Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: "1 - 2 - 3 -- boom"

  1. #1

    Default "1 - 2 - 3 -- boom"

    not a good procedure when two individuals are in the situation of both shooting at an animal. The practice most often results in decreased accuracy for both "shooters". Usually more accurate results are achieved if only one individual starts the shooting, then, if necessary the other individual can start.
    HOWEVER when the shooting starts, neither individual should move from their positions without first opening their bolts - pay constant attention to both the animal being shot at and the position(s) of other individuals in the party - and - if three individuals are present - no more than two should be shooting and the third individual act as a "control" monitoring the shooting of the two individuals and the actions of the animal being shot.

    "Now or never", by its self, is never a "good reason" to start shooting.

    Joe (AK)

    See Mike - I am TEACHABLE!

  2. #2
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    I like the never part because you get to try it again so you don't have those two choices. There can be real pressure to take an animal for food or protection. There should never be pressure to take a animal for sport. I like to hear just take your time,nobody is going anywhere
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  3. #3
    Member junkak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    727

    Default

    Am seeing the logic but being a simple minded country guy I would appreciate an example. Pics are best.

    In a nutshell you are saying do NOT shoot together as a unison. Designate a tag cutter then order of fire. Plug ears and go?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantj43 View Post
    not a good procedure when two individuals are in the situation of both shooting at an animal.
    I agree, though I would not have except I did this one time.

    Me and my buddy had all the time in the world, but it was a long shot and moving in was not an option. After 30 minutes of waiting for just the right time, we did the 1, 2, 3, thing.

    Neither of us hit, as we found out when we painfully (horrible terrain) made it to the spot our two bullets had landed.

    Worse than that, even with all the prep & thinkin' time, my buddy was 2 feet ahead of me and just to my right, and the physical impact and deafening noice of my muzzle braked semi auto made, that he screamed and actually rolled down the hill in pain. The next 2 hours he begged me to take him to the Dr. but we were already in the middle of nowhere and heading back to the truck, after visiting our lead in the ground, so nuthin' I could do.

    I no longer hunt with either a semi auto nor a braked rifle.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of hunters out there spend maybe a box of shells at the range prepping for hunting season.

    The lack of expeirence is what makes doing this not a good idea.

    However, if you practice shooting often, this is an easy practice, and does not decrease accuracy.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantj43 View Post
    not a good procedure when two individuals are in the situation of both shooting at an animal. The practice most often results in decreased accuracy for both "shooters". Usually more accurate results are achieved if only one individual starts the shooting, then, if necessary the other individual can start.
    HOWEVER when the shooting starts, neither individual should move from their positions without first opening their bolts - pay constant attention to both the animal being shot at and the position(s) of other individuals in the party - and - if three individuals are present - no more than two should be shooting and the third individual act as a "control" monitoring the shooting of the two individuals and the actions of the animal being shot.

    "Now or never", by its self, is never a "good reason" to start shooting.

    Joe (AK)

    See Mike - I am TEACHABLE!
    very interesting.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default prolly so

    Quote Originally Posted by OneLunG View Post
    However, if you practice shooting often, this is an easy practice, and does not decrease accuracy.
    But myself, I would never try this again unless perhaps me and my buddy both practiced this at the range AND succeeded every time. And even then it depends on which game you're hunting; Joe makes a good case for never doing this on bear and I believe him.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    mile 1016
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantj43 View Post
    "Now or never", by its self, is never a "good reason" to start shooting.
    No truer words was ever spoke.

  9. #9
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    I don't think it was really by design but more how it has turned out for me but I tend to separate from my partner a little ways and we each find a solid shooting position (or as good as available). During the stalk we usually pick a shooter and backup position if possible. I like to be far enough away that I don't get whacked w/ muzzle blast. The only time this has backfired is when my partner decided to stalk closer than agreed and ended up encroaching on my shooting lane. He missed and I didn't have a safe shot so it was that bruins lucky day.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    But myself, I would never try this again unless perhaps me and my buddy both practiced this at the range AND succeeded every time. And even then it depends on which game you're hunting; Joe makes a good case for never doing this on bear and I believe him.

    And truth be told - I'd much rather let one guy shoot first, then do follow-up shots if needed.

    Always nice to know who bagged that awesome trophy

  11. #11
    Member Roland on the River's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,689

    Default 1..2...3 boom Just once

    Friend and I sneaked up on 4 rams in the fog. Knew we were getting close. So we stopped and got prone, though we could'nt see them.
    The fog lifted. Wow, maybe 150-60 yards. Tell you what, I've taken several rams and this is your first. Pick one out. Of course he picked the biggest. O.K. take your time, get comfortable. How about after your shot I'll shoot. OK. Rams are not alert to our ambush. He says i'm ready. So am I. Bam slight pause Bam I go in the scope I see mine fall. Three rams running up hill. Bam he goes another miss. HEY, stop. The last insn't legal you might hit that one. So,mine a beauty but smaller (by quite a bit ) from the one he missed. The only time and surely I would not have tried this on a Bear.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #12
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    I agree, though I would not have except I did this one time.

    Me and my buddy had all the time in the world, but it was a long shot and moving in was not an option. After 30 minutes of waiting for just the right time, we did the 1, 2, 3, thing.

    Neither of us hit, as we found out when we painfully (horrible terrain) made it to the spot our two bullets had landed. ...
    Your biggest problem there is obvious. It's not "1, 2, 3, boom." It's supposed to be "3, 2, 1, boom." Like NASA, you know: "... 3, 2, 1, blast off!"

    So next time, try not to do it backwards. That's probably what confused your buddy, threw off you, and made both of you miss.

    We never would have made it to the moon with this "1,2 3, ..." method. It's equally bad for hunting.

  13. #13
    Member B&C 04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    South for Now
    Posts
    436

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineHawk View Post
    Your biggest problem there is obvious. It's not "1, 2, 3, boom." It's supposed to be "3, 2, 1, boom." Like NASA, you know: "... 3, 2, 1, blast off!"

    So next time, try not to do it backwards. That's probably what confused your buddy, threw off you, and made both of you miss.

    We never would have made it to the moon with this "1,2 3, ..." method. It's equally bad for hunting.
    Thanks for waking my family up with me laughing about this one at 5 in the morning...
    We landed on the moon???

  14. #14
    Member Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneLunG View Post
    I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of hunters out there spend maybe a box of shells at the range prepping for hunting season.

    The lack of expeirence is what makes doing this not a good idea.

    However, if you practice shooting often, this is an easy practice, and does not decrease accuracy.
    I agree OneLung! I have never missed or lost any game animal shot with a firearm because I practice and know my limitations. If I don't feel I can put a bullet in the kill zone - 100% of the time then its not a shot for me to take - period.
    To miss an entire animal is telling the shooter that the shot is WAY outa their ability range for sure IMO..... They are living creatures that deserve some respect - not paper targets....
    When asked what state I live in I say "The State of Confusion", better known as IL....

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantj43 View Post
    not a good procedure when two individuals are in the situation of both shooting at an animal. The practice most often results in decreased accuracy for both "shooters". Usually more accurate results are achieved if only one individual starts the shooting, then, if necessary the other individual can start.
    HOWEVER when the shooting starts, neither individual should move from their positions without first opening their bolts - pay constant attention to both the animal being shot at and the position(s) of other individuals in the party - and - if three individuals are present - no more than two should be shooting and the third individual act as a "control" monitoring the shooting of the two individuals and the actions of the animal being shot.

    "Now or never", by its self, is never a "good reason" to start shooting.

    Joe (AK)

    See Mike - I am TEACHABLE!
    joe ak
    Thnx you. My great grand father i know would be happy to know someone still cares about animals and big game hunt. My husband and I enjoy the information you and others post.
    connie64

  16. #16

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by wantj43 View Post
    The practice most often results in decreased accuracy for both "shooters". Usually more accurate results are achieved if only one individual starts the shooting, then, if necessary the other individual can start.
    [
    I see the words but I'm waiting for the scientific study that backs up this assertion.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    fairbanks alaska
    Posts
    207

    Default shoot on report

    if a choice for a second shooter is there with whatever the first shooter is after, it is possible.
    the first shooter should take the time he needs to make his shot count, then after the report of the shot, the second shooter can determine if there is an opportunity to take a shot at his intended target or not. if not, that's the way it goes. but if it all works out, 2 shooters can celebrate twice as much without rushing any shot or counting down anything.

  18. #18

    Default My partner and I...

    have done the 1-2-3 shooting very successfully. Not saying it is a perfect method and I much rather shoot solo, but many times we have done this and have gone 100%. I do agree though, it is not the "best" case scenario.

  19. #19
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,390

    Default

    Great thread and good things to think about. I've never had the opportunity to do a 1-2-3 deal (or 3-2-1, as the case may be ). In planning a fly-out for sheep with my wife in 2012, we've joked around about how great it would be to take two sheep at once. Giving this some thought, though, I think those that advise against it are probably right in most cases. If the opportunity presents itself, my wife will get first shot at the sheep of her choice and we'll focus on securing that animal first. If she succeeds like she did with her caribou this past fall, I imagine I'd probably be able to then turn my attention and get a shot on another sheep if they slow down at any point while still in range. If not, then we get to hunt another day after taking care of her ram. There's certainly nothing wrong with that!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    I'm starting to get jealous hearing about all this Sheep hunting....

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •