Yes, if there is 5 targets hanging and you happen to hit any one of them in the center.

The reality is an animal has multiple fatal "bull's eye's"

Run of the mill hunters who state they are good on running game have the heart, lungs, neck, head, shoulders and spine.

I have shot at deer aiming at the lungs and hit the spine. Instant drop, instant kill. If there would have been others around, I would have been a hero. Walking up to paper would have shown about 1 foot high.

quote:

Originally posted by Claret_Dabbler:

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.

Absolutely! Range training for hunting is second best, but sadly what is available for most of us mere mortals. It is clear that the guys who get really good in the field are guys who get a lot of practice in the field. Want to get good at long range shooting (possibly under difficult wind conditions), do a lot of varmint shooting. Etc, etc.

There are skills and attributes that are common to most (all?) rifle shooting disciplines, but there are also a bunch of specific skills necessary to master the individual discipline.

- mike

Edit: You beat me to my point Ar Corey!

A guy shooting nice and average at the range and doing the same hunting will get almost all the game he shoots at if passing up on poor chances and use the good ones.

Another shooting ragged holes at the range but might get hot, and jerk off poor shots at poor chances while hunting.

The first gets a reputation as a killer on hair since you dont need all bullseyes to kill deer and the second spend most of his time looking for bloodtrails.

Thats how it works around here, and a lot of hunting situations give you very little time to spot the game, decide if you should shoot and make the shot.

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

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

Seems to me this quote of Mike's is the heart of the question, and its answer. It isn't "Which is the better shot?" It is "How can a person be an absolutely lousy shot on paper, and suddenly acquire great shooting accuracy when transported to the field?"

It doesn't suggest to me that the "paper" shooter will instantly acquire great field skills either if he seldom shoots there. If he doesn't get experience in field-type situations, he probably never will be really excellent there.

But does anyone suppose that years and years of field experience will make anyone into a great shooter in the field yet still leave them lousy on paper?

Mebbe so, but me have-um doubts. I suspect that if you have the basic shooting skills well established, they will show to your benefit in whichever discipline(s) you shoot. And if you really are a lousy shot that will show too, wherever you shoot. But it may take longer to become clear in field shooting at hair.

Kind of reminds me of the duck hunter pass shooting an overhead flight...he tries for the duck at the head of the "V" 60 yards off and drops the third one back like a stone. Great "hair" (feather) shot? Weeellll...mebbe a "hair" lucky. But if his friends see it, it becomes a "great shot".

A hunter should shoot enough to know what shots he can make and which ones to pass on or stay out of the woods. IMHO

"""As for me, I sometimes wonder if there is really any difference in their shooting other than how they score their hits?"""
I dont think it has any thing to do with group size or how you shoot on paper or hair.
opening day eastern style.. you will hear a shot then two quick follow up shoots. then you will hear a pause then someone will rattle off 5 more as fast as the can pull the trigger. you can track the deer through the wood from the shooers missing. probably all the saw was some hair.

Well my dog will go good on the paper and I still have all my hair and aren't going bald... so I guess we are looking good on both counts at my house.....

if this was just about shooting...

and many of us were actually being honest...

the real title should be...

Do you suck on both paper and Hair????

I'll be the first in line for that group....

&

PS.. I actually am great and do unbelievable shots at times... I just manage to do them when there are no witnesses present...

Second in line!

I'm just happy that moose make big targets and dont have feather, I really really suck on feather.

It is kind of a sticky question. Shooting from the bench is really intended to separate the shooter from the rifle allowing an evaluation of the rifle/load performance.

I think a better question would be how well you shoot at paper OFF the bench (off-hand, prone, kneeling, etc.) vs how well you shoot at "hair". I think people spend too much time on a bench worrying about sub MOA groups (myself included) and not enough time OFF the bench honning ones shooting skills. I just enjoy messing with my rifles to see what does and does not work.

On the bench I can bang the gong at 500 yards all day. But, just sitting on the ground with my bi-pod tells me the truth . . . Taint so easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:


Seems to me this quote of Mike's is the heart of the question, and its answer.

The heart of the question is "How many people in the field fully call their shots to hunting friends in the field?"

Unless a person calls the shot, it means nothing. Like I said above; head, neck, spine, shoulders, lungs and heart are all "bull's eye"s"

quote:

It isn't "Which is the better shot?" It is "How can a person be an absolutely lousy shot on paper, and suddenly acquire great shooting accuracy when transported to the field?"

Again, easy answer; head, neck, spine, shoulders, lungs and heart.

quote:

sn't suggest to me that the "paper" shooter will instantly acquire great field skills either if he seldom shoots there. If he doesn't get experience in field-type situations, he probably never will be really excellent there.

This can greatly depend on running game.

Running game can drastically improve ones odds of a fatal hit based on muscle movement error. The barrel is constantly passing back and forth across several vital area's and this can't be stopped. If the trigger happens to break during these vital alignments; voila! John Doe with his 30-30 is a hero.

On the other hand, an animal standing at 400 yards is going to require steadiness BECAUSE the barrel does not cross many vital area's. If you are aiming at the heart, the cross hairs are going to giggle around on the heart then maybe down near the belly or forward to the brisket. The spine, head, neck, and even upper lungs can sometimes never have a chance of being hit because they never enter the crosshairs; especially if the gun shoots really flat.

The other factor is adrenaline. This is the rush.

No amount of field shooting can produce it to mimick a big game kill.

Produce too much and a person can begin shaking uncontrollably. Too little and a person can feel weak and even passive to make the kill properly.

Adrenaline in the proper amount can drastically improve the muscle ability to lock on and hold steady.

One the the best things a person can do to make the best of of adrenaline is to make sure it won't mess up the shot and cause too much anxiety. Blending up and eating 3-4 whole raw eggs mixed with 1-2 tablespoons of unheated honey the night before going on a hunt can provide a buffering supply of minerals, protein and fat to ensure the nerves won't over react to a surge of adrenaline.

Finding unheated honey is difficult. 99% of all store bought honey is not truly unheated. Labelling standards allow the term "raw" to be printed on a jar even if the honey has been heated to filtering temperatures. Many hony producers also use heat exchangers to pipe the honey out of the extracter. This heats it up so it flows fast.

The key to buying unheated honey is making sure the honey has not been heated above 93 deg. F during any of the extraction processes.

www.reallyrawhoney.com is one source.

quote:

This can greatly depend on running game.

Running game can drastically improve ones odds of a fatal hit based on muscle movement error. The barrel is constantly passing back and forth across several vital area's and this can't be stopped. If the trigger happens to break during these vital alignments; voila! John Doe with his 30-30 is a hero.

Are you saying that its easier to kill running than standing game? I'm sorry but english is'nt my first language and I must have misunderstood that.

down here in cajun country,( i hail from Butte ,MT. myself )most of the "reglars",read NOT PAPER TARGET SHOOTERS,and especially the cajun inlaws of mine OF MY AGE AND OLDER,,nail a paper plate,,paint bucket lit or such to a tree,,take a few shots at it,,,and if most of the shots hit,, you will hear "'BON!!!"good enough!! and for the majority of them it IS as I have never known so many folks to get thier ""one deer a day""as these folks,,now the youngesters are all into rifles advertized to do .5 m.o.a. and all that,,yet come home with MUCH LESS IN THE BAG!,,,come home empty-handed,,put that $1,000.00 in the rack, and they will grab paps '06 or pap paws 30/30 or .35 rem.,,neither of which has ever seen a shooting range,,and they will go out and make meat!!the goin's on betwixt the ears is a big factor

The thing is that if you suck you suck but people are too proud or arrogant to admit it...................DJ

I doubt that anyone gets better on game than at punching paper at the range. There are a lot of shooters who loose a lot of talent when they step away from the bench. If the situation demands a quick shot, a lot of folks who only spend time benchresting being pushed out of their discipline. Game shots do not always allow the hunter to "get quiet" and relax for the shot. Veteran hunters will usually be able to put themselves in better places for taking their shots and will not suffer as much "Buck Fever" as rookie hunters.

For the exact reasons stated above I am better on paper than in many hunting situations. Hopefully I have repeatedly worked enough of the basics into my shooting style that I do not have to think about all of the elements of a good shot when my reticle is covered up with hair.

Once again, Djpaintles sez it all.

Well, by "internet standards" I should sell all my rifles and quit hunting because according to some posters I "make bad shots and loose or spend a lot of time tracking wounded game" because I'm not a 1/2MOA paper shooter.

I guess knowing my limitations and not taking questionable shots on game doesn't count for anything. How many times have you seen a person on the rifle range not take a shot because the paper's vitals were obstructed or it was moving to fast?

A couple of folks have hit on what I think makes a difference. Time to think about the shot and the difference in perceived accuracy. 1/2 MOA and 1/2 MODeer aren't always the same thing.

After 20yrs of killing big game animals, shooting thousands or rounds through a shotgun each year, and even longer killing inanimate objects, I have learned that the shots I often miss or the groups that often seem to open up a bit on me are the ones I have time to think about or over analyze.

As Idaho Sharpshooter mentioned, muscle memory can make a huge difference in field shooting.

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.

I pretty much agree.

My 2 observations over 20+ years are as follows:

1. i am not the best shot, because i do not shoot enough, field or otherwise. I have killed dozens of animals, made some good shots and made some bad misses.

2. My cousin grew up hunting much more than I could have ever dreamed, his bench groups & standards are not as good as mine. If we are standing together in the woods and a deer comes running by, he is FAR more likely to score a kill than I am.

[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.
QUOTE]

I voted yes for the above reason, I have seen it. I knew a guy that was ok at stationary targets, but unbelieveable at a moving target. He shot an old savage 99 in 250 savage, open sites. Saw him spine a running deer while standing in a moving boat. I also agree that a poor shot on the bench is a problem in the field.....Tom

I know lots of benchrest "shooting range" guys who can't shoot or even get a shot off when hiking up/down mountains, or walking carefully over dead fall in the black timber when a bull elk is spooked and you have a quick running shot in the trees. That being said, I've never shot with anyone who couldn't shoot decently offhand at the range who could miraculously do so in the field. You need to be able to do both, particularly if most of your hunts are non-guided hunts in National Forest like most of mine have been. My advice is when you go to the range, once your rifle is sighte in, get off of that bench and shoot offhand, kneeling and sitting at various ranges.

Chuck

As with pseudoscience, the paranormal, and superstition people tend to count the hits and forget the misses.

As others have said there may be the hunter who is not prone to buck fever who can fill his tag with 3-4 moa (or wider) shooting where the sandbags-only shooter may lose his composure and miss with a tackdriver.

And them that subscribe to the "if you can't shoot well, shoot often" method (usually running a Remington 74xx, see-thru mounts, no name scope, and a couple pockets full of magazines) frequently measure their success differently...if there's venison on the pole they did okay.

Shooting paper is about an environment with all variables under reasonable control. I do pretty well on a consistent basis at the club shoots or on my own. Even out to 300 meters I do quite well. No, I am not a target shooter.

Shooting game is about quick decision making, reaction, instincts and reliable execution. All variables are almost impossible to controls & we need to be consistent in this situation to be a really good game shot. Unfortunately I am not. Buck fever is a problem on occasion though I have been hunting for a long time.

I know guys whom I beat on the range pretty regularly but who are far better hunters than me & who rarely miss or lose an animal in the bush. They are also much quicker on the second shot than I am.

Nakihunter
That's the most honest post I've read on this topic and I agree 100%.

Teddy Roosevelt said "I may not be a good shot, but I don't mind burning powder". So, if you shoot several rounds as fast as possible, you can make up for poor marksmanship.
Not.
Oh, I have been on hunting trips with Distinguished Rifle shooters who could not hit game. And I have been hunting with those who could not hit either. And I have been with those who could do both. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. But those who can hit game, can usually do well enough on paper.

Some people are nerveus abuot shooting with much people around.
In moosehunting you aim at a large area that seems gigantic if you show it in paper at 100m, it takes more skill to see how the animal are moving and how fast.
In sweden we are training on running moose targets not so much on small groups.
400y shot are considerd unethical because most people dont practice on it.
Most people who shoots bad on paper shoots bad at animals too.

If some hunters seem to be better on hair, it's because the margin of error on the animal is greater. Not everybody will say I tried to shoot the heart and hit the liver.
I have a Tao approach to hunting and shooting - there is always improvement possible. I built a heavy and sturdy rifle rest to tune in my rifles and ammo - but when I go to the range with finished/developed ammo I shoot from sitting on the ground position to simulate the hunt and off hand. The real life situation can get only better than that and I want to be ready.

My few cents only, of course.

quote:

Now it seems to have metamorphisized into 1/4 MOA groups at 600 yards.

Don't know many folks who have that capability. With a little homework, you can get very good "functional" accuracy with very few dollars today. A buddy of mine spent minimal dollars for a 270 Savage...experimented with commercial ammo til he found one that he could shoot well consistently. MOA is not a problem with the gun.
Even a 2 MOA shooter is gonna have no problem killing game at the distance that most game is taken in this country. Here in the east, that is probably no more than 50 yds.

I believe the biggest problem is lack of prep(equipment and practice) and poor judgement (conditions, cover, target position, etc).

Disagree on wingshooters prowess with a rifle..inside 50 yards maybe...but I shoot birds well and my ability to clip running coyote even at 75-100 yds with the rifle barrel on my drilling isn't near as good.

IMO, most folks overestimate their ability with a rifle and too many have never seen a shot they didn't like.

My problem is that I can't understand how I can be consistently good (not great by any means) on paper and so inconsistent on hair. I still can't believe some of the shots I have flubbed over the years. I need more practice shooting from field positions, but as soon as I get to the range my interest turns to small groups ...

I read about the Indian who survived off the land in California long after the other members of his tribe gave up. A famous bowhunter (forgot his name)spent some time hunting with the Indian. The bowhunter's assessment was that the Indian was not much of a shot on targets, but was real good on game. Back when we had a lot of pheasants and quail I got 40 pheasants or more each year and was fairly well practiced up on birds. I did not miss much and on short range crossing birds usually could plant the patern on their head and save meat. I got a double on quail 3 times one year. That is, 2 quail with one shot and it was planned. Having only shot skeet twice in my life I bet I could only scored about 18 of 25 on skeet then which I guess would be pretty poor compared to regular skeet shooters. Lately the pheasant and quail population has been down and so has my shooting. In regard to rifle shooting I get lots of practice shooting pests in the backyard plus shoot a lot of game with rifles or rifled slugs. I think that I consistently hit better than the people I hunt with. I have gone to the range once when the regulars there were having practice with centerfires from all positions at 200 yards. I was a little concerned that I would embarrass myself. That is, if one cannot make the shot when hunting, it is simple, don't shoot. However, when competetive target shooting there is not choice. One must shoot all the required times. I felt much more under pressure paper shooting. However, when it was over got the highest combined score. I can see where a person who does lots of game shooting might fall apart in a match or where a good match shooter might fall apart shooting at game.

quote:

There should be another option. How about this one?

This got my vote for a couple of reasons. 1st let me say that I only consider myself a mediocre shot no matter what I am shooting at.

But...there does seem to be that group of folks (one whom I know real well) that don't ever shoot "superb bench groups" but are just good at picking the right spot to aim at on an animal and are good at field shooting positions. IE: they always seem to make the tough shot in the field.

I think they take there 2 1/2 MOA accuracy and apply it well is all.

I've spent quite a few spring afternoons shooting rock chucks at yardages from 50 yards to 405 yards with a couple of really accurate varmint set ups that will, off a good bench, shoot into the .4-.7's all day long.

That said, I had a Ruger M77 in a 270 when they first came out with that model, that was not a shooter. I tried everything I knew about tuning the rifle and handloading to make a shooter out of it and the best that it would do was 2-2.5" at 100 yards. Nevertheless, that rifle did take a lot of critters but now that I think about it, none of them were those really long shots. I don't think I ever shot anything over 200 yards and did shoot a lot of deer and elk with that M77.

I passed it along to one of our sons and he and his wife has shot 3 elk and 5 deer with it but also again, those shots were not real long.

So I guess my answer would be that if the groups on paper aren't that great, just be sure to take those close in shots.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
My problem is that I can't understand how I can be consistently good (not great by any means) on paper and so inconsistent on hair. I still can't believe some of the shots I have flubbed over the years. I need more practice shooting from field positions, but as soon as I get to the range my interest turns to small groups ...

Practice is the key, Bill.. or just plain trigger time..

Varmint shooting is a real good way to tighten up the coordination of your eye and trigger finger..

for an example, I have a 223 that doesn't not turn in good groups on the range..

however I take it out and shoot sage rats that are the size of a popcan, that rifle will nail them pretty consistently out to 250 yards and some times further, if I am having a good day.

target shooting at targets at longer ranges helps improve your shooting ability better than no shooting on a routine basis..

however shooting fast little moving targets are ranges that can very quite a bit. can sure tighten up ones shooting ability...

people scoff at someone hitting a deer at 300 yds, and say "yeah right!"

well after spending multiple days out shooting little popcan sized varmints, running all over the place... even if off the hood of your truck, at 200 to 250-300 yd distances...seeing a deer at 300 yds, even if running.. it looks like the size of a dump truck in your scope, compared to prairie dogs or even smaller little sage rats

Shooting at the range and shooting moving targets in terrain are totally different. Don't see how shooting sub MOA groups at paper can be any indication of how a shooter would (for example) fare with a nice whitetail rack at speed, right to left going through wooded cover on a descending slope. I have made such shots time and again but yet I am strictly a 1.5-2 MOA shooter. If we were talking whitetails standing still at 50 yds, then there is no excuse.

Years back, our usual gunners for a dog test couldn't make it and sent a couple of buddies from the local trap club...these guys fanned on 20% of the birds that day. Different game...and so it is with big game in real cover.

I still say many of the misses/poor shots were shots that shouldn't have been taken.

It's been my observation in the game fields that those who say they can't shoot targets but are deadly on game aren't very deadly at all. I mean, if it takes 3 or 4 holes in a deer, guts and butts, scattered from one end to the other? Some are "deadly" in that, sure enough the critter is dead but not from good shooting.

How anyone cannot hit a kill zone on a target is suddenly going to be calm and collected on game escapes me. And ALL of those I've seen shoot too, no matter the thickness of the balloney.

"Not very good on paper, but dynamite on hair"

They are just too cheap and too lazy to shoot at paper.