Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 119

Thread: Field Accuracy

  1. #1
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    489

    Field Accuracy

    A very good article in this months Sporting Rifle by Andrew Venables.
    Basically saying all the bovine excreta about accuracy isn't applicable to hunting in the field.

  2. #2
    Haven't read it but would hazard a guess I know where he's coming from.

    Does he however pass comment on the psychological benefits to the stalker who believes he has the ultimate in terms of an accurate stalking rig?

    K
    The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

  3. #3
    SD Regular willie_gunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire....and Sutherland
    Posts
    6,995
    View my Gallery (19)View my Gallery (19)
    Quote Originally Posted by Klenchblaize View Post
    Does he however pass comment on the psychological benefits to the stalker who believes he has the ultimate in terms of an accurate stalking rig?
    ...and the ability to extract at least field-level accuracy out of it.

    The number who can extract the ultimate accuracy from their stalking rigs are few and far between....nor do I honestly believe is it needed in most practical stalking situations.

    Whoever invented the phrase "close enough for government work" got it about right
    O wad some Power the giftie gie us to see oursels as ithers see us!

  4. #4
    The same Mr Venables who runs a business teaching people to shoot long range?
    Right where's those stones , I'll start !

  5. #5
    SD Regular Greener Jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Yorkshireman in Darkest Cornwall
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by tackb View Post
    The same Mr Venables who runs a business teaching people to shoot long range?
    That's the one. I must admit, I like his articles. He seems to really relish the stalk over the shot. Recently bought a open sighted rifle from the early 1900's and spoke poorly of someone who took a tactical rifle on a plains game hunt.

  6. #6
    I mentioned earlier about target shooting & hunting needing completely different approaches (in the .270 thread, I think?) I was actually once lambasted by mentioning this very thing on my own (now closed) forum & was told that the error increases as the range lengthens. This is quite right of course, but if you take the target area as being roughly the size of a soup bowl it would be a poor hunter who couldn't consistently hit that at reasonable ethical ranges..............say 200 yards maximum, in most UK scenarios? I've never given a blue fart if my groups are a couple of inches, for several reasons..................

    One; My practice sessions are to try & replicate conditions I'll experience in the field: standing, kneeling shots from bipod, sticks and freehand. Show me a guy who can cloverleaf at 100 yards off the shoulder & we'll have found the New God

    Two; As long as I can get within the kill zone diameter I see no advantage to be gained by hitting the middle of the heart, as opposed to being an inch or two out

    Three; I don't shoot at long ranges (for no other reason than I shoot to hunt & target shooting doesn't appeal to me unless it's relevant practice)

    My rifles are capable of far better groups than I can shoot from them, and this alone gives me the confidence to know that if I hold them straight the bullet is going to end up more or less where I need it to. And of course you're never going to be worrying about grouping on live quarry, so if you have the confidence that that first shot is going to find its mark you'll not mess it up through hesitating. And that's where practice and technique come in, as far as hunting goes anyway.

    That's not a dig at the target guys though, far from it! I shot my .270 at 1000 yards last year (or near as damn it) with a No4 reticule on a 6x42 & although I managed to get a couple of rounds on the target (out of more than I care to recall ) it gave me a whole load of respect for anyone who can get any kind of consistency at that range

  7. #7
    I don't think the quest for accuracy is BS, but I agree that bench-rest grade accuracy usually isn't necessary. It does have a psychological value tho.

    I enjoy shooting very accurate rifles but if given the choice between a 1/4 MOA rifle that fits me poorly and/or has an unmanageable trigger, or a 1.5 MOA rifle that fits me well and has a good off-hand trigger, I'll take the latter. The ability to utilize the available accuracy is much more important than pure accuracy levels.~Muir

  8. #8
    Getting good accuracy under field conditions is something one can work at. I have shot plenty deer where I relied on good accuracy. The rifle, stock, barrel must be of good quality and should be put together well. My main hunting rifles all shoot under half inch and that's the way I like them. I have a leveraction that I don't even know how well it groups at 100yds and it is therefore only used for close stuff.
    Overall there is nothing wrong with good accuracy, a less accurate rifle will be of no advantage in the field.
    edi

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by willie_gunn View Post
    ...and the ability to extract at least field-level accuracy out of it.

    The number who can extract the ultimate accuracy from their stalking rigs are few and far between....nor do I honestly believe is it needed in most practical stalking situations.

    Whoever invented the phrase "close enough for government work" got it about right
    Too many people spend money on rifles and scopes, and time and money developing handloads, in an effort to cut 1/2 or 1/4 MOA off the groups. For most shooters, it would be better to practice and cut that 1/2 MOA off their own technique. A 1/2 MOA rifle is not much advantage if you have to take a shot without a rest and cannot hold 3 MOA, or in wind you are unable to dope. The best scope with tactical knobs will be of no value if you have to shoot quickly and misestimate the range at 300 instead of the 400 it is.

  10. #10
    I can see where he is coming from and I hear lots of people saying that accuracy doesn't matter so long as you can hit the 4" DSC type target.

    I however prefer to have an accurate rifle and if I can get down under 1" groups at 100 yards through practice and selection of ammunition I will go to the bother, I hand load now and accuracy is one of the several reasons for doing it. I used to be of the 4" target opinion but now I like to have the confidence I gain from accuracy.

    for example I had one scenario where I had a young roe working its way toward me along a fence line where I managed to get in the prone position. the only shot I could get was a head shot when it came quite close as it was coming directly toward me. the only reason I took the shot is that I was prone and I knew my rifle was shooting 0.5" groups otherwise I wouldn't have even thought about it.

    also for other shots off the sticks or in other positions, knowing the rifle is bang on takes out one variable which can lead to accumulation of errors. i.e. if you are shooting 2" groups for whatever reason, your shooting has to be a lot better to stay in the 4" target zone plus adding wind and such like makes things worse.

Similar Threads

  1. What and how many knifes when in the field!
    By speedystu in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 10-05-2016, 06:13
  2. One from the barley field
    By glogin in forum Videos
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29-07-2014, 03:10
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 22-12-2013, 23:09
  4. Field Knife
    By danmoore2k in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-11-2013, 21:25
  5. Total Field
    By kuwinda in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 16-02-2009, 10:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •