D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Yep.
Bullet Selection
- Thread starter OhHeyThereBen
- Start date
Yep.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
To a certain extent yes. Dry fire doesn’t give you any real world feedback though. Bullets do.
I think practice with a particular weapon is grossly overrated once you have your drops confirmed. I put way more rounds down range from a pistol than anything.
To each their own.
To some extent I like shooting 22 because any practice is practice. And there's some fundamental aspects of shooting it can help with. But let's talk about (false) feedback which unrealistic training can easily give you.
You actually get plenty of feedback from dry fire. You see whether you executed your fundamentals correctly or not.
On the other hand, it's not uncommon to completely mess up your shot and still happen to hit well or make a good group. So you get false feedback but in the long run you will certainly see your accuracy deteriorate.
Further, it's easy to adopt a loose shooting position with a 22 or even a 243 and get good results (false feedback) only to shoot a heavier recoiling rifle with the same position and learn otherwise.
Especially when you are starting it's easy to achieve great accuracy at 50 or 100 yards only to have your shooting fall apart at 2-300 let alone further.
Some people can get away with putting a few rounds through 22 and verify their trajectory with their hunting gun. But I would venture to say that these are the people who in previous years have done plenty of realistic shooting and that's what makes them capable of doing such a thing.
As far as I'm concerned, telling someone particularly new that they can verify their sighting off the bench and then switch to a .22 is on the verge of reckless and really just false. And despite the fact that some can make it happen well, this approach is still not optimal.
But back to what started this tangent, bullet price can start to matter when it adds up. Sure, you can sub cheaper bullets or even a 22 but the further you get from the real thing the less optimal your practice is, period. If you aren't careful, unrealistic practice leads to false confidence and false feedback, period.
I also wouldn't shoot a bullet with bad terminal performance. But considering the huge range of bullets with good terminal performance when used correctly I'm at least as concerned about.accuracy and practice.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Believe whatever you want man. No one specified we were talking about new shooters, and I sure as hell didn’t reference new shooters, so I’m not sure where that came from.
You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth there bud. You want to crank a bunch of rounds downrange, knock yourself out. Shooting is fun. A good shooter is a good shooter, irrelevant to what they are shooting.
Bad shots that group well? Not consistently they don’t. Loose shooting positions? I think Dale and I both referenced proper FORM?
A naive shooter relying on dry fire feedback may NEVER pick up on the cues. A good coach will certainly help, and I use dry fire a fair bit with my kids and at work. However to say a naive shooter can get the feedback they need from it is not always true. That’s why we shoot bullets in matches, is for feedback.
False feedbacks? Reckless? Give me a break.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep point is you might be able to cut corners with experience but cutting corners it remains. For some it's just reckless.
Talk about putting words in someone's mouth that would be words going into my mouth on this thread. All this started because I said that bullet cost can add up when you practice with your hunting loads. Amazing some people can fall in such love with a certain bullet or what not that they deride someone for common sense philosophy of training. And im far from being the one who made realistic training up.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I never argued that bullet cost add up. Anyone capable of elementary math can see that is true. For example, two boxes of Hammers a year is $104, which is MORE than one box a year at $57. To me, that's relatively insignificant in my financial world. Others must determine the significance as it directly applies to them.
Cutting corners? Not hardly. If you think it’s cutting corners, then you clearly don’t understand the mechanics of developing muscle memory and fundamentals.
Carry on.
Last edited by a moderator:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Good shooters have (and continue to) learned from all three - dry fire, plinking and practice with actual gun/round. All have their time, their place and their purpose. The mix between them likely varies by shooter, by circumstance, by budget and by distances available for practice. Any mix of these three are better than the guys whose only trigger time of the year is to quickly confirm zero of their rifle at 100yds and then start taking 550yd shots at large animals.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I'm going to address a few things here, and in the process I'm going to make some assumptions. First assumption is, you are a relatively new shooter.
No one claimed it would completely eliminate the need to shoot guns at longer ranges. Practicing with a heavy recoiling gun can be extremely counter productive. A very common practice with teaching kids to shoot is never let them shoot a full house hunting load until they are on an animal, as your goal is to teach them to fully focus on the trigger press and nothing else.
Recoil distracts from focusing on the trigger press. The best way to break a bad habit is never introduce it in the first place. Heavy recoiling guns don't necessarily teach you to handle recoil, they may very well teach you to flinch very badly. Dry fire has it's place in this, but there is FAR more value in ball and dummy shooting as a building block to teach a shooter how to correctly incorporate dry fire.
Slightly less valuable as in "not at all". As long as muzzle velocities are similar and bullet shape is remotely similar, it won't matter. If you are practicing wind estimation, your external ballistics don't remotely affect the shooter's ability to dope the wind. They just affect how much difference you see on the target.
You are trying to encompass "practice" as everything. If you want to be effective at your practice, you have to break it down into specific components you want to improve at i.e. trigger press, breathing, field positions, drops, windage estimation, time to target, etc. If I want to learn my hunting rifle's windage characteristics, then I probably SHOULD shoot my hunting rifle. If I just want to get better at doping wind, then I can use any gun and it won't really matter. Similarly, if I want to decrease my time from cold carry to first round on target from a field position, I probably should use my hunting rifle. If I just want to hone my fundamentals of positional shooting, it doesn't matter what gun I use. If I'm working on my holdover with a duplex reticle, better use my hunting rifle. If I just want to work on precision shooting, it really doesn't matter what I use. Bear in mind, any shooting skill one develops should be tested and proofed with the gun they plan to hunt with.
This makes no sense. Good groups are a combination of consistency and proper fundamentals. If either goes out the window, groups suffer. You may randomly luck out and have a round that flies for the better, but you won't consistently do so. Good shooters can call a bad shot the instant it happens. That only comes with lots of trigger time, which can be achieved with a 22 LR.
Certainly true. Which brings us back to the question of "what are you trying to accomplish?" If it's confidence in a particular setup, you should shoot that one. If you just want to improve your trigger press, it doesn't matter what you shoot.
Wrong. Once again, depends on what you are wanting to specifically improve at. I think your continual reference of false feedback is actually a misunderstanding of what the feedback should specifically be providing. Tiny little groups with a 22 LR from a variety of field positions gives me real world feedback that my fundamentals of positional shooting, trigger press, and breathing are likely spot on. It gives me no real world feedback as to what my particular hunting rifles does at distance. If you try and use this feedback to make a 350 yard shot on a deer, and you haven't practiced with your duplex reticle holdovers, you are trying to connect dots that aren't connectable and you may end up disappointed.
There is absolute truth in this.
I haven't derided anyone for what bullet they want to use. I could care less as long as they are responsible about choosing one. You are accusing others of having tunnel vision with respect to bullets, but I would say you have the same with respect to your common sense philosophy of training.
Unrealistic expectations about the benefits and need for "realism" of practice, training, whatever you want to call it lead to misunderstanding and confusion. Continual reference of things you don't agree with or understand as "reckless" is just that. Trying to simulate real world conditions all the time, in all aspects of your practice is not necessary. In fact, it can be counter productive to do so all the time because it never allows you isolate certain components of shooting and improve at them. There is a lot of science behind motor learning and skill development, and you don't just try to simulate game time conditions for all practice.
If I were to break down the aspects of shooting to practice on for a new hunter they would be:
1) Proper trigger press (done in isolation and with a light recoiling weapon)
2) Positional shooting (done in sequence with #1, same weapon)
3) Accuracy with hunting weapon/introduction to recoil
4) Positional shooting with hunting weapon (builds on 1-3)
5) Verify range drops, establish maximum shooting range
6) Learn to dope wind
7) Practice getting into field positions quickly, get good shot on target
Of these, #3,4,5, and 7 absolutely should be done with the hunting rifle and could be done easily in less than 100 rounds. In fact, these can all be done as ball and dummy drills where the coach loads the rifle for the shooter, who has no idea if the gun is hot or empty. In order to do this most effectively, only 1 out of 4-5 times needs to be a hot gun. This is a wonderful way to teach shooters to call their shots.
The others drills can be done with any gun, .223, 22 LR, 17 HMR, reduced recoil plinker loads, doesn't matter. I shoot bullets that are over a buck a piece. If an extra $100 dollars a year is a significant concern, then one should factor that in when choosing their bullets.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian in Montana
Well-known member
No need to overthink this, guys. 
std7mag
Well-known member
While 22 certainly is good for training/practicei would advocate for following what the sniper community has learned.
It's still easy with bad manners/habits to get halfway decent groups with a 22 at say 50, or even 100 yards.
When supplies dried up, and costs went up the sniper teams started shooting much more 22LR. Difference is they shoot to 300 yards.
Hard to get good groups with bad habits at that distance.
It's still easy with bad manners/habits to get halfway decent groups with a 22 at say 50, or even 100 yards.
When supplies dried up, and costs went up the sniper teams started shooting much more 22LR. Difference is they shoot to 300 yards.
Hard to get good groups with bad habits at that distance.
ClearCreek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
- Messages
- 426
I have hand loaded centerfire ammo for 45 years and 99.5% of the time I have used bullets in red boxes. All of the big game we (my wife and I) have taken have been with Hornady bullets; the majority with Interlock bullets, but three animals (her moose, my sheep and a white tailed deer) have been taken with .284 diameter 154 gr. Hornady Interbond bullets.
Many of our deer and antelope have been shot with .243 diameter 100 gr. Interlock cap and ball bullets fired from a 6mm Remington. These bullets that were purchased as "rejects" from the Hornady factory.
The vast majority of the animals we have taken have been under 200 yards.
Shoot what you want. If you want to pay a premium price for premium bullets have at it. I just don't think it is necessary for big game animals in the lower 48 states.
ClearCreek
Many of our deer and antelope have been shot with .243 diameter 100 gr. Interlock cap and ball bullets fired from a 6mm Remington. These bullets that were purchased as "rejects" from the Hornady factory.
The vast majority of the animals we have taken have been under 200 yards.
Shoot what you want. If you want to pay a premium price for premium bullets have at it. I just don't think it is necessary for big game animals in the lower 48 states.
ClearCreek
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
I also reload TTSX in .270 (130gr) and 300 H & H (180gr).
I used to reload nozler partitions for about 20 years then switched to TTSX about ten years ago.
No complaints about the terminal results.
I enjoyed reading this thread.
We were hunters, not shooters so that might slant our view a bit, as the cost of the bullet was in fact the smallest cost of the trip even with more expensive bullets. We subscribed to the idea that in both the following cases--push feed should be as good as controlled round feed in most cases and that cheap bullets should be as effective as premium butters in most cases. It was the "in most cases" that made us use CRF rifles and premium bullets. When a lion or buffalo is headed your way the thought of "in most cases" had more meaning, at least to us. Same with cost. If paying for a trip to Africa or Europe or even Alaska, the thought again of wounding an animal and not retrieving it ( and you still pay for it ) made us give second thought to "in most cases"
Having said that I remember when my dad was talking about Nosler starting a bullet company and later when Norma started uses Nosler bullets in their product line. Later my husband spoke of when Swift, Northfork, and Woodleigh begin making bullets. AND, I have to admit even though we have used all these new products, we shot and killed a many animals before they started making bullets as we have since they started their companies.--with the exception of Nosler ( and Norma with Nosler ). We have used a lot of the Nosler product. We have in the past even tried Rhino, GSC, Alaska, Bitterroot ( which is no more but my husband loved that product )
So, are the new products, premium products better, IMHO, yes. But it also depends on whether you are hunting White tails in TX or Grizzly in Alaska. Also, my opinion and a nickel will buy you absolutely nothing lol
We were hunters, not shooters so that might slant our view a bit, as the cost of the bullet was in fact the smallest cost of the trip even with more expensive bullets. We subscribed to the idea that in both the following cases--push feed should be as good as controlled round feed in most cases and that cheap bullets should be as effective as premium butters in most cases. It was the "in most cases" that made us use CRF rifles and premium bullets. When a lion or buffalo is headed your way the thought of "in most cases" had more meaning, at least to us. Same with cost. If paying for a trip to Africa or Europe or even Alaska, the thought again of wounding an animal and not retrieving it ( and you still pay for it ) made us give second thought to "in most cases"
Having said that I remember when my dad was talking about Nosler starting a bullet company and later when Norma started uses Nosler bullets in their product line. Later my husband spoke of when Swift, Northfork, and Woodleigh begin making bullets. AND, I have to admit even though we have used all these new products, we shot and killed a many animals before they started making bullets as we have since they started their companies.--with the exception of Nosler ( and Norma with Nosler ). We have used a lot of the Nosler product. We have in the past even tried Rhino, GSC, Alaska, Bitterroot ( which is no more but my husband loved that product )
So, are the new products, premium products better, IMHO, yes. But it also depends on whether you are hunting White tails in TX or Grizzly in Alaska. Also, my opinion and a nickel will buy you absolutely nothing lol
Last edited:
Don Fischer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 3,016
How long did it take to find a pair of boot's to pay $500 for?
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,405
Kenetrek, Schnees, Scarpa, La Sportiva... pretty much any decent boot is going to cost $400+ retail.
Don, you are obviously out of the loop. Some of us don't wear crappy boots or shoot cheap bullets. Just a choice to be made. mtmuley
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Thanks for the points of view guys. I always appreciate your reloading advice.
I think I'll work up a couple of different loads and do more experimentation with more spendy bullets this summer to see what works. We had amazing success with ELD-X and SSTs this fall on whitetails and antelope (all one shot drops without hardly a twitch afterward) but the things do considerable damage if the shot isn't placed correctly. The monometal bullets or accubonds seem appealing but I would imagine that without the catastrophic damage the animals probably won't drop as quickly.
I'm personally of the opinion that a 22 can be great for learning to hunt/shoot. To me there's nothing that teaches hunting skills better than putting perfect headshots on fall squirrels. And you can learn quite a bit by reading wind on a 100 yard 22 shot. Before I started reloading I hardly shot my 30-06 for recreation. But I also never shot an animal at over 200 yards. As long as a person is realistic with their shots I don't think this is a problem at all.
I think I'll work up a couple of different loads and do more experimentation with more spendy bullets this summer to see what works. We had amazing success with ELD-X and SSTs this fall on whitetails and antelope (all one shot drops without hardly a twitch afterward) but the things do considerable damage if the shot isn't placed correctly. The monometal bullets or accubonds seem appealing but I would imagine that without the catastrophic damage the animals probably won't drop as quickly.
I'm personally of the opinion that a 22 can be great for learning to hunt/shoot. To me there's nothing that teaches hunting skills better than putting perfect headshots on fall squirrels. And you can learn quite a bit by reading wind on a 100 yard 22 shot. Before I started reloading I hardly shot my 30-06 for recreation. But I also never shot an animal at over 200 yards. As long as a person is realistic with their shots I don't think this is a problem at all.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I shot an antelope buck and an elk doe with TTSX bullets (100 grain and 130 grain respectively) this season. One from 284y and the other about 150y. Each dropped in their tracks with one double lung shot, no meat damage. YMMV.
