Necessary precision to kill something

[willfrye027]

It really is a life-long endeavor. 700m is a whole 'nuther game and extra distance just adds to the complexity. I also doubt many could follow-up more accurately @ 700m. It's been my experience that lining up for a second shot on a living target is a rare event indeed.

Only people routinely sit still and try to figure out where that initial shot came from.

That's where low recoil highly efficient cartridges and bullets come in. It's not hard to spot impacts reload and be ready for a follow up..with the right setup and some practice.

 

[Mike Matteson]

That kind of how I look at it. Your ES & ED aren't very small. Shooting beyond 500 yds you can get into trouble making that shot.

 

[Stokesrjsr]

This is a good listen. Just crunching numbers on how much group size changes hit probability.



Spoiler: out to 700 yards

Going from .5 to 1 MOA is a 1% decrease
Going from .5 to 1.5 MOA is a 5% decrease

Adding a 2 MPH wind variance is a 30% decrease.

This is a great explanation of the precision and accuracy requirements for long range 1st round hits on big game animals vitals in mountainous terrain. It is much more difficult than most people imagine because most people don't actually practice in the mountains enough to fully understand.
I use the same software that was used in this podcast to simulate the performance of our bullets at 1,000 yards and I have found the same results. However, I will add one very important criteria that was not mentioned and that is the consistency of BC from bullet to bullet. If the standard deviation of the BC is not less than 1% of the BC, then a rifle, load combination, and shooter, that is capable of 1.5 MOA 30 shot groups at 100 yards is not capable of even 2 MOA at 1,000 yards.
I am the head engineer at Berger and spend much of my time working on how to make our bullets with a very low distribution of BC variance as is possible. We shoot a sample of bullets from every lot and every shift in a 300 meter indoor range and look at both precision and consistency of BC. I've even redesigned bullet making tooling to bring the SD of BC down.
If you doubt the claim made in this podcast, that it is very hard to achieve 1.5 MOA accuracy, notice I didn't say precision, then I challenge you to take this test. Shoot six five shot groups on one target with a 1.5 MOA circle ️ and try to keep all 30 shots inside that circle. I think you will find that it is very difficult to do, even with a gun that consistently shoots 1/2 MOA individual groups.
Any way, just a very good podcast.

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

This is a great explanation of the precision and accuracy requirements for long range 1st round hits on big game animals vitals in mountainous terrain. It is much more difficult than most people imagine because most people don't actually practice in the mountains enough to fully understand.
I use the same software that was used in this podcast to simulate the performance of our bullets at 1,000 yards and I have found the same results. However, I will add one very important criteria that was not mentioned and that is the consistency of BC from bullet to bullet. If the standard deviation of the BC is not less than 1% of the BC, then a rifle, load combination, and shooter, that is capable of 1.5 MOA 30 shot groups at 100 yards is not capable of even 2 MOA at 1,000 yards.
I am the head engineer at Berger and spend much of my time working on how to make our bullets with a very low distribution of BC variance as is possible. We shoot a sample of bullets from every lot and every shift in a 300 meter indoor range and look at both precision and consistency of BC. I've even redesigned bullet making tooling to bring the SD of BC down.
If you doubt the claim made in this podcast, that it is very hard to achieve 1.5 MOA accuracy, notice I didn't say precision, then I challenge you to take this test. Shoot six five shot groups on one target with a 1.5 MOA circle ️ and try to keep all 30 shots inside that circle. I think you will find that it is very difficult to do, even with a gun that consistently shoots 1/2 MOA individual groups.
Any way, just a very good podcast.

That's pretty awesome to being able to bring the SD of the BC down. Impressive.

What would be even better would be to make or design a machine to crank out bullets 1000 times faster. We/Need more bullets to play with.

 

[cabelasken]

100%.

People should go shoot in actual mountains at distance on vital-sized targets and realize chasing small groups and shooting a flat range or on a bench is not your best use of practice time. Most folks cannot call wind within 4 mph at their position, let alone at the target and in between. Especially in mountainous terrain.

Wind, updrafts, downdrafts, shooting position, brush/obstacles, slopes, rifle zero, heart rate, etc are legitimate hunting variables that nobody accounts for in stale shooting practice.

Then add a timer to up the pressure and folks really fall apart.

about 12 years ago I shot a 6X6 bull at 1/4 mile from the point of one ridge to a meadow. As we approach the point, the guide said this was as close as we would be able to get and that I had 5 minutes of shooting time left so I dropped my backpack and took a firm prone position to make the shot. At the shot, the bull dropped on the spot. When I stood up, I noticed a strong crosswind which I never picked up on as we crawled the last 30 yds. As I approached the bull, I noticed the bullet struck him dead center of the base of the neck - about 14 inches from where I had aimed. The guide over dinner was telling his father, a former guide of the shot I made and the father asked if I always shot them in the neck. I said I MISSED that bull by 14" from where I had aimed!!!

 

[biednick]

That kind of how I look at it. Your ES & ED aren't very small. Shooting beyond 500 yds you can get into trouble making that shot.

Velocity variation doesn't matter nearly as much as most people think either. Below 10fps SD you'll see next to no improvement. The difference between 15fps and 3fps is about a 3% increase in hit probability at 700yd.

Improving your wind reading, choosing a good cartridge, and using a good rangefinder have a significantly bigger impact than anything you can do at the bench. Two of those you can throw money at, one takes a lot of practice and rounds down range. The vast majority of shooters would be better off with a load they can put togeter quickly and inexpensively, and spending their time and money at the range rather than the bench.

 

[Huntnful]

This is a great explanation of the precision and accuracy requirements for long range 1st round hits on big game animals vitals in mountainous terrain. It is much more difficult than most people imagine because most people don't actually practice in the mountains enough to fully understand.
I use the same software that was used in this podcast to simulate the performance of our bullets at 1,000 yards and I have found the same results. However, I will add one very important criteria that was not mentioned and that is the consistency of BC from bullet to bullet. If the standard deviation of the BC is not less than 1% of the BC, then a rifle, load combination, and shooter, that is capable of 1.5 MOA 30 shot groups at 100 yards is not capable of even 2 MOA at 1,000 yards.
I am the head engineer at Berger and spend much of my time working on how to make our bullets with a very low distribution of BC variance as is possible. We shoot a sample of bullets from every lot and every shift in a 300 meter indoor range and look at both precision and consistency of BC. I've even redesigned bullet making tooling to bring the SD of BC down.
If you doubt the claim made in this podcast, that it is very hard to achieve 1.5 MOA accuracy, notice I didn't say precision, then I challenge you to take this test. Shoot six five shot groups on one target with a 1.5 MOA circle ️ and try to keep all 30 shots inside that circle. I think you will find that it is very difficult to do, even with a gun that consistently shoots 1/2 MOA individual groups.
Any way, just a very good podcast.

That's awesome info dude! One thing I cannot stand about Berger's, is their insanely inconsistent tips. They can vary by over .010 in length and have different angles to them. Some tips are collapsed, some are open. What the heck is up with that? Is there no way to correct that during manufacturing?

 

[3800fps]

Living in mountainous Nevada, 50 years experience and 25 half-minute rifles later, I'm absolutely certain 400 yds is the extreme limit on game animals for seasoned, well practiced good shooters such as myself…
None of us can assess correctly the many variables that present in field conditions with regularity certain enough to be slinging lead at 700, 800 yds at a worthy trophy…ringing steel is fun but winging animals is not.

 

[Mike D Texas]

That's awesome info dude! One thing I cannot stand about Berger's, is their insanely inconsistent tips. They can vary by over .010 in length and have different angles to them. Some tips are collapsed, some are open. What the heck is up with that? Is there no way to correct that during manufacturing?

This is why I trim meplats and make sure the tips are drilled. It sacrifices a little BC but less that .1 MIL out to 800 yards on a 300NMI.

 

[Stokesrjsr]

That's pretty awesome to being able to bring the SD of the BC down. Impressive.

What would be even better would be to make or design a machine to crank out bullets 1000 times faster. We/Need more bullets to play with.

Yeah, I know. We are adding equipment as fast as we can without compromising quality. But it seems like every new machine we bring on line comes with an equal increase in backlog.

 

[Huntnful]

This is why I trim meplats and make sure the tips are drilled. It sacrifices a little BC but less that .1 MIL out to 800 yards on a 300NMI.

I do the same, but why can't they just make them correct at the factory lol. Why do I need a $200 meplat trimmer and spend a bunch of time trimming meplats, when they should just come that way hahaha.

 

[LRNut]

I listened to the entire podcast but I wonder how many who posted on this thread did based on the comments.

I have said many times I love the WEZ approach; I founded a software company that provides data analytics to just about every paper mill in the US (and a few other industries) and consequently, I am a huge fan of applying statistics to shooting. You can't argue with math.

A few things I wished he would have said:
1. Practicing on a range is almost a waste of time for the simple fact you have wind flags and you can see wind at the target from the "puffs" of dirt from other shooters. Huge advantage.
2. Time of flight at ranges beyond 900 yards will degrade your wind call simply because even if perfect, it can change during the TOF (it would be great if this could be modeled).
3. One shot is the best practice (anyone can correct a wind miss and generally be better the second shot although they can certainly "chase the wind") but even when I hit my 4" square at 900 (which is maybe 20% of the time in favorable conditions) I often wonder if I missed the wind but the natural group dispersion made up for it (Jack O'Connor used to call this the "wibbles making up for the wobbles").
4. A discussion of mirage would be a great podcast. In my experience, the higher the humidity, the easier it is to read mirage.
5. It is amazing how many times when I shoot in the mountains at my Colorado place (which is several times a day when I am there) I might think the wind is zero, especially after sunrise but before there is mirage, but a shot at 900 proves otherwise. I can't tell you how many times I think my zero is off, or the barrel is dirty, etc. so I walk 30 feet to my gun vault, grab another rifle, and promptly hit the same place. My observation is that in Arizona if I call it calm in the morning, I am almost never fooled.

if you listen to the podcast, he is essentially saying that no one has any business shooting at game beyond 600 yards and only then if their wind call skills are great; the 700 yard example was on a 14"x14" target with a 1/2 mph wind call, which he said was not realistic. Maybe 14"x14" works for a moose or elk, but not on a deer and certainly not on an antelope.

 

[Stokesrjsr]

That's awesome info dude! One thing I cannot stand about Berger's, is their insanely inconsistent tips. They can vary by over .010 in length and have different angles to them. Some tips are collapsed, some are open. What the heck is up with that? Is there no way to correct that during manufacturing?

I think you will find that has been greatly improved as of late. As silly as it seems the problem is with a molecular level of hydrocarbons on the surface of the jacket and how that affects the draw of the jacket in the dies. The wash chemistry is the key to controlling that aspect. However it will be towards the end of the year before the equipment is in place to control it as well as we need to.
In the mean time the looks of the meplat are less important to precision than you would think, the ugliest still shoot less than 1/2 MOA in our 300 meter test tunnel.

This is why I trim meplats and make sure the tips are drilled. It sacrifices a little BC but less that .1 MIL out to 800 yards on a 300NMI.

Yes, trading a little BC for a more consistent BC is a wise choice.

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

if you listen to the podcast, he is essentially saying that no one has any business shooting at game beyond 600 yards and only then if their wind call skills are great; the 700 yard example was on a 14"x14" target with a 1/2 mph wind call, which he said was not realistic. Maybe 14"x14" works for a moose or elk, but not on a deer and certainly not on an antelope.

This exactly what I took away from this podcast. That ethical hunting should be limited to sub 500 yards due to OUR inconsistencies of precise wind calls.