Kimber 84M pro varmint

[Dr G]

Out of interest, does anybody have any comparative figures of their field accuracy against "potential"? I would still be interested in seeing a group shot from the shoulder (or other "field" position) at an unknown distance from one of you guys who knows the benchrest capabilities of your rifles.

I have been asked to help set up a practice session with some of the AR staff that have been recently authorised to shoot but wish to get more practice before they start taking shots at cats at distance. I had been thinking of setting up targets at a variety of distances and getting them to practice on them.

Based on your last post I think that once they are comfortable with hitting the kill zone of a cat at 100m from a sandbag rest, then I will set up a variety of targets without telling them of the distances and insist the shoot using non other than rests you would normally have in the course of undertaking feral control work. ie door rests, across the bonnet, off hand or kneeling. Due to the terrain prone isn’t usually that effective.

I will get Kev to set up some targets for me at different ranges out to 250m and let you know what the results are comparing my sandbag results to my field potential on the day

Thanks for the idea zzsstt, this sounds like it should be a fun and challenging day

The targets I use are life sized rabbit, cat and fox targets with crosshairs drawn on their head (and chest for cats).

This could almost be set up as a competitive discipline for varmint shooters, or maybe something like this has already been done

cheers

Dr G

[mozzie]

HEY zzsstt I'm assuming most Varminters use a Bipod and a rear bag or similar . Which is a very steady shooting platform almost as stable as a Front Rest and Rear Bag off the Bench . In this situation it is possible to extract the best of your rifles accuracy potential . Also you already answered the No 1 . Confidence .

[zzsstt]

HEY zzsstt I'm assuming most Varminters use a Bipod and a rear bag or similar . Which is a very steady shooting platform almost as stable as a Front Rest and Rear Bag off the Bench . In this situation it is possible to extract the best of your rifles accuracy potential . Also you already answered the No 1 . Confidence .

Depends on your definition of varminting, which we discussed some while ago. My original thoughts were similar to yours, based on the US prairie dog techniques of shooting from a fixed base. The eventual definition varied from that, as it was pointed out that people shoot vermin (I can't bring myself to call them varmints, I'm not American!) with everything from .22LR and shotguns to magnums.

If you are using bipods and bags from a solid base, then you are correct. However if you are walking, spotlighting from a ute, or (like me) shooting from a bike, then the base is much less solid, the rear bag has gone by the wayside and sometimes you'll be shooting from the shoulder or kneeling.

In any case, it is my feeling that you should know how well you (rifle, ammo and rifleman) shoot in whatever situation you find yourself in. So if you only ever shoot from a portable bench using rest and bags then you should know how accurate you are in that situation, which as you say is fairly close to dedicated benchrest though at unknown distance unless you have a rangefinder and know your bullet drop at all ranges. However this doesn't help you make a clean kill when you find a fox 150m behind you and you don't have time to turn your table around, or you see one racing across a paddock after you have put your bench away. Now if, in those situations, you are happy to watch the fox run off, then that's fine. But if you want to take the shot then I maintain you should know your ability when shooting from the shoulder (or whatever), and in that situation the rifle's absolute benchrest potential is a minor contributor to your overall accuracy.

The origin of this discussion (though not the thread) was my comment that I did not know the benchrest accuracy of my rifle, only the accuracy in the way I use it, and that to me the benchrest accuracy was immaterial as I never shoot from one.

[kjd]

LoL poor ole zzssttt he just can't get away from these lengthy debates can ya mate?

[zzsstt]

Thanks for the idea zzsstt, this sounds like it should be a fun and challenging day

The targets I use are life sized rabbit, cat and fox targets with crosshairs drawn on their head (and chest for cats).

This could almost be set up as a competitive discipline for varmint shooters, or maybe something like this has already been done

cheers

Dr G

I am fascinated to hear the results. I did once offer to set up such a challenge, but got no takers. I think it will be interesting to see how people go when they have no benches, wind flags and known distances to assist them. Personally I would expect most peoples groups will expand quite considerably, especially when shooting without a rest. First shot accuracy at longer ranges will also depend on judging the distance, but when shooting ultra flat calibres the judging of distance will be hidden by the lack of bullet drop, so if possible you might try it with something less flat shooting, for added challenge! Or just ask them to tell you the distance to each target.

By the way, when some (most?) of your trainees can't even hit the cat at 200m when shooting off-hand, remind them that it's not as easy as people think!

[zzsstt]

LoL poor ole zzssttt he just can't get away from these lengthy debates can ya mate?

But it's such fun, and hopefully someone (including me) will learn something or give thought to something that they'd never considered.

Today I have time on my hands anyway. I was supposed to be spraying a couple of paddocks but the pump on the sprayer failed which buggered that idea. I spent the day loading 25-06 rounds and ordering pump parts. You can tell the days when I'm busy, you'll get no posts at all!

[Knackers]

Sorry that your thread has gone off track,Crowbuster.
Zzsstt, I totally understand where you are coming from. I do 90% field shooting and 10% benchrest.

I supose that if I shoot enough groups off the bench with my hunting rifles, under ideal condtions then I know that in the field, should I miss it will most likely be because of me. I know that my rifle will head shot a rabbit at 200 yards, if theres to much wind I will then switch to a chest shot.

I'm going to put your theory to the test and set up a pair of targets at 100 and 200 yards and shoot them, leaning on a post, laying down, crouching, standing and from the door of the ute and leaning over a gate.
Here's the catch though. In field conditons you mostly only fire one shot, so should I put a hit in every target or should I put 3 or 5 ?

BTW I have edited one of my previous posts to you.

Dr G, I am in the middle of making up some rabbit and fox targets. They are made out of 10mm plate, much like silouette, but life size.
The fox is solid but I am going to make the rabbit with a removable head and a little window about the size of a tennis ball in the heart/lung area that has a knock off plate. So you can see if you made a head shot or heart/lung.
The reason being, that a lot of friends and this includes mates from the range, come out shooting and are hopless at range estimation and shot placement. The first fox target is 220 metric metres from the back gate and this weekend past my uncle said "what 220 mtrs, I would have said 150 ?" Hes been shooting for 35 years?

I hope this helps with your target building Dr G.

[Rinso]

zzsstt,

Well now we have kicked the proverbial can of worms over here haven't we.

I am the first to admit that I know plenty of guys and a few girls who IMHO are far better shooters than me both in the field and on the range.

The argument you present zzsstt is a valid one, it is possibly also as irrelevant as 3 shot groups to statisticains ... A group of people who I am sure do a wonderful job that helps me not at all.

Statistics and group size ... I shoot 3 shot groups when load developing simply because its cheaper and 3 shots will show me wether its there yet or not.

I then confirm with 5 shot groups again because its cheaper. I know from experience that if the first five have gone through the same hole then shooting 7 or 10 or 15 shot groups will not provide me with any more useful information than I have already obtained from a couple of 5 shotters.

I use expensive componets and barrel life becomes an issue as well so I dont fire more shots than I need to. This has worked for me ...

Yes you are right many people shoot 1 really good group and that becomes the inherent accuracy of there rifle .. and your right in saying it ain't so.

I can shoot .5 at 100 with my 25.06 off the bench and off a bi pod in the bush. What I have learned at the bench is that after 25 rounds that 25.06 needs a clean or I am loosing some serious accuracy.

Time at the bench does make you a better shooter IMHO but possibly for different reasons than you have mentioned.

1. Knowing the inherent accuracy (true level not inflated) of my rifle and ammo makes for a sure knowledge of repeatable trajectory, this in turn aids me in judging shots and distances for "real world" shooting.

2. Knowing how much windage affect different levels of wind have on my bullet flight also aid me in making good decisions in the "real world"

3. Confidence in my equipment is something I take for granted but I can see that it can help those using new gear. I have shot near 2 barrels out in my 25.06 so I am pretty familar with its abilities. (beware the man with only 1 rifle)

4. If I was shooting from an unstable bipod which is slipping or moving I would not be likely to take a shot at much of anything. If I am not reasonably well set I dont see how on earth I can ethically shoot (shotgun excepted) with any realitic hope of a clean kill.

5. I don't need to set wind flags the bush is full of them ... some folks call them trees and long grass. Not as accurate as Benchrest wind indicators but I am generally not needing to hit a target 5 times in under .3 so they do the job well enough that the foxes, cats and such dont complain .. come to think of it they a dammed quiet after I take a shot as a rule.

6. A mate and I get bored eradicting pest animals like rabbits and to break the boredom we have little contests like you shoot till you miss and then change shooters .. oh and if you don't take an eye out it counts as a miss ... I have stood and waited for him him to miss for up to 80 shots.

All this amounts to knowing you gears ability and your own.

I agree wholeheartedly that you should know your limitations and stalk closer or pass the shot up if you don't think you can reasonably make it. The other fact that comes in is headshot or chest shot this means knowing when to choose the bigger target.

At the end of the day what matters is that you have the ability to make ethical decisions on wether or not to chance wounding game or taking a clean kill another day .. how you gain this knowledge is not as important as actaully having it.

If shooting you rifle at different ranges and confiming non flukes by shooting a group wether 3,5,7 or 10 shots gains that knowledge for you or improves what you know then its a good thing .. if it teaches you nothing then you got to burn some powder and its still a good thing.

IMHO everytime I shoot, I learn regardless of wether its a BR rifle in comp or an old 22 in a paddock its all knowledge.

cheers
Rinso

[Dr G]

By the way, when some (most?) of your trainees can't even hit the cat at 200m when shooting off-hand, remind them that it's not as easy as people think!

Beleive me they allready know. for the new shooters they have all recently acheived their licence which required shooting a target at 50m off hand. I have seen most of these targets and they all did a good job but realise that with these sorts of groups at 50m it would be a flukey shot to hit a cat sized object at the same distance. The others are experienced shooters who wish to have a bit of a practice.

Because of the restrictions placed on permissions to shoot on BHP land there are no muppets in this group

For the most part they will be shooting from a door rest or propped across the bonnet as due to the terrain, distance and the restrictions relating to vehicle movement around the reserve nearly all of the boundary fence shooting is done from a vehicle. but i will make sure a few stations are taken standing and offhand. This will be a test for me as while i am confident of hitting a rabbit at 150-200m off any improvised rest i wouldnt take that shot standing offhand.

[crowbuster]

What a can of worms I appear to have opened. It's interesting stuff to hear the different points of view, but what started out as a discussion on the virtues & value of Kimber rifles has escalated into the realms of meaningful rifle accuracy assessment.
I agree with the logic of more shots = more meaningful data but it also increases the human error factor. Each to their own I reckon, but I still believe that knowing the "potential" of your rifle & ammo is critical to ANY form of shooting -field or benchrest. For example if you knew that your rifle would only shoot 3 moa five shot groups at 100 yards, would you take a 200 metre field shot on a small varmint...? I know I wouldn't because I would either miss or wound the animal. Conversely, if I had a .5moa tackdriver, I would take that shot with confidence of a one shot kill......

Anyway re: the Kimber vrs CZ dilema, I bit the bullet (pun intended) today after a bit of arm twisting and purchased the CZ 204 at the bargain price of $1015 from Cleavers. This was too good a price to pass up and nearly $800 less than the Kimber, which will finance some nice optics. I also like the set trigger & detachable magazine on the CZ and there is no doubt they are accurate & good value. Also no plastic parts, which appeals to me..... Maybe I'll get a Kimber down the track when finances allow....

Regards

Peter

[Dr G]

Sorry that your thread has gone off track,Crowbuster.

me too, sorry mate. You posted while i was writing this so its still off track. I dont think you will be disapointed in the CZ and with the extra money you can purchase a good scope

I'm going to put your theory to the test and set up a pair of targets at 100 and 200 yards and shoot them, leaning on a post, laying down, crouching, standing and from the door of the ute and leaning over a gate.
Here's the catch though. In field conditons you mostly only fire one shot, so should I put a hit in every target or should I put 3 or 5 ?

Good point i think i will set my rules as one shot per target and use different colourd highlighter to mark each persons shot. For what its worth i think you need to get someone else to set the ranges so that distance estimations are based on your field assesment.

Dr G, I am in the middle of making up some rabbit and fox targets. They are made out of 10mm plate, much like silouette, but life size.
The fox is solid but I am going to make the rabbit with a removable head and a little window about the size of a tennis ball in the heart/lung area that has a knock off plate. So you can see if you made a head shot or heart/lung.

Sounds good. I made life sized paper targets (rabbit and cat) up about a year ago and it is all i ever use now when practicing or sighting in. I havent used a standard target in ages. They would be good templates for your steel ones. If you are interested pm me your email and i will send you the pdf's. I look forwards to seeing yours and i will probably poach your idea

The reason being, that a lot of friends and this includes mates from the range, come out shooting and are hopless at range estimation and shot placement. The first fox target is 220 metric metres from the back gate and this weekend past my uncle said "what 220 mtrs, I would have said 150 ?" Hes been shooting for 35 years?

we have to estimate distances of ferals from the vehicle when doing the transects. because of the error and variation we try to use the same estimator for each transect . This is the main reason that i think you need someone other than your self to set up the targets

I have never shot on an official range. For sighting in and practice i measure out 50m, 100m, and 200m on a tape measure and set up rabbit or cat targets stuck to cardboard boxes. There are no wind flags other than vegetation and up until now the best rests used to date has been the soft rifle bag folded double on the bonnet. Usually i just prop off of the bonnet.

Because of work commitments we wont be able to do it until the 9th of september. I can hardly wait

[Rinso]

crowbuster,

What a can of worms I appear to have opened. It's interesting stuff to hear the different points of view, but what started out as a discussion on the virtues & value of Kimber rifles has escalated into the realms of meaningful rifle accuracy assessment.

Mate I did not hijack this thread .. that happened a good while back .. but your are correct and we were impolite to continue it ...

As far as the CZ goes I have not used a CZ centrefire many years .. I have a mate with a Kimber and he reckons its the duck guts but he says that about every gun he buys ...

I think at the end of the day they all do a good enough job and most failures can be put down to operator error more than the equipment.

Have you thought about what scope and mounts you are going to put on it ????

cheers
Rinso

[Knackers]

Congrates, on the new purchase, Crowbuster. You'll have to give us a report and some pics after you've had a fiddle and a shot.
Do they still come with rings?
Have you got a scope yet? The set trigger is a great aid and I use mine almost every time I shoot.

Dr G, good point about the distance, I'll get my wife to put the targets out, but have a maximum off 250 mtrs.

I reckon everyone should have a go at this to really see how well you do shoot.
I know how good I am on the bench, and I hit 95% of what I take aim at in the bush, but I'm keen to know exactly where my shots fall on paper under field conditions.

[zzsstt]

I agree with the logic of more shots = more meaningful data but it also increases the human error factor. Each to their own I reckon, but I still believe that knowing the "potential" of your rifle & ammo is critical to ANY form of shooting -field or benchrest. For example if you knew that your rifle would only shoot 3 moa five shot groups at 100 yards, would you take a 200 metre field shot on a small varmint...? I know I wouldn't because I would either miss or wound the animal. Conversely, if I had a .5moa tackdriver, I would take that shot with confidence of a one shot kill......

Congratulations on your purchase, I'm sure you'll be happy with it. And sorry for pinching your thread!

You comments above intrigue me for several reasons. More shots gives more meaningful data but increases the chances of human error? This is exactly my point. Knowing how well the rifle shoots in isolation does not have any bearing on how well you (or I) can shoot it. If the rifle shoots 0.5MOA, but the shooter is only capable of 3MOA under a given set of conditions, then the target will still be missed, or worse wounded. Your second point goes the same way. Obviously if the "rifle" shoots 3MOA then at 200yds you have a 6inch group and a likely miss. But because the rifle is a 0.5MOA "tackdriver" does not mean that you stand any more chance of hitting that animal unless you know that you can shoot that same rifle in the bush, off-hand or however the shot presents itself. Worse still, from my viewpoint, would be those who with no real knowledge of how well they can shoot their tackdriver without a bench, go out and wound a bunch of animals by taking shots that are within their rifles capability but far outside their own.

Now I have been thinking about this, and I think I have a very logical example of why I do not believe that the benchrest accuracy of a rifle can be equated to the hunting accuracy, and it's as simple as this:

If people can shoot as well from an improvised rest, or offhand, in the bush, then why do benchrest shooters spend hundred or thousands of dollars on those concrete benches, cast iron rests, sandbags and associated goodies?

Now I know the obvious answer is that it comes down to the law of diminishing returns and that they are trying to extract the ultimate, but that is what this "potential accuracy" thing is all about, is it not? It seems to me that most of the benchrest gear is designed solely to remove any user input from the process. Obviously this does not include aiming , windage and elevation judgement and so forth, but all trembly arms, recoil control and movement of the rifle is controlled by the equipment. Now take all that away and I am sure (but still open to be proved wrong!) that you will see an entirely different set of results. It wouldn't surprise me to find that "rifles" change their performance totally. As an example, it would seem possible that a light hunting rifle that is not so accurate from the bench would, when fired from the shoulder, outshoot a heavier varmint rifle simply due to the strength required to keep a heavier rifle up at the shoulder. Now if this is the case, once again the "potential acuracy" concept could be leading us astray - higher "potential accuracy" but lower real world accuracy? Just a thought....

Anyway, I wish you well with your new rifle, and I hope that once you have established how well it goes from the bench that you, as others have suggested, get out and practice real world shooting using unassisted wind and distance judgement. Then let us know how the two types of shooting compare!

[trevort]

congrats on the CZ. I like mine so much I cant sell it even tho I dont need the calibre. Its off to Shane for some mods that may make it unsaleable and force me to keep it!.

I have the varmint laminate stock for sale if you get bored with your wood!

I also chose a CZ as the base of my 17 fb.

Rifle Basix now makes a replacement trigger if you want a 10oz let off without the set trigger