Thread: Going ‘old school’

Got a Sako 75 waiting for a re-barrel to my new LR rig and its going nowhere. Meanwhile I have bought a range of cheapish nice second hand rifles with cheapish scopes of open sights. What I know from my LR days is that while a 600m shot is a real handful, you can comfortably make a 300m shot with anything, if you zero properly and you have that LR knowledge. Currently I am enjoying using a range of rifles traditionally, more than having one ultra-capable rig which was my old focus.

For hunting, I don't think LR adds much of anything. Its not like I need to shoot everything I see.

Just bought a TOZ .22 for the elevation adjustable rear sights. Finding quality opensights are very hard to find these days. Everything is too low for my huge head.

Biggest thing I have found. A rifle with no scope is a much better rifle. Maybe it does not shoot as well, but it does everything else better. A 10/22 without a scope is a fantastic wee carbine, used as it was intended.

A bit of Carlsen Highway magic. Shooting open sights improves your trigger pull. Finding this a big deal.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

303 with open sights if you want "real" old school

I went back to shooting my Vixen open sighted for a bit before I sold it. Was real cool to walk around with something so light and fit for purpose.

I grew up with the swannie brigade, a knife belt and a pocket of raisins kept us going all day on the hill. ( and that was SI territory too ) I often wonder what my hunting would have been had we had the modern clothing / techniques and gear.
My boots had Triconi's I doubt anyone under 50 remembers what they were all about.

If my swanni still fit me I still wouldnt wear it hunting again. Not in serious country at least.

Yep, got a 44 lever with a dot on it when I want to go for a walk, it’s my “go for a walk in the rain” gun

Originally Posted by johnd

My boots had Triconi's I doubt anyone under 50 remembers what they were all about.

I still have half a yoghurt container of "new" ones somewhere . . .

Ive got about the same amount of hobnails....

Mine are in a paper bag in an old nail box full of bolts and stuff, everytime I go to find a bolt i end up digging them out and wondering about screwing them back on ...but modern boots dont have a leather last to wedge them into.
I dont think I would be fit enough to go the places the Triconi's took me.
In the south island I would have them front and rear, they were a bugger for rock hoping though.
In the north island i would move them to the instep, awesome for getting over logs and crap in close bush.

Originally Posted by johnd

My boots had Triconi's I doubt anyone under 50 remembers what they were all about.

I had 3 of them screwed (with self tappers) on each heel of my lace-up rubber gummies for pighunting in Taranaki papa in the 80's. Worked great!

hobnails with triconies were awesome for skinning possums.

Originally Posted by Mathias

Who's still got an old skool swanny hanging up? I found mine in the garage attic the other day, still in good nick. Might throw it on for a hunt this spring, along with me stubbies

Despite being Generation X, I generally wear layers of merino with a swanndri ranger outer layer, polypropylene long Johns, and rugby shorts. I’ve got a heavy swanndri which I wear in camp. But I don’t wear bullers, fuck that, meindls all the way. And I wear a goretex anorak when it’s wet. So not fully old school!

Originally Posted by Frodo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMzi7tfXvSM

Lol. That was before my time. You had some strange as f*ck television back then.


But staying on topic - I agree that every method of taking game has its own benefits, and keeping things varied is a good way of developing fresh insight. It's not so much to do with the 'what', but rather the 'how'. Where bush hunting may polish a hunter's instincts and reflexes, longer range shooting may allow you to spend more time observing undisturbed animal's movements. If you were to then pair the knowledge you gained from both methods - wouldn't that make you a more well-rounded hunter?

There are some very talented hunters out there who cut their teeth bush stalking, learning the fundamentals etc, and later progressed onto longer range shooting/hunting. Yes, the distance at which the game is taken may be exaggerated somewhat, but to shoot a trophy animal on public land (intentionally, rather than by luck) still commands knowledge of animal behaviour in addition to much time spent planning, and time on the range. Is it easier to shoot a monster stag you've been following and studying for years at 800 yards v.s stalking in on a hind in the bush with an open sighted rifle? It's apples and oranges.

I think if someone is hungry to challenge themselves and derive as much as they can from every minute spent in the field, no matter their choice of tool(s), they'll come out having grown as an individual/hunter.

That said - I think there's a lot of merit in keeping things simple. Isn't that the primary motivation for most of us when we head out into the wilds? To get away from all the modern conveniences that imprison us on a near daily basis? Complicating things in the field should be well reasoned (i.e you want to shoot at longer distances), and not be spurred by the expectation that it'll lead to more success...as the gear manufacturers would like us to believe.

Frodo has nailed it here with this post. It doesn’t matter how you do it, as long as you’re learning and enjoying it! And doing the right thing by the quarry of course.
I was thinking about it today at work, in the context of old tech vs new tech. We seem pretty quick to have a go at the new techniques and technology that enable clean game taking at greater distances. I wonder if the native with a bow thought he was better than the pioneer with the musket, or just thought “wow! Now that looks like an effective way to get meat for my family’
I guess the ‘new way’ is just a further evolution of rock-spear-bow-musket-rifle-open sight-scope.

Before telescopic sights thousands of deer were shot with .303's fitted with open sights. From what I've read they could shoot animals at reasonably long distances. I suspect these guys were very good shots because of the amount of shooting they were doing day after day

A little bit old school. I bought this with the scope already attached and the irons intact. Got to thinking, at least if scope stuffs up while out wandering, I could just whip the scope off and go proper old school. Realised after I sighted scope in that I hadn,t sighted in the open sights. It,s just a cheap scope but very clear and sure brightens things up in low light. First scope I have ever owned. I get a bit confused with all the new high tech gear on sale these days. Started out as a kid hunting with single shot .22s and grew from there for a few years. Then many years of no hunting, so when I decided to start again all the goals had been moved and t was like Rip Van Winkle waking up. Seems to much to all re-learn at my age but I have looked into some of the new age stuff. If we had this gear when I was young I am certain I would have been using some of it. I am not agreeable to this long range shooting though. The longer the shot the more room for error, and if an animal is not killed cleanly then it could be dying a painful death miles away by the time you get to where you had first shot at it. I personally think long range belongs on a long range with an inanimate target at one end. For me it is about getting as close and personal as I can. That's what gets my adrenalin moving anyway.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSRhQK9KoMY

Originally Posted by inozz

A little bit old school. I bought this with the scope already attached and the irons intact. Got to thinking, at least if scope stuffs up while out wandering, I could just whip the scope off and go proper old school. Realised after I sighted scope in that I hadn,t sighted in the open sights. It,s just a cheap scope but very clear and sure brightens things up in low light. First scope I have ever owned. I get a bit confused with all the new high tech gear on sale these days. Started out as a kid hunting with single shot .22s and grew from there for a few years. Then many years of no hunting, so when I decided to start again all the goals had been moved and t was like Rip Van Winkle waking up. Seems to much to all re-learn at my age but I have looked into some of the new age stuff. If we had this gear when I was young I am certain I would have been using some of it. I am not agreeable to this long range shooting though. The longer the shot the more room for error, and if an animal is not killed cleanly then it could be dying a painful death miles away by the time you get to where you had first shot at it. I personally think long range belongs on a long range with an inanimate target at one end. For me it is about getting as close and personal as I can. That's what gets my adrenalin moving anyway. Attachment 118152

U got it right mate !!! I notice many more balanced and resposible comments here on this forum now about the realities involved with LR hunting. I suspect some 'woke up' ?

Originally Posted by inozz

The longer the shot the more room for error, and if an animal is not killed cleanly then it could be dying a painful death miles away by the time you get to where you had first shot at it. I personally think long range belongs on a long range with an inanimate target at one end. For me it is about getting as close and personal as I can. That's what gets my adrenalin moving anyway. Attachment 118152

And the same old opinions roll out, exaggerated with comments like " miles away" and generally from those with no genuine experience in long range hunting.
IMHO Havning spent plenty of time doing both there is just as much chance wounding an animal with an unsupported snap shot at close range than a considered and calculated long shot from a stable rest. As i stated in an earlier post the only animal Iv wounded and lost in the last 15 years last was a 20yd shot in the bush.
As a rule, long glory shots pulled off by cullers in days gone by with no suitable gear are heralded but use todays tech which makes it far more accurate and therefore more ethical and there is criticism. Its a funny old world