“Backfire” hunting challenge fail

[Hnthrdr]

People don't seem to be getting humbled though..

I mean people have a willful dissonance from these things… most guys max rang is 300-350 on a good day!!! They just go no, still comfortable out to 600

 

[Unclecroc]

People don't seem to be getting humbled though..

That’s a shame. Unfortunately the only way they will get a slice is when they wound a trophy animal.

 

[Unclecroc]

I mean people have a willful dissonance from these things… most guys max rang is 300-350 on a good day!!! They just go no, still comfortable out to 600

On a bipod and bag I’d say your range of 350 is pretty close for most “practiced” guys. What the bench fails to teach you is adverse conditions, adrenaline and the pressure of getting the shot off in a reasonable time frame.
With those factors in account 350 is generous.

 

[TaperPin]

If we were hunting milk jugs, we’d have to limit our range more so than deer-size vitals.

 

[NSI]

If we were hunting milk jugs, we’d have to limit our range more so than deer-size vitals.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that argument.

We don't rise to the occasion, we fall to the level of our training. If we're lucky. There's got to be a standard, and an 8" milk jug at 400 yards is a pretty good one. Missing these jugs under ideal circumstances shouldn't be received with gladness that elk vitals are larger. It should be a wake-up call and an immediate revision of personal minimums. Anything less is cruel. Consider an excellent result of 4/5 jugs hit. Are you comfortable with wounding 20% of the animals at which you shoot? I'm not.

-J

 

[100 others]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that argument.

We don't rise to the occasion, we fall to the level of our training. If we're lucky. There's got to be a standard, and an 8" milk jug at 400 yards is a pretty good one. Missing these jugs under ideal circumstances shouldn't be received with gladness that elk vitals are larger. It should be a wake-up call and an immediate revision of personal minimums. Anything less is cruel. Consider an excellent result of 4/5 jugs hit. Are you comfortable with wounding 20% of the animals at which you shoot? I'm not.

-J

Obviously a hit to the vitals is what we’re striving for, but to play devils advocate, it’s not the only thing that kills a deer. The vitals are surrounded by an incapacitation zone of spine and neck that can put a deer down quick, and a front leg shot just forward of the vitals still allows for a follow up as they’re usually not moving far/fast. Not ideal, but there’s a little wiggle room built in that isn’t there on a milk jug. A small miss on a milk jug could have easily still been a kill on a deer. The challenge seemed like a bait and switch to me. It was like asking a pistol shooter how far they can consistently hit a man sized target and then bringing out only A-zone steel for the video.

 

[TaperPin]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that argument.

We don't rise to the occasion, we fall to the level of our training. If we're lucky. There's got to be a standard, and an 8" milk jug at 400 yards is a pretty good one. Missing these jugs under ideal circumstances shouldn't be received with gladness that elk vitals are larger. It should be a wake-up call and an immediate revision of personal minimums. Anything less is cruel. Consider an excellent result of 4/5 jugs hit. Are you comfortable with wounding 20% of the animals at which you shoot? I'm not.

-J

With a laser rangefinder and properly understood rifle, the height of the jug isn’t the limiting factor, but the wind reading error for the narrow width (6” for the gallon jugs here). Hitting a milk jug is twice as hard as a 10” square vital zone, because the allowable wind call error is much less with the jug. A shot could have been a few inches from the jug to either side and still killed a deer.

Im not saying most people do a great job of understanding their rifles and shooting, just that a vital zone of deer has been generally accepted to be close to 10”x10” for as long as I can remember, back when the earth was flat.

I have no problem if you want a milk jug to be your personal limit, it’s just not mine.

 

[Gorp2007]

1 Gallon (128 oz.) Natural HDPE Plastic Dairy Milk Jug, 38mm 38-400

This 1 gallon natural high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic milk jug incorporates a handle on top near the opening, which is ideal for carrying and pouring. Compatible with 38mm (38-400) caps, this 1 gallon milk container has a square body and base, making this container space efficient for...

www.thecarycompany.com

In case you were looking for some technical drawings of 1 gallon milk jugs. 5.960" according to the folks over at The Cary Company.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

I shoot PRS with a 24 lb 6 dasher, and would be very confident to hit a milk jug at 400 yards, especially prone. I would also be confident to do that with any of my hunting rifles.

Just to see how well the new 1.2" Ti Pro 5 worked on my 300 Norma, I free recoiled it (only my clothing was lightly touching the buttpad, floating cheek weld, and just finger on the trigger). The gun shifted about 4 mils up and 4 mils right, but I watched the trace to impact at 1000 yards. Follow up shots are more challenging with more recoil.

You're "comfortable range" is just that... what you're comfortable with. I extend this if I'm in an area where I can take a "sighter shot" where you can shoot a rock in a similar direction / range of an animal. Sometimes its perfect, sometimes the wind is twice what you were holding for. Shooting across small rolling draws is hell.

Ken

 

[BlackTail]

People don't seem to be getting humbled though..

I wholeheartedly agree that most people overestimate their maximum range. Last year’s Cold Bore Challenge demonstrated that in spades.

To play a bit of devil’s advocate here though, in the spirit of this challenge you are sort of “forced” to take the shot. Not comfortable with your position and can’t get stable, take the shot anyways. Not getting a good range on your target, take the shot anyways. Don’t have a bead on what the wind is doing, take the shot anyways. Crunched for time, take the shot anyways. Every one of those scenarios has happened to me in the field and I’ve passed on the shot, at distances I would consider inside my maximum range under ideal conditions. All that to say, while the challenge is an eye opener for sure, I don’t know if this is the be all, end all to establish an absolute maximum range.

 

[wind gypsy]

I wholeheartedly agree that most people overestimate their maximum range. Last year’s Cold Bore Challenge demonstrated that in spades.

To play a bit of devil’s advocate here though, in the spirit of this challenge you are sort of “forced” to take the shot. Not comfortable with your position and can’t get stable, take the shot anyways. Not getting a good range on your target, take the shot anyways. Don’t have a bead on what the wind is doing, take the shot anyways. Crunched for time, take the shot anyways. Every one of those scenarios has happened to me in the field and I’ve passed on the shot, at distances I would consider inside my maximum range under ideal conditions. All that to say, while the challenge is an eye opener for sure, I don’t know if this is the be all, end all to establish an absolute maximum range.

It's a great point. The same is true on hit rates in competitions where you don't lose points for missing vs not shooting at all so lead is getting sent before the buzzer goes.

 

[Thegman]

Obviously a hit to the vitals is what we’re striving for, but to play devils advocate, it’s not the only thing that kills a deer. The vitals are surrounded by an incapacitation zone of spine and neck that can put a deer down quick, and a front leg shot just forward of the vitals still allows for a follow up as they’re usually not moving far/fast. Not ideal, but there’s a little wiggle room built in that isn’t there on a milk jug. A small miss on a milk jug could have easily still been a kill on a deer. The challenge seemed like a bait and switch to me. It was like asking a pistol shooter how far they can consistently hit a man sized target and then bringing out only A-zone steel for the video.

I think that's a pretty good point. Maybe actual deer cut-out targets, broadside would have been a more realistic scenario, assuming the hunter is waiting for such a shot. Probably more realistic to range as well. Wouldn't provide the dichotomous hit/miss results though and some "hits" would be pretty ambiguous as to wounding, etc. I guess any simulation scenario is going to have some shortcomings.

That said, even a hack like me was cringing at some of the guy's fundamentals, like jerking his head off the rifle immediately following his shot. Sure didn't look to be the shooter he seems to assume he is (not that I'm any better).

 

[100 others]

I think that's a pretty good point. Maybe actual deer cut-out targets, broadside would have been a more realistic scenario, assuming the hunter is waiting for such a shot. Probably more realistic to range as well. Wouldn't provide the dichotomous hit/miss results though and some "hits" would be pretty ambiguous as to wounding, etc. I guess any simulation scenario is going to have some shortcomings.

That said, even a hack like me was cringing at some of the guy's fundamentals, like jerking his head off the rifle immediately following his shot. Sure didn't look to be the shooter he seems to assume he is (not that I'm any better).

Oh for sure, Mike the Muggle was hard to watch and was definitely at the left peak of the dunning-Kruger graph! (Credit to whoever brought that up that graph recently).
I’d be really interested to see a similar challenge with a deer cutout like you’re saying and judge impacts after the fact for lethality.

 

[Thegman]

Oh for sure, Mike the Muggle was hard to watch and was definitely at the left peak of the dunning-Kruger graph! (Credit to whoever brought that up that graph recently).
I’d be really interested to see a similar challenge with a deer cutout like you’re saying and judge impacts after the fact for lethality.

Dunning-Kruger sums it up pretty well!