Get better at windcalls

[Macintosh]

To their credit, the trijicon scopes with that feature are not designed to be dialed for individual shots, they are “set it and forget it” scopes with a mil reticle and CAPPED turrets. They apparently thought offering a mil reticle that could be used for quick holders was worthwhile (Id agree on a low-power scope like that) but perhaps not so lucrative as to manufacture a separate internal erector system for that scope with mil adjustments. While I might prefer mil/mil, if Im adjusting at the range it really doesnt matter. compromise solution Im sure that Im willing to bet financially allowed them to make that scope at all.
Totally different ballgame for a scope designed to dial individual shots.

 

[slowelk]

To their credit, the trijicon scopes with that feature are not designed to be dialed for individual shots, they are “set it and forget it” scopes with a mil reticle and CAPPED turrets. They apparently thought offering a mil reticle that could be used for quick holders was worthwhile (Id agree on a low-power scope like that) but perhaps not so lucrative as to manufacture a separate internal erector system for that scope with mil adjustments. While I might prefer mil/mil, if Im adjusting at the range it really doesnt matter. compromise solution Im sure that Im willing to bet financially allowed them to make that scope at all.
Totally different ballgame for a scope designed to dial individual shots.

That still prevents you from using the reticle as a ruler when zeroing. It's a dumb thing to mix measurement types between reticle and turrets.

 

[Macintosh]

Well, prevents is a bit strong since folks do it every day zeroing scopes with no ruler at all, and in this case you have a ruler that still works even if it requires some conversion. But I dont disagree in principle, just saying that it doesnt affect use in the field, and having to do a little arithmetic when zeroing is a lot better than not having the reticle at all, which would be the other alternative most likely. There arent many alternative scopes like it, so I will take the options where I can. If thats what it takes I’ll choose it over a moa-adjust/moa-dot reticle or a bdc-reticle 10/10 times as long as im not planning to dial with it.

 

[ElPollo]

To their credit, the trijicon scopes with that feature are not designed to be dialed for individual shots, they are “set it and forget it” scopes with a mil reticle and CAPPED turrets. They apparently thought offering a mil reticle that could be used for quick holders was worthwhile (Id agree on a low-power scope like that) but perhaps not so lucrative as to manufacture a separate internal erector system for that scope with mil adjustments. While I might prefer mil/mil, if Im adjusting at the range it really doesnt matter. compromise solution Im sure that Im willing to bet financially allowed them to make that scope at all.
Totally different ballgame for a scope designed to dial individual shots.

Yeah, I know they aren’t built for dialing, but I’m also not interested in a scope that won’t dial unless it’s a short range affair like an LPVO that won’t get shot far enough to dial.

 

[West2East]

@THLR You have done a great job of distilling windcalls for hunting situations. I think it's most helpful that it gives a baseline of knowledge to apply before going out and doing your own practice. Early on, with SPF, it was frustrating at times in really windy conditions shooting 3-400yds. but with this info and the focus on reading wind and the simple rules, you can start making hits earlier.
I think the biggest benefit of the message in all his videos where he goes between the FFP and SFP is that a shooters expectations and abilities should be limited to the capabilities their equipment. Even the best shooter with a SFP can't make wind adjustments like they could with a FFP.
Great Video, as always

 

[THLR]

Spot on

 

[SDHNTR]

Never heard of this term “kipplauf”, I was curious.

Kipplauf: Both A Type Of Rifle And A Hunting Ethic - Safari Club

Mention the word “kipplauf” around a hunting campfire and chances are there will be blank

safariclub.org

Great article!

IMO, we need more kipplauf. Especially around here. Way too much focus on Rokstocks, 6UM’s, FFP, wind calls, MOA, MRAD, silencers, folding stocks, long range ballistics, chassis, carbon barrels, bla, bla, bla!

We need more respect and honor for our hunting heritage and less tactical. We are not at war with game animals.

 

[Formidilosus]

Great article!

IMO, we need more kipplauf. Especially around here. Way too much focus on Rokstocks, 6UM’s, FFP, wind calls, MOA, MRAD, silencers, folding stocks, long range ballistics, chassis, carbon barrels, bla, bla, bla!

We need more respect and honor for our hunting heritage and less tactical. We are not at war with game animals.

Don’t you use modern rifles, modern stocks, modern scopes, and modern bullets?

Interestingly- the “heritage” rifles and equipment absolutely were state of the art when they were new. Your version of “classic”, was that times version of “tactical” sniper rifle.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Great article!

IMO, we need more kipplauf. Especially around here. Way too much focus on Rokstocks, 6UM’s, FFP, wind calls, MOA, MRAD, silencers, folding stocks, long range ballistics, chassis, carbon barrels, bla, bla, bla!

We need more respect and honor for our hunting heritage and less tactical. We are not at war with game animals.

This is the long range section of the forum. And the OP has videos of himself killing stuff at long range with precision rifles, suppressors, and all sorts of gadgets.

 

[SDHNTR]

Don’t you use modern rifles, modern stocks, modern scopes, and modern bullets?

Interestingly- the “heritage” rifles and equipment absolutely were state of the art when they were new. Your version of “classic”, was that times version of “tactical” sniper rifle.

Of course I do. I just think the pendulum has recently swung too far in the tactical direction. And I’m not necessarily talking about rifles exclusively. I’m talking about appreciation for other aspects of the sport of hunting over and above the shooting part. Hunting should be 90% woodsmanship and 10% shooting. Not the other way around. JMHO.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is the long range section of the forum. And the OP has videos of himself killing stuff at long range with precision rifles, suppressors, and all sorts of gadgets.

And with a modified stock on his K95 for the same reason as the ROKStok, and a suppressor, MRAD’s, FFP, wind calls, and specifically about long range shooting and ballistics.

There is certainly a conversation to be had about marketing, commercialization, too high success rates, etc. but the argument isn’t about “tactical”.

 

[Formidilosus]

Of course I do. I just think the pendulum has recently swung too far in the tactical direction. And I’m not necessarily talking about rifles exclusively. I’m talking about appreciation for other aspects of the sport of hunting over and above the shooting part.

What percentage of people do you believe are actually focusing on the shooting part?

It’s tiny- tiny. I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t even 200 western hunters in the US that actually have a solid grasp of field shooting and take it seriously.


People are focused on “buying” things, not skill development.

Hunting should be 90% woodsmanship and 10% shooting. Not the other way around. JMHO.

So are you hunting with a spear? Hunting isn’t 10% shooting if you use anything modern. That mentality is what leads to eastern US nonsense hunting/shooting culture.

Or maybe it is 10%, it just happens to be the critical part of hunting, otherwise it’s sightseeing. All the “woodsman-ship” went out the window when electronics became ubiquitous. Animals have changed their behavior- archers chase them for a month or more in the timber pushing them out, then rifle hunters come in and half hunt the timer and half hunt the open. In a lot of places the best safety margin for animals is range.

 

[SDHNTR]

There is certainly a conversation to be had about marketing, commercialization, too high success rates, etc. but the argument isn’t about “tactical”.

We are essentially saying the same thing. I’m just calling it “tactical” for lack of a better term.

 

[THLR]

Interesting detour on the thread, and I find myself agreeing with almost all of them

Sometimes I hunt on my own time for my own experience. Sometimes I have external restrictions. Sometimes I am a guest. Sometimes I am heavily invested in the trip and have shaped life around that trip. Sometimes the job is simply to kill and remove.

I do not approach all those scenarios with the same attitude.
I do apply the same marksmanship techniques and ethics to all of them.

As for gear, I do what I can to minimise risk of error and guard against harm. I also do what I can to have the best chance of correctly interpreting what is happening around me, from sleeping with earplugs to eating properly to shaping the stock for best observation during recoil.

Etc etc

I think most of us agree on the principles of do no harm and improve self.

How we execute a hunt and what experience gives us value will likely be different. Even with myself, what I took from hunting has changed a lot over 40 years, but I have always pottered and tinkered with my gear.

But the kipplauf has been an unexpected catalyst to learn new stuff and actively seek new experiences.

 

[SDHNTR]

What percentage of people do you believe are actually focusing on the shooting part?

It’s tiny- tiny. I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t even 200 western hunters in the US that actually have a solid grasp of field shooting and take it seriously.

Not on this website, which is what I was talking about.

We talk far more about the shooting part of hunting and not nearly as much about the hunting part. Hunting for something means finding it first. Knowing the habits of the game one is pursuing.

All I’m saying is, I’d like to see more conversations about the hunting part of hunting around here. Back to basics. The hunting part is far more interesting to me.

 

[JohnJohnson]

We are essentially saying the same thing. I’m just calling it “tactical” for lack of a better term.

I think "tactical" is an something that people incorrectly use to describe things that work better. Like stocks that actually fit the shooter, scopes that adjust properly and use FFP, detachable magazines, etc.

I get that there are a few people in Texas hunting deer with AR's that have weapon mounted lights, tactical grips on them, etc. And maybe those goobers even hunt with plate carriers and that stuff on, sure that would be tactical. But that doesn't seem to be how the term is used on this forum.

 

[Formidilosus]

We are essentially saying the same thing. I’m just calling it “tactical” for lack of a better term.

Yes. But, with how you worded it- it is imprecise and actually probably results in a negative reaction from most people.

Technology is an issue, but it’s a hard conversation to have because people don’t want to give up what they use.

 

[Formidilosus]

Not on this website, which is what I was talking about.

We talk far more about the shooting part of hunting and not nearly as much about the hunting part. Hunting for something means finding it first. Knowing the habits of the game one is pursuing.

All I’m saying is, I’d like to see more conversations about the hunting part of hunting around here. Back to basics. The hunting part is far more interesting to me.

What does that conversation look like? Because what it actually looks like is more videos of influencers telling and showing you where animals are, how to find them, and how to kill them- I.E., “making it easier”.

The shooting part helps to reduce the wounding rate.

The “hunting” part is way more simple than the shooting- find bedding, feeding and transition areas. Move slowly, stop and glass often and keep the wind in your face.

What more is there to it? It’s not something that can be taught online because it doesn’t change.

 

[SDHNTR]

Yes. But, with how you worded it- it is imprecise and actually probably results in a negative reaction from most people.

Technology is an issue, but it’s a hard conversation to have because people don’t want to give up what they use.

Guilty. I guess that was somewhat intentional, to make a point.

But as for tech, me personally, I actually would wholeheartedly support some sensible regulations restricting our efficacy. We’re too lethal.

 

[Formidilosus]

Guilty. I guess that was somewhat intentional, to make a point.

It doesn’t though- because it’s wrong. I’m being a bit pedantic because the conversation needs to start in earnest, but it will get stopped immediately with that kind of argument.

Shooting isn’t the problem- remove every rifle/scope from after 1995, and kill rates in gun season won’t change much. However, remove all electronics and kill rate will plummet. Thats just one example.

But as for tech, me personally, I actually would wholeheartedly support some sensible regulations restricting our efficacy. We’re too lethal.

Too lethal isn’t the problem; when someone shoots at an animal the outcome should be near certain- that’s “lethal”. The issue is too many people and it being too “easy”. There has been an artificial increase in will hunting the west due to R3, marketing, and consumerism. That is the real issue.

As an example from above- removing all post 1995 tech from rifles won’t change kill rates very much during gun season; however, removing compounds from archer season absolutely would. So would/does making ML season truly tradition- no scope, no inlines, full diameter projectiles only, etc. So too would eliminating electronics- no GPS. Etc, etc.