- Joined
- May 2, 2001
- Messages
- 7,523
Pretty impressive. Congratulations.
1st MOAG chuck hunt pics
- Thread starter goodgrouper
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Frank in the Laurel Mts
Well-Known Member
http://www.wildcatshooting.com scroll down until you come to the beyond 1500 yards section, it's called ULTRA long range to be precise... Just in case your interested, one does exist...Frank
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
Those are great pics gonehuntingagain! I love how well you can see the 2300 yard rock.
Thanks everyone for your inputs.
It was a very memorable day!
Thanks everyone for your inputs.
It was a very memorable day!
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
Bill,
To join the VHA clubs you first must be a member of the VHA. This is $30 dollars for a one year associate membership. After you get your membership card, you can attempt any of the downrange clubs including the 500,1000,1500, or 2000. For qualifying, you need a witness who is also a member of the VHA, his member id number, a method of rangefinding (walking it off works, but seriously downgrades the believe-ability in my book), photo of the kill, and date, gun, and location written up. Then you send it all in and in a couple weeks, you get a certificate of qualification and some patches and stickers.
Then about once a year, they print all the downrange club members in the rear of the magazine. There is currently about 2 pages of guys in the 500 club, about 4-5 columns of guys in the 1000, about 1 column of guys in the 1500, and about 8 or 9 guys in the 2000 club. Let's hope it is 10 or 11 by summers end! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
To join the VHA clubs you first must be a member of the VHA. This is $30 dollars for a one year associate membership. After you get your membership card, you can attempt any of the downrange clubs including the 500,1000,1500, or 2000. For qualifying, you need a witness who is also a member of the VHA, his member id number, a method of rangefinding (walking it off works, but seriously downgrades the believe-ability in my book), photo of the kill, and date, gun, and location written up. Then you send it all in and in a couple weeks, you get a certificate of qualification and some patches and stickers.
Then about once a year, they print all the downrange club members in the rear of the magazine. There is currently about 2 pages of guys in the 500 club, about 4-5 columns of guys in the 1000, about 1 column of guys in the 1500, and about 8 or 9 guys in the 2000 club. Let's hope it is 10 or 11 by summers end! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
jb1000br
Official LRH Sponsor
[ QUOTE ]
1 shot kill at 1877?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
JB
[/ QUOTE ]
????
1 shot kill at 1877?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
JB
[/ QUOTE ]
????
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
No, it was definetely not a one shot kill. I hit him somewhere between the 5th and 12th shot.
jb1000br
Official LRH Sponsor
[ QUOTE ]
No, it was definetely not a one shot kill. I hit him somewhere between the 5th and 12th shot.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what i figured /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Just wanted to make sure -- took me 4 to hit a 14" gong at 1650 so i know how easy it AINT to get 1st shot out there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
JB
No, it was definetely not a one shot kill. I hit him somewhere between the 5th and 12th shot.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what i figured /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Just wanted to make sure -- took me 4 to hit a 14" gong at 1650 so i know how easy it AINT to get 1st shot out there /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
JB
Brent
Well-Known Member
Congratulations. Looks like a lot of fun!
Curious but, why do you think the Wild RF was off in its range estimation?
That would amount to such a whoppin error in elevation, for even an Elk size kill zone it would be a sure miss.
Did you guys take two or three or more readings and average them, maybe even between a couple different people like has been said is about the best way to get the most accurate range estimation?
I've thought of getting a Wild for a few years now but the many LRF capable of 1000+ ranging (big game anyway) has made me kind of stop and rething how much I'd want to pack a Wild around, especially with the new Leica and Swaro's available that reach 1500 yards or so.
One thing I always thought though was the Wild would range the small targets more consistantly and with accuracy around 10 yards or better using the correct technique, now I'm wondering if the 10 yards or so was a bit on the optomistic side of things.
Really curious about just how the GPS was used as well, and how it was thought to be the more accurate of the two.
If you guys had plotted multiple waypoints on it ahead of time out near your anticipated target area, how was it that you were able to determine if the critter was closer or further than the WP, and then, by just how much?
Without setting up above your target on a good size hill it would seem aweful difficult to get reasonable ranging accuracy from a GPS?
I know the rifle is zeroed beyond 100 yards but I forget how far out though but, if you know how many MOA high the rig shoots at 100 yards plus the addition MOA dialed for the 1877 yd shot, MV, temp and BP you could get a reasonable idea of the range and which range estimation method may have been closest to the mark.
Even though you guys may not be completely interested on a 1st shot kill on these critters here you must be striving for as few a shots as possible to take one down (apart/in half etc.) so I'm thinking you try to be as close with the first shot as you can realistically get. Just curious, with that in mind, do you have a drop chart that starts from the point your rig is zeroed with a specific MV and BC that you find works well to match actual drops on out quite a ways beyond that or by what means do you decide on the number of MOA to dial?
Also, where you unexpectedly low or high on the 1877 yd shot, and by how much, if you were really able to put a number on it?
One more thing, with three - five shots at 1000 yards what amount of vertical dispersion do you expect to see (90+% of the time it happens) with that load you have been using in the 338 LI? I mean would it be less than 3-4", 4-5" or 7-8" etc.
Curious but, why do you think the Wild RF was off in its range estimation?
That would amount to such a whoppin error in elevation, for even an Elk size kill zone it would be a sure miss.
Did you guys take two or three or more readings and average them, maybe even between a couple different people like has been said is about the best way to get the most accurate range estimation?
I've thought of getting a Wild for a few years now but the many LRF capable of 1000+ ranging (big game anyway) has made me kind of stop and rething how much I'd want to pack a Wild around, especially with the new Leica and Swaro's available that reach 1500 yards or so.
One thing I always thought though was the Wild would range the small targets more consistantly and with accuracy around 10 yards or better using the correct technique, now I'm wondering if the 10 yards or so was a bit on the optomistic side of things.
Really curious about just how the GPS was used as well, and how it was thought to be the more accurate of the two.
If you guys had plotted multiple waypoints on it ahead of time out near your anticipated target area, how was it that you were able to determine if the critter was closer or further than the WP, and then, by just how much?
Without setting up above your target on a good size hill it would seem aweful difficult to get reasonable ranging accuracy from a GPS?
I know the rifle is zeroed beyond 100 yards but I forget how far out though but, if you know how many MOA high the rig shoots at 100 yards plus the addition MOA dialed for the 1877 yd shot, MV, temp and BP you could get a reasonable idea of the range and which range estimation method may have been closest to the mark.
Even though you guys may not be completely interested on a 1st shot kill on these critters here you must be striving for as few a shots as possible to take one down (apart/in half etc.) so I'm thinking you try to be as close with the first shot as you can realistically get. Just curious, with that in mind, do you have a drop chart that starts from the point your rig is zeroed with a specific MV and BC that you find works well to match actual drops on out quite a ways beyond that or by what means do you decide on the number of MOA to dial?
Also, where you unexpectedly low or high on the 1877 yd shot, and by how much, if you were really able to put a number on it?
One more thing, with three - five shots at 1000 yards what amount of vertical dispersion do you expect to see (90+% of the time it happens) with that load you have been using in the 338 LI? I mean would it be less than 3-4", 4-5" or 7-8" etc.
I can add a little concerning the use of the GPS. First of all it was not used in ranging the target. You are correct that an elevated vantage point an pre determined waypoints would have been necessary. The shooting position was marked and then after the shot was taken the impact site was marked while at the actual location.
As to the accuracy of the measurement, I have located hundreds of geocaches (What's this?) and many many times the GPS has put me within a few feet of the correct location. I have developed a trust of the GPS to the point of being able to navagate with it to return to hunting spots on the river in fog with a visibility of less than 20 feet. Since we were in a flat and treeless area I was receiving a good signal. If we were IN the canyon this would have been a totally different story.
I did show an accuracy reading of +/- 15 feet (this is a proclaimed tolerance calculated by the GPS automatically based on recieved signal strength and the number of signals being received) but again since the GPS shows a smooth track from one point to the other (instead of the track looking like a bianary sine wave) we assume that we are the same ammount off at the original waypoint as we are at the second way point.
I didn't have a chance to speak much with GG or Brian about it but if GG claimed 10 more yards on his distance which ammounts to the total possible tolerance (putting him at 1887) I think it would have been fair. All measuring techniques have a tolerance and an average of all the readings would have been justifiable.
As to the accuracy of the measurement, I have located hundreds of geocaches (What's this?) and many many times the GPS has put me within a few feet of the correct location. I have developed a trust of the GPS to the point of being able to navagate with it to return to hunting spots on the river in fog with a visibility of less than 20 feet. Since we were in a flat and treeless area I was receiving a good signal. If we were IN the canyon this would have been a totally different story.
I did show an accuracy reading of +/- 15 feet (this is a proclaimed tolerance calculated by the GPS automatically based on recieved signal strength and the number of signals being received) but again since the GPS shows a smooth track from one point to the other (instead of the track looking like a bianary sine wave) we assume that we are the same ammount off at the original waypoint as we are at the second way point.
I didn't have a chance to speak much with GG or Brian about it but if GG claimed 10 more yards on his distance which ammounts to the total possible tolerance (putting him at 1887) I think it would have been fair. All measuring techniques have a tolerance and an average of all the readings would have been justifiable.
Brent
Well-Known Member
I understand you measured it afterward now, thanks. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Also understand the accuracy of the GPS system too and that it can now be very accurate, way more so than three or four years ago thankfully.
Even a more accurate way (without using a tape measure) I've found is to take a reading with the LRF at 500 yard increments (or whatever works) on a good reflective surface and add them up for the total range. When I'm out past 1000 yards I have to do this in order to trust the distance measurements when recording drops etc. My rangefinder has never been off more than 1 yard when checking it with a tape, and funny thing is, it's only off in the first 100 yards, reads 99 yards instead of 100. Out past that on to 1000 that I've tested it it's always been right on to the yard. So, I guess it to be close to the yard or two when adding up the combined distances.
Even a more accurate way (without using a tape measure) I've found is to take a reading with the LRF at 500 yard increments (or whatever works) on a good reflective surface and add them up for the total range. When I'm out past 1000 yards I have to do this in order to trust the distance measurements when recording drops etc. My rangefinder has never been off more than 1 yard when checking it with a tape, and funny thing is, it's only off in the first 100 yards, reads 99 yards instead of 100. Out past that on to 1000 that I've tested it it's always been right on to the yard. So, I guess it to be close to the yard or two when adding up the combined distances.
ricka0
Well-Known Member
I pluged in MS Streets and Trips into my 3rd string laptop and it gives much better GPS readings than my Garmin ( $90 for GPS + software). It also works on pocket PC's (that have a USP port). It uses differential correction to get within inches here in SF (because there is a DC transmitter nearby) - out in the field the DC would add zero value (too far for the corrections to be useful).
Because I'm dyslexic like GW - I can't rely on the writing down the numbers, so I copy them off the program.
The best way to get distance is to mark both locations and take reading over several days <font color="red"> at different times </font> each day. Using mean to estimate the actual value, toss out data not in the .95 interval and you can easily get within 1 meter.
[ QUOTE ]
Even a more accurate way (without using a tape measure) I've found is to take a reading with the LRF at 500 yard increments
[/ QUOTE ]
That should be the least accurate. You have to add the error term for each measurement you take. You also end up with a 3 dimentional curved path which is further than the 1 dimentional straight line. Image you shoot from a hill to another hill, with 10 hills/valleys in between.
On the other hand, if you're only taking 2 measurements in lieu of one, and the error term is high on the one measurement (beyond the range of your finder) - you could get a better measurement.
Because I'm dyslexic like GW - I can't rely on the writing down the numbers, so I copy them off the program.
The best way to get distance is to mark both locations and take reading over several days <font color="red"> at different times </font> each day. Using mean to estimate the actual value, toss out data not in the .95 interval and you can easily get within 1 meter.
[ QUOTE ]
Even a more accurate way (without using a tape measure) I've found is to take a reading with the LRF at 500 yard increments
[/ QUOTE ]
That should be the least accurate. You have to add the error term for each measurement you take. You also end up with a 3 dimentional curved path which is further than the 1 dimentional straight line. Image you shoot from a hill to another hill, with 10 hills/valleys in between.
On the other hand, if you're only taking 2 measurements in lieu of one, and the error term is high on the one measurement (beyond the range of your finder) - you could get a better measurement.
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Curious but, why do you think the Wild RF was off in its range estimation?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was too far off. It really is in the eye of who's looking through it at the time. THere was a little wavy mirage going on so that it made it bounce from 1750 to 1800 fairly easy though.
[ QUOTE ]
That would amount to such a whoppin error in elevation, for even an Elk size kill zone it would be a sure miss.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would never shoot directly at an elk at that distance in that much mirage without taking a sighter shot on a nearby rock or something first. Luckily, there isn't <font color="blue"> usually </font> that much mirage during a late season elk hunt.
[ QUOTE ]
Did you guys take two or three or more readings and average them, maybe even between a couple different people like has been said is about the best way to get the most accurate range estimation?
[/ QUOTE ]
YEs.
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I always thought though was the Wild would range the small targets more consistantly and with accuracy around 10 yards or better using the correct technique, now I'm wondering if the 10 yards or so was a bit on the optomistic side of things.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have found the Wild to be as accurate as both my Leica lrf 800 and 1200's at extended ranges.
[ QUOTE ]
I know the rifle is zeroed beyond 100 yards but I forget how far out though but, if you know how many MOA high the rig shoots at 100 yards plus the addition MOA dialed for the 1877 yd shot, MV, temp and BP you could get a reasonable idea of the range and which range estimation method may have been closest to the mark.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have backdoored the drop on seven different ballistic programs now and it was actually coming up very close to being dead-nuts on 1900 (if there wasn't a puff of a headwind up in the stratosphere!). 1877 or 1900, what's the diff, it still ain't my 2k yet!
Oh, it is zeroed at 1500 by the way.
[ QUOTE ]
Even though you guys may not be completely interested on a 1st shot kill on these critters here you must be striving for as few a shots as possible to take one down (apart/in half etc.) so I'm thinking you try to be as close with the first shot as you can realistically get. Just curious, with that in mind, do you have a drop chart that starts from the point your rig is zeroed with a specific MV and BC that you find works well to match actual drops on out quite a ways beyond that or by what means do you decide on the number of MOA to dial?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. Exactly.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, where you unexpectedly low or high on the 1877 yd shot, and by how much, if you were really able to put a number on it?
[/ QUOTE ]
We were high on the first shot at that particular shot because we had been shooting at a chuck that was a lot farther earlier and didn't realize how much closer the chuck I hit was. I would say it flew about 5 feet over it's head.
[ QUOTE ]
One more thing, with three - five shots at 1000 yards what amount of vertical dispersion do you expect to see (90+% of the time it happens) with that load you have been using in the 338 LI? I mean would it be less than 3-4", 4-5" or 7-8" etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, we've never shot the gun at 1000 yards yet but if you couldn't get the vertical stringing down to less than 3%, it wouldn't do you much good at 2k! I would suspect that given the dispersion we see at 2000, we are getting less than 3" dispersions at 1000. It seriously takes me a whole week to load ammo for this gun because it has to be <font color="blue"> PERFECT! </font> I mean when this ammo is done, it is the best **** ammo on the planet. Every possible thing has been measured, weighed, and measured again. As my friend 7MMRHB says, "it's orgasmic ammo!"
THis gun and distance definetely aren't for everyone. Just loading up ammo for it takes extreme patience and a degree of lunacy. And if you don't enjoy the <u>really</u> technical mumbo-jumbo, I know some would be better off just shooting their 308's at 800 and living happily ever after!/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Curious but, why do you think the Wild RF was off in its range estimation?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was too far off. It really is in the eye of who's looking through it at the time. THere was a little wavy mirage going on so that it made it bounce from 1750 to 1800 fairly easy though.
[ QUOTE ]
That would amount to such a whoppin error in elevation, for even an Elk size kill zone it would be a sure miss.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would never shoot directly at an elk at that distance in that much mirage without taking a sighter shot on a nearby rock or something first. Luckily, there isn't <font color="blue"> usually </font> that much mirage during a late season elk hunt.
[ QUOTE ]
Did you guys take two or three or more readings and average them, maybe even between a couple different people like has been said is about the best way to get the most accurate range estimation?
[/ QUOTE ]
YEs.
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I always thought though was the Wild would range the small targets more consistantly and with accuracy around 10 yards or better using the correct technique, now I'm wondering if the 10 yards or so was a bit on the optomistic side of things.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have found the Wild to be as accurate as both my Leica lrf 800 and 1200's at extended ranges.
[ QUOTE ]
I know the rifle is zeroed beyond 100 yards but I forget how far out though but, if you know how many MOA high the rig shoots at 100 yards plus the addition MOA dialed for the 1877 yd shot, MV, temp and BP you could get a reasonable idea of the range and which range estimation method may have been closest to the mark.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have backdoored the drop on seven different ballistic programs now and it was actually coming up very close to being dead-nuts on 1900 (if there wasn't a puff of a headwind up in the stratosphere!). 1877 or 1900, what's the diff, it still ain't my 2k yet!
Oh, it is zeroed at 1500 by the way.
[ QUOTE ]
Even though you guys may not be completely interested on a 1st shot kill on these critters here you must be striving for as few a shots as possible to take one down (apart/in half etc.) so I'm thinking you try to be as close with the first shot as you can realistically get. Just curious, with that in mind, do you have a drop chart that starts from the point your rig is zeroed with a specific MV and BC that you find works well to match actual drops on out quite a ways beyond that or by what means do you decide on the number of MOA to dial?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. Exactly.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, where you unexpectedly low or high on the 1877 yd shot, and by how much, if you were really able to put a number on it?
[/ QUOTE ]
We were high on the first shot at that particular shot because we had been shooting at a chuck that was a lot farther earlier and didn't realize how much closer the chuck I hit was. I would say it flew about 5 feet over it's head.
[ QUOTE ]
One more thing, with three - five shots at 1000 yards what amount of vertical dispersion do you expect to see (90+% of the time it happens) with that load you have been using in the 338 LI? I mean would it be less than 3-4", 4-5" or 7-8" etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, we've never shot the gun at 1000 yards yet but if you couldn't get the vertical stringing down to less than 3%, it wouldn't do you much good at 2k! I would suspect that given the dispersion we see at 2000, we are getting less than 3" dispersions at 1000. It seriously takes me a whole week to load ammo for this gun because it has to be <font color="blue"> PERFECT! </font> I mean when this ammo is done, it is the best **** ammo on the planet. Every possible thing has been measured, weighed, and measured again. As my friend 7MMRHB says, "it's orgasmic ammo!"
THis gun and distance definetely aren't for everyone. Just loading up ammo for it takes extreme patience and a degree of lunacy. And if you don't enjoy the <u>really</u> technical mumbo-jumbo, I know some would be better off just shooting their 308's at 800 and living happily ever after!/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
I know some would be better off just shooting their 308's at 800 and living happily ever after!
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Those .308 shooters should just keep shooting their little nancy boy guns and leave the REAL shooting to guys like us! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
ERRR? Wait a second! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
I know some would be better off just shooting their 308's at 800 and living happily ever after!
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Those .308 shooters should just keep shooting their little nancy boy guns and leave the REAL shooting to guys like us! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
ERRR? Wait a second! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
