Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Can you shoot…?

Nothing in my post was directed at anyone. I just stated my observation after years of shooting, observation of others, and instruction. I guess off-hand is considered a field position, though it is the one that few can hit accurately with at any real distance. It takes mucho practice (agreed) to be decently proficient.

All (other) field postions are more desireable in my opinion/experience, though off-hand may be the only choice in certain conditions/environments.

Better?

deernut: Sure! I wasn't directing my comment to you or anyone in particular....just wondering out loud why off hand is not considered a "field position" since a significant amount of game is killed from that position "in the field"...if you get my drift.

I understand that a lot of people will hunt and almost never use it;and that it's "hard" and takes lots of practice. But I also don't understand how anyone who hunts a lot will not at some point have to do it;and to be reasonably "complete" as an all round game shot,should have some proficiency at it.

That's all.

I found it fascinating over the years to see comments from guys like John Plaster (Sp ?) and Jeff Cooper about the need for accuracy in the rifles they were fond of.
Plaster's comments were that 1 MOA was plenty for sniping. and that 75% of such shooters couldn't use .75 MOA accuracy.
Cooper stated that 2 MOA, even 2.5 MOA was enough for Scout Rifle use. He went on to say that the difference was only one quarter of he difference in group sizes.
Over the years I've had lots of fun chasing MOA or better groups in my hunting rifles. I've got plenty of them that do that or better.
When it comes to shooting critters in the field, I seldom have the time or the location where I can use a prone position. That's one of the major reasons why I don't put bipods on my rifles. They are simply too close to the ground to get a clear shot most of the time.
That leaves off hand, sitting, with or w/o a shooting sling, or perhaps kneeling.
In the last 20 yrs., I've practiced a good bit with everything from sub-MOA ammo to stuff that shoots 2.5 MOA. The only differences I've noticed is rifles with a little extra weight, or at least those that balance on the front guard screw make a difference. Using a shooting sling makes a signifcant difference as well. But I can't honestly say using much more accurate ammo does out of the same rifle.
That's out to 300 yds. or so. Beyond that, I need to have a solid rest, such as a prone position, accurate range information and to make a good wind call. That comes first. I also draw the line at 1.5 MOA ammo or better. In truth, I have not done any significant shooting beyond 300 yds. with 2-2.5 MOA ammo. E

All things being equal, a better shooting rifle is a better shooting rifle.

What's the difference between a "field position" and "off hand"???

I'm surprised you have to ask that question. If you look at my original statement, you'll see it was directed to "gutshotbuck" who equates "field position" with "offhand."

They are not one and the same. Offhand is just one of many possible field positions. The question the OP posed was about field positions, not offhand shooting. In the context of the original question, there's a big difference.

Confidence is never as shallow as that which is derived soley from ideal positions. (There is nothing to ruin one's confidence like a rifle/load combo which shoots little bitty groups from the bench, but fails consistently from more typical hunting positions; nor is there a better way to gain confidence than to shoot well a rifle of undetermined grouping ability in typical positions.)

"Off hand is just one of many possible field positions".....Uhh that would be correct,and was my point.

So, when the OP asked about "field positions" we can reasonably infer that "off hand" is included in any discussion about field positions.

I'm surprised by a lot of things.

Here's the original question:



Sure, off-hand is included, I never said it wasn't. But if you're attempting to answer his question, the answer would apply to all the positions, not just "off-hand."

If you answer the question thinking "off-hand" like gutshotbuck did, you're not really answering the question. Because prone over a solid rest is a different answer altogether.

Besides, anybody who chooses a handle like that deserves a kick in the ass at every opportunity. And I'm happy to oblige.

That's sig material.

I don't notice any practical difference between 1 and 2 MOA bench rest accuracy when using that rifle in the field for big game. But I don't normally shoot at stuff more than 300 yds or so away. And our seasons often include snow (or long grass or brush) so prone shooting of big game is a rarity in my hunting grounds.

What I do notice is how well a rifle handles in field positions. Accuracy from offhand and kneeling are affected far more by handling dynamics and ergonomics than the actual benchrest potential of the rifle.

With a slightly different focus on the same basic topic, I will choose a bullet that is less accurate than one that is extremely accurate every time for hunting critters the size of elk or moose if the less accurate bullet does a better job once it arrives.

I've read way too many times on internet forums "just choose what shoots best in your rifle" and "placement is everything" - I don't agree. Any bullet I use for hunting big critters must expand reliably, stay together without losing too much weight even when big shoulder bones are hit, and penetrate deeply. Rifle / bullet accuracy is not as important as bullet performance as long as the hit is somewhere in the vitals.

Lets see it, 8" paper plates are cheap and will show up down range,kill that first than move on.Just me on this.Kawi