Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48395
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    In this article the author discusses accuracy issues associated with different shooting techniques.

    http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Hold+that+Forend.html

    #48398
    Profile photo of sledjockey
    sledjockey
    Bushcrafter
    member8

    That is an interesting article, not that I fully believe all aspects of it without really studying it. I like to shoot at distance and have a tendency to use a wide variety of techniques all dependent upon the situation. The one that I don’t like is putting pressure on the scope because I have found that I get a larger grouping, depending on what rifle system I am using. I suspect it deals with the stock and the way the barrel is floated.

    It is a very interesting article though. It reminds me of the debates between pistol stances.

    http://ageofdecadence.com

    #48401
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    More of an Op-Ed, than a true study.

    Comparing military open sighted rifles and the style of the day to the “modern” technique and rifles is hardly a
    truly valid comparison.

    The mechanics of sling location and it’s effect on accuracy, let alone what the rest is comprised of (how soft), the rifle barrel itself heating up and shifting, etc., all play into the question and answer.

    Without an in-depth study, same rifle, same rests, different shooters, slings, etc., etc., it’s hardly worth having an opinion yet.

    #48403
    Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
    GeorgiaSaint
    Veteran
    member9

    Perhaps for the experts here this wasn’t helpful, but from one quite far from that end of the spectrum I found it quite interesting and potentially helpful. I suspect there is much that could improve my own accuracy in that article, and more than a single quick read will be paid to it on my part.

    Over the course of more than 30 years of practice in my primary profession, I learned a lot that wasn’t necessarily developed through the use of extensive controlled studies. While essential and appreciated, carefully developed scientific studies resulting in statistically derived levels of confidence in the study conclusions, aren’t all there is. Sometimes observation and experience can be as important to the scientific method and statistical analysis. I guess that’s why I appreciated the article – it looked at real-world experience over time, along with the reasons for changes that were made, and the results. That appeals to me in a different way then the scientific method and statistics also appeal to me. I appreciate them both. Thanks, 74.

    GS
    "Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

    #48411
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Consistency is the real key no matter what technique you use. Shooting is solving physics and engineering problems. As long as the firing setup and recoil reaction is identical, the path of the bullet will be the same (excluding external ballistics and ammunition variations). That’s why they teach using a relaxed supported body. It’s easier to replicate then tension in the human frame, plus you move the gun less.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by Profile photo of 74 74.
    #48435
    Profile photo of Brulen
    Brulen
    Survivalist
    member9

    I like to use a bipod but I’ve never seen anybody put a hand over the scope before. Must be all my previous shooting technique is out of date. I’ve always thought they were so delicate any pressure on the tube might change the point of impact. But then I always did buy cheap scopes. Shooting has gone so high tec I’m just happy to use original sights and estimate.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.