Shooters Forum banner

Accuracy Is Relative Thing!

9K views 68 replies 31 participants last post by  Jim Rau 
#1 ·
The older I get, the more I see the fallacy of some of my youthful thoughts! We read a great deal of Whooo-Fa about accuracy indeed. I once met Col. Townsend Whelen and have always been one of his followers! He once wrote that a three minute rifle was excellent for hunting out beyond most hunter's ability to hit....interesting, as most today would scoff at any rifle that would only put shots into three minutes!
Now...here at Dixie'd we have a 50 yard rage set up with two targets...one the the Gorilla Gong (75 pounds-10" circle) and the other is a one-half size running pig. The pig looks at 50 yards what w 200 pound pig would look at 100 yards.One would "think" those would be easy indeed. But, they are off-hand targets! You are allowed to sit on your butt and use your kness as a brace with a pistopl or rifle...or stand up with buckshot and Tri-Ball...oh yeah! The pig is flat black with a 3" orange aiming circle.
Most that see those targets for the first hand will call them at 75 yards and that's the same in the feild.
I have seen hotshots strut in and blast away....and walk out with their tails tucked in.....especially with hand cannons!
So..what is usable accuracy in the real hunting world. Back to Whelen...if you can hold 3 minutes angle at what ever your range limit is...your in fine shape.
That goes for all types of firearms...but think about it first, before you jump my case!
Regards, James
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
James: I agree and get very tired of the modern, absolute insistance on Minute of Angle before a rifle can even begin to be considered worthy. I have always loved the classic gun guys. Yes, an accurate rifle was a dandy thing, always was, always will be, but the older generation of shooters seemed to stress riflecraft over the obssesion with technically perfect equipment. After all, a MOA hunting rifle is a relatively new thing, anyway - you can bet your boots not a single one of Jack O'Connor's beloved Win 70's ever came close to MOA. When you read them, what they stressed was control over you body and mind as the most important piece of equipment, technique and practice. I would love to have seen O'Connor or Whelen's reaction to the 12 pound, target barrel, nearly-vised-into-a-bench-rested rifles I see at the range these days.

O'Connor and Whelen both had a pretty similar idea about good marksmanship: a good "rifleman" (was there ever a finer title for a man?) should be able to put most of his or her shots in a 6" circle at 100 yards from a standing offhand position - O'Connor thought about 3" from the sitting position at 100 yards was the mark if one wanted to be considered a good shot. Since O'Connor did most of his hunting out West, he seemed to consider 100 yards close work.

I read both those guys when I first started shooting, and I make it a point to re-read them every time I feel myself drifting from the basics. On a good day I can hit their standard, but mostly, no. I can put about 80% in a 8 inch circle and only about 50% in a six inch circle at 100 yards. Judging by reactions I get at the range, offhand shooting is a lost art.

Yep, Mr. Townsend said only accurate rifles are interesting. but as James points out, 3 minutes of angle was plenty accurate enough for him, being the skilled rifleman he was. I believe in something Jeff Cooper said, and I paraphrase: shooting from the classic positions - prone, sitting, kneeling or standing -- tests the man, shooting from a bench tests the equipment.


Good shooting -- Mykal
 
#3 ·
We can thank todays gun writers and advertisement for most of this non-sense. I've deer hunted with fellows who have the latest and greatest equipment but litterly could not hit the broad side of the barn standing inside. Since I know I'm a lousy shot off handed I use any type of supported position available. Doublt I could hold all my shots in a two foot diameter circle at 100 yards. Have to see it first to even come close to hitting so scopes are necessity although I'm experimenting with some old military rifles for this deer season which have open sights and no scopes. I can honestly say I don't even know what accuracy most of my firearms are capable of since I only paper them for sighting purposes. If they hit and kill whatever game I'm hunting at the yardages I'm hunting what do I care if there sub-MOA or 3 MOA.
 
#4 ·
And More!

Excellent indeed and I agree!
Now....I will be 74 years old on the 7th and have hunting larger game since I was about 12 years old. I still manage to walk some of these younguns in the mud! Many today would laugh at some of the rifles I killed game with...including a late issue Winchester 73 in 44-40!
Many years ago, the discussion around the deer camps was bullet performance, not minute of angle! Very few today even kill enough deer to get any idea of one bullet over another!....they read it iin a Gun Rag instead of their own Gut-Pile-Analysis. However, there are some excellent heads here on Beartooth...old and young!
With all due respect to our friends out West....that's not where the large majority of deer size game and hogs are killed today!....it's in the Southeast woodland now! One does not need a rifle that will kill at those extra long ranges. Again, bullet performance!...and that includes a well designed hard cast bullet. Please note, I said well designed...read as Meplat Area! It is all well to strurt around with the latest Super-Duper-Pooper-Scooper rifle, but can they really shoot it is the question? Or is it a head thing? They still sell, and hunt/kill, with the Marlin in 35 Remington....indeed!
In the heavy wooded areas, a bolt gun is nothing but a single shot, with an ammo box hanging on it....that shpuld stir the pot indeed!
High powered scopes are used most to look at other hunters...been there and had that done to me...scary! Many older hunters said if it was too far for a 4X...don't shoot! After all a 200 yard shot looks like a 50 yard target through a 4X.
I think it is high time we all re-evaluate what/where our hunting situation is and pick a firearm accordingly. That is aimed at those that really hunt and are not sitting around in dark rooms hunting on a computer!
Oh well, time to feed the bulldogs!
Regards, James
 
#5 ·
Latest NRA mag has bullet article. Goes on and on about the 'perfect' bullet, that will penetrate, good wound channel, goes through crittes from any angle... and how it hasn't been 'invented' yet.

Just have to grin and look at the critters that went down to cast bullets in my guns. That's what I call the perfect bullet!!!!!!

Maybe if Marshall started advertising in there...? LOL
 
#6 ·
Dear Lord, I love it! There are some really great people here on Beartooth, they just need to be awakened at times!
Who said What! That old Fa*t at it again?....I thought he was Dead!
Best Regards To All, James
 
#7 ·
You know, the older I get the worse I shoot. My hands, arms and eyes just don't work like they used to. But I kill more deer now than I ever did in my youth. I used to be able to shoot a perfect score with a pistol at 50 yards but lucky now if I can shoot a 5 inch group with a rifle at the same distance.
 
#8 ·
Excellent Points! It's fun indeed to rattle some chains here on Beartooth, but I do it just to see the results. The point of this entire post is to stress adjustment to age and hunting situations....which covers the guns also.
the older one gets the more they enjoy hunting. The early years where one had the prove they could kill are long past. It really seems that when you get to the mental level that you really do not care whether you kill or not.....you actually have better luck. I well remember the early years of not beiing abke to sleep the night before opening day......now I can very easy fall asleep in the woods while hunting!..great naps indeed!
I hunt much slower and see more game now.
But...back to accuracy. Now matter what the accuracy potential of your firearm...how much can you take advantage of in regular field shooting? Also how much recoil before your shots open up? The old Wichester 94/Marlin 336/1894's were never known to be tack drivers, but each year they manage to make meat. A great very old Sage once told me that if you could not shoot well, to get closer! Simple, but wise words.
Look at it this way....bow hunters kill lots of game within bow hunting distances...a decent handgun shot can do the same within the same distances indeed! Think about it! It's all relative. When you get my age, you come to like those little "Walking Guns" like the little Marlin 1894P....or even a little NEF single shot.
Regards, James
 
#10 ·
You might expand your title to include not only accuracy but also the craze for super duper wisz bang ultra magnums being foster upon the hunting public by the rags gun writers. Really read any article written today and count the number of products being suttly pushed by the writter that has to be used for success. As pointed out if you can't hit them a mag not going to help. Move in closer. Noticed many respondants commenting about hitting them in the front shoulders to anchor them. If you hit them where you should it anchors them. Over the years I've hunted with centerfire rifles in 22 caliber to 45 caliber. When I hit them in the heart--most of the time--they fell where they stood or maybe run thirty yards max. I've notice the ones that drop don't even know I'm around while the runners sense my presence and I'm sure the adrenaline is pumping. There was a thread in one of the forums here about the longest shot. Lets reverse that logic and what is the shortest shot? Mine is six feet! I've had deer walk to within three feet before realizing I was there. No special blinds, cover up scents etc. just walking into a promising area, finding a good location, sit down, be still, quite and don't move around (deadfalls are ideal). I started hunting deer with a pistol so you had to be close. Too many hunters are getting themselves loaded down with the accessories rather than enjoying the experience and going bare bones. Oh! The deer that walked within three feet was a decent buck and I had a tag but let him walk. Now that's an experience!!!
 
#11 ·
Found Hailstone's comments very interesting, esp about shooting deer at very close range.

The closest shot I would ever have had on a deer was about 10'. The good sized Blacktail actually came over to check me out when I was up in the hills shooting my 40 SW pistol on the 4th of July. Neither the shooting or my dog bothered him.

I could easily have taken him w/ a handgun...or even a spear. However, it was 3 months until deer season.

Now that I'm older, I'm finding stalking during the offseason is almost as enjoyable as the "real" hunting in the fall.
 
#16 ·
The closest shot I would ever have had on a deer was about 10'...
kinda reminds me of the seveal occasions I've had deer grazing about 150 yd out - about 3/4 of the way out on my local rifle range!

Or the day we had to pause our pistol match because a coyote was running around by the targets!

:eek:
 
#12 · (Edited)
It's an interesting topic with regard to equipment. Custom gunsmiths draw distinctions between mechanical accuracy and practical accuracy. Some things you might do to a gun, bedding, barrel tuning and whatnot, are geared toward mechanical accuracy. The sights, trigger, stock fit, etcetera, are geared toward practical accuracy. Practical accuracy is defined as anything that improves the shooter's ability to make use of whatever mechanical accuracy a gun may have. Trade-offs needed to achieve practical accuracy are easily short-changed in emphasizing mechanical accuracy, especially as regards gun weight and scope magnification. In the field, only varmint hunters commonly have platforms that can make practical use of what amount to being heavy target rifles.

The idea of segregating what which tests the rifle from that which tests the man did not originate with Jeff Cooper. He was expanding on it to include more shooting positions. The idea first formally appeared in Germany and Switzerland in the form of schuetzen (or schützen) rifle matches. Schuetzen rifles were the top accuracy guns of their day, and continued to be so into the first part of the last century. The early schuetzen matches (18th century) are reported by some to have been offhand-only, but by the second half of the 19th century, with the development of single-shot cartridge actions, these matches had evolved to commonly have two stages: off the bench and standing offhand. The idea behind those two stages was always specified as being to prove the gun and the man, respectively.

Cooper also questioned Whelen's comment that only accurate rifles were interesting. He felt the "handiness" of lighter weight and short barrels and other practical features could at times outweigh mechanical accuracy in the field. He admired Jim West's Co-pilot (guide gun) concept. Definitely a short range emergency stopper first and an accuracy gun second. Very useful to the PH having to stop a charging beast a novice client had got too excited to hit. With ghost rings it is a terrifically quick and effective deer and bear gun in woodlands. Cooper was irritated that Marlin had, as he viewed it, stolen that concept and produced an inferior embodiment of it, giving no credit or acknowledgment to West for developing and popularizing it.

Cooper's doctrine teaches sighting a high power rifle two inches high at 100 yards (to have roughly a 200 yard zero) as the best method for the field. Most common chamberings are then around two inches low somewhere in the vicinity of 230 yards. He did not distinguish between optical and open sights in this practice, even though the higher sight line of a scope results in elevating trajectory more at point blank range. He had us sight any high power rifle this way, regardless of how "flat shooting" it's chambering was supposed to be. He thought it made sense to give up two inches of vertical precision either side of the point of aim, since it didn't detract from lethality on man-weight targets and larger, and it allowed one to dismiss any thought of adjusting sights or holding over or under for heart and lung shots to 230 yards; a range within which most game was taken.

Cooper observed that, with training and practice, a shooter could usually find a field position that would let him hold a four inch circle at any range out to 300 yards, and a highly-trained shot could do it to 400 yards (where slinged-up prone or a mechanical support would be needed). You then only need a 1 3/4 moa gun and wind conditions to stay in an 8" circle at 400 yards, but at the shorter ranges more common in the eastern side of our country, you obviously do not. Also obvious is the precision of the gun and shooter can be reversed. Where my friends and I hike the Catskills, in New York, I've only once seen a potential clear shot at deer far enough out that a slug gun wasn't suitable. I say potential, because, of course, it occurred out of season, as, seems to me, is the case with 95+% of the best potential shots I see.

Having said all that, I thought it might be of interest to present a different view based on shooting out west over greater distances. Probably the most stringent hunting accuracy recommendation I've seen published is Harold Vaughn's. The following is excerpted from his book, Rifle Accuracy Facts. In the book's two opening paragraphs in the 2000 edition, he writes:

"Some forty-five years ago, when I started big game hunting, I became dissatisfied with the accuracy of commercial rifles. You just don't want to miss after spending days and sometimes weeks looking for a big trophy, and then finally getting one shot at three hundred yards or more. Most sporting rifles are not accurate enough for these long range shots. The commercial rifles that I tested would shoot 5 shot groups ranging from 4 inches to 12 inches at 300 yards, and that just isn't good enough for a serious trophy hunter.

"Now, a lot of you will say that your rifle is capable of shooting more accurately than you are capable of shooting. Now I'll buy that, if you happen to be one of those people that just can't shoot because of flinching, or not being able to see well, or for some other reason. However, I can't agree with this for the majority of shooters, because I have fired thousands of rounds through accurate sporters on machine rests where the only skill involved is putting the cross hairs of a 20 power scope on the center of the target. Invariably, I get about the same accuracy when I, and other folks, shoot the same gun from the shoulder at prone position or from a bench rest. Bench rest shooters have been consistently shooting better than 0.3 inch 10 shot groups at 100 yards for years with specially made heavy rifles and carefully assembled ammunition, while it is rare for a sporter to shoot better than 1.5 inch 5 shot groups at 100 yards. This should be ample proof that most people can shoot a lot better than their guns are capable of shooting. By the early 1960's I had lightweight sporters that would reliably shoot 2.5 inch groups at 300 yards, which is adequate for any big game hunting. This was done by replacing the barrel with a custom barrel chambered with my homemade reamers and by replacing the stock with a carefully inletted stock."​
What I like about that is the conciseness of his accuracy requirement, even if it is only advantageous for those shooting at longer ranges than most of us usually see. It also serves as a reminder that even if we don’t truly need great accuracy most days, there is no penalty for having it, and that it will give us better feedback about our shooting technique when practicing on targets. Many times at the target range I have seen people who were sure their guns outshot them, subsequently dumbfounded when a borrowed match accurized rifle, otherwise identical to their own, improved their score 10 points or more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nels
#13 ·
Now that I'm older, I'm finding stalking during the offseason is almost as enjoyable as the "real" hunting in the fall.

It is actually more fun for me. I don't have to drag it out or clean it. No bag limit either. I get a lot of enjoyment try7ing to stalk into pistol range of a deer or hog during the off season walks. I fail more often than not. <!-- / message -->
 
#14 · (Edited)
One of my favorite hunting rifles is a .58 caliber flintlock, and on a good day I am lucky if I can shoot a 4", 100 yard group with it -- this in a typical (for me) hunting stance, standing and using a tree or post as a brace. Nevertheless, I love to hunt with it.

Think about it -- even if a rifle will group no better than 6" , that means that at 100 yards it will always plant its bullet within 3" of the point of aim. For deer-sized game, hogs, and so forth that's all you will ever need.

With my handguns, I practice shooting standing, two-handed, at a paper plate. I find that if I can keep all my shots well on the plate at 25 yards, I can easily do the same -- with a rest -- at 50 yards. Again, that's all I need.

Don't get me wrong -- more accuracy is never bad. But, it's not always needed, either.
 
#15 ·
I knew we could not get by without being "taught" a lesson about accuracy, with plenty of references. There is no doubt that there are very fine accurate long range guns indeeed! let me make a statement here...one cent spent on a firearm or ammo that makes the gun beyond the range limitations of the shooter or beyond the hunting range involved...is wasted money!
If a shooters enjoys tinkering with firearms to make little small groups...then go for it indeed.
However every shooter/hunter is not so inclined. We are discussing accuracy as a relative thing...relative to rhe hunting situation involved. I have been in the industry all my life and hunted all over...I find that the need of long range guns somewhat limited. if you need one, then by all meams go get one....but do not suggest that that firearm is ideal for all hunting situations. A bullet in flight does not know if it came from a NEF or a mega-bucks gun....neither does game when it impacts.,,,nor does a one minute rifle kill any better than a three minute rifle within a resonable distance.....certainly within the ability of the large majority of hunters.
This is what I am speaking of!
Regards, James
 
#17 ·
Unfortunately the bullet dispersion due to a rifle is additive due to the wobble of the shooter so that a shooter with a 3" wobble will shoot 6" groups with a rifle of 3" capability. That translates to 18" groups at 300 yards ignoring the additional effects of trajectory and wind as range increases - starting to exceed the vital area of many deer. That is why I prefer < 2" capability in a rifle when long range (300-400 yards) shots are a possibility - along with shooting sticks or a bi-pod to reduce my wobble. When hunting where shots will be < 100 yards, a 3" or 4" rifle capability is fine.

I have shot a deer at 10' - with an arrow.
 
#29 ·
Mike,

I think that's so. I've not seen any automotive or scuba diving or, especially, computer forum whose members don't do that. And you don't want to exclude people just because their specific interests or depth varies. An actual elitist position. being akin to snobbery, is one that presumes its own perspective is the only one that matters, and considers that others are just unnecessary or irrelevant. For the board to adopt that attitude would discourage participation.


Unfortunately the bullet dispersion due to a rifle is additive due to the wobble of the shooter so that a shooter with a 3" wobble will shoot 6" groups with a rifle of 3" capability. . .
Irv,

Actually, you've reminded me that this isn't exactly so, and that I had stated it incorrectly in my first post and needed to correct it. It is important because it helps explain why having less than peak precision isn't automatically a deal breaker. After all, we don't consider that we've put our soldiers at a disadvantage just because we've sent them to war without target rifles.

Statistically, the wobble and gun group size each contributes only its own area. If you add the area of one 3" circle to that of another 3" circle and put them together in one larger circle, that larger circle will have about a 4 1/4" diameter. That is because the area of a circle depends on the square of its radius. Where you have multiple error diameters contributing, the combined group diameter will equal the square root of the sum of the squares of all the diameters. So, if you adopt Jeff Cooper's lethality criterion to stay in an 8" circle on a man-weight target, that allows the gun and the shooter to each have a precision of about 5 5/8" at whatever range you are using. If the shooter can hold 4", then the gun can shoot almost 7" at the same range and still produce only an 8" group. Obviously, and as I expect is more common, the reverse, a 7" shooter and a 4" gun, will also stay in an 8" circle.
 
#18 · (Edited)
Ah, Harold Vaughn. Brilliant man. And his book is fascinating reading - sort of the ultimate in gun-geek research (and I don't mean that as a put-down). In fact, I think his book is the finest thing there is regarding the subject of pure, crystal-clean research into the elements of rifle accuracy. There is a purity to Rifle Accuracy Facts that is nearly diamond-like, and Mr. Vaughn's committed pursuit of this topic is awe-inspiring.

After reading him, though, I couldn't get past the mental image of Mr. Vaughn in a lab coat and heavy spectacles, bringing a hunting rifle to shoulder and not being able to hit cardboard at 100 yards. Simply unacceptable! Simply unacceptable! These rifles just won't do for the serious trophy hunter like myself! (Even though O'Connor seemed to find much earlier vintages of these rifles, which "just weren't good enough" for Mr. Vaughn, completely wonderful at the same kind of Western distances).

I don't think anyone wants a gun with poor accuracy, and if your rifle shoots MOA or better, that's super - but at some point you have to ask yourself at what cost does this accuracy come? I wonder sometimes if the current generation of shooters haven't become obsessed with shooting from the bench, wringing out and arguing over fractions of an inch in sniffy tones of contempt.

I had an interesting experience this weekend at the range. I was shooting next to a gentleman, and he and I got talking. He had brought his .270 to the range just to get it sighted in for an elk hunt in Colorado. He noticed I was shooting standing offhand, was gracious in his comments (don't you find shooters to be the most generous folks in the world?), and noted that he was of an age where shooting offhand was very difficult anymore, and that he almost always shot now with some sort of support - a handy tree mostly. He gently suggested, after noticing that I was shooting nothing but offhand, that I might take a shot or two from the bench "just to see where you are with the rifle." I assured him I had. Beyond his accurate assessment of the uses and limits of a bench rest, I noticed two things: one, he fired about twenty shots, declared his groupings (which looked to me about 2.5 MOA or so) "about all I could ask for," and packed up his stuff and went home.

Second thing I noticed was an offhand comment he made to me before leaving. During a cold line we were discussing rifles and such, and I made a comment about my thoughts on shooting and marksmanship. He listened very politely, and after I had finished, he shrugged, smiled wryly, and said: "I don't think I've ever really been shooting in my life - I go hunting."

It looks kind of odd in print, but I swear in made perfect sense at the time.

Here's hoping the gentleman finds himself a solid tree to shoot from and brings home a nice fat elk. --Mykal
 
#19 ·
I have to admit being on the accuracy side of the argument. Many pleasurable hours are spent at the loading bench, range, and also the lathe/mill not only experimenting with existing tools but sometimes modifying them or making new ones in the search for accuracy.

Then I head to the field with a lever action .35 Rem and cast bullets :D which I did use to kill a raccoon at about 150 yards, from a rest.

Anyway the flip side of the coin is continual amazement at the shooters who simply can't use the accuracy they already have, or presumably do with scope sighted bolt action rifles. The other day the range officer strictly questioned me for shooting at a 50 yard target, from a rest, with a .22 pistol. The question was whether I could keep all of the shots on the paper, but I think he really meant to imply whether I could keep them on the backstop? The guns in question are well capable of staying on the paper at that range.... target model autos..... but I guess he gets to see a lot who can't.

Then it's always a fun day to be sitting at the bench with an open sighted gun, and have the scoped rifle shooters gawking at my targets with amazement. I think they truely don't know what their equipment is capable of, for the most part.

It's too bad that the mainstream gun press doesn't cover competitive shooting to any great degree, or spend more time covering basic shooting techniques (both from the bench and from field positions). Sort of reminds me of learning to shoot skeet - set up with the feet in the right spot, or you aren't likely to hit the target. Not obvious to the beginner so you have to teach them. Basics first. If you have the fundamentals, you can hit with the wrong barrel length or incorrect choke - and beat the guy with a $4,000 shotgun who doesn't have any any idea what he's doing.
 
#20 ·
Mykal,

That's a great story. It speaks to motivation, for one thing, and that, in turn, addresses one's priorities.

Everything I posted agrees with James's original position that accuracy requirements are relative to purpose, such as Cooper on the Co-pilot. As I said, I rarely see a shot in the field that a slug gun isn't perfectly adequate for where I go. That assumes no small game, as it won't leave much meat on a rabbit.

Vaughn seems to me the most extreme example of a long range hunter's idea of accuracy requirements, so I included as a contrast. Given Vaughn's history as a decorated fighter pilot, I guess I never saw him as the guy in a lab coat quite as much as the old crank engineer. A little like a cross between a professor and Algernon, the "Q" substitute in Never Say Never. In any event, because he is a long range hunter he still fits James's premise that the need for accuracy changes with the objective, even if the perception of how much is needed may be disagreed with in Vaughn's case. It is just interesting to me that experienced hunters can come to such different conclusions.

The only other point I had was that there is no point in getting rid of a gun that is more accurate than you need as long as the practical aspects of it are agreeable to your purposes. The extra accuracy doesn't hurt anything and it might just reveal you are a better shot than you thought?
 
#22 ·
. . . .
The only other point I had was that there is no point in getting rid of a gun that is more accurate than you need as long as the practical aspects of it are agreeable to your purposes. The extra accuracy doesn't hurt anything and it might just reveal you are a better shot than you thought?
Nick: Well put and I agree. Extra accuracy never is a bad thing as long has it doesn't supersede practical use of a rifle. The thing I really liked about my friend at the range was his gentlemanly concern that, despite my acceptable offhand shooting, I hadn't at least taken a shot or two from the bench, just to make sure the rifle was reasonably accurate and sighted on target. He was thinking along the lines of your "extra accuracy doesn't hurt" statement, I think. I think it gave him a certain vicarious enjoyment, watching me shoot offhand, and wanted me to shoot at my best.

I certainly don't mind when hobbyists, for the sheer enjoyment of it, pursue astounding sub MOA accuracy from rifles. Thinking it over, what gets my goat is the recent trend in shooting where this refinement of the instrument produces huge, heavy, synthetic machines that are not only ugly (at least to my eyes) but would be all but impossible to hoist into a shooting position and carry in the field, that is, really, designed to be shot only from a bench (I am thinking of the new trend in "Varmint" or "Target" models). Then the owners of these shooting instruments pride themselves on being great shots. Hey, it's like Vaughn says, and again I paraphrase: the only skill involved is putting the target between the cross hairs and pulling the trigger. That's not being a rifleman. That's just being the owner of a very accurate shooting instrument of which you set up and pull the trigger.

About Vaughn: I have seen pictures of Vaughn and he was certainly more along the lines of the tough, cranky engineer you envision than the lab geek of my imagination. I cannot help it, though, the staggering precision of his work always suggests a pale scientist blinking behind glasses. Completely unfair, I know.

I read that book some time ago and, regretfully, sold it on eBay. I remember learning so much about the causes of rifle inaccuracy. I think, in honesty, I understood about 70% or so.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't his final conclusion that the single element that made 100% accuracy impossible was bullet construction? I remember he had refined his "rifle" so that he had, in clinical fashion, eliminated nearly every element of the instrument's inaccuracy (and produced a machine that was in essence a barreled machine rest). But what was impossible was to produce two bullets that were precisely (and I do mean precisely) the same, and thus would leave the barrel formed slightly differently causing them to behave differently? Am I remembering correctly, or have I overgeneralized? I remember being completely amazed that he came as close as he did to 100% accuracy, which, the way he described it, as a rifle putting a bullet in the same hole. Everytime. Forever. --Mykal
 
#21 ·
Indeed, the 'range limitations of the shooter' cannot be determined nor evaluated absent known limitations of the gun. I, for one, could no better than touch a deer-sized target at 100 yards with a .270 I once had. Putting it on a bench rest made no apparent difference. A different rifle I have, however, will see me hitting whatever I'd like to ~250 without much difficulty. 400 if I have a steady object to brace myself against. Both rifles were/are off-the-line production guns. So with this knowledge, what are my limitations as a shooter, and are both of the rifles really 'good enough?' I know the answer I come up with.
 
#23 ·
It seeems we have again over-complicated a simple issue. What to original post was about was basiclly about useable accuarcy realted to the hunting situation. We can find all types of reference material that will back our opinions on just how accurate a rifles should be. But...that is not the answer the everyday shooter needs. These forums tend to lean toward the elitist position and overlook the mass of hunters. We can make a simple statement the potential accuracy of a rifle is related to the hunting situation...and then get all wound around the axle.
Brush rifle accuracy is one thing and long range rifles are something else indeed! The same concept can be applied to the so-called power of the cartridge used. A good example is the hangun elitist that woluld state a .44 Mag is adequate for all north American gamd....and then laugh at the rifle that shot the same cartridge...or a 44-40 out of a rifle.
Again..the point is we should not look down on everyday rifles that have plenty enough accuracy for the average hunter within average hunting situations!..period! Over the years, I have known hundreds of successful hunters that did not have a clue as the how well the rifle grouped on paper...but thay made meat many times more than the fellow that spent hours pondering ballistics and range charts...and thode that always carried around in his billfold a little tiny group to show people. Whelen thought the rifle should be a 3 minute rifle for 10 shots!....day in a day out...hot or cold! A shooter that can't shoot is going to be a bad shot within any rifle, whether that rifle accurate or not.
We should spend more time on the bullet performace than those little tiny groups!....but there more tiny groups being fired than Gut-Pile-Analysis!
If you want to know about bullet performance...ask a game outlaw or one that does crop damage controll. Over the years, I found that some of the most accurate bullets were indeed the poorest on game performance.
We could go on for days with this reference and that reference.....while the average hunter is eating red meat.
Regards, James
 
#24 ·
Accuracy

James: Very refreshing to read through this thread. Rather than stir the pot, it seems like you've preached to the choir.
"O'Connor and Whelen both had a pretty similar idea about good marksmanship: a good "rifleman" (was there ever a finer title for a man?) should be able to put most of his or her shots in a 6" circle at 100 yards from a standing offhand position - O'Connor thought about 3" from the sitting position at 100 yards was the mark if one wanted to be considered a good shot. Since O'Connor did most of his hunting out West, he seemed to consider 100 yards close work."
I knew that idea had to come from somewhere. It's a procedure that has become standard practice for me since I was first exposed to it. Get the shots on paper and then get off the bench. Alas, as has been said, most shooter's don't. I know that I get odd looks when I'm shooting prone or sitting or standing. (have only seen one other fellow over the last ten years who shot offhand at the range that I frequent. He was a better shot than I.).
Once because of this, quick story, I was overlooked when the line was closed so that people could go change targets. I was shooting on the right end of the firing line, had been there for a while, sitting on the ground doing my shooting. My back was to the other shooters. They looked, didn't see any one at my bench and started to walk forward. Fortunately, they had only taken a few steps - still out of my field of view - when I fired. Surprise. Them and me too when I turned to get up.
Since then, I try to shoot from the other end of the line so that I can keep an eye on everyone else.
Pete
 
#25 · (Edited)
Interesting Indeed! If I am preaching to the choir it's because they do the most singing. We like to think that these forums represent a good cross-section of the hunting public...think again!
That fact came home big time to me when Ole" Dixie hit the market with Tri-Ball (12 ga-3"-three 60 cal hard round balls) and I saw the order picture across the Southeast! We still have barely kept up with orders and re-orders!...running 12 hour shifts! Most rifle elitist will never stoop so low as the use them in close cover. Who speaks for those buckshot/brush hunters? Oh, you will hear gnashing of the teeth from people up North about Southern dog hunting in the past and never know/understand that the deer/hogs down here feed most at night! Certainly not a syndicated rag writer for those everyday hunters!. The point being that these forums tend to be top heavy! That's fine and dandy as it is intertainment.
Oh yes....I knew Jack O and also know that Eleanor was a better shot!...day in and day out! Writers get paid by the word and we have to render out the meat from the fat....and with the syndicated rag writers it's most fat advertising for who takes out the most adds. For the everyday hunter....it's Point, Aim, Pull, Eat...not very interesting for most on the forums
We must decide on these forums...are we Critics or Contributors...and to what end?
Regards, James
 
#26 ·
Oh Yes!..Shooting Range Ethics! I once belonged to a gun club here in Nortwest Florida...Ole' Dixie has its owm range now.
One morning I pulled in with my old hunting truck (by their fancy un-scratched SUV's) and moved my gear to an open bench. I looked down the line (a 100 yard range) and saw scopes larger that the rifles indeed! The range was cold and as with shooters some Hot-Shots City Boys wandered down to see what I had in the cases. Their first questions was what I was going to shoot? I told them a .44 Magnun. The really came uowound and told me to get my 44 Mag handgun off the rifle range or they would put me off! Well I did not figure there was enough of them to worry about...so I was nice and pulled out my Marlin 1894P! They got nice when I told them not to let their "Allagator" mouth overload their Himmingbird A$$! So much for Elitist!
By the way....I shot better groups with that Marlin and Marshall's hard cast than they did!
Regards, James
 
#35 ·
One of my favorite days at the range was with my Winchester Timber Carbine (444 Marlin with a ported barrel) Most of the other shooters were shooting bench-rest rifles mounted on legs with rails, etc. I'm no Annie Oakley, but I get pretty accepatble accuracy with my William FP sights out to 75 yards, and the report from the barrel brought the other shooters around in a hurry. I finished off my session with one of my 30-30's bouncing around the scrap of 2X4 laying on the berm at 100 yards. I'll never put all the bullets into the same hole, but it's not what I'm looking for from my guns.
 
#27 ·
It seems to me that it should not be considered unusual for the forum(s) to drift towards more accuracy, precision, etc. - the technical side of the subject. This I have found to be true whether the subject is guns, or something else of a hobby nature.

After all once we have learned the basics is it not natural for people to want to exceed that knowledge?
 
#28 · (Edited)
The different views on accuracy and guns is what makes this forum great. I enjoy it because of the help I get making my shooting and reloading better. This discussion reminds me of the years I spent as a Boy Scout and as a Scout leader and the famous pinewood derbys.
To participate in the pinewood derby each scout was required to assemble a model race car from a specified kit. Some kids (and their dads) spent hours making their model as aerodynamic and sleek as possible with fancy paint jobs just to be beat by some kid whose car was carved with a pocket knife and spray painted one color.
But each one had a good time and learned from the other, just like in this forum.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top