|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 20, 2014 16:21:07 GMT
I know that one or two people on here are hunters. I'm wondering if you've heard of any strange stories or myths regarding hunting that MB might consider looking at?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 20, 2014 16:43:08 GMT
I know that one or two people on here are hunters. I'm wondering if you've heard of any strange stories or myths regarding hunting that MB might consider looking at? I don't personally hunt, but I have a few hunting stories. the first is one that will be essentially untestable: a guy observed that "normal" deer behavior is when the herd is startled, the does and fawns will go to the inside of the herd and the bucks will form a defensive perimeter with their antlers. however, he has seen herds where he has startled the herd, and saw the bucks go to the center and lower their heads while the does formed a visual screen around them. the second might be an excellent minimyth to test. one of my old bosses had hired a gunsmith to sight in his rifle, before hunting season. he saw a buck at extreme close range, and tried for a headshot, missing completely. (untestable part, as it is animal behavior - the buck stayed where it was rather than disappearing over the horizon) He tried a second headshot and also missed completely. finally on the third attempt, he aimed for center mass, and barely clipped the deer's spine. on talking to the gunsmith, he found the sights had been adjusted for competition shooting at long range. the myth would be if a rifle sighted for long range shooting has that much muzzle elevation at short range. (I believe this was iron sights rather than a scope, but both could be tested.) the other one, which may be untestable due to safety reasons, comes from big game hunting. the story - condensed from the original publication - was of a big game hunter traveling with a bearer and using a large bore (wither #2 or #4) cap and ball rifle. he had a shot at a rhinoceros, but the cap failed to ignite the charge, only producing enough noise to trigger a charge from the rhino. as they fled, the hunter passed the rifle to the bearer with instructions to recap it, but the bearer misunderstood and placed another charge atop the charge in the rifle, and returned it to the hunter. according to the story, when the hunter fired the rifle, it produced the following list of results: 1: knocked he hunter down. 2: broke the stock on the rifle 3: the rifle flew back behind the hunter. 4: one of the slugs made a through and through injury on the rhino, lengthwise, killing it. the part in question would be if stacking the loads produced what was apparently an exponential increase in muzzle energy. |
|
|
|
Post by rick4070 on Jul 30, 2014 22:32:04 GMT
@ the light works:
I've never heard the first one, I don't see deer in herds, but elk might be different.
As to the second, I worked at a gunshop,and we use to get people coming in to "have their rifles sighted in for them."
We could bore sight them, but that only got them on the paper at 100 yards, the owner HAD to sight the gun in for themselves, whether using open sights or a scope.
Everybody has a different way of looking through sights, even iron sights.
Scopes are the same way, due to cheek weld on the stock, canting the rifle, heck, even the length of a guys neck, and how far his eye is from the scope can make a difference.
Any gunsmith who claims he can sight in a rifle for someone else while the rifle is in the shop isn't much of a gunsmith, IMHO...
After hunting season, we would get guys coming in saying: I missed the biggest buck I've ever seen..." When asked if they had sighted in their rifle after we had boresighted it, they would get all quiet..
As to the third one, that sounds like Frederick Courtney Selous, and what happened to him on a hunt one time, although it is the first time I have heard the rhino killing part, IIRC.
I think it was a 4 bore, and I'm not sure who you would get to test the recoil...
One "myth" that might be tested would be whether to aim higher or lower when shooting uphill or downhill, at steep angles. That is a common question. People seem to have problems with this, due to a straight horizontal shooting path, versus an angled shooting path.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 31, 2014 10:39:19 GMT
@ the light works: I've never heard the first one, I don't see deer in herds, but elk might be different. As to the second, I worked at a gunshop,and we use to get people coming in to "have their rifles sighted in for them." We could bore sight them, but that only got them on the paper at 100 yards, the owner HAD to sight the gun in for themselves, whether using open sights or a scope. Everybody has a different way of looking through sights, even iron sights. Scopes are the same way, due to cheek weld on the stock, canting the rifle, heck, even the length of a guys neck, and how far his eye is from the scope can make a difference. Any gunsmith who claims he can sight in a rifle for someone else while the rifle is in the shop isn't much of a gunsmith, IMHO... After hunting season, we would get guys coming in saying: I missed the biggest buck I've ever seen..." When asked if they had sighted in their rifle after we had boresighted it, they would get all quiet.. As to the third one, that sounds like Frederick Courtney Selous, and what happened to him on a hunt one time, although it is the first time I have heard the rhino killing part, IIRC. I think it was a 4 bore, and I'm not sure who you would get to test the recoil... One "myth" that might be tested would be whether to aim higher or lower when shooting uphill or downhill, at steep angles. That is a common question. People seem to have problems with this, due to a straight horizontal shooting path, versus an angled shooting path. I like that one, and it is a common thing among archers (which makes testing easier as the shorter effective range makes for a smaller testing range) If I recall correctly, the solution is quite simple. I think it has to do with using the distance the target would be if it was level with you instead of the actual measured distance. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Aug 6, 2014 13:42:20 GMT
the other one, which may be untestable due to safety reasons, comes from big game hunting. the story - condensed from the original publication - was of a big game hunter traveling with a bearer and using a large bore (wither #2 or #4) cap and ball rifle. he had a shot at a rhinoceros, but the cap failed to ignite the charge, only producing enough noise to trigger a charge from the rhino. as they fled, the hunter passed the rifle to the bearer with instructions to recap it, but the bearer misunderstood and placed another charge atop the charge in the rifle, and returned it to the hunter. according to the story, when the hunter fired the rifle, it produced the following list of results: 1: knocked he hunter down. 2: broke the stock on the rifle 3: the rifle flew back behind the hunter. 4: one of the slugs made a through and through injury on the rhino, lengthwise, killing it. the part in question would be if stacking the loads produced what was apparently an exponential increase in muzzle energy. I think this one could be tested safely with a remote-fire rig, but they'd probably want to set up in a quarry. Obviously they can't use a real rhino as the target, but they could talk with the SF zoo and find out just how thick a rhino's skull is. Then, cast some of that skull-analogue from the bottle bash myth at the appropriate thickness and make it the front plate of a meat cylinder as long as a rhino's body. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 6, 2014 13:48:51 GMT
the other one, which may be untestable due to safety reasons, comes from big game hunting. the story - condensed from the original publication - was of a big game hunter traveling with a bearer and using a large bore (wither #2 or #4) cap and ball rifle. he had a shot at a rhinoceros, but the cap failed to ignite the charge, only producing enough noise to trigger a charge from the rhino. as they fled, the hunter passed the rifle to the bearer with instructions to recap it, but the bearer misunderstood and placed another charge atop the charge in the rifle, and returned it to the hunter. according to the story, when the hunter fired the rifle, it produced the following list of results: 1: knocked he hunter down. 2: broke the stock on the rifle 3: the rifle flew back behind the hunter. 4: one of the slugs made a through and through injury on the rhino, lengthwise, killing it. the part in question would be if stacking the loads produced what was apparently an exponential increase in muzzle energy. I think this one could be tested safely with a remote-fire rig, but they'd probably want to set up in a quarry. Obviously they can't use a real rhino as the target, but they could talk with the SF zoo and find out just how thick a rhino's skull is. Then, cast some of that skull-analogue from the bottle bash myth at the appropriate thickness and make it the front plate of a meat cylinder as long as a rhino's body. I believe it was a chest shot - which would reduce it to two layers of hide, and the length of the rhino. |
|
