Posted: 3/16/2015 8:02:46 PM EDT
|
the shoot for the green PRS match in Oklahoma this past weekend had an interesting stage. Four plywood deer silhouettes were positioned at different distances with an 8" circle cut out and a steel gong hung in it, representing the vital zone. Shooters had to start with the closest deer and get two hits on it before progressing to the next farthest one. Max round count was 10 rounds.
Of course, it's not a laboratory "scientific" test, but it's certainly interesting data. imho It's quite a bit easier than an actual hunt because the deer didn't move. The ranges were known. It was shot from a very stable prone position with no grass or other interference. The deer were perfectly broadside. AND you had several dozen very good shooters sharing wind calls with each other and adjusting their plans based on watching the impacts as others shot the course. Over the day, most shooters were holding between 5-10mph wind on this stage, which is pretty dang calm for western oklahoma The results? out of 87 shooters 17% couldn't even get 2 hits on an 8" vitals area at 425 yards with 10 tries 32% got 2 hits at 425 yards, but couldn't get 2 hits at 574 yards 44% got 2 hits at 425 and 574, but couldn't get 2 hits at 754 yards 7% got 2 hits at 425, 574 and 754, but weren't able to get 2 hits at 942 yards 0% got 2 hits on all 4 deer Put another way, 83% hit the 425 yard deer (even though some may have taken all 10 rounds to get their 2 hits) 51% hit the 574 yard deer 7% hit the 754 yard deer nobody hit all 4 Equally interesting, only ONE shooter in that 7% was in the top 15. i.e. the match winner only hit 2 deer. Of the 14 guys behind him, only one got 3 deer. So it isn't really the case that we should be confident that these are high percentage targets for the "best shooters" Also, I know several shooters did take a shot at nearby rocks to get a wind call before engaging the deer targets, since you couldn't see misses on the plywood at that distance. So that strategy is factored into the results. overall, i shot poorly, but i did get 2 hits on 3 deer but missed the 942 yard deer. |
|
This goes to show why it is generally inhumane to shoot live animals at over 300 yards,
with the exception of someone who can reliably: a) read wind and adjust for it, b) perform ranging and adjust for it c) knows their cartridge ballistics d) makes the minute adjustments for density/altitude e) understand what slope does to ballistics and adjust for it. |
|
That is some really good data! The results are really close to what I thought would be the case. I was out today and made 4 hits at 1665 yards with my 260, but it took several shots to get on target. That target was a 22" wide octagon shaped gong. It was a tough day which required 3.4 mils of windage at that range. I also made hits at 1280 yards with only 1 or 2 misses before making consistent hints after that. I will have to replay my video to see if it was a 2nd or 3rd round hit. I was using 2.0 mils of windage at that distance.
Even after a day like today feeling good about myself I wouldn't attempt a shot in a hunting situation beyond 300 yards and maybe 400 if it was perfect conditions. Thank you for sharing the data. I really believe that gives some good solid real world percentages of hit probability in even the most perfect of hunting situations. |
This is something I deal with all the time. When running a lot of precision rifle training, competing, and seeing what real world results are versus claims and the easy discussion of long-range hunting, I know that most seasoned LR hunters almost always make a registered shot in the area, or multiple registered shots with a range card approach. You have to be an exceptional shooter to make a confident 1st-round hit at 400yds within the vital zone of a deer. We have mule deer up here in Utah, which stretch all the way down to New Mexico in mountainous terrain, so they are appropriately classified as large game, with a bit bigger vitals. This is why I recommend hunters to take or set up a long range field course where they come upon targets of opportunity at distance, range them with a LRF, determine a solution based on atmospherics and known performance data, and make shots on small steel targets covering 1-2 days before hunting season. Simply showing up to the zero range with a box of Core Lokts, then heading out to a hunt is unethical already in my book. Most hunting rifles are not zero'd, even after zeroing them at the range, because they have just shot them enough to loosen the scope mount and rings in many cases. Long Range Hunting is something that takes a lot of training to get competent enough to make even intermediate hits into vitals. |
|
For reference,
http://www.chuckhawks.com/kill_zone_game_animals.htm When you look at "Large Game", you are talking about "Vital" or "Kill" Zones that are: Elk = 14.5"-15.5" Moose = 18"-21.5" If you take a look at Bryan Litz's WEZ work, you can start to take into account everything that comes in play when taking a long range shot, and what the actual chances are of making a shot: 
Looking at a round with performance levels of a 7mm Mag, and using the 15" numbers (given that is well within the vital zone for large game) Shooter & Rifle System - these numbers assume Sub MOA performance, so this is NOT your average anything. This level of performance is very achievable, however it is obviously not just a given. Wind - Best Case Scenario is +/- 1 MPH, with a more conservative number being +/- 5 MPH At +/- 1 MPH, you could go out to 900 yards with a 99% success rate, but at +/- 5 MPH that drops to 500 yards with a 97% success rate. Range - Best Case Scenario is +/- 5 Yards, with a more conservative number being +/- 50 yards At +/- 5 Yards, you could go out to 900 yards with a 99% success rate, but at +/- 50 yards that drops to 400 yards with a 94% success rate. So, Best Case Scenario: Wind +/- 1 MPH and Range +/- 5 Yards = 900 yards with a 99% success rate Worst Case Scenario: Wind +/- 5 MPH and Range +/- 50 Yards = 400 yards with a 93% success rate Needless to say, that is a huge range of potential results. What will the results ultimately be, all comes down to how well all of the variables above can be addressed? Best of Luck, M Richardson |