Advertisement

Shooting Myths?

AlaskaHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
1,887
Location
interior Alaska
I am not a long range shooter.

However, I enjoyed Ryan Cleckner's book: Long Range Shooting Handbook,
A Beginners Guide to Precision Rifle Shooting.

Ryan talks about some shooting myths:

1) Focus on the target.
A major take home message from Ryan is focus on the recticle, not the target...

"I remember an old television Kung Fu episode where students are learning to shoot archery.
The master walked behind each student and one by one the shot an arrow at a stuffed bird for a target.
Prior to each shot, the master would ask the student to describe the bird and each student before missing
the target would describe the shape and color of the bird. The master asks young grasshopper what he sees,
and grasshopper replies "Master, I can not describe the bird, for I can only see it's eye.

Although this is a great example of aim small/miss small, I would change it slightly
if I was teaching sniper students. I would ask you what is the color of the birds eye,
I the student would respond "I do not know master, as I can only see my reticle [cue Kung Fu music]"


2) High power scopes.
Also related to focusing on the reticle....
"Too shaky? Turn that magnification down! Try it sometime and you will be surprised.
As long as there is enough magnification to see the target, you'll probably shoot better
on lower magnification. This happens for two reasons: First, by getting the target image smaller,
you're less likely to look past your reticle and focus on the big, pretty target.
Second, you won't see all the errors or movement in your scope, so you'll be less likely
to overcorrect and yank on the trigger when you think the reticle is finally lined up in the center.
Scopes don't make you shoot better, they just magnify your errors.


3) Follow Through.
"Proper follow through is important.
Some believe that without follow through, you disturb the rifle ever so slightly
changing the bullet's path as it went down the barrel. I do not buy into this reasoning.
Notice next time what is happening while you are following through, the rifle is violently
kicking back into your shoulder---which is surely more movement than your finger could impart.

Follow through is important to me because it shows that I was adding steady pressure and allowing
the rifle to fire.

Remember its a process. Focus on the reticle, steady pressure on the trigger."



4) Cold bore shots.
The conventional thinking is that with some rifles, the first shot will print differently that shots from a warm barrel.
"There is a theory that the first bullet (or 2) out of a clean barrel
will impact in a different location on a target than the subsequent shots.
Yes, I've seen a difference on some barrels between bullet impacts when the
barrel is perfectly clean and when it is a little dirty. However, I don't
subscribe to the theory that this "clean bore" shot should be recorded in a
DOPE book because it will go to this alternate location each time.

What I see, more often than not, is that the effect of the first flyer is caused
by a "cold shooter" and not a cold or clean barrel. It's reasonable to think that
a shooter who just got to the range and plopped down behind the rifle might not
employ the proper fundamentals and might make a bad first shot or two until they have
warmed up.

When I used to teach full-time, every single morning started making the students
dry fire before they shot their first group of the day. I would have them call their shots
and I wouldn't allow them to shoot live ammo until they were able to have 5 perfect dry fires.
Amazingly, once the students started doing this, the effects of their cold or clean barrels went away!

Wait a minute, didn't I say that there's a noticeable effect on barrel performance based on
whether its raw metal or completely fouled? Yes. The difference is in the overall accuracy.
It is a fallacy to think that the cold clean barrel shot always goes to the same spot.
Instead, a raw barrel might shoot 1 MOA while an adequately broken in and fouled barrel might
shoot 1/2 MOA."


I also enjoyed the Exo Mountain Gear podcasts on where Ryan was a host several times
(https://exomtngear.com/pages/the-hunt-backcountry-podcast)
 
This rings true to me on alot of different levels.

I actually have shot some of my smallest groups with an old Burris 4x scope on my 1949 Model 70 in .270. I feel I concentrate more on the reticle and the trigger squeeze. I don't own a scope with more than 10x and actually except for a 2x-8x-32 and that old 4x, every one of my hunting rifles have 3x9x40's.
 
What I see, more often than not, is that the effect of the first flyer is caused
by a "cold shooter" and not a cold or clean barrel. It's reasonable to think that
a shooter who just got to the range and plopped down behind the rifle might not
employ the proper fundamentals and might make a bad first shot or two until they have
warmed up.
I support the theory of "cold shooter" vs "cold bore"
 
I think too many people get drawn into the "more is better" mantra when it comes to scope magnification. It wasn't all that long ago that Jack O'Connor considered the 4x just right for the big game hunter and 6x and up the realm of the varmint hunter. For many years I never hunted with anything more than a fixed 4x and never felt handi-capped. What was my longest shot for about 8 years was an antelope at right around 400 yards taken with a .308 wearing a Leupold 2.5x28mm scout scope. Nowadays I usually keep my 3-9x variable power scope on its lowest setting figuring that's more than enough if I get something up close in; if I have to take a long shot I'll have plenty of time to turn the magnification up, and 9x has thus far proved more than adequate all the way out to 628 yards. I can't imagine some of the new variable powers that go up to 24x or more. Your heartbeat would be visible on the reticle and if you got game up at 100 yards you'd see nothing but hair through the optics.

I get his point about seeing the reticle, but I still try to pick out a precise point or feature on the target to aim at specifically.

I still fire a fouling shot before hunting. Maybe it's just a placebo, but if a little something like that gives you confidence that you're dead-on it also gives you assurance to make the shot.
 
To paraphrase a couple of famous posters (not so much here, but not hard to find):

Think bullets not headstamps.

Too many are over scoped and under bulleted.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,466
Messages
2,022,397
Members
36,182
Latest member
Corsen
Back
Top