bigman Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 (edited) ? Edited January 20, 2018 by bigman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, TriBsa said: Or trusted his subconcious to do the calculation based on experience of sight picture, rifle and ammunition? The difference between an innate and a mechanical skill or being unconsciously competent rather than consciously competent. He must have a mind like rainman to do that, esp as he's new to shooting. Would u still consider it a great shot, if he shot his highest goose ever by aiming at the lead goose in a skien and dropping the last goose?? Or blinding firing into a flock of birds Wether underestimating or over estimating range, which then affects drop or lead. Any bird hit is a pure fluke, as an experienced shot he should be listening to u rather than taking pot shots and lie quarry. The laws of ballistics apply to everyone no matter how good a shot ur are or make/brand of rifle/ammo, same as all the boys in the pub who can make their favourite calbire shoot things at any range with a 100m zero and never have to hold over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, mel b3 said: you do realise that youre just wasting your time ee ? lol , if they were stood at the side of you , and watched it happen , they would still say that its impossible lol. It's not impossible to hit a target at that range but it is physically impossible to hit a rabbit at 167m by aiming at the same point as u would for a rabbit at 120m. The simple laws of physics and ballistics mean he was either aiming 2ft above the rabbits head at 120m (to be fair most folks stride is slightly shorter than 1m unless EE is a pretty tall bloke) or it has richocted to hit it. Either way it is a fluke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 57 minutes ago, mel b3 said: you do realise that youre just wasting your time ee ? lol , if they were stood at the side of you , and watched it happen , they would still say that its impossible lol. edited to add, i bet youre so glad that you posted about your mates impressive shot lol. I didn't notice anyone saying it was impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel b3 Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 14 minutes ago, scotslad said: It's not impossible to hit a target at that range but it is physically impossible to hit a rabbit at 167m by aiming at the same point as u would for a rabbit at 120m. The simple laws of physics and ballistics mean he was either aiming 2ft above the rabbits head at 120m (to be fair most folks stride is slightly shorter than 1m unless EE is a pretty tall bloke) or it has richocted to hit it. Either way it is a fluke ok , put your money where your mouth is , ill wager £1,000 , that will be paid into your paypal or bank account right now , if you can show me where ive stated that you can hit a rabbit at 167 m with a .22lr round , whilst aiming at the same point that you would need to aim at to hit a 120m rabbit . go do it now and get your £1,000. alternatively , you could look at what ive actually written. i rarely shoot over long distances these days , and most of the shots i take are within 50 yards , that includes shooting rabbits with a .22lr , or deer with a .243 (incidentally, my first kill with my .243 howa , was a 300 yard rook ,and using an old airgun scope . and no , the rook wasnt up a tree ) . going back a few years , i would take on rabbits at any distance , i didnt have the foggiest how far most of the rabbits were in yards(the numbers were irrelevant) , but i knew how much i would need to hold off for a rabbit , when i could see how far away the rabbit was. i was shooting hundreds of rabbits some weeks , besides the time i spent punching paper , the calculations were done in the time it would take me to get into position , and find the rabbit in the scope, id miss from time to time , but very very rarely , it was only years later , when i owned a rangefinder , that i knew what distances i had been shooting over in yards(the numbers were still irrelevant , but interesting). as ive already said , i rarely shoot at any great distance now , because im just not good enough any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, bornfree said: I thought it was 704 yards. My mistake, it was, I under ranged the shot by 300 yards, how silly of me. Edited January 20, 2018 by kyska Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornfree Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 Its only 3" of holdover in it ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 21, 2018 Report Share Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, scotslad said: It's not impossible to hit a target at that range but it is physically impossible to hit a rabbit at 167m by aiming at the same point as u would for a rabbit at 120m. The simple laws of physics and ballistics mean he was either aiming 2ft above the rabbits head at 120m (to be fair most folks stride is slightly shorter than 1m unless EE is a pretty tall bloke) or it has richocted to hit it. Either way it is a fluke That's the way I see it. As so often, this thread is getting distorted by those who don't understand/read the detail. The only thing amazing about the shot in question is that he hit the target at all, as many have said, estimating a target at 120 when its actually 167/168 yards away and hitting it in the head isn't a great shot, it is pure fluke. I don't think anyone has actually said hitting a rabbit at 168 is impossible, but it is simply not a shot many would contemplate who knew anything about the .22lr or had any respect for the quarry! ATB! Edited January 21, 2018 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted January 21, 2018 Report Share Posted January 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Dekers said: That's the way I see it. As so often, this thread is getting distorted by those who don't understand/read the detail. The only thing amazing about the shot in question is that he hit the target at all, as many have said, estimating a target at 120 when its actually 167/168 yards away and hitting it in the head isn't a great shot, it is pure fluke. I don't think anyone has actually said hitting a rabbit at 168 is impossible, but it is simply not a shot many would contemplate who knew anything about the .22lr or had any respect for the quarry! ATB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin lad Posted January 21, 2018 Report Share Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) ah the 704 yard hare Edited January 21, 2018 by colin lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Elvis Posted January 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 On 20/01/2018 at 21:00, scotslad said: It's not impossible to hit a target at that range but it is physically impossible to hit a rabbit at 167m by aiming at the same point as u would for a rabbit at 120m. The simple laws of physics and ballistics mean he was either aiming 2ft above the rabbits head at 120m (to be fair most folks stride is slightly shorter than 1m unless EE is a pretty tall bloke) or it has richocted to hit it. Either way it is a fluke Im 6' 2" and have 34" inside leg, not sure if that helps to assess my stride lol I stated that I measured it with my bushnell yardage pro and paced it and they concurred 1 yard difference is pretty accurate striding !!. I agree it is likely a fluke BUT doubt it was a richochet, it was on a very soggy grass field with no visible puddles. That said he is consistently pulling off shots of 120-130. I may film some if he lets me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Elvis Posted January 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 On 21/01/2018 at 19:16, Dekers said: That's the way I see it. As so often, this thread is getting distorted by those who don't understand/read the detail. The only thing amazing about the shot in question is that he hit the target at all, as many have said, estimating a target at 120 when its actually 167/168 yards away and hitting it in the head isn't a great shot, it is pure fluke. I don't think anyone has actually said hitting a rabbit at 168 is impossible, but it is simply not a shot many would contemplate who knew anything about the .22lr or had any respect for the quarry! ATB! I don't think anyone has actually said hitting a rabbit at 168 is impossible, but it is simply not a shot many would contemplate who knew anything about the .22lr or had any respect for the quarry! Im inclined to think your last sentence is utter pap. Respect for the quarry? there is more than enough energy left to kill a rabbit at 168 yards and if he missed so what? there were miles of marshes and the sea behind it if it managed to get past the 12' high bank that surrounds the field (caravan park in summer) Respect for the quarry is not relevant to distance, I have seen members of this board totally mess up shots at 30 yards let alone 168, we all miss and we all sometimes disable rather than outright kill a rabbit from time to time, anyone who says they haven't is a blatant liar!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Evil Elvis said: I don't think anyone has actually said hitting a rabbit at 168 is impossible, but it is simply not a shot many would contemplate who knew anything about the .22lr or had any respect for the quarry! Im inclined to think your last sentence is utter pap. Respect for the quarry? there is more than enough energy left to kill a rabbit at 168 yards and if he missed so what? there were miles of marshes and the sea behind it if it managed to get past the 12' high bank that surrounds the field (caravan park in summer) Respect for the quarry is not relevant to distance, I have seen members of this board totally mess up shots at 30 yards let alone 168, we all miss and we all sometimes disable rather than outright kill a rabbit from time to time, anyone who says they haven't is a blatant liar!!!! I'm inclined to think that is total pap as well, you seem to have completely missed the point, such is life! There is a clue to distance in your own post, you have seen people mess up shots at 30 yards but you think it is fine to lob .22 out to 168? Edited January 24, 2018 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 21 minutes ago, Dekers said: I'm inclined to think that is total pap as well, you seem to have completely missed the point, such is life! I don't often "plus one" but the pap you refer to is more than papworthy to make it papsolutely pappressing that we speak up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultrastu Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Evil Elvis said: Respect for the quarry? there is more than enough energy left to kill a rabbit at 168 yards and if he missed so what? Yes there is enough energy to kill the rabbits at this range .IF the bullet hits the brain or h/l area .both of which are small . The 30 yds shots you have seen missed were probably not missing the rabbit completely just missing the above vital zones . The risk . (Apart from obvious fallout back stop issues ) is for the well being of the rabbit. A body shot to the gut is gonna leave him in agony for a long time . Also that risk can be extended to you. If it can be shown you intentionally wounded a rabbit (by not shooting within your capability ) a charge of cruelty can be laid against you by an interested person and you could be charged . Risk ?.yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyeruk Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Respect for the quarry is PARAMOUNT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultrastu Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 The problem I see with .22 lr is that it doesn't really expand much on impact with soft flesh .especially only travelling around 900 ish fps when it hits . This means your shot placement has to be good. And the further away the quarry is the BETTER the shot placement needs to be . I could imagine in a court of law trying to defend your self .And trying to convince a judge that a 170 yds .22 sub sonic shot was acceptable. And then experts being called on to give thier interpretation of the max range for such a shot . (To be deemed humane ) My opinion its 120 yds I invite pw .to contribute thier ranges Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Evil Elvis said: Im 6' 2" and have 34" inside leg, not sure if that helps to assess my stride lol I stated that I measured it with my bushnell yardage pro and paced it and they concurred 1 yard difference is pretty accurate striding !!. I agree it is likely a fluke BUT doubt it was a richochet, it was on a very soggy grass field with no visible puddles. That said he is consistently pulling off shots of 120-130. I may film some if he lets me! To be fair I hoped u were a short @@@@ as it wouldn't surprise me if 167 paces might equal about 120ish m, which would actually make it a better shot. A 22lr is meant to carry enough energy to kill out to something like 1-1.5km(at least that's wot it says on the box) But the longer the distance esp with either a slow moving bullet big drop plus further out windage (and even ur fast light bullets 17hmr don't like cross winds) u neer mentioned how mutch he allowed for crosswinds or even how u could accurately tell in the lamp And even simple maths/trig if ur aim is slightly off by 1/2" at 50m the same shot will be off by 1" at 100m and 1.5" at 150m (assuming no drop or wind shift, ) So it may be a lethal shot at 50 and even 100m may not be at 150m. When u add that to ur aim points guessing brain the size of a £2 coin and H/L a bit bigger, it really gives u zero marign for error as probably sub MOA at that range, so tohit it u hae to be aiming smack on the target and estimated range and wind accurately Basically ur marigns for error are getting smaller and smaller to almost nothhing Personally I wouldn't dream of taking a shot like that (and i've been shooting 30yrs) no need for it, far too much could go wrong. And even if ur trying to drastically thin rabbit numbers down ur far more likely to miss them at that range and just educate them to lamp and rifle. For me it smacks of an 'ego' shot, the sort of thing u boast about on facebook (or here) If he wants to impress folk with his marksmanship skills he'd be better posting a photo of his groups at 100 or 150m just showing 5/10 shots closely grouped (in fact I'm sure he's good enough to clover leaf at that distance) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 41 minutes ago, scotslad said: If he wants to impress folk with his marksmanship skills he'd be better posting a photo of his groups at 100 or 150m just showing 5/10 shots closely grouped (in fact I'm sure he's good enough to clover leaf at that distance) As has been said ,power wise, theres plenty there for a clean kill in the vitals area at twice the distance mentioned. And Ill say it again, Im not disputing the shot or range. The problem is ,hitting that vital area ,either head, or engine room, kill zones of around 35- 40 mm. As 1066 demonstrated and is common accepted knowledge, a .22lr bullet cannot be expected to keep within that area at 160 odd yards. The test at Bisley at 50 yards, with a match gun, and match ammo, on a solid test bench in ideal conditions, got no better than 20 mm groups. That is the limitation of the ammunition I suspect, rather than the gun. Like I say, not disputing hes a great shot, but his equipment in this case is incapable of pulling that shot off consistently. Ive done a lot of testing with various guns and ammo combos with .22lr, its a good cheap solution at sensible ranges, but not much beyond 100 yards, if you want humane kills, and its not about power ,its all about accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Quote That is the limitation of the ammunition I suspect, Yep, anyone who's been into the 22 for a good while should know that for the millions that are made there's obvious inconsistency. It was a lucky shot at best, especially at night under the lamp on a single stick with the range guessed wrong. Quote ah the 704 yard hare Classic....Also the HMR 300yd coke tin challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Rewulf said: The test at Bisley at 50 yards, with a match gun, and match ammo, on a solid test bench in ideal conditions, got no better than 20 mm groups. Do you have more/any facts about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wb123 Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Dunkield said: Do you have more/any facts about this? This was posted recently, better than 20mm to be fair (assuming edge to edge not centre to centre) but in a tunnel with the gun in a clamp. The best batches if i remember rightly were working out at about 15mm edge to edge over a 40 shot group at 50m. It would be interesting to see how non match grade non batched ammunition and a 'field' rifle would do in the same test. Edited January 24, 2018 by Wb123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Dunkield said: Do you have more/any facts about this? I was referring to 1066 s post (they dont number them anymore ?) with this video Ive done a fair amount of accuracy testing at various ranges myself over the years, as Im sure lots on here have too. Edit WB123 beat me to it, I must have misheard it, I thought best was about 19 mm, and its 50 m which is 55 yards, but again thats got to double at 100, and at 168 yards with perfect hold, well, its bigger than a rabbits head. Edited January 24, 2018 by Rewulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultrastu Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 I'm sure jd hunter can confirm this himself. But his benchrested sako with expensive match ammo can make around 30 mm groups at 100yds. When all things come together . Which confirms what rewulf has just said above about groups getting bigger at range. 30 mm being the max size for a head shot rabbit. 25 mm being the accepted size . So if we extrapolate that to 170 yds We are looking around 100 + mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1066 Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Rewulf said: As 1066 demonstrated and is common accepted knowledge, a .22lr bullet cannot be expected to keep within that area at 160 odd yards. The test at Bisley at 50 yards, with a match gun, and match ammo, on a solid test bench in ideal conditions, got no better than 20 mm groups. The video clip in my post was actually batch testing at Eleys own testing range, not Bisley and while many groups were below 20mm there was a good few that were not. They do do limited batch testing at Bisley with a mobile test facility, some information HERE "Some batches were well over 20mm within the first 5 shots, the tests on these batches were aborted" Remember this is with a good modern match rifle with the very best match ammunition shot in perfect conditions. At 15mm group size you are moving into record territory. http://www.eley.co.uk/test-ranges/united-kingdom/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.