Does Dialing Take Too Long?

[Formidilosus]

Idk an hammer of a rifle def reduces my cone of fire.
I know you don't need a half moa rifle.
But when you have a "perfect" rifle at least im not doubling the error.

Unfortunately the base precision of the rifle does not have nearly the effect that people believe. As long as it is sufficient (true 1.5’ish MOA) it is actually is one of the least important factors.

 

[WeiserBucks]

A super accurate rifle might not be critical statistically, but it builds confidence and confidence in my equipment is important to me personally.

 

[35WhelenAI]

It makes what you do more effective.


What would you have done without a rangefinder with that pronghorn standing there?

Shot it for 400?
Or snuck up closer?

The fact that you can shoot at a distance with absolute confidence does make one more effective. Skill level per skill level, the one with better inputs will be more effective.


Basically more opportunities are more effective.

^^Good post^^, thumbs up on it. I can see how your thoughts come together.

Still can't get past my thinking, subject to change, that I am the killer and would have the same instinct whether short or long range. More opportunity makes killing more frequent (hopefully) as long as the skill can be applied, which is making the shot on the human end of things,

If more opportunity to take a shot equates to more effective killing, you have it nailed.

With respect to the pronghorn, had the shot been 100 yds it would have been a good hunt and no technology would have been used. I would an effective killer, IMO, in the context of this discussion.

At 377 yards with a rangefinder and ballistics knowledge, the result was a no more or less effective killing. I was an effective killer.

At 500 yards, there would not have been opportunity to kill because of lack of technology/equipment (dial scope) therefore I could not be a killer at all. If I can't be a killer at all, per se, I cannot be effective or ineffective. But had the equipment been there to allow an opportunity, and the shot successfully taken, the end result would be considered being an effective killer if I do my part.

Good discussion on a Christmas Day, hope it is going well for all!

 

[Formidilosus]

A super accurate rifle might not be critical statistically, but it builds confidence and confidence in my equipment is important to me personally.

Not arguing with you, just trying to discuss the idea.


While confidence can be good, false confidence fails flatly when the situation does not go as planned. Plenty of guys are confident as hell in a fight... Until they get punched in the mouth. Then because their confidence failed, they collapse and start panicking.

The same is true for people with shooting. If someone is “confident” because their rifle shoots teeny little groups (generally 3 shot), what does their brain due when a miss happens when it shouldn’t have? Lots of people have “half MOA” rifles, while almost none are sub 3 MOA shooters in the field. Their confidence doesn’t matter.

Knowledge is what people should have. Confidence is a feeling, knowledge is reality.
While I prefer good precision, it is much better for people to have a realistic knowledge of what they, and their rifle/equipment will do than be deluded by “confidence”.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Vast majority of shots on big game that require dialing, do not lead to a potential missed animal for me personally. However. I have seen this be the case with very inexperienced hunters while guiding. Hunters who clearly had very little practice acquiring a moving target in broken/covered terrain at distance (300+ yards). These hunters had a hard enough time getting the animal in their scope, much less working to get their scope dialed correctly.

My answer to this question would greatly depend on hunter experience behind their tools. Seeing as many novice hunters as I have, I would answer “yes.” For me personally, I would answer absolutely “no” on big game animals. Different ball game entirely on varmints/predators/small game.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I agree, confidence isn't quantifiable but it's important to me. By that I mean feeling as sure as possible that I'm prepared to take a shot within my effective range.

 

[BRTreedogs]

My "theory" is if I have 5" of wobble at 500 and the rifle is half inch. Thats 7.5
If you and another inch to the rifle that that turns it into 12.5 and as the distance increases what the rifle adds keep increasing.
While my ability to shoot stays the same.

I also be its only money, and the only thing typically holding you back from an ok rifle to a precise shooter is money and some time to have it built. So why not.

Skill is definitely the biggest bang for the buck.
But skills added to a precise rifle is even better.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Vast majority of shots on big game that require dialing, do not lead to a potential missed animal for me personally. However. I have seen this be the case with very inexperienced hunters while guiding. Hunters who clearly had very little practice acquiring a moving target in broken/covered terrain at distance (300+ yards). These hunters had a hard enough time getting the animal in their scope, much less working to get their scope dialed correctly.

My answer to this question would greatly depend on hunter experience behind their tools. Seeing as many novice hunters as I have, I would answer “yes.” For me personally, I would answer absolutely “no” on big game animals. Different ball game entirely on varmints/predators/small game.

Great post with great points. I would add that those same hunters probably have no business shooting at anything past about 100-150 yards.

 

[Lawnboi]

How many can honestly say they know their cone of fire from their different rifles from field positions? Because I never see hunters shooting groups from field positions.

 

[WeiserBucks]

How many can honestly say they know their cone of fire from their different rifles from field positions? Because I never see hunters shooting groups from field positions.

I can't 100% say on my cone of fire, but I can damn sure call hits and misses on smallish plates at the range.

I shoot from all positions and have a different effective range based on stability. Prone vs sitting vs braced on a post or whatever. I've passed on shots in the field because I simply couldn't get steady enough for any number of reasons.

 

[BRTreedogs]

How many can honestly say they know their cone of fire from their different rifles from field positions? Because I never see hunters shooting groups from field positions.

I know that shooting off of my 634 tripod i have to really concentrate to make hits at 425 on a 12" plate. If I can get down on a bipod in any form or fashion even propped up on a log rock etc animals get in danger really fast.

And from shooting coyotes if I'm sitting on my butt anything inside 200 is on limited time.

But I have a long ways to go. As far as my proficiency is concerned I have to wait for the rite opertunity at this time because I need to improve.
Rifle tags are so limited in my state it makes it hard to stay diligent.

 

[35WhelenAI]

That's the phrase I was looking for, autopilot. The situation presents, you push the mental button and the fine tuning isn't noticed on the way to the successful destination.

 

[Formidilosus]

My "theory" is if I have 5" of wobble at 500 and the rifle is half inch. Thats 7.5
If you and another inch to the rifle that that turns it into 12.5 and as the distance increases what the rifle adds keep increasing.
While my ability to shoot stays the same.

Due to all the shots that land inside the cone and normal distribution, it washes out.

And actually it’s half the cone. So a .5 “MOA” rifle is 2.5” at 500, divided by two which adds 1.25” to your wobble zone for a cone size of 6.25”, or 1.25 MOA on target (if my math is correct). Using a 6.5 Cm with 147gr ELD-M at 2,700fps MV, at 5k DA, the hit rate for that in absolutely perfect conditions (that no one can call) is 99.9% on a 12” square target.






A 1moa rifle with the same exact conditions and wobble zone is a 7.5” cone for a 1.5 MOA total cone, and it’s hit rate is- 99.4%





No human on the planet can shoot, notice or observe the difference of .5% hit rate.



Now let’s look at a 1.5moa rifle and the same conditions- it becomes a 1.75 MOA cone, for a hit rate of 97.9%- no one can see the difference-




Now let’s look at realistic ability to call wind in “no wind” conditions. For most “trained” and “practiced” shooters, they can call wind to within 2mph in broken terrain and easy conductions, with a range error of around 2 yards using a LRF at 500y. That results in hit rates using the above rifle examples of-

.5 MOA gun, 5” of wobble is 96.6%



1 MOA rifle, plus 5” wobble equals a 1.5moa cone, with a hit rate of- 94.8%




A 1.5 MOA rifle, with a 5” wobble becomes a 1.75 MOA cone, which is 92.3% hit rate-





The amount of shooters in this country that can observe the difference of 4% hit rate in the field, in perfect to nearly perfect conditions, and killing enough animals to see it can probably be filled by the fingers on your hand. It’s a joke statistically. When put into real numbers that “practiced” shooters can do in field conditions as far as wind calling (+/-4 mph), precision (even prone of 2’ish MOA at minimum), range errors using a LRF (up to 5m average), etc… Once a rifle system mechanically is consistently putting 95+% of its rounds inside a 2 MOA cone, there is no observable benefit to be had by smaller groups for sub 500’ish yards. Once it mechanically is a 1.5 MOA system, out to 600+ yards there is no difference to better precision. And a real 1 MOA, or 1.25 MOA system (besides being uncommon), extends that to beyond where almost any bullet will perform correctly terminally. Real .5 MOA rifles are bench rest rifles- they are not field guns that people carry and people are delusional believing that their 8lb rifle is actually a .5 MOA rifle.

I also be its only money, and the only thing typically holding you back from an ok rifle to a precise shooter is money and some time to have it built. So why not.

Because as I wrote and showed above, there are about zero field rifles that are .5 MOA guns. There are very, very few that are 1 MOA rifles. 1.3-1.5 MOA rifles and systems can be had, whether custom or the better factory rifles. To go from 1.5 MOA real precision to .75 MOA is a stupid amount of time and effort that is totally wasted as it does not increase observable hit rates.

 

[Macintosh]

How many can honestly say they know their cone of fire from their different rifles from field positions? Because I never see hunters shooting groups from field positions.

Not groups, at least not often, but this is one place where shooting steel will show it over time, albeit in a less quantifiable way. Example, setting a match stage i personally choose the target based on the positions, so a prone position might get a 1.5 moa target, a target that must be hit offhand to move might be 4 moa or even more, etc. based on previously watching what people hit easily or consistently from various positions, time limits, etc.
But for sure I agree, especially since what I mentioned does not account at all for any error in dope/wind.