Jump to content

new report on wounding deer


Recommended Posts

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0109698

 

Factors Associated with Shooting Accuracy and Wounding Rate of Four Managed Wild Deer Species in the UK, Based on Anonymous Field Records from Deer Stalkers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quote:

The high miss rate of basic-level stalkers suggests that training should include additional firing practice under realistic shooting conditions.

 

I think there are relatively few opportunities in the UK for such practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting Gary , were do you find info like this ? , i trawl the net often for research on deer, calibers, reloading ect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting read Gary

 

 

Just backs up whats been said for a long time, you need to practice, you need to be settled, you need to be familiar with your ground and place your shot.

 

 

"I don't need to practice on paper, everything I shoot at dies",,,,,,,,that regularly heard statement just doesn't cut it anymore (and never did)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Garry-generally reassuring to see research being consistent with experienced sense.And that success % isn't too shabby at all,and that there are clear areas for improvement.

 

Andy-agreed,though 'practice'-perhaps in realistic stalking conditions,rather than the relative luxury of some 'paper' shoots-the critical issues identified included 'time,distance,comfort,good rest'-more or less givens with some paper punching-not to say that doesn't help with general rifle useage-but these become variables 'in the field'-not 'givens',so realistic practise -at paper,but not all 'off the bench'-that's good for rifle confidence,perhaps,the weaker link-relatively-is likely to be human/situational.

 

Paddy-the report didn't actually distinguish practise with the stalking rifle-though implied-and general shooting-we might expect best returns from the actual rifle to be used,in simulated stalking conditions,but it's likely any practice helps- as a psychologist ,I'd not want to exclude 'poor attitudes' in complacency!

 

As an ex academic,hooray for research that fits with best common sense/experience!

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most BDS Branch and Deer Management Group shoots I attend are not shot off any benches.

 

Real world shooting, off the ground, prone with and without bipod, standing and seated off sticks or leant against a wall or fence posts.

 

Practice never harmed anyone - I see the same people all the time at branch shoots, the same people usually in the top 5 are the same people who cull a lot of deer.

 

I also hear the same comments - "I don't like to shoot paper, I know my rifles on" - then comes the call about a wounded animal that needs following up...

 

I also see people who have shot for years turn up at shoots with absolutely appalling safety and weapons handling skills ….the only way to change this is by regular practice under a watchful eye.

 

 

I know there are moves afoot to bring in an annual shooting / stalking test,,,I'm all for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also annoys me when you talk about creating a load that shoots into less than 1/2 inch or so, or practice shooting at distances far further than you would shoot at live quarry, for me it's about having confidence in your rifle combo. And being told that a 4" group at 100yds is good enough by some stalkers.

 

Not for me matey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also annoys me when you talk about creating a load that shoots into less than 1/2 inch or so, or practice shooting at distances far further than you would shoot at live quarry, for me it's about having confidence in your rifle combo. And being told that a 4" group at 100yds is good enough by some stalkers.

Not for me matey.

Hmmm ....perhaps there is no harm in developing as good a load as possible,so long as it is the appropriate bullet etc,or stretching range so long as this is not 'practice' for stalking shots at such ranges.For some,these would promote confidence,and perhaps justifiably so.

I've experienced the 4" groupers who have nonetheless expressed confidence in their shooting just because of that 4" grouping 'ability',though I'd think it wasn't justified.It is very marginal though,if not unacceptable in a test, for up to 100y,but not at all acceptable pro rata 8-10 inches at 200! Not enforceable,of course...so any qualifying test might need tighter criteria.

 

All this though tends to miss the key point about stalking/shooting deer. A tight -or indeed loose - group is not what s needed.

What is needed is the first shot placed where it should be-ie accuracy(not per se precision repeated in follow up shouts,and certainly not four more of them,-though the subsequent shots may show the first was not a fluke.)

 

I suppose it's hard to shoot just one shot on targets,and show the result! But that is the shot that matters in shooting sentient targets. I suppose a 'group' suggests repeatability,and is desirable,but a 1/2 inch group in the wrong place is no good at all!

Shooting deer (etc) is about one well placed shot ( sometimes the first cold bore shot is 'out of group' an inch or so ,anyhow-though that isn't critical.)

Better by far follow the recommended practices in the recent deer shooting analysis-one shot at a time,from imperfect rests/positions/etc .

That report did not mention small groups,and it's fairly obvious why it didn't. Consistent first shot placement under imperfect conditions marks the competent shooter.But that can't be shown on a scrap of target paper in your wallet.(though any such practice is likely to be of some help.)

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I initially replies to JB1's post as if he were suggesting that 0.5" groups and longer-range practice were not useful - but on re-reading the post, I think he is suggesting that they are useful, but that it is frustrating that having done these worthy things, others will give the opinion that a 4" group at 100yds is fine.

All this though tends to miss the key point about stalking/shooting deer. A tight -or indeed loose - group is not what s needed.
What is needed is the first shot placed where it should be-ie accuracy(not per se precision repeated in follow up shouts,and certainly not four more of them,-though the subsequent shots may show the first was not a fluke.)

The well-placed first shot is indeed important.

However, that doesn't invariably happen. I would therefore suggest that shooting deer is about a first well-placed shot supported by the ability to get a second bettter-placed shot off quicky when the animal is 100yds or so further away.

Additionally, when hind-stalking for example, the ability to take a magazine's-worth of beasts as quick as you please can be important - in which case it is invaluable to know that round 5 is going to the same POI as round 1. So I do think shooting groups is a useful discipline also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalua,I take your point...I did not say say group shooting wasn't helpful-but accuracy is paramuont.

 

The report showed a very high % of first shot success,but as you say,not always.

In which case,follow up shot(s) are needed.I doubt that if the deer is now 100 y further away,the POI will be within an inch,even with very cool shooting indeed,and the scenario is much more like another first shot-under higher stress.Similarly in hind culling-position changes,maybe range a little,and so on-these are "short interval,repeated first shot" scenarios,more than tight group-though obviously the rifle should be capable of such repeated accuracy.Most are,and some range testing will establish that,agreed. But in neither case is half moa obligatory,nor is it likely to be achieved.The 'reasonable' group has to be in the right place-ie each separate shot within the critical hit zone.That's 'field' accuracy (though it presupposes some repeatable precision in the rifle.) and what the shooter can attempt to practice.

 

I am very much in favour of accuracy/precision,but the contexts you quite rightly describe are not ones where precision is the major factor- very much more the other identified skills-keeping cool,under non ideal conditions being paramount.

Any rifle incapable of at least the 4" (better yet half that!) should not be used,and I was rather taking that as a given,and I'd include the shooter too.

 

Shooting .25 moa groups is one thing,shooting deer is another,though the first ability is at least useful for the second,though not essential,or modal. A steady 2moa shooter in field conditions should be in the high success category.

 

Just to lighten with a slight aside,in the classic white hunter days,a gun bearer was used for the rather heavy weapons,not so much as as a manifestation of imperial superiority,but to ensure the shooter was as fresh as possible to actual fire the rifle,under stress. So let's throw in some physical conditioning,especially for heavy rigs,and that isn't got by a leisurely stroll to the range firing point. I'll stop short of adrenaline injections,though!!

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy