The vitals of a deer being the size of a basketball - would have to be really bad rifle not to hit them at average deer hunting ranges. Those that shoot long range/ELR and should be shooting at that range probably don't need a scope to tell them anything. Those that are shooting long range/ELR and shouldn't be - probably wouldn't listen to the scope anyway.
the older many of us have become the higher the percentage of a kill shot , kids learning to hunt is probably a lower percentage ? too put a percentage on kill shots would be hard ?
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
Wouldn't the measurement really be - average distance of POI from POA on a SINGLE cold bore shot? That's the 1st shot and likely the most important one.
3 shot group, on a deer, shots 2 and 3 would have a PILE of more variables entered - such as the running deer, loss of good mechanics as you hurry to run the bolt and next shots etc.
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
One of the last ways I want to fug up a recreational sport is with probabilities statistics.
The vitals of a deer being the size of a basketball - would have to be really bad rifle not to hit them at average deer hunting ranges.
The problem is for me, that traditional 3 shot groups aren't sufficient in determining if a rifle is good, bad, or really bad and what the chance of making a clean shot is at different distances.
I've gotten a few 3 shot groups from my lever gun under an inch. Best was 3/4". Sounds good right?
But, when aggregating 20 on the same target:
The mean radius is 1.46, which means 50% of shots can be predicted to fall inside of a 3" circle.
The extreme spread (i.e. group size) is 5.2".
The R95 is 3.1, which means 95% of shots can be predicted to fall inside of a 6.2" circle.
When you add the error for rise and drop of the trajectories for different zero points (e.g., 100 yds, 110 yds, 120 yds) and assume a point blank center hold, then off the bench, the gun could be expected to hit a basketball or pie plate with 95% out to about 125 yds. And at 200 yds, the R95 tells us that 95% of the shots should be in a 12.5" circle. That is, long shots don't give me a high hit percentage even if I had a perfect zero dialed in and was shooting from the bench.
Now... I don't want to drag people into a long discussion about how to best determine the accuracy of a gun (although, I'm fine with that). What I really would like to know is what other hunters think is "good enough" on hit likelihoods.I'm pretty conservative and view my lever gun as a 100 to 125 yd gun, which is fine for my uses in the woods. But I can't see using it to hunt meadows and power lines.
What likelihood do you expect from your deer guns?
One of the last ways I want to fug up a recreational sport is with probabilities statistics.
Are you ok with fugging up a buck with a low probability shot? I suspect not.
Even just spitballing a number, what level of confidence do you expect from your gun/ammo when you pull the trigger? 95%, 50%? Or is it just let 'er rip?
The vitals of a deer being the size of a basketball - would have to be really bad rifle not to hit them at average deer hunting ranges.
The problem is for me, that traditional 3 shot groups aren't sufficient in determining if a rifle is good, bad, or really bad and what the chance of making a clean shot is at different distances.
I've gotten a few 3 shot groups from my lever gun under an inch. Best was 3/4". Sounds good right?
But, when aggregating 20 on the same target:
The mean radius is 1.46, which means 50% of shots can be predicted to fall inside of a 3" circle.
The extreme spread (i.e. group size) is 5.2".
The R95 is 3.1, which means 95% of shots can be predicted to fall inside of a 6.2" circle.
When you add the error for rise and drop of the trajectories for different zero points (e.g., 100 yds, 110 yds, 120 yds) and assume a point blank center hold, then off the bench, the gun could be expected to hit a basketball or pie plate with 95% out to about 125 yds. And at 200 yds, the R95 tells us that 95% of the shots should be in a 12.5" circle. That is, long shots don't give me a high hit percentage even if I had a perfect zero dialed in and was shooting from the bench.
Now... I don't want to drag people into a long discussion about how to best determine the accuracy of a gun (although, I'm fine with that). What I really would like to know is what other hunters think is "good enough" on hit likelihoods.I'm pretty conservative and view my lever gun as a 100 to 125 yd gun, which is fine for my uses in the woods. But I can't see using it to hunt meadows and power lines.
What likelihood do you expect from your deer guns?
Again - I don't shoot 3 shot groups at deer. I shoot 1 shot groups. I want to know, on average, the largest deviation I can expect POI from POA from a CBS. I find this tends to be much lower than 3-5 shot groups.
Determining the "accuracy" of a rifle - yeah, group sizing you're talking about makes sense to show how accurate the rifle is overall. But in your lever gun -
How likely was that 5.2 shot as the FIRST shot in the string? To me that's the important piece.
I must admit, I enjoy my lifesize hog gongs at 200 and 300 yards. Can shoot them from the bench or from field positions off your backpack, sitting, etc. Fun and revealing at the same time.
Again - I don't shoot 3 shot groups at deer. I shoot 1 shot groups. I want to know, on average, the largest deviation I can expect POI from POA from a CBS. I find this tends to be much lower than 3-5 shot groups.
Determining the "accuracy" of a rifle - yeah, group sizing you're talking about makes sense to show how accurate the rifle is overall. But in your lever gun -
How likely was that 5.2 shot as the FIRST shot in the string? To me that's the important piece.
Two related, but different issues.
First, how should judge the accuracy of our rigs? We can agree to disagree on if the test target should be created off of a series of single cold bore shots, or 3-shot strings off of a cold bore. I want to know what the gun is capable of if follow up shots are needed and you may not. I'm not looking to shut off discussion of the best test protocol but I'm more interested in the second question.
Second question, what is the minimum hit likelihood do you expect from your hunting gun/ammo? 95%? 50%?
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
Again - I don't shoot 3 shot groups at deer. I shoot 1 shot groups. I want to know, on average, the largest deviation I can expect POI from POA from a CBS. I find this tends to be much lower than 3-5 shot groups.
Determining the "accuracy" of a rifle - yeah, group sizing you're talking about makes sense to show how accurate the rifle is overall. But in your lever gun -
How likely was that 5.2 shot as the FIRST shot in the string? To me that's the important piece.
Two related, but different issues.
First, how should judge the accuracy of our rigs? We can agree to disagree on if the test target should be created off of a series of single cold bore shots, or 3-shot strings off of a cold bore. I want to know what the gun is capable of if follow up shots are needed and you may not. I'm not looking to shut off discussion of the best test protocol but I'm more interested in the second question.
Second question, what is the minimum hit likelihood do you expect from your hunting gun/ammo? 95%? 50%?
Concern for me is the 1 shot deviation from a CBS POA. That's my primary concern because that's the primary execution of my deer rifle. 1st shot. Precision is the 3-5 shot group which has f-all to do with an expected hit on a deer for shot 1 because you can be rather precise but not accurate and being so is unhelpful.
If shot one consistently hits more than .1 mil away from POA and POI is consistent but not anticipated, I'm not actually sighted in, am I?
EVERY group group I shoot, I expect and strive for the groups POI to match POA or within about .3 to .5mil at 100yds - give or take. And that's fun and we all do it, be it 3 or 5 or 10 shots but when talking about ethic/deer - I'm MOST concerned about shot one because get that wrong, rest is a rodeo.
After round 1 on game - hits are on me, not the rifle as running game and my ability to make the corrections plays a MUCH larger role in making that shot than load/barrel consistency. So precision isn't a great indicator of likelihood of me making the next shot.
My ability to swing and fire with lead is a larger influence over the results than static testing on a bench of potential precision to the point where I don't think the average shooter can confidently state "I missed on shots 2 - 5 on that deer because the rifle was imprecise and not because I was inaccurate with my shot".
Ethical hit percentage really is more about shooting ability. If your 1st CBS shot goes POA/POI - how often do you, as a shooter make POA shots in the right spot given external influences such as wind or distance? To me that's where the ethical question comes in - if you have a rifle that shoots POA/POI together and you miss 5/10 shots - that's you, not the rifle or load.
You can't establish a hypothesis/null-hypothesis scenario with infinite variables. Impossible to achieve any statistical relevance with such a set up.
For valid statistical results, the question has to be carefully structured. Otherwise, there is no way to ever determine an answer to a flawed question.
Half the time where I hunt I can hit them what a fuggin rock that I throw. So hitting the target usually isn't an issue. There are exceptions of course.
As I've gotten older, I am surprised on how many heart shots I end up making on a deer each year.
Figure getting older, I'd be a lousier shot.... but maybe experience does count for something.
As I've aged, I can actually get a shot off quicker. Could be the time I spend at the range and also the time and number of ground squirrels I waste about each spring... get something between 5000 to 8000 rounds at them on a summer when I have the time to over to K Falls to shoot them.
Come fall deer season, a deer is a pretty big looking target, even if one the move...
guess varmint shooting in large numbers on small targets has helped me get much more proficient, even if I am getting older and theoretically slower in moving...
The vitals of a deer being the size of a basketball - would have to be really bad rifle not to hit them at average deer hunting ranges.
The problem is for me, that traditional 3 shot groups aren't sufficient in determining if a rifle is good, bad, or really bad and what the chance of making a clean shot is at different distances.
I've gotten a few 3 shot groups from my lever gun under an inch. Best was 3/4". Sounds good right?
But, when aggregating 20 on the same target:
The mean radius is 1.46, which means 50% of shots can be predicted to fall inside of a 3" circle.
The extreme spread (i.e. group size) is 5.2".
The R95 is 3.1, which means 95% of shots can be predicted to fall inside of a 6.2" circle.
When you add the error for rise and drop of the trajectories for different zero points (e.g., 100 yds, 110 yds, 120 yds) and assume a point blank center hold, then off the bench, the gun could be expected to hit a basketball or pie plate with 95% out to about 125 yds. And at 200 yds, the R95 tells us that 95% of the shots should be in a 12.5" circle. That is, long shots don't give me a high hit percentage even if I had a perfect zero dialed in and was shooting from the bench.
Now... I don't want to drag people into a long discussion about how to best determine the accuracy of a gun (although, I'm fine with that). What I really would like to know is what other hunters think is "good enough" on hit likelihoods.I'm pretty conservative and view my lever gun as a 100 to 125 yd gun, which is fine for my uses in the woods. But I can't see using it to hunt meadows and power lines.
What likelihood do you expect from your deer guns?
Young man, I warn you... by telling incontrovertible truth backed with solid numbers...you are risking shunning, hate and discontent here on the campfire. Cherry picked three shot groups on here are no less than Biblical Canon Law...not to be questioned...by mere mortals. Myself, a proponent of one coldbore shot each day for a few days, although not yet banned, have been accused of gay sex with all manner of circus animals.
EVERY group group I shoot, I expect and strive for the groups POI to match POA or within about .3 to .5mil at 100yds - give or take.
To make sure I'm understanding, assuming you are properly zeroed, if you were to take 20 cold bore shots and mark them all on the same target, you would expect that (nearly) all (say, 95%) of them to land inside a circle with a .5 mil radius (approximately 1.8") at 100 yds, yes?
EVERY group group I shoot, I expect and strive for the groups POI to match POA or within about .3 to .5mil at 100yds - give or take.
To make sure I'm understanding, assuming you are properly zeroed, if you were to take 20 cold bore shots and mark them all on the same target, you would expect that (nearly) all (say, 95%) of them to land inside a circle with a .5 mil radius (approximately 1.8") at 100 yds, yes?
I've got several sporter-weight hunting rifles that I consider "fairly accurate" and reliable for some of my longer-range scenarios, which offer shots out to 400-450 yards. Yearly zero check is generally going straight to a 2MOA stenciled circle on a 300yd or 400yd gong for a cold bore shot. If it's landing rather close to the center, I'm satisfied with the zero check and am ready for hunting. I know I have one rifle that's only been given a click or two of adjustment in probably 15 years. And that is not to say that rifles don't get shot at other times of the year, but I generally try to shoot everything in early October so I know all the rifles are 100% ready.
Young man, I warn you... by telling incontrovertible truth backed with solid numbers...you are risking shunning, hate and discontent here on the campfire. Cherry picked three shot groups on here are no less than Biblical Canon Law...not to be questioned...by mere mortals. Myself, a proponent of one coldbore shot each day for a few days, although not yet banned, have been accused of gay sex with all manner of circus animals.
Funny story on the cold bore one shot scenario, I’m at the range this October, amongst other toys were the two rifles on deck for the November hunting season.
Both (.270 Win and 6.5 PRC) rifles had been thoroughly rung out as recently as September so I figured punch one round at 100 yards as a final check. Both printed exactly where I had expected so I put them away and my son and I kept playing with the other toys on hand.
During the next ceasefire a gentleman came up and asked “did you just fire one shot groups?” I replied in the affirmative and explained the guns had been thoroughly rung out a few weeks before and the one shot “groups” were just a final check.
“But they were only one shot groups?!?” With a mildly confused look upon his face. I restated my rational once more to hear “But they were only one shot groups?!?!” With an increasingly confused look on his face.
“Yes” says I and put on my ear pro as the terminus to the conversation and the dude walks away shaking his head. 😃😃
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
My methodology is similar.
What's missing form the OPs question are the environmentals/conditions. Benchrest accuracy of the rifle/ammo at a known distance is just one factor.
I do quite a bit of practicing from field positions, as my backyard range goes out to 760yds, with 545 yds off my back deck.
The conditions, wind etc. and the type of rest/stability have a much great impact on my hit probabilities than the actual accuracy of my rifle/ammo combination. When it comes to rest, this image which was designed to help guys choose the appropriate TGT size in conjunction with support and distance, does a pretty decent job describing the relationship of stability to accuracy:
It's designed for rimfires, but you can see the relationship.
In my case accuracy degrades as stability degrades, and the closer I am to the ground the more stable I am. I'm better prone with front and rear support, than I am just prone. Sitting; I'm better off a tripod than I am just off my backpack. Sitting with a tripod, clamped in with my backpack in my lap as an elbow rest almost rivals prone, etc. etc.
I like to be at least 90% sure of my shot, based on the conditions, which include my rest. So based on my rest and the conditions I might be confident out to 600yds, change up the wind, make it variable, add a less than ideal rest and I might be confident to 300yds with the same rifle ammo combo.
Suppose your scope could calculate and display your hit likelihood in the vitals of a deer based on distance and the accuracy of your gun/ammo system.
What would you consider to be a minimum hit likelihood?
100% (always make the shot) 90% (9 out of 10 hits) 75% (3 out of 4) 67% (2 out of 3) 50% (1 out 2)
It's irrelevant. First off, I came of age deer hunting on Planet 4 MOA with a smoothbore shotgun. Maybe other guys were shooting at 300 yards, but I played it safe and normally hunted out of my bow stands. I think my longest shot on a deer with a shotgun was 20 yards, and when I switched to rifle, it was about the same. I only started pulling the trigger at longer ranges fairly late in my hunting career. Until 20 years ago, my longest shot was about 80 yards. My longest shot to date is 200 yards, taken in 2022. Whenever I pulled the trigger, I was dead-nuts certain I was hitting the boiler room. I've been proved wrong by deflections, but not from improper aim.
Growing up on Planet 4 MOA, I learned the worst thing is to shoot above your weight. Goat rodeos are grueling. It is far better to wait for a stupid gimme shot than it is to go flinging lead and then spend the rest of the morning looking for a spot of blood.
4th reply look what he got, a selfish clod who buys all the .22 ammo he doesn't need and comes here to brag about it as if it's worthy of adulation. Will never admit to being part of the cause of shortage or high prices, a real gentleman indeed !
Funny story on the cold bore one shot scenario, I’m at the range this October, amongst other toys were the two rifles on deck for the November hunting season.
Both (.270 Win and 6.5 PRC) rifles had been thoroughly rung out as recently as September so I figured punch one round at 100 yards as a final check. Both printed exactly where I had expected so I put them away and my son and I kept playing with the other toys on hand.
During the next ceasefire a gentleman came up and asked “did you just fire one shot groups?” I replied in the affirmative and explained the guns had been thoroughly rung out a few weeks before and the one shot “groups” were just a final check.
“But they were only one shot groups?!?” With a mildly confused look upon his face. I restated my rational once more to hear “But they were only one shot groups?!?!” With an increasingly confused look on his face.
“Yes” says I and put on my ear pro as the terminus to the conversation and the dude walks away shaking his head. 😃😃
You had already proven precision to your satisfaction with groups. You just wanted to confirm the first shot would land where the crosshairs said it should. Makes perfect sense to me. I have my grandfather's old Remington 740 30-06. It doesn't group very well by today's standards but it puts that first shot where it needs to go. It fires one shot and something dies, so it still gets the job done.
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
So you are the “loose nut” when shooting off the bench anyways. Build your loads. You want to gather statistical data… go shoot 1 round in the field, once a day at the same target. Treat the bore how you please, do that X amount of times and look at your “data”. Calculated probability doesn’t owe you $hit the day you are going to take the shot but being confident and competent helps. Want to know how you’re doing? Shoot a bunch of steel in a variety of set ups at a variety of ranges. Your summary statistics won’t build your confidence.
I didn't read this entire thread so excuse me if I missed it but I think the op is going at this whole thing bass ackwards. My criteria for shots on deer is how far a shot I can make with 100% certainty that it will be lethal. That obviously changes depending on which caliber and the accuracy of the particular rifle. My limit with an iron sighted 30-30 is considerably shorter than with a proven accurate bolt gun with a dialable scope.
One of the last ways I want to fug up a recreational sport is with probabilities statistics.
Are you ok with fugging up a buck with a low probability shot? I suspect not.
Even just spitballing a number, what level of confidence do you expect from your gun/ammo when you pull the trigger? 95%, 50%? Or is it just let 'er rip?
No protein goes to waste in the wild, that circle of life thing. So if you wound an animal and don't recover it, when dies it feeds other animals and whatever is left fertilizes the ground.
I don't advocate squeezing the trigger unless the shooter has a high degree of confidence that his/her first shot will be fatal, but not everyone feels the same way. I'd like to see all hunters practice enough to improve their shooting skills, but I know that a lot of hunters shoot less than 20 rounds of ammo per year from their primary hunting rifle.
One of the last ways I want to fug up a recreational sport is with probabilities statistics.
Are you ok with fugging up a buck with a low probability shot? I suspect not.
Even just spitballing a number, what level of confidence do you expect from your gun/ammo when you pull the trigger? 95%, 50%? Or is it just let 'er rip?
No protein goes to waste in the wild, that circle of life thing. So if you wound an animal and don't recover it, when dies it feeds other animals and whatever is left fertilizes the ground.
I don't advocate squeezing the trigger unless the shooter has a high degree of confidence that his/her first shot will be fatal, but not everyone feels the same way. I'd like to see all hunters practice enough to improve their shooting skills, but I know that a lot of hunters shoot less than 20 rounds of ammo per year from their primary hunting rifle.
And I know of several that can make a box of 20 rounds last several years.
Suppose your scope could calculate and display your hit likelihood in the vitals of a deer based on distance and the accuracy of your gun/ammo system. What would you consider to be a minimum hit likelihood? 100% (always make the shot) 90% (9 out of 10 hits) 75% (3 out of 4) 67% (2 out of 3) 50% (1 out 2)
Without making a systematic, accurate approach to the subject like you suggest I would say that I generally will take a shot when the chances of making a vital shot are 75%+.
I say generally because the specifics of each hunt can be quite different. If I am stalking deer in my lease, that meaning I can hunt there whenever I want, I will never risk a 50/50 shot, but if I am on the 5th day of a 6 day hunt, at 14,000 ft in the Karakorum mountains of Pakistan, and see the weather changing -which is a real case scenario- I will take the chance.
100% is simply not possible. There are too many variables in field shooting that are outside our control: a gust of wind at the last second, a cramp just as you are breaking the trigger, a squib load, a scope that had its zero shift unexpectedly, etc. Having said that, I want to make sure that all variables within my control are controlled and I have a 95% chance of success.
100% is simply not possible. There are too many variables in field shooting that are outside our control: a gust of wind at the last second, a cramp just as you are breaking the trigger, a squib load, a scope that had its zero shift unexpectedly, etc. Having said that, I want to make sure that all variables within my control are controlled and I have a 95% chance of success.
Good assessment, Never really thought about what could happen with the things that are outside your control. That being said.
My thoughts are, if you don't have the shot needed to cleanly kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
One of the last ways I want to fug up a recreational sport is with probabilities statistics.
Are you ok with fugging up a buck with a low probability shot? I suspect not.
Even just spitballing a number, what level of confidence do you expect from your gun/ammo when you pull the trigger? 95%, 50%? Or is it just let 'er rip?
No protein goes to waste in the wild, that circle of life thing. So if you wound an animal and don't recover it, when dies it feeds other animals and whatever is left fertilizes the ground.
I don't advocate squeezing the trigger unless the shooter has a high degree of confidence that his/her first shot will be fatal, but not everyone feels the same way. I'd like to see all hunters practice enough to improve their shooting skills, but I know that a lot of hunters shoot less than 20 rounds of ammo per year from their primary hunting rifle.
And I know of several that can make a box of 20 rounds last several years.
I recall seeing a Federal print ad from the 1970s or 1980s that featured 2 brothers/ranchers who shared one rifle and one box of Federal ammo, telling how many elk that they have killed with that one rifle and one box of ammo over several years. I thought that since Federal was in the business of selling ammo, those guys weren't contributing much to the success of the company if they made one box of ammo last for several years.
Suppose your scope could calculate and display your hit likelihood in the vitals of a deer based on distance and the accuracy of your gun/ammo system.
What would you consider to be a minimum hit likelihood?
100% (always make the shot) 90% (9 out of 10 hits) 75% (3 out of 4) 67% (2 out of 3) 50% (1 out 2)
IMHO "ethical" requires 100%. Taking a shot with anything but 100% certainty means some other factor is outweighing ethics. That may be necessary in some situations, ethical or not.
Suppose your scope could calculate and display your hit likelihood in the vitals of a deer based on distance and the accuracy of your gun/ammo system.
What would you consider to be a minimum hit likelihood?
100% (always make the shot) 90% (9 out of 10 hits) 75% (3 out of 4) 67% (2 out of 3) 50% (1 out 2)
IMHO "ethical" requires 100%. Taking a shot with anything but 100% certainty means some other factor is outweighing ethics. That may be necessary in some situations, ethical or not.
As Jordan already pointed out, even if you have 100% confidence in your ability to place the shot, 100% in the outcome is not possible.
And I know some people like to say anything less than 100% is "unethical" but think about it for a minute, you're shooting at the animal and trying to kill it. It's not painless for the animal. People talk about "a humane kill," and sometimes you get the pinnacle of that with a CNS shot that turns the lights out instantly. Sometimes you don't, and the animal might run a hundred yards and take a few minutes to expire. Is one an "ethical" and "humane" death and the other not?
I'm an ethical sonofabitch the first four weeks of the season. When it gets down to the last few days and no meat hanging...things tend to go downhill. Snork. Although, in my defense, I haven't wounded a deer or elk in over 30 years...ethics? or luck? or Injun skills? Maybe a little of all. Experience shouldn't be discounted either, if those crosshairs don't settle in the first second and a half...the finger doesn't twitch, it's subconscious and involuntary. Perhaps, somehow, mixed up in all this is my preference for a set trigger or 2 stage...which very few American hunters prefer...it requires some self discipline of the trigger finger. I doubt you can assign numerical values to the style of hunting where the target is may be moving, offhand position, limited visibility, steep terrain..all pointing toward snap shooting. Bean field and treehouse hunting, yes.
I think the OP was fishing. Some guys can't shoot for schidt, some guy have schidty shooting rifles. Some guys don't know how to ethically kill an animal with the first shot, some guys never practice, to know what their equipment is really capable of. I personally don't pull the trigger, unless I know the shot is going to kill the big game animal I'm after. There's 100% chance of that happening on a deer or elk. A measly prairie dog, or yote, who gives a schidt?
I was at the range right before deer season over here, a guy staples up a target:
Fires of those 5 shots (about a 6" group at 100 yards) and proclaims, "that's good enough for the girls I go out with", or something to that effect. Sorry, not good enough for me. Especially when he was shooting off a bench. Makes me wonder how many deer he wounded last year..
I think your guy is/was a former resident of California...normal conditions here would be, rifle rested on the pickup mirror out the window, headlights on high beam illuminating the buck...all without spilling his beer. Some damn fine shootin' by California standards. Only thing I question about the veracity of your post...normally here, sight-in is done on the standard 55 mph limit sign.
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
GRF; Top of the morning, BC time its still technically morning, regardless I trust you and your fine family are well.
Once more I find myself agreeing with your methodology sir.
Since you and I have both met and conversed a number of times, I'll leave it to your good discretion as to the amount that should concern you.
Speaking of shooting milk jugs and plates, this video showed up in my feed this morning and whether or not one likes the channel, I thought there were lessons to be learned from it.
Regarding your testing of the first shot out of a cold, clean bore, besides a hearty "Amen" from me, I'll give credit to Mike Venturino for an article on that subject way, way back in dinosaur times for my moment of epiphany.
At the time I had a BBR '06 that shot it's best when the barrel was hot enough to barely be able to touch it.
Also in that time period I had rebarreled a Liberty Model 77 to .308 Norma that refused to settle down until about the 3rd shot. Oh and I'd rebarreled it from a .338 factory barrel that would just toss a flyer at random with seemingly no pattern at all, so I'd quit hunting with it because I never knew when that one would show up.
Years, well truly decades later now, that same .308 Norma has stayed sighted in for the past 12 or 13 seasons and as long as the pre season couple of shots land where they need to, I know I'm good to go for another year.
Many roads to Mecca as always and this is merely the horse path that this semi-ancient BC redneck is currently trodding upon.
All the best to you all, have to run now and work on a project at the kids' place.
I think the OP was fishing. Some guys can't shoot for schidt, some guy have schidty shooting rifles. Some guys don't know how to ethically kill an animal with the first shot, some guys never practice, to know what their equipment is really capable of. I personally don't pull the trigger, unless I know the shot is going to kill the big game animal I'm after. There's 100% chance of that happening on a deer or elk. A measly prairie dog, or yote, who gives a schidt?
I was at the range right before deer season over here, a guy staples up a target:
Fires of those 5 shots (about a 6" group at 100 yards) and proclaims, "that's good enough for the girls I go out with", or something to that effect. Sorry, not good enough for me. Especially when he was shooting off a bench. Makes me wonder how many deer he wounded last year..
A 6" group from any of my rifle's, scoped, open sighted, wouldn't matter, would not be near acceptable. That said, the vital outlay on that deer is not accurate IMO. Needs to be down, and moved forward. Also can't speak to the actual size in that picture, but the lungs look a tad small to me. Completely deflated & collapsed lungs pulled out on a killed deer are not to be confused with the size of fully inflated lungs.
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
GRF; Top of the morning, BC time its still technically morning, regardless I trust you and your fine family are well.
Once more I find myself agreeing with your methodology sir.
Since you and I have both met and conversed a number of times, I'll leave it to your good discretion as to the amount that should concern you.
Speaking of shooting milk jugs and plates, this video showed up in my feed this morning and whether or not one likes the channel, I thought there were lessons to be learned from it.
Regarding your testing of the first shot out of a cold, clean bore, besides a hearty "Amen" from me, I'll give credit to Mike Venturino for an article on that subject way, way back in dinosaur times for my moment of epiphany.
At the time I had a BBR '06 that shot it's best when the barrel was hot enough to barely be able to touch it.
Also in that time period I had rebarreled a Liberty Model 77 to .308 Norma that refused to settle down until about the 3rd shot. Oh and I'd rebarreled it from a .338 factory barrel that would just toss a flyer at random with seemingly no pattern at all, so I'd quit hunting with it because I never knew when that one would show up.
Years, well truly decades later now, that same .308 Norma has stayed sighted in for the past 12 or 13 seasons and as long as the pre season couple of shots land where they need to, I know I'm good to go for another year.
Many roads to Mecca as always and this is merely the horse path that this semi-ancient BC redneck is currently trodding upon.
All the best to you all, have to run now and work on a project at the kids' place.
Dwayne
Wow. That video will deflate a lot of internet ego's. I found it interesting that supposedly the ranging with a rangefinder was causing a lot of issues, which I actually might buy because of the amount of misses under 300 yds. And that was at targets, not live game. I find it amusing and frustrating watching some of these hunting shows and everybody wants to know the range, and you will hear it whispered 155 yds, 130 yds, etc. Any deer under 225 yds or so I might not know the yardage but I will know if I do my part I can hold on the deer and hit it. No need to range, just be able to reasonably judge range and shoot decent. All that equipment and only 4 out of 8 targets hit between 200-300 yds. Geeze. Beyond 400 it got completely abysmal. Not that I could've done any better.
I will say bringing a un-braked 300 WM in a Tikka when planning on shooting 100 shots in field positions was a poor choice.
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
GRF; Top of the morning, BC time its still technically morning, regardless I trust you and your fine family are well.
Once more I find myself agreeing with your methodology sir.
Since you and I have both met and conversed a number of times, I'll leave it to your good discretion as to the amount that should concern you.
Speaking of shooting milk jugs and plates, this video showed up in my feed this morning and whether or not one likes the channel, I thought there were lessons to be learned from it.
Regarding your testing of the first shot out of a cold, clean bore, besides a hearty "Amen" from me, I'll give credit to Mike Venturino for an article on that subject way, way back in dinosaur times for my moment of epiphany.
At the time I had a BBR '06 that shot it's best when the barrel was hot enough to barely be able to touch it.
Also in that time period I had rebarreled a Liberty Model 77 to .308 Norma that refused to settle down until about the 3rd shot. Oh and I'd rebarreled it from a .338 factory barrel that would just toss a flyer at random with seemingly no pattern at all, so I'd quit hunting with it because I never knew when that one would show up.
Years, well truly decades later now, that same .308 Norma has stayed sighted in for the past 12 or 13 seasons and as long as the pre season couple of shots land where they need to, I know I'm good to go for another year.
Many roads to Mecca as always and this is merely the horse path that this semi-ancient BC redneck is currently trodding upon.
All the best to you all, have to run now and work on a project at the kids' place.
Dwayne
Wow. That video will deflate a lot of internet ego's. I found it interesting that supposedly the ranging with a rangefinder was causing a lot of issues, which I actually might buy because of the amount of misses under 300 yds. And that was at targets, not live game. I find it amusing and frustrating watching some of these hunting shows and everybody wants to know the range, and you will hear it whispered 155 yds, 130 yds, etc. Any deer under 225 yds or so I might not know the yardage but I will know if I do my part I can hold on the deer and hit it. No need to range, just be able to reasonably judge range and shoot decent. All that equipment and only 4 out of 8 targets hit between 200-300 yds. Geeze. Beyond 400 it got completely abysmal. Not that I could've done any better.
I will say bringing a un-braked 300 WM in a Tikka when planning on shooting 100 shots in field positions was a poor choice.
Pretty interesting to see his confidence when it's clear he hasn't learned how to follow through on his shots - one of the shooting fundamentals - and his head jerks up at the trigger break every time.
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
GRF; Top of the morning, BC time its still technically morning, regardless I trust you and your fine family are well.
Once more I find myself agreeing with your methodology sir.
Since you and I have both met and conversed a number of times, I'll leave it to your good discretion as to the amount that should concern you.
Speaking of shooting milk jugs and plates, this video showed up in my feed this morning and whether or not one likes the channel, I thought there were lessons to be learned from it.
Regarding your testing of the first shot out of a cold, clean bore, besides a hearty "Amen" from me, I'll give credit to Mike Venturino for an article on that subject way, way back in dinosaur times for my moment of epiphany.
At the time I had a BBR '06 that shot it's best when the barrel was hot enough to barely be able to touch it.
Also in that time period I had rebarreled a Liberty Model 77 to .308 Norma that refused to settle down until about the 3rd shot. Oh and I'd rebarreled it from a .338 factory barrel that would just toss a flyer at random with seemingly no pattern at all, so I'd quit hunting with it because I never knew when that one would show up.
Years, well truly decades later now, that same .308 Norma has stayed sighted in for the past 12 or 13 seasons and as long as the pre season couple of shots land where they need to, I know I'm good to go for another year.
Many roads to Mecca as always and this is merely the horse path that this semi-ancient BC redneck is currently trodding upon.
All the best to you all, have to run now and work on a project at the kids' place.
Dwayne
Wow. That video will deflate a lot of internet ego's. I found it interesting that supposedly the ranging with a rangefinder was causing a lot of issues, which I actually might buy because of the amount of misses under 300 yds. And that was at targets, not live game. I find it amusing and frustrating watching some of these hunting shows and everybody wants to know the range, and you will hear it whispered 155 yds, 130 yds, etc. Any deer under 225 yds or so I might not know the yardage but I will know if I do my part I can hold on the deer and hit it. No need to range, just be able to reasonably judge range and shoot decent. All that equipment and only 4 out of 8 targets hit between 200-300 yds. Geeze. Beyond 400 it got completely abysmal. Not that I could've done any better.
I will say bringing a un-braked 300 WM in a Tikka when planning on shooting 100 shots in field positions was a poor choice.
Pretty interesting to see his confidence when it's clear he hasn't learned how to follow through on his shots - one of the shooting fundamentals - and his head jerks up at the trigger break every time.
I'm not gonna bash on him too much, other than to say 98% of those misses between 2-300 yds could've been eliminated by being able to decently judge yardage all by himself, no big holdover necessary, and a simple 3-9 scope, which comes back to simply knowing your rifle and the fact that the majority of all game is killed under 300 yds. And, that a light Tikka in a 300 WM was not the best rifle for that scenario with continuous shooting in field positions.
I know 3 guys personally this past yr that have the gear to shoot at distance, and do. 2 out of the 3 killed deer between 5-600 yds. Impressed me until I later learned some very important details. One guy hit his deer on the 2'cnd shot. The other hit his deer on the third shot. The last guy missed at 400 and some yards and didn't get a second chance. Not to say I wouldn't attempt it under the right circumstances, but in general, no thank you. I'll stick to what I'm doing.
Thanks for the video Dwayne I just finished watching it. Very eye opening. Agree with Jordan he is lacking in follow through and was jerking the trigger on occasion.
To go 100 for 100 up to 600 yards, incredibly difficult and well outside of my skills.
I've definitely taken some shots that in hindsight I shouldn't have taken, but I try to never pull the trigger unless I expect to hit my target. We make the best decisions we can with the information we have at the time we pull the trigger. That's all any of us can do. Last year I had a clean miss on a nice buck that was running flat out. He jumped up out of a gully as I came over the crest of the ridge. I had less than a second to make the decision and as I pulled the trigger I knew I was too late. As I raised the rifle, I could see that I wouldn't get the space I needed to make the shot because of the density of the forest. As I pulled the trigger, I knew I didn't have enough space between his nose and my muzzle. I knew I was going to miss as I fired. But the round went downrange all the same because I had rushed it. And then I spent an hour beating the brush to make sure there was no sign of blood or hair. Five minutes after that I headed down the mountain in the same direction I had last seen that buck and a different, much smaller, buck jumped up and stopped. He was quartering away from me left to right and he stopped to look back over his shoulder at me. I dropped him on the spot at 50 yards with my .25-06. Not the hardest shot I have ever made by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't make up for the sting of missing the other buck, but at least I am reasonably certain that I missed him clean.
I don't have unlimited time in the woods. I might get to go rifle hunting four days in a given year, if I am lucky. So, you bet your ass that if I have a reasonable shot, I am going to take it. Perfect conditions don't exist in the real world. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I'm not out there blazing away at everything, but I'll shoot at a running buck in heavy brush if I have a rifle that I think can get the bullet there. That may be a "low percentage shot" by the books, but if you practice and train to take moving shots, and you know how to lead and follow through, it is something you can do with a reasonable chance of success. On the other hand, if I see a buck at 300 yards while I have my Winchester 1886 .45-70 with iron sights, you can bet your ass I will try to find a way to stalk up within a hundred yards or less. Stalking is part of hunting skill. It's not all about shooting ability. If I want to demonstrate my shooting ability, I can shoot at paper targets. The only test of hunting ability is meat on the table. And being able to look yourself in the mirror without wanting to puke.
I once watched my Dad drop three does with four shots at ~600 yards (all four were hits, but he shot one of them twice). He was sitting down and using a very accurate Browning Hi-Power Safari in 7mm Rem Magnum. Those were shots I would never have taken, but he'd been carrying that rifle everywhere for the past six months, had spent a lot of time working up the perfect load for it, and was supremely confident in his abilities. I would have taken advantage of terrain to cut that distance at least in half before I took the shot. But, for him, that was the pinnacle of his hunting.
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
GRF; Top of the morning, BC time its still technically morning, regardless I trust you and your fine family are well.
Once more I find myself agreeing with your methodology sir.
Since you and I have both met and conversed a number of times, I'll leave it to your good discretion as to the amount that should concern you.
Speaking of shooting milk jugs and plates, this video showed up in my feed this morning and whether or not one likes the channel, I thought there were lessons to be learned from it.
Dwayne
I guess I have a new goal in life. Dirty Harry says, "a man's got to know his limitations." That's one Marine who clearly didn't know his limitations or do himself any favors. Busting his forehead open while checking his zero should have been a clue that he wasn't prepared. And I have no doubt that doing that would have [bleep] with my confidence. Some people are confident only because they don't have a [bleep] clue what they are doing. I know someone who won a Bronze Star for running across a mine field to bring his squad more ammo. The person who wrote the award left out the fact that the Naval Academy graduate in question was cluelessly unaware that it was a mine field.
Then again, as I said elsewhere, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I'm proud of the fact that every time I went on the range, I always shot a possible at the 300-rapid fire. But by no means would I expect that to translate to perfection at unknown distances over a span of 100 shots between 100 and 600 yards. That's a challenge that is as hard as it sounds. I've known plenty of HOGs who wouldn't do that successfully. Just firing 100 high-powered rifle rounds (for me, almost anything over 5.56 would be "high-powered") in one sitting would be something novel to me. I don't think I have ever fired more than a box of .257 Roberts/.25-06/.270/.30-06/8mm/etc. in a given day. And practicing the effects of that kind of volume on my shooting would be the first thing I did before I took up such a challenge.
Out of the 70 or 80 Mule Deer and Blacktail bucks/does that I have killed I can remember two shots that I still remember to this day. One was a big doe at close range walking up a hill. I shot for her head and she went down DRT. As I walked over to her, she jumped up and ran downhill, with her lower jaw swinging as she ran. I gave up after several hours of trying to find her. The second was a small buck that I did not kill, but bounced one off of his forehead. I never found him and am sure he recovered. I swore NEVER to try a head shot again, and I haven't. And have encouraged others to do the same. As a final thought, 80% or more of the animals I have taken are from a sitting or prone position. I practice occasionally throughout the spring, summer, and fall, and am capable of frequent 4" groups at 300 yards, a lot smaller off of a bench. I have never lost an animal at medium range all of my losses have been under 200 yards.
I shoot a good deal of jugs and steel plate at distances from 200 to 450 yards throughout the spring to early fall.
Distance on game with a particular rifle is limited to the ranges where I was 100% successful during the final weeks of practice. Meaning I hit the jug or the painted circle on the plate first time and every time.
Reality of course is more challenging than practice, so I am accepting a less than 100% chance of success, but I am shooting under conditions where I have assessed my equipment and skill sets as being up to the task.
I'd hope most guys do this or similar.
OP- I restrict my shots to only taking those in which I fully expect a dead deer when i squeeze off. What is that? 90? 95% 100? I dont know.
Through experience at the range and in field, I've learned that for me this means taking offhand shots at moving game in timber is out. Period. I dont accept a 50-50 shot on game animals. (why I accept it on varmint is, I think, another thread).
Some seasons, with more practice, I extend my range limitation. Others, less. I tend to hunt closer and quieter when I range restrict myself.
Disclosure, 99% of my big game hunting is with some form of Muzzleloader.
... Then again, as I said elsewhere, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Yeah, ok Gretsky.
Originally Posted by Q_Sertorius
I'm proud of the fact that every time I went on the range, I always shot a possible at the 300-rapid fire.
But by no means would I expect that to translate to perfection at unknown distances over a span of 100 shots between 100 and 600 yards. That's a challenge that is as hard as it sounds. I've known plenty of HOGs who wouldn't do that successfully. Just firing 100 high-powered rifle rounds (for me, almost anything over 5.56 would be "high-powered") in one sitting would be something novel to me. I don't think I have ever fired more than a box of .257 Roberts/.25-06/.270/.30-06/8mm/etc. in a given day. And practicing the effects of that kind of volume on my shooting would be the first thing I did before I took up such a challenge.
^ sniff sniff. AI trollbot, 13 year old, or future scammer post padding?
Meh, maybe I am jaded. That final sentence though... I dunno man. ESL at the very least.
... Then again, as I said elsewhere, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Yeah, ok Gretsky.
Originally Posted by Q_Sertorius
I'm proud of the fact that every time I went on the range, I always shot a possible at the 300-rapid fire.
But by no means would I expect that to translate to perfection at unknown distances over a span of 100 shots between 100 and 600 yards. That's a challenge that is as hard as it sounds. I've known plenty of HOGs who wouldn't do that successfully. Just firing 100 high-powered rifle rounds (for me, almost anything over 5.56 would be "high-powered") in one sitting would be something novel to me. I don't think I have ever fired more than a box of .257 Roberts/.25-06/.270/.30-06/8mm/etc. in a given day. And practicing the effects of that kind of volume on my shooting would be the first thing I did before I took up such a challenge.
^ sniff sniff. AI trollbot, 13 year old, or future scammer post padding?
Meh, maybe I am jaded. That final sentence though... I dunno man. ESL at the very least.
4th reply look what he got, a selfish clod who buys all the .22 ammo he doesn't need and comes here to brag about it as if it's worthy of adulation. Will never admit to being part of the cause of shortage or high prices, a real gentleman indeed !
The vitals of a deer being the size of a basketball - would have to be really bad rifle not to hit them at average deer hunting ranges. Those that shoot long range/ELR and should be shooting at that range probably don't need a scope to tell them anything. Those that are shooting long range/ELR and shouldn't be - probably wouldn't listen to the scope anyway.
And if one can't make a good hit by aiming at the top of that basketball, they are probably too far away.
Shooting from field positions solidifies that, as most would have a clean miss anyway.
Have never needed a second shot on "big" game. If conditions are not right, I won't shoot. I will not take a shot that isn't 100% I don't want to eat meat that was wounded, gut shot, or otherwise stressed. Birds, prairie dogs and varmints are a different story.
... Then again, as I said elsewhere, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Yeah, ok Gretsky.
Originally Posted by Q_Sertorius
I'm proud of the fact that every time I went on the range, I always shot a possible at the 300-rapid fire.
But by no means would I expect that to translate to perfection at unknown distances over a span of 100 shots between 100 and 600 yards. That's a challenge that is as hard as it sounds. I've known plenty of HOGs who wouldn't do that successfully. Just firing 100 high-powered rifle rounds (for me, almost anything over 5.56 would be "high-powered") in one sitting would be something novel to me. I don't think I have ever fired more than a box of .257 Roberts/.25-06/.270/.30-06/8mm/etc. in a given day. And practicing the effects of that kind of volume on my shooting would be the first thing I did before I took up such a challenge.
^ sniff sniff. AI trollbot, 13 year old, or future scammer post padding?
Meh, maybe I am jaded. That final sentence though... I dunno man. ESL at the very least.
Is this forum so full of old farts that you cannot recognize a new member? What about my post suggests that I am trolling?
What is unclear about the last sentence? I've never fired more than 20 rounds of "high-powered rifle" ammo in a day (as I said, 5.56 doesn't count). I spent 15 years in the Marine Corps. I shot expert on the rifle range every time I went - including always shooting a possible on the 300-rapid (a "possible" means all points possible. It's particularly gratifying because they just put up one nice big plate over the target instead of marking your individual hits. So everyone sees how well you did). But that doesn't mean that I would consider myself prepared to attempt the challenge in the video - 100 perfect shots at unknown distances up to 600 meters. Before I set out to attempt a challenge like the one in the video, I would have to see how well I handled simply firing that many shots from a high-powered rifle in one sitting.
I don't get to practice long range. The longest shooting range I have access to within 20 miles is 200 yards. There is a 300 yard range in the next County but I'm not paying dues and driving 50 miles to shoot there . That said, I would very likely smoke every jug out to 300 yards at least with my .223, .22-250 or .243. I've killed boat loads of woodchucks with those rifles and will rarely miss one out to that distance. That's from a 200 yard zero using a duplex reticle and old fashioned Kentucky windage for the longer shots. It's rather amusing how so many shooters these days are so dependant on modern technology and need to dial their scope to the exact yardage to hit anything at distaces that were considered routine 40 years ago using a simple crosshair and a bit of holdover.
Out of the 70 or 80 Mule Deer and Blacktail bucks/does that I have killed I can remember two shots that I still remember to this day. One was a big doe at close range walking up a hill. I shot for her head and she went down DRT. As I walked over to her, she jumped up and ran downhill, with her lower jaw swinging as she ran. I gave up after several hours of trying to find her. The second was a small buck that I did not kill, but bounced one off of his forehead. I never found him and am sure he recovered. I swore NEVER to try a head shot again, and I haven't. And have encouraged others to do the same. As a final thought, 80% or more of the animals I have taken are from a sitting or prone position. I practice occasionally throughout the spring, summer, and fall, and am capable of frequent 4" groups at 300 yards, a lot smaller off of a bench. I have never lost an animal at medium range all of my losses have been under 200 yards.
You sound like an honest and ethical hunter by your description. You practice. You are proficient with your rifle. You adopt the most supported positions before taking a shot. But even you are willing to admit that you have had a very small percentage of hunts that didn't go as expected.
Those are the memories that stick with you. My friend John shot a deer we didn't recover last year. He had a clear broadside shot at under 100 yards using a .270. I used the same rifle to to take at least a dozen deer over the years. John didn't have tons of practice with that particular rifle, but he had fired five rounds into a nice group before we went hunting. He said he had a good shot on the vital area. The amount of blood at the spot where he fired made me confident the deer could not have gone more than 50 yards. I fully expected to find it at the bottom of the small gully just past where he shot it. We waited about 30 minutes, then started tracking it. We followed a strong blood trail for about 3/4 of a mile up and down some really tough terrain (we were going parallel to the top of the mountain, which meant going over numerous fingers and draws). Then the trail just stopped on top of one of the fingers. We marked the last point and started fanning out. No more blood. No sign of the deer. We checked every water source around. We followed every deer path in the area. We looked from roughly 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM. It was cold outside, so we spent the entire next day looking for it too, including back tracking along the original path. But we never found the deer. My buddy is still sick about that shot. I have no doubt that he feels that sick feeling in the pit of his stomach every time he thinks about hunting again. The whole experience sucked so hard for me that I am considering making my next dog a scent hound. The idea of leaving an animal to suffer and of wasting meat is abhorrent to me.
But the basic premise of this thread was attempting to assign a percentage to how comfortable you feel taking the shot. That's like trying to assign a percentage to "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There is no percentage associated with reasonable doubt. I don't think you can really express - at least not honestly - how confident you really are at the moment you take a shot. My experience has generally been that most people who are 100% confident of anything, are some combination of ignorant, stupid, arrogant, zealous, or dishonest. There are very few things in this world in which I have absolute faith (death, taxes, and the Government solution will make the problem worse, not better).
... Then again, as I said elsewhere, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Yeah, ok Gretsky.
Originally Posted by Q_Sertorius
I'm proud of the fact that every time I went on the range, I always shot a possible at the 300-rapid fire.
But by no means would I expect that to translate to perfection at unknown distances over a span of 100 shots between 100 and 600 yards. That's a challenge that is as hard as it sounds. I've known plenty of HOGs who wouldn't do that successfully. Just firing 100 high-powered rifle rounds (for me, almost anything over 5.56 would be "high-powered") in one sitting would be something novel to me. I don't think I have ever fired more than a box of .257 Roberts/.25-06/.270/.30-06/8mm/etc. in a given day. And practicing the effects of that kind of volume on my shooting would be the first thing I did before I took up such a challenge.
^ sniff sniff. AI trollbot, 13 year old, or future scammer post padding?
Meh, maybe I am jaded. That final sentence though... I dunno man. ESL at the very least.
I have a backyard range and shoot fairly often. I say I shoot rimfire 3 times as much as center fire. That said, when I pull the trigger, I expect to make a hit, I am not naive enough to think a single shot is enough. If it’s still standing, I’m still shooting.
I took my buck last year at 30 yards so not much of an example of marksmanship. I also shot at a doe as she was walking through the woods at 80 yards and never found her or any sign of a hit. I have made that shot multiple times over the years. I had enough confidence that I looked for her for two days.
Verified rifle zero, cannot find where bullet was deflected. I truly believe I just missed some how. It happens unfortunately
... Then again, as I said elsewhere, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Yeah, ok Gretsky.
Originally Posted by Q_Sertorius
I'm proud of the fact that every time I went on the range, I always shot a possible at the 300-rapid fire.
But by no means would I expect that to translate to perfection at unknown distances over a span of 100 shots between 100 and 600 yards. That's a challenge that is as hard as it sounds. I've known plenty of HOGs who wouldn't do that successfully. Just firing 100 high-powered rifle rounds (for me, almost anything over 5.56 would be "high-powered") in one sitting would be something novel to me. I don't think I have ever fired more than a box of .257 Roberts/.25-06/.270/.30-06/8mm/etc. in a given day. And practicing the effects of that kind of volume on my shooting would be the first thing I did before I took up such a challenge.
^ sniff sniff. AI trollbot, 13 year old, or future scammer post padding?
Meh, maybe I am jaded. That final sentence though... I dunno man. ESL at the very least.
Smells like Maser.
Yep. “If it smells like dog schitt or walks like a duck … “ 🤪
Here he is responding to his on Maser / Slavek posts:
I don't get to practice long range. The longest shooting range I have access to within 20 miles is 200 yards. There is a 300 yard range in the next County but I'm not paying dues and driving 50 miles to shoot there . That said, I would very likely smoke every jug out to 300 yards at least with my .223, .22-250 or .243. I've killed boat loads of woodchucks with those rifles and will rarely miss one out to that distance. That's from a 200 yard zero using a duplex reticle and old fashioned Kentucky windage for the longer shots. It's rather amusing how so many shooters these days are so dependant on modern technology and need to dial their scope to the exact yardage to hit anything at distaces that were considered routine 40 years ago using a simple crosshair and a bit of holdover.
Blackheart, You have finally said something that makes sense, 100--200-300 yards are all chip shots with almost any rifle and scope i don't know any one that starts dialing inside of 300 yards, all the calibers you listed should do real well at the ranges you are using them. good luck Rio7
I didn't read this entire thread so excuse me if I missed it but I think the op is going at this whole thing bass ackwards. My criteria for shots on deer is how far a shot I can make with 100% certainty that it will be lethal. That obviously changes depending on which caliber and the accuracy of the particular rifle. My limit with an iron sighted 30-30 is considerably shorter than with a proven accurate bolt gun with a dialable scope.
My criteria for shots on deer is how far a shot I can make with 100% certainty that it will be lethal.
This ^
Doesn't always work out that way but if not 100%, it's me, not my gear!
I don't get to practice long range. The longest shooting range I have access to within 20 miles is 200 yards. There is a 300 yard range in the next County but I'm not paying dues and driving 50 miles to shoot there . That said, I would very likely smoke every jug out to 300 yards at least with my .223, .22-250 or .243. I've killed boat loads of woodchucks with those rifles and will rarely miss one out to that distance. That's from a 200 yard zero using a duplex reticle and old fashioned Kentucky windage for the longer shots. It's rather amusing how so many shooters these days are so dependant on modern technology and need to dial their scope to the exact yardage to hit anything at distaces that were considered routine 40 years ago using a simple crosshair and a bit of holdover.
Blackheart, You have finally said something that makes sense, 100--200-300 yards are all chip shots with almost any rifle and scope i don't know any one that starts dialing inside of 300 yards, all the calibers you listed should do real well at the ranges you are using them. good luck Rio7
Out to 300yds I don't even worry about the wind unless it's really howling. Shooting out to 300yds with a 22lr has really opened my eyes to the effect wind can have on a bullet. I haven't missed in a long time when body shooting deer but I've had some rodeo's and somehow even lost a few.
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
You are way overthinking this in my opinion. I’m 74 and have been deer hunting since the sixties and (knock wood) I have never lost a deer. I only take shots I’m comfortable making, but I don’t go through any analysis, I just know. Most of my shots are from 30 to 150 yards, many of them offhand. I have taken shots up to 300 plus, but off a solid rest. It’s really not rocket science, it’s just muscle memory and a kind of, almost subconscious sight picture analysis.
Your question is kind of like asking an experienced wing shooter how much he should lead a duck on a crossing shot at 40 yards versus a canvasback? I have no idea, I just swing through the bird and my brain sends a signal to my finger without any conscious thought from me.
I didn't read this entire thread so excuse me if I missed it but I think the op is going at this whole thing bass ackwards. My criteria for shots on deer is how far a shot I can make with 100% certainty that it will be lethal.
I may not be the best writer on the inter webs, so I accept that people don't understand what I've written. My bad.
That said, what you wrote in bold is exactly what I was trying to say.
I use my hunting skills and terrain to always get with about 150 yards or less to make a good shot through the chest organs. 30-30 is a keeper! - Sherwood
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
You are way overthinking this in my opinion. I’m 74 and have been deer hunting since the sixties and (knock wood) I have never lost a deer. I only take shots I’m comfortable making, but I don’t go through any analysis, I just know. Most of my shots are from 30 to 150 yards, many of them offhand. I have taken shots up to 300 plus, but off a solid rest. It’s really not rocket science, it’s just muscle memory and a kind of, almost subconscious sight picture analysis.
Your question is kind of like asking an experienced wing shooter how much he should lead a duck on a crossing shot at 40 yards versus a canvasback? I have no idea, I just swing through the bird and my brain sends a signal to my finger without any conscious thought from me.
John, I really, really like your response, particularly the part bolded. This is how I shot as well and why I tell new guys joining our rifle team to err on the side of lower scope power and to stay clear of super high powers. I use 8x on standard NRA targets whether at 50 feet (3 position shooting) or 200 yds (high power off hand matches). Anything higher than that and it's too much wobble (visual noise) and the wobble forces me to be concentrate as opposed to letting the shot break subconsciously when the lower power (and easier to process) sight picture is present.
But, I think we're talking about 2 different things. My original question is about our confidence in our gun, not our confidence in our shooting ability. Both are important but I'm wondering about the gun.
Here's an example. I have 10" steel plates at 100 yds and 200 yds I use for practice. If I miss the target at 200 with my (accurate) bolt gun, it's entirely on me. I've done enough testing and analysis that the gun to know that it will hit within 1.5" or less of POA 95% of the time. On the other hand, my (inaccurate) lever gun holds a 5" group over 20 shots at 100 (and sometimes sub 1" over three shots). This means the gun will put the bullet within 6" of POA at 200. That's a 12" circle assuming a perfect hold. Even without any aiming error, I can't count on that gun making a hit at 200 on a 10" vital zone.
Do I overthink? I'm a card carrying member of the overthinker's union. But on the other hand, I'm not over optimistic about my guns ability. I won't look at the several 1" groups I've gotten out of my lever gun as assume it'll hold 2" at 200 and take that shot. That's a misplaced over confidence in the gun.
got a question for the guy who started this post = so if i am at 100 % on my ethical shots on deer and i take one shot and kill 2 deer where does that put me on the chart ?
got a question for the guy who started this post = so if i am at 100 % on my ethical shots on deer and i take one shot and kill 2 deer where does that put me on the chart ?
That puts you in the "not paying attention to what's in the background" category. If you don't have two tags, you're also in the illegal category.
got a question for the guy who started this post = so if i am at 100 % on my ethical shots on deer and i take one shot and kill 2 deer where does that put me on the chart ?
That puts you in the "not paying attention to what's in the background" category. If you don't have two tags, you're also in the illegal category.
> i always have my all year long farmer tag ! with a wink
I've been playing around with doing some testing with larger sample sizes and using a phone app to record and analyze the results. I'm wanting to better understand what my rifle/ammo combination is capable of off the bench before I add the loose nut behind the trigger, so to speak. To create these larger groups, I shoot 3 shots from a cold barrel, let the gun cool completely, then repeat the process until I've got 12 to 20-some shots on the same paper with the same point of aim.
With larger numbers of shots, you get more statistically significant results. And with the phone apps available that do all the math, you can get more insightful metrics for accuracy. The primary one is mean radius (MR), which is the average distance of each impact from the group's center. Roughly speaking, this is the radius of the circle for which 50% of the shots can be expected to land.
The second is the R95 value, which is the radius of the circle for which 95% of the shots can be expected to land.
The results for my Win94 lever gun have been sobering, particularly if the goal for ethical hunting is a 95% hit probability (in the best of circumstances). In effect, my gun is limited in range by its accuracy more than its trajectory or its terminal velocity.
All of this begs the question I asked.
I wonder what sort of confidence level people expect from their hunting rifles. 100%, 95%, 75%, 50%? At what point would people take pass?
You are way overthinking this in my opinion. I’m 74 and have been deer hunting since the sixties and (knock wood) I have never lost a deer. I only take shots I’m comfortable making, but I don’t go through any analysis, I just know. Most of my shots are from 30 to 150 yards, many of them offhand. I have taken shots up to 300 plus, but off a solid rest. It’s really not rocket science, it’s just muscle memory and a kind of, almost subconscious sight picture analysis.
Your question is kind of like asking an experienced wing shooter how much he should lead a duck on a crossing shot at 40 yards versus a canvasback? I have no idea, I just swing through the bird and my brain sends a signal to my finger without any conscious thought from me.
John, I really, really like your response, particularly the part bolded. This is how I shot as well and why I tell new guys joining our rifle team to err on the side of lower scope power and to stay clear of super high powers. I use 8x on standard NRA targets whether at 50 feet (3 position shooting) or 200 yds (high power off hand matches). Anything higher than that and it's too much wobble (visual noise) and the wobble forces me to be concentrate as opposed to letting the shot break subconsciously when the lower power (and easier to process) sight picture is present.
But, I think we're talking about 2 different things. My original question is about our confidence in our gun, not our confidence in our shooting ability. Both are important but I'm wondering about the gun.
Here's an example. I have 10" steel plates at 100 yds and 200 yds I use for practice. If I miss the target at 200 with my (accurate) bolt gun, it's entirely on me. I've done enough testing and analysis that the gun to know that it will hit within 1.5" or less of POA 95% of the time. On the other hand, my (inaccurate) lever gun holds a 5" group over 20 shots at 100 (and sometimes sub 1" over three shots). This means the gun will put the bullet within 6" of POA at 200. That's a 12" circle assuming a perfect hold. Even without any aiming error, I can't count on that gun making a hit at 200 on a 10" vital zone.
Do I overthink? I'm a card carrying member of the overthinker's union. But on the other hand, I'm not over optimistic about my guns ability. I won't look at the several 1" groups I've gotten out of my lever gun as assume it'll hold 2" at 200 and take that shot. That's a misplaced over confidence in the gun.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I might get kicked off the forum for admitting this, but I’m not one of those rifle guys who shoots thousands of rounds every year. I own six, really nice old school wood and blued steel bolt action rifles and a family heirloom 99 Savage 300 that I kind of rotate through over the years. I hand load and shoot the bare minimum to work up a good hunting load, then sight in the rifle.
For the last seven years I’ve only used one rifle for all my deer and antelope hunting, a Dennis Olson custom.257 Roberts mountain rifle. Even though I don’t shoot hundreds of rounds through it, I have total confidence that, if I miss it’s not the rifles fault. A bolt action rifle is a relatively simple mechanical device, that if well maintained should perform flawlessly.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/rGB6KoLl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/HssfcKPP/chipursan-valley.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/WrnZEiw.jpg)
