron sights that breaks cover 40 yds from him. I have done that on more than one occasion, If he has not hunted in those conditions or practiced that kind of shooting, it may cause him problems.

The point I'm making is that alot of us specialize, based on the terrain we hunt. We practice for those scenarios and that is what we become proficient at.

There is no written definition of a good shot, and I don't think anyone could write one that goes into more detail than what I put in my original post, there are just too many variables and conditions to define.

Trying to define it is a fools errand, and one this fool will pass on.

JM

Ok, to clarify, I'd call someone with natural rifle talent a person for whom shooting skills tend to come easy. Shooting skills can be taught, but with some practice and teaching, natural talents in any field still excel. I don't consider myself a natural talent, and often times when I rush a shot by not talking myself through the variables, I muff it. It took me a long time to teach myself good bench and field shooting positions and skills. But I consider myself a good hunter, which is totally separate from being a good shooter, as hunting implies different things to me. To me, a good shooter, or natural talent has a way of assessing the conditions quickly, compensating accordingly, and delivering the projectile where it was intended. It doesn't matter what the target or range is in my mind. Given the same tools (rangefinder, optics, rifle, wind thingys, drop and drift charts, calculators, etc), a good shooter will make better use of those than a poor shooter. Certainly many of those tools can help a poor natural shooter, who has developed some skill, shoot better than a good natural shooter with lesser tools. Consider sniping and artillery... and correct me if I'm wrong: given the excellent tools at military's diposal, artillery men can accurately place rounds at impressive distances. To me that doesn't make them a good shot, just skillful when using the available tools. From the stuff I've read regarding sniper schools developed during the Vietnam era, naturally talented shooters weren't always the most desirable snipers, as the Army and Marines felt shooting skills can be taught. But those with natural talents further excelled with the tools given to them. Consider Carlos Hathcock, who was also a world-class competitive rifle AND pistol shooter, but who also had the field skills that snipers needed to be great, which is an entirely different skill set than shooting. And we are talking about shooting, not hunting or sniping.

I think this is one of the characteristics of a good game shot.

In really general terms I think a good game shot is proficient from a number of field positions,such as off hand,kneeling, prone,sitting.He knows how to use a sling,how to get a good rest in the field instantly from about anything that is available,and can make instant decisions in split seconds about how he will execute a shot.He's proficient at these positions because he has practiced them a good deal.His groups may not be as tight from all of these positions as they are from some(say off-hand to prone)but he recognizes this and understands that 300 yard off hand shots are not generally a really good idea.He is about as good at 10 yards as he is 300,given a proper rest and appropriate circumstances.He knows from practicing these various positions,the distances at which he can keep all his shots within the vitals of a game animal.He knows that shooting from a bench is among the easiest things you can do with a rifle,and spends time practicing from less steady positions.


He is a good judge of distance and circumstances;he does not dawdle,struggle around or fumble with gear in the presence of game,and he knows how to use the gear quickly and efficiently.At the same time he recognizes very quickly whether a shot can be "made" or whether it will be a hail mary attempt,and knows when to stay off the trigger.

He also recognizes a shooting opportunity when it's staring him in the face and that little voice inside is screaming for im to "shoot!",and he does not dawdle.At the same time, he knowsinstantly when he doesn't have shot.

He's at least moderately proficient on moving game at reasonable distances.He's also reasonably proficient at distances;and if he has done a ton of match shooting or practicing in the wind he can handle those circumstances as well,or at least knows enough about wind and distance to recognize when he can and cannot hit,and acts accordingly.

It goes without saying that he has practiced a lot,and thoroughly knows his rifle and its' equipment,and how to use it.He can deploy it in a safe manner with full awareness of safety issues,locations of companions,etc.

These are some of the physical characteristics of a good game shot.The "mental" part of it is harder.

He maintains a certain level of focus sufficient to be able to execute a shot under stress,does not generally come unglued in the presence of game(likely after the shooting is different),and can keep his faculties under control to the extent necessary to hit what he needs to hit.He can perform physical acts requiring finesse under stressful conditions.

He might be coming unglued emotionally when a buck is about to disappear over a ridge,or when something knarly and dangerous is close and about to do him harm,but he is practiced enough that he can handle either situation,and his "muscle memory" from practice and experience will get him through these situations.

I also think that when it comes time to shoot,he has no compunctions about killing things.

Hmm, are we talking about a difference between a guy that shoots P-dogs @ 800 yd of a table and the guy shooting sheep @ 400 off a pack?
Both can be excellent shots within their sport but not fare as well in the other.

Well,sure,Joe that goes without saying.I'm talking about BG rifle shooting.We've all seen great target shooters that are not very good BG shots under the wide variety of shooting situations that can be presented.There are guys at my club that are fabulous target shots....put a BG rifle in their hands,put them in the field,and some don't know what to do......they may be "good shots" but they are not good BG riflemen.

OTOH I have a friend in Wyoming who does little formal target practice other than to sight in....his "practice"is largely on coyotes and other varmints. He's a great game shot.

I am considered a good shot with a rifle. In reality, I am good at achieving a rest of some sort and own fabulously accurate rifles.

Sheep off a pack at 400 is way easier than PDogs at 800 off a bench.

I think its summed up well a couple of times here. I shoot half way decent IMHO. I also know that I won't shoot a running deer as I'm no good at that. I'm also generally not a 'quick' shooter, I tend to take time to make sure its all right and don't snap shoot like some. Its cost me animals before, but then again those have not been missed or wounded either.

I do know what my limitations are, and that can change from day to day. Sometimes I have a pulse that I have to work to get rid of that transfers from my neck to the gun, not a nervous excited pulse, just my normal one and I can't stand that...and strive to get rid of it as quick as I can. Less neck contact or padded contact works.

I think there are a couple of different issues here too... hunter vs shooter and targets vs field etc....

I do know a local hunter that can't hit squat when sighting in but drops game left and right... at interesting distances too... though I suspect there is a LOT of luck there and sooner or later if not alreayd that I"m not aware of, lack of skill will bite him.

Anotehr thought on running 40 yard deer... to me thats choice of weapon too, when expecting that I run only buckshot.... and it works super for me so far.

I think that a "good shot" should also be a responsible shooter, i.e., operate within the limits of his capability, and do that effectively. And "capability" is determined by what is practiced, which is further determined by the type of hunting.

In preparation for my Botswana hunt I shot extensively offhand and from sticks. Most game, I was told, would be taken between 50 and 150 yards, and the offhand practice would pay off on those closer-in, quicker shots when sticks might not be set in time.

Hunting being what it is, the game didn't know that they should be readily available at those ranges. Due to shifting, gusting winds, and other weather conditions, the animals were very skittish and most shots were taken between 120 and 250 yards.

Could I have hit one of the gemsbok or wildebeest at 120 yards offhand...certainly, I had practiced for that. Would I have drilled them through the heart as I did off the sticks...maybe, maybe not. By using the sticks I had all my animals down within 50 yards with one shot.

I did pass up a few shots which I thought were out of my range and capability, and felt good for it.

Does that make me a great shot? Not in general, but for that hunt I did very, very well. I would not successfully take a running shot at a deer, or try a 400 yard shot on an antelope, (nor would I try) as I've not had the opportunity or practiced for those.

A "good shot," then, perhaps understands that success in one type of hunting does not necessarily ensure the same in another type without due diligence and practice.

Reminds me of a fellow I met who had travelled in the Congo. One of his guides carried a single shot shotgun and did teh hunting for camp meat. He would go into the jungle and if the camp heard the gun go off, the guide returned with game - every time. They thought he was a fantatstic shot. Turns out, he was a terrible shot, but a fantastic stalker. He used that shotgun like an automatic spear. He'd just stalk up to within 5 yards of the game before he pulled the trigger. Lousy shot at long distance, but a great hunter.

Bob

I feel that anyone that knows their limits is a great shot...

Jeff