Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Kudos to Barsness!

Thanks to JB for the article "Over-Engineered" in the current Rifle magazine! Boy! You really hit the nail on the head with this one, and I thank you for the introduction to practical goal-directed evaluation of an increasingly popular approach to "hunting rifles." Your logic is impecable and very to the point. I guess it means more to me since I've become the "go to" advisor for a younger budding shooter. He's 43, the same age as my son, and he's gone loopy over all the nice glossy photos of rifles that will shoot itty bitty groups at very long range, which is fine and dandy, except he likes to take them on expensive hunts far from home. He took his 6.5/.284 that weighs well over 10 lbs. on an elk hunt last year, with a 6-24x Burris Tactical scope with the exposed target turrets. He didn't get an elk because of luck, and the simple fact he's a shooter, but not really that good a hunter. He loves the big, heavy high powered 30mm. scopes on his "hunting" rifles, too, recently putting a 2.5-10x on his "practical" '06 custom hunting rifle with semi-heavy barrel and synthetic stock. Nice rig, but REAL hunters would opt for a lighter, handier, quicker to get into use type rifle that'll "git-r-done" with a lot less fuss and bother, not to mention less drudgery hauling it around. His enthusiasm for the rifles keeps him lugging these rifles around, and as long as he's in good shape, that's fine, but the critical moment in hunting is all too often when we have to react quickly or lose the shot at the deer or animal of a lifetime, and your advice in the article surely puts those open to suggestion in a more appropriate and intelligent position to choose a better rig for hunting. Sadly, too many of these "young lions" just won't listen. They're so totally sold on the "what ifs" proposed by so many writers these days that they THINK they're preparing as best they can for real world scenarios. The only problem comes when they have to react quickly. Those target style stocks aren't as quick into action as a traditionally designed one, no matter whether wood or synthetic. Those heavy barrels also slow our reaction to a pressing and fleeting situation. I've owned many rifles through the years, but only two that wouldn't do MOA with some tweaking here and there - mostly just glass bedding a little judicious trigger work, and making sure all screws, particularly on the scope mounts, are snug and loc-tited. Magnums may be fine for elk and larger game, and for really long range shooting, but for deer, they're just more of a burden and expense than is really needed. When I had a rifle built specifically for elk, that I unfortunately never got to use for that purpose, I built a .35 Whelen Aclkey with a 24" #4 contour barrel at 24" with a light wt. sporter stock with very classic lines and conformation, and it's a dandy to hunt with, with its 2-7x Leupold in Ruger steel mounts. I think I can count on it when the chips are down and I have to react swiftly. If I fail, I'll know it's MY fault, and not the gun's! Funny, but the Ackleyized Whelen has almost the same trajectory as a good .308 Win., and while most think the .308 is fine for long range shooting, they regard the Whelen as a "close range only" proposition. It just hits harder with a bigger, "pre-expanded" sort of bullet that goes on to get even bigger, so it can leak more blood in case tracking is involved, which should be rare if good loads and bullets are used and one places those bullets well.

The most frustrating thing about being the "go to" person for advice is when he asks a question, and on receiving my answer, he says, "I don't believe that!" and goes on to explain how he read an article in some glossy mag that said something different. It's all a question of values and of direction of the inquiry, of course, which while understandable often, shows that he already had his mind up about what he WANTED the answer to be before calling me.

We were shooting not long ago on a long range course and he was getting @ 8" groups at 600 yds. with his Surgeon actioned, Kreiger barrled custom long range gun. I commented that he was doing pretty good, but noted that the gun itself should be capable of doing half that or less at that range, and suggested a few pointers to improve his groups. I'd noticed that he'd been pressing the forend against the side of the rest he was using, and suggested that he not do that, and instead, use his rear bag to align his sights and he'd get better results. He argued back that he didn't believe that slight difference could make any difference in his groups, so I told him to go ahead and keep doing it his way, and he'd keep getting the same results, and went to my bench to try some loads in my gun. Some time later, he called to me, saying "Dennis, go look through the spotting scope." I told him light was starting to fade and I had to shoot my loads before it got too dark for a really good test. He again said, "Dennis, go lookin the spotter." I noticed he was wearing a sheepish grin, and his face was red. Knowing this indicated SOMETHING, though I didn't know what, I stepped over to the spotter, and he'd shot a VERY good group which later turned out to be 4 of 5 in 2 1/4" at 600 with a single flier out about 4" to the left that was most likely caused by a very gentle wind. My Sierra Infinity program showed that a 1 mph wind could move his bullet that far at 600, and I'm sure that's what happened. It's typical of the winds there on that range. He wasn't allowing for any wind on any of his shots, but thankfully, the wind had laid for the most part at that time of day, and he got that great group. He then admitted that I'd been right all along, and that he got that group fy following the advice I'd given him.

This is just one example of how so many of these "young lions" tend to keep thinking that all that's necessary to do good afield is to throw more money at the situation and get bigger and "better" "stuff" to take afield, rather than working on thier own prowess and knowledge. It's a lot like golfers thinking buying some new, highly touted club or set of clubs will improve their golf game, while ignoring things like turn, balance, foot position, etc. They have a jillion excuses when they can't perform that well weith it, too, which locks them into their present situtation, and keeps them from learning more and better. Sad, at least for old curmudgeons like me, but it's observable, repeatable and predictable, so it's far more than just one man's "opinion."

With the increasing urbanization of our modern world, and the increasing "lack of time" and the distances required to travel to get to the ranges, as you observed in the article, I guess they're just trying to cover up and compensate for what they know to be their weaknesses, which is admirable, of course, but it just ain't workin' out all that well in far too many cases, and your article certainly helps get them, if they'll just think about it, on a better track to doing well afield. You just can't "Buy a better game," either in golf or in shooting, and when you think about it, your article clearly illustrates why that's so. More articles like this, and I might start re-subscribing to the glossy mags again. I just can't get very worked up about more sales pitches for guns designed to be cheaper to manufacture, though today's values and political circumstances makes it understandable why that's what we get.

Just one man's view, of course, but it's based on a LOT of observation and experience.

I read the article a couple of times, and agreed with it every time. So, I guess that makes me just as smart, but not nearly as eloquent, as John.

Not a fan of generalizations.

All of them?

I know it's highly "politically incorrect" to place responsibility on the performer, and their own "reasoning", if you can call it that, but it's a definite trend I and many other (mostly older) shooters have noted. Things ARE different now, and it IS harder to find a place where we CAN shoot, but it's not nearly as impossible as many seem to claim it is. These "young lions" are often into short cuts, and with the rifle and handgun, and you can probably throw in shotguns too, there just isn't a substitute for trigger time. None!

I've had a number of shooters come to me for advice, and when I showed them how to shoot well, the typical response is "Well I don't do it that way, I do it like this." Upon hearing this, and I do TRY to be politically correct where possible, but I've come to the point where I just tell them, "Then just keep on doing it that way and you'll keep getting the same results."

There's just more to shooting than reading about the latest shiny new offering and going forth with it, and so many, many these days can't, won't or don't recognize this, and an awful lot of game gets wounded and far too much wasted as a result. It doens't matter a fig what a rifle can do, UNLESS the shooter is capable of producing those results. Old time gun writers freely expressed this simple and age-old principle, and shooters were very often chastened by it, and reacted not with indignation, but changed their ways and .... lo and behold .... were better shots as a consequence.

These days, we as a nation seem to think we can do whatever we WANT and think there SHOULD be no consequences. It'd be nice if it were really that way, but it isn't, never has been, and never will be. I find this very disturbing, and it surely can't lead anywhere that's good or beneficial, no matter what opinions one holds. Opinions aren't very good yardsticks by which to judge things, and make intelligent decisions by. But, being an "old fart," and out of the "mainstream," my words don't count for much, even when they ARE true and valid, so .... as Sonny and Cher said, "The Beat Goes On and On and On."

Sooner or later, it WILL matter whether we can shoot or not in most of our cases, and it seems to me that it OUGHT to be the responsibility of any good gun writer to at least TRY to foster that. It CAN be done without being quite as direct and blunt as I've been here, but I've been that way for a purpose - in hopes that at least some who read it will take it to heart and actually consider the matter.

I see people go to a gunshop and buy a gun, then buy the cheapest ammo they offfer for it, and go out thinking "Now I'm prepared for whatever happens." Often they never shoot it unless and until a need arises, and then they can't understand why they can't hit with it. I see people being rifles and other guns to me and some friends to sight them in, and when we do it, they instruct us to do things that just don't make any sense, and still they insist on our doing it that way. I'm old enough to have earned the title 'Curmudgeon' now, so I guess I might as well use that where there's any chance that my message might be heard. My intent is pure even if my methods aren't "politically acceptable" these days. The state of American shooters today is pretty darn sad in WAY too many casess, and this is at least partly due to the lack of good, intelligent and experienced instruction. My father was an old Marine - China, WWII and Korea - and he and a couple of his buddies taught me to shoot. I knew how to shoot with a sling as a shooting aid when I was still in the BB gun stage. Learning to shoot and load and pick the right guns for the purpose at hand has been a life-long pursuit for me, and it DOES pay off if one is just humble and inquisitive enough, and that really isn't a difficult thing to be. All it requires is for us to leave our biggoty attitudes at home and simply LISTEN and THINK about what those who CAN shoot tell us.

If I take my own good time and invest it into someone who SAYS he wants to shoot better, and THEN they won't even listen, because of ego problems or whatever, it just plain frustrates me to helengone, and I can't think of a single reason why I shouldn't be bothered by it.

It doesn't matter how much your gun costs, or what the books say it OUGHT to be able to do. All that matters is what YOU can do WITH it. Nothing more. That's the only REAL yardstick that works when it's time to pull a trigger, and I really, really wish writers today could get to print more on the subject. Again, it's one of the reasons I don't subscribe to any of the glossy mags, and that's sad, because I DO sincerely miss them, or at least the content we USED to get in them. After all, why should I pay my good, hard-earned money to read advertisements that leave out the facts I value and can actually use??? Most writers today aren't even very good shots, in at least some cases, and THEY want to teach ME about shooting???? I think not!

Again, I know this is a very politically incorrect post, but it's pure-hearted, and any who care to just listen, just MIGHT benefit from it, because I am far from alone in this view. The yonger generation has been raised by indoctrination, not by edification where they can think good, honest and valid thoughts on their own, though they often aren't even aware of this. The "group think" has taken over, and individualism, like individuality, has waned in import and popularity. There are consequences for that, too, but that lies beyond the scope of this post and forum, so it's a subject for another day and another place, but my point with regard to shooting and the status of shooters today is valid, and anyone who attends rifle ranges regularly can't help but recognize it.

I've tried at every available opportunity to help whenever and whenever there's an opening to do so, and I'm NOT politically incorrect when I do it, either. Yet my offers are often spurned, even though I can sit there and shoot tiny groups while those who spurn my offers can barely hit the berm, much less the target or bullseye.

Truly, shooting is at its lowest ebb ever in this country, and the lack of good, solid instruction in the glossy mags HAS to bear some responsibility for this. The authors are all too often the only "tutors" we know, or will listen to, and there's way too much silence on this subject for the present situation to change.

One of the reasons our Special Forces have performed so very well is that those boys can SHOOT, and when they fire, the gad guys are likely to fall, or at least be taken out of action. The enemy jumps out in clear view, making themselves nice targets, and unleashes a burst of full auto fire that, while intimidating, often doesn't cut a feather. Thank God it's the enemy that favors this tactic!

We can never know if or when shooting ability might be needed, and it's NOT something that can be taught quickly and easily, as boot camps often prove in our military.

Gun writers DO, at least IMHO, have a responsibility to at least give a decent and diligent try at reversing this treand, though I confess I don't have many suggestions how to get past the ego problems that seem to often prevail these days. Some seem to think they have some sort of RIGHT to shoot well, whether they put any effort into the project or not. And this isn't just a sprinkling here and there, but it's prevalent among folks who do NOT think that way about their businesses and other endeavors. Peculiar, I know, but .... it is what it is, and yes, it DOES worry me, and sometimes frustrate me personally.

My grandsons, age 10 and 15, can outshoot most adults I know these days. Is THAT sensible???? I don't think so, and it HAS to be SOMEONE's responsibility, and the only folks many of them will listen to is you gun writers these days. At least you're the best source of good info on the subject, if you're just allowed and maybe even encouraged to do it. I know darn well many of you are capable.

Just a FWIW, and it can be disregarded, or accepted as a challenge or simple honest advice, or whatever. I'd really like to see more stuff on HOW to shoot well. I'd buy every issue that covered this, probably, and might even think about renewing my subscriptions .... especially IF the gun reviews were a little more honest and apt. FWIW.