Ozhunter: Damn, that's a big hyena! Tell us about your iron-sighted rifle.

If you see an animal from the truck 400yds away its time for the stalk.All the fun and excitement now begins.You try very hard getting close to him without him noticing.If you don't shoot him from the truck it is not a lost oppurtunity.

Sounds like a lot of the guys on this topic are ready for Camp Perry. I for one am not that good a shot. A scoped rifle gives me a much better opportunity of a one shot kill.

Every rifle I take to Africa has iron sights on it. However, each rifle is also equipped with a scope in QD mounts. I sight in the "irons" and do some practice with them, but the scope is the 1st priority unless the situation dictates otherwise. Also the irons keep the rifle usefull if the scope goes South for some reason. In that regard I always have an extra scope along as well.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
Those were some pretty "tame" animals if you ask me and strongly suggests having been hunted in a fenced area which is a totally different kettle of fish when hunting "free-range"game.
However, Will is pretty honest with his advice - unwise it is, but if one is happy with the idea and willing to accept parting with considerable amounts of trophy fees for game wounded and lost, its their money to spend.

Hunting on a large (120,000 hectares) fenced property in Botswana and comparing it to the same species observed in a free-range setting, I thought that if anything the ranch animals were spookier and harder to approach. My experience is limited (one trip) but for species like zebra and blue wildebeest, stalking was much easier in the Caprivi (free range) than on the Botswana ranch. I assumed this was due to higher hunting pressure exerted on the ranch animals? Certainly the Caprivi animals were more accustomed to exposure to local people (not hunters) and were more likely to watch your approach than to run immediately. Just my opinion...I'm ready to bow to those with more experience on this idea.

As for iron sights: I enjoy using irons (apertures, not open) and now regret having bowed to common wisdom and taken only a scoped rifle to Africa. Perhaps (and only perhaps) one of the nine plains game species I took required a shot on which I would have passed if I had been using my .348 Model 71, and my buffalo would have been even more exciting (and just as dead) with an express-sighted gun. It is not necessary to accept the wounding and loss of numerous and sundry animals if the hunter has any measure of self-discipline...all one needs to do is, as Mike Robinson stated, be willing to accept a significant handicap.

But, as you say, it's your money to spend. If you're willing to spend money, rather than spend the time to learn how and when (and when not) to shoot, fire away.

John

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Open sight hunting is enjoyable but be prepared to miss out on opportunity's.

Ozzie:
Some taken with open sights and others with a scope?

Who said anything about shooting from the truck? I sure as hell didn't. If you feel that you need to, go ahead, but that is not the way I do it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fujotupu:
Shootaway:

Nothing wrong with iron sights on a PG rifle but one needs to have a good eye which after a certain age, most folks need lenses.
Say what you like, but a target over 75 yards will be almost fully obliterated by the bead and the shot can strike the target almost anywhere resulting in an unnecessarily wounded animal which is in contrast with the objectives of sport hunting, hence the reason for having a scoped rifle: clarity, individual eye focus and precision, but which while not guaranteeing a clean kill, greatly reduces the possibility of one.

Why should that be if the rifleman is using as he should, the 6'o clock hold.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If you see an animal from the truck 400yds away its time for the stalk.All the fun and excitement now begins.You try very hard getting close to him without him noticing.If you don't shoot him from the truck it is not a lost oppurtunity.

shootaway, shootaway, you need to recalibrate before writing and you obviously have little or no experience with irons. I just killed an American Bison with my iron sighted Sharps 45-110 at 92 yards and the bullet went right where I aimed. Broke his shoulder, spined it and it went right down. Further, I can consistenly hit the 500 yard metal ram with it as well and I'm a rank amateur.

Sharpsguy on the other hand has shot in excess of 250 THOUSAND rounds through his Sharps and is a past national champion and one of the most ethical hunters I know. To declare he shoots from the truck is an affront to his integrity. Anyhow maybe some visual aids might help. Here is a short video if him whacking a zebra with his 45/70 Sharps at 169 yards. No issues with the front sight (a blade and not a bead BTW). Just think before posting man!

Zebra kill

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

Say what you like, but a target over 75 yards will be almost fully obliterated by the bead and the shot can strike the target almost anywhere resulting in an unnecessarily wounded animal which is in contrast with the objectives of sport hunting, hence the reason for having a scoped rifle: clarity, individual eye focus and precision, but which while not guaranteeing a clean kill, greatly reduces the possibility of one.

If this were true, how would you explain the ability of folks like Sharpsguy and others to consistently make killing shots at many times that distance? Based on your logic, the entire herd of animals would be "fully obliterated" by the front sight.

Is it possible that they know something you don't?

John

quote:

Originally posted by Scriptus:


Why should that be if the rifleman is using as he should, the 6'o clock hold.

Hold it where you will but beyond a certain distance the desired pinpoint accuracy will be wishful thinking and certainly incomparable to the accuracy offered by optics.

Back to the point of "argument" - nowhere was it stated that it shouldn't be done, just inadvisable, unwise and if the hunter is content in bagging 18 animals on 3 trips to Africa who is going to contest his sense of satisfaction? - maybe its a justifying reason to go back a 4th or 5th time

Larry has come up with a sensible statement regarding this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:


If this were true, how would you explain the ability of folks like Sharpsguy and others to consistently make killing shots at many times that distance? Based on your logic, the entire herd of animals would be "fully obliterated" by the front sight.

Is it possible that they know something you don't?

John

Proof of the pudding is in the tasting - Why not go out in the field and try it for yourself
and if you find the results are to your satisfaction....what more can be said?... join the 'Open Sights Club.'

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
Back to the point of "argument" - nowhere was it stated that it shouldn't be done, just inadvisable, unwise and if the hunter is content in bagging 18 animals on 3 trips to Africa who is going to contest his sense of satisfaction? - maybe its a justifying reason to go back a 4th or 5th time

It also depends on how one measures thier success: The quality of the hunt, or the size of the bag...

When I said shooting from the truck I didn't mean from inside or on the truck and it was not said to anyone in particular.Hitting a target from a rest a thousand miles away does not really interest me.If sharpguy or anyone else can take a big bore with open sights and shoot 4 rounds offhand,consistantly at 100yds in a second for each round such that they group within 6 inches then you win my camp perry.

So what is your point? Look at the video, he used shooting sticks.

I have established my ability to hit a 12" "10" ring 20 out of 20 times at 600 yards, using a diopter receiver sight, keeping 12 of them in the 6" "X" ring.

That said, I did this on a rifle range, at a known distance, at a fixed target, with sighters and with the wind as the only variable. However, I would not trust myself to shoot an animal at that distance, where the range is unknown, the wind is still a variable, and most importantly, the target is not fixed.

I once shot a Beisa oryx, a notably spooky animal, at what I estimated as 300 yards, For once, I was able to shoot in the prone position. I was on a rise, overlooking the plain where the animal was standing, facing away from me, angled slightly to the right. I aimed for the left shoulder, intending to shoot directly through the heart/lungs area to get there. My PH was prone beside me, scoping the animal with his binoculars as I shot.

I squeezed off what I considered an acceptable shot, one which would have hit the "10" ring on the rifle range and turned to the PH. He shook his head. "He took a step forward just as your shot broke."

The result was about a three mile chase over desert like terrain, before we finally brought him down. Had the landscape been less open, he would have escaped to die a lingering death.

You can see from the photo where the shot hit, about a foot to the rear of where I was aiming.


Even at 300 yards, a bullet takes a perceptable time to reach its target. If the target is not firmly anchored, it can move, and executing a perfect shot, with perfect wind and range extimation, can still result in a clean miss, or far worse, an ill placed shot. For that reason, 300 yards is my absolute limit shooting at game.

As far as iron sights are concerned, when I was shooting smallbore on a regular basis, I noticed about a 2 point difference (out of 1600) between my iron sight scores and my scope scores. The main benefit of shooting a scope was that you did not have to use a spotting scope to see the result of your shots.

For an experienced shooter, there is about a one minute of angle difference in shooting with iron sights and shooting with the "glass eye". However, this is with an adjustable aperture front sight, shooting at a black target on a white background in bright light conditions.

In Africa, my .505 carried a Lyman 48 receiver sight and no scope, but I didn't intend to use it at ranges in excess of 75 yards. The rig was good enough to account for three elephants, five Cape buffalo and a black rhino, all taken at more or less point blank range.

Shooting plains game, where the animal I was shooting at was often a member of a herd, I would have been unable to distinguish my target animal from his herd mates without a scope. High power is not needed. 4X was the most I ever used.

Ernest Hemingway wrote about bowling over a running rhino at 300 yards with his Griffin & Howe Springfield .30-'06, using iron sights. Not something I would try, from either the standpoint of range, caliber, or sighting equipment.

As far as I am concerned, there is NO unknown distance, or "estimated "range. I use a Leica CRF 1200 rangefinder before I shoot, and know exactly how far it is to the animal I am shooting. I don't guess. If I can generate an acceptable sight picture, I set the sight for the distance and take the shot. If I don't have the sight picture, I don't take the shot.

The rifle is indifferent to the distance, if the sight is set correctly. Break a good shot with properly adjusted sights and a good sight picture, and you have your animal with a Sharps.

If your animal moves before the bullet gets there, and you hit it in the wrong place, you made the mistake of shooting at a nervous animal that is prone to move at any instant. One of the advantages of shooting at the longer distances is that the animals are far less likely to have spotted you and be on the verge of moving. It is far easier to kill an animal that is relaxed and unaware of your presence than it is to kill one that is suspicious and alert. Try to get too close, and you will likely give yourself away and have to shoot a nervous animal. Distance and your rifle are your friends as long as you are in your comfort zone with your own skill set.

xausa, very well explained, and thanks for providing a perfect, real world example of the pitfalls of long range shooting as well.

I had a similar experience on a hartebeest, which was at even closer range than your oryx.

The lead animals of a mixed herd of Lichtenstein's hartebeest and plains zebra, in which my bull hartebeest was bringing up the rear, spotted one of us and got our wind, and suddenly bolted off to one side, a split second after I broke my shot.

A straight on, money in the bank, chest shot ended up being a raking rib and hip shot.

Thanks to amazingly good trackers and a couple of hours of hard follow up, we did bag that hartebeest.



But it was iffy and could have gone the other way, and if I seem happy in that photo, it's because I surely was!

The very real disadvantages of shooting game at long range in real life hunting situations far outweigh any supposed advantages.

Throwing iron sights into the mix tilts the balance even further against long range shots.

The only reason Daniel Boone didn't use a scope is......he didn't have one. Iron sights are ok, scopes are generally better. Why handicap oneself? I've killed a lot of game and as I discovered years ago, a well-made scope is a wonderful thing. If iron sights were so good, why did the US Marine Corp and the US Army go to telescopic optics on their M4 and M16 rifles and much of their shooting is less than 100 yards? I'm something of a tradionalist with rifles and their designs but I'm very pragmatic when it comes to overall performance and I feel a scope is a significant improvement over iron sights. Just my two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by strapman:
The only reason Daniel Boone didn't use a scope is......he didn't have one. Iron sights are ok, scopes are generally better. Why handicap oneself? I've killed a lot of game and as I discovered years ago, a well-made scope is a wonderful thing. If iron sights were so good, why did the US Marine Corp and the US Army go to telescopic optics on their M4 and M16 rifles and much of their shooting is less than 100 yards? I'm something of a tradionalist with rifles and their designs but I'm very pragmatic when it comes to overall performance and I feel a scope is a significant improvement over iron sights. Just my two cents.

It's not that iron sights are better than a scope.Iron sights make it a little harder and therefore makes us hunt harder.I don't want to make it as hard as killing the animal with your bear hands but just a little harder so it brings out the best in hunting.It's not about making it easier but making it a little harder to make it better.It also gives you something to do between hunts which is as fun as the hunt itself and that is practice.So,take off the scopes and hop on the iron sights train!

I dont think anyone is challenging the precision of using a scope, but what I have tried to point out, is that the 'handicap' that scope shooters assume (unable to shoot over 75 yards or some such thing) is mostly just assummed rubbish, and they should try it for themselves...lets remember also - we are not talking about target shooting, the kill zone on these animals is a decent size.

People talk like they are ssumming that everyone who shoots with iron sights is shooting OFFHAND at 250 yards or something. A good rest and a peep sight at 200 yards at an animal and any half wit could pull it off. For that, matter with a good bead and v rear sight as well.

I dont use them because they are harder to use, but because they give me other advantages that a scope doesn't have.
For most people the ease of a telescopic sights outweighs the small advantages that iron sights have, thats just life. But there is a considerable amount of snobbery with scopes as well - look at the optics forum for example!

Still, I will be the first to admit there is a touch of nostalgia about using them also, and if I'm truly honest, one of the things that I do like is getting in close to animals, close encounters when I am hunting. I decided if I was shooting all my animals at less than 50 yards then I didn't need a scope.

But really, even if you put a self imposed limit of 150 yards on your open sight shooting, you really wouldnt be passing up many shots at all where I hunt.

Conversely where scopes are excellent is in very thick bush. Where you are peering through little holes in the jungle tpe thing and trying to resolve whats over there. Scopes with their single focal plane are very good for this.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Open sight hunting is enjoyable but be prepared to miss out on opportunity's.

Ozzie:
Some taken with open sights and others with a scope?

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by sharpsguy:

If your animal moves before the bullet gets there, and you hit it in the wrong place, you made the mistake of shooting at a nervous animal that is prone to move at any instant. One of the advantages of shooting at the longer distances is that the animals are far less likely to have spotted you and be on the verge of moving. It is far easier to kill an animal that is relaxed and unaware of your presence than it is to kill one that is suspicious and alert. Try to get too close, and you will likely give yourself away and have to shoot a nervous animal. Distance and your rifle are your friends as long as you are in your comfort zone with your own skill set.

All very well, but I have read accounts of "hunters" attempting shots at bears at 1000 yards, and at elk cross canyon at 7-800 yards, where the chances of retrieving a wounded animal are virtually nil. I would not want to be responsible for the consequences of someone else wandering onto a bear that I had wounded at that range, either.

You didn't say what the muzzle velocity of your Sharps is, nor the remaining velocity at the target, but I suspect that the remaining energy is not much more than that of a .44-40. Also, your trajectory would be more like a howitzer projectile, which would make accurate range finding all the more important.

Laser range finders are all very well, but all have some margin of error. I have never seen a receiver sight which could be adjusted to closer than 1/8", which is 2 1/2 inches at 1000 yards. I suspect your vernier type tang sight is capable of little less than 1" adjustments, which would be 10 inches at 1000 yards.

I have pulled targets at enough 1000 yard high power matches to be acutely aware of the high angle even a boat tail .30 caliber bullet reaches the target at, let alone a subsonic flat based lead projectile.

As far as shooting at an oblivious animal is concerned, I have plenty of opportunity to do that, sinmply by climbing into a tree stand, a practice I reject not only because at my age it's a dangerous one, but because it doesn't jibe with my idea of fair chase.

Last Thursday I was walking along a long narrow curving field with my little 6.5X54 Mannlicher Schoenauer carbine slung over my left shoulder. About a hundred yards ahead of me, a big doe sprang out from behind a curve and hurried away from me. About 150 yards away, she paused to look back. By that time, the rifle was in my shoulder, safety off. When she paused, I snapped off a shot. I later found her about 150 yards from where she was standing when hit. To be able to make that shot at age 72 is more satisfying than shooting a "clean" on the target range.

I don't necessarily shoot game at 1000 yards. The limiting factor on how far I will shoot is the quality of the sight picture I can generate. Neither do I use a vernier tang sight. They are worthless for hunting. My rifles are equipped with a buckhorn barrel sight with a ladder and a sliding leaf on the rear, and a blade front sight made from a copper penny.

As far as the remaining energy being that of a 44-40, rest assured that my 500 grain bullets will shoot through and through anything I hit at any distance I shoot it. You guys don't understand that a Sharps was designed and built to kill large animals in the 2000 pound weight range at long distance. It works as well in Africa as it does anywhere else, if you use it properly.

I think a lot of these guys don't understand the investment and commmitment you have made to become the shootist your are.


I have scored your targets at the hoot and shoot . A 300 yard shot, my moneys on you. 200 yards off hand my money is still on you.

I did not get interested in big game hunting or africa until after I won my class at the southern regionals in small bore shilo and was shooting in the top ten in the few high power matches I was able to attend. All shots during a match are take off hand with no sling. All shots on my hunt were spot on out to 400 yards and taken off hand. A 300 yard shot at a zebra was just a tad low, the only shot I took a knee on. I finished him on the run at 250 to 300 yards. When I went to Namibia I went to prove my skills as a shootis. The ph dragging me around was doing the hunting!

We all enjoy the outdoors and going on these hunts, we have to stop being critical about some of the differnt approachs that are used to get to the same outcome. A trophy animal taken by fair chase and taken cleanly!

Become proficent learn the limit of your skill and with your choice of firearm or bow.

I been to several big bore shoots, and seen many who have been succesfull biggame hunters who can 't shoot 2" groups off hand at 25 yards on sticks at that.


All hunters should make a commitment to become expert shots and not just good enough! If you want to get close fine, make sure you can shoot it in the eye so to speak every time. Don't be happy with pie plate groups that are killing shots most of time.


JD


JD