jcchartboy

If there still remains any questions..... here is one last quote fromRandy Fritz........(actually it is pretty much exactly what I had originally said)

Not to mention your own testing proved his point exactly...

Paul L Mohr

No, in my case it was because the gun did not like the ammo. However as I stated once I corrected the settings at 100 yards it was actually around 2 inches high at 50 yards.

I will say it again but with more feeling. Sighting your rifle in at 50 yards if you intend to shoot it at 100 yards is stupid. If you can't shoot well enough or the rifle ammo does not group well enough at that distance then don't shoot that far.

And if what he states is correct why didn't it happen with the other ammo? And why do I get same results irregardless of the type of weapon I shoot? You might get lucky and sighting in a closer distance will work, but I would not bet the farm on it, or trust it in the field with live game without first verifying it. Which they do say to do by the way.

If you want to argue about this for a week it's ok with me. Like I said though, you will not change my mind. Especially with quotes from that site.

Paul

jcchartboy

Onceagain Matt here we go..you know what happens when one assumes....

No, but in this case it was only 120 lbs of bench rest......LOL

jcchartboy

Now..... you can be ignorant to Winchesters advice as well. All thewhile you are shooting their slugs.

Sorta funny how you are pumping money into these peoples pockets but you won't even listen to their advice.......lol

uncle matt

Well Dave Henderson can talk til his butt cheeks fall off. You may worship Dave Henderson, Randy Fritz, Billy Bob, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus as your God and that's fine if you want to.

But all that matters to me is where MY slugs go thru MY targets and MY deer are dead.

I didn't use any fancy rest or Superman grip on my barrel to keep it from lifting when I sighted my slug gun in. Just set it on my hand on a sandbag and dialed her in. Other guys have shot my same gun and had equally impressive groups from it.

And ya know what, preacher? The deer who have fallen (and there's been plenty) didn't seem to care just exactly how I sighted in. They weren't caring about anything anymore.

Maybe it's time to stop repeating what everyone else writes or says and start killing some deer.

Ever hear anyone say or write about KILLING DEER?

jcchartboy

That was not, and is not the topic of this post.Usual protocal on this board is to stay on the topic of the original post. That is of course SIGHTING IN A RIFLED SLUG GUN! Therefore that is whatI did.

Although I do respect your attempt at DEFLECTING the fact that Paul was incorrect in many of his assumptions.

Name calling and random commentantary has worked very well by politicians for thousands of years when faced with facts they didn't want to admit. It is the easist way todraw attention away from the actual actual facts at hand. Why wouldn't I expect youand Paul to use it in a situation such as this!




Concerning the following statement...
You know Matt....You are the one who asked for my commentary! Now when it is presented, suddenlyyou decide to call mea Preacher? That is unbelievable!




I was actually going to avoid this post. However because Uncle Matt asked me comment I did. Paul had already made it clear in a previous post he was very set in his beliefs and not open to change. Dispite that fact I felt it was still possible that reasoning and reality would prevail. It now appears that belief was wrong. This post will now in fact fall away into name calling and useless rhetoric as usual when all the fact have been displayed and thesome poster does not like the outcome.

uncle matt

What exactly did you think Paul (or I) were intending to do with our slug guns and these slugs?

As far as being a preacher - to me that is one who just repeats the written word of others. Heck you consistently do that.

When I said legwork, I was meaning actually shooting the slugs. Not a couple boxes but ALOT of them.

But thanks for well, thanks. I'm taking my slug gun and going home.

Paul L Mohr

So are you really saying that someone should just sight thier rifle in at 50 yards and consider it good to go? That sounds pretty foolish and unethical to me.

I do sight in at 50 yards, but that is not where I stop. I actually bore sight my rifle, then shoot at 25 and 50 yards to adjust the mounts correcting windage and shimming if they need it. Then I zero the scope for windage and where I think the elevation should be according to the ballistics.

However after that I move to a farther yardarge like 100 or 130 yards and check for groups and fine tune my adjustments if they need it. Lets say you sight your rifle in at 50 yards with the intention of it being dead on at 100 yards. Then for some odd reason you decide to actually shoot it at 100 yards to see what happens. Now you find out it is consistantly hitting off the mark. It groups well but the the windage and elevation is off. Are you honestly telling me you would not adjust it to impact where you actually intend it to go at that yargage? We are assuming a calm day, no cross wind to effect the windage. That makes absolutely no sense to me, none at all. I don't care what someone from a gun company says. I want my rifle to shoot were I point it at the distance I want to shoot it. I have not seen too many rifles that don't need some tweaking of the sites at longer distances to get them on.

In all essence is what these people are saying to me is they don't believe there product is up to the task of being shot at longer distances.

Of course maybe it is because some are not looking for that much accuracy. They figure if they sight in 2 inches high at 100 yards it will be somewhere in the ball park of where they need it to be. And this is true in most cases. However I think that is lazy and that is what gives slug gun hunters the bad rep that they have. I don't know about anyone else, but if my rifle groups 1-2 inches at 100 yards the center of that group had best be over the bullseye at the yardage I zero it for.

If I can hit what I aim at from 25 to 130 yards why should I change the way I do things just because someone on the net thinks it is wrong? I have been doing it for the better part of 30 years with pretty good results, I see no need of changing it now. Especially when the suggestions are the opposite of what I was taught by professional target shooters, accomplished hunters and the military.

As far as shooting 1000 rounds in a day, it's possible I guess. Figure 1 shot every 30 seconds that is a little over 8 hours for 1000 shots non stop. Of course that doesn't leave much time for breaks like eating and going to the bathroom. And I don't know too many that could shoot for 8 to 10 hours and do it well or consistantly. Sure you could pull the trigger that many times, but could you execute the shot correctly each time? I doubt it.

And if this guy is shooting from a 120 lb rest that soaks up the recoil then he is no where near simulating how the gun will be shot in the field, I don't care if he is gripping it by the fore arm or not. And how would pulling down on the rifle in a rest do you any justice? What are you going to pull down on in the field off hand? You will just be pulling the gun down. I support the weapon with my hand, not grip it. As a matter of fact I don't even place my hand on the fore arm, mine ends up on the receiver or wherever the gun happens to balance the best. I also shoot with a sling off hand. I rarely shoot off hand though. I don't do drives or shoot at moving game.

I'll give you credit, you are tenacious. However what it boils down to is I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong. I don't believe that will ever change, at least on this subject. Isn't the internet great.

Paul L Mohr

This is in response to one of your previous posts and other comments:

quote:

"The technique required to reproducibly shoot tight slug groupings is unlike that required to be a proficient with a rifle," stated Randy Fritz as he proceeded to drive his point home with a demonstration. Shooting Lightfield Commander 3" slugs through one of his custom Tar-Hunt slug guns Randy proceeded to coax five slugs in a row through the same hole at 50 yards. He then turned the bench over to a self-proclaimed 'good shot' who fired his best five shots but could only muster a 4 inch grouping at the same 50 yard target.

What was the difference? Both shooters were using the exact same gun, the exact same lot of Lightfield sabot slugs and were firing under the same conditions, but one was driving nails and the other couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. The difference was in their shooting technique. A person can purchase the most expensive state-of-the-art slug gun and fire the best saboted slugs money can buy, but if that person doesn't know and hasn't practiced proper slug gun shooting technique all the dollars invested will have been for naught."


I would say the difference is the second guy just can't shoot. He either is afriad of the recoil, had poor trigger control or doesn't line up to the scope consistantly each time. My guess would be if you handed him a 270 or 30-06 you would get the same outcome. 50 yards off a bench is a pretty simple shot with most any gun that shoots well. When someone brags about great groups off a bench at 50 yards I'm not that impressed, especially if the intended range is twice that.

I had no trouble with this gun and that load at 50 yards. It shot very well. However when I moved back to 100 yards it was a different ball game. It shot high and the groups were not up to my standards. Actually for some slug guns and hunters they would have been ok with it. If my shooting form is so bad and I am so ignorant of what I am doing why did a simple change in ammo magically make the problem go away? Even with ammo that is slower than the lightfields are. Or why don't I have the same problems shooting a traditional muzzle loader with even slower bullets yet?

Here is another one.
quote:

"Let's say you have zeroed your gun in this manner at 100 yards, adjusting into your scope setting this muzzle jump as well as windage error. While in the field you shoot at a deer at 100 yards while holding onto the forend of your gun's stock. Your shot hits low or, most likely, misses completely. Most would tend to blame the gun or the ammunition, when in reality methodology is the real culprit. Think about it! Learn to properly set up your equipment and you can be confident in your shot when the time comes."

I completely agree with that last statement. But to me that means shooting your gun the way it is intended to be shot. If you are dumb enough to sight in off a bench rest and never shoot your weapon off hand or the way you intend to hunt with it you deserve to suck and miss. However the game does not deserve that. You should ALWAYS practice the way you hunt and verify that they weapon and load will perform well enough to achieve your goals. Other wise you are just setting yourself up for failure.

I would say most blame thier equipment because they are too macho to admit they missed or they suck shooting off hand because they never practice it and didn't take the time to find something to steady the rifle on. If you hunt doing drives and shoot off hand at moving targets don't you think you should try it a few times (or a lot more) before you test it on live game? It never fails to amaze me at how often I hear of people that pull thier gun or bow out a few days before season and then complain they wounded or missed an animal. Hmmm, did you ever think of practicing in the off season? Most of my friends say they wish they could shoot a bow as well as I do or be as consistant with a rifle. (and I don't consider myself to be that good) I say, well if you shot every day like I do you probably would be.


"Dispite that fact I felt it was still possible that reasoning and reality would prevail."

Unfortunately you have not presented anything I consider reality yet. I don't have any of the problems you state I should have, even though in your opinion I am doing it wrong.

""Slugs are so slow that they're still traveling down the barrel as the gun recoils upward and to the left," he explains, due to the torque of the heavy projectile as it spins out of the barrel's rifling. "If you sight the gun in at the bench without holding the fore-end, you'll actually sight it in 5 to 6 inches high and to the left of where it will shoot when you hold the fore-end normally in the field."

That right there is a bunch of crap in my opinion, especially with the barrel that is on my gun. For one the bullet does not have enough resistance to the barrel to make it torque. If that were the case the sabots would be torn up badly after leaving the barrel, which they are not. And that bullet is gone before recoil affects it's flight, it might not be as fast, but it's still faster than sound or the time it takes for the gun to react. Muzzle flip is actually caused by the bullet leaving the barrel. That is why a compensator will help muzzle flip. It vents the escaping gas upwards keeping the barrel level. If this was not the case then it would have no effect because the barrel would already be up. This is from barrel harmonics or "barrel whip" And finding the right load to match the harmonics of the barrel will solve it. That is why one type of ammo will group better than another.

Paul

jcchartboy

I would consider shooting over 35 boxesof varying different brands of slugs in the last year alone AlOT. Thanks for pointing that out.

3 different Lightfields
Wichester Partions gold
Winshester Platinum
Remington Coppers
Remington Ultras
Federal rifled
Brenneke
Hornady H2K

...to name a few from this year...off the top of my head