How far can you shoot off a backpack?

[PanhandlePilgrim]

Couple of uncivilized fellas in that firing line...just sayin’.

I thought that white truck looked familiar. Haha

 

[HighlandsHunter]

I practice off a pack and that is what I use hunting. I have a lightweight spartan carbon bipod, but often using it in grass, etc. it's not high enough and too slow to setup on deer moving off quickly.

Like you, shooting off a pack is much faster. Sitting I do the same keeping the pack vertical. Much faster than sticks and just as accurate. I practice out to 800m but furthest off a pack I've shot is maybe 500m on a deer.

Nathan Foster uses a shooting position where your non shooting hand is "overhand scope" hold. Basically, place your non trigger hand on top of the scope with slight down pressure to control recoil. Make sure barrel is free of touching the pack. This can make good groups vs. free recoil off a pack.

A lot of practical tips on Nathan's website I reckon! Do you leave the bipod attached or only attach it in the right terrain?

 

[hereinaz]

There are many good and not so good ways to shoot off a pack - not to mention what’s in the pack and how it’s stuffed together. A springy light weight roundish or lumpy pack is the worst - it moves with the slightest movement and you’d be better off resting your gun on an empty one gallon milk jug.

This.

What is in the pack directly under the rifle can have a big difference in precision.

Test it. Pack it differently, hard things, soft things, and other things. You'll probably find the rifle shoots differently depending on what's underneath.

 

[4th_point]

A comment -

I think that I can get the Spartan bipod on the rifle and into shooting position as fast or faster than just getting my pack off. And I think more stealthily. It rides in my chest purse.

That stated, I think that I can make rest adjustments with the pack faster once into shooting position, if that makes sense. The bipod is slower to adjust, if needed.

I like having both options.

I didn't even have my pack when I shot a buck last year. I left it on a knob while taking a break on a resupply hike. Spotted deer, ran like hell to get into a shooting spot, flopped down with the Spartan, and shot the buck at ~500 yards. Pretty easy, but I will not ever leave my pack behind again! Not sure that I could have hustled down the knob and through the blowdown as fast with a heavy pack though.

 

[4th_point]

Another comment -

I think that the rifle motion dictates the technique used. I wouldn't make blanket statements about how one should hold or shouldn't hold a rifle as it can involve a tradeoff in terms of NPOA vs spotting impacts. Use as much input as the rifle setup and shooting position need. Not all light rifles need a hard hold to shoot well and see impacts.

Some rifles do jump up off the pack though, which is OK if you don't need to see the impact and accuracy/precision is good. For example, I've owned several Tikkas, and been around even more, and I think they are difficult for some people to shoot well AND spot impacts unless recoil levels are relatively low. Bare muzzle that is, and factory stock. I suspect that the stock geometry contributes to the jump.

 

[4th_point]

Enough rambling.

I know this is the LR forum, but how about seated, kneeling, and offhand at 190 yards?

 

[Formidilosus]

A comment -

I think that I can get the Spartan bipod on the rifle and into shooting position as fast or faster than just getting my pack off. And I think more stealthily. It rides in my chest purse.

That stated, I think that I can make rest adjustments with the pack faster once into shooting position, if that makes sense. The bipod is slower to adjust, if needed.

I like having both options.

No doubt. There is nothing wrong with bipods, tripods, or any of it. They are all just a tool laying there. It’s the manner in which they are integrated into our lives that cause problems.
As an example: that picture that Ryan showed had half the people starting that week believing with all of their heart that they needed a bipod or tripod to hit a target. So much so that they were dependent on it. In going through 5 scenarios that we had on animals last year and having them shoot them blind as a “pre test”, we had Ryan go 3 for 5, and I believe two other RS’ers go 2 for 5. Everyone else was either 1 for 5 or 0 for 5.
One scenario/target was a 240 yard 12”x15” target in a gully- two people hit it in 40 seconds. Most misses or failures were due to taking an unbelievably long time to “setup” or having too much crap causing confusion in a simple task. That’s bad. Really bad, especially because everyone there except one or two were “experienced” and accomplished hunters. There is a fundamental flaw for nearly everyone in how they approach shooting. It’s present across nearly all the precision fields- hunting, PRS, etc. That flaw is getting ingrained deeper and deeper due to marketing and influence. It’s the belief that you can buy your way out of a problem by removing the human, and that your current problem can be solved with “this” gadget.

I would bet money I shoot as many, or more rounds from bipod equipped rifles per year than anyone on this board. I don’t mean that crappy- just that I am not “railing against” something I don’t use. I also shoot thousands of rounds a year from tripods. So why am I not using them regularly for hunting? It isn’t ego or because I like or dislike anything. It’s because they aren’t needed, and their use comes at a cost for things that are. Once the decision to shoot has been made, it’s about killing that animal as cleanly and quickly as possible. Anything that is not required to do so, is just a distraction from the real event.

The base idea for killing skillfully in the largest possible amount of scenarios- is that simple is better all else being equal. That means that if I can do a task with a sufficient outcome in two different ways, the simpler way will, across time and space, have a higher success rate. If a task can be accomplished in two different ways, with one way requiring less “stuff”, than it will, across time and space, have a higher success rate than the way that requires more “stuff”.

I am not anti gear- I am anti unneeded bullshit. I can shoot to sub 1.5 MOA regardless of conditions with a rifle using a pack as a rest (it is no better with a bipod, and in fact vertical errors tend to be more with one), and so can others when trained and practiced.
Being that when hunting I have a pack with me, and it’s nearly a sin to ever leave your pack behind, immediately that frees me from one more piece of equipment. So I have no broad spectrum loss in capability with pack versus bipod, I get to remove one piece of equipment that is now extraneous, which means I both free my mind up from a possible decision and I reduce some weight carried, and I save time attaching it, and I can now spend that $100-$300 on something that actually matters… potentially.

It isn’t just me either. I know of two people in dozens that have learned to correctly or optimally use a pack as the people from the picture did, that still generally use a bipod. In some cases bipods/tripods/whatever make a lot of sense. In a lot of cases, most especially spot and stalk mountain hunting, they generally don’t. At least not as a first choice option.

 

[Southern Lights]

Honestly I’ve never even tried holding down on the scope - it probably Is something worth experimenting with. I’ve had a shot resting the rifle in a narrow gap and there wasn’t a great way to hold the forend. A scope would have to be pretty stiff or the point of aim would definitely move.

You want to use the overhand with slight pressure to keep the forend stable if you are not able to hold it. It's just there to give a second point of contact vs. allowing the forend to bounce off the pack. I put my hand just in front of the turret because I guess I'm superstitious about potential pressure on the bell of the optic throwing things off. However I only shoot NF scopes so the tubes are pretty thick and unlikely to flex much unless you are gorilla gripping it.

I'd say practice it and see how you get on. I usually hold the forend in most cases assuming my hand is clear of the pack. But every now and then I'll overhand. I should probably overhand more often than I do, but habits are hard to break.

 

[Southern Lights]

A lot of practical tips on Nathan's website I reckon! Do you leave the bipod attached or only attach it in the right terrain?

The Spartan is very fast being a magnetic mount you just slip it into. I have the Pro Hunt Tac version with rapid adjusters. The older version with spin locks was much slower. I carry it in my cargo pocket if I need it fast, but more and more never bring it out and now just forget to bring it as often as I remember and don't miss it much.

I don't use bipods attached to my rifle. I don't like the weight and they catch on everything when you walk around with the rifle. The Spartan gets a pass because of the rapid mag mount, but it's not made to be left attached as the legs do not fold back.

But still, bipods only work well if you are clear of ground obstacles. Often shooting in the tussock they are not high enough to clear the grass. A backpack I can just get into action faster either horizontal, and if not high enough just flip to vertical and go sitting.

 

[Southern Lights]

One scenario/target was a 240 yard 12”x15” target in a gully- two people hit it in 40 seconds. Most misses or failures were due to taking an unbelievably long time to “setup” or having too much crap causing confusion in a simple task. That’s bad. Really bad, especially because everyone there except one or two were “experienced” and accomplished hunters. There is a fundamental flaw for nearly everyone in how they approach shooting. It’s present across nearly all the precision fields- hunting, PRS, etc. That flaw is getting ingrained deeper and deeper due to marketing and influence. It’s the belief that you can buy your way out of a problem by removing the human, and that your current problem can be solved with “this” gadget.

I know quite a few guides here in New Zealand and hear a bunch of stories of hunters.The biggest cock ups are the guys trying to use loads of gear and blow the shot.

The latest was a guy that ranged a stag at close distance (sub 200m) and then proceeded to require multiple shots with a magnum rifle to finish it off after gut shoot, shooting a leg, having it run, and then finding it in a ditch.

Another was a guy spending so much time on his phone app to get his dope the animal went off into the bush.

Then there are the guys that used the wrong dope from their apps and either missed or wounded the animals.

etc.

If you see a good animal you have to get in position and get on it quick. More gear slows this down.

 

[ID_Matt]

No doubt. There is nothing wrong with bipods, tripods, or any of it. They are all just a tool laying there. It’s the manner in which they are integrated into our lives that cause problems.
As an example: that picture that Ryan showed had half the people starting that week believing with all of their heart that they needed a bipod or tripod to hit a target. So much so that they were dependent on it. In going through 5 scenarios that we had on animals last year and having them shoot them blind as a “pre test”, we had Ryan go 3 for 5, and I believe two other RS’ers go 2 for 5. Everyone else was either 1 for 5 or 0 for 5.
One scenario/target was a 240 yard 12”x15” target in a gully- two people hit it in 40 seconds. Most misses or failures were due to taking an unbelievably long time to “setup” or having too much crap causing confusion in a simple task. That’s bad. Really bad, especially because everyone there except one or two were “experienced” and accomplished hunters. There is a fundamental flaw for nearly everyone in how they approach shooting. It’s present across nearly all the precision fields- hunting, PRS, etc. That flaw is getting ingrained deeper and deeper due to marketing and influence. It’s the belief that you can buy your way out of a problem by removing the human, and that your current problem can be solved with “this” gadget.

I would bet money I shoot as many, or more rounds from bipod equipped rifles per year than anyone on this board. I don’t mean that crappy- just that I am not “railing against” something I don’t use. I also shoot thousands of rounds a year from tripods. So why am I not using them regularly for hunting? It isn’t ego or because I like or dislike anything. It’s because they aren’t needed, and their use comes at a cost for things that are. Once the decision to shoot has been made, it’s about killing that animal as cleanly and quickly as possible. Anything that is not required to do so, is just a distraction from the real event.

The base idea for killing skillfully in the largest possible amount of scenarios- is that simple is better all else being equal. That means that if I can do a task with a sufficient outcome in two different ways, the simpler way will, across time and space, have a higher success rate. If a task can be accomplished in two different ways, with one way requiring less “stuff”, than it will, across time and space, have a higher success rate than the way that requires more “stuff”.

I am not anti gear- I am anti unneeded bullshit. I can shoot to sub 1.5 MOA regardless of conditions with a rifle using a pack as a rest (it is no better with a bipod, and in fact vertical errors tend to be more with one), and so can others when trained and practiced.
Being that when hunting I have a pack with me, and it’s nearly a sin to ever leave your pack behind, immediately that frees me from one more piece of equipment. So I have no broad spectrum loss in capability with pack versus bipod, I get to remove one piece of equipment that is now extraneous, which means I both free my mind up from a possible decision and I reduce some weight carried, and I save time attaching it, and I can now spend that $100-$300 on something that actually matters… potentially.

It isn’t just me either. I know of two people in dozens that have learned to correctly or optimally use a pack as the people from the picture did, that still generally use a bipod. In some cases bipods/tripods/whatever make a lot of sense. In a lot of cases, most especially spot and stalk mountain hunting, they generally don’t. At least not as a first choice option.

What is your go to for seated height shooting? Seems that scenario pops up quite a bit when hunting - not a good enough angle or vegetation in the way for prone.

 

[Dos Perros]

Look at all that gray hair.

Mods, please change @BAKPAKR's name to "SilverFoxxyMcDreamy."

 

[scott85]

Mods, please change @BAKPAKR's name to "SilverFoxxyMcDreamy."

Don’t inflate his ego…

 

[Bluumoon]

No doubt. There is nothing wrong with bipods, tripods, or any of it. They are all just a tool laying there. It’s the manner in which they are integrated into our lives that cause problems.
As an example: that picture that Ryan showed had half the people starting that week believing with all of their heart that they needed a bipod or tripod to hit a target. So much so that they were dependent on it. In going through 5 scenarios that we had on animals last year and having them shoot them blind as a “pre test”, we had Ryan go 3 for 5, and I believe two other RS’ers go 2 for 5. Everyone else was either 1 for 5 or 0 for 5.
One scenario/target was a 240 yard 12”x15” target in a gully- two people hit it in 40 seconds. Most misses or failures were due to taking an unbelievably long time to “setup” or having too much crap causing confusion in a simple task. That’s bad. Really bad, especially because everyone there except one or two were “experienced” and accomplished hunters. There is a fundamental flaw for nearly everyone in how they approach shooting. It’s present across nearly all the precision fields- hunting, PRS, etc. That flaw is getting ingrained deeper and deeper due to marketing and influence. It’s the belief that you can buy your way out of a problem by removing the human, and that your current problem can be solved with “this” gadget.

I would bet money I shoot as many, or more rounds from bipod equipped rifles per year than anyone on this board. I don’t mean that crappy- just that I am not “railing against” something I don’t use. I also shoot thousands of rounds a year from tripods. So why am I not using them regularly for hunting? It isn’t ego or because I like or dislike anything. It’s because they aren’t needed, and their use comes at a cost for things that are. Once the decision to shoot has been made, it’s about killing that animal as cleanly and quickly as possible. Anything that is not required to do so, is just a distraction from the real event.

The base idea for killing skillfully in the largest possible amount of scenarios- is that simple is better all else being equal. That means that if I can do a task with a sufficient outcome in two different ways, the simpler way will, across time and space, have a higher success rate. If a task can be accomplished in two different ways, with one way requiring less “stuff”, than it will, across time and space, have a higher success rate than the way that requires more “stuff”.

I am not anti gear- I am anti unneeded bullshit. I can shoot to sub 1.5 MOA regardless of conditions with a rifle using a pack as a rest (it is no better with a bipod, and in fact vertical errors tend to be more with one), and so can others when trained and practiced.
Being that when hunting I have a pack with me, and it’s nearly a sin to ever leave your pack behind, immediately that frees me from one more piece of equipment. So I have no broad spectrum loss in capability with pack versus bipod, I get to remove one piece of equipment that is now extraneous, which means I both free my mind up from a possible decision and I reduce some weight carried, and I save time attaching it, and I can now spend that $100-$300 on something that actually matters… potentially.

It isn’t just me either. I know of two people in dozens that have learned to correctly or optimally use a pack as the people from the picture did, that still generally use a bipod. In some cases bipods/tripods/whatever make a lot of sense. In a lot of cases, most especially spot and stalk mountain hunting, they generally don’t. At least not as a first choice option.

Would it be too much of a bother to ask for a consolidated thread/post with photos of field shooting positions/tips for "tightening them up", or is there a reference to point to? Big ask I know. The practice vs equipment thread has some if I remember correctly and I've watched the THLR videos (bipod mostly). For example, prone off pack I've found I can spot shots better if I keep some pressure on top of scope vs rifle resting on pack with left hand at rear of the stock/rear rest, but hit rate is better with the latter. Really I should spring for a course and get direct feedback.

 

[BAKPAKR]

Mods, please change @BAKPAKR's name to "SilverFoxxyMcDreamy."

You been talking to my wife?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

No doubt. There is nothing wrong with bipods, tripods, or any of it. They are all just a tool laying there. It’s the manner in which they are integrated into our lives that cause problems.
As an example: that picture that Ryan showed had half the people starting that week believing with all of their heart that they needed a bipod or tripod to hit a target. So much so that they were dependent on it. In going through 5 scenarios that we had on animals last year and having them shoot them blind as a “pre test”, we had Ryan go 3 for 5, and I believe two other RS’ers go 2 for 5. Everyone else was either 1 for 5 or 0 for 5.
One scenario/target was a 240 yard 12”x15” target in a gully- two people hit it in 40 seconds. Most misses or failures were due to taking an unbelievably long time to “setup” or having too much crap causing confusion in a simple task. That’s bad. Really bad, especially because everyone there except one or two were “experienced” and accomplished hunters. There is a fundamental flaw for nearly everyone in how they approach shooting. It’s present across nearly all the precision fields- hunting, PRS, etc. That flaw is getting ingrained deeper and deeper due to marketing and influence. It’s the belief that you can buy your way out of a problem by removing the human, and that your current problem can be solved with “this” gadget.

I would bet money I shoot as many, or more rounds from bipod equipped rifles per year than anyone on this board. I don’t mean that crappy- just that I am not “railing against” something I don’t use. I also shoot thousands of rounds a year from tripods. So why am I not using them regularly for hunting? It isn’t ego or because I like or dislike anything. It’s because they aren’t needed, and their use comes at a cost for things that are. Once the decision to shoot has been made, it’s about killing that animal as cleanly and quickly as possible. Anything that is not required to do so, is just a distraction from the real event.

The base idea for killing skillfully in the largest possible amount of scenarios- is that simple is better all else being equal. That means that if I can do a task with a sufficient outcome in two different ways, the simpler way will, across time and space, have a higher success rate. If a task can be accomplished in two different ways, with one way requiring less “stuff”, than it will, across time and space, have a higher success rate than the way that requires more “stuff”.

I am not anti gear- I am anti unneeded bullshit. I can shoot to sub 1.5 MOA regardless of conditions with a rifle using a pack as a rest (it is no better with a bipod, and in fact vertical errors tend to be more with one), and so can others when trained and practiced.
Being that when hunting I have a pack with me, and it’s nearly a sin to ever leave your pack behind, immediately that frees me from one more piece of equipment. So I have no broad spectrum loss in capability with pack versus bipod, I get to remove one piece of equipment that is now extraneous, which means I both free my mind up from a possible decision and I reduce some weight carried, and I save time attaching it, and I can now spend that $100-$300 on something that actually matters… potentially.

It isn’t just me either. I know of two people in dozens that have learned to correctly or optimally use a pack as the people from the picture did, that still generally use a bipod. In some cases bipods/tripods/whatever make a lot of sense. In a lot of cases, most especially spot and stalk mountain hunting, they generally don’t. At least not as a first choice option.

Are you teaching them to lay the pack sideways instead of long ways? I made the switch to long ways about 10 years ago now after learning how to better shoot long range off the hood of vehicles (ATV/Jeep) and for me, it's a night and day difference.

 

[Formidilosus]

Are you teaching them to lay the pack sideways instead of long ways? I made the switch to long ways about 10 years ago now after learning how to better shoot long range off the hood of vehicles (ATV/Jeep) and for me, it's a night and day difference.

Whatever works in the situation, however parallel as a default. Longways sees a lot of shots with the barrel touching the pack at some point.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Those of you that have switch from a bipod to a pack. Curious to hear why.

 

[Clark33]

I feel like I shoot better off a pack, seems like more of the rifle is in contact with the rest (pack) and with a rear bag its even better. Only down side is if its a high angle shot the pack can be the limiting factor for me.

 

[manitou1]

I have killed a few animals in the 500-600 yard range off my pack. A pronghorn at 621 has been the farthest off my pack, but I have shot rocks further.

I think shooting off my tripod is easier and quicker to steady, but the pack sure is convenient.