Advanced Marksmanship Lying to Ourselves About What Makes a Difference.

[Emerson0311]

A middle aged man spending an afternoon building a particularly difficult position, shooting 1, breaking down, and rebuilding 30 times, all on paper to track NPA screwups and “hurry and tired” mistakes is not fun or relaxing. It’s the same with constant cardio for the big guy. Work is too much for most hobbyists.

 

[Baron23]

This thread seems like it was started for PRS competitors...or at least that's the impression I get. Along with some of the replies, which seem fairly valid for that particular interest.

But please keep in mind that the attraction of precision rifles and reloading is not the same for everybody and things you may sneer at as being a waste of time or money for some may well just be part of the hobby or area of interest for another shooter.

Just saying.

 

[Dot3]

I reload out of necessity

I'm saving money on both match rifle and pistol ammo. I also have to reload to get what I want in terms of ballistics for both. While my USPSA 9 mm ammo may not be any more accurate than the stuff I can buy, it sure is easier to shoot when I can dial the power factor from the typical 140 - 145 to a more reasonable and still in regulation 130 - 132.

Yeah makes perfect sense. A means to an end. (FWIW, my dad has reduced the power factor on my mom's 9mm so that she can make better follow up shots. Same result as you, different reason) I don't enjoy the bench as much as some, but I don't loathe it either. So, it's not a necessity for me except for my calibers of choice don't offer match grade factory ammo (just talking about rifle). But I'm in the camp of new-to-the-game shooters who needs to spend more of my time getting into and out of positions and getting clean trigger breaks instead of worrying about a sub-5fps SD. And I know as much, so that's where my focus goes.

 

[ArTeeKay]

This thread seems like it was started for PRS competitors...or at least that's the impression I get. Along with some of the replies, which seem fairly valid for that particular interest.

But please keep in mind that the attraction of precision rifles and reloading is not the same for everybody and things you may sneer at as being a waste of time or money for some may well just be part of the hobby or area of interest for another shooter.

Just saying.

Really my focus is practical rifle shooting. And frankly, at this point, PRS comps very rarely resemble anything that looks like practical at this point. Shooting quarter MOA stars or diamonds at 600 yards out of a chunk of culvert filled with Jello? Yeah, no.

Why not try a 2 MOA circle painted the same color as the background at 500 yards through a loophole at 100 yards? Why not more movers at realistic speeds? Try a 5 MOA target approaching from 800 yards towards the shooter at 25mph, or however fast it is bears run. Why not a mile run with gear, then the equivalent of a KYL rack, but instead of varying target size, run 1.5 MOA targets out every 300yards to the max effective range of the cartridges most guys are shooting? How bout a heavy steel reactive target that only counts as engaged if you hit it with enough energy to knock that fucker down? Target flashers are fucking stupid, if I can't tell your .244Bunnyfart hit the steel at 800 through my spotter, you didn't hit it. Light caliber rifles don't punish bad technique like real world calibers do, and the trend of pushing cartridges to the absolute bleeding edge of their performance envelope is fucking stupid. Bring enough damn gun...

Sorry, got all wound up there for a minute. The point stands, my comments are meant for shooters of all disciplines. Until you can outshoot your gun, your ammo, and your time limits on a consistent basis, it's not equipment that is the limiting factor, it's the shooter, no matter of PRS, USPSA, three gun, or Wednesday night at the trap club.

 

[Baron23]

Until you can outshoot your gun, your ammo, and your time limits on a consistent basis, it's not equipment that is the limiting factor,

I don't disagree with this nor did I in any way indicate that I did.

Here's an example, an elderly guy, retired so he has plenty of time, gets a kick out of making the very best ammo possible. Its part of his hobby and enjoyment of the sport. It absolutely will make no difference to the outcome of his shooting as his abilities are rapidly declining along with his eye sight and coordination. So, its his shooting and not ammo that is the limfac of his shooting outcomes. But he enjoys the challenge of making this ammo to the absolute best he can to include stuff doing stuff that others might feel is a waste of time. And it gives him something to do in the garage at his reloading bench, a sense of accomplishment, and gets him out of his wife's hair for a bit. See what I'm saying?

Not everybody in any given broad area of sports has the same objectives or the same concerns.

Cheers

 

[ArTeeKay]

I don't disagree with this nor did I in any way indicate that I did.

Here's an example, an elderly guy, retired so he has plenty of time, gets a kick out of making the very best ammo possible. Its part of his hobby and enjoyment of the sport. It absolutely will make no difference to the outcome of his shooting as his abilities are rapidly declining along with his eye sight and coordination. So, its his shooting and not ammo that is the limfac of his shooting outcomes. But he enjoys the challenge of making this ammo to the absolute best he can to include stuff doing stuff that others might feel is a waste of time. And it gives him something to do in the garage at his reloading bench, a sense of accomplishment, and gets him out of his wife's hair for a bit. See what I'm saying?

Not everybody in any given broad area of sports has the same objectives or the same concerns.

Cheers

Don't get me wrong, craftsmanship is doing the thing well for its own sake, for the enjoyment of the thing. What craftsmanship is not is blaming your tools for your poor end result. What I'm bothered by is the latter. I applaud the former, no matter how arcane the task.

 

[TheOtherAndrew]

To clarify, all of what follows has already been said, so I am just restating in different words, and if you distill it down to it's essence, it is the same as why you were heckled so badly when arguing for something other than a 100 yd zero.

Just about any top level shooter in most of the shooting sports could take my rifle (or shotgun, or pistol for that matter) and I could take theirs, and they'd still win 8 days a week. But if that person was competing against themselves, with an optimal gun vs a suboptimal gun, the version shooting the more optimized gun would similarly win a totally disproportionate amount. The techniques for winning are already there. There are likely few, if any, advances to be made in that direction now. So now we optimize equipment instead of technical skill, as that's where we will make our best progress.

If what you really want is to drive people to build new and different skills and techniques, start a new sport, with rules that force that sort of development. Don't demand that Wilt Chamberlain plays ball with one hand tied behind his back. Invent a version of basketball where you aren't allowed to use your hands.

 

[TheOtherAndrew]

BTW the 400yd center idea is working amazingly well! Just took a little refining of the system to make things line up...

 

[ArTeeKay]

View attachment 7906080

You know what, I'm gonna bite, cause I'm bored.

You do realize that post is exactly what I'm talking about in this thread, right? Getting spun up on equipment because the rules of the game are so narrowly defined that you can afford the absurd equipment race at the expense of versatility, practical skills be damned?

If I set up a rifle for benchrest shooting, and take advantage of every opportunity the rules of that game afford me, the rifle I use for that purpose will be poorly suited for anything except that game. Similarly, if I set up an ultralight mountain hunting rifle, I'm going to get fucking crushed if I attempt to use that rifle to shoot F-class competitively.

Guys get so hung up on the games and the gear and the numbers, that they forget they oughta still be good shooters.

BTW the 400yd center idea is working amazingly well! Just took a little refining of the system to make things line up...

Don't worry, we saw where you tried to claim you originated the idea that @Jack Master and @lowlight have been promoting for awhile. We know you're a hack, no need to remind us.

 

[TheOtherAndrew]

Right Im the hack.

My thread was literally called PRACTICAL Marksmanship the one where that quote of you was taken from. You were all about optimizing gear not personal skill. Now you complain people need more personal skill and less focus on gear (be a good marksman).

And if the 400yd center idea was [terrible] (per everybody in that thread); why would it be a [useful tool] once you find out Frank and JackMaster supposedly already did it?

You jump on whatever boat you feel has momentum. You say one side of a discussion is best, then a week later regurgitate the same stuff you were hating on a week earlier.

Anyway Im not too worried about what you think, say or do because I have the luxury of not knowing you. But Im sure youre a decent enough guy in person.

 

[orkan]

We need to stop suggesting that reloading is required for accurate ammo and that it’s more cost effective to reload. It isn’t.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "accurate" is.

I know for a fact that factory ammo can not shoot with my handloads. None of it. Nor can handloads replace the confidence gained from the exacting effort I undertake during every step of the process to ensure each and every round is identical.

Having said that, a good lot of factory ammo can produce 1/3MOA on the regular with only very few rounds opening it up to 1/2MOA. Though that is about the apex of what I've seen it do consistently among the best of it. For many, that is more than adequate. For others of us, 1/2MOA is not going to cut it. I know I'd be missing a lot more of my prairie dogs if I went afield with 1/2moa.

What is correct is dependent upon what someone's requirements are, how much time they want to spend, and what game they are playing... which determines what success looks like. What works for a PRS shooter will very likely not work for an F-class shooter. My varmint hunting requirements more closely match a notch just above what F-class and benchrest require for success. They get sighters... I don't. So my needs are beyond even the top square range disciplines, and my targets are often smaller.

Then there's the wildcats I shoot, where no factory ammo can be found. Factory ammo is not an option for me, as it does not provide enough precision or accuracy, nor is factory ammo available even if it did. I suspect its not an option for others either.

 

[cas6969]

Having had handloads that I stuck an inexpensive hunting bullet in a case, with a charge picked at random, a seating depth picked at random, shoot legitimate 1/2" 200 yard groups. (honestly and truly plunked my finger down on a load chart at random) Yet failed to get satisfactory results at times after weeks and months of trying with the best components, preparation and every trick of precision handloading minutia I could think of.

Having had very expensive highly regarded rifles with fairly expensive scopes... that shot well, but not as well as a basically off the shelf consumer grade hunting rifles I've had, with a $125 Tasco scope on it.

Or have silly bend in the middle Contender pistols with long eye relief 6 power pistol scopes, shoot groups that embarass the above mentioned rifles! (re-chambers of factory barrels, not even custom barrels with regular slim factory forends)

So no, I clearly have no idea what makes a difference, that's for damn sure. lmao

(That's my issue (mentally) with a couple rifles I'm working with now. I really like them, and that's enough I suppose. But I can't NOT think about the fact that I have things like that. A 16ib rifle with a 24x scope, a trigger pull of ounces, almost shoots as well as something with no F'ing stock, 1/3 the barrel, 1/3 the scope, 1/4 the weight, 1/10 the cost!)
Do I have answers as to why?

 

[Skg_Mre_Lght]

Most people don't want to put the effort into excelling into anything they do. You aren't going to change them, and will just get shit on for suggesting training to improve.

Everyone has a different world view, and most of the world could not care less who the top shooters in each discipline are. Go look at a Field & Stream post on FB. Anytime anything is posted about improving marksmanship, or gear to compete you will have 150 chuckle heads going on about how it's unethical to shoot an animal past 200 yards, how grandpappy's ought six stacked 'em deep for decades, and other nonsense.

You know what people like? Toys. Nobody gives a crap about the kid that can smoke the local tracks in a slightly modded Miata. Everyone wants to be the guy with the new Ferrari that can barely keep it on the road, but revs it at every red light.

Humans are gonna human, and that will never change. Nobody is going to pat you on the back for grinding to excel. You'll see that in wins at matches.

There is a purpose for gear. Yeah, ranging with your reticle is a handy skill to have, but it's imprecise and slow, which is why nobody does that shit anymore. There is also a reason nobody shoots Winchester model 70 30'06s for anything outside of hunting or fun.

Yeah, you are the reason you missed 99% of the time, but gear does matter when shooting competitively or *gasp* sniping. I just view all the posts about gear minutiae as stuff people talk about on gun boards. That stuff costs money, and we're here to talk about guns and shooting, so people talk about details related to gear.

 

[OREGUN]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "accurate" is.

I know for a fact that factory ammo can not shoot with my handloads. None of it. Nor can handloads replace the confidence gained from the exacting effort I undertake during every step of the process to ensure each and every round is identical.

Having said that, a good lot of factory ammo can produce 1/3MOA on the regular with only very few rounds opening it up to 1/2MOA. Though that is about the apex of what I've seen it do consistently among the best of it. For many, that is more than adequate. For others of us, 1/2MOA is not going to cut it. I know I'd be missing a lot more of my prairie dogs if I went afield with 1/2moa.

What is correct is dependent upon what someone's requirements are, how much time they want to spend, and what game they are playing... which determines what success looks like. What works for a PRS shooter will very likely not work for an F-class shooter. My varmint hunting requirements more closely match a notch just above what F-class and benchrest require for success. They get sighters... I don't. So my needs are beyond even the top square range disciplines, and my targets are often smaller.

Then there's the wildcats I shoot, where no factory ammo can be found. Factory ammo is not an option for me, as it does not provide enough precision or accuracy, nor is factory ammo available even if it did. I suspect its not an option for others either.

Yeah, man. There are always exceptions. If you are in a small group shooting discipline AND can shoot the difference between .3 and .5 AND can reload ammo that shoots .3 or smaller at 100 and has single digit SDs, then yes handload, every time, all the time. New shooters, steel bangers, mid-pack f-classers…most can’t reliably shoot even perfect ammo less than .5 MOA (that would be a 3” group at 600 yards for an f-class example.). And most reloaders, especially new ones, don’t create single digit SD ammo. So, if factory ammo can do .3 most of the time or even .5 regularly, then the factory ammo “flyers” that go bigger than .5 are way more likely to be shooter error than faulty ammo. That’s all I’m sayin. Buy more ammo, shoot every round with purpose, don’t blame misses on “factory ammo sucks”.

edited to add: assuming by factory ammo we mean something like Hornady ELDM or Berger stuff, not Anguila or Sellier&Belloit.

And: wildcatting is a whole different thing. if somebody asks me how to a: get into shooting or b: get better at shooting, my response is not going to include “pick a cartridge that has little to no commercial support, that no one will have a reamer for, that requires advanced skills to make brass for, etc.”

 

[orkan]

Yeah, man. There are always exceptions. If you are in a small group shooting discipline AND can shoot the difference between .3 and .5 AND can reload ammo that shoots .3 or smaller at 100 and has single digit SDs, then yes handload, every time, all the time. New shooters, steel bangers, mid-pack f-classers…most can’t reliably shoot even perfect ammo less than .5 MOA (that would be a 3” group at 600 yards for an f-class example.). And most reloaders, especially new ones, don’t create single digit SD ammo. So, if factory ammo can do .3 most of the time or even .5 regularly, then the factory ammo “flyers” that go bigger than .5 are way more likely to be shooter error than faulty ammo. That’s all I’m sayin. Buy more ammo, shoot every round with purpose, don’t blame misses on “factory ammo sucks”.

edited to add: assuming by factory ammo we mean something like Hornady ELDM or Berger stuff, not Anguila or Sellier&Belloit.

And: wildcatting is a whole different thing. if somebody asks me how to a: get into shooting or b: get better at shooting, my response is not going to include “pick a cartridge that has little to no commercial support, that no one will have a reamer for, that requires advanced skills to make brass for, etc.”

I agree with the spirit of your posts, and how they apply to the majority of the shooting population. Most shooters, you're spot on.

Though it is important that a distinction be drawn between where those types of shooters end, and those that take it more seriously begin. I deal with the latter every day all day. One of their primary complaints is how many posts that echo (at least marginally) the sentiments of your posts, have led them down wrong roads and they've wasted a ton of time.

Just a couple weeks ago I had a group of 7 totally uninitiated shooters here for some prairie dog blasting. Watching them zero their AR's at 100yds, was painful. 1" to 1.5" groups across the board. Every rifle, every shooter.

Then I let them shoot one of my tuned 22BRA's. Each one got up off it with a look of astonishment. Turns out they could all shoot much better than they thought they could. To the last man. The margin for error my setup with my ammo provided, allowed them to shoot the best they've ever shot in their lives.

I've replicated this experiment on numerous occasions. Same result every time. This is all to say that new shooters that have never had experience with a finely tuned rifle can often languish with mediocre gear and methods simply because they've never been able to witness what the alternative looks like.

 

[ArTeeKay]

I agree with the spirit of your posts, and how they apply to the majority of the shooting population. Most shooters, you're spot on.

Though it is important that a distinction be drawn between where those types of shooters end, and those that take it more seriously begin. I deal with the latter every day all day. One of their primary complaints is how many posts that echo (at least marginally) the sentiments of your posts, have led them down wrong roads and they've wasted a ton of time.

Just a couple weeks ago I had a group of 7 totally uninitiated shooters here for some prairie dog blasting. Watching them zero their AR's at 100yds, was painful. 1" to 1.5" groups across the board. Every rifle, every shooter.

Then I let them shoot one of my tuned 22BRA's. Each one got up off it with a look of astonishment. Turns out they could all shoot much better than they thought they could. To the last man. The margin for error my setup with my ammo provided, allowed them to shoot the best they've ever shot in their lives.

I've replicated this experiment on numerous occasions. Same result every time. This is all to say that new shooters that have never had experience with a finely tuned rifle can often languish with mediocre gear and methods simply because they've never been able to witness what the alternative looks like.

I think there is much to be said for the point you make here. Being able to honestly test ourselves rather than our equipment is critical to a facts based evaluation of our skills, where are strengths and weaknesses are, and what direction we need to move in to make improvements.

I will enthusiastically say that there is a minimum quality standard that every piece of equipment a shooter buys should be held to. Anything below that standard is only going to create problems, and frustrate a shooter attempting to make forward progress, regardless of their actual skill level, and depending on the nature of the problem with the equipment, may actually trick the shooter into regressing skill wise as they fight to make the system respond to inputs.

That's all shooting is. A complex series of inputs and outputs of what is essentially function equation. My primary complaint, framed most simply, is people get all twisted up about the inputs without clearly defining what they the range of acceptable outputs are. In cases like yours, where a rifle shooting in the .10s might be considered a good start, it makes sense to sort cases by weight and volume, set neck tension to the ten thousandth, and be as fastidious as you are about primer seating, as those are all likely to contribute meaningfully to that pursuit.

For the dudes smacking 20" steel at a grand, for kicks and giggles? Probably not a particularly good use of the ol' beer fund to invest in a micrometer seating die.

 

[SmolPP]

I've read all of the replies to the original post and I tend to agree with the general theme of, "Shut up and shoot. Stop blaming your gear."
My approach to shooting is the same as any other serious discipline. That is to always be the student. If you always have a student's mindset, whereby you are always trying to learn something about how you can perform a given task better each time you get behind your rifle, you will eventually get better. If anyone has taken BJJ you'll know what that mindset is.
The reason that I specifically mention BJJ is because when you start out, you know nothing and you repeatedly get beat by the most simple moves. Next, you'll learn a few defenses to those moves and get beaten by another different move. This process continues ad-infinitum even after you've reached a level of mastery. It is a humbling experience to continually lose, but to take the time to analyze your mistakes, learn from them, and spend the time fixing your technique so that you won't make the same mistakes again, that is the student's mindset.
If you can take the same mindset and apply it to shooting, you'll analyze your shots, what you did right and especially what you did wrong, and drill until you've removed those bad habits. If you keep repeating that process, you will then become a better shooter.
Unfortunately it takes time and effort to do this, so it's way easier to just blame the barrel, ammo, wind density, phase of the moon, whatever.... I just avoid training with people like that. I'm out to better myself and others around me if I can.
My $0.015 adjusted for inflation...

 

[308pirate]

I agree with the spirit of your posts, and how they apply to the majority of the shooting population. Most shooters, you're spot on.

Though it is important that a distinction be drawn between where those types of shooters end, and those that take it more seriously begin. I deal with the latter every day all day. One of their primary complaints is how many posts that echo (at least marginally) the sentiments of your posts, have led them down wrong roads and they've wasted a ton of time.

Just a couple weeks ago I had a group of 7 totally uninitiated shooters here for some prairie dog blasting. Watching them zero their AR's at 100yds, was painful. 1" to 1.5" groups across the board. Every rifle, every shooter.

Then I let them shoot one of my tuned 22BRA's. Each one got up off it with a look of astonishment. Turns out they could all shoot much better than they thought they could. To the last man. The margin for error my setup with my ammo provided, allowed them to shoot the best they've ever shot in their lives.

I've replicated this experiment on numerous occasions. Same result every time. This is all to say that new shooters that have never had experience with a finely tuned rifle can often languish with mediocre gear and methods simply because they've never been able to witness what the alternative looks like.

That is exactly why I think that beginners seriously short change themselves when they buy mediocre rifles/ammo/optics/etc and justify it by saying that they're not good enough to take advantage of better gear.

It blows my mind how they just can't understand the effect of more noise in the feedback loop.

 

[LONG RNG]

@OREGUN, @308pirate, I'm right there with you. I've heard some of the most inane, absurd excuses for poor ability, and nearly none of them are "I don't spend enough time with my gun in my hands". I guess the big question behind all this is how do you get a person to have a moment of honest evaluation of themselves, and help them come to the understanding that the just need to work harder and get good, instead of throwing money at their deficiencies?

Is it all shooter dependent, different approaches for different personalities? Or are there people that you're just not ever gonna reach, and accepting that will make me both happier and calmer, especially when I see Elmer Fudd out showering new shooters with "old wisdom" that they're gonna have to train themselves out of when they learn there's a better way?

The" plain and simple reason is" They cannot look in the mirror and see that their short comings, lack of skill, whatever you call it...IS THE PERSON LOOKING BACK AT THEM. They think they can buy "Skills" through buying the next great bag or Caliber...The people who sit and watch all the PRS and NRL videos think that the matches are won by "THE EQUIPMENT that the shooters use" not the actual person and their time put in learning and practicing and challenging themselves when no one else is around to pat them on the back. "Gear Races" are an evil part of any endeavor unfortunately.

 

[LONG RNG]

Most people don't want to put the effort into excelling into anything they do. You aren't going to change them, and will just get shit on for suggesting training to improve.

Everyone has a different world view, and most of the world could not care less who the top shooters in each discipline are. Go look at a Field & Stream post on FB. Anytime anything is posted about improving marksmanship, or gear to compete you will have 150 chuckle heads going on about how it's unethical to shoot an animal past 200 yards, how grandpappy's ought six stacked 'em deep for decades, and other nonsense.

You know what people like? Toys. Nobody gives a crap about the kid that can smoke the local tracks in a slightly modded Miata. Everyone wants to be the guy with the new Ferrari that can barely keep it on the road, but revs it at every red light.

Humans are gonna human, and that will never change. Nobody is going to pat you on the back for grinding to excel. You'll see that in wins at matches.

There is a purpose for gear. Yeah, ranging with your reticle is a handy skill to have, but it's imprecise and slow, which is why nobody does that shit anymore. There is also a reason nobody shoots Winchester model 70 30'06s for anything outside of hunting or fun.

Yeah, you are the reason you missed 99% of the time, but gear does matter when shooting competitively or *gasp* sniping. I just view all the posts about gear minutiae as stuff people talk about on gun boards. That stuff costs money, and we're here to talk about guns and shooting, so people talk about details related to gear.

I find a lot of truth in your post. I am, very much a loner, and keep to myself when I go to a ranger to practice. I practice as far away from others as I can. I like to actually concentrate and challenge myself to learn form my mistakes. I recently bought an AI AT in 6.5cm with a good scope...more recently I was at the range, far and away from everyone...but three chuckleheads felt the need to come down to "give me some hints on how to be better".
Apparently I should have started by buying a "REAL" Accuracy International rifle and not the entry level one....My scope color did not match my rifle well...nobody shoots 6.5CM anymore....oh and I need a much larger rear bag made by company X if I ever hope to reach out to 600yards...and The best advise that day "you are in Ohio, your gun needs to be black or green....

Needless to say I will not go back to that range. EVER again.....

 

[MadDuner]

I find a lot of truth in your post. I am, very much a loner, and keep to myself when I go to a ranger to practice. I practice as far away from others as I can. I like to actually concentrate and challenge myself to learn form my mistakes. I recently bought an AI AT in 6.5cm with a good scope...more recently I was at the range, far and away from everyone...but three chuckleheads felt the need to come down to "give me some hints on how to be better".
Apparently I should have started by buying a "REAL" Accuracy International rifle and not the entry level one....My scope color did not match my rifle well...nobody shoots 6.5CM anymore....oh and I need a much larger rear bag made by company X if I ever hope to reach out to 600yards...and The best advise that day "you are in Ohio, your gun needs to be black or green....

Needless to say I will not go back to that range. EVER again.....

There are chuckleheads at every range.
That part never changes.

 

[OREGUN]

I find a lot of truth in your post. I am, very much a loner, and keep to myself when I go to a ranger to practice. I practice as far away from others as I can. I like to actually concentrate and challenge myself to learn form my mistakes. I recently bought an AI AT in 6.5cm with a good scope...more recently I was at the range, far and away from everyone...but three chuckleheads felt the need to come down to "give me some hints on how to be better".
Apparently I should have started by buying a "REAL" Accuracy International rifle and not the entry level one....My scope color did not match my rifle well...nobody shoots 6.5CM anymore....oh and I need a much larger rear bag made by company X if I ever hope to reach out to 600yards...and The best advise that day "you are in Ohio, your gun needs to be black or green....

Needless to say I will not go back to that range. EVER again.....

I‘m the same way. I go to the the range in the late evening a lot because there’s less likely to be people there. I go to the range to train. I neither want anyone‘s unsolicited opinion on what I’m doing, which equipment I’m using, what scope brand I should have, why I shoot suppressed or braked nor do I want to troubleshoot your shitty groups and the lead sled you are using.

 

[aslrookie]

Even though I agree with the original post, I will play devils advocate and also admit that by people offloading tons of cash into sport is a good thing. Without demand, there is no innovation. A company like ZCO or TT wouldn’t even exist if people didn’t chase that kind of performance.

There have been products that were made in which people thought they needed, such as 5 different sized shooting bags. I always got a kick out of watching people walk to the firing line looking like the michelin tire man. However, as time progressed, now we’ve realized you can pretty much do anything with a bipod, tripod and a pint sized game changer. I’d even argue in most cases the bipod could be ditched if you really wanted to cut weight and have maximum flexibility/stability.

The fact is, Atlas wouldn’t have made bipods if everyone was cool with a harris. I get the whole “put up or shut up” mentality. But I think the population of those who constantly chase gear and use that as an excuse is a small population. We just see it because it’s on a forum, and let’s be honest, without the gear bashing and chasing, we wouldn’t have shit about fuck to talk about lol.

 

[ArTeeKay]

Even though I agree with the original post, I will play devils advocate and also admit that by people offloading tons of cash into sport is a good thing. Without demand, there is no innovation. A company like ZCO or TT wouldn’t even exist if people didn’t chase that kind of performance.

There have been products that were made in which people thought they needed, such as 5 different sized shooting bags. I always got a kick out of watching people walk to the firing line looking like the michelin tire man. However, as time progressed, now we’ve realized you can pretty much do anything with a bipod, tripod and a pint sized game changer. I’d even argue in most cases the bipod could be ditched if you really wanted to cut weight and have maximum flexibility/stability.

The fact is, Atlas wouldn’t have made bipods if everyone was cool with a harris. I get the whole “put up or shut up” mentality. But I think the population of those who constantly chase gear and use that as an excuse is a small population. We just see it because it’s on a forum, and let’s be honest, without the gear bashing and chasing, we wouldn’t have shit about fuck to talk about lol.

I suppose we can chicken and egg all day, but the cycle of innovation doesn't usually start with the masses shouting at manufacturers carefully describing their desires for product development. Normally, it's one person who sees room for an incremental improvement, does a bit of market analysis to see if the solution is profitable, then builds and sells the product. There are a few companies who go about this the other way, directly asking consumers what they want in new product lines, MDT and Burris for example, but by and large, that's not the case.

Nevermind that until you are utilizing every tiny bit of capability in your gear, it's nearly impossible to tell what it's weaknesses and strengths really are, and then how to improve things one step at a time. It's all about the isolation of variables.

The market is often wrong about what equipment upgrades will help too. Case in point, there's bubble levels in everything now. Scope rings, scope mounts, pic rail accessories, spotting scope mounts. I think it was Todd Hoddnett that launched that on the market, and everyone fucking pounced on it to get their piece of the pie. Rifle cant is a non negligible factor in engaging targets at distance, but a bubble is a bandaid fix, that unless employed with good training directives, doesn't fix the real problem, which is good and highly consistent rifle/shooter interface. Nevermind now you've got another thing to fucking look at while you're trying to get a good sight picture and focus on your firing sequence. So now you've got a pile of shooters with a level on their scope, fighting to keep that aligned with gravity even though their body position and NPA is actively causing them problems, and they're mad cause they are now suddenly shooting worse than they were before.

Good gear is fine and well, and I like incremental improvements to stuff that already works. Better lens coatings, improved trigger designs that let me adjust to lighter weights while still being drop safe, better actions that make switching barrels back and forth easy and stress free, cosine indicators that help me figure my dope adjustments for high angle shooting. Those are all good things. What I don't need is a new reticle design with some Christmas tree nonsense that tries to add an extra set of hashes for figuring leads for moving targets, or a fucking bubble that I have to worry about moving every time my rifle takes a good hit off a tree or a rock, or a thumb shelf on my stock, that doesn't fix the real problem of me not knowing how my hand should be moving to properly engage the trigger for consistent ignition of a primer.

 

[OREGUN]

Even though I agree with the original post, I will play devils advocate and also admit that by people offloading tons of cash into sport is a good thing. Without demand, there is no innovation. A company like ZCO or TT wouldn’t even exist if people didn’t chase that kind of performance.

There have been products that were made in which people thought they needed, such as 5 different sized shooting bags. I always got a kick out of watching people walk to the firing line looking like the michelin tire man. However, as time progressed, now we’ve realized you can pretty much do anything with a bipod, tripod and a pint sized game changer. I’d even argue in most cases the bipod could be ditched if you really wanted to cut weight and have maximum flexibility/stability.

The fact is, Atlas wouldn’t have made bipods if everyone was cool with a harris. I get the whole “put up or shut up” mentality. But I think the population of those who constantly chase gear and use that as an excuse is a small population. We just see it because it’s on a forum, and let’s be honest, without the gear bashing and chasing, we wouldn’t have shit about fuck to talk about lol.

I hear you but look at the amount of gear that’s produced that is absolute shit. Realizing that products only get produced because people buy them, if all the information about gear was good and all the shooters had access to good gear advice, people would stop showing up at matches with rando-company’s “special new wiz bang Shooting bag with proprietary sticky panel and globular barricade grabbing shape: we call it the tactical testicle bag”…when people who embrace the train more and buy less ethos could have just told them to go get a pint size game changer.

I think we teeter on the brink of innovation and marketing driving demand instead of the other way around. Bubble levels, the BOG Death Grip series of tripods, special textures on certain parts of a bag, “clutch levers” or whatever the fuck those forend thingies are called, gamer plates, etc…all solutions looking for a problem in their own right that came out of the knowledge that people will either buy what’s on the shelf at Cabelas because they don’t know better, or will buy what they see a Jersey-Boi use. And don’t even get me started on the “I only use mil-spec because it’s the best” crowd.

I’m not sure there’s a huge population who actually blame their shortcomings on their gear but the huge proliferation of precision rifle shooting gear manufacturers would seem to indicate a lot of consumers looking for an edge through the acquisition of new equipment. A misguided search for all but a few people like @orkan, who are exceptional in the skill and ability.

 

[ArTeeKay]

I’m not sure there’s a huge population who actually blame their shortcomings on their gear but the huge proliferation of precision rifle shooting gear manufacturers would seem to indicate a lot of consumers looking for an edge through the acquisition of new equipment. A misguided search for all but a few people like @orkan, who are exceptional in the skill and ability.

This is why I got sideways with that @othershitbird earlier in the thread. For almost all the shooting disciplines that currently exist, the best techniques are fairly well understood and applied, and until you're employing those consistently and appropriately, to their maximum efficacy, the gear race doesn't mean shit. It is only at the highest level of the pursuits that incrementally better gear makes a significant amount of impact in your performance. Until a person can reach that point, just do what guys at the top are doing, and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Dot3]

Gear has its place but for me, as a bona fide newbie, it’s not my gear that’s holding me back. It will be a long time before that’s an issue. A scope that tracks, a stock/chassis that fits, a mag that feeds, a good bag, and a few dozen Kraft targets are all the gear I need to get rolling. This site alone is responsible for me going from a fudd who didn’t know what I didn’t know to a student of the craft. Through all the noise, the theme stuck that chasing gear was a waste of resources.

 

[DJL2]

I had a lot more thoughts.

I’ve recently changed my tune a bit to actually thinking that if you want to be a great shooter, you don’t have the time to also be a reloader (exceptions excluded, or course). Reloading is a distraction that people get hung up on and spend their time doing instead of practicing the thing they say they want to be good at: shooting. We need to stop suggesting that reloading is required for accurate ammo and that it’s more cost effective to reload. It isn’t. This is Fudd mindset at its worst…like telling people a lead sled will help them really be accurate.

I know some people enjoy reloading, I do not. I recently re-barreled one of my then two (now three) bot guns to 6 CM because I've determined I will never obligate myself to reloading. If it doesn't have factory ammo (and loaded with decent projos at that), I'm not running it. I'll still reload as the need/desire (it's a great time killer and a way to indulge that new gear fetish) arises, but I'll be shooting as much factory ammo as possible.

Still blows my mind that people constantly bring up the lead sled as a shooting aid... and hurts my heart.

 

[aslrookie]

I hear you but look at the amount of gear that’s produced that is absolute shit. Realizing that products only get produced because people buy them, if all the information about gear was good and all the shooters had access to good gear advice, people would stop showing up at matches with rando-company’s “special new wiz bang Shooting bag with proprietary sticky panel and globular barricade grabbing shape: we call it the tactical testicle bag”…when people who embrace the train more and buy less ethos could have just told them to go get a pint size game changer.

I think we teeter on the brink of innovation and marketing driving demand instead of the other way around. Bubble levels, the BOG Death Grip series of tripods, special textures on certain parts of a bag, “clutch levers” or whatever the fuck those forend thingies are called, gamer plates, etc…all solutions looking for a problem in their own right that came out of the knowledge that people will either buy what’s on the shelf at Cabelas because they don’t know better, or will buy what they see a Jersey-Boi use. And don’t even get me started on the “I only use mil-spec because it’s the best” crowd.

I’m not sure there’s a huge population who actually blame their shortcomings on their gear but the huge proliferation of precision rifle shooting gear manufacturers would seem to indicate a lot of consumers looking for an edge through the acquisition of new equipment. A misguided search for all but a few people like @orkan, who are exceptional in the skill and ability.

100%. It's the same as when the AR market really took off. You could literally buy a hand stop that was shaped like a ball sack. I haven't seen anyone at a PRS style match with a set of ball sack dope charts, but it wouldn't surprise me if people claimed it was more efficient lol.

I jumped on the bubble level bandwagon when Hodnett was in the precision rifle magpul videos. That was the foundation of my introduction to long range shooting. I watched those magpul videos over and over again. After buying a level, I tested the cant affecting the shot at a decent sized plate at 500 yards. In order for me to completely miss the target, I really had to cant the rifle so badly that you'd have to be blind to not notice it. I then ditched the level and now just look at the top of the scope turret over the horizon. 9/10 times, I just need a slight adjustment because I am OCD like that.

I think the best example is tripods. It started out with dudes using manfrottos and clamping rifles into mounts. Then other companies trickled in and made dedicated products to support the rifle. Then evolved to dedicated tripod, ballhead, then now we have ARCA swiss everything....ARCA bino, LRF, rifle, spotter, etc mounts. ARCA is basically the new Mlok in some ways. Without people willing to buy stuff, try it, then push for development for a more dedicated/better suited product means we would still be shooting from manfrotto tripods and foam wedge holders for the rifle.

 

[Dot3]

Some of us poors really benefit from the drive for new gear by being able to find the “old” gear used for a pretty good discount lolz.

 

[Marine52]

Amazing this unfocused rambling rant-initiated thread is still breathing.

 

[HMRamateur]

Last comment was 38 hours ago, had the potential to die out, and here we are with notifications for it again. Good job keeping it alive

 

[ArTeeKay]

Amazing this unfocused rambling rant-initiated thread is still breathing.

Well, it's really quite simple, so I'll dumb it down for you.

You suck, quit blaming your gear, and get good, scrub.

If you don't like it, unfollow it. The big boys are busy talking.

 

[mark5pt56]

That is exactly why I think that beginners seriously short change themselves when they buy mediocre rifles/ammo/optics/etc and justify it by saying that they're not good enough to take advantage of better gear.

It blows my mind how they just can't understand the effect of more noise in the feedback loop.

Great point, had this discussion the other day when a guy came in and wanted to buy a "beginners" AR. Me personally don't believe there's such a thing. After a lengthly talk on intended use, "good, better, best" features, etc. He left with a Daniel Defense. Same topic an hour later, ordered a Colt"6960"

Guy a work with is the latest and greatest gear queer. Dude shacks up with his dad, typical gun store cowboy, etc. Spends money on stupid shit like a custom cerakoted slide, fancy barrel, etc fo his "EDC" P320 and G17. I carry a plain G43x with just a sight change. He wants to pick up one but said "I have to change the trigger and add a red dot first" WHY? He had no answer other than that's what people do.

Me, I'm just a retired dude filling in 3 days a week to stay busy and like relaying relevant things I've learned if it matters/applies to that person.

 

[DJL2]

Guy a work with is the latest and greatest gear queer. Dude shacks up with his dad, typical gun store cowboy, etc. Spends money on stupid shit like a custom cerakoted slide, fancy barrel, etc fo his "EDC" P320 and G17. I carry a plain G43x with just a sight change. He wants to pick up one but said "I have to change the trigger and add a red dot first" WHY? He had no answer other than that's what people do.

Every time I see someone talk through their “six gun EDC rotation” my thought is ”you don’t understand what the “e“ means, do you? Then I see that scene from the Princess Bride “you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” r/CCW is filled with dudes that, apparently, can’t wait to fap to their own setup or someone else’s that’s been custom coated, engraved, stippled, deburred, blessed by the Pope, used as a sex toy by virgins, etc.

 

[JAS-SH]

I’ve read every post on this thread. It wasn’t easy getting through the bullshit though. The original post is on track, but I’ll try to go a bit further with some concrete examples.

There are 3 kinds of rifle shooters. Good, middle of the pack and lousy. That’s it. In a single sentence.

There is no magic equipment, no magic reloaded round. When it comes to accuracy, not tight groups (precision), but REAL accuracy (smack in the middle of what you aimed at) it’s all the shooter.

I see this a lot. People obsessing on small Bench Rest groups, where the shots land be dammed. Bench Rest is not about the shooter, and that’s going to piss off a lot of people. BR is about “shooters” that are better engineers. That and wind flags everywhere.

Except for wind calls PRS is not an accuracy sport. If you hit steel, it counts. Hitting an inch off the edge is not a kill shot. F-Class IS an accuracy sport, but then again, it’s all done from a static position with an azimuth and elevation turret at the front of the rifle to fine tune each shot (prone Bench Rest). You win there and it tells me you are another really good engineer adding to that, you can really read wind - a big plus.

Shooting from different positions and hitting exactly where you aimed at with a cold bore shot is the ultimate test of a good shooter. It's meat on the table if you're a hunter. In my mind if I can’t do that, I’m not ready for prime time. And truly, I’m not for the sport. I have mastered the cold bore shot, but I still have problems with following shots – I start pulling right and low – not by much mind you – ¼ to ½ inch right and low at 100 yards, as you will see on the pics below. Problem is that little miss turns into 3.8 inches at 626 yards, and it gets a lot worse at a 1000. That’s what I call a miss.

And I reloaded for years. Now I shoot factory. I came to realize that unless I’m going to play Bench Rest, I don’t need reloads. These days high quality rifle ammo shoots bug holes at 100 yards out of the better rifles - don't get misled by videos and articles. Those might just be from middle of the pack shooters....

Now to the specifics.

Most all quality rifles today, shooting factory ammo, will shoot ¾ MOA or better all by themselves. Higher end rifles are guaranteed at ½ MOA. and are usually MUCH better. For shooting pretty much everything this is better than 99 percent of shooters can shoot. Me included. You want better? Get into Bench Rest and reloading.

Now for my personal specifics. I am an analyst, own my own business, and trained to analyze everything. If that makes me anal so be it. First 4 letters in analyst.

I’ve been shooting everything since I was 9-years old and will be 68 this year. Competed successfully in shotgun sports but can shoot rifle and pistol in the high percentiles. Rifle specifically because that is where I started. AND IM STILL ANALYSING AND GETTING BETTER. To wit:

I got interested in PRS about 2-years ago. While waiting for a BadRock rifle I built a .22 magnum to mimic everything that I ordered from BadRock. After many years not shooting rifles, this new direction has been an enlightening journey. So, where am I know? I’m fighting my own ¼ inch ½ inch pull to the right and low at 100 yards. I’m confident I will win the fight. Thanks in no small part by having my .22 mag trainer that allows me to do this without spending $1.50 a shot. Get a trainer!

Here are the 2 rifles:

.22 magnum - a CZ 457. Only the action is stock:

Better group example. Notice they are all to the right:

BadRock 6mm ARC:

Cold bore shots with the BadRock at 626 yards and 100 yards:

Cold bore shot at 100 yards top left. Then notice the right, low following 3 shot group. This is what I'm working on now...

It’s all about the journey - I'm enjoying myself. Instant results are a just a wet dream….

Finally, a good article about zeroing a rifle. I believe a perfect, and I mean perfect 100 yard zero is THE most critical part of rifle shooting. If you can’t do that, don’t even try 200 yards or more. It is not that difficult. I have a recipe for that 100 yard zero, but this has gotten way too long. I will post that if it’s requested….

Carlos Hathcock Method of Sighting in a Rifle

Not my zero technique but it's a good read.

All the Best,

JAS

 

[morganlamprecht]

the fastest way a shooter can progress is knowing when to look at the system and when to look at themselves...that "flyer" isnt always the shooter...that drifting group, maybe not be either...that zero shift, could easily be the rifle...

some people only blame the equipment and progress slowly if at all...others only blame themselves, and their progress usually isnt much better...owning multiple barrels for the same rifle can be an eye opener

its a combo of the rifle system, shooter, and the shooters understanding of how it all works/what matters when and where...

 

[akmike47]

TLDR

 

[TonyTheTiger]

TLDR

The OP or the whole thread?

 

[37L1]

The OP or the whole thread?

At this point, what difference does it make?

 

[TonyTheTiger]

At this point, what difference does it make?

Correct.

 

[HMRamateur]

I’ve read every post on this thread. It wasn’t easy getting through the bullshit though. The original post is on track, but I’ll try to go a bit further with some concrete examples.

There are 3 kinds of rifle shooters. Good, middle of the pack and lousy. That’s it. In a single sentence.

There is no magic equipment, no magic reloaded round. When it comes to accuracy, not tight groups (precision), but REAL accuracy (smack in the middle of what you aimed at) it’s all the shooter.

I see this a lot. People obsessing on small Bench Rest groups, where the shots land be dammed. Bench Rest is not about the shooter, and that’s going to piss off a lot of people. BR is about “shooters” that are better engineers. That and wind flags everywhere.

Except for wind calls PRS is not an accuracy sport. If you hit steel, it counts. Hitting an inch off the edge is not a kill shot. F-Class IS an accuracy sport, but then again, it’s all done from a static position with an azimuth and elevation turret at the front of the rifle to fine tune each shot (prone Bench Rest). You win there and it tells me you are another really good engineer adding to that, you can really read wind - a big plus.

Shooting from different positions and hitting exactly where you aimed at with a cold bore shot is the ultimate test of a good shooter. It's meat on the table if you're a hunter. In my mind if I can’t do that, I’m not ready for prime time. And truly, I’m not for the sport. I have mastered the cold bore shot, but I still have problems with following shots – I start pulling right and low – not by much mind you – ¼ to ½ inch right and low at 100 yards, as you will see on the pics below. Problem is that little miss turns into 3.8 inches at 626 yards, and it gets a lot worse at a 1000. That’s what I call a miss.

And I reloaded for years. Now I shoot factory. I came to realize that unless I’m going to play Bench Rest, I don’t need reloads. These days high quality rifle ammo shoots bug holes at 100 yards out of the better rifles - don't get misled by videos and articles. Those might just be from middle of the pack shooters....

Now to the specifics.

Most all quality rifles today, shooting factory ammo, will shoot ¾ MOA or better all by themselves. Higher end rifles are guaranteed at ½ MOA. and are usually MUCH better. For shooting pretty much everything this is better than 99 percent of shooters can shoot. Me included. You want better? Get into Bench Rest and reloading.

Now for my personal specifics. I am an analyst, own my own business, and trained to analyze everything. If that makes me anal so be it. First 4 letters in analyst.

I’ve been shooting everything since I was 9-years old and will be 68 this year. Competed successfully in shotgun sports but can shoot rifle and pistol in the high percentiles. Rifle specifically because that is where I started. AND IM STILL ANALYSING AND GETTING BETTER. To wit:

I got interested in PRS about 2-years ago. While waiting for a BadRock rifle I built a .22 magnum to mimic everything that I ordered from BadRock. After many years not shooting rifles, this new direction has been an enlightening journey. So, where am I know? I’m fighting my own ¼ inch ½ inch pull to the right and low at 100 yards. I’m confident I will win the fight. Thanks in no small part by having my .22 mag trainer that allows me to do this without spending $1.50 a shot. Get a trainer!

Here are the 2 rifles:

.22 magnum - a CZ 457. Only the action is stock:

Better group example. Notice they are all to the right:

BadRock 6mm ARC:

Cold bore shots with the BadRock at 626 yards and 100 yards:

Cold bore shot at 100 yards top left. Then notice the right, low following 3 shot group. This is what I'm working on now...

It’s all about the journey - I'm enjoying myself. Instant results are a just a wet dream….

Finally, a good article about zeroing a rifle. I believe a perfect, and I mean perfect 100 yard zero is THE most critical part of rifle shooting. If you can’t do that, don’t even try 200 yards or more. It is not that difficult. I have a recipe for that 100 yard zero, but this has gotten way too long. I will post that if it’s requested….

Carlos Hathcock Method of Sighting in a Rifle

Not my zero technique but it's a good read.

All the Best,

JAS

I'm curious about this, and correct me if I'm wrong. You can hit where you aim on cold bore consistently. You can also group consistently in the following shots. This to me doesn't seem like you have a technique that needs work in order to get rid of inconsistencies in your shooting, as much as you've found your consistent cold bore shift that you need to compensate for in order to have the entire group, cold bore included, in the area you want. If it were inconsistencies in your shooting, I would think you wouldn't be able to group in the same offset every time.

 

[TheOtherAndrew]

I’ve read every post on this thread. It wasn’t easy getting through the bullshit though. The original post is on track, but I’ll try to go a bit further with some concrete examples.

There are 3 kinds of rifle shooters. Good, middle of the pack and lousy. That’s it. In a single sentence.

There is no magic equipment, no magic reloaded round. When it comes to accuracy, not tight groups (precision), but REAL accuracy (smack in the middle of what you aimed at) it’s all the shooter.

I see this a lot. People obsessing on small Bench Rest groups, where the shots land be dammed. Bench Rest is not about the shooter, and that’s going to piss off a lot of people. BR is about “shooters” that are better engineers. That and wind flags everywhere.

Except for wind calls PRS is not an accuracy sport. If you hit steel, it counts. Hitting an inch off the edge is not a kill shot. F-Class IS an accuracy sport, but then again, it’s all done from a static position with an azimuth and elevation turret at the front of the rifle to fine tune each shot (prone Bench Rest). You win there and it tells me you are another really good engineer adding to that, you can really read wind - a big plus.

Shooting from different positions and hitting exactly where you aimed at with a cold bore shot is the ultimate test of a good shooter. It's meat on the table if you're a hunter. In my mind if I can’t do that, I’m not ready for prime time. And truly, I’m not for the sport. I have mastered the cold bore shot, but I still have problems with following shots – I start pulling right and low – not by much mind you – ¼ to ½ inch right and low at 100 yards, as you will see on the pics below. Problem is that little miss turns into 3.8 inches at 626 yards, and it gets a lot worse at a 1000. That’s what I call a miss.

And I reloaded for years. Now I shoot factory. I came to realize that unless I’m going to play Bench Rest, I don’t need reloads. These days high quality rifle ammo shoots bug holes at 100 yards out of the better rifles - don't get misled by videos and articles. Those might just be from middle of the pack shooters....

Now to the specifics.

Most all quality rifles today, shooting factory ammo, will shoot ¾ MOA or better all by themselves. Higher end rifles are guaranteed at ½ MOA. and are usually MUCH better. For shooting pretty much everything this is better than 99 percent of shooters can shoot. Me included. You want better? Get into Bench Rest and reloading.

Now for my personal specifics. I am an analyst, own my own business, and trained to analyze everything. If that makes me anal so be it. First 4 letters in analyst.

I’ve been shooting everything since I was 9-years old and will be 68 this year. Competed successfully in shotgun sports but can shoot rifle and pistol in the high percentiles. Rifle specifically because that is where I started. AND IM STILL ANALYSING AND GETTING BETTER. To wit:

I got interested in PRS about 2-years ago. While waiting for a BadRock rifle I built a .22 magnum to mimic everything that I ordered from BadRock. After many years not shooting rifles, this new direction has been an enlightening journey. So, where am I know? I’m fighting my own ¼ inch ½ inch pull to the right and low at 100 yards. I’m confident I will win the fight. Thanks in no small part by having my .22 mag trainer that allows me to do this without spending $1.50 a shot. Get a trainer!

Here are the 2 rifles:

.22 magnum - a CZ 457. Only the action is stock:

Better group example. Notice they are all to the right:

BadRock 6mm ARC:

Cold bore shots with the BadRock at 626 yards and 100 yards:

Cold bore shot at 100 yards top left. Then notice the right, low following 3 shot group. This is what I'm working on now...

It’s all about the journey - I'm enjoying myself. Instant results are a just a wet dream….

Finally, a good article about zeroing a rifle. I believe a perfect, and I mean perfect 100 yard zero is THE most critical part of rifle shooting. If you can’t do that, don’t even try 200 yards or more. It is not that difficult. I have a recipe for that 100 yard zero, but this has gotten way too long. I will post that if it’s requested….

Carlos Hathcock Method of Sighting in a Rifle

Not my zero technique but it's a good read.

All the Best,

JAS

does your cold bore offset at 100yd directly equal your cold bore offset for the 600yd target?
i.e. - say absolute zero for gun is 0/0.15R; shooter zero 0/0; cold bore 0.3D/0.2R

Assume 600yd is 3.5mil.

*Do you find that your 600yd cold bore POI is around 3.2mil (0.3D; and left edge of plate (or add the 0.2R))?

 

[JAS-SH]

does your cold bore offset at 100yd directly equal your cold bore offset for the 600yd target?
i.e. - say absolute zero for gun is 0/0.15R; shooter zero 0/0; cold bore 0.3D/0.2R

Assume 600yd is 3.5mil.

*Do you find that your 600yd cold bore POI is around 3.2mil (0.3D; and left edge of plate (or add the 0.2R))?

Yes, both cold bore shots are equal 0E/0Az at 100 and 3.8mE/0Az in no wind. That said at our range the 600-yard line is really 626-yards, so Elevation is dialed at 4.0mils.

I have a Vortex Razor on the rifle, so the zero adjustment has no "clicks". I have a really good 100 yard zero. Every shot measured with calipers both in Elevation and Azimuth away from POA, over many iterations in no wind conditions. All of those were then averaged into a single E and Az number.

My subsequent shots after cold bore start drifting right and down, starting at .1m right .1m down and increasing. I have narrowed this down to two things. Cheek weld being used to correct natural POA azimuth (BAD!), but mostly less than "stellar" rear bag management. Both have turned to be a recurring thing. Still working on that .

Here's a 5-shot group following the ones above where I screwed up the 5th shot. happens more than I care to admit!

 

[JAS-SH]

I'm curious about this, and correct me if I'm wrong. You can hit where you aim on cold bore consistently. You can also group consistently in the following shots. This to me doesn't seem like you have a technique that needs work in order to get rid of inconsistencies in your shooting, as much as you've found your consistent cold bore shift that you need to compensate for in order to have the entire group, cold bore included, in the area you want. If it were inconsistencies in your shooting, I would think you wouldn't be able to group in the same offset every time.

You are not wrong, but I have a different opinion. I grew up hunting. In that endeavor the cold bore shot is the only shot you get.

Interestingly, my 100-yard zero is NOT derived from cold bore shots. I painstakingly and with great care shot many 5 shot groups, all in zero wind conditions, then measured every shot in both Elevation and Azimuth displacement. Then I averaged all of those. The result is an excellent zero, as good as it gets IMHO. It's how I shoot after the cold bore shot on follow up shots that bothers me...

 

[Kane0519]

I agree with most of this, but wanted to chime in with a couple thoughts:

- I think that your assertion regarding cost effectiveness of reloading vs. factory used to be more true than it is now; when match ammo was $1 a round, then yeah it took a long time to break even on a reloading setup. But with match ammo running more in the $2-3 range for popular calibers (to say nothing of the silly cost of factory magnums), it's absolutely more cost effective for me to reload than pay for factory. Now, people like to talk about the money value of time, but if we're only talking about hard costs (versus quality of life concerns such as time with family, other hobbies, etc.), most of us couldn't (or wouldn't) exchange that time at the reloading bench for some other income generator. Anywho, bottom line here: for anyone shooting match ammo in a common centerfire cartridge, I'd say a reloading setup will pay for itself on cost alone within a couple thousand rounds. Just my take.
- I arrived at a very similar conclusion regarding one-on-one coaching versus a training class format, so I reached out to the guys at Modern Day Sniper and set up a solo week with them. One thing that surprised me but that I appreciated in hindsight was how consistent the one-on-one instruction was with the wealth of knowledge available for free in their podcast; on the other hand, it was more directly pointed at my particular training gaps, and I got instruction on some things that are much harder to teach over the speaker set (NPA and drills to practice the same, guidance on what fundamental errors were responsible for a given shot deviation high/low/left/right, discussion on gear and data management, etc.). I'd recommend the MDS guys to anyone in a heartbeat who was thinking similarly, right there with ya though.

I also arrived to the same conclusion about one-one-one training. I’ve done the things, shot, took some training, listened to podcasts from some top shooters, & still wasn’t growing in skill how I wanted. Chris Way & the Kraft has been a breath of much needed fresh air into my shooting world. My skill is now progressing again & I’m training in a more focused manner.

That’s good to know MDS does one-on-one. I believe some of the other top instructors (like Rifles Only) offer one-on-one, but don’t quote me on that. Some one-on-one is probably what I need to invest I next.

This is a much better thread then all the “what’s the next caliber I should buy” discussions.

 

[Enough Said]

Errors are cumulative

 

[Romeo458]

All my friends keep telling me to get a shiny new 6.5 Creed, but I know 308 and I can work it just fine because I actually shoot it.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I can agree with a whole lotta this topic, yet I still keep an eye out for babies out in that discarded bath water. Before anyone feels slighted by this blanket statement, understand that I tend not to agree with most anyone one here, myself included. Over some years my compass has swung into a lot of directions, many of which have had me eating humble pie (...please do forgive me if chew so quietly...).

I have a built in governor. At my age, I don't have a lot of time left available for jumping on bandwagons, and probably even less strength for hanging on firmly. I want a lot from my shooting time these days, because it's going to cost my physically.

First, I make a list of what I really don't need to be chasing all over creation. It's gotten long, and getting longer; age has it's price. But never too high, not yet, hopefully never. A retirement of words, like "perfect". I thought I wanted it; at least until I broke into its box and found it empty. There was a small slip of paper in it that told me what I really wanted was "adequate", sorta, you know, like "Unto the task". Like is a sledgehammer necessary for bagging mice? Or, am I ever gonna be that bestest shooter who can justify the outlay for that bestest gear? Unlikely. Or does it really make the best sense to shoot at a trophy Elk from so far downrange that something as simple as mirage can throw your round into a very unwanted portion of an elegant anatomy.

Yes, I know it how that perfect feeling washes over one when a plan pulls together and my shooting looks good enough to surprise bejezuz out of me. Then I also know the Make a Deal Wah Wah sound that blares in you face when you try to repeat a medley of your most recent hit. The point here is to ask who you're repeating it for.

Somebody (Dad?) told me that if something took more than three sentences to describe clearly, it was far too complex a concept to trust Congress with. Those folk didn't get the above point. They're all nudge nudge Bob's your Uncle to each other, but the voters? They just got elected, they don't need any of them swanky voters anymore for longtime comin'.

Starship Trooper got it right. Don't elect 'em; draft 'em, one term only, then send 'em on their way to where they have to earn a real living in that wonderful new world they just had crafted.

All I will say to the new guys is that chasing off after the latest new thing is great exercise; but I hope you're in it for the muscles, because many of you won't b able to make it uplift you because you need skill to make anything work, even the simpler stuff. You can't buy "X"s. I know because I tried. A Lot. My skills are respectable, but not exceptional, and it's a bit late to make significant improvement in that for me.

Set your goals low to start, meet them, then escalate, but incrementally. Shoot beyond your current equipment's capability before getting the pennies together for the next shelf up. Make your goals relevant to the real world. Shooting tight groups didn't win us WWII, quite the opposite (Maneuver Warfare). One shot kill basically only gets the cake some of the time, and often the sniper is a grimy, sweaty scout calling in the overkill by the barrage. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you really, truly mean to kill that thing, even if it's a wily paperbeast. Modern warfare got preciser, but it never got cheaper, and besides, overkill happens, trying to deny it sounds more and more modern Potomac Two Step to me.

But I digress. Someone (Dad?) once told me to pay the most attention to the old man who only owns one rifle. He probably knows how to use it pretty well.

Travel light, carry something only if it will do at least two things, and when you spend big, do it on ammo. And shoot the stuff! Army Jerry had a point, but not the only point. If you've got too much ammo to carry, be prepared to say goodby to what you can't. In 'Nam, with our M-14's, we carried a belt with six 20rd mag, and they nearely drowned me once when I dove off an LVTP5-A1 Amtrac into a deep paddy one dark night.

Greg

 

[mikeshaw2]

The kicker is all of this has been said over and over and over again. I just can't figure out why the fuck people won't listen. Do any of you guys have any insight?

I'd like guys to get proficient with their guns. I've long been a proponent of the "man with one rifle" theory of marksmanship. A guy who is constantly buying new guns, or trying new chamberings, or swapping optics around, or bouncing back and forth between chassis and stocks seems unlikely to ever really become "familiar" with it, have it be an extension of his hand and eye.

I do realize I'm preaching to the choir here. If you're reading my tirade, you're likely shooting enough with your systems that you're more than simply proficient. But I see so many guys buying the latest and greatest and thinking they can pay their way into skills. How do we go about instilling a more productive mindset in the average shooter? How do we counteract the marketing hype? What's the best way to approach giving advice to a person who's interested in precision shooting, but doesn't have enough background to understand that it's the Indian, not the arrow?

why diet and exercise when you can pop a pill and lose weight?

It's easier to blame equipment and 'upgrade' to 'fix' your crappy fundamentals than actually go shoot and get better.

Happens in cycling too. 'I'd be faster if I had $3000 carbon aero wheels...' 'I'd be faster if my mtn bike I had more travel...' and one that I'm guilty of 'I wouldn't slide out in the corners on my CX bike if I had a different $100+ front tire...' All it really takes is TITS and practice, but hey! it's easier to buy upgrades than it is to ride up grades

M