GUNS!!!!!!!!

[The Reverend Floater]

I believe you.

But I've never seen name-brand field rifles with heavy expanding bullets get that tight. Even indoors with a good lead sled.

That said, even if we're talking high-end hunting rifles with meticulously optimized hand loads posting 0.5 MOA regularly, I don't think that changes the argument much.

Tikka, Weatherby and Savage shooting Swift, Hornady and Nosler.

Generally hunting loads have some a long, long way the last 10 years or so.

[Conundrum]

If you can’t shoot sub moa with my tikka or savage with box hornady ammo, you are not very good at shooting. Really.

My Christensen and custom 700 action are .5 all day with box ammo. Pretty much the reason I haven’t started reloading. Don’t think I’m going to improve accuracy and reloading will be something cool to learn in retirement.

Zion said .5 in the field. You said .5 indoors with a sled. I’d rather multiply .5-1 from bench into the field than 2-3 on the bench into the field.

There’s no shame in hunters practicing shooting or having accurate setups. There is shame in relying on it.

As for head shots-I’m not saying my buddy would ever take one but he has the skills if he wanted to. I get that hunting isn’t war. Thanks for pointing it out though in case others were not sure.

All this said, I bow hunt as much or more than rifle.

[highangle]

"Long Range Hunting" is a forced meme concocted to sell gear to Nintendies and wannabe snipers.
As manufacturers and suppliers "modernized" [automated so they could reduce payrolls], they found that selling their new robotics and CAD capabilities to gun nerds allowed them to raise prices, even though it cost a lot less to make a bullet than it used to, and the tolerances are tighter.

That doesn't mean that better rifles scopes bullets aren't being designed built and sold. They certainly are. Viva capitalism.
But big game hunting, especially for "once in a lifetime" game animals, has a moral and ethical component and hence a demand that the animal should be met on his terms, if one is to be honorable about holding all the cards.

Emperor Commodus was afraid to meet Maximus on his terms. Commodus had no honor.

[zion zig zag]

If you can’t shoot sub moa with my tikka or savage with box hornady ammo, you are not very good at shooting. Really.

My Christensen and custom 700 action are .5 all day with box ammo. Pretty much the reason I haven’t started reloading. Don’t think I’m going to improve accuracy and reloading will be something cool to learn in retirement.

Zion said .5 in the field. You said .5 indoors with a sled. I’d rather multiply .5-1 from bench into the field than 2-3 on the bench into the field.

There’s no shame in hunters practicing shooting or having accurate setups. There is shame in relying on it.

As for head shots-I’m not saying my buddy would ever take one but he has the skills if he wanted to. I get that hunting isn’t war. Thanks for pointing it out though in case others were not sure.

All this said, I bow hunt as much or more than rifle.

It's totally likely that I'm a below average shooter. I bet if I took my last 200 shots and averaged them, my MOA would be in the neighborhood of 1.5. That's with Federal Premium Nosler Accubonds and Partitions. Very few bench shots, primarily off backpacks in all weather, train like you play. But damn, a 1.5 MOA will kill mule deer and elk at 400 yards and in all day long.

What are we arguing about again, maybe we're saying the same thing? I would like to shoot with some more experienced people to pick up some tips.

[Conundrum]

I’m with you. 1.5 from field holds is great. One guy is saying that shooting sub MOA with box ammo and reasonably priced hunting rifles isn’t possible indoors with a lead sled. I disagree with that.

[Kinnikinnick]

Tell me about barrel length.

So like you guys say, I’d be hesitant to take long shots.

What min barrel length would you need at 200yds?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[spudbumkin]

I think 8.5-10.5 in barrels are just fine for 200 yards max, probably shouldn't go much farther but as long as your barrel/ammunition is accurate enough at that range, should be plenty. As far as barrel length affecting accuracy goes, my understanding is that shorter barrels are marginally stiffer, so all else equal the mechanical accuracy should be pretty close to the same or slightly better with shorter barrels. Offhand accuracy might be more difficult with a shorter gun, but rested on a bench or a branch it shouldn't matter too much.

I can't wait to shoot my new 300WM with a 10.5" barrel! The fireball will be glorious!

[Jacques Strap]

I get that hunting isn’t war. Thanks for pointing it out though in case others were not sure.

Don't take this mocking tactic. I didn't bring up warfare, you did when you were fellating your sniper-teacher buddy:

If he wanted to take a head shot on an animal, I would not second guess him. He trains warriors how to take head shots on humans.

Warfare has obviously has vastly different necessities, goals, and ethics than hunting. But like you said, you (and everyone else) already knows that. So why you brought it up in the first place, I have no idea. But for the record, I would chastise your buddy, the inimitable Hathcock, or even Jack O'C. himself for taking a headshot on game.

One guy is saying that shooting sub MOA with box ammo and reasonably priced hunting rifles isn’t possible indoors with a lead sled. I disagree with that.

Conundrum, if you're going to disagree, then at least read the fucking words I wrote so you know what you're disagreeing with:

I believe you.

But I've never seen...

I didn't say it was impossible, or even improbable, I said I hadn't witnessed it. Furthermore, I told Rev Floater that I believed him, even though my experience ran counter.

I’d rather multiply .5-1 from bench into the field than 2-3 on the bench into the field.
There’s no shame in hunters practicing shooting or having accurate setups. There is shame in relying on it.

...posting 0.5 MOA regularly, I don't think that changes the argument much.

Personally, I agree though. I would not take a head shot on an animal. I don't have the skill set to feel good about a head shot.

Exactly. This is exactly my argument, and on that point we seem to be in agreement. Skill and gear are irrelative, and having exceptional standing in either category doesn't give permission to take unethical shots while hunting.

[Conundrum]

Long distances and head/neck shots are for professional shooters, not any of us. .

Don't take this mocking tactic. I didn't bring up warfare, you did when you were fellating your sniper-teacher buddy:

Warfare has obviously has vastly different necessities, goals, and ethics than hunting. But like you said, you (and everyone else) already knows that. So why you brought it up in the first place, I have no idea. But for the record, I would chastise your buddy, the inimitable Hathcock, or even Jack O'C. himself for taking a headshot on game.

Conundrum, if you're going to disagree, then at least read the fucking words I wrote so you know what you're disagreeing with:

I didn't say it was impossible, or even improbable, I said I hadn't witnessed it. Furthermore, I told Rev Floater that I believed him, even though my experience ran counter.
.

Okay. I read the words you fucking wrote. You said long distance and head and neck shots were for professionals, not any of us. I said I have a friend who lurks here (maybe doesn't count as any of us) that is a skier and professional shooter and I wouldn't second guess any shot he wanted to take. I never used the word "warfare". You wrote that. I merely gave his experience as a professional shooter, no felations. I'm not a glorify war kind of guy. I do think it's rad that he can shoot as well as he can. He puts the time in. I also said he probably wouldn't take a head shot but I wouldn't question him because per your comments he is a professional shooter and knows far more about it than me. Now you're saying you would chastise a professional shooter or ever O'C for doing it after saying head shots are for professionals. Maybe your definition of professional shooter is different than mine. Look, I don't advocate it...just reading your words.

As for sub moa, you said you've never seen it. Plenty of people have seen or do it. I'm surprised you've never seen a production gun with production ammo shoot under an inch at a hundred off a lead sled. I guess my wording wasn't great and for that I apologize.

Not sure why you're so touchy on this. But, I concede. You win.

[leroy jenkins]

My point being, if you need expert level shooting ability to make a shot, that's a shot you shouldn't ethically be taking. With the exception of certain game (mountain goats, antelope), you shouldn't be attempting shots with a high degree of difficulty. Get closer. Hunt better. Pass on low-probability shots.

For most game, you only need to be a decent shot. Once you have achieved that skill level, I can't see the need to spend more than an hour or two at the range once a month. More is fun, of course, but probably unnecessary for most rifle situations.

Think about how big of a hack you can be at skiing and still be a supposedly expert skier according to pisa. Expert is a funny word. Qualifying expert marksman in the military doesnt really mean you're an expert.


Some skiers are comfortable at 60. Some shooters are comfortable aiming small and missing small.


Interesting to me some say relying on a follow up shot is ok where neck shots arent. Personally I feel the opposite. I can hit a target, a quick follow up seems a lot less certain. Why not just have a bigger caliber?

[leroy jenkins]

As for sub moa, you said you've never seen it. Plenty of people have seen or do it. I'm surprised you've never seen a production gun with production ammo shoot under an inch at a hundred off a lead sled. I guess my wording wasn't great and for that I apologize.

Saying you've never seen a sub moa shooter is so silly. It just reminds me of gapers who think hurling a 20 footer on skis is just crazy crazy I tell ya!



I shoot sub moa with a $300 cz 22 with a shitty cheap Mueller scope that has been dropped and now has an ocular bell bent at a slight angle to the rest of the scope. Using federal bulk pack ammo.


I would bet money that all the people saying shooting sub moa is crazy dont even own a 22, kist hunting calibers. Get an accurate 22 bolt action lole a cz or anshultz, put 500 rounds a week through it for a summer, and it will do the same thing as a gaper skier from the midwest spending a 100 plus day season at Jackson squaw or alta. Itll change your idea what expert means.

[leroy jenkins]

When you are at the bottom of a pareto distribution for a certain skill, you just cant wrap your head around what the upper end of that really looks like, and will mistake the fairly common but competent middle upper end for the truly upper end, not being able to conceive what thats really like.

[Jacques Strap]

I never used the word "warfare". You wrote that

trains warriors how to take head shots on humans

And as for

You said long distance and head and neck shots were for professionals, not any of us

...ah fuck. Those were literally the literal words I wrote. I was intending to say that head and neck shots weren't ok even for professional shooters, let alone us. But in my rushed writing and editing I fucked it up. If I'm going to be such a dick about insisting yall take the time to read each and every word in my posts, I guess I better take the time to write what I mean.

I'm sorry dude. Didn't mean to be an asshole.

Never heard of Christensen before, seems like a sweet rifle, and

I stand corrected.

was a very good joke.

I only got a little aggravated because even though I honestly agree with most everything you said, we seemed to be derailed on this discussion of accuracy, which beyond a very pedestrian threshold, I think is categorically irrelevant to ethical hunting.

[Jacques Strap]

And it continues.

Interesting to me some say relying on a follow up shot is ok where neck shots arent. Personally I feel the opposite. I can hit a target, a quick follow up seems a lot less certain. Why not just have a bigger caliber?

I agree with this too. I don't think it's ethical to rely on a follow up shot, although you should always be prepared to take one.

Use a big bullet to make a big hole in the boiler room. It's not sexy, but it ts dependable.

Saying you've never seen a sub moa shooter is so silly.

For the record, I said that, Conundrum didn't.

Itll change your idea what expert means.

I understand what being an expert shooter means. I just don't think it's necessary, or desirable, for hunting applications. Hunting requires more than marksmanship, and there isn't time enough to maximize everything.

[TNKen]

So you are shooting a POS Ruger Ranch rifle with a 3" MOA at 100. Your chances of a decent shot decrease substantially with distance. 6" at 200, 9" at 300, etc. If you have a .5" MOA rifle, the gun assists you by its accuracy and decreasing "slop" in the gun. 1.5" MOA at 300 vs the 9" MOA of the Ruger.

There are a ton of good rifles out there that will shoot sub 1" MOA at 100 with factory ammo.

And of course, this doesn't factor in windage, drop, flinch, buck fever, etc. Shooting from a bench is obviously not the same as a live target. But a good rifle helps take some of the variables out of the shot.

https://www.nssf.org/shooting/minute...%20250%20yards

[Conundrum]

CS2-6...we're all good dude.

[sfotex]

Tell me about barrel length.

So like you guys say, I’d be hesitant to take long shots.

What min barrel length would you need at 200yds?

The biggest issue with a shorter barrel for most 'high power' caliber rifle cartridges is that your going to lose some velocity the shorter you go under a certain length. Less velocity equals more time in the air/more drop and drift, especially at longer distance. Here's a great article with some real world testing to demonstrate.
https://rifleshooter.com/2016/02/6-5...p-a-creedmoor/

[The Reverend Floater]

I understand what being an expert shooter means. I just don't think it's necessary, or desirable, for hunting applications. Hunting requires more than marksmanship, and there isn't time enough to maximize everything.

If this is your thesis, I strongly disagree. I believe you, as a hunter, have an obligation to be an expert at killing. While you're very, very correct in that the killing is only a small part of hunting and that the myriad other skills are equally important to what we call success, the only unforgivable mistake is a wounded or otherwise compromised animal--a mistake made when we botch the act of killing.

To me, the killing part is also the easiest to master. You don't need elk around to shoot your bow--you can often hone your archery skills in your backyard. You don't need the right wind to practice your trigger pull--you can do that with a nickel and some snap caps in your living room. And, you can actually learn via the internet. I'm not ashamed to say I learned the real fundamentals and mechanics of proper rifle shooting from Snipers Hide--after years of shooting incorrectly--by watching hours of video and asking dumb questions. I chose to augment those skills through classes and lots of practice, but I did the homework to learn the basics first.

There is simply no excuse to NOT be an expert marksman but becoming an expert stalker, caller or the like takes several seasons with ample opportunity. The killing should be the most practiced part, the part you're automatic at--the easiest part.

[leroy jenkins]

I understand what being an expert shooter means. I just don't think it's necessary, or desirable, for hunting applications. Hunting requires more than marksmanship, and there isn't time enough to maximize everything.

No, I don't think you do. I'm a bit rusty, but back when ammo was cheap and I was well practiced, shooting 1-2k rounds a week, slowly and patiently through my 22 rifle. I developed the ability to accurately predict wind holdovers up to 15mph gusts, and holdovers for different ranges out to 180 yards, purely by feel. Accurately. It isn't guessing, but military shooters develop the ability to do that with larger caliber rifles as well. Really anyone can if you put the time and money in. I'm not saying everyone should have to do that, but the lazy condescension for the importance of the art of marksmanship is rife among hunters.

When i used to go to the range hunting season would annoy me. Bunch of guys that want to walk out and check their targets every three shots, spend most of the day standing around shooting the shit or doing anything but actually shooting. Talking about developing skills instead of developing them. Like ski instructors. Just coasting through life instead of fucking it into submission then making love to it.


That's not an expert either. It's the skiing equivalent to kind of being able to mostly keep up with some pros without getting left in the dust but not ski at their level.

[leroy jenkins]

I'll add that .5 MOA isn't hard for a single group of three. There aren't many combinations of person/rifle/ammo/conditions that can do it for 30.

Oh, but that is entirely mental. Ton's of people can shoot 10 3 shot groups without a flier with the right gun. 6 5 shot groups.


True, some guns just spit out fliers. My sig 556 is sub moa, just barely, with most decent ammo, except for the one or two shots out of ten that widen the groups out to 1.5-2 moa. Probably one in every 20 is more like 3moa. Some guns do not though.

[leroy jenkins]

Tell me about barrel length.

So like you guys say, I’d be hesitant to take long shots.

What min barrel length would you need at 200yds?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

For what game, in what caliber?

Target shooting? 16" 556 will do you fine.


I shoot my cz22 at 180, but it has a 24" barrel, which strangely enough is a few inches longer than what would be optimal for velocity. Meaning the bullet would be faster if it was shorter. Yet that's what the guys at cz chose, and it is a laser beam, so who knows.

To be fair I am not much of a hunter, so take me with a grain of salt.

I'd say don't get a barrel any longer than 200 yards, if that is how far away you plan on shooting.

[snoqpass]

Use a big bullet to make a big hole in the boiler room. It's not sexy, but it ts dependable.



I understand what being an expert shooter means.

JFC

[zion zig zag]

When i used to go to the range hunting season would annoy me. Bunch of guys that want to walk out and check their targets every three shots, spend most of the day standing around shooting the shit or doing anything but actually shooting.

Ever heard of letting barrels cool between shots and why that's important? They aren't shooting 22's.

[zion zig zag]

My sig 556 is sub moa, Probably one in every 20 is more like 3moa.

Your Sig 556 is a 3 moa gun then, sorry for the news.

[leroy jenkins]

Ever heard of letting barrels cool between shots and why that's important? They aren't shooting 22's.

Oh ya sure, but come on you know that is not what I am talking about. I hear people measure the rate at which they can shoot without overheating their barrel at the rate of shots per hour, not like 5 shots per day. Some of them seem to need practice more than a cold bore.


You and I both have seen those people though, you know it isn't about letting the barrel cool, there is a lazy sort of arrogance among many hunters that proficiency with a rifle is not important and being sighted in is good enough. Same people who ride around on ATVs scaring the game away asking if you've seen any game. I mean they are nice enough usually, but expert anything they are not.

Your Sig 556 is a 3 moa gun then, sorry for the news.

Thank you for your condolences, I am indeed heartbroken to learn my 16" semi auto 5.56 is not a sniper rifle, despite what I have seen in video games. It's probably more like a 2moa gun, as admittedly those 3" fliers are with a hot barrel. Funny as your two points overlap, but one of the sigs real strong points is even with a pretty high rate of fire and hot barrel the groups don't widen that much, just that one in 20 3" flier. Whatever you rate or consider it as, it works just fine for target shooting. 12" gong at 700 is just like ringing a bell, at a bit less than a round a second.