Good enough!

[tkleedehn]

Were they sighting in IRON sights or a scope?
Was it a bolt gun or a semi?
Was it factory cheap ammo or reloads?

I think it was a tikka t3 with a 3-9 leupold. Im not sure about the ammo, it was factory. My opinion any factory ammo is cheap.

 

[jparent]

If you can hit an 8.5 x 11 everytime at 200 yards then you won't have any issue taking a deer or larger at that distance.Going further I'd say they need more work but what those shooters/hunters did was way more that a lot of others do before season.

Is it accuracy I would want - Nope.

Is it accurate enough out to 200 for big game - Yup

Is it benchrest or competition accurate - Nope

Is it going to put meat in the freezer - Yup.

Sometimes people over think

I vehemently disagree. With a shot spread of 8-11 inches, a POI at the top of the vitals or worse the side, could easily result in a miss or worse a gut shot animal. Given these people cant hit a pie plate at 200 from the bench, gives me little hope they can get it done from the field.

I will not take a rifle afield where i hunt unless i can achieve at least 1.5 moa consistently. By that I mean every single shot fired. A 5" circle at 300 yards (the longest distance i will ever seen an animal) gives me a margin for shooter induced error due to field conditions (where i all my practice occurs) so that i know when i squeeze that shot off it's going to end it quickly for the animal. If you cant hit a notebook at 200, stay in a treestand in the bush and keep your shots under 50 yards.

 

[sam menard]

I was at the range many years ago and watched a guy site in his rifle. His group was in the upper right
quadrant of the target at 100 yards. What struck me was that he didn’t bother to adjust his scope as he was short on ammo. Knowing that he was shooting high and to the right satisfied him. I was speechless.

 

[kodiakjack]

I was at the range many years ago and watched a guy site in his rifle. His group was in the upper right
quadrant of the target at 100 yards. What struck me was that he didn’t bother to adjust his scope as he was short on ammo. Knowing that he was shooting high and to the right satisfied him. I was speechless.

That was like my dad too. Not to that extent, of course, but if it was an inch or two out, he’d just memorize where to hold. He was scared of “messing up” the scope if he adjusted anything. He dropped his rifle and broke his scope this year, so HAD to get comfortable with adjusting the new one.

 

[kodiakjack]

I agree. Usually the shooter that hunts reloads his own ammunition. Reloaders generally shoot a lot and they strive for tight groups. jmo

The danger with “shooters” vs hunters, on the opposite side of the spectrum, is that shooters tend to spend a lot of time chasing MOA from lead sleds and benches, and not a lot of time practicing shooting in practical “in-the-field” positions.

From the bench, I could outshoot my Uncle all day long. But from a standing position, I’d be hard pressed to keep up.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

I violently disagree. With a shot spread of 8-11 inches, a POI at the top of the vitals or worse the side, could easily result in a miss or worse a gut shot animal. Given these people cant hit a pie plate at 200 from the bench, gives me little hope they can get it done from the field.

I will not take a rifle afield where i hunt unless i can achieve at least 1.5 moa consistently. By that I mean every single shot fired. A 5" circle at 300 yards (the longest distance i will ever seen an animal) gives me a margin for shooter induced error due to field conditions (where i all my practice occurs) so that i know when i squeeze that shot off it's going to end it quickly for the animal. If you cant hit a notebook at 200, stay in a treestand in the bush and keep your shots under 50 yards.

So I need to get head gear and defend myself?

 

[yomomma]

So I need to get head gear and defend myself?

Some people have anger issues

 

[blargon]

Most of my family have never seen a shooting bench, but the freezers were always full and I can count the # of deer we lost in 35 years on one hand. Shooting targets off hand should be a requirement for a hunting license.

 

[Bigbubba]

Most of my family have never seen a shooting bench, but the freezers were always full and I can count the # of deer we lost in 35 years on one hand. Shooting targets off hand should be a requirement for a hunting license.

Bingo !

100% agree.

I would not be happy with "hitting the paper" with all my shots either.
off the bench I would want to see 1-2" group right where I was aiming (say 1" high at 100)

Off hand I would want to put them all in a 8" pie plate at 100

Like KodiakJack said, those are two different animals. Some guys can "shoot" and some guys can "shoot from the bench"
Not the same thing

 

[hawk-i]

Hey everyone,

Last week I went to the range to site in my rifle for an upcoming hunt. I do this before every hunt even if the rifle never left the case or truck, plus i like shooting. The range I go to has benches at each 100 yard interval with only one main taget with a berm behind it. If somone else is at the range and they are shooting at lets say 100 yards and I want to shoot at 300 yards I would have to wait. This time though he or she was at 200 yards and thats what I wanted to shoot too so I asked if i can join in they said yes. Anyways we got talking about each others rifles and hunting and bla bla bla turns out they are sighting in there rifles for hunting as well. So we were shooting togther they would shoot first on their paper then I would shoot mine then we would go look togther. I have always been very perticular about my grouping when I'm sighting in for hunting. Now I don't know if this person was feeling rushed by me but they would not even have what I call a group and say "well I hit the paper, good enough" They packed up and said good luck on your hunt! That left me thinking what is good enough for most people? Also this is not the first time this has happened. Food for Thought

And these are the people tell us we're unethical if we shoot at an animal at over 200 yards...lol

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Some people have anger issues

I'll let him hit me if it makes him feel better , I'm a humanitarian!

 

[pete dobinson]

The danger with “shooters” vs hunters, on the opposite side of the spectrum, is that shooters tend to spend a lot of time chasing MOA from lead sleds and benches, and not a lot of time practicing shooting in practical “in-the-field” positions.

From the bench, I could outshoot my Uncle all day long. But from a standing position, I’d be hard pressed to keep up.

I agree, but most shooters that hunt "not just target shoot" realise that shooting from field positions is more important than shooting from a bench.

 

[jparent]

Some people have anger issues

Nah, i have typing issues.... autocorrect got me there.

 

[TheTooner]

Yes I guess it is, everyone has to satisfy their own standard but I want to know if there is a miss or a bad shot, it is on me and not my firearm. Meaning I want to be as prepared as I can be.

That makes sense. If I miss I assume it's my fault and much more likely because I flubbed the shot than otherwise, but if it's the rifle's fault that's my fault, too because I clean and maintain it, mount the scope, sight it in, and am usually shooting my own reloads.

 

[Grouse Man]

There's tons of those kind of hunters out there. They're proud of the fact that they only shoot two bullets every year - one to sight in and one for the deer. As long as the bullet hits somewhere on the target, that's good enough to hit the deer somewhere, because they ain't that accurate anyway.

It's almost as if they don't like shooting.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

Nah, i have typing issues.... autocorrect got me there.

So no sparing session?

 

[huntingfish]

Is that where the phrase "minute of moose" came about?

 

[pete dobinson]

There's tons of those kind of hunters out there. They're proud of the fact that they only shoot two bullets every year - one to sight in and one for the deer. As long as the bullet hits somewhere on the target, that's good enough to hit the deer somewhere, because they ain't that accurate anyway.

It's almost as if they don't like shooting.

Those are usually the ones that only take head shots!

 

[Brian46]

Most of my family have never seen a shooting bench, but the freezers were always full and I can count the # of deer we lost in 35 years on one hand. Shooting targets off hand should be a requirement for a hunting license.

Why? Because you shoot at animals off hand, doesn't mean everyone does or should be forced to.

 

[kodiakjack]

Why? Because you shoot at animals off hand, doesn't mean everyone does or should be forced to.

Everyone should at least be capable of it. Just because something’s on the exam doesn’t mean you HAVE to hunt that way. I had to identify ducks I’ll never hunt, and tracks I’ll never follow. Exams and courses are meant to capture the broad spectrum, and build a well rounded hunter.

Now, that’s not to say that I support the idea of a live fire portion of the exam. (That would only make it more challenging to find locations and times for the course, coordinating with ranges, etc.). Rather, it’s just to say that with any course or exam, there’s going to be components that we never use again in our lifetimes.