2024 Cold Bore Challenge Q&A Thread

[wind gypsy]

Haven't read through all the thread and didn't have a time slot to do it again this year but I think this deal is very cool and kudos to those who put the effort into facilitating and the supporting sponsors donations!

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Looking at hard data and creating graphs is great for hit percentages for this particular challenge. However, as it's been stated, a 10" circle is smaller than many mid size and big game vitals. From browsing back through the challenge, many of the "misses" were within 2” of the designated "kill zone". While this couldn't be measured precisely, I would bet that the hit percentage of those that participated would be considerably higher than what the numbers state, if the kill zone was 12-14", closer to the actual Vitals of a big game animal.

My point being that the skill level and diligence in leveling up their field shooting effectiveness by the Rokslide members that participated separates them even further than the general hunting community. I think we’ve all gained a lot of knowledge, especially over the last handful of year, that we have the responsibility to share within our own local circles, encouraging them to gain knowledge, skill and capability of their own.

 

[solarshooter]

Looking at hard data and creating graphs is great for hit percentages for this particular challenge. However, as it's been stated, a 10" circle is smaller than many mid size and big game vitals. From browsing back through the challenge, many of the "misses" were within 2” of the designated "kill zone". While this couldn't be measured precisely, I would bet that the hit percentage of those that participated would be considerably higher than what the numbers state, if the kill zone was 12-14", closer to the actual Vitals of a big game animal.

My point being that the skill level and diligence in leveling up their field shooting effectiveness by the Rokslide members that participated separates them even further than the general hunting community. I think we’ve all gained a lot of knowledge, especially over the last handful of year, that we have the responsibility to share within our own local circles, encouraging them to gain knowledge, skill and capability of their own.

But this comes back to picking your own MER. People could/should have adjusted for the size of the target. I caution against using "target size" as a way of excusing the demonstrated hit rate.

 

[Macintosh]

Im not really sure about that. I personally chose a maximum effective range that I’m comfortable with prone, but I knew would be a challenge from other positions, and shot my one miss from a position that I would not have taken at an animal, AND at an 8” plate because I dont own a 10” plate. I recall reading at least one or two other comments about people choosing a range, or shooting in conditions under which, they would not have shot at an animal. Regardless of the spirit or the directions, it’s my sense that people treat this as an “exercise”, and give it less weight and approach it as more of a personal stretch, then they do like shooting at an animal. After all, it’s explicitly clear from the beginning that the actual results don’t have any consequence.

my guess is that if the rules were changed such that only 2x hits would count toward the raffle entries, we might see more people calling truly high-% ranges. Of course, then you’d have people choosing cupcake (for them) ranges, if such a thing exists with a minimum range of 400 yards. Perhaps if people want to use this as data and draw conclusions about everyone’s ability, the rules should be that only two/two hits count toward the raffle, but also provide a scale of entries based on longer range. Ie, 400 to 600 yards you hit twice to get one entry, miss once and you’re out. Greater than 600 yards, you hit twice @600 to advance, and for that get one entry, but miss once and you get zero… then you hit twice at longer range and get THREE more raffle entries…but miss even once and you are out of the raffle. Something like this would incentivize people to shoot their actual maximum effective range, while forcing people to be realistic if they want a shot at a raffle item.
I’m not really advocating for this, I think there is some benefit to making it a no consequence event, but I think the point is valid if people are trying to read into the results too much.

 

[stan_wa]

But this comes back to picking your own MER. People could/should have adjusted for the size of the target. I caution against using "target size" as a way of excusing the demonstrated hit rate.

I can see if I did the challenge I would pick a distance for a animal not a 10” plate and accept that it’s a challenge with lower hit rates than I would want hunting

 

[solarshooter]

I can see if I did the challenge I would pick a distance for a animal not a 10” plate and accept that it’s a challenge with lower hit rates than I would want hunting

From my shot error analysis tool, I'd estimate an increase in target radius from 5 to 6" buys you another 40-50yds of range at the same hit percentage. Or, said differently, going from 5-6" should increase your hit percentage about 10% at the same range.

Taking a slightly more generous look at the data, 54/75 (72%) of people got a first round hit (all <=600yds). 36 people repeated and hit their second shot, out of 52 who attempted a second shot (69%). So for each "volley" up to 600yds, overall hit rate was around 70%.

Beyond 600yds, 6/14 (43%) hit their first shot, 5/13 (38%) hit their second shot. So for each "volley" beyond 600yds, overall hit rate was around 40%.

My error analysis tool predicts a ~60% hit rate on a 10" target from 400-600yds, and a <50% hit rate on a 10" target at >600yds (for my rifle, which is likely about average in terms of accuracy and ballistics for this group of data). This is a "3 sigma" estimate, meaning if you took a meaningful number of shots at range (much more than 2), this is what you'd expect your hit rate to be, so I think it aligns decently well.

 

[Justin Crossley]

All I can say is I'm not even a little surprised with all the missed shots. Hunters suck at shooting. But to be honest, so do most SWAT members and military snipers that I've personally seen shoot.

Ryan and I chose a 10" target size limit intentionally. Because the goal of this challenge/exercise is for all of us to better understand our limits in hunting conditions. Each person can take what they learn and decide to reduce their shot ranges, practice more, or do nothing. We are just helping you to see the truth.

 

[huntnful]

All I can say is I'm not even a little surprised with all the missed shots. Hunters suck at shooting. But to be honest, so do most SWAT members and military snipers that I've personally seen shoot.

Ryan and I chose a 10" target size limit intentionally. Because the goal of this challenge/exercise is for all of us to better understand our limits in hunting conditions. Each person can take what they learn and decide to reduce their shot ranges, practice more, or do nothing. We are just helping you to see the truth.

I understand that some animals have larger vitals. Hell, an elk is probably 12"x18". But when I hit more than 5" from my desired hit area, I personally feel like I failed anyways. So I think 10" is fair, and fairly realistic for deer sized game. They're maybe 12"x14"?

 

[Formidilosus]

All I can say is I'm not even a little surprised with all the missed shots. Hunters suck at shooting. But to be honest, so do most SWAT members and military snipers that I've personally seen shoot.

You are correct of course.

Ryan and I chose a 10" target size limit intentionally. Because the goal of this challenge/exercise is for all of us to better understand our limits in hunting conditions. Each person can take what they learn and decide to reduce their shot ranges, practice more, or do nothing. We are just helping you to see the truth.

I like it, not that it matters what I like- but it is a good size for the purpose.

 

[TX_Diver]

Im not really sure about that. I personally chose a maximum effective range that I’m comfortable with prone, but I knew would be a challenge from other positions, and shot my one miss from a position that I would not have taken at an animal, AND at an 8” plate because I dont own a 10” plate. I recall reading at least one or two other comments about people choosing a range, or shooting in conditions under which, they would not have shot at an animal. Regardless of the spirit or the directions, it’s my sense that people treat this as an “exercise”, and give it less weight and approach it as more of a personal stretch, then they do like shooting at an animal. After all, it’s explicitly clear from the beginning that the actual results don’t have any consequence.

my guess is that if the rules were changed such that only 2x hits would count toward the raffle entries, we might see more people calling truly high-% ranges. Of course, then you’d have people choosing cupcake (for them) ranges, if such a thing exists with a minimum range of 400 yards. Perhaps if people want to use this as data and draw conclusions about everyone’s ability, the rules should be that only two/two hits count toward the raffle, but also provide a scale of entries based on longer range. Ie, 400 to 600 yards you hit twice to get one entry, miss once and you’re out. Greater than 600 yards, you hit twice @600 to advance, and for that get one entry, but miss once and you get zero… then you hit twice at longer range and get THREE more raffle entries…but miss even once and you are out of the raffle. Something like this would incentivize people to shoot their actual maximum effective range, while forcing people to be realistic if they want a shot at a raffle item.
I’m not really advocating for this, I think there is some benefit to making it a no consequence event, but I think the point is valid if people are trying to read into the results too much.

I like the raffle being open to all participants generally speaking, but having 2-3 of the items only be available to people who hit 100% of their shots would be cool too. Whatever the rules are I’ll be doing it again next year

 

[solarshooter]

No huge fan of Cortina, but this is relevant:

1/6 people hit a 1moa target at 500yds. I can hear the excuses already - yes this is a small target, yes probably 5/6 would have been fine killing shots, blah blah. Consider these were not hunting weight rigs (only hit was a full on PRS rig), no time pressure, known range, flat, prone, etc. So I think there are no real excuses here. Hitting cold bore is hard! Reduce your MER to 500 or less unless you can consistently prove otherwise!!

 

[mcr-85]

I got my stock from @Stockys

It is a bare carbon Tikka inlet with a 3B barrel channel. I will put my 6.5x284 in it.

I need to mount an pic/arca rail on it and give it a paint job. I am excited to give it a go.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

No huge fan of Cortina, but this is relevant:

1/6 people hit a 1moa target at 500yds. I can hear the excuses already - yes this is a small target, yes probably 5/6 would have been fine killing shots, blah blah. Consider these were not hunting weight rigs (only hit was a full on PRS rig), no time pressure, known range, flat, prone, etc. So I think there are no real excuses here. Hitting cold bore is hard! Reduce your MER to 500 or less unless you can consistently prove otherwise!!

I tried one of his “challenges” last week out in the desert mountains. It was a lot of fun.

I did miss the 2” target at 436 yards in broken terrain, with a shot that required a pretty decent wind call ability. Was able to get first shot hits on 12”, 10”, 8”, 6”, and 4” gongs. I actually had a spot on wind call on the 2” but missed high.

I tried a "hunting version" of the popular YouTube "test your limit/blackjack" 500 yard challenge. Featuring the RokStok!

I'm on a group text with some old hunting/shooting buddies and one of them linked us a video for a neat challenge. They call it the "test your limits" or "blackjack" 500 yard challenge and I spent some time watching them last night. In the videos I saw, this challenge is done primarily with...

rokslide.com

 

[Slick8]

No huge fan of Cortina, but this is relevant:

1/6 people hit a 1moa target at 500yds. I can hear the excuses already - yes this is a small target, yes probably 5/6 would have been fine killing shots, blah blah. Consider these were not hunting weight rigs (only hit was a full on PRS rig), no time pressure, known range, flat, prone, etc. So I think there are no real excuses here. Hitting cold bore is hard! Reduce your MER to 500 or less unless you can consistently prove otherwise!!

Man, that was eye opening and I've killed a few at 600 plus. All but the last were PRS rigs and all but the last shot would have been kills. To be fair, I don't believe I would be hunting game at long range with that last rig so it's hard for me to count it.

It just reinforces the notion of practice practice and practice some more.

 

[solarshooter]

Props to these guys for testing themselves and putting it out there for the public. Based on gear choices I wouldn't be surprised if some are on this forum.

BUT: 2/10 hits on a 5" plate at 500. Some were very close misses, if we credit those (which I won't) then 4-5/10. Calm, flat, prone, known range, no pressure of any kind.

 

[Macintosh]

Does the video go into any detail on why they are using 5” targets if its a “hunting” challenge? Thats something like 40% smaller than the vitals on even a tiny whitetailed deer. How many of those “misses” would have been a 100% dead deer with an 8-9” or even 10” vital zone?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Does the video go into any detail on why they are using 5” targets if its a “hunting” challenge? Thats something like 40% smaller than the vitals on even a tiny whitetailed deer. How many of those “misses” would have been a 100% dead deer with an 8-9” or even 10” vital zone?

I think the idea was 1 MOA target but not sure.

 

[TheM1DoesMyTalking]

It's based on this video by Erik Cortina. More about proving a point about 1 MOA targets.

 

[solarshooter]

Does the video go into any detail on why they are using 5” targets if its a “hunting” challenge? Thats something like 40% smaller than the vitals on even a tiny whitetailed deer. How many of those “misses” would have been a 100% dead deer with an 8-9” or even 10” vital zone?

You're correct, I think roughly 5-6 would have hit vitals. But the point here is that real hit rates are pretty low. And I'm still somewhat against paving things over with the "vitals are a bigger target" argument, because fundamentally these guys are missing their point of aim by a really large increment that indicates they are either not zeroed, not doped, or not calling/holding wind correctly (or just plain shooting poorly, though they all appeared competent). Add in more sources of error like range uncertainty, less than ideal position, stronger winds, angle, and stress, and things will get a lot worse. 1moa under ideal conditions is a pretty fair test imo.

 

[stan_wa]

It's based on this video by Erik Cortina. More about proving a point about 1 MOA targets.

It’s a marking name for sure cause it should be called 1 moa challenge as. 5” circle has nothing to do with killing deer.

But ethical hunter is just a better way to get clicks and attempt to prove a point