Never assume, verify!

[Roe]

Felt rather stupid doing this, but years and years of non-shifting POI led me to complacency. Luckily it ended well, but that was just that: Luck!

 

Lesson re-learned: Check. Verify!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGT8OeuRcIU

 

[Ronin]

Valuable lesson Thomas.

 

Another excellent vid, thank you.

[Dalua]

How does one determine, having called the shot as good and observed the off-target strike, that the off-target strike was the result of a fixed change in POI?

 

I think that my repsonse to seeing a clean miss caused by a high strike like that on a shot that felt good might have been to pack up and check the zero, in case the error was caused by something unpredictable, like a loose mount or something adrift inside the scope: which would lead to the next shot falling somewhere completely different.

 

If I'd wounded the animal with the first shot, however, I'd surely have a guess and try again.

[Ronin]

Think the point of the video was that after travelling a long way to get to a hunting location (or competition) it always pays to check or confirm zero before taking any shots where it matters.

[DaveT]

Happened to me once....sudden & inexplicable full MOA shift that then settled again.....never did bottom out the cause....point taken though.

[DW58]

Another excellent video from Thomas - slight change from the usual scenery.

[gunner]

Ace , he wants YOU to hit every time ! That bit made me smile

[DaveT]

I just go green with envy when I see his territory!

[DW58]

That latest video was filmed here in the UK AFAIK.

[Dalua]

Think the point of the video was that after travelling a long way to get to a hunting location (or competition) it always pays to check or confirm zero before taking any shots where it matters.

I guess so. However, there was an assumption made that the unexpected POI of the first shot would be duplicated on the second shot. This turned out to be true, but if the first miss had been caused by caused by a loose scope-mount or stock screw, or a broken moving bit inside scope, then it could have gone quite differently, as the second POI would not have been true to the first.

[1971silversurfer]

I suppose a good point to make if you plan on travelling oversea's its well worth investing in a best quality transit case to minimise those knocks to guns...

 

Valuable lesson learned too.... complacency can be a killer or not in this case....at least it was a clear miss.

 

 

Keep up the good work Thomas.

[gbal]

Roe's videos are always well produced,and 'noise' of all kinds removed,which together with the usually great location scenery,make them a pleasure to watch.

They might tend to the minimalist in information,but it is always important information,and if there is a message it is generally clear -and honest.

 

As in this-Thomas clearly presents this as a 'mistake'-one that almost everyone could experience-an unknown POI change.

As Ronin says,and Thomas too-but did not do,even after the first miss-Dalua's point-and fired again,a hit,as 'luck'-explicity acknowledged-would have it.

 

We then have the balloon 'rezero'-actually not that well,perhaps,but the key point is that something was done,so not to quibble the perhaps edited detail-maybe a third shot centered the balloon-if so why edit?

 

Problem is made very clear. Solution?

 

Well,ideally check zero before a stalk,and especially if there has been some transit of the rifle,where it might have taken an unknown knock-this might not be too convenient,but if there is no check,Thomas' point is clear-there is a risk of a wounded animal,or a miss--neither wanted.

 

Any alternatives?-would a chamber cartridge laser(or scope collimator) be good enough to check zero-I'm pretty sure the couple I've used would have detected such a large error as in the video,easy and quick,no disturbance.

MIght be £50 well spent-practically,financially and ethically.And for some reassurance before any shot taken.

gbal

 

gbal

[Finman]

but how can you do that (i.e. check zero before the stalk)? either one has to do it on the land where the stalk is to take place, risking disturbance and therefore failure to see anything, or do it at a remote location, from where they will have to travel to the stalking grounds...I zero a couple of days before on a field close to home and then pack the rifle etc and off I go to my merry stalking way, sometimes 3-4 hours away. I have no control of what happens in the rilfe in the meantime (i.e. it may get a knock here and there) and have to rely on my zeroing practice prior to the stalking trip...Perhaps the collimator may be the answer, I have one and rarely use it.

To Thomas' defence, he makes a point of checking everything else prior to the commencement of the stalk, so the posibility of a loose screw, or moderator or scope base (at least) is eliminated.

 

I guess we all have to make some assumptions at some point, probably due to practical rather than any other reason....

 

best wishes

 

Finman

[gbal]

...as I said,checking zero (just prior to the stalk) by a test shot,"may not be convenient".

So what can be done-collimator or laser check is very readily done,and should detect at least gross POI changes,at the outset of the actual stalk,or just before. But if there is a better check,without firing,let's consider it also.

[Roe]

How does one determine, having called the shot as good and observed the off-target strike, that the off-target strike was the result of a fixed change in POI?

 

 

Can't really give a 100% answer to that.

My pre-stalk check ensures that all that can be practically checked with fingers and eyes are checked. The Blaser is such a simple system that if these things are found ok, the system is usually "stable".

 

As for the second shot... my deeply ingrained reaction is to put the target down no matter the cause of initial miss. With hindsight, I think it would have been prudent not to fire the second shot. But as stated: I was very lucky here.

 

As for the balloon zero:

First shot hit exactly as high as expected.

Second shot hit and measured (in the reticle) the correct amount of clicks down, no new windcall was done for that.

Turret reset.

Third shot not needed. The rifle corresponded in a stable manner and I needed the ammo for deer.

 

What the exact reason was I do not know. I have a pelicase (very good) and the problem is now gone it seems, but will need to verify again.

[Cumbrian 1]

I think Dalua misses the point that once a trajectory has been verified in theory a rifle can be zeroed at any distance, the fact that the shot was high and the correct clicks calculated using a FFP reticle shows that the poi was fixed otherwise the two wouldn't tally.

 

For example if my shot is 10 clicks high (measured using the reticle) and I brought the scope down 10 clicks and fired again if it was 20 clicks high then there is something sadly wrong with the scope and further investigation is required.

[Roe]

Ah thanks for pointing that out. I have been using FFP for so long (always) so I don't always see the forest for the trees.

 

Yes as Cumbrian 1 says, with a FFP scope you just measure the strike in the reticle and if the shot is called "good" and the strike sits as expected, there's really no need to spend a lot of ammo zeroing - and it can be done at any distance as long as trajectory is verified (as mine is, with met conditions matching these)

[Dalua]

I think Dalua misses the point that once a trajectory has been verified in theory a rifle can be zeroed at any distance, the fact that the shot was high and the correct clicks calculated using a FFP reticle shows that the poi was fixed otherwise the two wouldn't tally.

 

For example if my shot is 10 clicks high (measured using the reticle) and I brought the scope down 10 clicks and fired again if it was 20 clicks high then there is something sadly wrong with the scope and further investigation is required.

I'm familliar with that concept.

 

In the case described by the OP, the bullet went somewhere other than where he intended.

He saw the high strike and corrected for that - perhaps by taking a different point of aim - and shot the beast cleanly. So far so good.

 

The missing bit is the reflection on why the strike was high. The shot was called by this experienced rifleman as a good, so no argument from me about that bit: however, to shoot again with altered POA must be based on the assumption that the only problem was that for some reason the elevation setting on the scope was 'out', and furthermore, that it would be 'out' by the same amount for the next shot.

 

Had the actual cause of the problem been a broken (rather than a slightly-out-of-adjustment) scope, a loose or obstructed mod, loose mounts or stock-screws, or crap in the barrel channel, then the second shot might not have flown true to the first, and the outcome might have been very different.

 

The trajectory hadn't in fact been 'verified'. All that had been shown by the first shot was that something was something wrong with the rifle/scope/mounts/ammunition combo and it wasn't doing what is was expected to do.

That is the point I was trying to make.

[brown dog]

I don't think Dalua's point is about a field zero; it's about taking an immediate 2nd shot at an unwounded beast when the 'wheels had fallen off' when the first shot, called 'good', went significantly wild.

 

I think, for many of us, a good shot gone wild would be a "Stop! Stop! Stop!" until zero had been checked; not a reticle aim off and a 2nd shot at an unwounded beast.

 

Many years ago, I had a similar experience, I'll cut a long story short, but the wildness of my first significantly misplaced but 'called good' shot, followed by almost inability to deliver a stopping shot was the result of the scope mount having come loose. I had no way of determining the cause after the first shot and wouldn't have continued without a check zero if the first shot hadn't -sub-optimally-connected and changed the imperative.

 

I don't think there's any point in being too judgemental though -because of my equipment fault 'horror', I would have wanted to rule out an equipment fault on a good-shot-gone-wild before continuing- but, as it turned out, Thomas's solution worked; perhaps because he had greater faith in his kit derived from his pre-stalk equipment checks and experience-based general 'soundness' of the kit he was using.

But, as we're all slaves to our own experience; all I can really say is: It's not what I would have done

[Cumbrian 1]

 

I don't think there's any point in being too judgemental though

Too true we don't want UK Varminting turning into the stalking directory with its holier than thou attitude, only Thomas can judge whether he did right or wrong as he was the one pulling the trigger.

[Roe]

With hindsight, "stop!" would have been the better option.

 

I don't see any of the posts as judgemental, the film got people thinking and making some sort of opinion which is good - if it prevents a future wounding of deer somewhere, I'll call it mission success!

[Dalua]

Too true we don't want UK Varminting turning into the stalking directory with its holier than thou attitude, only Thomas can judge whether he did right or wrong as he was the one pulling the trigger.

Definately not intended judgementally - but certainly an observation on the appeal to us to verify something, followed by a demonstration of not verifying it. I must say that I disagree in generl with the idea that 'only the one pulling the trigger can judge" - might be true in some circumstances, but not this one, perhaps.

 

However Thomas has judged, and kindly given us the benfit of this experience.

 

For me, having had the time to reflect on the situation because of this thread, it has clearly shown that importance of stopping in the event of unexplained equipment failure: even in the face of what Thomas described, namely a stong inclination to carry on shooting in order to achieve one's original goal.

 

[Cumbrian 1]

Definately not intended judgementally - but certainly an observation on the appeal to us to verify something, followed by a demonstration of not verifying it. I must say that I disagree in generl with the idea that 'only the one pulling the trigger can judge" - might be true in some circumstances, but not this one, perhaps.

 

However Thomas has judged, and kindly given us the benfit of this experience.

 

For me, having had the time to reflect on the situation because of this thread, it has clearly shown that importance of stopping in the event of unexplained equipment failure: even in the face of what Thomas described, namely a stong inclination to carry on shooting in order to achieve one's original goal.

 

It is different in the field, whilst I agree with you that an unexplained miss would call for a re zero check even in the field for peace of mind but had I seen the splash just above the back of the deer I probably would of been tempted to aim lower to correct the impact, but as you say the poi might be completely off say to a defective scope and the next shot could have resulted in a wounded deer. We are all entitled to our opinions and whilst I may not of understood your point originally I now see where you are coming from. What irritates me is the relentless self righteous drivel that appears on hunting forums, whilst I would never take a shot with the aim of wounding a deer or causing excessive carcass damage I do realise that mistakes happen, it's what you do to rectify that mistake and what you learn from it that makes you a better sportsman.

[Roe]

A lot of wise words, people are reflecting and hopefully taking precautions to avoid same problem themselves.

 

As stated, the rifle was just fine after initial correction (see video below). There just isn't that many things that can go wrong with this construction.

Will hopefully be off to the range Monday with a permanently glued up scope mount and stock length/ height fitted to the new scope.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ocIx_gXVi4

 

 

[flyingfisherman]

Roe - What modifications are you doing, and why? Did you figure out where the POI change came from?

 

Great vids, as always!