Posted: 5/22/2009 6:50:10 AM EDT
|
Before you leave any snotty responses, answer me 3 questions:
1) How much do you have wrapped up in your gun, scope and bench vise? My set-up was under $200, and that includes the table, beer, cigarettes and 2 boxes of ammo. 2) A sporting clay is 4" across and a ram silhouette is 5", does it look any bigger thru your scope then a1.5 inch egg does thru a $20 Tasco? 3) Could you actually hit any of those targets WITHOUT the vise or scope or the bipod? ...I can. NOT ME AT ALL, it was just a Video I found and he made a few good points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvZMj_4YmZY&feature=related |
|
My 700 was bought as just an action. The rest was built by a smith about 12 years ago, I don't remember what it cost. The scope was around 1,100 IIRC.
My Leopold will hold a zero better then that $20 POS Hell-mart scope you got. The 700 does not have fixed sights so why the hell would I shoot the gun w/o sights? You sound like a idiot. ETA-opps. 
|
|
Quoted:
My 700 was bought as just an action. The rest was built by a smith about 12 years ago, I don't remember what it cost. The scope was around 1,100 IIRC. My Leopold will hold a zero better then that $20 POS Hell-mart scope you got. You sound like a idiot. Thats not me it was a video I found on Youtube. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My 700 was bought as just an action. The rest was built by a smith about 12 years ago, I don't remember what it cost. The scope was around 1,100 IIRC. My Leopold will hold a zero better then that $20 POS Hell-mart scope you got. You sound like a idiot. Thats not me it was a video I found on Youtube. O sorry, its early.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My 700 was bought as just an action. The rest was built by a smith about 12 years ago, I don't remember what it cost. The scope was around 1,100 IIRC. My Leopold will hold a zero better then that $20 POS Hell-mart scope you got. You sound like a idiot. Thats not me it was a video I found on Youtube. O sorry, its early. No problem, I just agree with the guy that a person who uses a vise and claims he is the shit drives me nuts, its one thing to zero a rifle or finding the best hand load for your rifle is ok with me. One of my pet peeves is a person claiming he made this bad ass shot and they claim to have all this "skill". Then to come and find out the only thing they did was pull the trigger. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My 700 was bought as just an action. The rest was built by a smith about 12 years ago, I don't remember what it cost. The scope was around 1,100 IIRC. My Leopold will hold a zero better then that $20 POS Hell-mart scope you got. You sound like a idiot. Thats not me it was a video I found on Youtube. O sorry, its early. No problem, I just agree with the guy that a person who uses a vise and claims he is the shit drives me nuts, its one thing to zero a rifle or finding the best hand load for your rifle is ok with me. One of my pet peeves is a person claiming he made this bad ass shot and they claim to have all this "skill". Then to come and find out the only thing they did was pull the trigger. We have a guy that shoots at our local 300 yard range that uses some kinda 'lead sled' that has a hydraulic trigger thing. He uses a button to fire the gun. I usually shoot prone off of one sandbag. |
|
well he's right but so wrong. reminds me of my dad when he gets a few too many beers takes a fact it is "just" chemistry(which while it is it also has some geometry or is it trigonometry) and then over simplifies it while ignoring everything else and bam that's his proof. A mini14 will the cheapest shit you can put in it will hit a bulls eye every time at 5 feet so at 500 yards it will too. sorry guy but it takes lots of practice(read skill) to know to aim so much to the left to correct for that slight breeze. anyone can be a "marksman" and hit a target X amount away but it takes skill to shoot dime sized or smaller groups, and frankly an egg at 50 yards is laughable I can to do that with irons and not even a bench if I get some more trigger time I'm hella rusty. Edit: yeah I forgot about the sleds |
|
Quoted:
well he's right but so wrong. reminds me of my dad when he gets a few too many beers takes a fact it is "just" chemistry(which while it is it also has some geometry or is it trigonometry) and then over simplifies it while ignoring everything else and bam that's his proof. A mini14 will the cheapest shit you can put in it will hit a bulls eye every time at 5 feet so at 500 yards it will too. sorry guy but it takes lots of practice(read skill) to know to aim so much to the left to correct for that slight breeze. anyone can be a "marksman" and hit a target X amount away but it takes skill to shoot dime sized or smaller groups, and frankly an egg at 50 yards is laughable I can to do that with irons and not even a bench if I get some more trigger time I'm hella rusty. Yet most of those who use a bench or a sled act like they are the complete shit, it is one thing to have respect for a person to be able to hit a 500 meter target with Irons/scope and get dime size groups. I how ever can not respect a person who does the same thing by using a sled to steady their rifle and claim they have all this skill but can not even come close to the same shot groups with out it. Like I said i have ZERO problems people using it to find their best loads or to zero a weapon. I how ever am sick and tired of guys who thump their chest that they made this sweet shot using a bench or sled to achieve that shot. Then then get so ass hurt when someone calls them on it and they refuse to do it with out their sled. As for the egg comment if you have watched any of his other videos he tells you his vision is not that great in his old age, and he explains why he did it so close. So you people could see him standing over the sled and did not even get behind it to aim. His point was that he did not even have to get behind the weapon and by just pulling the trigger he was able to hit the egg and required ZERO skill to do. |
|
Quoted:
well he's right but so wrong. reminds me of my dad when he gets a few too many beers takes a fact it is "just" chemistry(which while it is it also has some geometry or is it trigonometry) and then over simplifies it while ignoring everything else and bam that's his proof. A mini14 will the cheapest shit you can put in it will hit a bulls eye every time at 5 feet so at 500 yards it will too. sorry guy but it takes lots of practice(read skill) to know to aim so much to the left to correct for that slight breeze. anyone can be a "marksman" and hit a target X amount away but it takes skill to shoot dime sized or smaller groups without strapping your gun into a lead sled, and frankly an egg at 50 yards is laughable I can to do that with irons and not even a bench if I get some more trigger time I'm hella rusty. |
| I dislike bench shooting. I do practically all of mine standing, sitting, or prone. And almost all of that with irons. The only tool I use to steady the rifle is my sling, and sometimes my range bag (not a huge fan of bipods, either). I just don't want a lot of gear between me and my shooting, you know? If I suck at shooting, I want to try to unsuck, not make up for it through gadgetry. |
|
Quoted:
I dislike bench shooting. I do practically all of mine standing, sitting, or prone. And almost all of that with irons. The only tool I use to steady the rifle is my sling, and sometimes my range bag (not a huge fan of bipods, either). I just don't want a lot of gear between me and my shooting, you know? If I suck at shooting, I want to try to unsuck, not make up for it through gadgetry. That was his whole point that people claim to be the shit with all this gear, but can't even come close to doing to the same with out it, so they never get better. People on here are getting so butt hurt and are going after him on the egg thing and can't get past it to see the point he was making is quite valid. His point was that he did not even have to get behind the weapon and by just pulling the trigger he was able to hit the egg and required ZERO skill to do. The egg being at 50 yards had nothing to do with his point, but showing it takes zero skill to hit it with a bench or a sled, verses using with out it. |
|
Quoted:
Before you leave any snotty responses, answer me 3 questions:
1) How much do you have wrapped up in your gun, scope and bench vise? My set-up was under $200, and that includes the table, beer, cigarettes and 2 boxes of ammo. 2) A sporting clay is 4" across and a ram silhouette is 5", does it look any bigger thru your scope then a1.5 inch egg does thru a $20 Tasco? 3) Could you actually hit any of those targets WITHOUT the vise or scope or the bipod? ...I can. NOT ME AT ALL, it was just a Video I found and he made a few good points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvZMj_4YmZY&feature=related Not really good points at all. To respond in order: 1) Who cares how much it costs? Are you saying a $1000 Ruger 10/22 setup is going to be more accurate at 1500 yards than a free Sako TRG-42? Money has nothing to do with it. 2) Again, he touches on the money part, which is irrelevant, however it seems that the issue he's really trying to say here is that a cheap quality scope is as effective as an expensive, higher quality scope. Depending on what he's using it for, he might be right! If you're just going to shoot stuff for fun at 100 yards, go ahead and get a $40 Tasco scope with $10 Wal-Mart rings. There's absolutely no need what-so-ever for steel rings and a Leupold MKIV to shoot stuff at 100 yards. However That kind of setup really doesn't credit the definition and purpose of the term "Marksman". A Marksman doesn't think about hitting a silhouette at 100 yards. At 100 yards a Marksman is thinking about putting every single round through the same hole, a quarter-sized group, or - at worst - the X ring. You will not be able to consistently and reliably do this every single time with the setup he describes. Perhaps, maybe, he could at 100 yards. Now try at 300. 500. 3) Could a Marksman hit a target without a vise or bipod? Probably, but a true marksman does everything in his power to make a rifle as stable as possible. Marksmen shoot to achieve a goal - a purpose. Marksmen don't pull a "hold my beer, watch this". This guy isn't a marksman - he's attacking the definition, the meaning, of the word so he can denigrate it into meeting his current skill level. He decided it's cheaper than buying quality equipment and training, training, training. _MaH |
|
I have been saying this for a while now!!!
In the USMC we learned shooting positions with NO artificial support. When I zero my rifle, I do so from the unsupported prone. My buddies always use some sort of "cheater" method (sandbags, resting the weapon on the magazine) and they have tighter groups.... BUT..... I qualled Rifle Expert ever time in the Corps, and I know that I wont be dragging a bench or a sandbag with me in an actual combat situation... When you are looking at your front site move 10' with every breath over the target that is 500 yards behind it... And somehow you are able to see a white shot spotter ever time.... Fucking priceless! |
|
Quoted:
Not really good points at all. To respond in order: 1) Who cares how much it costs? Are you saying a $1000 Ruger 10/22 setup is going to be more accurate at 1500 yards than a free Sako TRG-42? Money has nothing to do with it. 2) Again, he touches on the money part, which is irrelevant, however it seems that the issue he's really trying to say here is that a cheap quality scope is as effective as an expensive, higher quality scope. Depending on what he's using it for, he might be right! If you're just going to shoot stuff for fun at 100 yards, go ahead and get a $40 Tasco scope with $10 Wal-Mart rings. There's absolutely no need what-so-ever for steel rings and a Leupold MKIV to shoot stuff at 100 yards. However That kind of setup really doesn't credit the definition and purpose of the term "Marksman". A Marksman doesn't think about hitting a silhouette at 100 yards. At 100 yards a Marksman is thinking about putting every single round through the same hole, a quarter-sized group, or - at worst - the X ring. You will not be able to consistently and reliably do this every single time with the setup he describes. Perhaps, maybe, he could at 100 yards. Now try at 300. 500. 3) Could a Marksman hit a target without a vise or bipod? Probably, but a true marksman does everything in his power to make a rifle as stable as possible. Marksmen shoot to achieve a goal - a purpose. Marksmen don't pull a "hold my beer, watch this". This guy isn't a marksman - he's attacking the definition, the meaning, of the word so he can denigrate it into meeting his current skill level. He decided it's cheaper than buying quality equipment and training, training, training. _MaH Did we watch the same video? I'm pretty sure that his point as that any unskilled person can claim to be an elite sub-moa mofo by limiting their shooting to gadgetry, even the cheapest POS gadgetry. He's specifically arguing against using any of this stuff, cheap, expensive, or middlin'. The guy in the video is making the mistake of thinking that the equipment-heavy bench shooters and he both have the same goals. They don't. He (and I) want to improve accuracy under field (or hasty, or improvised, or whatever you want to call it) conditions, they want to improve their accuracy under carefully controlled artificial conditions. Consider it two different sports with roughly similar tools and goals, but completely different in rules and effect; like basketball and soccer, you've got balls, nets, points when the ball goes through the net, teams, and yet a direct comparison of the Lakers' score last night to that of Manchester United would be ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really good points at all. To respond in order: 1) Who cares how much it costs? Are you saying a $1000 Ruger 10/22 setup is going to be more accurate at 1500 yards than a free Sako TRG-42? Money has nothing to do with it. 2) Again, he touches on the money part, which is irrelevant, however it seems that the issue he's really trying to say here is that a cheap quality scope is as effective as an expensive, higher quality scope. Depending on what he's using it for, he might be right! If you're just going to shoot stuff for fun at 100 yards, go ahead and get a $40 Tasco scope with $10 Wal-Mart rings. There's absolutely no need what-so-ever for steel rings and a Leupold MKIV to shoot stuff at 100 yards. However That kind of setup really doesn't credit the definition and purpose of the term "Marksman". A Marksman doesn't think about hitting a silhouette at 100 yards. At 100 yards a Marksman is thinking about putting every single round through the same hole, a quarter-sized group, or - at worst - the X ring. You will not be able to consistently and reliably do this every single time with the setup he describes. Perhaps, maybe, he could at 100 yards. Now try at 300. 500. 3) Could a Marksman hit a target without a vise or bipod? Probably, but a true marksman does everything in his power to make a rifle as stable as possible. Marksmen shoot to achieve a goal - a purpose. Marksmen don't pull a "hold my beer, watch this". This guy isn't a marksman - he's attacking the definition, the meaning, of the word so he can denigrate it into meeting his current skill level. He decided it's cheaper than buying quality equipment and training, training, training. _MaH Did we watch the same video? I'm pretty sure that his point as that any unskilled person can claim to be an elite sub-moa mofo by limiting their shooting to gadgetry, even the cheapest POS gadgetry. He's specifically arguing against using any of this stuff, cheap, expensive, or middlin'. The guy in the video is making the mistake of thinking that the equipment-heavy bench shooters and he both have the same goals. They don't. He (and I) want to improve accuracy under field (or hasty, or improvised, or whatever you want to call it) conditions, they want to improve their accuracy under carefully controlled artificial conditions. Consider it two different sports with roughly similar tools and goals, but completely different in rules and effect; like basketball and soccer, you've got balls, nets, points when the ball goes through the net, teams, and yet a direct comparison of the Lakers' score last night to that of Manchester United would be ridiculous. Nah, didn't watch the video. Just addressed the points the OP listed. Wasn't really able to watch video when I viewed it. _MaH |