Long range builds

[nvertedbrett]

Trying to get some discussion going:
What are some of your favorite actions, barrels, chassis, calibers, etc for long range shooting and hunting and what are your primary purposes?

Also interested in bullet selection for different cartridges and why you guys like them.

Not asking anything too specific but curious what you guys like to run and why you like to run it!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

.Tikka/Sako chambered in .260 or 6.5 CM
.Hornady 143 ELDX, 140 ELDM, and 129 SST

Reliable, accurate, deadly.

 

[TradLife406]

I built a 6.5 PRC a few years ago for a prairie rifle. It's been an incredible caliber for what I needed. But coming from a 308 anything is better
Used a Bighorn Origin, Carbon 6 barrel, trigger tech diamond, Greyboe bottom metal and a AGC stock. Mark 5 5-25 and an Ultra 7 suppressor.

To do it again I'd not go with the Origin action. It's really good. But for a little more I could have gotten something with a shorter bolt throw. There's not much room between the bolt and my scope. The action is great other wise. But I think for about 200 more I could have gotten something with a 60 degree throw.

 

[wind gypsy]

I built a 6.5 PRC a few years ago for a prairie rifle. It's been an incredible caliber for what I needed. But coming from a 308 anything is better
Used a Bighorn Origin, Carbon 6 barrel, trigger tech diamond, Greyboe bottom metal and a AGC stock. Mark 5 5-25 and an Ultra 7 suppressor.

To do it again I'd not go with the Origin action. It's really good. But for a little more I could have gotten something with a shorter bolt throw. There's not much room between the bolt and my scope. The action is great other wise. But I think for about 200 more I could have gotten something with a 60 degree throw.

Mount scope higher or lengthen bolt handle might get you the clearance you seek. The whole mounting a scope as low as possible and getting a solid cheek weld thing seems way over-rated.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Trying to get some discussion going:
What are some of your favorite actions, barrels, chassis, calibers, etc for long range shooting and hunting and what are your primary purposes?

Also interested in bullet selection for different cartridges and why you guys like them.

Not asking anything too specific but curious what you guys like to run and why you like to run it!

Purpose: Shooting and hunting from supported positions. I have zero interest in taking an offhand/kneeling shot past 50 yards on an elk or similar sized animal. I am fine with the idea I may lose out on some animals with those restrictions. My shots are prone, clamped into my RRS tripod, or off a Gamechanger bag front rest in a box stand / other supported position. I am not an ultra weight-conscious backpacker so my guns are heavier.

Chassis: I like KRG X-Rays and Bravos for chassis. I used Manners stocks for a few years and briefly had an MPA Competition chassis but really nothing has fit me as well as the KRG.

Barrels: I'm a Bartlein loyalist. I do have a Proof carbon barrel from before Bartlein started making their own carbon fiber barrels but since they do now, I won't stray outside of the Bartlein brand for barrels.

Suppressors: I'm a TBAC loyalist here and see no reason to stray outside the brand. I have the entire Ultra series of suppressors and I will eventually add a Magnus too.

Triggers: I've tried TriggerTech but to be honest I just plain dislike single stage triggers. I'm now 100% set on using Huber two-stage triggers for all of my precision rifles and won't stray from that brand either. There are other two-stage triggers around but the TT and B&A ones both have spotty reputations where reliability is concerned and the Tubb is apparently great but requires a fair bit of inletting in any stock/chassis.

Bipod: I use an Atlas CAL but if I had the money I'd love to try out an MDT Ckye pod double pull. It's just way down on my priorities list because if I need any more height than my bipod allows I can just use my tripod.

Scope Rings: I settled on only using ARC rings years ago. I've tried NF and Seekins rings but the ARC ones are just nice for scope installation since they don't cant the scope during torque. Any rings work though and if I were to stray outside the ARC brand it would probably be for Badger Ordnance steel 6-screw rings.

Scope Levels: I've mainly just used Vortex scope bubble levels up to this point but I'm moving to electronic as a test. I noticed on my last hunt when getting set up to shoot off my tripod I had to spend more time than I wanted looking at the level instead of the scope. I picked up an MDT Send-It electronic level that I'm going to try out because I don't have to look at it at all.

Scope Caps: I only use Aadland ones personally but I'm sure Tenebraex are great too.

 

[JohnJohnson]

The whole mounting a scope as low as possible and getting a solid cheek weld thing seems way over-rated.

Getting a solid cheek weld is a good thing but the habit of people mounting scopes as low as possible is kind of ridiculous if their cheek rest allows them to go higher. Scope mount height should always be chosen for comfort and you don't have to roll your head as much if it's a bit higher. However every time I say that someone jumps in with the dumb myth about higher scopes exaggerating rifle cant or some other thing. Chalk it up to one more time where conventional wisdom was wrong in the hunting/shooting community.

 

[wind gypsy]

Getting a solid cheek weld is a good thing but the habit of people mounting scopes as low as possible is kind of ridiculous if their cheek rest allows them to go higher. Scope mount height should always be chosen for comfort and you don't have to roll your head as much if it's a bit higher. However every time I say that someone jumps in with the dumb myth about higher scopes exaggerating rifle cant or some other thing. Chalk it up to one more time where conventional wisdom was wrong in the hunting/shooting community.

Seems like lots of folks who are concerned with a good cheek weld put a bunch of face pressure on the stock and do themselves more harm than good.

 

[ManBun]

My Elk rifle is a 300 PRC loaded with 215 Bergers. Action is a Lone Peak Fuzion Ti with a McMillan Game Hunter stock, Proof 24” Sendero carbon barrel with a Jewel trigger, using a Nightforce 5-25x56 ATACR scope.
My Deer rifle is a 7saum loaded with 175
Eld-x, Defiance Anti-x XM length action, Benchmark Sendero Lite 22” barrel, AG composite privateer stock, trigger tech diamond trigger and a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 scope.
I hunt pretty open areas for elk and wanted a gun that was capable out to 1000 yards where I hunt. That 300 PRC with the 215 Bergers just hammers elk! Used it on a couple mule deer and wanted a lighter package for climbing around in the mountains, so came the 7 saum!

 

[Backcountryrealtor17]

I built a 6.5 PRC on a Tikka action that I really enjoy. Had it paired with a Proof 24" Sendero contour barrel and area 419 Hellfire brake. The brake is great but as with all brakes, everyone shooting next to you suffers. Had a trigger spring put in as the tikka trigger is good enough for me. Picked up an NX8 4-32x50 and married it to some warne precision rings, which are married to a 20 MOA area 419 rail. This is my "backcountry" gun that I would take on any trips where I am doing 8+ miles/day with it for anything less than Elk. the 300 PRC mentioned below will be a bear rifle for shorter day trips, as well as my Elk rifle for all hunts. I have no problem packing more weight on a rifle that shoots sweeter than a 6lb .30cal magnum - These are usually the guys that punch the shit out of their trigger and wonder why they are tracking animals for hours.

Originally, I had it in a Mesa Precision altitude, then sold that for a chassis, only to buy another MPA because of lead times and my lack of research lol. Fast forward to today and I have since replaced that with an XLR Magnesium 4.0 with all the carbon fixins and the folding stock. Really like it as I am able to hook up to my tripod instantly to take steeper angle shots. I have a Spartan Long bipod for it as well as I look for prone shots when I can. Came in really handy when I killed a bear few years back and was able to lay perfectly prone on the top of a knob. Without that taller bipod, I would have been in the grass. To each their own.

I have not started reloading this rifle yet as I only finished the build about a year ago and the jump to start reloading is much more expensive than it used to be.

With that being said, I am now building a 300 PRC on a Defiance Ruckus action. Had too much fun piecing this 6.5 together so I thought "wow I can do this again and spend even more money, how cool" - relatable huh..

Looking for recommendations for the 300 PRC. Was thinking I might try one of the Proof Prefit barrel blanks to mate with the defiance action, but do not want to take the "Cheap" route if it will not pay off.

 

[nvertedbrett]

Some interesting feedback in here, in my experience having a better cheek weld to match scope height has made more of a difference than strictly trying to get a scope as low as possible.
I think it's also a fair point to call out that overall ergonomics between the stock shape and where the action lies also plays to the decision making of how we're mounting scopes as well as personal preference before changing actions around on a sole basis if bolt throw.

 

[nvertedbrett]

Purpose: Shooting and hunting from supported positions. I have zero interest in taking an offhand/kneeling shot past 50 yards on an elk or similar sized animal. I am fine with the idea I may lose out on some animals with those restrictions. My shots are prone, clamped into my RRS tripod, or off a Gamechanger bag front rest in a box stand / other supported position. I am not an ultra weight-conscious backpacker so my guns are heavier.

Chassis: I like KRG X-Rays and Bravos for chassis. I used Manners stocks for a few years and briefly had an MPA Competition chassis but really nothing has fit me as well as the KRG.

Barrels: I'm a Bartlein loyalist. I do have a Proof carbon barrel from before Bartlein started making their own carbon fiber barrels but since they do now, I won't stray outside of the Bartlein brand for barrels.

Suppressors: I'm a TBAC loyalist here and see no reason to stray outside the brand. I have the entire Ultra series of suppressors and I will eventually add a Magnus too.

Triggers: I've tried TriggerTech but to be honest I just plain dislike single stage triggers. I'm now 100% set on using Huber two-stage triggers for all of my precision rifles and won't stray from that brand either. There are other two-stage triggers around but the TT and B&A ones both have spotty reputations where reliability is concerned and the Tubb is apparently great but requires a fair bit of inletting in any stock/chassis.

Bipod: I use an Atlas CAL but if I had the money I'd love to try out an MDT Ckye pod double pull. It's just way down on my priorities list because if I need any more height than my bipod allows I can just use my tripod.

Scope Rings: I settled on only using ARC rings years ago. I've tried NF and Seekins rings but the ARC ones are just nice for scope installation since they don't cant the scope during torque. Any rings work though and if I were to stray outside the ARC brand it would probably be for Badger Ordnance steel 6-screw rings.

Scope Levels: I've mainly just used Vortex scope bubble levels up to this point but I'm moving to electronic as a test. I noticed on my last hunt when getting set up to shoot off my tripod I had to spend more time than I wanted looking at the level instead of the scope. I picked up an MDT Send-It electronic level that I'm going to try out because I don't have to look at it at all.

Scope Caps: I only use Aadland ones personally but I'm sure Tenebraex are great too.

Really appreciate the input here and from the other backcountry guys who aren't as concerned with weight.

I'm primarily after NE whitetails so not a ton of open field with the exception of a few areas but the best thing I did was start carrying a bag for my rifle as I can really get a solid lock up on a rest for not a lot of punishment carrying it along.

I'd have to dig in but there's also some interesting data on the recoil impulse of rifles based on weight and the purported affect on a rifle being able to maintain accuracy from the time of combustion to the time the bullet exits the barrel.

On an aside what kind of contours are you guys running for your barrels?

 

[JohnJohnson]

On an aside what kind of contours are you guys running for your barrels?

My heavier hunting rifle has a 16.5" Bartlein with a Rem Sendero contour. My other barrel is a 22" carbon fiber Proof in the Proof Sendero contour.

 

[hereinaz]

Mount scope higher or lengthen bolt handle might get you the clearance you seek. The whole mounting a scope as low as possible and getting a solid cheek weld thing seems way over-rated.

Low scopes are problematic for stress/tension free shooting and getting into a consistent head position to get in the eyebox.

I ise high rings and use my jaw to index. But, having my head in a relaxed position, it’s easy to tip it into the eyebox without thinking.

Cheekweld also pushes the rifle butt down and to the right, making the recoil push the barrel up and to the left. Watch where your sight picture moves. It will track where the cheek weld pushes it quite often unless you have some other stuff going on.

 

[Formidilosus]

Low scopes are problematic for stress/tension free shooting

So you believe that stress/tension free shooting equals “better” performance? Across the board? And is this regardless of the type of shooting?

and getting into a consistent head position to get in the eyebox.

Ehh. How does a lower height of the optic make getting a consistent head position more difficult?

I ise high rings and use my jaw to index. But, having my head in a relaxed position, it’s easy to tip it into the eyebox without thinking.

The whole “higher mounted” scope thing with a jaw weld has proven to be about the same as the ultra short 12.5” LOP that is being pushed primarily by the PRS shooters/community. In certain types of generally contrived shooting it’s fine, however across the board field shooting with hunting rifles and shooting a lot of rounds with a lot of people with varying height mounts and cheekwelds- given proper cheekweld and recoil pad height- lower consistently shows to be better. I.E., mounting a scope higher than required has no advantage, but several disadvantages.

Cheekweld also pushes the rifle butt down and to the right, making the recoil push the barrel up and to the left. Watch where your sight picture moves. It will track where the cheek weld pushes it quite often unless you have some other stuff going on.

Yes, excessive cheek pressure does that- just like excessive jaw weld does. There is a middle ground of solid, but not jammed cheek pressure that not only makes quick sight alignment by kinesthetics possible, but also helps recoil control and tracking through recoil more consistent.

 

[willfrye027]

Long range: tikka 25 creedmoor 26” barrel about 9.5lbs with scope

Mid range: tikka 22 creedmoor 22” barrel about 8.5lbs with scope

In the future the 25 creedmoor might be replaced with a 6 creedmoor or just a heavier 22 creedmoor. But I have at least 1000 rounds to go through that barrel until it needs a new tube

 

[hereinaz]

So you believe that stress/tension free shooting equals “better” performance? Across the board? And is this regardless of the type of shooting?






Ehh. How does a lower height of the optic make getting a consistent head position more difficult?





The whole “higher mounted” scope thing with a jaw weld has proven to be about the same as the ultra short 12.5” LOP that is being pushed primarily by the PRS shooters/community. In certain types of generally contrived shooting it’s fine, however across the board field shooting with hunting rifles and shooting a lot of rounds with a lot of people with varying height mounts and cheekwelds- given proper cheekweld and recoil pad height- lower consistently shows to be better. I.E., mounting a scope higher than required has no advantage, but several disadvantages.




Yes, excessive cheek pressure does that- just like excessive jaw weld does. There is a middle ground of solid, but not jammed cheek pressure that not only makes quick sight alignment by kinesthetics possible, but also helps recoil control and tracking through recoil more consistent.

We don’t disagree. Never mount a scope higher than necessary.

A proper cheekweld is the factor for scope height. But, what if the shooter has big cheekbones that are lower and a higher comb? He could easily need high rings to be in a neutral position.

When I am talking about “tension/stress” I am talking about non-neutral positions. We all know that if you have to hold your head back a little, the neck muscles can start to quiver.

So, for stress/tension, yes, any unnecessary stress/tension is bad for precision. Everything about good shooting positions is to eliminate/reduce stress and muscle tension in one way or another. Sometimes we have to add muscle tension to support the rifle, like shooting off-hand, we have to “tense up our muscles” or the rifle will fall. But, Goldilocks zone, we don’t use a “death grip” or lock every muscle tight in our legs.

My point is that the mantra to “keep the scope as absolutely as low as physically possible on the rifle” is bad, because it doesn’t work with everyone (bodies are different), every every position (lots of prone shooting), or every combination of stock/chassis/barrel/scope bell etc.

I am in the “Goldilocks” zone for ring height. Not too high and not too low. High rings are not that much taller than low rings. And, the drop of the comb can make a difference to the possible height.

I would never say “go as high as possible it’s better.” Again, the Goldilocks zone. If the rings are not matched to the shooter and system they chose, low rings can and will make it harder to shoot.

As low as the shooter can maintain a comfortable sight picture is the right answer. Too low and too high are bad.

Rings that are “low” can cram a shooters head into a weird position. I have seen scopes mounted with low rings but the scope bell would hit the barrel. So the shooter slid the scopes just far enough forward to clear the barrel as it tapers in front of the chamber, and then the shooter has to reach the head forward straining their neck.

Every position imparts a level of tension into the shot. If a shooter has to cram his head and crane his neck into an uncomfortable position just to keep it low, then it is detrimental to precision. There is a minimal amount of tension needed to keep any body part in position, but the extreme of prone shows the more relaxed you can make your whole body the better. That is my point there.

And, if the head has to be crammed into position, then it won’t be as easy to repeat. A shooter who can drop his head easily into a relaxed position whether a cheek weld or a jaw weld is going to consistently find the eye box. If the scope is set up in the Goldilocks zone for the extremes between a prone position that pushes the head forward and the standing that pulls the head back, then the shooter will never have to search where exactly the head needs to go.

The length of pull also needs to be fit to the shooter, rifle system and, hunting needs and style.

I agree that PRS and competitions have their contrived nature and things that come out are on the extreme, but they also teach us things. The extremes of what comes out of a specialized sport rarely translate. Especially when the actual rifles are so very different between PRS and hunting. But, they can and do inform us.

As for your experience, I don’t question it.

Out of curiosity, in your training, do you mess with the gear to help fit it to the shooters or do you just take it as it comes?

Of all the things you see, where does scope ring height fall on the list of things to change you would have to make to a rifle system to fit the shooter?

 

[Formidilosus]

We don’t disagree. Never mount a scope higher than necessary.

The overall of what you wrote, no I am not saying is wrong. Some specifics below.

A proper cheekweld is the factor for scope height. But, what if the shooter has big cheekbones that are lower and a higher comb? He could easily need high rings to be in a neutral position.

Thats different than what you wrote, or how it was read by me. There is a very strong push in the PRS world to use a high mounted scope- much more than required, and tough your jaw to the cheek piece- or don’t touch it at all. That is what I am addressing.

When I am talking about “tension/stress” I am talking about non-neutral positions. We all know that if you have to hold your head back a little, the neck muscles can start to quiver.

So, for stress/tension, yes, any unnecessary stress/tension is bad for precision. Everything about good shooting positions is to eliminate/reduce stress and muscle tension in one way or another. Sometimes we have to add muscle tension to support the rifle, like shooting off-hand, we have to “tense up our muscles” or the rifle will fall. But, Goldilocks zone, we don’t use a “death grip” or lock every muscle tight in our legs.

The key there is “unnecessary”. Again, it has been stated ad nauseam that “no stress or tension” is what you want. That simply isn’t true at all for field shooting. There must be tension to control the rifle. Not enough that tremors happen, however it can be more than is being taught or stated in the PRS world.

To be clear for anyone else reading- I am not bagging on competition or PRS in particular. It’s a function of the game. The rules, stage setup, and rifle design. If you are shooting a 20+ pound 6BR derivative rifle, from a tripod, or from a Gamechanger- near free recoil with an almost vertical head, almost no grip pressure, and the stock on your collarbone can and does work. Change that rifle, cartridge, rest, and situation and that system starts to have very large shortfalls.

My point is that the mantra to “keep the scope as absolutely as low as physically possible on the rifle” is bad, because it doesn’t work with everyone (bodies are different), every every position (lots of prone shooting), or every combination of stock/chassis/barrel/scope bell etc.

That is correct. More appropriately it should be “the scope as low as possible while still maintaining good cheekweld and eye alignment”.

As low as the shooter can maintain a comfortable sight picture is the right answer. Too low and too high are bad.

Spot on. The only difference it sounds like, is the jaw weld. That has shown to not be as good or preferable for the vast majority that have seen.

And, if the head has to be crammed into position, then it won’t be as easy to repeat.

That’s often not true. Very often an uncomfortable, “crammed” position can be the most repeatable position- reference, Serve Rifle and the very low, very far forward mounted scopes making craning the neck down and forward a requirement. I am not saying that’s best position, simply that it’s probably the most repeatable position with that rifle.

A shooter who can drop his head easily into a relaxed position whether a cheek weld or a jaw weld is going to consistently find the eye box. If the scope is set up in the Goldilocks zone for the extremes between a prone position that pushes the head forward and the standing that pulls the head back, then the shooter will never have to search where exactly the head needs to go.

The most repeatable or easiest position or height will be when someone drops there full head weight on the cheekpiece with no muscles holding it up. That might not be the “best” position, but if you are looking at speed and consistency it almost always will be.

As for your experience, I don’t question it.

I assure you that I don’t care about that. Question everything. I do not state numbers or “experience” as any point of appeal to authority, just as a reference number to understand that I am not saying things based on small or no data sets.

Out of curiosity, in your training, do you mess with the gear to help fit it to the shooters or do you just take it as it comes?

Both. For hunting, it kind of follows this-

Brand new shooter= middle of the road setup. Get them in correct body position and set eye relief. One they can competently work the rifle from all positions (think 11-12 out of 20 points in the hunting rifle drill, and shooting in the field/mountains relatively frequently for some reference) they move on. This is basically the “best” shooters in the entire hunting world. Very few are beyond this. At some point in this phase they start shooting other rifles and setups that aren’t theirs. Basically can you grab anyone else’s rifle and be functional with it.

Competent shooters= These shooters are doing 12-15 out of 20 on the hunting rifle drill consistently. Adjust comb height, LOP, grip shape and type, etc. This level of shooter is killing on demand under most conditions to mid range (600’ish yards), and capable of LR (800’ish) under ideal conditions with a good spotter.
Once someone is at this level then I take them and switch to shooting other peoples rifles and setup in earnest. In other words they work heavily on shooting “compromised” setups to a on demand level. A competent shooter can shoot nearly any rifle setup well. This person might have their rifles fitted to them, but they can and do shoot everything.


Extremely skilled= Think someone that is shooting 5,000 plus rounds a year in structured practice, that can take their relatively normal hunting rifle to a PRS match and place in the top 10-20%. They are killing on demand from all positions very quickly to 800’ish yards or farther. Doesn’t matter if it’s a 5lb sheep rifle or a 20lb comp gun- they can shoot it seamlessly one after the other.

This is a laughably small group, I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t more than fifty shooters/hunters in the country that fit this. Yet, is where most hunters that are into rifles believe they are.

Of all the things you see, where does scope ring height fall on the list of things to change you would have to make to a rifle system to fit the shooter?

Pretty low. When you look at standard stocks- Tikka, Manners, McMillan, Stocky’s, etc almost all shooters can use standard low rings with 30mm tube scopes. If you have an adjustable buttpad for elevation and an adjustment cheekpiece, than getting the pad inline with the bore is a real advantage, which will then usually require getting the cheekpiece a bit higher and consequently the scope higher. Not as much as some believe. Lots of people have no issue with a 30mm low rings and a pic rail with that. If they do, most are good with medium rings.

 

[hereinaz]

@Formidilosus

I think a lot is lost in translation/verbiage. I can certainly see where my first quick comments could be ambiguous. And, I do tend to tilt towards breaking the "traditional" and "backward" ideas that don't have merit. Or, at least break down the nuance of the "rules."

Also, I have been shooting stocks with basically a straight comb/pistol grip for almost all my hunting/shooting experience. I recently have gone with all Stocky's VG2 for uniformity. So, I suppose that is something that I am assuming when I talk about scope height not needing to be as low as physically possible.

Interesting that you found that "mashing the cheek" is the most repeatable to get into the eyebox. I can see how that could be true, and why you would say that as a general rule.

I wonder whether that is easiest and best overall, simply because it takes longer to practice other methods and is easiest to repeat without practice. Some might be better in the long run, but if killing stuff is the goal, why mess with what works. I get that. I messed with it, and for me, I think indexing off my jaw works well and is repeatable.

I will print your targets and run the drills. I've never tested it against that. I never really cared for the hunting I started with. The hunts I've been on in AZ are glass and then get close enough to shoot from the closest ridge or finger. I spent lots of time learning how to get up off the ground and use a tripod for long range shots to keep the cactus needles and thorns out of my belly... I know that I should learn to hunt and "get closer" but I am too old and too far behind the curve to care about "hunting right" and eating more than the three coues deer tags I've already eaten. I want to be a straight up coues killer, and my training/view/skill set is tailored to it for sure.

I could be backwards, cause I went with the jaw index, because I found I was pushing my cheek too hard and that caused misses shooting prone and I couldn't repeat it as well in positional shooting. And, going with a little higher rings to get my head into a neutral position, which helped improve all my shooting. Maybe I have 20 other things going wrong with my shooting form, so if I changed just 5 of the 20, I could use a cheek weld and improve overall.

My wife teaches piano, and if a student comes to her studio from a bad teacher or is self taught, they always sound worse while she trains them with proper form. They miss notes and can't keep rhythm. If she had them for a one week camp with the intent of getting them to give the best performance, I don't think she would try to change very much, and would go with whatever works for them.

Do you have any of that working into the way you are getting hunters ready to shoot and kill?

 

[Dobermann]

I.E., mounting a scope higher than required has no advantage, but several disadvantages.

Hi Form, I don't *think* this is directly covered above, and wondering if you can spell out what those disadvantages are?

For transparency: I used to mount 'as low as possible', then experimented with the precision rifle (not PRS-specific) idea that low rings can mean one tilts/cranes one's head to the side, and that higher rings can help bring the head more vertical - especially with a raised buttpad and cheekpiece, so that the centre of boreline is in line with shoulder. So far, I've found this to be more comfortable and effective in recoil management - for me.

But open to hearing what the limitations might be.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus

I think a lot is lost in translation/verbiage. I can certainly see where my first quick comments could be ambiguous.

Short form, written media is difficult.

And, I do tend to tilt towards breaking the "traditional" and "backward" ideas that don't have merit. Or, at least break down the nuance of the "rules."

That’s fine as long as the traditional ideas are proven wrong or not optimum, and/or the “new” idea is proven better or correct in rigerous, extensive experimentation and testing.

Interesting that you found that "mashing the cheek" is the most repeatable to get into the eyebox. I can see how that could be true, and why you would say that as a general rule.

I wonder whether that is easiest and best overall, simply because it takes longer to practice other methods and is easiest to repeat without practice.

The easy way to understand why a smashed face is more consistently repeatable (again, not saying it is or is not optimum), is because the end of the travel is the end of the travel. If my face can go down 3 inches, then all the way bottomed out is 3 inches. Versus, my face can go down 3 inches, but I try to arbitrarily stop it at some mid point- say 2 inches. In that case it difficult to be certain it is 2 inches exactly, and not 2.25” one time, and 2.5” the next, and 1.9” the next, etc. A hard brick wall is a hard brick wall.

Some might be better in the long run, but if killing stuff is the goal, why mess with what works. I get that. I messed with it, and for me, I think indexing off my jaw works well and is repeatable.

Sore. Wasn’t intent to tell that you should do something else. Just that it’s not an overall statement for most people.

I will print your targets and run the drills. I've never tested it against that. I never really cared for the hunting I started with.

The thing about that drill is it is a known standard and when ran correctly (time, target, start position, etc) is is a very quick and accurate gauge of where someone is in general rifle shooting for hunting.

Everyone should be shooting known course of fire for testing and validation that incorporate time, distance, target size, and positions that are appropriate for their event- in this case, hunting.

The hunts I've been on in AZ are glass and then get close enough to shoot from the closest ridge or finger. I spent lots of time learning how to get up off the ground and use a tripod for long range shots to keep the cactus needles and thorns out of my belly...

What you are describing is way more similar to PRS than general mountain hunting. I have stated numerous times that Coues hunting with a rifle is about the only hunting I’ve seen that somewhat mimics the type of gear and shots a PRS match generally exhibits. So it makes sense that your choices or views are tilted that way.

What I would caution is in suggesting what works for that- which is relatively to extremely specialized, as an all around equipment and personal setup suggestion. I have extensive experience in dedicated long range shooting and hunting (20-80lb rifles, from a bench, return to battery tests, multiple spotters, and sighter shots in front or behind the animal, etc), however suggesting the equipment and style that works for that for anyone not doing that specific task is a disservice to them.

I am not saying you are doing a disservice in anything you write- it’s just an example of why information may not be directly or even indirectly transferable from one task to the next.
The NE woods deer hunter when giving advice about rifles and shooting at longer ranges, almost invariably is putting it through his lens of what he knows- which when it comes to western shooting and hunting past a hundred yards, is usually about worthless. Same with a guy that is used to getting off a 4-wheeler with his 28” barreled 7mm STW, and Hubble Zeiss scope to shoot deer under a feeder on a Sendero at 400 yards in Texas- his advice for a 5lb sheep rifle and the skill to use it probably isn’t there.

I know that I should learn to hunt and "get closer" but I am too old and too far behind the curve to care about "hunting right" and eating more than the three coues deer tags I've already eaten. I want to be a straight up coues killer, and my training/view/skill set is tailored to it for sure.

As above, sure. Thats just a very narrow view of hunting and what is specific and great for that, often will be a hindrance in most other areas.

I could be backwards, cause I went with the jaw index, because I found I was pushing my cheek too hard and that caused misses shooting prone and I couldn't repeat it as well in positional shooting. And, going with a little higher rings to get my head into a neutral position, which helped improve all my shooting.

The “neutral” position thing is what I am mostly referring to about the “higher mounted scopes”. Neutral in what? The only time are head is perpendicular to the earth is standing upright. The “heads up” position is only “natural” when our torso and up is perpendicular to the ground. Otherwise our heads barrel position is more forward the closer you me chest gets to the ground. A higher mounted scope- say 2.5” above bore from prone is anything but “neutral”. It’s bordering on extreme and you have to pull your head up and back straining to do so.

The “neutral” position for the head in the prone is to just stand upright and your whole body leans all the way down into prone- head is inline with spine, which is inline all the way down. Of course that doesn’t work because you are looking in the dirt. So you raise/tilt the head the least amount required to get a sight picture. Evwry other position is somewhere between the two- standing upright and laying flat prone. However, due to recoil control, most field positions are closer to torso parallel with the ground rather than perpendicular to it.

This is why the statement that “heads up natural”, is mostly BS. It’s only neutral/natural from standing.

Maybe I have 20 other things going wrong with my shooting form, so if I changed just 5 of the 20, I could use a cheek weld and improve overall.

It may not be worth changing. But, that doesn’t mean it’s optimum for both.


This is what image seen with lots of techniques, but specifically the “head up, higher mounted scope” one. First, it really came out of the complaint that due to chassis people couldn’t get scopes mounted low. If one was shooting and paying attention to the industry/social media when this change occurred, it was obvious that it didn’t start with “after rigorous testing measuring the difference between low, medium, high, and ultra high mounted scopes, best performance across the board came from high mounted scopes”. It started with high mounted risers and mounts for AR’s- which sucked then, and suck now for shooting. People in the industry took the talking points from that and applied it to bolt guns. While there is some level of truth there, there is also a whole lot of fuckery by people too.

What mostly happens is someone goes to a class, or more often watches an “authority” that tells them- “high mounted scopes get your head more upright, natural, neutral head, no tension, looking through the center of your eyes, and with adjustable stocks and chassis there is no reason to care how high your scope is- it’s hunting fudd stuff”. Then they put the rifle on a barricade, tripod, or just hold it up and go “yep, he’s right, more comfortable”.
No measuring, no experimentation, no comparison with live fire and time, distance, targets, and positions, etc.

My wife teaches piano, and if a student comes to her studio from a bad teacher or is self taught, they always sound worse while she trains them with proper form. They miss notes and can't keep rhythm. If she had them for a one week camp with the intent of getting them to give the best performance, I don't think she would try to change very much, and would go with whatever works for them.

Do you have any of that working into the way you are getting hunters ready to shoot and kill?

Nope. In 5 days if someone wants to learn to be better, they can nearly be rebuilt from the ground up. The amount of hunters that are so ingrained and skilled in shooting a certain way that they can’t unlearn it and relearn something else in 5 days is staggeringly small. Now, with the way every long range class I’ve been to or seen conducts and teaches? No. But in a 3-5 day period of intensive of focused training and conditioning? Without issue.