"It is understandable you need more info. I do not fire unless I am sure of the outcome, barring some new and unknown problem with rifle or ammo which has not occurred for me. My dad taught me you can only kill one animal one time. One shot elliminating oxygen intake or blood circulation has done that." - Ruffhewn

My father, like many of yours, taught me never to shoot unless I was certain that I could put a bullet in a vital area. But he also told me to "keep shooting until he goes down," and I can see no reason to alter that practice. My last animal taken was a caribou in the northwest corner of our province. I hit him squarely in the heart-lung area with my first shot from only about 90 yards. I was sure that my shot went right where I wanted it to, but he didn't go down. I put two more 180-grain Noslers out of my .30-06 in the same area in rapid succession before he collapsed. Upon inspection afterwards, it was clear that the first shot would have been fatal, but I figure I owed it to the animal to dispatch him as quickly as possible.

I wonder what kinds of competitive shooting you have done. Certainly good equipment helps but in every competitive discipline I've been in the best shooters have won. One of my favorite High-Power silhouette shooters used to win quite a few matches with a old Model 70 with a barrel weight consisting of Lead solder held on by duct tape........DJ

Stubble and DJ, first, I don't know David Tubbs but I'll take you word that he is a good shooter. DJ, I'll agree with you that the best shooters usually win but what you don't see in the ads that say "Joe BLow won with his xyz barrel (read action, front rest, stock, powder, bullets, wind flags, brass, range carry box, etc)" don't tell you the fellow that finished dead last was also using the same equipment. The latest gimmick is a right handed action that feeds from the left, thereby saving you precious seconds. I wonder how many guys are standint in line to junk their "old" actions to get one of the new ones. If that doesn't define a "arms race", I don't know what does.
The key word in my statement was TRYING to buy their way into the winner's circle. I once asked the simple question in Benchrest Central why didn't they have 25 identical rifles prepared by a recognized gunsmith, with identical ammo loaded by some knowledgeable person, in other words, have everything the same, like in a B.A.S.S. fish off, and have the 25 (or whatever) top shooters go at it. I got flamed right out of the room.
By the way, we've all heard the tales about old Zeke winning the national ...... with his rusty 870 with the stock taped on. Kinda like some fellow winning the Daytona 500 in his Honda Civic.

Actually I think that your match idea is great. It would separate the shooters. The only problem I could see would be complaints about gun fit. Maybe a gun company would sponser it.... Come to think of it I think Glock did hold some pistol matches somewhat similar to what you were talking about. Somebody should try it with rifles. Probably the real reason that nobody has done it is that guys that shoot matches are almost allways gun nuts and like to play with their own toys (perhaps hence your "Arms Race")........DJ


P.S. I've shot with David Tubbs and he is scary good and a very nice guy too....

djpaintless,

I would have to disagree with the fact that saying a 1 or 2 gun test is representative and conclusive. For popular models that are produced in high numbers a 1 or 2 gun test does not really tell you much about the entire population of thousands (at least not with any precision).

I agree with the fact that that is probably all you are going to get as far as a test in concerned. I just take the results with a grain of salt.

I never said that a 1 or 2 gun test is conclusive. I just meant that it gives you some idea of what to expect. Your example may be better or worse you have to as us say always use a grain of salt and learn how to interpet "Magazineese"........DJ