quote:

1. The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
2. The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
3. The authority must be interpreted correctly.
4. Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
5. The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always ilegitimate.
6. The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
7. A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.



Guess that means that I should keep my mouth shut on this ussue! I will do so.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
MacD37 --

Some of your comments suggest you have misunderstood me. Sight adjustments affect both barrels' point of impact the same. The point of dispute is whether the barrels themselves are adjusted so as to put both bullets through the same hole at a fixed distance (ie -- guns regulated at 75 yards will ideally put both bullets through the point of aim at 75 yards) or whether they will put the bullets on either side of the vertical line of aim at all distances (not counting wind).


Dan

I have not misunderstood you at all. Where you are wrong is, your understanding being that regulation places a bullet from each barrel through the same hole on the target as the IDEAL! This is not the case. If it were, you would be right,with your opinion that a well regulated double rifle crosses, and continues to widen after the regulation distance is reached.

Proper regulation places the two GROUPS, right, and left, side by side at that distance, with the extreme RIGHT 1/2 of the left group, and the extreme LEFT 1/2 of the right group overlaping, for a composite group of both right, and left barrels. Ideally,
the center of the left group will remain on the left of the point of aim, and the center of the right group will remain on the right of POA. IOW, paralell! BYE!

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
quote:

1. The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
2. The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
3. The authority must be interpreted correctly.
4. Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
5. The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always ilegitimate.
6. The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
7. A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.



Guess that means that I should keep my mouth shut on this ussue! I will do so.

465H&H

I completely skipped over that little tid bit of usefull information. Sounds like some one is practicing his collage debate rules on AR! WHat-cha-thank Clim?

465H&H,

I didn't mean to shut people up with the "rules" for appeal to authority. I referred to them because it looked like the argument with MacD37 was butting heads on those issues. It looked like weren't about to come to an agreement, and I doubt that we'd likely find any definitive way to resolve the issue. Those rules suggested a couple of points that could be used, but I don't think they're available to us. I figger'd we were putting people to sleep .

Apart from that, I'd sure be interested to hear other people's opinions (I've heard a lot of MacD37's ).

MacD37,

I have said that most of the references that I have found indicate that regulation at a fixed distance means putting the bullets as close as possible to going through the same hole at that fixed distance as a point of aim. I have not found any other references that actually agree with your statement of ideal. I had said that I'm personally flexible in my personal standard regarding what would be "ideal." Actually, I DO have a standard that I'd like to see in a rifle...

My personal preference would be 10 shots showing better than 1.75MOA (I'd be quite pleased with 1MOA, but I suspect this is most unreasonable) at 100 yards counting both barrels (that is, 5 shots per barrel). That kind of standard could tolerate parallel and equal muzzle velocities, and would also accept a single hole happily. It is also looks more like a practical goal to try to achieve with a rifle.

Dan

Mac, some day before we die we must hunt together, i think we may be cut from the same cloth. Yes you are right regarding costs and time, it doesnt have to be that way but it is unfourntly. May be we'll take a trip to some freinds i know and we'll hunt togther in Africa minus the bullshit. It would be great fun two old creaky fogies trying to sneak up on game Dont worry about the doubles i have enough for us to have some fun with and soak our shoulders later. Cheers Charlie

My appologies to you MacD37, for all the offenses I have offered you.

Dan

Mac and Mc!
If you need a third old fogy for that hunt let me know. Then we would be the odd couple.


465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
....................

Apart from that, I'd sure be interested to hear other people's opinions (I've heard a lot of MacD37's ).

MacD37,

I have said that most of the references that I have found indicate that regulation at a fixed distance means putting the bullets as close as possible to going through the same hole at that fixed distance as a point of aim. I have not found any other references that actually agree with your statement of ideal. I had said that I'm personally flexible in my personal standard regarding what would be "ideal." Actually, I DO have a standard that I'd like to see in a rifle...

.......

Dan

Dan

Mac is 100% correct in his posting. I believe even most of your sources say the agree, albeit in different terms. I don't believe you are correctly interpreting what you are reading.

There are no advantage and many disadvantages to having the bullets cross, particularly accuracy at distant ranges. When writers, not necessarily experts, speak of regulating a rifle for 50, 70 or 100 yards they are referring to the sights and where the rifle will shoot to them rather than the point of crossing. Those that do refer to crossing are not passing on correct information.

DanEP
Reread my post.
With the loads I use my doubles do not cross.
There are several people on AR that shoot doubles and know a lot about them. Many of them have owned several different doubles. They know where of they speak. For the most part the rest of the world is in the dark.
Most hunters who get a good double and actually use it hunting, discover how truely superior it is as a hunting rifle for many applications, not just for stopping charges. Shooting your buddies double rifle at the range will not teach you this.
If you really want to enlightenen yourself, buy a double rifle suitable for the hunting you do most often, and use it for a year or two.
You will never be Bolt Rifle Trash Again.

Ok -- maybe I need to be re-educated. But part of that means I need to sort through that other stuff I've picked up, and either retain or discard it. For example, Ray Atkinson wrote this to Allen under the question of the quality of Searcy doubles:

quote:

Allen,
I don't believe it is legitamate to compare the two, they are not in competition with each other...

The Searcy is a stronger, generally heavier and more accurate than an English gun, its cheap enough to take to Africa and can be replaced easily...

The English guns are a work of art, usually not as accurate, maybe feel a bit better in your hands, have a lot of resale value and go up in price regularly and are a better "investment"

Lots of maybes here but that is my take on the subject..I like them both, but i feel a lot better turning my Searcy over to the airlines than an English rifle...and my Searcy shoots better than my best English rifles, albiet some of my 450-400 shot very well indeed, but my Searcy is the most accurate doublel I have ever owned and it, like a good bolt gun, will shoot all loads to the same POI, no English gun has ever done that for me or anyone else,

The Searcy is better hunting rifle IMO...The English gun is a better investment, but you won't lose a nickle on any double or at least I never have and I could have sold my Searcy for a grand or so more than I paid for it several times, especially since Butch won the National Championships with it...

I think your comparing apples to Oranges, they both serve a different purpose and both have a place in the hunting faturnity...

Given this (and similar things I've read), I had the sense that one shouldn't expect too much from classic British guns. This would mean regulation to get both barrels to shoot to the same group wouldn't give you grief at the ranges that DG doubles were intended to be used. The type of accuracy Searcy guns open up may raise that issue to a finer point? (The statement that his Searcy double shoots all loads to the same point sounds wonderfully magical!)

So, as a hypothetical, even if your barrels hit at point of aim at 75 yrds, you're not going to seem more of an error than the distance between barrels at 150 yards (1.5"?), with a minimum spread at 75 yards. If you have parallel trajectories, you'll have that same 1.5" separation the whole way + MOA * distance to boot. If you go over 150 yards, you'll see more spread creeping in -- but how far away are you shooting game with doubles?

But I will buy what you're saying: regulation means both trajectories are supposed to be parallel.

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
Ok -- maybe I need to be re-educated. But part of that means I need to sort through that other stuff I've picked up, and either retain or discard it. For example, Ray Atkinson wrote this to Allen under the question of the quality of Searcy doubles:

quote:

Allen,
I don't believe it is legitamate to compare the two, they are not in competition with each other...

The Searcy is a stronger, generally heavier and more accurate than an English gun, its cheap enough to take to Africa and can be replaced easily...

The English guns are a work of art, usually not as accurate, maybe feel a bit better in your hands, have a lot of resale value and go up in price regularly and are a better "investment"

Lots of maybes here but that is my take on the subject..I like them both, but i feel a lot better turning my Searcy over to the airlines than an English rifle...and my Searcy shoots better than my best English rifles, albiet some of my 450-400 shot very well indeed, but my Searcy is the most accurate doublel I have ever owned and it, like a good bolt gun, will shoot all loads to the same POI, no English gun has ever done that for me or anyone else,

The Searcy is better hunting rifle IMO...The English gun is a better investment, but you won't lose a nickle on any double or at least I never have and I could have sold my Searcy for a grand or so more than I paid for it several times, especially since Butch won the National Championships with it...

I think your comparing apples to Oranges, they both serve a different purpose and both have a place in the hunting faturnity...

Given this (and similar things I've read), I had the sense that one shouldn't expect too much from classic British guns. This would mean regulation to get both barrels to shoot to the same group wouldn't give you grief at the ranges that DG doubles were intended to be used. The type of accuracy Searcy guns open up may raise that issue to a finer point? (The statement that his Searcy double shoots all loads to the same point sounds wonderfully magical!)

So, as a hypothetical, even if your barrels hit at point of aim at 75 yrds, you're not going to seem more of an error than the distance between barrels at 150 yards (1.5"?), with a minimum spread at 75 yards. If you have parallel trajectories, you'll have that same 1.5" separation the whole way + MOA * distance to boot. If you go over 150 yards, you'll see more spread creeping in -- but how far away are you shooting game with doubles?

But I will buy what you're saying: regulation means both trajectories are supposed to be parallel.

Dan

Dan

Yes, keeping the same point of impact while changing velocity and bullet weight does sound 'magical'. I have never seen a single barrel rifle do that let alone a Double. Butch is surely talented to be able to do this and his rifles have a reputation for accuracy. I am not sure they are really more accurate than any other new gun but regulation is a product of knowledge and time spent.

Properly regulated the bullets will only be seperated by the distance between the end of the barrels. It is a fallacy that Double Rifles are for short work. They can be used as any other open sighted rifle can be and with a scope are limited only by their trajectory. I think those that claim that they are only good to 50 or 75 yards are speaking more to thier own ability than the rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Mac and Mc!
If you need a third old fogy for that hunt let me know. Then we would be the odd couple.


465H&H

The more the merrier any one else?? Charlie

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
MacD37,


My personal preference would be 10 shots showing better than 1.75 MOA. I'd be quite pleased with 1MOA but I suspect this is most unreasonable) at 100 yards counting both barrels (that is, 5 shots per barrel). That kind of standard could tolerate parallel and equal muzzle velocities, and would also accept a single hole happily. It is also looks more like a practical goal to try to achieve with a rifle.

Dan

GOOD LUCK, with a composite group that small, in any case, but especially one that doesn't cross in any double rifle!

Your desired grouping, above, with a double rifle is where the idea comes from that doubles are of no use past the regulated distance. I hear people talking about how accurate their doubles are when they get a group, on target, that is one ragged hole, at the regulated distance. They think they have worked up the ultimate load for that rifle. What they have actually done, however, is guarinteed that the rifle will be almost useless at twice that distance. They are close to correct, but need to slow that load, just a little, so that the two barrel groups move slightly wider with the centers of each group running paralell. In a 470NE, for example,the center of the bores are approx 1" apart, and with the center of each barrel group 1" apart the composite group will be no larger than 2.5", 3" Idealy, but most people can't shoot that close with iron sights. A really good paralell composite group will be in the area of 3" at 100 yds from the bench. in the field that translates to about 3"- 5" off the sticks, for a good shooter, with express sights. With a scope, that doesn't destroy the regulation, that composite group can be reduced to around 3" off the sticks at 100 yds. With a rifle loaded this way, the rifle is set up properly, and can be used at any distance you would use any rifle, chambered for the same cartridge, and with iron sights.

Oh my! I knew to expect 3"-5" from the older English guns. Given what I'd heard about the Searcys, I thought they'd do better (they must do somewhat better given how Butch Searcy won that competition first time out with his rifle, and given Ray A's praise.

I appreciate the accuracy of open sights. It can be improved with smaller beads and smaller rear-sight slots, but while that's good for targets, that doesn't make it easy to get on game quickly. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time getting a 1" spot (as I get older, it gets fuzzier and fuzzier when I'm focusing on the front sight) to sit on exactly the same spot on the bead. That's a far cry from a globe sight with spirit level in the front, and a peep with adjustable apperture on a vernier post in the rear (36" from the front means 0.01" up translates exactly to 1" at 100 yards) that target BPCR shooters like. Even with oddly shaped silhouettes, the circular globe front inserts seem to give the best accuracy. But, shooting old black powder cartridges, the drop is very important, but you know the distance to the plates, and they don't move very fast! These sights will get you into MOA accuracy -- especially on circular bulls. I have the pleasure of owning such a rifle -- a Hepburn with a Badger barrel on it, built by a friend for me. It's very accurate, but it is not a hunting rifle. At the same time, my friend scornes express sights because of their accuracy characteristics. Even so, I was very happily surprised by my Ruger #1H's group with open sights firing 500 gr .458 win loads, at around 2" at 100 yrds with care. Adjusting for 400 gr loads with those sights was impossible; the sights don't have the range of motion required to make the trip. I'll save the space on my solution to the problem and just say a low power scope looks like the easiest and most flexible way to solve the problem (there's a company that makes peeps for #1's with replacable front posts; I'd still need to swap front posts to move between loads, while the scope will do it with its elevation adjustment, and the open sights are still regulated to the 500gr loads).

There is one point, though... If the trajectories cross at 75 yards, then at 150 yards, they will only be separated by the same distance as they were separated at the muzzle (draw an X on a piece of paper; the distance between the top and bottom legs at the same distance from the vertex are equal -- "vertical angles" and all that). So, at 150 yards, crossing or parallel, you're only seeing a separation of that 1" between barrel axes. If your groups are 3" at 100 yards, how can you tell whether the barrels have been regulated to parallel trajectories? If your trajectories cross at 75 yrds, by the time you're at 300 yards, the divergence due crossed trajectories is now 3", but the 3MOA is now up to 9" -- this means you have a 12" group at 300 yrds compared to a 9" group. At 200 yards, crossed trajectories contribute 1.5" to the 6MOA spread to give 7.5" groups. It looks like simply getting the loads to shoot a good group at 75 yards should give pretty consistent performance even out to 300 yards -- which is well beyond any distance (I immagine) I'd want to shoot at the type of game these rifles are designed for. Given the pain regulation is for gunmakers, and given the practical difficultly in even proving they have gotten the barrels parallel -- can and do they do it? It would strike me as a true wonderment!

Given I am occasionally cranky -- and certainly stubborn (occasionally this has come in handy when I'm trying to recover game, and it is self-selecting for the type of work I've gotten into), I don't know if I'd be welcome in your camp -- but it would be nice to visit. There is much in facial expressions and tone of voice that avoids the misunderstandings of intention that electronic media promote. I would be honored to meet you guys.

Dan

quote:

If your groups are 3" at 100 yards, how can you tell whether the barrels have been regulated to parallel trajectories?

Dan

YOu simply shoot each barrel to a different target. That way you can see individual barrel group size and tell which side of the center line it is shooting.

Not all Doubles are for DG. I have a very niffty 9.3x74R and a .303 that are wonderful all purpose rifles for anything that is not DG.

You are right about the facelessness of the internet. It is hard to see the twinkle in a persons eye or the smile on a computer screen. Maqc comes across as rather gruff and I have been told I come across as very handsome and intelligent on the Internet.

Actually both are true.

Given the standard deviation of the mean goes like the sample standard deviation divided by sqrt(sample size), it would take 10 rounds to bring me down to 1" uncertainty -- which would start to resolve the difference in barrels. Probably, 16 rounds/barrel would give a clean signal for the average. Then the gunmaker would have to tweak the regulation and shoot again (ugghhhh! that would be hard for heavy recoiling guns; not so bad for lighter calibers).

I have seen ads for 9.3x74R and .303 doubles. I have wondered what one could expect from those in terms of accuracy... How do yours shoot? How do they work with your hunt (how do they affect the way you hunt)?

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
Oh my! I knew to expect 3"-5" from the older English guns. Given what I'd heard about the Searcys, I thought they'd do better (they must do somewhat better given how Butch Searcy won that competition first time out with his rifle, and given Ray A's praise.


Given I am occasionally cranky -- and certainly stubborn (occasionally this has come in handy when I'm trying to recover game, and it is self-selecting for the type of work I've gotten into), I don't know if I'd be welcome in your camp -- but it would be nice to visit. There is much in facial expressions and tone of voice that avoids the misunderstandings of intention that electronic media promote. I would be honored to meet you guys.

Dan

DanEP, Searcy rifles are as accurate as any double rifle ever made, and like you for target shooting when ranges are known, a load can be worked up the will cross at the range needed for target shooting. However, and load used for general hunting,should be loaded so the barrels shoo paralell. Any double rifle can be used for general bag, and if you want to use it for more that short range, it should be loaded to shoot paralell. This does make the composite group a little larger, but is far more useful for hunting with express sights. We at DRSS hunt everything from jackrabbit, to Elephant with our double rifles. Admittedly, we have more than one double rifle, and some are more suited to deer hunting, than others, but all will work for that purpose if loaded properly. Range, is no more a drawback with these doubles, than with any open sighted hunting rifle, if loaded paralell.

Mickey1, is right and wrong! Heis right about the ONE way to define groups from each barrel, the other way is to mark down every shot as it is fired on a tablet, labeling them 1RT,1 LFT,2RT, 2LFT,and so on, on the same target!

He is also right about one of us coming off gruff, and one being intelligent, and hansome, but he has the order wrong! I'm the hansome one!

DanEP, you are always welcome in my hunting camp,hell, we might even let Mickey1 do the camp chores, and I have absolutely nothing against anyone disagreeing with me! The reason I don't is because I know I'm right, and they're wrong!

Hmmm..

I won't argue the issue of parallel being proper. But, I would ask your indulgence to follow out a train of thought, if you please.

While multiple shots can resolve the issue of how barrels are aligned, the problem of determining which barrel a shot comes from by where it hit is much harder (discriminant analysis classifier problem). With that much overlap, it is essentially impossible to determine which barrel individual bullets come from. This is a relevant point because elephant brains do not detect averages of multiple shots, which is what you need to do to get barrel alignent; instead, elephant brains hopefully stop functioning when just one .470 NE enters. The question could then be posed (and this is where I beg your indulgence), how sensitive are the classifier functions to variations in barrel alignment? By calculation, it would appear that barrel discriminat functions (ie, being able to actually figure out which barrel the bullet was shot from simply by looking at where the bullet hit) would be pretty insensitive to any variation between the single-point-of-impact and parallel alignment out to 300 yards or so... If so, a gunmaker could produce a product that would be just as likely to save a hunter's life and perform with just as much satisfaction without having to spend the time and money of doing the higher-grade alignment. Have you actually done the experiment of taking averages over multiple shots from each barrel? (just honest curiosity -- it seems to me the only real way to empirically test whether the gunmaker truly did the alignment as described..., but by my reckoning, for heavy rifles, that would be a $100 experiment).

The 1R/1L/2R/2L... will work, BUT, you need to walk down and mark the target after each shot (or mark them in your notebook using a spotting scope). OR, if you put up two targets, you can just shoot.

I kind of enjoy doing my share of camp chores... I appreciate good hospitality!

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
Hmmm..

I won't argue the issue of parallel being proper. But, I would ask your indulgence to follow out a train of thought, if you please.


The 1R/1L/2R/2L... will work, BUT, you need to walk down and mark the target after each shot (or mark them in your notebook using a spotting scope). OR, if you put up two targets, you can just shoot.
Dan

Dan a "SPOTTING SCOPE"? All loads worked up for a double rifle should be fired through a cronograph, and each shot spotted as it is fired. This is done by useing a target that is laid out with an aiming point, and the whole field laid out in 1" squares. You place one on the target back board, and a second one on your shooting bench. As a shot is fired, it is spotted on the target, and plotted on the one on your bence, and labeled as to which shot it is! Example: your first shot is #1 RT, your next shot is #1 LFT, your next shot is #2 RT, and the next is #2 Left, and so on. Groups should be no more than six shots, three from each barrel, starting RT, LFT, RT, LFT, RT, LFT, always in the sme order before letting the barrels cool to anbiant temprature, and starting with a barrel set that is at ambiant temprature. The crono will list each shot in order on the readout tape, for your average speed.

All Doubles are regulated to shoot side by side. It is the load YOU are loading that determins whether you get what it is supposed to be, or not! If the rounds are crossing, and most times a bit low, the load is too fast, if they are shooting too wide,and a bit high, the load is too slow. When the load is perfect, is when the center of the group shot from the left barrel is the same distance left of point of aim, as the distance from the center of the regulating wedge, to the center of the left barrel's bore,Which is 1/2" on my 470NE, and the same but opposite for the right barrel. IOW, the combined rt, and lft group straddles the point of aim, or paralell. Got it?

At the factory this is the way a barrel set is physically regulated,for a known load, and is done usually at 50 yds. As long as the barrels are shooting side by side , and both shooting at the same elevation, the "BARREL REGULATION IS DONE!"

The next step is to regulate the SIGHTS for the distance you want, Since the barrels are shooting paralell, the barrels do not have to be adjusted for this! All that is left is, to mount the permenant sights, and file them in for the distance you want the "SIGHTS" to print the bullets dead on for elevation, and center between rt, and left groups.

All the mathematical formulas in the world will do you no good with the regulation of a set of Double rifle barrels. It must be done the way it has always done, by a starting point from a educated guess, and tweeked till it regulates for a known load, by trial, and error. The problem shows it's ugly head when you start working up a load that will shoot to the regulation already in the rifle, from the maker. To me, this is much more complex that the physical regulating!

You have a nice day! I got to go eat dinner!
.................

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
Ray

A double is a specialist tool for elephant or buff in close cover. For a lion like that, your Ruger No 1 is as good as my Mauser, or a krieghoff .500/.416. Still, it is way more cool to solve the problem with the penache of a double

I think this is the most intelligent post on this thread. I have not hunted lions yet, but will some day (came real close this year). But I do watch the feral cats in my backyard hunt birds. A 5 pound cat can cover 6 feet in about one second, from a dead start. Assuming a lion can move proportionally as fast, I would guess a lion would cover that 15 yards in less than one second. So even thinkiing about getting two shots off is dreaming, unless of course, you hit the lion well with the first one.

And who cares about regulation of barrels at 15 feet? Ray, are you that good of a shot that you can hold off for this on a charging lion at 15 yards? Come on..

If you were charged by a male lion at 15 yds, you probably would not get the rifle to your shoulder, if it were a female you wouldnt get that far.. Charlie

Charles,
Include me in on that hunt.
In fact you might try to come on the next DRSS hunt.


Gentlemen, all theories aside, if you have a double, and you are charged from close range, you might be able to get two shots off, with any other DGR, probably not.
Also think about this, John Pondoro Taylor stated, and I agree, that a double rifle that fits you is also faster for the FIRST shot.

MacD37 -- I got it.

How many shots do you take per barrel to test each load?

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Charles,
Include me in on that hunt.
In fact you might try to come on the next DRSS hunt.


Gentlemen, all theories aside, if you have a double, and you are charged from close range, you might be able to get two shots off, with any other DGR, probably not.
Also think about this, John Pondoro Taylor stated, and I agree, that a double rifle that fits you is also faster for the FIRST shot.

Thanks for the invite 450, i am i might busy with our coaltion try to save Stoney Valley from the government. Since this is an African forum i wont go any further . http://www.savestonyvalley.com , sorry had to do that. So the shoot i might miss , but the hunt is a good possibilty in the future. Charlie

You will have to typr it in by hand. Charlie

Charles Mac,

Did you mean http://www.savestonyvalley.com/ ?

Dan

We have two sites use the one above thanks. Charlie

I don't care what any of you experts think, I know I'm right, its a curmudgeon thing you see!

Dang that Old codger (Ray) can stir-up some serious BS!


Back to the topic...

...This is what I did to prepare for what ended-up becoming a reality for me (a close-quarters frontal charge from a Dugga-boy.)

I figured that given reasonable circumstances a shot with my double inside 100 yards was a no brainer - I confirmed this by doing some off-hand shooting from 100, 75 & 50 yards - all good enough to do the job.

So, a charging scenario was where we decided to work on some skill building.

We set-up a target with 2 Bullseyes -3" and 6"...Bullseyes were at about 36" and 48" off the ground respectively. We used relatively dark bulls on a dark background.

1) The goal was to shoot at them from varying distances and check the performance of both me and my gun. I did this off-hand from 50, 25 and 10 yards. My buddy stood next to me and called the shot ("here he comes, shoot, shoot!!") and timed my response time including reload and re-engagement. This verbal harrassment added some tension to the exercise and made me really buckle down and concentrate on form; mostly taking my time (not too damn'd much of course) and keeping my head down on the rifle!. We assessed accuracy and technique then repeated the drill a couple more times. We did this at least once a week for the 2 months leading up to our trip. By the time we were heading out, I knew pretty well where my gun was shooting at most distances.

Additionally, I purchased one of those padded work-out bars in the 12 pound version. This was a piece that was fairly close in length and weight to my Rigby.
Each evening I would do a series of sets of 25 shoulderings from a ready-carry position - (International trap-shooter's ready-hold position; Stock held at belt level, not shouldered.) One or two nights a week I'd do this series with my rifle. I didn't do this every night with my rifle as these sessions got me pretty sweaty and I didn't want to expose my "baby" to excessive salt from my toxic, whiskey laden sweat! By the time I left I was up to about 10 sets of 50 shoulderings...I also added a point of aim on the wall of my home office to give me a reference point and thereby sharpen my "point and shoot" (not aim and shoot - very important difference) skills. - I highly recommend this practice. Yuo will not believe the difference this makes!!!

Between the timed shooting exercises and this "muscle-specific" training regimin I was ready for whatever might come my way....and it did.

After the Buff was down my PH and I determined that he was just outside of 6 paces when he was turned (shot between the eyes) and then passed by me augered-in for good!

Had I not trained and known what my personal and my gun's traits were I might not be writing this little diatribe for y'all. The game scout commented on how fast I was able to reload...Practice, practice, practice!

This is what I did to prepare and that is how it happened.

Take it or leave it.

"learn by doing - Get good by doing it a lot"

Jeff

quote:

A quick man can run at 10m per second without anyone shooting at him. Elephant or buff are somewhat quicker than any man; a lion can easily reach 20m per second. On average it took the guides 4.5 seconds to chamber a cartridge and fire the first (aimed) shot at a target 10m away. At this rate a lion would have to be sporting and charge from 100m if you were going to get him before he gets you. I have seldom seen a lion in the bush until I was within 40m of it. At this distance if your rifle isn't loaded, you're dinner if the lion really wants you.

From:
A quick man can run at 10m per second without anyone shooting at him. Elephant or buff are somewhat quicker than any man; a lion can easily reach 20m per second. On average it took the guides 4.5 seconds to chamber a cartridge and fire the first (aimed) shot at a target 10m away. At this rate a lion would have to be sporting and charge from 100m if you were going to get him before he gets you. I have seldom seen a lion in the bush until I was within 40m of it. At this distance if your rifle isn't loaded, you're dinner if the lion really wants you. ]

Ganyana on charges and rifles

G