One of my close buddies likes to aggravate me by sending me Hunting Magazines with articles in them that he knows for sure will get us into either fits of laughter or heated discussions(all in good fun). So, a box arrives and in it is a whole bunch of Hunting Magazines. Didn't take long to realize I'm not really missing much by just sticking with my NRA American Hunter.

One article is about "Learning to Shoot" by a person most people seem to think knows a lot.(I'll retain his name for now, but will tell you all later who wrote it).

Actually about 1/2 Biography and 1/2 how "he" Learned to Shoot. Didn't see an abundance of recommendations for the Beginners until the last sentence where he basically said what we all say, "Practice a lot!"

But the Poll is about one specific "caption" for a picture in the article which says, "Long-range varmint shooting from field positions is essential to becoming a good big game shot." The specific word "essential" in that statement is what the Poll is about.

Question:
Do you believe - long range varmint shooting from field positions is "essential" to becoming a big game shot?

Choices:
1. Yes absolutely. The writer really knows his stuff.
2. No, the Gun Rag Hack is Full-of Beans.
3. It would help, but is certainly not "essential".
4. Other.

 

Any kind of shooting experience is helpful. Shooting at deer is real helpful for learning to shoot at deer. Do it enough and you'll get pretty good. Shooting at deer is helpful for learning to shoot at coyotes too and, sure, vice versa. Wing shooting with shotgun will improve swinging a 30-06 on a moving deer (excepting the kind of lead involved). And so on and so on..

I voted no.

Don't know the context of the article, but if you take the statement that "long-range varmint shooting from field positions........." by itself, I'd say balderdash.

An accurate rifle, properly zeroed at your range of choice (100, 200, 250, 300 yds), a good trigger (I like 2 to 2.5 lbs for bg rifles) and bench time will help you know where the bullet will impact. Add knowledge of velocity and BC. and you cand determine trajectory and wind drift. Shoot a caliber you can comfortably handle that does not induce flinching. Buy the best glass you can afford. I typically figure 4x per 100 yds. I do very little shooting over 250 yds. My last dozen scopes or so have been 3 x 9 or 2.5 x 8. I have no problem hitting running targets or offhand shooting with lower power scopes at 100 yds or under. I've killed several hundred animals over the last 45 years plus and have never practiced shooting varmints from field positions as a prerequisite to big game hunting.
GWB

That would mean that for all of us hunters who live in states with no long-range varmint shooting it is impossible for us to be good big game shots.

It would also infer that for those of us who live in states where the big game is shot at 40 yards or less we can only become good at that by practicing long range varmint shooting.

I don't think so

quote:

Any kind of shooting experience is helpful....Wing shooting with shotgun will improve swinging a 30-06 on a moving deer

+1
The key words here are "helpful" and "will improve," instead of "essential." Just like other sports or activities, the more you do it, the better you will become. Being able to consistently hit a ground squirrel at 2-300 yds will make killing a deer at that same range a piece of cake.

Shack's statement relating a swinging shotgun to a running deer proved very true for me many years ago and allowed me to shoot my largest mule deer. I was hunting the early muzzle loader season in the sage brush hills of northwestern Colorado. A light rain got moisture in my powder, and when a 30" non-typical buck jumped up from under a bush and ran from me, I swung my .45 cal Kentucky rifle on him and fired. With the moisture in my powder charge my rifle went "Pop....Bang." A hang fire. Luckily, I had been bitten by the trap shooting bug that summer and had been shooting 1-200 12 ga shot shells trap shooting every week in the months prior to my deer hunt. The follow through that I had learned shooting trap kept me swinging through the hang fire on the deer, and the .45 cal ball clipped the deer's lungs.

If the author is talking about sniping at game animals at long distance, then varmint shooting would be good practice, no doubt. I would agree that if one is going to shoot at a long distance, some sort of practice using field positions has to be done. Whether you're shooting at golf balls, clay pigeons, balloons, or Pdogs, I don't think makes a lot of difference. My point is that there is a whole lot of difference between shooting a animal that may move at any moment at 600 yards and shooting a target (or a Pdog) at 600 yards.

Sounds like bunk to me. The most improvement in all of my shooting was attending a couple of High Power shooting classes put on by the Army Reserve Rifle team. Learning proper positions, sight picture, breath control and trigger squeeze, not to mention concentrating on the above while you have M1's going off all around you will make anyone a better shooter period.

I'd agree more if the words "long range" weren't part of it.

What is long range shooting from Field Positions? Off bipods? Off a Dog Gone Good Bag? Kneeling for a 400 yard shot?? Standing free style for a 500 yard shot?
No, the Gun Rag Hack is Full-of-Beans.

The only thing essential to learning to shoot is to shoot.

Did you get to the part where you need to learn to drink your urine to become an outdoorsman?

Perhaps the word essential is being interpreted in the wrong way. Rather than being absolutely necessary or indispensable, the writer have been strongly expressing his own ideals, like with this-
Milk is essential for strong bones. We all know it isn't, but someone is trying to give us advice, just like your nameless outdoor writer.

But more importantly, why worry about it? Shooting long range at anything is good practice, and we all know that.

Excellent responses. I'll copy this as a Link to my buddy and it will make him smile too.

I'll let it run a couple of days and then I'll post the Gun Hacks name and the magazine it is in.

Guesses at who the Gun Hack happens to be are welcome!

quote:

Originally posted by Blacktailer:
Sounds like bunk to me. The most improvement in all of my shooting was attending a couple of High Power shooting classes put on by the Army Reserve Rifle team. Learning proper positions, sight picture, breath control and trigger squeeze, not to mention concentrating on the above while you have M1's going off all around you will make anyone a better shooter period.

Shot highpower for a few years and agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
If the author is talking about sniping at game animals at long distance, then varmint shooting would be good practice, no doubt. I would agree that if one is going to shoot at a long distance, some sort of practice using field positions has to be done. Whether you're shooting at golf balls, clay pigeons, balloons, or Pdogs, I don't think makes a lot of difference. My point is that there is a whole lot of difference between shooting a animal that may move at any moment at 600 yards and shooting a target (or a Pdog) at 600 yards.

So you figure Prairie Dogs don't move????

While I think the word "essential" is misused here, helpful would be more accurate, I can tell you from personal experience that plugging Pdogs at 100+yds has made me a better shot on big game. It really is just a matter of practice and confidence, if you can hit a small, possibly moving target at 250yrds, then you should be able to hit a deer at 100, and more importantly hit him where you want to. If you have a range where you can do this, with targets that move, well then that will work just as good. Really, the Pdog is the variable part of the eqaution, the fixed parts are you, your gun, and pulling the trigger(practice)-the pdogs just make it more fun .

As to attending a school, or class on long distance shooting, if the chance ever comes I will be there, hopefully to learn techniques that make me a better Pdog assassin.

You got to remember that if you hunt big game like you hunt long range varmints it will help but...

Since I have shot lots of deer (MN big game) and all but 1 have been inside of 40 yards(most at about 10 yards) I am not sure how long range varmint shooting will help me.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Excellent responses. I'll copy this as a Link to my buddy and it will make him smile too.

I'll let it run a couple of days and then I'll post the Gun Hacks name and the magazine it is in.

Guesses at who the Gun Hack happens to be are welcome!

sounds like John Sundra

After I shoot them, they don't.
Seriously, I guess I phrased that wrong but if a Pdog moves, you pretty much miss but if something the size of a deer moves, you've got a wounded animal.

Anything you point a gun at and shoot would be good practice, the more you do it the better. Targets, groundhogs, pdogs, Deer etc. Good shooting.

I voted #3.

I think I read the article that you're speaking of in Rifle Magazine.

I know from personal experience that shooting a ton of prarie dogs, running, moving, and at long yardage, helps with your skills with a rifle. We used to shoot PD's at every chance in college; 3 times a week if possible! It was challenging to try to kill one while it sprinted to its hole at 2-300 yards and sometimes we did it successfully. All of our shooting was done off the hood of a jeep with a rifle with a bipod.

Well, one deer season during our PD killing days, I was glassing and spotted a hunter on top of a ridge at about 500 yards glassing back at me and then down below him. He quickly mounted his rifle and fired 3 rounds at something below that I couldn't see. Soon I saw a decent 6 point muley running pretty hard crossing to the right at about 300 yards from me. I picked a spot where he might come into a clear area, kneeled and mounted the rifle to watch for him. He came out running, I swung out a touch in front and fired. The next thing I saw in my scope was 4 legs in the air! Right behind the shoulder.

I was convinced since that day that I wouldn't have been able to make that shot without the PD practice. I never thought twice about making it that day. It seemed easy in comparison to the tiny PD's we'd been doing it to all summer.

These days I've been shooting our local gun club's Tactical Match and the Sporting Rifle Match held at Whittington Center monthly. They are a blast! Putting to work all of the things that must be done to hit long range targets under pressure and time constraints is great practice and I would recommend that everybody who wants to become more proficient with their rifle take part. Just competing in these matches will make a guy 100 times better. Just as Sporting Clays will make shotgunners better at bird shooting, the Sporting Rifle match or any Steel-pounding game will improve your game taking with a rifle.

You sure meet some nice, like-minded folks too!

Having shot thousands of Pdogs it has help my long range shooting.

I was going to type paragrahs full of comments but after reading what rcamugila wrote I can just say double that.

Interesting that not a single person thought that particular word was properly used. I agree that it should have been worded better. And since the Gun Hacks are supposed to be WordSmiths, that is why it caught my attention.

The magazine is the Mar/Apr 2004 Successful Hunter. And the Gun Hack is john barsness.

I doubt the Editor, Dave Scovill, would have changed the word on him. but I've had a friend tell me some Editors do just that. Not trying to make excuses for "essential" being used, but I am still wondering "Why?" it would ever have been considered in the first place.

Your thoughts confirm what I thought about it.
-----

In the Sep/Oct 2004 issue of the same magazine, Berit Aagaard wrote an article called "Bullet Placement" which was just excellent. A person could learn far more about Learning to Shoot from her article than the barsness article.

Do any of you like Mrs. Aagaard's writing as much as I do? I just hope there are more articles from her in the rest of the magazines my buddy sent.

Thanks for the input from everyone!

I am a fan of John Barsness, and I won't say that of many gun writers. I find as I age, that I agree with much of what he writes, and his take on most issues at the time I am reading his articles. It suprises me that he would make such a statement. As I said in my original post in this thread, I have not read the statement in context. I'll have to go pull out that issue and take a look.

As to Beritt Aagaard, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting her at the Big Bore Shoot in Julif, Tx. last year. She took the time to speak with me at length. She had with her an original of her husbands notes on rifles and the game he had killed with each. Even managed to snag a copy of "Aagaard's African Adventures, which she autographed. She is one classy lady in my opinion, and yes I also enjoy her writing.
GWB

Ditto what Geedubya said, I also like Barnsness, and his wife's articles as well. But I certainly wouldn't consider any one form of shooting essential to shooting proficiently, rather all forms of shooting contribute to improvement in your shooting skills, if done properly. And yes, I also enjoy Mrs. Aagaard's writing as well. I always enjoyed reading what Finn had to say too, he was interesting, and no BS.

After having shot in the Tactical/Precision Rifle matches, I would advise anyone interested in becoming "the best you can be" search one out and shoot them at every chance you can get.

Yes, long range varmint shooting from various field postions will make you a great big game shot, but the Precision Rifle match will do a better job of that.

The match consists of 60 rounds shot in various stages that are decided upon by the guy who sets it up. Each match is a little different. Each match has about 12 to 15 stages. Some of the interesting things we have done:

1. Fire 2 rounds prone at a 760 yard plate from your non support shoulder (regular shooting shoulder) then fire 2 more at the same target using your support side (left shoulder and eye for me)....timed

2. Use your retical to range a target of known size. Dial and shoot the target.

3. Shoot motorized movers at 100 and 300 yards.

4. Seated un-supported shots with use of a sling at 100 to 550 yards.

5. Use retical only for holdover on targets out to 600 yards.

6. "Barrel Burner" stages where 300, 400, 500, and 600 yard flasher plates must be hit before shots that actually count for points at 100 yards can be attempted and scored. Timed.

7. Canting the rifle 90 degrees (from prone lying on your side using your range bag or backpack for a rest) and shooting at 100 yards.....(it's unbelievable how canting 90 degrees effects POI!)

8. And my favorite "know your limits" stage. Targets of diminishing size are attempted at 100 yards or 600 yards. For example: A 12" plate is the first target at 600. You fire and hit it. You can stop (know your limits) or attempt the next plate which is 8". If you hit it you can keep the points and stop. If you miss it, you lose the points you've accumulated. This continues as the targets get smaller and smaller. Really fun!

Just like Sporting Clays presentations will improve your wingshooting, I think this Precision Rifle match is the answer to becoming a complete rifleman

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
...I'll have to go pull out that issue and take a look. ...

Hey Geedubya, This should help you find it. The statement is on page 55 in Bold Print next to the flick in the top right corner of that page.

I've looked through 4-5 of those magazines and they appear to have 1-2 articles in each one by both Mr. and Mrs. barsness. If you like their writing, it should be the perfect magazine for a person.
-----

Hey R, That does look like it would Test anyone's Marksmanship skills. Just looking at #7 makes me think a Mil-Dot Reticle might be an advantage for that event, unless you just Crank-In what you need.

quote:

And the Gun Hack is john barsness.

That's not surprising. About a year from now, he'll tell us how long range varmint shooting is the worst practice for big game hunting.

I've read some of his articles about how neck turning cases is essential for accuracy, and less than a year later he writes about how neck turning cases really doesn't help much. The man flip-flops more than a fish out of water.

I was going to vote Wayne VanZoll

Close range rabbit shooting with quick snap shooting is more helpful than long range varminting. Spotting & shooting rabbits at 30 meters or less is good practice for stalking in the woods.

John Barsness is one of VERY few gun writers I respect and like, he has communicated with me on a number of occasions in person and once very kindly asked for my address and then sent me an autographed copy of one of his books at Christmas. I find his writing to be experience-based and very helpful with handloading, etc.

He and Phil Shoemaker are my two favourite gun scribes and the only ones I would buy a magazine to read. I let my subscriptions to "Rifle"," Handloader" and "Successful Hunter" lapse as Dave Scovill's influence became ever greater...and he could not work with Ross Seyfried, another guy I have a lot of time for.

JB is an honest and knowledgable man and his writing is well worth reading. I wish he would do a major book on handloading for big game rifles, I got my best 9.3x62 and 9.3x74R loads from him and that saved me a lot of expensive shooting and cash as the components are bloody expensive up here.

Another guy I like is Brian Pearce, he likes the same rifles I do and has many of the same loads developed that I worked out over many years. None of them is infallible, but, WTF, who is?

HotCore,
Not taking you to task, rather making an observation. For the last umpteen years I've subscribed to about umpteen gunrags per year, Small Caliber News (I have every issue) Varmint Hunter, Accurate Rifle (before it folded) Precision Shooting, Rifle, Rifle Shooter, Handloader, Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Sports Afield, Successful Hunter. I'm sure I left a couple out. I also get the American Rifleman and TSRA's publications. So, I guess you could say I've read a few articles by a number of authors.

My bona fides, I've hunted for about 51 of my 58 years. I have owned over 100 centerfire rifles and have reloading dies for over fifty different chamberings from 17 cal. to 45 cal.
I've hunted and killed literally thousands of living creatures. In that time I've formed some opinions, many of which I keep to myself.
I relate the aforementioned diatribe as the basis for the following. I'm not as critical as many on this forum. I know what works and what doesn't. When I read articles by different "gun hacks" as some call them, I take what I can from them and discard the rest (and yes, I do like JB's articles for the most part).
These guys are like most people, they have a certain amount of intelligence and experience. They can be right and they can be wrong. Chances are most are pursuing the life they love and making it as best they can. I consider myself lucky that this is my avocation, and not my job, that I don't have deadlines to meet,an editor to please, or a paycheck on the line.
Best
GWB

[quote]Long-range varmint shooting from field positions is helpful to becoming a good big game shot."

I substituted helpful,for essential.Actually if the poll is about one word,I feel that to be kind of picky.I also think JB is one of the better writers out there ,and can not recall where I have seen him flip flop.If you read much of his stuff you would know how un-anal he is about prepping brass and cleaning and breaking in Rifles!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
HotCore,
Not taking you to task, rather making an observation. ...I'm not as critical as many on this forum. I know what works and what doesn't. When I read articles by different "gun hacks" as some call them, I take what I can from them and discard the rest ...

Hey Geedubya, It appears we agree on most all you wrote.

However, I've no problem at all being critical of something I see posted or in print that I know to be wrong. The reason for it is simple, the Beginners, Rookies and some with limited experience can be mis-lead by incorrect information.

Here are four other examples of where a Gun Hack was totally wrong:
1. 22cal cartridges are fine for Killing Deer.
2. CHE & PRE does not work.
3. There is no reason to need a scope with more than a 40mm Objective Lens.
4. You can Anneal Cases with a Plumbers Candle.

All of those are so WRONG as to be laughable. I'll guess you can figure out who made those ridiculous statements.
-----

Back many years ago, I had two Gun Hacks in Shooting Times "fool" me. One was old 300WinMag(aka jamison) and the other was layne simpson. I had no idea for a very long time that jamison was touting the 300WinMag as far superior to everything else - because - he didn't try to load the other Cartridges to their best performance levels. Once it finally dawned on me, I lost all respect for the fool.

Back than I was also a huge fan of all Ruger products(still have Ruger Revolvers). Saw an article by simpson extolling how great the new Ruger Mark II rifles were. Went to Carolina Sporting Arms to see if they had one of the new Stainless and Synthetic Mark IIs, and they did. Kind of shiney with the pitiful(Boat Paddle shape) stock, but simpson was very high on it. Planned to buy the one I was handling when the Owner happened to see me. He came over and we talked a bit. I mentioned he was going to lighten my billfold - AGAIN, and he said, "You don't want that rifle!" Had to ask, "Why not?"

Eric said because the "new" Ruger Mark II Trigger is NOT ADJUSTABLE!!!

As I thought about it, I mentioned I did not remember seeing that in the Shooting Times article that simpson wrote. Having followed his articles closely, he was ALWAYS a stickler for a fine Trigger. So, why would he not have mentioned that?!?!?!?!?

We walked in Eric's office, he looked around and found that magazine and handed it to me. Sure enough, not a word about the Trigger being non-adjustable.

Didn't know if simpson did it on purpose, but he sure mis-lead me. A real Editor would have caught the difference in his writing about not mentioning about the Trigger, since simpson ALWAYS mentioned their virtues. So, I simply let all my subscriptions expire. Now I just get the NRA American Hunter and it has gone from being totally worthless to something I look forward to getting.

Yes, I do take the fools to task. If a person knows better and does not do so, then he is "allowing" those that do not know better(Beginners, Rookies, and some with limited experience) to be mis-lead by fools.

I HATE being fooled!

HC,
Maybe I'm getting mild in my old age and not too critical. I guess I've always been an iconoclast. What is the old bromide, Sacred cows make the best hamburger...... I think it was Ronald Reagan that postulated that "the problem with our liberal friends is that so much of what they know just isn't true".
Although I read what the gunwriters say, I have never, and currently do not rely on what they say or take it as gospel. In fact, I'm sure I'm guilty of the above. As I related previously, I have been fortunate to have been able to spend a good deal of time and money both hunting and shooting so I have experienced much of what these guys write about. Another bromide, "mind over matter", I don't mind and they don't matter.

A couple of thoughts while we're palavering. I've owned and still own a number of blackhawk and new model blackhawk revolvers. Never was a big ruger rifle fan. Have owned a dozen or so but do not have any in my inventory now. Sold my hawkeyes in 257 roberts and 358 winchester last year. However, you (or a gun writer) could not have paid me to own one of the plastic synthetic boat paddles, even when I was in my 20's. My preference is for blue steel and wood. I like a trigger to break around two lbs on a hunting rifle, and 99% of my hunting is done without gloves or mittens. On my sako's, older remingtons, winchesters kimbers and coopers that's no problem for "me" to accomplish. Don't have to go buy and aftermarket trigger. However, the older rugers had some pretty nice timber.
If I was to take exception (which I strive not to do) with your latest retort, it would be about scope objective size. Out of about sixty or so riflescopes in my inventory, I have a couple with 50 mm objectives. However, my preference is 44 mm max. It galls me to see a petite rifle such as a kimber montana with a 24"long scope with a 56 mm objective. Kinda like putting a mustache on the mona lisa, it just don't fit. My favorite scope for the last six or seven years has been a 2.5 x 8 x 36 Leupold on both my big game and calling rifles. Vari-xIII or VX-3. However, the Ziess Conquest and The Diavari Scopes have certainly made an impression of late. Last couple of scopes I've bought have been the Ziess conquest 2.5 x 8's. I's say 95" of the shots I take are under 200 yds.

Now as to the 22's being fine for deer, well, that would be a dust up that I probably wouldn't get involved with, but here is one you might not agree with, yet the proof of the puddin' is in the tastin........


Spike cull taken with my Cooper classic in 20TAC, 40 grain v-max, 3800 fps or so, 85 yds. Note I'm violating my own rules, 50mm obective and a 3.5 x 10 scope which was all I had laying around at the time.Scope looks to big on this rifle, but after I got it zeroed, it shoots so good I hate to disturb it. Does that mean I coulda been a successful gun writer in another life since I've contradicted myself a bunch in this short rant. Ball is in your court.
Best
GWB

PS: Almost forgot. This is the first year in probably the last 20 or so that I have let all my subscriptions lapse except varmint hunter and precision shooting. I remain an NRA and TSRA member and consequently receive their pubs.

I'd really like to steer this thread from what it has degraded to "Beating up on Rag Rag Writers" back to what I believe what it was intended.... what steps are necessary to "Learning to Shoot"

The reason I have so much interest in this topic is that I have really learned to shoot a rifle well within the last year. This is notwithstanding the fact that I have been shooting rifles and shotguns since I was 5 years old....that's 41 years. Most of my emphasis has been on shotgunning and I have high achievements. My rifle use has been relegated to shooting animals. I have always been a good shot with a rifle and feel that what Barnsness stated is for the most part true from past experience. But the definition of "good shot with a rifle" is the crux of the issue and statement. Bear with me...

We used to shoot a lot of prarie dogs and, as I have previously posted in this thread, it really improved my rifle shooting for big game and hunting animals in general as stated by Barnsness. I felt I was really good, but in fact was barely scratching the surface of being good. I was in "rifle kindergarten" even though I was able to reliably kill prarie dogs out to 400 yards. I had basic knowledge of wind effect and drop. We basically "held off" for both of these factors to hit a distant dog. I think this may be the case for the average guy.

I guess it depends on your definition of "good shot with a rifle".

I think that John Barnsness's statement is an incomplete one in regard to "learning to shoot". The fact is that the persuit of long range shooting at a target of any kind, not just varmints, is ESSENTIAL to becoming the "best you can be" at taking big game with a rifle. To hit small, distant targets, simply getting out there and sending a ton of rounds downrange is good but it will only take you so far. This was true for me. It was a basic start at improvement. What was missing in my case was the detailed understanding of trajectory and having the proper equipment to adjust for it (good scope with finger-adjustable target knobs). Understanding thoroughly all of the factors that effect bullet flight and practicing them until you are proficient is what will make you a good rifleman. The available online free ballistics programs like JBM are indespensible coupled with a good rangefinder and scope.

The result of learning and practicing these things is putting the bullet on the target with the first shot no matter the range or atmospheric conditions.

Once this can be accomplished, you have "learned to shoot" a rifle in my book. For others it is simply being able to hit the kill area on a big game animal within the sight-in range of his rifle.

quote:

Does that mean I coulda been a successful gun writer in another life since I've contradicted myself a bunch in this short rant.

It was another poster talking about the contradictions by the same Gun Hack. I can understand how that would happen "if" the Hack learns something he was previously unaware of.

Where I've primarily Hunted, our legal Hunting begins 1 hour before sunrise and ends 1 hour after sunset. There is 15-20min of that time that if there is no Moon, or if there is a Moon and a bit of Overcast, you can't see anything unless you were using InfraRed(Illegal where I hunt).

But the 50mm Objectives give us an additional 15-20min of seeing Deer that folks with smaller Objectives just can't see. I base that on having a lot of years with smaller scopes and maybe 20-25 years with the Large Objectives.

So, when I see a guy walk in with a Small Objective in S.C., I know his Hunt will end earlier than for those who are better prepared. And I can understand how a person would not like the "looks" of a particular combination. No argument with you on whatever "you" want to use. But for a Gun Hack to say there is "no need" for any scope above 40mm, simply indicates he has a lot to learn.

I've not used a 56mm, so I can't comment on them other than to "guess" that if they are properly made, they sure would be fine in Low Light conditions.
-----

I was just thinking about a 44Mag BlackHawk this past week. I still have a bunch of 44Mag Cases and Bullets that need something to be used in. Maybe a S&W Mountain revolver.

A buddy recently got a 500S&W and he tells me the Factory Ammo shoots pretty good in his. But of course that would not help my components go down.
-----

As for the 22cal on Deer, I think it does a disservice to the Beginners and Rookies to tell them a 22cal of any sort is "fine" for Deer. Same with the 20TAC. No doubt they will Kill a Deer, but... the potential for learning Tracking Skills is greatly increased over even a regular old 30-30, or totally loosing the Game. Setting up the Nimrods of the world for potentially more Wounded and Lost Game is not something I agree with - at all.

That is based on seeing way too many Deer move off aways with properly placed Bullets from high velocity - larger calibers. It just happens on occasion and making the odds worse with an Inadequate Cartridge just sends the wrong message.

On the other hand , I see nothing at all wrong with using Coyote size Cartridges on 50# Game, like that one in your flick. Looks like a good match of a small Caliber to a proper Weight Class. Also do not agree with the Neck Shot, for the same reasons - misleading the Beginners and Rookies into thinking that is where they should be shooting.

So, we just think about it differently.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

Although its not a 41 mag, I also like the 44 mag and 44 special. I have the 44 mag in both the ruger new model blackhawk and the 29 classic. The 44 special I have in a M445 ported 2" Titanium Tarus. I took this guy climbing up a tree with some 200 gr hornady xtp's in handloads a year or so ago.



Like an idiot after I had put him on the back of the trailer I went to pick him up and put him in a bag and grabbed him by the tail rather than the foot. Big mistake. In case you ever have to pull out porcupine quills, cut them in half first, as they are hollow and filled with air. When you pinch them the barbs expand and hold on tighter. Cut them in half and that solves the problem.
GWB

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Does that mean I coulda been a successful gun writer in another life since I've contradicted myself a bunch in this short rant.

It was another poster talking about the contradictions by the same Gun Hack. I can understand how that would happen "if" the Hack learns something he was previously unaware of.

Where I've primarily Hunted, our legal Hunting begins 1 hour before sunrise and ends 1 hour after sunset. There is 15-20min of that time that if there is no Moon, or if there is a Moon and a bit of Overcast, you can't see anything unless you were using InfraRed(Illegal where I hunt).

But the 50mm Objectives give us an additional 15-20min of seeing Deer that folks with smaller Objectives just can't see. I base that on having a lot of years with smaller scopes and maybe 20-25 years with the Large Objectives.

So, when I see a guy walk in with a Small Objective in S.C., I know his Hunt will end earlier than for those who are better prepared. And I can understand how a person would not like the "looks" of a particular combination. No argument with you on whatever "you" want to use. But for a Gun Hack to say there is "no need" for any scope above 40mm, simply indicates he has a lot to learn.

I've not used a 56mm, so I can't comment on them other than to "guess" that if they are properly made, they sure would be fine in Low Light conditions.
-----

I was just thinking about a 44Mag BlackHawk this past week. I still have a bunch of 44Mag Cases and Bullets that need something to be used in. Maybe a S&W Mountain revolver.

A buddy recently got a 500S&W and he tells me the Factory Ammo shoots pretty good in his. But of course that would not help my components go down.
-----

As for the 22cal on Deer, I think it does a disservice to the Beginners and Rookies to tell them a 22cal of any sort is "fine" for Deer. Same with the 20TAC. No doubt they will Kill a Deer, but... the potential for learning Tracking Skills is greatly increased over even a regular old 30-30, or totally loosing the Game. Setting up the Nimrods of the world for potentially more Wounded and Lost Game is not something I agree with - at all.

That is based on seeing way too many Deer move off aways with properly placed Bullets from high velocity - larger calibers. It just happens on occasion and making the odds worse with an Inadequate Cartridge just sends the wrong message.

On the other hand , I see nothing at all wrong with using Coyote size Cartridges on 50# Game, like that one in your flick. Looks like a good match of a small Caliber to a proper Weight Class. Also do not agree with the Neck Shot, for the same reasons - misleading the Beginners and Rookies into thinking that is where they should be shooting.

So, we just think about it differently.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

The light transfer you get from a scope depends on the objective size and power.A 50 MM objective at 4 power can gather no more light than a 40MM objective at 4 power and actually no more than a 32 MM objective at 4 power.So saying that the use of larger than a 40MM objective is not incorrect,depending on what power you are using.I have never used any scope for big game hunting Larger than a 3X9X 40.I dont like carrying around extra weight. Use what ever trips your trigger,but because you dissagree with some one elses opinions does not make them wrong or you right.Course this is just my opinion!!!!OB

R,
Just goin' with the flow.
Best
GWB

Yes Sir!!!