I've shot with Rick..... the dude can shoot.... he won the SRM by a wide margin when I was there in May, in horrible conditions. We'll be hunting Aoudad in about 6-weeks down in TX.... I'll try to film him clobbering one at LR..... just for all you haters.
I look forward to Rick's culinary posts on cooking an old Aoudad ram. I think it will put his skills to the test.
The next thing that comes to my mind is that Rick is certainly qualified more than most for long range shooting. Even so, he recently had a first round miss on a distant antelope..... The difficulty of the task leaves me wondering if most need to back down on their distance if a first round ethical kill is the objective.
I hear what you're saying, and there's truth in it. But I'd be willing to wager that if all of us backed down to shots that we'd made 100 % of the time, most of us would have to quit altogether. Which is another way of saying we've all missed shots that are within our capabilities.
I remember that post though. As I recall, I think he shaded his wind hold such that he made a clean miss, then corrected on the next shot. Hard to find fault with that result.
Hey, if you think while earning any of those trophies and placing how I did that I never missed, you really don't know how things work
The winner is the guy who makes the least mistakes and misses
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
Here's an example to clearly illustrate to you why it is best to err on the side of a clean miss than a poor hit. It also illustrates why anyone who is in to rifle shooting at long range should attend any type of organized match they can and do so on a regular basis.
At our precision/tactical matches, we engage shoot/no shoot targets. Basically a steel target that is supposed to simulate a Hostage/Hostage taker situation. They are always shot under time, with stress, and sometimes even with strange shooting positions.
The hostage is white (of course ;)) and the hostage taker in this pic is the red flasher. Obviously in real life you don't want to hit the hostage
Hits on the red plate count as additions to your score and any hits on the hostage are negative points.
In this situation, it is pretty smart to err on the side of a clean miss if you'd like any chance of winning the match That means holding on the safe side of your windage judgment....
These are the type of things you learn in competitive shooting that you apply directly to the field
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
Given the reliability of today's better variables & for a very minimal weight penalty, depending on choice, I guess my question is, why would you want to limit yourself to a 6x if you really intend & will be shooting regularly, past 400 yards or so at game?
For real highcountry, multi-day, backpack hunting (not the imaginary, cyber-version of same), a fixed is going to be more stout/reliable than a variable (same brand - brand), as well as being lighter.
Not all BG is the same size, but with a 6x I'm comfortable to 500+ yards on deer-sized game and 600+ on elk in field conditions.
But I'm not going to shoot ANY animal past 600 yards.
A 6X Fixed is KISS and highcountry backpack hunting and KISS go hand in glove. Murphy hates this sort of hunting above sitting in a deer stand, or wandering the wide open shooting coyotes.
That's not to say variables don't have their place, they certainly do. And the extra magnification in a variable is bad how?
Not all tools are intended for the same purpose, any more than an F22 can do the job of a 777... even though they're both airplanes.
One has to determine one's needs based on what and how something is hunted.
But rest assured, EVERY choice is a compromise in one way or the other. You just have to determine how you want to make YOUR compromise...
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Some of the best shooters i have ever known ,shoot the same rifle for everything topped with a 6x scope.
"We are building a dictatorship of relativism which recoqnizes nothing as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of ones own self ego and desires."Cardinal Rathzinger
I don't think it's too far off to say that a six power scope will take almost all people past the capabilities of both them and their rifles.
We have a winner!
6x will never take a rifle to its full capability. This is a pretty simple thing to test..... shoot a couple groups with your variable power optic at 3x, 6x, and 9x.... betcha the groups are smaller on 9x than either of the others. Law of Diminishing returns applies.... as other factors such as FOV, eye box/relief, etc. must be considered.
Here's how I see it.... pick the Max range and target size you'd like to be able to hit. Then, pick the optic based on that.
Example: I want to consistently make 1st round hits on 2 MOA sized targets out to 800 yards. This is a pretty reasonable goal, there are matches all over the country that use the 1.5-2.5 MOA targets as a sort of 'standard'... and that's solid hits in big game vitals.
For me, I have no problem with a 3-9x or fixed 10x given the above example. I can see how folks with glasses, contacts, lesser vision, etc. would require more magnification for the same task.
Not sure I would have the same confidence past about 600 with a 6x. I've never felt like 9-10x was too much.... even calling coyotes. But every time I go fixed 6x there's an immediate instance when I want more magnification.
I think 6x as a Rev Limiter of sorts is a pretty decent idea... most folks shouldn't be shooting at BG past about 250 anyway. So, if you put in a little work, a 6x should take you out to 500 yards on 2 MOA sized targets quite well, and still serve well inside bow range.
I'll know soon... there's a 6x SS en route...
And most shooters are not capable of delivering a good shot at 500 yards with any scope on any gun, almost all the time. Not everyone here qualifies as "most shooters". There are an awful lot of hunters in North America who NEVER get to shoot anything beyond 100 yards. A 3 MOA red dot covers that well enough with no magnification at all. So do iron sights, apertures, peeps, neutron bombs etc.
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
Most shooters ARE capable.... they just don't know it... and hamstring themselves from the start with poor choices in rifles/glass/bullets/etc. Everyone who can squeeze a trigger can easily make hits at 500.... provided they've done their homework, and have the 'proper' equipment.... isn't that what we're talking about?
Just today I watched my SIL go 3 for 3 on a 10" plate at 450.... then go three outta 4 at 675 on a 12"x18" plate...... she had never fired a high power rifle in her life, prior to her first round hit at 1/4 mile.
The question is: how far is 6x good to.... not how far can a 3 MOA red dot get you.
Set-up a rig correctly, put solid repeatable glass atop, select good projectiles.... then shoot a couple hundred of'em..... and schitt gets simple in a hurry... at least to 500.
You better pray to the God of Skinny Punks that this wind doesn't pick up......
Most shooters ARE capable.... they just don't know it... and hamstring themselves from the start with poor choices in rifles/glass/bullets/etc. Everyone who can squeeze a trigger can easily make hits at 500.... provided they've done their homework, and have the 'proper' equipment.... isn't that what we're talking about?
Just today I watched my SIL go 3 for 3 on a 10" plate at 450.... then go three outta 4 at 675 on a 12"x18" plate...... she had never fired a high power rifle in her life, prior to her first round hit at 1/4 mile.
Yep.
Here's my girlfriend's first shot with a rifle...
Here's my sister's first shot with a rifle...
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
Everybody should have a fine ass girlfriend who loves working over the steel....
And for those of you who hate 'match bullets'... this is via Leupold 3-9 (set on 9x) and 130 Nosler Accubonds out of an 8.5lb gun... off the pack. There's two in the plate that I shot prior to video.
[video:youtube]10cDEq7Izds[/video]
You better pray to the God of Skinny Punks that this wind doesn't pick up......
Here's an example to clearly illustrate to you why it is best to err on the side of a clean miss than a poor hit. It also illustrates why anyone who is in to rifle shooting at long range should attend any type of organized match they can and do so on a regular basis.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you first pass up a short shot because it was anticlimactic? Given the opportunity, would you pass up a much more makeable shot in a match in order for the challenge of a longer shot?
Here is what I have determine following this post. The question is how far will 6 power get you shooting a Deer? (Please correct me if this is wrong)
1. How big is the deer......Let us say a 9 inch kill zone. 2. How accurate am I set up to shoot......Let us say 2MOA
If I am in this situation 450 yards is where my scope and reticle has to discern a 9 inch target that may or may not blend in with the terrain.
If I have a better Rest and or am somehow able to shoot under 2 MOA my scope needs to clarify a 9 inch target at a further distance. Eventually I would need to consider my bullets maximum effective range for a 250 pound cervidae. (That is if the scope can discern target out to that range)
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
I've killed a number of more-or-less deer-sized big game animals with no problems at 200-350 yards with an aperture-sighted rifle, so figure a 6x scope should be good to 1200-2100.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Given the reliability of today's better variables & for a very minimal weight penalty, depending on choice, I guess my question is, why would you want to limit yourself to a 6x if you really intend & will be shooting regularly, past 400 yards or so at game?
MM
The vast majority of variable makes and models AREN'T reliable. They fail at an alarming rate and that's the point. There is no hunting variable that I would trust. Sure there are lots of examples that have done fine, but there are tons that have not as well and considering how little use most hunters impart on their gear, it'd be wise to gravitate towards scopes that have shown great durability by the hardest users.
Unfortunately manufacture's QC tends to change without notice, and therefore requires constant evaluation.
Most shooters ARE capable.... they just don't know it... and hamstring themselves from the start with poor choices in rifles/glass/bullets/etc. Everyone who can squeeze a trigger can easily make hits at 500.... provided they've done their homework, and have the 'proper' equipment.... isn't that what we're talking about?
Just today I watched my SIL go 3 for 3 on a 10" plate at 450.... then go three outta 4 at 675 on a 12"x18" plate...... she had never fired a high power rifle in her life, prior to her first round hit at 1/4 mile.
The question is: how far is 6x good to.... not how far can a 3 MOA red dot get you.
Set-up a rig correctly, put solid repeatable glass atop, select good projectiles.... then shoot a couple hundred of'em..... and schitt gets simple in a hurry... at least to 500.
Good job by your S-I-L!
Quote
Set-up a rig correctly, put solid repeatable glass atop, select good projectiles.... then shoot a couple hundred of'em..... and schitt gets simple in a hurry... at least to 500.
I agree. The point I was making is that most don't do that and yes, a 6X scope can go a long way....in capable hands, properly prepared. Perhaps you are an optimist and I am the pessimist? Last time I met anyone capable of taking a 6x scope to the limits I was in Wyoming several years ago.
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
The vast majority of variable makes and models AREN'T reliable.
Sorry, I don't agree with that, today.
20 years, ago, maybe.
I've manage to take pretty good care of mine, but as they say, schitt happens.
I've had to get off a horse in a hurry & bang the scope hard & I've had horses lay down & roll with the rifle in a scabbard & the scope has survived & I've never had a variable go bad under any other circumstance either........but as you say it does happen.
And & at some remote statistical level, I'm sure variable do fail more frequently than fixed scope do........but that's a very low calculated risk.
Prolly 20-30x the number of variables sold today vs fixed; unfortunately, lots of cheap, really cheap, variables make up a high % of those sales, which likely have a slightly higher failure rate than, say, NS, or even Leupold.
![[Linked Image]](http://s379.photobucket.com/user/rcamuglia/media/CEDEADE6-E37A-481D-A9F4-EC64BE7DF0C1.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2ECZdWMHWxg/VKXOmLahMOI/AAAAAAAAFpI/JSz5emZOFP0/s800/polls_mud_wrestling_5956_653665_poll_xlarge.jpeg)
