Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Killing deer at 1000 yards

Birdwatcher you've done alright stating your views on this topic. I've been following it along, pretty much said what I had to say in my post towards the bottom of the third page. You've hung in there, I commend you on that. Like I said in my post, size would play a big part. The pictures I've seen of their deer are kinda small compared to these around here. There is no denying their skill, but these big boys around here will run a long ways with a well placed shot and to shoot them at a 1000yds. would be a folly. Something not much bigger than a goat would drop or not go far. We don't have any goats running loose though. Around here we don't get 3 or 4 guys together to watch one guy shoot either. That's another aspect of it that doesn't interest me at all. Hell, when I go deer hunting I go to shoot, not sit and spot or stand back and watch. I guess if that's what trips someones trigger more power to them. Windage at that range is another difference in my area and theirs. Here we get good wind seems like most of the time, if they wait for the perfect conditions to take those shots, they'd probably make it through the season without ever having fired a shot around here. I personally would get in closer and get my deer, than fight these windy conditions and not fill a $35 buck tag. As for shot placement I've heard them say they'll sit and watch one long enough to know when it's not gonna move, before they take the shot. These around here I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure out when they'll "not" move. Seems as though they are always moving every few moments. So I'd be wasting my time on a 1000yd. shot there too. But that is just something I've noticed for myself. I have also noticed we all have bad days, but a bad day at the range is more forgiving than a bad day in the field. Some won't admit it though, I will guarantee that any person that has a bad day at the range, will see a bad day in the field. As one individual has said "so&so shot a very respectable 20in. group with his factory Win M70 in 270wsm", that is just fine and dandy on paper at 1000yds., but it has no place in the field. I hope that individual doesn't hunt long range using that rifle, I wouldn't think so anyway. Birdwatcher with that I think I'll close cause I think both sides are beating a dead horse on this matter. Good luck

BirdWatcher



Quote

Again, surely there must be field-condition target competitions between military snipers and the like, how consistently do they hit and why aren't those results posted around here somewhere?



Just a bit on what I know and understand about "sniper" competitions.



Like others I've tried to find "field fire" scores from military and non-military specific sniper competitions and have little luck. Winner announcements and such but no scores of any consequence. There are a few posted from the Candian Forces Small Arms Championships (CFSAC) where they're titled "Precision Rifle" for 2003 and perhaps 2002 but unless you're familiar with the target(s) they're of little value. The target used at CFSAC is the "Hun" in various forms.



Sniper competitions are generally not just about shooting, there's a good deal more, field craft/stalk, target/object identification, Keep In Memory System (KIMS), stress fire, precision fire (hostage situation), movers at various ranges and speeds and the UnKnown Distance (UKD) field fire.



Typical "Iron Maiden" is about 23 inches wide and 40 or 48 inches tall. Depending on the conditions and requirements the shots can be from anywhere on the Iron Maiden to specific areas. To about 350 or 400 yards it's not uncommon in non-competitions to "head shoot" the target (about 6" x 9" or 6" x 10") with first round hits conditions permitting. Caution dictates that the smaller areas are only shot in "good conditions" and when there is doubt the shooter will shoot "center mass" of the target (sternum area). At distances to 500 or 550 yards shooters will "on a good day" shoot the bolts that hold the targets in place.



In many competitions the shooter gets a maximum of two (2) rounds per target (if required). Often the scoring is "First round hit is 10 points and a second round hit is 5 points". Shooters have timed intervals for shooting, perhaps 20 seconds for the first round and 5 second or so for a make-up (second round).



The year I competed at CFSAC the (10 shot) 600 meter "One Shot -One Kill" top score was 50 7V's and second place was 50 6V's (max score would be 50 10V's)... I don't have the V size readily available (maybe someone else can supply it) but it was in the 6" to 8" x 10" to 12" area I'd guess.



Once again, as always... match shooting does not directly relate to hunting field shooting. During matches the shots are fired on command and not as decided by the shooter so sometimes conditions are not too good.



During Long Range Rifle and "Sniper" classes I've assisted with and attended at private civilian schools it's not uncommon for students on the final "exam" field fire to score 90 to 100 points using the "10 and 5" point system. Ranges for these classes typically begin at 300 and go to 900 to 1000 yards.

AJ. Dave.... thank you for your responses (note; my use of the term "sniper" was not meant at all to be inflammatory, I just couldn't think of another term.)

Relative to military shooters, the long range hunter generally has the advantage of shooting off of a solid rest, but with the disadvantages of being subject to small errors in range estimation and of needing an expanding bullet from a round packing at least 1,000 ftlbs at the other end.

Would it be correct to say that such a shooter, off of a portable bench set up in the field, might expect around 8" groups at 1,000 yards with a hunting load under ideal field conditions? Not looking to flame here, just learn. Both sides of this debate already know that the margin for error decreases with distance.

AJ writes...
"...Should have seen the fight in MI when we were trying to legalize hunting deer from an elevated stand with firearms..."

AJ... Much to my surprise that Liberal Heckhole (I rarely use "Hell" as a metaphor anymore, that place reportedly being so bad as to be beyond human comprehension), anyway that Liberal Heckhole New Jersey recently opened a hunting season for bears, over the rabid protests of the Antis.

On the other hand, IIRC California famously banned the hunting of mountain lions with dogs and Oregon the hunting of bears over bait. and several areas of the country have banned trapping. Again IIRC the main argument (besides "cruel") employed by the Antis in these cases was that such methods were "unfair" or "unsporting". Whereas even New Jersey could pass a "fair" bear hunt.

Once again, I submit that the Antis could get a whole lot of mileage out of footage of guys knocking over elk and such at 1,000 yards.

A measure of general disapproval of LR hunting might be behind the fact that at least some states already have in effect limits on how heavy a hunting rifle can be (16 pounds??)

Anyway, wishing to contribute something, and only half in jest <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> here's a link to the ideal LR hunting accessory, a battery powered wireless anemometer (wind meter). True, they only broadcast 100 yards, but I believe the manufacturer does offer signal relay units good for 300. Oregon Scientific makes good stuff. Heck, a string of these things installed before deer season out across that clearcut and you're all set <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

http://wireless-lan.cebru.com/kitchen/P000IngngjQnah/Oregon_Scientific_WGR968_Wireless_Anemometer/

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher

By "military shooters" I take it you mean "snipers", and sniper is not a term I take or believe was offered as inflammatory or derogatory... so no problem with me.

I don't believe that there would be a significant difference in the "solid rest" used by either a long range hunter shooting from a portable bench and the position acceptable to a sniper taking a long range shot, each works to make the shot high probablilty.

I agree that the hunter has the disadvantage of range errors.

The bullets used in LR Hunting are often the same type used by military snipers, Hollow Point Match Bullets.

I believe that most LR Hunters can achieve 1 MOA precision (groups) with the use of a spotter (a "spotter", as used here, refers to a second person assisting the shooter, a person with a spotting scope). I also believe that many LRHunters can achieve 1 MOA accuracy. Accuracy meaning Point Of Impact (POI) within 1 MOA of Point Of Aim (POA).


I have heard of these weight limitation on "hunting rifles" and accept this without a problem... Basically I understand the intent but don't believe it can be completely achieved in that manner. I believe it came about partially through mis-representation, ignorance (on both sides) and folks using equipment and techniques with which they were not sufficiently qualified.

Dave... Thank you for your reply.



Of course feel free to correct me if I am understanding you wrong...



I believe 1 minute of angle at 1,000 yards ballparks to 10".



Understood on precision being repeatability of results, commonly indicated by the "group". Is it correct to say that precision is determined by physics; the rifle, the variation in velocity, the stability of the bullet, etc?



Given a precision (group size) of 10" at 1,000 yards, bullets in a perfectly centered group would be expected to fall 5" or less from point of aim, giving an accuracy of 1/2 minute of angle.



Actual performance of course must factor in human error in aiming and firing, hence your estimate of 1 moa of accuracy. On paper, a standard of 1 moa of accuracy could be achieved with bullets in a group falling up to 20" apart.



I'm assuming this level of performance is a ballpark estimate of "average" field conditions. Probably many will assert they can consistently do better than that. It is understood that you were referring to an estimate of what "most" hunters could achieve. Certainly there are going to be some who are more accurate than most.



For general interest I picked up a copy of the Jan/Feb "RifleShooter" magazine. The "1,000 Yard Shooting on a Budget" article is by Bruce Gray.



The specifics:



rifle: .308 cal. Remington 700VLS. Bought new, mildy worked over with 26" barrel free-floated free floated and stock trigger adjusted to 2.5 lb.



scope: Springfield Armory "tactical" 6-20x56mm (apparently just coming into production ca. $799). Wayne "MG73M 26 MOA" tactical bases (another prototype), Wayne Maxima QD rings.



ammo: all factory, both using 175 grain Sierra BTHP MatchKing.



Federal Gold Medal Match (2,690 fps, av.grp .520"@100yds)

Black Hills Match (2,802fps, av.grp. .480"@100yds).



Best 3 shot group acheived at 1,000 yards during sighting in was an early 5.75" using the Black Hills Match. Sighting in was apparently not completed in this range session due to crosswinds.



This is the first of a series of "RifleShooter" articles on this project, should be interesting.



Also promoted in the article is the United States Practical Shooting Association ( www.rifle@uspsa.org ) and their new Manual Rifle Division which is intended to establish and promote Long Range Practical Rifle events. To this end they are asking interested shooters to contact them.



Sounds like some interesting competitions are in the offing, at least they'll prob'ly publicise the group sizes <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.



Birdwatcher

BirdWatcher



Quote

I believe 1 minute of angle at 1,000 yards ballparks to 10".



Understood on precision being repeatability of results, commonly indicated by the "group". Is it correct to say that precision is determined by physics; the rifle, the variation in velocity, the stability of the bullet, etc?



Given a precision (group size) of 10" at 1,000 yards, bullets in a perfectly centered group would be expected to fall 5" or less from point of aim, giving an accuracy of 1/2 minute of angle.



Actual performance of course must factor in human error in aiming and firing, hence your estimate of 1 moa of accuracy. On paper, a standard of 1 moa of accuracy could be achieved with bullets in a group falling up to 20" apart.

End Quote



I'm a little confused (could be a normal condition for me!). Precision for me would include marksmanship capabilities to some degree. For example; Standard 100 yard group as submitted by "most" hunters would be smallish (we'll say 1 MOA) but centered about 2 above the center of the target (the bullseye). Precision is 1 MOA but accuracy is 2 MOA (assuming the shooter had intended to hit the bullseye). This means to me that if there were a "normal" distribution of the rounds in the "group" 50% of these rounds would be between 1.5 MOA and 2 MOA of bullseye center and the other 50% would be between 2.0 MOA and 2.5 MOA from the center of the bullseye. This shooter can confidently expect to hit a 5 inch tile at 100 yards nearly 100% of the time using a center-mass hold or center-mass Point Of Aim (POA).



In my scenario at some greater distance, 1000 yards perhaps, it looks like this. Group of about 1 MOA (10.47" +-) centered within 1 MOA of the intended Point Of Impact (POI), the bullseye if you wish. Bullets nearest to POA will be within 5" those furthest will be within 15" from POA. Target size for nearly 100% hit success will be 30" using center-mass POA. Total distribution would not be uniform as vertical accuracy errors are more due to range and horizontal are due to wind... range being easier than wind to determine. I would expect actual POI distribution to be a horizontally flattened oval if many groups were shot over a period of time.



Some do better some do worse, this is true. This info and data speculation if for my type of shooting, "first round hit". For those LRHunters shooting greater distances (and many shooting deer at 1000 yards and beyond) there is the "sighter" or "spotter" round method. This technique (I don't use this method as I'm a "short range" shooter) greatly reduces the accuracy component for the actual "kill" shot. The sighting method is corrected for the "kill" shot after observing the impact of the "sighter/spotter" round... very accurate method/technique.





Thanks for the heads-up on the magazine article... I am interested in "field" condition shooting and may look into the "practical shooting" portions of this.



The 308 Win is what many shooters learn on and I have several that I routinely shoot. I don't personally care for the Springfield Armory scopes but they are generally functional.



I shot High Power for a while many years back and enjoyed it but I've since begun competing in tactical matches. I enjoy the tactical "sniper" matches as they more closely relate to actual hunting scenarios, the distances are unknown before the shots, shots are from bipods and/or packs, there are no "groups" at distance... just "hit" or "miss" and there is fieldcraft. The competitions are often very demanding and some very good useful hunting info comes to the surface often. Perhaps this "Practical Rifle" type thing will be challenging and educational too.



Sorry... rambled on too long already.





update on earlier post

The year I competed at CFSAC the (10 shot) 600 meter "One Shot -One Kill" top score was 50 7V's and second place was 50 6V's (max score would be 50 10V's)... I don't have the V size readily available (maybe someone else can supply it) but it was in the 6" to 8" x 10" to 12" area I'd guess.



I found the sizes of the various areas on the "Charging Man target, Figure 11/59...the target used for the 600 meter OSOK match. outside edge, 44"H x 17"W (4 points), inner area, 16"H x 8"W (5 points), center score, 8"H x 4"W (V count).

Dave... thanks for clearing that up.

The author's logic for choosing .308 was sound, apparently that particular heavy bullet (175 grain) loading will stay supersonic a little over 1,000 yards out of that 26" barrel, although with a relatively long flight time (1.7 seconds). He also pointed out that match quality factory ammo is available in that caliber and that reams of stuff has been published pertaining to handloads. Plus I'll bet recoil and blast are pretty mild out of that long, heavy rifle. All of which merely adds to my own high opinion of that caliber.

The cover blurb WAS misleading, anyone could get into "long range shooting for under $1,000" if the Springfield factory loaned 'em an $800 scope to try out <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But the author does point out that the opitcs are, if anything, more critical than the rifle.

One quote did get my attention "...I'd put myself behind a Remington... ...They usually shoot about better than anything else out of the box...".

Hmm... I seem to recall some heated threads around here originating with comments like that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher

DaveKing - Said you didn't like the Springfield Armory scopes, was wondering if you could give some heads-up on that? Have often thought of getting one, would appreciate some input of your dislikes for them. Thanks

RRW

I've had less than a representative sample of them, two (2) and I've not been overly impressed with their durability. One suffered a series of cracked (crushed) lenses when the heavy duty tactical style rings were tightened on it... It became pretty much useless in about 2 seconds. I traded the other away before it could be properly abused.

I expect my equipment to perform under rough conditions and not loose zero or break (they're tools, not chicken eggs). I've had a large number of Leupold 30mm type scopes and currently have one (1) NightForce NXS 5.5x22 and two (2) Nikon tacticals. These three series of scopes seem to be truly durable and I have had no unexpected suprises while mounting them in the same style rings that crushed the SpringField Armory scope. I've dropped, slid onto, and skidded down some shale slids and mountain trails with the three more durable scopes attached to my rifles and there has been no problems, no zero shifts. I feel quite confident that the scopes currently in my inventory can withstand "normal" wear and tear... If there's any doubt about quality or durabiliy I get rid of the item.

DaveKing - Many thanks, odds are you saved me alot of grief. Guess I'll stick with what I've got. Have a 3x9 Nikon and a 6x18 Redfield with accu-trac. Redfield needs sent in, don't know what's happened to it, but I can't hit a bull in the a$$ at 50yds. with it. Put the Nikon on and using same mounts, not a bit of trouble. Anyway, thanks, would've really grieved me to spend that kind of money and gotten a raw deal.

So, which bullet would one use that will offer reliable expansion and the necessary accuracy potential?

I submit that this is not one of those - taken from an animal at just over half the proposed distance and started at around 2900 fps muzzle velocity.



MatchKings are probably out of the question in terms of terminal performance reliability. What about Ballistic Tips or are there others that can be both accurate enough and reliable - or- are we really expecting the bullet to FMJ?