It's been years since I wore "The Red hat" at a public range, and watched the "General Public" go to work sighting in their manglums (off the bench) the week before hunting season opened.
I was shooting in competition at that time, spent a lot of time dry firing and in offhand practice.
I could but shake my head at some of the nonsense that I saw.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
His target had a tiny dot in the middle of the bull, and apparently when one bullet hit the dot, the rifle was sighted-in. He burned up over a box of shells AFTER the rifle was adequately sighted-in before hitting the dot, then his kid started all over again, using the same technique with his rifle. Of course, they were sighting-in dead-on at 100, in a country where 200-300 yard shots are common, and no, their scopes were not equipped with "turrets."
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
His target had a tiny dot in the middle of the bull, and apparently when one bullet hit the dot, the rifle was sighted-in. He burned up over a box of shells AFTER the rifle was adequately sighted-in before hitting the dot, then his kid started all over again, using the same technique with his rifle. Of course, they were sighting-in dead-on at 100, in a country where 200-300 yard shots are common, and no, their scopes were not equipped with "turrets."
I routinely do this.
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
As a reader - not a writer - I am aggravated by the disparity of grouping comparison sample sizes in various magazines.
I consider American Rifleman's average of three five-shot groups to be the gold standard. Not for load development but for comparing the accuracy of various guns.
When I read reviews of rifles that were only shot for three-shot groups I feel that there was no meaningful evaluation of the accuracy potential of that rifle. This is essentially shilling for the manufacturer.
When the writer chooses to only reveal the >best< group with each load... he has clearly told me the rifle is a POS.
There is a world of difference between shooting groups to evaluate a rifle versus developing a load.
When I hear the BS of "I shoot X-shot groups because I seldom need more than X shots to take game" I wonder what audience the writer thinks he is addressing, it certainly isn't me.
"The only shot that matters to me is the first shot out of a clean, cold barrel." Great, I love your one-shot groups. Ever get any large ones? I wish these blow-hards would shoot one shot per day for ten days on one target and tell me what happens. Really, it's about time to learn that.
"I excluded the widest shot in each group because [choose one]: unlike the rest of the world, there is weather where I shoot; my bench was not solid; I hurt my toe; I had a cup of coffee that morning; I can't shoot." Well, isn't that special? Actually, the writer is "special", undoubtedly a product of "social promotion", and the group sizes are meaningless.
Stop! I shouldn't post before I've had enough coffee!
National Rifle Association - Patron Member National Muzzleloading Rifle Association - Life Member and 1 of 1000 Illinois State Rifle Association - Life Member Carlinville Rifle & Pistol Club ~ Molɔ̀ːn Labé ~
Many good posts from several people on this thread. The difference between what is "needed" vs. what is "wanted" in the way of accuracy has been well explained.
Some loonys, like me, enjoy going much farther than necessary in our quest for the perfect bullet or load for a particular rifle. I have a hard time knowing when to quit. I am guilty of shooting more just so I can reload more, instead of the other way around.
I shoot far more ground squirrels than anything else and I like to use various sporter-weight rifles all the way up to 30-06, as an excuse to practice with those rifles.
I enjoy experimenting with "deer rifles", many of them old classics, until I can get good hits on ground squirrels at 200 yards. This requires a higher level of accuracy than I need for deer-size animals.
I have taken a few deer and antelope out to near 400 yards with some of these rifles, which seemed relatively easy after getting good hits on squirrels at 200 yards.
One comment directed at Chamois:
You criticized Fred Willis for deferring shots under 200 yards and therefore preferring shots over 200 yards as being unsportsmanlike. I believe you may have missed the fact that he was talking about chucks. Most of us agree with you if you are talking about game animals.
For varmints most of us will take shots much further than that. If you choose to stalk all of your varmints to less than 200 yards, that is fine. I do that, too, sometimes, if I am using an iron-sighted 30-30 that day, on ground squirrels. In any case, welcome to the fire.
Nifty-250
"If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else". Yogi Berra
After coming up with a good, final load for my old Remington pump M-141 in .35 Rem I set out to take a ground squirrel with it. I finally got a fat one at about 80 yards.
No, the big, slow bullet didn't blow him to pieces. No, it didn't blow him in two, either.
But that was the most turned-inside-out squirrel I have ever shot, from end to end. Only half his tail was showing and only part of his head. Quite a sight.
Only a loony would deliberately set out to shoot a squirrel with a .35 Rem.
Guilty as charged.
Nifty-250
"If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else". Yogi Berra
My buddy who live in Colorada, puts a gallon milk jug of water up at 100 yards and if they hit it they are sighted for elk season. The sad part is they all kill their Elk every year with that sight in.
A Doe walks out of the woods today and says, that is the last time I'm going to do that for Two Bucks.
I doubt the rifles you shooting are out-of-the-box sporters, with factory ammo selected because it was the cheapest at the local store. Which is why I also doubt you'd take a box of ammo to hit the dot.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Time to trot out the old geezer with the .30-30 story once again.
1976 or 77, at an informal range south of Logan, UT, several of us were sighting in our rifles for hunting season, dialing in that last 1/2" adjustment of windage or whatever. An old beat up green pickup from the 50's pulls up and this grizzled old guy gets out. He could have been 80 or a well worn 60, but he was right out of central casting - sweat stained cowboy hat with a hole worn at the peak of the crease, three day stubble of beard, the whole nine yards.
At the break, he sets a big brown cardboard box at the 100 yard line, it was about big enough to have held a stove or small refrigerator. No target on it, just the box. At the firing line he lets go three quick shots offhand from his Model 94 .30-30, vintage unknown but definitely "vintage". He retrieves the target and there's about a 12" triangle centered on the box. "Looky there, Martha", he says to his wife sitting in the truck, "she still shoots where she did last year." With that he drives away.
Going home back to Logan I noticed that same old green pickup parked in front of a ranch house off the road. Nailed to the barn standing next to the house were more big mule deer and elk racks than I could count driving past at 55. I mean, the whole front of the barn was covered with them.
Circumstantial evidence for sure. Maybe he was just visiting (though there were no other vehicles present), or maybe inside the house he had a big oak and glass gun case with all of his Weatherbys and pre-64 Winchesters in it, but I doubt it.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
One of the most used rifles in my collection is an old Marlin M-1893 in 30-30, dating from the very early 1900's. An elderly former-Marine friend was cleaning some junk out of his barn when I stopped for a visit. Knowing I was a gun guy he pointed out the filthy rifle hanging on the wall hidden by other junk and told me to take it off his hands.
When I got home and cleaned it, there was little rust but lots of crud and dirt on the exterior. The resulting patina looks very good on an old rifle like this. Think cowboys and Indians type of patina. The interior was good and the bore was quite worn, but no horrible pits.
The finish was worn off most of the metal and wood. The carry-wear was rather extreme. This was a rifle that had been used a lot. I asked my friend where he got it? In some long-ago trade with other stuff, and it had been on the barn wall over twenty or thirty years. That is all he knew.
After the cleaning I took it to the range to shoot it. I was pleased to see it produce a nice round seven or eight shot group at 100 yards of no more than three inches from sandbags with the open sights.
However, that nice group was a full eight inches left of point of aim at 100 yards. Close examination of the original factory sights showed them both centered with no indication that either of them had ever been moved, deliberately or otherwise, since the day the rifle left the factory. There was no indication that the barrel was bent. Everything looked straight.
It took considerable effort to free them to adjust the point of impact to agree with the sights at 100 yards.
I can only wonder how many hunts that rifle went on, or how many deer it may have taken, and whether the owner knew it shot to the left and compensated for it, or just never knew.
After all, it would hit a milk can at 50 yards. Maybe that is all that was ever asked of it.
Last edited by nifty-two-fifty; 10/22/15.
Nifty-250
"If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else". Yogi Berra
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
You criticized Fred Willis for deferring shots under 200 yards and therefore preferring shots over 200 yards as being unsportsmanlike. I believe you may have missed the fact that he was talking about chucks. Most of us agree with you if you are talking about game animals.
For varmints most of us will take shots much further than that. If you choose to stalk all of your varmints to less than 200 yards, that is fine. I do that, too, sometimes, if I am using an iron-sighted 30-30 that day, on ground squirrels. In any case, welcome to the fire.
I stand corrected. I thought he was talking about big game animals. I am sorry, Fred Willis!
I doubt the rifles you shooting are out-of-the-box sporters, with factory ammo selected because it was the cheapest at the local store. Which is why I also doubt you'd take a box of ammo to hit the dot.
c
My bad. I re-read your post, which I completely misunderstood.
I thought you were bashing the two shot sight-in deal...
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
This whole thing about what a rifle/load/shooter "can" do versus what the combo "will" do is even sillier in many respects that the threads about killing large ungulates with tiny little bullets/minimal quantities of powder (small cases)/great distances. "Can" it happen? Sure, obviously. "Will" it work reliably? Just as surely as a 3-shot 1/2" rifle won't shoot larger 10-shot groups is the probably the most likely answer.
……and that's no damn lie!
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
I was speaking to the minority of folks this sight who might make the same miakes as I did years ago. Taking things to literally and exhausting hard to come by and afford supplies trying to achieve objectives that don't benefit their specific needs. John Barsness and Fred Willis stated what I tried to so much better than I did. Group size is defined on what your intentions as a shooter are. For the average Joe, who isn't a bench rest competitor or a long range varmint shooter, I think my original post has some merit. If that makes me an idiot, so be it. John, bought and read a couple of your books, and looking forward to your next loading publication
"Its easier to fool people......Than convince them that they have been fooled." Mark Twain
One of the most entertaining sight-in routines I've witnessed was a guy and his teenage kid, a few days before Montana's rifle seasons for deer and elk opened. Apparently the guy didn't believe in shooting any kind of group. Instead he'd fire one shot, then adjust the scope according to where it had landed.
His target had a tiny dot in the middle of the bull, and apparently when one bullet hit the dot, the rifle was sighted-in. He burned up over a box of shells AFTER the rifle was adequately sighted-in before hitting the dot, then his kid started all over again, using the same technique with his rifle. Of course, they were sighting-in dead-on at 100, in a country where 200-300 yard shots are common, and no, their scopes were not equipped with "turrets."
I routinely do this.
I do this from time to time and then verify/tweak with groups... unless I know how snug the gun shoots already...
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
After coming up with a good, final load for my old Remington pump M-141 in .35 Rem I set out to take a ground squirrel with it. I finally got a fat one at about 80 yards.
No, the big, slow bullet didn't blow him to pieces. No, it didn't blow him in two, either.
But that was the most turned-inside-out squirrel I have ever shot, from end to end. Only half his tail was showing and only part of his head. Quite a sight.
Only a loony would deliberately set out to shoot a squirrel with a .35 Rem.
Guilty as charged.
Dunno... wife shot a fox squirrel here with a 378 wtby mag... we did find a rear leg and part of the tail.....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
