HPHR Article in this month's Precision Shooting

[Gringo Grizzly]

Curious to see if anyone else has read the article on hunter rifle silhouette in the new "Precision Shooting" issue, just arriving at my house yesterday.

Regardless of the author's choice and whether we think he's on the right track or not, it was GREAT to see such an article in this magazine on HP Sil shooting.

IF the author is reading this post, THX!  Please chime in and let us know.

Gringo

[ajj]

Agreed that it was great to see a silhouette article in PS. Good explanation of the compromises to be considered with the various cartridges and bullets. I can't help saying that I disagree with the many suggestions that an extremely accurate rifle is a necessity. It just ain't so. The fact that we shoot offhand is vastly more important to the challenge of hitting targets than the accuracy of the rifle, especially for people learning the ropes. The article seemed to be saying that using an unmodified hunting rifle is a waste of time. That's unfortunate. One of our club members who is an outstanding smallbore shooter decided to try the highpower version. He bought two off-the-rack Savage 7-08's, varmint weight barrel for the standard. He didn't waste time on a lot of load development, just chose bullets and velocity ranges. The accuracy is fine, but not 1/2 MOA. He shot AA scores for a few matches and is now solidly into AAA scores. I bet the difference between a 1/2 MOA rifle and a 2 MOA rifle won't save a AAA shooter two animals over the course of a season.
The author was planning a ground-up, highly accurate rifle so he naturally wrote from that perspective. I just pictured someone tempted to try the sport saying: "Gee, I guess the deer rifle won't cut it in this game."

[CB]

You tell em ajj!!!! We spend $$$$ and hours tuning to get 1/4MOA reduction in group size (off bags) and then appropriate a few minutes (mostly at matchs) to a position that yields an 8-10 MOA call radius? Duh! an then to rub salt in the wound we whine an cry over toe drop or comb height or mag length or ? in the rules. All of which is a GUARANTEE of the mental attitude that will keep you from the winner's circle.
  The article was a joy, awesome to think our sport is acceptable to write about. It was also well written, 6br? friend of mine went that route back in the spring, took it to Raton. The idea has merit in stratedy, ram reliablity isn't part of the equation.
CB
"personal disclaimer": I want as accurate a rifle as is reasonably able to $$ maintain.  A solid, day in day out, 1MOA or less rifle in my opinion is quite a precious gem. I'd love to have  that because I so seldom see a center break leaving all shots as close to edge as possible. good days good scores-get the edges, bad days-- NO edges!!  :grin:

[nomad]

CB,

You know, I agree with everything that AJJ said -- and I don't disagree with your comments about what matters vis-a-vis scores.

That said, somebody (you -- and how many others?) seems to be missing the point about these 'minor and meaningless' debates about rule 'reinterpretations'.
It's really about sportsmanship and ethics and the effort to keep everyone playing by the same book. I (and, I believe most competitors) dislike anyone roughing my passer -- even if I win the game -- and, in silhouette, we dislike people saying: "CRY! WHINE! My magazine won't accept that load...can't I have some sort of special dispensation?" or anything else that's similar.
I think all of us know that a 1/2 moa difference in rifle accuracy doesn't determine the outcome of most matches (nor does a few ounces of weight or a change in comb height or a little lighter trigger pull, etc., etc. ad nauseum) at any level except, maybe, the very top. That still doesn't change the fact that we dislike people trying to take advantage -- no matter how subtle or innocent it's made to seem.

I tell people that my philosophy of life is simple: "I'll give you the shirt off my back if you NEED it and ASK me for it -- but I'll do my level best to rip your head off if you try to STEAL one of my buttons!" and I apply that same thinking to games. Play it by the book and don't Klintonize rules interpretations and I'll never argue. Start asking: 'What's the definition of magazine capacity?" and many of us will be ready to fight.
Just as the 2nd amendment isn't about rabbit hunting, this issue isn't about .00000000001" of bullet seating depth...

[K2]

Absolutely AJJ!  Where in the world this author got the idea that a silhouette shooter needs anything beyond what is available from K-Mart is beyond me.  Sure there are one or two fellows using custom built guns but most are using box stock Remingtons and Winchesters so where did this guy get the idea that one needs a 1/2 MOA rifle with a custom carbon fiber stock and a worked over target scope bumped to 40x in some wildcat cartridge using VLD bullets from anyway?  

Agreed that it was great to see a silhouette article in PS. Good explanation of the compromises to be considered with the various cartridges and bullets. I can't help saying that I disagree with the many suggestions that an extremely accurate rifle is a necessity. It just ain't so. The fact that we shoot offhand is vastly more important to the challenge of hitting targets than the accuracy of the rifle, especially for people learning the ropes. The article seemed to be saying that using an unmodified hunting rifle is a waste of time. That's unfortunate. One of our club members who is an outstanding smallbore shooter decided to try the highpower version. He bought two off-the-rack Savage 7-08's, varmint weight barrel for the standard. He didn't waste time on a lot of load development, just chose bullets and velocity ranges. The accuracy is fine, but not 1/2 MOA. He shot AA scores for a few matches and is now solidly into AAA scores. I bet the difference between a 1/2 MOA rifle and a 2 MOA rifle won't save a AAA shooter two animals over the course of a season.
The author was planning a ground-up, highly accurate rifle so he naturally wrote from that perspective. I just pictured someone tempted to try the sport saying: "Gee, I guess the deer rifle won't cut it in this game."

[CB]

Nomad,
 I do believe we're on the same page. "minor and meaningless" becomes so when it is believed that's the reason for less than ideal scores. Then to whine and complain? none of which will raise anyones performance level. As to the "protest" rules: I'd like to see it raised to $100.oo cash with $90.00 or so going to the protested competitor if the violation isn't valid. Trying to rattle a shooter with BS is in my opinion VERY unsportsmanlike.
 Back to the topic---I think the article is great!! anything to promote awareness of the sport is fine by me. I enjoyed the reading, deja vu if you will.. been there done that.....still trying it.
 CB
extra ..02 worth::: this past spring I had some serious equipment problems stemming from a rebarrel, differant chambering, ignorance in reloading, etc. checking at 300meters showed grouping in the 4"-6" area. I shot two matches with this mess before I got it worked out, posting good scores for my level. I spent the matchs working on my mental game and intentionally blocking out the malfunctions as there wasn't anything could be done about it at the moment. I learned some great lessons through that screwup!!

[chunter]

CB,

I must agree with you on the fact that the mental game is more important than the equipment.  I have shot my best scores with a borrowed left-handed gun, using the old remington target ammo.  Needless to say, those were the days when I actually shot some master class scores, now that I have all the right stuff, I can't hit the broad side of the barn.  Oh well, I would be interesting to see a penalty imposed on those trying to mess up someones mental game with pointless protests, but in the end it would probaby just make the good guy not speak up, and let the ones pushing the envelope have free reign.

Good post BTW

Casey

[gator64]

Also - I still contend that from time to time a GOOD flier can be an asset!!

gator64

[yankee]

Something to think about:  I believe we need the very best shooting rifles we can get or afford as we progress through the process of moving from B to M class.  Here's why.  Lets say you can hold a 18 inch diameter circle at 500 meters.   If your rifle is a minute gun you can add 2 1/2 inches to that and come up with a 20 1/2 circle.  If you have a 2 minute rifle you can add 5 inches to the 18 and have 23 inch circle.  Draw this out on a piece of paper then get fancy and figure the square inches for each circle.  Then lay a ram over this and draw his outline.  Then take another look. Which circle do you want to be shooting in.   The best thing to do is shrink the inner circle through good shooting skills.  
Now what do we need?  Maybe the first year a 2 minute rifle will do just to get you used to what is going on.  Much past that you should be looking at a minute rifle. Then after AAA or M maybe something a bit better.  But as you shrink below a minute the cost goes up considerably for every 1/8 inch.
Now I have been watching this CB fellow for a few years.  He has gone through the changes. Now his stocks fit him pretty good and he has got rid of the 30-06 and he is willing to try different things to make him self better.  Watch out; he is mean in a shoot off.

[CB]

Yankee, good to hear from you. Send me a PM with a update, also contact  info. Pony express hasn't run this way in few months.
 I don't think one lucky shot denotes "mean in a shootoff" but it sounds good anyway.

[ajj]

Yankee is exactly right, no doubt about it. The WORST shot in the AVERAGE group will land 5.47" away (in a random direction) from the point of aim on a 500 meter ram with a 2 MOA rifle. Some of those shots will take the animal anyway but some will miss where a shot from a 1 MOA rifle would have hit. The choice of guns is easy. I'm starting to realize that it is sometimes necessary to break the shot away from the center of the target simply because the dot has settled well and we don't have time to start over. An accurate rifle gives you the confidence and the ability to do that.
Still, we tend to overestimate the effect of accuracy differences. A guy who can average 6" groups with a perfect, 0 MOA rifle will average 6.7" with a 3 MOA rifle. Meaning that his WORST shot in each group will be .35" farther from the point of aim with the sloppy gun. As Yankee points out, the better we get, the more accuracy we can "use."
My only complaint about the article was it's strong statements that: "Production accuracy just won't cut it," and "You must have a very, very accurate rifle." I just don't think that's true. The newbie can learn with a rifle of average accuracy and the master can take the same gun and break them in the center!

[K2]

I am confused ajj.  If a stock model 700 or 70 in a 6.5 or 7mm standard cartridge is all one really needs if they can shoot well, then why do we see so many high dollar custom set ups in the Hunter category?  Why the custom stocks, bumped scopes and such?  Is the author of the article really just saying that actions speak louder than words and since most are using high dollar equipment you might as well start out with what it is going to take based on what is actually in use?  

Yankee is exactly right, no doubt about it. The WORST shot in the AVERAGE group will land 5.47" away (in a random direction) from the point of aim on a 500 meter ram with a 2 MOA rifle. Some of those shots will take the animal anyway but some will miss where a shot from a 1 MOA rifle would have hit. The choice of guns is easy. I'm starting to realize that it is sometimes necessary to break the shot away from the center of the target simply because the dot has settled well and we don't have time to start over. An accurate rifle gives you the confidence and the ability to do that.
Still, we tend to overestimate the effect of accuracy differences. A guy who can average 6" groups with a perfect, 0 MOA rifle will average 6.7" with a 3 MOA rifle. Meaning that his WORST shot in each group will be .35" farther from the point of aim with the sloppy gun. As Yankee points out, the better we get, the more accuracy we can "use."
My only complaint about the article was it's strong statements that: "Production accuracy just won't cut it," and "You must have a very, very accurate rifle." I just don't think that's true. The newbie can learn with a rifle of average accuracy and the master can take the same gun and break them in the center!

[ajj]

Heck, K2, I'm the wrong one to ask. I don't see that much trick stuff in hunter class. Some people just want something different for its own sake. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people just like to tinker and most of us get ideas about what equipment modifications might help. You might start with something you had in the closet and figure out that a cheekpiece and a shorter/longer length of pull would make the rifle fit better and be easier to hold and shoot. (In fact, that's where the gains are to be had, probably.) When after-market triggers were legalized a lot of zealots bought one just in the hope that it would help. I was one such. It didn't. Speaking purely for myself, I was enthusiastic about the sport and wanted to DO SOMETHING with the equipment. Figuring out that what I needed to do was go back to the basement and pick up the airgun took some time and money but most people are smarter than I am.
The only point I'm trying to make is that the rifle's sheer grouping ability (on paper, off bags) is one of the least important factors as long as it's decent (say, 1.5-2 MOA.) The rifle needs to fit. The trigger needs to work right. The shooter needs to learn to shoot. Put those three things in place with two enthusiastic newcomers, identical in every respect except that one has a perfect rifle and the other has a 2 MOA rifle. I say they both hit master at the same time.

[K2]

Have the relaxation of the rules created an image problem?  The article that started the thread stated that one needs something better than production accuracy.  Does this image hurt participation overall?  It sounds like you would trade your aftermarket trigger back for the stock one (if you could get your money back ;~).  Did all the aftermarket stuff do very little other than up the percieved cost of the game?  If so was it a wise move for the so called Hunter class.

Heck, K2, I'm the wrong one to ask. I don't see that much trick stuff in hunter class. Some people just want something different for its own sake. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people just like to tinker and most of us get ideas about what equipment modifications might help. You might start with something you had in the closet and figure out that a cheekpiece and a shorter/longer length of pull would make the rifle fit better and be easier to hold and shoot. (In fact, that's where the gains are to be had, probably.) When after-market triggers were legalized a lot of zealots bought one just in the hope that it would help. I was one such. It didn't. Speaking purely for myself, I was enthusiastic about the sport and wanted to DO SOMETHING with the equipment. Figuring out that what I needed to do was go back to the basement and pick up the airgun took some time and money but most people are smarter than I am.
The only point I'm trying to make is that the rifle's sheer grouping ability (on paper, off bags) is one of the least important factors as long as it's decent (say, 1.5-2 MOA.) The rifle needs to fit. The trigger needs to work right. The shooter needs to learn to shoot. Put those three things in place with two enthusiastic newcomers, identical in every respect except that one has a perfect rifle and the other has a 2 MOA rifle. I say they both hit master at the same time.

[ajj]

On balance I think the rule relaxation is a good thing. It recognizes the reality of the equipment situation and, hopefully, cuts down on the squabbling over trivia. I started with an ADL in 6.5x55. I'd been shooting about a year before I realized that my rifle was one of a few dozen that received the leftover "Classic" barrels. It was not a catalogue item so it was illegal but the Classic was fine. It's hard to write a "pure" hunter rule and then enforce it. The new rules say, to me, that we're not going to sweat the small stuff. I'm glad to see the thumbhole stocks go. Something like that DOES create an image problem.
I don't know but I suspect that there are not a lot of potential competitors sitting on the sidelines because the equipment looks too intimidating. Those with an itch to try it and the necessary willingness to accept novice status will jump in and those with the "Aw, I wouldn't have a chance," attitude will not. Still, I'd hate to see anybody put off by the notion that benchrest level accuracy is required.
I'm just an enthusiast who likes to trade ideas on the board. Maybe some of the more experienced shooters/match directors will weigh in.

[K2]

AJJ

The discussion on the cheap ammo, concentrity, tight chambers or such about the .22 Hunter rifles is informative as to where the author who wrote the article on the HP Hunter rifle got his idea that off the shelf equipment just won't cut it.  Several have said they are shooting better scores with their custom "hunters" than they are with their all out custom "standards".  The average joe reading any of this will likely conclude his equipment won't cut it.  The image problem may live closer to home?

On balance I think the rule relaxation is a good thing. It recognizes the reality of the equipment situation and, hopefully, cuts down on the squabbling over trivia. I started with an ADL in 6.5x55. I'd been shooting about a year before I realized that my rifle was one of a few dozen that received the leftover "Classic" barrels. It was not a catalogue item so it was illegal but the Classic was fine. It's hard to write a "pure" hunter rule and then enforce it. The new rules say, to me, that we're not going to sweat the small stuff. I'm glad to see the thumbhole stocks go. Something like that DOES create an image problem.
I don't know but I suspect that there are not a lot of potential competitors sitting on the sidelines because the equipment looks too intimidating. Those with an itch to try it and the necessary willingness to accept novice status will jump in and those with the "Aw, I wouldn't have a chance," attitude will not. Still, I'd hate to see anybody put off by the notion that benchrest level accuracy is required.
I'm just an enthusiast who likes to trade ideas on the board. Maybe some of the more experienced shooters/match directors will weigh in.

[ajj]

Don't sell the "average Joe" short. I think he's smarter than that.

[Donna]

This is one of the better threads I’ve read in a long time. I believe that one should shoot with the best firearm that one can get. But that does not mean I’m saying to mortgage the house. In my younger days I tried casting for my .30-06 and was only able to get a 30 MOA, those cast heads were all over the place. If I took that rifle/load to the silhouette no one would have anything but a ghost of a chance of hitting anything with it. But with a good shooter (good shooting rifle) the chance of a hit what you are intending too goes up so much that chance is taken out of the equation and it is purely the ability of the shooters (persons) skill that makes the hit (knock over) or not. I think that was what the article was trying to say, poorly chosen word and phrases as they were. I bought a used factory Winchester .30-06 eons ago and that is what I use. The Winchester happens to print about 1 to 1/2 MOA and all I did was to have it bedded years ago. But I also take my Marlin lever .45-70 out to the shoots too, didn’t hit a thing with it but just have fun. I’m also building a pistol on an XP action and pulling out all the stops for it, I’m planning to shoot pistol silhouette and compete with the rifles too. I’m building it for me to shoot with because it is going to be my one and only custom I’ll ever be able to own, not for the silhouette games. I’m still going to shoot my Winchester, Marlin, and M1 carbine at the same matches too, not at the same time though. :grin:  What I’m trying to say is shoot with what ever you have, don’t worry about the other guy/gal out there, and if you want to move up to a fancier shooter do it for yourself not for the game because that is all it is, a game. I shoot with the best that I have and that just happens to be what I have, the score or any hits is the icing on the sweet roll. The occasional blaming the bad shot on the wind can be fun also, if it’s not taken too seriously. Just have camaraderie and fun out there.

Donna