Better to "miss" (but still hit) high, or low?
10-25-2016, 05:29 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,359
That is the way I understood it but why are we talking about elevation adjustments at 60 yards? That is the part I don't understand.
Last edited by rockport; 10-25-2016 at 05:33 AM.
10-25-2016, 05:48 AM
#23
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: On an Island in Paradise
Posts: 23,428
Yeah that was a little bit of a question. I could see it if we were talking about a bow but elevation on a gun unless we are talking about shot rather than slugs... should be negligible at 60 unless the target is a squirrel or something small. I guess I just assumed the problem was the front sight covering the target.
10-25-2016, 05:59 AM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,359
Yeah that was a little bit of a question. I could see it if we were talking about a bow but elevation on a gun unless we are talking about shot rather than slugs... should be negligible at 60 unless the target is a squirrel or something small. I guess I just assumed the problem was the front sight covering the target.
10-25-2016, 06:20 AM
#25
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 14
My front bead is about as big around as a thickish trombone-style metal paperclip. Any smaller and I don't think I'd be able to see it reliably. But I might be able to replace it with a blade instead of a bead.
The aperture is already fairly large - maybe 1/8th inch? I can see plenty of the target through and around it, and my understanding is that a larger aperture reduces accuracy, so I was actually thinking of going smaller if I can find one. Is this the wrong way to look at it?
I'll look into that other sighting method - might be just what I need to tighten things up a bit.
I'll try to post some pictures of my setup later today.
A quick clarifying comment:
I'll only take shots if I know I can hit the vital area. I know some people prefer to make a killing shot high, and others like it low, and I was wondering which would be best when you're dealing with a certain amount of imprecision (inherent with slugs and open sights).
I'm talking about a max distance of 60 yards. Further than that and I get more outliers than I'm comfortable with.
I won't take a shot either, if I'm not sure the bullet will land somewhere that will kill the deer quickly. But no matter how good you or your equipment may be, there is always margin for error, whether it be wind, a deer that twitches, a bumped scope, or a squirrel dropping a nut on your head just as you pull the trigger. You can't control everything.
The third paragraph under the "Bad News" heading here clarifies further. But, as that article points out, you factor the margin for error into your shots and your decisions to shoot or not. My equipment leaves a somewhat larger margin for error than a scope would, but considerably less than a pumpkin slug going off the front bead.
The whole reason I'm limiting my shots to 60 yards is because that's the furthest I can shoot and be sure of a vital shot. But considering that almost the full height of the deer could be considered "vital" (at least in the front 25% of the body, standing broadside), I'd just like to know if I should calculate the error, should any occur, to be high or low. It seems like a simple question based on an obvious premise; I'm not sure why some seem to be having a hard time understanding it.
The aperture is already fairly large - maybe 1/8th inch? I can see plenty of the target through and around it, and my understanding is that a larger aperture reduces accuracy, so I was actually thinking of going smaller if I can find one. Is this the wrong way to look at it?
I'll look into that other sighting method - might be just what I need to tighten things up a bit.
I'll try to post some pictures of my setup later today.
A quick clarifying comment:
I'll only take shots if I know I can hit the vital area. I know some people prefer to make a killing shot high, and others like it low, and I was wondering which would be best when you're dealing with a certain amount of imprecision (inherent with slugs and open sights).
Originally Posted by kidoggy
I know not what this, "MISS"you speak of is. but then, I do not take a shot unless I know I can make it.
practice, learn what you can and cannot do and there is no "margin for error"
practice, learn what you can and cannot do and there is no "margin for error"
The third paragraph under the "Bad News" heading here clarifies further. But, as that article points out, you factor the margin for error into your shots and your decisions to shoot or not. My equipment leaves a somewhat larger margin for error than a scope would, but considerably less than a pumpkin slug going off the front bead.
The whole reason I'm limiting my shots to 60 yards is because that's the furthest I can shoot and be sure of a vital shot. But considering that almost the full height of the deer could be considered "vital" (at least in the front 25% of the body, standing broadside), I'd just like to know if I should calculate the error, should any occur, to be high or low. It seems like a simple question based on an obvious premise; I'm not sure why some seem to be having a hard time understanding it.
10-25-2016, 06:46 AM
#26
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: On an Island in Paradise
Posts: 23,428
My experience is the eye takes the center of the aperture on a peep sight. In a hunting situation my big woods gun (hunting the Maine swamps) I remove the screw in aperture on the Williams sight. My thick woods shots are normally 50-75 yds max and normally moving. I need to get a fast sight picture and at least from my skill level that setup is good. I paint the outer sight ring in red and the front sight is red so it shows up great on a brown deer especially when hunting in the snow. Shooting the gun on the target range it is deadly freehand out to 75 yds. Beyond that I do have to use the 6 oclock hold to fine tune my target acquisition.
10-27-2016, 07:28 AM
#28
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 753
i guess it depends on what part of the deer you are aiming at. If you are talking broadside shot in line with the back of the front leg i think id rather hit a little low (still a lung or heart shot) vs a little high...but still either one should be a dead deer. If you are talking a straight on shot or any quartering shot thats a tougher question to answer
10-30-2016, 08:06 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,834
First off, I guess I will jump in on this for S&G's as well and help the brother out.
First off, many others here have really done well on helping with this topic and offered some better than others advice.
1st off, what type of 1960's rifled slug gun is the weapon in question.
2nd. What type of "Slug" are we speaking of? From the various background experiences I have had with the publics nomenclature of weapons and projectiles, it will be helpful to know all this when we are really trying to help you with accurate information.
3rd. Are your shooting excursions with weapon in question from a benchrest or freehand to determine your accuracy capabilities?
4th. Do you fully understand the term "6 o'clock" hold. I have used it but have lately gone to the term "Snowman" or "figure 8" hold. Seems to work better with people in my CCW classes resulting in less questions and better scores.
Lets see how this helps out and go from there?
PM if you have questions.
First off, many others here have really done well on helping with this topic and offered some better than others advice.
1st off, what type of 1960's rifled slug gun is the weapon in question.
2nd. What type of "Slug" are we speaking of? From the various background experiences I have had with the publics nomenclature of weapons and projectiles, it will be helpful to know all this when we are really trying to help you with accurate information.
3rd. Are your shooting excursions with weapon in question from a benchrest or freehand to determine your accuracy capabilities?
4th. Do you fully understand the term "6 o'clock" hold. I have used it but have lately gone to the term "Snowman" or "figure 8" hold. Seems to work better with people in my CCW classes resulting in less questions and better scores.
Lets see how this helps out and go from there?
PM if you have questions.
10-30-2016, 05:40 PM
#30
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 14
Thanks very much SecondChance, I appreciate your help. To answer your questions:
1.) The gun is an old Sears & Roebuck, made by Savage, 12-gauge with a factory-rifled barrel. It was made in the late '60's; either 1965 or 1967 if I remember correctly. Pictures below, including close-ups of the front and rear sights.
2.) I'm shooting a Federal Trophy Copper sabot slug. I tried several others and found this round shoots most consistently from this gun.
3.) I'm an experienced enough marksman to know that I'm not going to be taking freehand shots with this gun unless from very short range. However, practicing from my hunting stool (which allows a very stable position by bracing elbows on legs), my results are virtually the same as from a bench. I primarily shoot two-shot groups because of cost, but at 50 yards, the shots are usually touching (or very nearly so), and are typically within an inch or two of where I'm aiming. I've had some outliers, but always within an 8-inch circle. I attribute the variation to inexperience with the sight, but I can only afford about 10-15 practice rounds per season so it's hard to nail down the technique any better than that.
4.) I wasn't familiar with the *term* "6 o'clock hold" but when I looked it up, I found it was the sight picture I grew up using with all my other iron sights. I never thought of using it with a peep sight, but it doesn't seem like a difficult adjustment if I can get my hands on some more practice ammo. It does seem to have a pretty clear advantage in this case.
Added note: This thread has made it more clear that what I'm really dealing with is more an issue of the sight than of not knowing the drop at various distances. In fact, I'm hopeful that, with practice, the 6 o'clock hold may allow me to increase my range a few more yards.
Pictures:
Full View:
Rear Sight:
Front Sight:
Other items included for scale - the pin is a little bigger than I thought but still pretty small from behind the rear sight!
1.) The gun is an old Sears & Roebuck, made by Savage, 12-gauge with a factory-rifled barrel. It was made in the late '60's; either 1965 or 1967 if I remember correctly. Pictures below, including close-ups of the front and rear sights.
2.) I'm shooting a Federal Trophy Copper sabot slug. I tried several others and found this round shoots most consistently from this gun.
3.) I'm an experienced enough marksman to know that I'm not going to be taking freehand shots with this gun unless from very short range. However, practicing from my hunting stool (which allows a very stable position by bracing elbows on legs), my results are virtually the same as from a bench. I primarily shoot two-shot groups because of cost, but at 50 yards, the shots are usually touching (or very nearly so), and are typically within an inch or two of where I'm aiming. I've had some outliers, but always within an 8-inch circle. I attribute the variation to inexperience with the sight, but I can only afford about 10-15 practice rounds per season so it's hard to nail down the technique any better than that.
4.) I wasn't familiar with the *term* "6 o'clock hold" but when I looked it up, I found it was the sight picture I grew up using with all my other iron sights. I never thought of using it with a peep sight, but it doesn't seem like a difficult adjustment if I can get my hands on some more practice ammo. It does seem to have a pretty clear advantage in this case.
Added note: This thread has made it more clear that what I'm really dealing with is more an issue of the sight than of not knowing the drop at various distances. In fact, I'm hopeful that, with practice, the 6 o'clock hold may allow me to increase my range a few more yards.
Pictures:
Full View:
Rear Sight:
Front Sight:
Other items included for scale - the pin is a little bigger than I thought but still pretty small from behind the rear sight!