S2H winter class 2026 observations and lessons learned

[Okie_Poke]

The guys in Mukluks were typically changing boots for longer stretches of movement, guys in Tundras were wearing them exclusively for all tasks. For the 'why', I'd go check the big thread on Tundras in the Footwear forum.

Thanks, I will do that.

 

[RancherJohn]

Good read. Looks like a fantastic course. I cannot wait to for that puffy to hit the market!!

Did any .308 BF 700 clones go down out of curiosity?

I’ve had to beat my frozen 700 clone bolts open but haven’t had these problems with what I would consider hard hunting use. Snow depth is a significant factor and deep snow allows snow in the action easily when in a gun bearer but I haven’t seen cycling issues.

As I think about this critically and honestly to understand why I have never experienced this, when hunting I chamber a round once I start hunting (not looking for feedback on this) and rarely need to shoot more than once. I do shoot lots of rocks when hunting is slow but have never experienced these failures even in snowshoe required depths.

I do recognize I have never plopped down and fired hundreds of rounds with movement and position building in deep snow beyond shooting some rocks and icicles off of cliffs in deep snow when hunting is slow.

Old me would say my setup is proven and hasn’t seen issues. New me will go setup some courses of fire this winter and test if I have issues or not making sure to move my gun through snow and brush in the process and inducing magazine changes (something I rarely do hunting unless I find a good icicle patch!). I’m genuinely curious. I’ve shot matches in snow, mud, sleet, and rain without issue.

Again, this is awesome feedback and I appreciate everyone sharing their results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 700s failed in the first strings of fire on day 1, and the Seekins in particular on day 7 was 20 feet from the truck in under 5" of snow while the shooter set up a position on a simulated deer. The amount of snow that put that rifle out of commission was laughable (see form's picture). The malfunction was easily replicable with that rifle after the fact.

As as side note on what you don't want feedback on, you know it's a bad decision yet you still do it. I would examine that thought process.

I have to say I appreciate this type of info. I agree with most of it.

The one issue I have is the rifle "torture" or "durability" testing. Why in the world would I spend thousands of dollars on a rifle / optic setup, spend a tedious amount of time setting it up, getting a load for it, getting that load "doped"....only to treat it like a piece of trash I was forced to carry as some sort of punishment??

I treat EVERY rifle I have spent the time and effort to work up like a new born baby in the field. I cover it when the weather turns south, I carry it in a protective manner, I put it down in a safe location in a protective place if needed. I don't care if it is a tikka, sako, winchester, remington, howa, ruger, sauer, wrc, whatever...I treat it like I want it to work when I want it to.

I regularly inspect it in the field and take care to make sure it function checks. I clear anything or check anything that seems awry. Yes I even check zero on occasion in the field.

Obviously I have been visited by Murphy more than most, but taking proper steps to insure things work seems like what is trying to be accomplished. Certain rifles, Loctite, certain rings / mounts, certain optics...only to toss dirt in it or let it get snowed on action open and up, etc??

Not this guy....I'll baby it in the field...if it still fails...oh well. I'll see if there was anything I could do about it. Fix it if I can. Steak is always at the store. I do all my testing before I take it to the field....none shown here would make the list of things I would do to it. JMHO..of course...

If you aren't testing it at some level, you are relying only on blind faith. What better place to test it than on the range, with a bunch of witnesses shooting various other guns in the same conditions? I want my gear to be as boring as possible, with no fuss or special care needed in any conditions I may encounter. I have better things to do (like find animals to kill) than to have to baby a piece of gear because of X or Y reason.

For me, the below picture is an absolute bare minimum of performance in my book. High vibratory environment, inclement weather, and me with better shit to do than fuss over a rifle. Seeing it done in a somewhat structured class setting helps condition people to remove emotional ties to a rifle, scope, or other piece of gear. This allows for logic and reason to prevail in gear and gun choices.

 

[WDO]

I have to say I appreciate this type of info. I agree with most of it.

The one issue I have is the rifle "torture" or "durability" testing. Why in the world would I spend thousands of dollars on a rifle / optic setup, spend a tedious amount of time setting it up, getting a load for it, getting that load "doped"....only to treat it like a piece of trash I was forced to carry as some sort of punishment??

I treat EVERY rifle I have spent the time and effort to work up like a new born baby in the field. I cover it when the weather turns south, I carry it in a protective manner, I put it down in a safe location in a protective place if needed. I don't care if it is a tikka, sako, winchester, remington, howa, ruger, sauer, wrc, whatever...I treat it like I want it to work when I want it to.

I regularly inspect it in the field and take care to make sure it function checks. I clear anything or check anything that seems awry. Yes I even check zero on occasion in the field.

Obviously I have been visited by Murphy more than most, but taking proper steps to insure things work seems like what is trying to be accomplished. Certain rifles, Loctite, certain rings / mounts, certain optics...only to toss dirt in it or let it get snowed on action open and up, etc??

Not this guy....I'll baby it in the field...if it still fails...oh well. I'll see if there was anything I could do about it. Fix it if I can. Steak is always at the store. I do all my testing before I take it to the field....none shown here would make the list of things I would do to it. JMHO..of course...

Testing is the point, to find what it can handle.

I posted above about my failure. My rifle failed when it appeared clean and in decent weather conditions ( low 30's and clear conditions).

Unfortunately some systems, often ones that are touted "good," aren't really what we were told or what we thought. And the only way to find out is to test them.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I have to say I appreciate this type of info. I agree with most of it.

The one issue I have is the rifle "torture" or "durability" testing. Why in the world would I spend thousands of dollars on a rifle / optic setup, spend a tedious amount of time setting it up, getting a load for it, getting that load "doped"....only to treat it like a piece of trash I was forced to carry as some sort of punishment??

I treat EVERY rifle I have spent the time and effort to work up like a new born baby in the field. I cover it when the weather turns south, I carry it in a protective manner, I put it down in a safe location in a protective place if needed. I don't care if it is a tikka, sako, winchester, remington, howa, ruger, sauer, wrc, whatever...I treat it like I want it to work when I want it to.

I regularly inspect it in the field and take care to make sure it function checks. I clear anything or check anything that seems awry. Yes I even check zero on occasion in the field.

Obviously I have been visited by Murphy more than most, but taking proper steps to insure things work seems like what is trying to be accomplished. Certain rifles, Loctite, certain rings / mounts, certain optics...only to toss dirt in it or let it get snowed on action open and up, etc??

Not this guy....I'll baby it in the field...if it still fails...oh well. I'll see if there was anything I could do about it. Fix it if I can. Steak is always at the store. I do all my testing before I take it to the field....none shown here would make the list of things I would do to it. JMHO..of course...

I’m with you to an extent. I take great care of my rifles. But I also want to know what they can take and I want to have justifiable confidence - not faith - in my rifle and my ability.

When my brand new Tikka fell off the 3-foot tall concrete bench, hit muzzle first with the brand new AB Raptor suppressor, then hit with the elevation turret on my SWFA, bounced and rolled across the concrete, I was really mad at myself for leaving it propped on the bags on a windy day. But when I sat back down and shot another 10-shot group into the same POI, I was really happy.

The only rifle failure I had on a game animal this past season was when I was carrying my CZ 457 .22 on a hunt. As it bounced along on my shoulders, a bunch of carbon fell from my suppressor into the breach of my .22. When I wanted to shoot the squirrel of a lifetime, I couldn’t chamber a round. Ever since then, I’ve adopted a better cleaning regimen for my rimfire suppressor. And also started carrying the rifle crossbody muzzle down instead of up.

To think that something might go wrong with my system on a more important hunt really bothers me. I can take care of my rifle and still find its limitations (and mine too!).

 

[khart_6882]

I have to say I appreciate this type of info. I agree with most of it.

The one issue I have is the rifle "torture" or "durability" testing. Why in the world would I spend thousands of dollars on a rifle / optic setup, spend a tedious amount of time setting it up, getting a load for it, getting that load "doped"....only to treat it like a piece of trash I was forced to carry as some sort of punishment??

I treat EVERY rifle I have spent the time and effort to work up like a new born baby in the field. I cover it when the weather turns south, I carry it in a protective manner, I put it down in a safe location in a protective place if needed. I don't care if it is a tikka, sako, winchester, remington, howa, ruger, sauer, wrc, whatever...I treat it like I want it to work when I want it to.

I regularly inspect it in the field and take care to make sure it function checks. I clear anything or check anything that seems awry. Yes I even check zero on occasion in the field.

Obviously I have been visited by Murphy more than most, but taking proper steps to insure things work seems like what is trying to be accomplished. Certain rifles, Loctite, certain rings / mounts, certain optics...only to toss dirt in it or let it get snowed on action open and up, etc??

Not this guy....I'll baby it in the field...if it still fails...oh well. I'll see if there was anything I could do about it. Fix it if I can. Steak is always at the store. I do all my testing before I take it to the field....none shown here would make the list of things I would do to it. JMHO..of course...

Because no matter how careful you are, shit happens.

 

[43.6N]

This allows for logic and reason to prevail in gear and gun choices.

That’s the crux of it, isn’t it?
We have emotional connections to inanimate objects. Making it really hard for us all to be objective and critical.

 

[Wacko]

How do you know if all that works before using it on animals, without using it and seeing where it fails in practice first?

As I said in my post, I test things at the range before I go to the field. I do a version of the drop test. I do multiple rounds from multiple locations / environments / weather , I do all kinds of stuff. I am satisfied with my level of testing.

Purposely throwing dirt in the action, filling it with snow and slamming it shut on it, dumping large amounts of water into it in sub zero temps...will never be something I do on purpose. I will also do all I can to prevent that in the field. I will clear any of it before it becomes an issue - if I fall and it gets packed with something. If I can't I'll head to the truck and get it resolved.

Intentionally trying to severely damage something that costs as much as this stuff does seems silly. The old saying, just because jimmy did it - doesn't mean you have to.

How do you know that the "testing" you are doing today, that the rifle seems to be "passing" , isn't causing damage that will rear it's head later on?

Just want to add, I don't have unlimited funds to find the failure points of things, replace them, or try again with something else if I'm not happy. Then do you test the new one until failure to "make sure" it works? The spending cycle would never end, and you would never have a rifle ready for the field because it was not fully "tested".

Like I said, it's hunting, not life or death. I'm not repelling the hoard at the gate.

 

[whoop]

yeah not sure! i'm for someone else checking these things out. i have been bowhunting for crowding 40 years. modern bullets have my interest now. i have purchased two riffles in the last year (both 700 clones) and neither one will apparently handle hunting. one is a vesper build from UM and the other, is one i bought because the UM build was six weeks behind schedule. the next one will be different and be another option depending on conditions. thankful these people have the time and resources to flesh out a solid setup.

 

[omicron1792]

As I said in my post, I test things at the range before I go to the field. I do a version of the drop test. I do multiple rounds from multiple locations / environments / weather , I do all kinds of stuff. I am satisfied with my level of testing.

Purposely throwing dirt in the action, filling it with snow and slamming it shut on it, dumping large amounts of water into it in sub zero temps...will never be something I do on purpose. I will also do all I can to prevent that in the field. I will clear any of it before it becomes an issue - if I fall and it gets packed with something. If I can't I'll head to the truck and get it resolved.

Intentionally trying to severely damage something that costs as much as this stuff does seems silly. The old saying, just because jimmy did it - doesn't mean you have to.

How do you know that the "testing" you are doing today, that the rifle seems to be "passing" , isn't causing damage that will rear it's head later on?

Just want to add, I don't have unlimited funds to find the failure points of things, replace them, or try again with something else if I'm not happy. Then do you test the new one until failure to "make sure" it works? The spending cycle would never end, and you would never have a rifle ready for the field because it was not fully "tested".

Like I said, it's hunting, not life or death. I'm not repelling the hoard at the gate.

I hear you. I’m glad they are testing it under those conditions though so I can benefit from their knowledge.