Marksmanship/proficiency of average hunter...

[1899]

I was reading an article written by Wayne Van Zwoll, and he raised several interesting points:

In my view, both the .338 Federal and the .338-06 deserve more attention from shooters than do many cartridges introduced in the last decade. They’re both effective on game as big as elk out to the ranges most hunters can consistently hit vitals. They’re efficient in barrels of modest length, manageable in recoil and easy to handload. They slide eagerly through any mechanism designed for the .30-06 and .308.


What more could you ask? Well, the minions who shoot and sell fire-breathing magnums would have you believe you need higher speed, flatter arc, a heavier blow; that elk up close and deer far away demand bigger hulls; that real men are unaffected by recoil.



Don’t you believe any of it.

He has talked about proficiency in hitting vitals in previous articles too. He noted that even proficient rifleman are usually limited to 300 yard shots, as that is, in his opinion, the maximum range where you can consistantly hit the vitals of deer/elk etc.

What do you think? I am not talking about the folks on here that practice regularly at very long ranges. I am talking about a hunter who goes to the range, shoots at 100 yards, maybe 200 and 300 as well.

For example: if someone were to put an 8" circle out at a range between 250 and 350 yards, without telling you the actual distance, at an incline/decline (nothing too steep of course) and you had to shoot from a field position, do you think you could consistantly hit the target?

Under those conditions, what do you think your effective range to consistantly hit the target would be?

I think Zwoll is right on the money. I think 300 yards or so is a good estimate for me. Now, if the air is calm, I've ranged the animal, it is calm and I have a rock steady rest, I would be comfortable in making a longer shot, but for the most part I think the 300 yard limit is a good one for proficient hunters.

 

[blargon]

I was reading an article written by Wayne Van Zwoll, and he raised several interesting points:

In my view, both the .338 Federal and the .338-06 deserve more attention from shooters than do many cartridges introduced in the last decade. They’re both effective on game as big as elk out to the ranges most hunters can consistently hit vitals.

I find it funny that he says, game as big as Elk, cause I'd use both of those on a bull moose....

I'm sure most average guys like to think they are proficient, but I don't bother arguing the point with them...

 

[sheephunter]

Ah, the big bang theory....ala American style!

I totally agree that many hunters are well over gunned for their capabilities and sometimes those super fast magnums can convince marginal shooters that they are true long-range experts. I find it interesting that Wayne raised the stakes a bit with the .338 calibres but new is ###y. There is a bit of that bigger is better attitude with many shooters too that feel big holes make up for poor accuracy. The big bang theory....speed and size trumps well placed/high quality bullets!

Truthfully, the venerable .30-06 is more elk gun than 99% of elk hunters need and am not sure what extra the .338 Federal offers over it other than the use of 20 grain heavier bullets and more recoil. I've had some interesting conversations with Wayne over the years and respect his opinion and refreshingly......he isn't your typical American gun writer that feels anything bigger than a rabbit requires big bore rifles. I won't be rushing out to buy a .338 Federal when I've got a few perfectly good .30-06s in the safe. But then again, it is new and new is ###y!

 

[Gatehouse]

I'd say many hunters are lucky that animals are large....

 

[Mr. Friendly]

I seriously enjoy reading Wayne's writing. in fact, right now I'm reading his book about the history of the .22 ammunition and rifle. I appreciate how serious and realistic he is in his views.

and Gatehouse, I love that! no doubt I'll be glad the animal is so large when I get to go on my first hunt!

 

[1899]

Sheephunter - I think the fact that it is an article on the .338 Federal is not the point. He made similar comments about the .350 Rem Mag and .358 Winchester, saying that they "lack the look of long range" and he thinks that is why those cartridges are not very popular.

He also said the .30-06 and .338 Federal (with 180gr bullets) are pretty much the same performance-wise, but that the latter is available in short action, compact rifles.

I guess his main point was that you don't really need anything more, contrary to what the marketing folks say.


And yes, I agree that many folks think they are proficient when they are actually not!

 

[sheephunter]

Yes, I've always appreciated Wayne's realistic view of what it takes to get the job done....something sadly lacking in most U.S. gun writers.

 

[bisonhd]

Seeing people at the range all the time shooting "pie plate" sized groups at 200yrds with their Ultra-mags off the bench, I wonder how they do in the heat of the moment under field conditions.

 

[Dogleg]

Personally I don't think the average hunter can shoot worth a damn. Every study of shots fired for animals killed that I've ever seen shows more misses than hits, and North American game departments routinely use an approximate 30% wounded and lost factor when establishing quotas.PHASA in South Africa has kept detailed records for years. Hunters that travel half way around the world wound 1 out of 6 animals and miss 1 out of 3 cleanly. On average they shoot better than the locals. Sad, isn't it?

 

[1899]

Seeing people at the range all the time shooting "pie plate" sized groups at 200yrds with their Ultra-mags off the bench, I wonder how they do in the heat of the moment under field conditions.

I've seen that too.

I shot at a competition in Alberta a few years back. It was big bore, hunting rigs as follows: 100 yards off hand, 200 yards from the bench and 300 yards prone. I was using a borrowed rifle that I had never fired before. Luckily it was a good rifle (Steyr-Mannlicher M in .270) with excellent handloads. It was interesting to see the 100 yard off-hand target results!

 

[1899]

Personally I don't think the average hunter can shoot worth a damn. Every study of shots fired for animals killed that I've ever seen shows more misses than hits, and North American game departments routinely use an approximate 30% wounded and lost factor when establishing quotas.PHASA in South Africa has kept detailed records for years. Hunters that travel half way around the world wound 1 out of 6 animals and miss 1 out of 3 cleanly. On average they shoot better than the locals. Sad, isn't it?

So then only 50% of shots are clean killing shots? (1/3 +1/6 = 3/6 - two misses and one wound)

That is not very good!

 

[Scar270]

I've told more then one guy to go sell his 300 **** mag and go buy a .308, a couple hundred rounds of ammo and spend some time at the range if he wants to kill animals past a couple hundred yards.

Warning.. it's not a way to make friends. However most hunters don't shoot well enough to be able to tell that their mag shoots 6 inches flatter at 400 yards. They would be lucky to shoot an 8 foot group from a field position at that distance, so whats 6 inches.

People who spend 2k + setting up their hunting rifle then never shoot them because shells are $40+ a box of 20 miss way more game then the guy with a $400 rifle who has shot $1000 worth of ammo.

 

[Omega]

that real men are unaffected by recoil.

I've heard that somewhere!

 

[bone-collector]

People who spend 2k + setting up their hunting rifle then never shoot them because shells are $40+ a box of 20

 

[firejim]

I was at the range the other day messing around with the 30-06 at 100yards off the bench. At one point, I thought to myself, I don't hunt off a bench so what the hell am I doing. I tried some shots offhand - very humbling - very humbling indeed. I plan to do much more real-world range shooting in the future. I've played a lot of sports previously and currently and found that if you don't train exactly the way you compete, you're missing the boat.

 

[1899]

I was at the range the other day messing around with the 30-06 at 100yards off the bench. At one point, I thought to myself, I don't hunt off a bench so what the hell am I doing. I tried some shots offhand - very humbling - very humbling indeed. I plan to do much more real-world range shooting in the future. I've played a lot of sports previously and currently and found that if you don't train exactly the way you compete, you're missing the boat.

That is very wise. I don't know what rifle you use, but I have found that set triggers are excellent for offhand shooting. I place the cross-hairs over the target and slowly drop towards the desired point of impact. When the aim is where it should be I touch the set trigger. Try the method, it works well without a set trigger too. Also try 25 and 50 yards offhand with a good quality (especially trigger) .22, it will really improve your skills!

I would also try a walking/shooting stick. I used a 5' piece of bamboo or piece of wood. It helps when you are hiking in rough terrain or crossing a creek and REALLY improves your shooting compared to offhand. It works while standing, kneeling or sitting.

 

[Camp Cook]

if someone were to put an 8" circle out at a range between 250 and 350 yards, without telling you the actual distance, at an incline/decline (nothing too steep of course) and you had to shoot from a field position, do you think you could consistantly hit the target?

I usually only practice out to 300 yards but that is due to the rifle range I go too only being 300 yards, now that range finders are commonly available I am never without mine so when in the bush I am constantly ranging and taking longer 300 - 600 yard shots...

Even though I shoot so much I would say under the conditions you described without a range finder it would be tough to consistatly make those shots .

Under those conditions, what do you think your effective range to consistantly hit the target would be?

For me in actual hunting situations 200 to 250 yards would be the max distances I would make consistant shots without knowing the distance.

I think Zwoll is right on the money. I think 300 yards or so is a good estimate for me. Now, if the air is calm, I've ranged the animal, it is calm and I have a rock steady rest, I would be comfortable in making a longer shot, but for the most part I think the 300 yard limit is a good one for proficient hunters

I couldn't agree more...

edit to add;

I would also add to proficient "Ethical" to your last statement.

 

[srt4u2nv]

I practice using the same positions I end up in while hunting. I set targets at random roughly 50yds to 300yds I dont range them I just shoot them from a sitting position with bi-pod/standing with shooting sticks/standing with no sticks. I will also practice walking with my .22 and stopping suddenly aquiring the target and shooting very quickly this really helps if you hunt in the bush.

 

[Demonical]

I bet I could hit an 8" pie plate from field positions at 50 yards 3 out of 10 times...

 

[Camp Cook]

I will also practice walking with my .22 and stopping suddenly aquiring the target and shooting very quickly this really helps if you hunt in the bush.

That is exactly what I did when I was a teenager we would walk thru gopher/yellow bellied marmot colonies with our 22 rifles hanging on slings on our shoulders when we spotted a gopher the idea was to shoulder the rifle and shoot the gopher before your buddy could.

Its amazing how fast & proficient you can get with time but always remember to start out slow when you begin a day of shooting until you train your hard wiring to do it instictively.

I am not one that likes overly light triggers I prefer 3.5#'s on all of my long guns the reason is that after I shoulder the rifle and as I am letting the rifle drop or raise up onto target I am already squeezing the trigger and finish the let off as the sight crosses the target.