A spin-off on the questions about how the folks here rate themselves as rifle marksmen....aand please pardon the typos...I never 2was a clerk-typist.

Ever so often, we keep hearing some version of the claim that a shooter is a "not very accomplished shot on paper", even when using carefully loaded ammo, a good rifle, and any kind of rest they can conjure up. And, of course, the paper tareget is a fixed distance away and is not moving.

But none-the-less they magically become a really good shot when shooting at an animal, with or without a rest, at a known or unknown exact distance away, and when both the shooter and/or the animal may still be in motion.

Some readers may immediately counter that such claims are B.S. Others may put it down to a lack of pressure to perform, or some such, saying that such a state lets the shooter "get in the zone" and do a much better job of managing his rifle.

As for me, I sometimes wonder if there is really any difference in their shooting other than how they score their hits? With a paper target, the desired norm seems to get tougher every year. When I was a kid, tales of MOA groups at 100 yards were scoffed at as fantasy, except for very rare "lucky" groups. Later the goal became 1/2 MOA, and not out to just 100 yards, but 200 yards or more. Now it seems to have metamorphisized into 1/4 MOA groups at 600 yards.... A fellow who can't do better than 2-1/2 MOA at 100 yards is considered a pretty poor shot by some folks these days.

Pretty tough, anyway you look at it.

Then comes the "hair" shooter...the hunter or animal control shooter. Mostly, we are talking "big game" ( Coues deer and larger). So, what is a poor shot in that circumstance? One that causes the animal target to be lost?

And what is a successful "hair" shot? Any shot which brings the animal to bag? If so, wouldn't 2-1/2 groups on animals, especially moving animals, be pretty darned good?

Have the shooters changed at all or are they just describing the same ability in different ways?

Question:
So, I guess the first question is: Is there really such a thing as "Not very good on paper, but dynamite on hair?

Choices:
Yes
No
Same accuracy, different kind of scoring
That's really not the right question; here's my take on it.
There should be another option. How about this one?

 

As a guide I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that statement. it usually means I have to be on my toes because I'll be helping to finish off a wounded animal.

I have learned to try to get those shooters closer. Which is what I learned from a statement made by Zimbabwe PH Doug Kok, who said "I may not be a good shot - but I am an experienced shot"

quote:

As a guide I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that statement. it usually means I have to be on my toes because I'll be helping to finish off a wounded animal.

I'm not a professional but I've helped out at a few hunting Camps around the World and the above is a Truism if I ever heard one.

Normally, while the Great Good & Unwashed are lounging about behind the sighting-in bench feigning complete disinterest to what is about to occur as the Clients prepare to check zero; is actually a closely scrutinized study concerning how easy or hard the job's gonna be in the immediate future.

I've seen excellent & good shots that are excellent & good game killers. Also mediocre shots who manage the sighting-in and then get the deed done. I've never seen an inept/poor shooter manage either paper or hair well.

One of the best one that I have heard is that "I'm not very good at close targets but I do good at long range"

The only category of shooter who might legitimately be better on "hair" than on "paper" is someone who spends most of his time wingshooting with a shotgun, but rarely picks up a rifle. That guy may not shoot for warm spit from a bench, nor too well at a stationary animal, but might well hit a moving animal better than the average shooter.

Otherwise, most people are much better on "paper" than on "hair" simply because there's little anxiety about the paper running off before the shot, or alternatively about the paper limping off with blood dripping from its hind leg.

Could it be that good on paper is MOA and good on game (deer) is 2.5 MOA? I can shoot 1.5" groups but 2-3 inch groups will kill 95% of the deer killed in the country.

or maybe I'm missing something...

There's a lot of talk here about super accuracy, rarefied equipment, ballistics over long distances but a repeatable 2MOA shooter who knows his limits is gonna put down deer.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The only category of shooter who might legitimately be better on "hair" than on "paper" is someone who spends most of his time wingshooting with a shotgun, but rarely picks up a rifle. That guy may not shoot for warm spit from a bench, nor too well at a stationary animal, but might well hit a moving animal better than the average shooter.

Otherwise, most people are much better on "paper" than on "hair" simply because there's little anxiety about the paper running off before the shot, or alternatively about the paper limping off with blood dripping from its hind leg.

I think that is it in a nutshell, it certainly was my problem until a few month's ago.

The obvious corollary is that once that shooter get's more experience he should improve on hair.

For someone to purport to go on for the rest of their life like that is a little hard to swallow.

Yup, I see it as different targets. Sure someone may not be able to hold on paper for the magical 1", but in the game world that may be as much as 6-8". The typical deer kill zone is about 6" so a lot of people can do that who can not hit 1" from a bench, assuming 100 yards.

I hear the same stinky stuff from people who claim they can't hit clay targets, but are great "real" bird shooters. Most of the time I'm glad I'm wearing boots. What it generally means to me is that they lack the practice to perform adequately. Yes there are exceptions.I'm not saying people need to shoot 1/4 inch paper groups of even moa groups. If a shooter can consistently shoot 2-2 1/2 groups at 100 or 200 yds, then they "should" be able to kill hair consistently. But, anybody that has hunted hair has seen people come apart when animals are involved. I'm sure Phil would agree that paper targets are much less concerning to the average sphincter than a Brownie.

I have often said about myself that "I am not much of a benchrest shooter." About anybody on the internet can outshoot me it seems. I also have never really had the concrete bench and good sandbags that it takes to find out what your gun will do. I usually suffice with the truck hood, a wooden table, or a standing bench I made some years ago. I also shoot from Sitting with Sticks quite a lot. All in all, I have only ever owned one gun that shot 1/2" groups all the time. It was a 788 Remington in 7mm-08. It also shot 1/2 minute of prarrie dog when lying prone in a bindweed patch in SW Colorado. I have never owned a true Varmit, sub 264, caliber I guess. I have lots of loads in my reloading notes that shot around an inch with a few on the underside and more on the upper side, and all from factory big game rifles that may have been tinkered with some. I still feel impatient on the trigger unless I am shooting a lot and nowadays it is hard to find time to shoot a lot. So, I stick with "not much of a bench shooter" when describing myself as it seems every gun and every body shoots 1/2 inch with about every caliber they own. I have only seen two guys personally that shot that well, my brother and my now departed friend GV but that was with tuned 222, 223 or 22-250 and one 25-06. The rest they shot about like me. All of us have shot a lot of game successfully. None of us owned a rangefinder back then, I don't think we do now. I don't. I shoot within my range for the gun I am carrying and rarely miss big game or hit one wrong. I have however done both, missed and hit wrong but again rarely. I have lost two wounded big game animals in 48 years of hunting. I missed the biggest bull elk I ever saw sitting down with sticks at 250 yards. I did not really miss where I shot at, I just did not see the 3 inch oak brush branch crossing his shoulder at 3X when I broke the trigger. I did kill that branch dead but the bull left the scene unscathed. All of that; I don't really think that makes me much different, but maybe saying it out loud on the Internet does. So; not much of a bench shooter but pretty good when on game fits me if you read and understand all of the above.
dmw

there may be somebody out there like that; but I haven't met them yet. They usually have some story about being Hawkeye: deadly on running targets at extended ranges. We had sight-in days for several years at our R&G Club. They generally couldn't hit a 9" pie plate at 50yards, but had great stories of their last deer/elk/antelope at 400+ yards on the dead run. I would ask them how far the 200 yard swinging chicken silhouette was (200M) and inevitably the answer was "at least 500 yards...".

Scary, huh?

The ones to watch out for are the live varmint shooters. Most of them, when they shoot a Rock Chuck at 400 yards will ask you "which eye do you want me to pop?".

Rich
Rich

After theaching hundreds of cops ect I here it all the time I can't hit the target but. When the sh]t hits the fan I'll do good BS.

If you can hit game you can hit paper ect.
Good shots are good shots no matter what they are shooting.

I shoot paper cuz I need to know where the rifle is shooting,that said I would rather shoot rocks .Good Luck

Take 2 people that have never shot a gun. Let's say both have equal natural ability.

Give them 500 rounds of ammo each.

One guy must do all his shooting at the gun range off the bench.

The other guy must do all his shooting in the field off hand at rocks, trees and such as he walks the bush.


Give them 2 years to learn and shoot thier 500 practice rounds.




It's Novermber 25th there is 2 feet of snow and it is -20. Both guys are standing point on a cut line. Frezing cold and tired they decide to head back to the truck. Just as they turn to leave a whitetail buck is seen crossing a beaver dam 100 yards away. There is 5 seconds to make a shot before he is gone forever.....


Gee who is going to get the buck?? My bet is Mr. paper puncher will not even be able to get an aimed shot off in time.


Ya you can be a great shot on game but no so good off the bench....just like you can be a great shot at the bench but not so good on game.

quote:

Originally posted by Republic of Alberta:
.....
Gee who is going to get the buck?? My bet is Mr. paper puncher will not even be able to get an aimed shot off in time.

Ya you can be a great shot on game but no so good off the bench....just like you can be a great shot at the bench but not so good on game.

In that example, I would agree with you - My bet would be on the the shots at game experience. But, would also bet the he would be good on paper TOO!

RoA,

STOP THAT!!!

your post made all the smoke alarms go off in my house when I scrolled down to it.

Ever wonder why the offhand shooting competitions offhand segment have the lowest scores? Ditto with the Military and qualifying. Ditto every police department in the country. If you can't sit down on rifle rests front and rear and hit a clay pigeon at 300 yards every shot; I'd bet a lot of money you can't hit a big game animal at an unknown yardage.

Anybody who tells you that is talking out of his/her ass; because their brain knows better. Don't mean to be harsh, but that is absolutely 100% organic BS!

regards,

Rich

Can't rule out the 'excitement factor'. I know a guy that can shoot tight groups on paper, but when he knows he's going to pull the trigger on a deer he gets so rattled that he makes a poor shot or misses.

I know some good game shots that don't shoot much for paper but when they do they hit what they shoot at.

I don't know many poor target shooters that are good on game.

As I stated before a good shot is a good shot no matter what they shoot at.

Sir Mauser excitment hits good and poor shots the same way.

I agree that a good shot is just that, a good shot. No matter what the medium. Hair is just another target to hit!! With a little more forgiveness in most instances.

I have a ER Shaw barrel in 223 on a Model 70 action...

it is far from being a benchrest rifle and has never really turned in any groups that one would or could consider fantastic..

however when taking it out and shooting sage rats..at distances predominantly between 100 to 250 yds...it did every bit as well as my tack driver rifles in 223 or 22.250 do....

so if such a rifle can be used effectively on little popcanned sized rodents at 250 yds or so..then their accuracy ought to work well enough for deer at those kind of ranges.....

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
RoA,

STOP THAT!!!

your post made all the smoke alarms go off in my house when I scrolled down to it.

Ever wonder why the offhand shooting competitions offhand segment have the lowest scores? Ditto with the Military and qualifying. Ditto every police department in the country. If you can't sit down on rifle rests front and rear and hit a clay pigeon at 300 yards every shot; I'd bet a lot of money you can't hit a big game animal at an unknown yardage.

Anybody who tells you that is talking out of his/her ass; because their brain knows better. Don't mean to be harsh, but that is absolutely 100% organic BS!

regards,

Rich

Shooting well off the bench (lets say 3 shots into half an inch) is all about knowing how to set up and having good equipment.

Take virtualy any one and sit them down behind a good set up and they will be pounding out very good groups in a few hours.


Take the same guy and give him an off hand shot at the deer as I discribed above and he will miss or not even be able to find it in the scope in time. Give him a week or longer of practice and he still will not be able to do it most of the time.



One situation (bench) involves MOSLTY basic knowlage about set up and good equipment the other situation (quick shot on game) involves MOSTLY personal skill.



I know it sounds absurd but I know a lot of good game shots that realy don't CARE that you need to put a front AND rear support on your rifle to shoot a good group on the bench. Lots of guys I know simply throw down a jackt or shoot off thier elbows when checking zero on thier hunting rifle. A poor looking (to me) 4" or 5" group appers on paper but they are happy with it. Then they bang off 3 quick shots off hand at the 8" gong hitting it every time and call it good.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The only category of shooter who might legitimately be better on "hair" than on "paper" is someone who spends most of his time wingshooting with a shotgun, but rarely picks up a rifle. That guy may not shoot for warm spit from a bench, nor too well at a stationary animal, but might well hit a moving animal better than the average shooter.

I totally buy into this especially if that shooter is using a scout mounted scope. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
there may be somebody out there like that; but I haven't met them yet. They usually have some story about being Hawkeye: deadly on running targets at extended ranges. We had sight-in days for several years at our R&G Club. They generally couldn't hit a 9" pie plate at 50yards, but had great stories of their last deer/elk/antelope at 400+ yards on the dead run. I would ask them how far the 200 yard swinging chicken silhouette was (200M) and inevitably the answer was "at least 500 yards...".

Scary, huh?

The ones to watch out for are the live varmint shooters. Most of them, when they shoot a Rock Chuck at 400 yards will ask you "which eye do you want me to pop?".

Rich
Rich

I agree with the comment about the varmint shooters. But most of that is due to the fact I think, that they shoot a lot at long distances where errors really get magnified, know their trigger and the shooter very well and many times have fantastic ammo.

Yep, and until recently most of them "guess-timated" the yardages.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted



One situation (bench) involves MOSLTY basic knowlage about set up and good equipment the other situation (quick shot on game) involves MOSTLY personal skill.

In my experience anyone who truly believes benchrest shooting does not take as much skill as quick shooting on game either doesn't have much benchrest experience, or is habitually smoking a poor grade of weed.

The skills ARE different, but both sports require vast amounts of work, experience, and skill to do them really well....much like the arts of flying "wing" in a Mach II fighter and being a bush pilot.

Having said that, I believe it is probably easier to accustom an already good target shooter to hitting game, than to teach a guy who has got his 3 game animals every year but doesn't practice a lot on paper to do well in a target match.

One is already a good shooter, the other is at least a tolerable shooter, but may be relying more on his abilities to stalk, get close, and anticipate what the game is going to do next, to nail his prey.


I don't rate either one as a superior person or athlete. And I would certainly rather hunt with the well-experienced game collector. Heck, I might learn a few tricks from him!

But as to which is the better shot? Well, I'll put my money on the target shooter when it comes to either scored accuracy or group accuracy....OR long range hunting shots at undisturbed big game.

As for the one who really is a POOR shot on paper, I wouldn't want him around at all on my hunts except maybe as camp Joe-boy.

I think everyone has seen it posted repeatedly that while bench time is important to build confidence in yourself and your rifle and your ammo and knowing where the whistles and bells on your rifle are, it has also been stressed that you should practice shooting from field positions.
The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. And too, while it would be excellent practice, not everyone enjoys a environment where they can stroll around firing at targets of opportunity. Maybe East St Louis or North Memphis. I wouldn't advise doing much strolling however.

Harry says "man has got to know his limitations". My experience once again my experience is SOME range gods don't. Now you have be some what sencable here. When think of guys who are averge at the range it's 3-4 inch at 100 yards. Guys who I know like this and I'll hunt with will only take high perectage shoots (inside 150 yards) and I think this is were the talk of not very accomplished on paper great in the field comes from. Some guys making 600 yard shoot on the range think 400 in the field is nothing. Big difference shooting paper than shoot fur.

What is good on paper with a standard hunting rifle? I know guys who shoot 2,5 inch groups at 100 off the bench and limit themselves to 20-250 yard shots in the field and they are deadly in the field. Not the greatest off the bench but put them in a field situation and they will perform every time.

In africa if you can consistently place your shots into a 6" group in the field , under pressure and hot tired etc then you are going to kill 99% of your game with 1 shot. Also a guy that can shoot moa but doesnt know his placement and angles is worse off than the 2,5 " guy that knows his stuff.

So i believe that there is more to hunting fur than moa groups and yes an average guy on paper can be a great shot in the field on live game

I just heard my new favorite line "hit him again" and the reply "I can't I did not bring but 4 shells"

or

I sighted it in just 3 years ago!

I think there is some merit in this argument. I can only speak for myself and a couple of guys I shoot with regularly.

I am OK on paper of a bench. With a suitable rifle, scope and load combination I can shoot 1/2 moa at 100m reasonably consistently. However, I cannot do any better than that. I just lack the technique and the patience to allow the gun to cool between every shot. Away from the bench I can do about 1" prone of a bipod or 2" sitting or standing with sticks.

Some of my friends are very consistent on paper from any position, but I consistently kill more stuff with a rifle than they do.

I can bring a rifle up and get off a lethal shot pretty quickly. The shot may not win any target comps, but it will be good enough to kill a deer or fox out to 200m.

I watched a friend fail to kill two perfectly straight forward deer a couple of weeks ago - simply because he could not bring the rifle to bear and get away a shot that was "good enough". The same guy can sit at a bench and shoot very tight groups all day. But he is bloody slow. I have watched him recently on foxes, he needs 6-8 seconds to settle himself sufficiently to get a shot off that he is happy with. To me, that is just too slow.

Confidence in your ability to quickly get away a shot that is "good enough" will put a lot of deer in the chiller.

quote:

Originally posted by SIR MAUSER:
Can't rule out the 'excitement factor'. I know a guy that can shoot tight groups on paper, but when he knows he's going to pull the trigger on a deer he gets so rattled that he makes a poor shot or misses.

Yeah, I know a guy like that. He gets terminal buck fever.

It's all about concentration on the shot, to the exclusion of any other stimuli.

i.e., on hair, "What are the guys in camp gonna say when they see this 190?" Bang! Clean miss at 75 yds. Wasn't thinking bout the shot, but about the hurrahs... Or, "Quick! Shoot him before he moves!" Jerk. Bang. Clean miss.

Shooting is all about self discipline. Having 30 seconds to line up on a 300 yd. bullseye from the bench is different than sitting in a blind in Saskatchewan at minus twenty F. with no feeling in your toes and little in your fingers and a buck of a lifetime walks out and all the shooting you've done is twenty rounds on paper from the bench prior to the hunt. Instant buck fever. There are many variables involved.

It is normally fairly easy to spot whether somebody does a lot of shooting, and whether that makes him familiar with his firearm. As Gerry mentioned above, that normally shows up in the sight-in sessions before a hunt.

Lack of experience with your weapon and with shooting in general is probably always a warning sign. Shooters are trained not born, after all.

On the other hand, shooting has so many sub-disciplines that it is entirely possible to be proficient in one such discipline but not in another - e.g. offhand shooting vs. rested prone. Very few (if any?) shooters are good in disciplines not regularly trained. That brings us back to Claret_Dappler's argument, that it is entirely possible to be proficient off the bench, but inadequately prepared for field shooting.

Seen in this context, it all really depends on the training you are capable of getting in daily life vs. the challenges posed by this particular hunting situation. It is entirely possible to be well prepared for one type of hunting - shooting from a high seat, say - and woefully unprepared for another - jump shooting offhand at game in heavy cover, say. Likewise, if your regular training happens to take place on a shooting range (even off the bench), you should not be surprised if that influences your ability to shoot in the field, e.g. experience on the range often tends to slow you down and look for the perfect condition and perfect shot, contrary to what is often required in the field.

If we accept the above argument, I guess it would be hard to predict a person's ability in one shooting discipline (e.g. hunting in general) from his performance in another (e.g. sighting in). On the other hand, since sighting your rifle seems to be a necessary precursor to all other shooting disciplines, it is hard to see how lack of (at least an acceptable level of) proficiency here could be contrasted by being "dynamite on hair".

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by mho:
It is normally fairly easy to spot whether somebody does a lot of shooting,******

*****If we accept the above argument, I guess it would be hard to predict a person's ability in one shooting discipline (e.g. hunting in general) from his performance in another (e.g. sighting in). On the other hand, since sighting your rifle seems to be a necessary precursor to all other shooting disciplines, it is hard to see how lack of (at least an acceptable level of) proficiency here could be contrasted by being "dynamite on hair". mike

For me this posting makes a lot of sense. roger

wanna be a good shot on game? Army Quick Kill training is the best. Buy a Daisy BB Gun. Take the sights off. Start shouldering the gun and as soon as you get the cheek weld shoot the pop can. After two hours I could hit aspirin tablets glued to a cardboard sheet at 6 feet. The idea is muscle memory snap shooting.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by mho:


If we accept the above argument, I guess it would be hard to predict a person's ability in one shooting discipline (e.g. hunting in general) from his performance in another (e.g. sighting in). On the other hand, since sighting your rifle seems to be a necessary precursor to all other shooting disciplines, it is hard to see how lack of (at least an acceptable level of) proficiency here could be contrasted by being "dynamite on hair".

- mike

Mike, I think this is what I was trying to say. Doing it on paper is the easy part - within reason, I am not talking about winning bench rest or F class.

Getting it done in the field is an different set of skills. These skills require a lot of practical experience that is difficult to achieve for the average hunter who does most of his shooting on a range and maybe only makes 4 or 5 rifle kills per year.

The best rifle shots I know here in Britain or Ireland are guys who are out shooting foxes nearly all year round. Some of these guys rack up hundreds of kills per year, from all positions. I get most of my shots standing with sticks.

I would limit these comments to normal hunting ranges, 200m and under. Long range stuff is another ball game altogether, and another set of skills are required.

I interpreted the thrust of this forum to be addressing the neophytes that show up in hunting camps and target ranges all over the world claiming that they can't do one type of shooting but can do another.
This discussion seem to have degenerated into an argument about who should be called the best shooter : a bench rest shooter like Jim Borden, a target shooter like David Tubbs, a hunter like Mark Sullivan or a gamesman like Rob Letham.
They are all great shots and, although they specialize in one type of shooting, I am willing to bet they are competent in most other forms as well.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Yup, I see it as different targets. Sure someone may not be able to hold on paper for the magical 1", but in the game world that may be as much as 6-8". The typical deer kill zone is about 6" so a lot of people can do that who can not hit 1" from a bench, assuming 100 yards.

To a point, but if you can't shoot 2"-3" groups @ 100 off a bench, I doubt you shoot 6"-8" in the field @ 100yds. Good bench shooting doesn't mean good field shooting, but poor bench shooting will still yield poor field shooting IMO.

quote:

Is there really such a thing as "Not very good on paper, but dynamite on hair?

Yeah, I think it exists, but is really uncommon.

Much more often used as an excuse, IMO.

The mind is a funny thing.

i can't comment on gun shooting, but i can tell you it exhists and is actually fairly common in archery.
for many, as it is known that they have to hit that little circle or it doesn't count with an arrow "target panic" as it's called get ahold of your head. it's most common in people who haven't had any sort of history shooting a bow at a formal target in or out of competition. most times they join a club and a target league,hoping to improve thier shooting for hunting and find out it's way harder to keep in a 3 inch bullseye at 20 yrds than they ever thought..... put the same people in front of a deer or even a 3-d target and they have no problem at all. in archery, target panic will grab you even if your a seasoned competative shooter and is one of the most common "maintainance training" regimens done. for competative shooters, a little bit of "anti-panic" training is standard in just about every serious practice session.
if you've ever shot freehand at a target and it seemed like no matter what you tried, the cross hairs just won't settle on the center of the target, almost like they want to jump over the center and settle anywhere else close, but not there, it is mild target panic at work.
that said, i can only imagine that it might exhist in the rifle sports as well.

Are we assuming that what the target is made of determines how well we shoot?
A person who can consistently shoot a 6" group off hand at 100 yards should be able to do it no matter what the target is made of.