In a world of shrinking yardage due to urban expansion is the art of the rifle still valid to our society as only a small percentage is able to use a rifle to its fullest extent meaning anything past 100 yards anything less is just wasteful of potential.
Is rifle marksmanship still valid?
- Thread starter KY DAN
- Start date
- Status
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Still relevant. Even at distances <100 yards.
And now, more people are involved than ever before.
And now, more people are involved than ever before.
I don't know what this means. If you're shooting 600 yards for fun, that's not "wasteful of potential" just because you're not going to hunt or shoot a burglar at 600 yards. You're learning and improving at something challenging, mostly for its own sake. That's not "wasteful," that's the path to a fulfilling life.
In any event, as others have noted, all the signs point in the opposite direction of your conjecture. Instead of people shooting 50-200 yards with their deer rifles, people who are interested in riflery are stretching ranges out to hundreds of yards.
Very much still relavent. While the number of hunters is declining there are many more shooters interested in long range precision shooting. Some call it "sniper fascination" but that has a negative connitation to the antigun crowd.
Just look at all the "precision" rifles being sold now.
Just look at all the "precision" rifles being sold now.
Gridley
Member
I'm not sure how much *urban* expansion is taking place in the US - I see a lot of *suburban* expansion around here. I also wouldn't agree that shots under 100 yards are a "waste" of a rifle; if you hit with a rifle what you would have missed with a handgun then the rifle wasn't wasted.
Also, have you looked at the *percentage* of the US that is urban area? Yeah, its growing, but it would take a LONG time to crowd out the rural areas.
I've worked sight in clinics before deer season. There are ALOT of hunters that could use some marksmen skills based on their 50 and 100 yard targets.
Potential isn't wasted on close distances, it's wasted on not shooting a rifle to it's full ability despite the distance
Potential isn't wasted on close distances, it's wasted on not shooting a rifle to it's full ability despite the distance
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Seeing as the vast majority of the world's population does not even own a rifle, and the fact that most of our troops didn't need to know how to use one before Uncle Sam put one in their hands, my answer is no. Unless you're in a 3rd world country fighting for your life, in which case marksmanship is probably a vital daily necessity.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
And, if you hit with a rifle what you might have hit with a pistol, there's a much improved chance that it will sit down and stop bothering you.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
Wait, what? Golf is relevant? Or was relevant?
I don't know numbers per se - but long range stuff seems to be really exploding. The 6.5 CM (and, btw, the hilarious recent thread on that) is one indicator. Another is the increasing popularity of F Class shooting. A McMillan stock - popular in lots of tactical and F Class use cases - has a wait time of 6 months.
One professional reloader I know claims it's a result of the AR phenomenon peaking out (They've got their AR[s}, they've learned how to build them, modify them, have different calibers, etc. etc. etc.] and folks thinking "What can I jump into *now?". (I'm not making the claim the AR is dead or dying in popularity. But I think I'm a pretty good example: A few years ago I bought one. It's a blast. I load .223 for it. I take it out and ping steel with it. I use it consistently and will continue to do so. But I got a .243 and started playing with steel pinging out to 1,000 yds. It's opened up a whole new world.)
One professional reloader I know claims it's a result of the AR phenomenon peaking out (They've got their AR[s}, they've learned how to build them, modify them, have different calibers, etc. etc. etc.] and folks thinking "What can I jump into *now?". (I'm not making the claim the AR is dead or dying in popularity. But I think I'm a pretty good example: A few years ago I bought one. It's a blast. I load .223 for it. I take it out and ping steel with it. I use it consistently and will continue to do so. But I got a .243 and started playing with steel pinging out to 1,000 yds. It's opened up a whole new world.)
Steveo_1704
Member
was it ever?
T.R.
Member
Although I live in Florida, we head north for deer camp in the steep Appalachian Mts. of Pennsylvania. The middle age guys and older typically hunt with lever action or pump action rifles since our style is organized deer drives. Its not uncommon to shoot twice in quick succession. But I noticed a trend among the young guys that started about 8 years ago. They bring bolt action magnum rifles with big scopes which is a subject of much debate in the evenings. I really can not see the usefulness of a big gun where shots are rarely beyond 75 yards!
TR
TR
If you are talking about hunting, I don't think the terrain and cover has changed that much. Land available to hunt might be shrinking, but in many parts of the country long shots have become more common in agricultural areas as farm machinery has grown in size and fields are planted edge to edge.
In a military sense, we are regularly engaging the enemy at ranges not seen since the trench warfare of WWI. Designated marksmen and snipers are playing much more of a role than they did in the Vietnam era. Every Marine and soldier should be able to shoot a rifle effectively.
In a military sense, we are regularly engaging the enemy at ranges not seen since the trench warfare of WWI. Designated marksmen and snipers are playing much more of a role than they did in the Vietnam era. Every Marine and soldier should be able to shoot a rifle effectively.
morcey2
Member
No. The answer is no. Unless the question is 'What "sport" is a great way to waste large amounts of huntable land and fishable ponds?' Then golf is relevant. The same way that bug spray is relevant to ants.
Random 8
Member
Along military lines, this was very much the line of thinking up until about September 10, 2001. Facing an asymmetrical fight against a foe battle hardened vs the Soviets and their Dragunov proved that marksmanship was absolutely not obsolete. Almost immediately stopgaps such as the M14, heavy barreled ARs with 75-77 gr OTM specialty loads, and longer range dedicated sniper systems based on the .50BMG, .300 magnums and the then experimental .338 Lapua cartridges were rushed into action. Doctrinal changes also occurred and were implemented gradually. All of these developments were born, as has happened throughout our history as a nation, in the fertile minds of American sportsmen and competitive rifle shooters.
Today we have seen movies such as American Sniper and competitions such as PRS make long range marksmanship mainstream. Seems every dude with a deer license wants 500 yard capability in a rifle. The industry and consumers are more obsessed with accuracy potential than ever. It's getting very hard to find a proper 1.5x4 or 2x7 compact scope for woods ranges these days. If anything, I think marksmanship is more relevant than ever, despite many folks continued willingness to ignore the most important aspect...field marksmanship...in favor of hubble riflescopes and tiny groups from a bench rest.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
I don't see any riflemen shooting for an $11M purse this week. Just sayin'
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
LOL - in many urban areas, golf courses are the only "habitat" wildlife can depend on.No. The answer is no. Unless the question is 'What "sport" is a great way to waste large amounts of huntable land and fishable ponds?' Then golf is relevant. The same way that bug spray is relevant to ants.
I'd probably carry my 30-30 with iron sights if I was only shooting deer out to 75 yards. I live out west, though, so it stays at home most of the time in favor of a bolt 30-06 or 300 Weatherby. As to OP's question, I think rifle marksmanship is still important.
doubleh
Member
Rifle marksmanship is still relevant to some just as golf is relevant to some. That list can go and on, fishing, photography, cooking, quilting (I know a quilter personally and it's an expensive pass time), gardening, etc. Pick your pass time or times and enjoy life.
Personally I don't give a hoot what anyone thinks of my pass times. I like to shoot both rifles and pistols and intend to keep doing it as long as I can pick up either and pull the trigger, relevant for today or not.
Personally I don't give a hoot what anyone thinks of my pass times. I like to shoot both rifles and pistols and intend to keep doing it as long as I can pick up either and pull the trigger, relevant for today or not.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
And that right there, is the winner.
.308 Norma
Member
+1
Besides, in the years I have left (I'm 71) I kinda doubt "urban expansion" like the OP is talking about is going to affect the places and way I hunt anyway.
IN many states, rural areas are losing population so if you drive a ways, you can find a place to shoot even if you live in an urban area. In addition, in many places, hogs, deer, coyotes (not native to large parts of the U.S.) and geese are actually nuisances that need their population thinned. Right now, many game populations are larger simply due to proper conservation than during a fair amount of the 20th century. What makes it seem scarce is that in some states many rural area land owners have monetized access to their land for hunting (pay to shoot) and public areas are often overcrowded with hunting fees often paying for a lot of conservation efforts. So yes, rifle shooting is still important. BTW, I am not a hunter but have family that do.
What's golf?
- Status
