So are you really saying that someone should just sight thier rifle in at 50 yards and consider it good to go? That sounds pretty foolish and unethical to me.

I do sight in at 50 yards, but that is not where I stop. I actually bore sight my rifle, then shoot at 25 and 50 yards to adjust the mounts correcting windage and shimming if they need it. Then I zero the scope for windage and where I think the elevation should be according to the ballistics.

However after that I move to a farther yardarge like 100 or 130 yards and check for groups and fine tune my adjustments if they need it. Lets say you sight your rifle in at 50 yards with the intention of it being dead on at 100 yards. Then for some odd reason you decide to actually shoot it at 100 yards to see what happens. Now you find out it is consistantly hitting off the mark. It groups well but the the windage and elevation is off. Are you honestly telling me you would not adjust it to impact where you actually intend it to go at that yargage? We are assuming a calm day, no cross wind to effect the windage. That makes absolutely no sense to me, none at all. I don't care what someone from a gun company says. I want my rifle to shoot were I point it at the distance I want to shoot it. I have not seen too many rifles that don't need some tweaking of the sites at longer distances to get them on.

In all essence is what these people are saying to me is they don't believe there product is up to the task of being shot at longer distances.

Of course maybe it is because some are not looking for that much accuracy. They figure if they sight in 2 inches high at 100 yards it will be somewhere in the ball park of where they need it to be. And this is true in most cases. However I think that is lazy and that is what gives slug gun hunters the bad rep that they have. I don't know about anyone else, but if my rifle groups 1-2 inches at 100 yards the center of that group had best be over the bullseye at the yardage I zero it for.

If I can hit what I aim at from 25 to 130 yards why should I change the way I do things just because someone on the net thinks it is wrong? I have been doing it for the better part of 30 years with pretty good results, I see no need of changing it now. Especially when the suggestions are the opposite of what I was taught by professional target shooters, accomplished hunters and the military.

As far as shooting 1000 rounds in a day, it's possible I guess. Figure 1 shot every 30 seconds that is a little over 8 hours for 1000 shots non stop. Of course that doesn't leave much time for breaks like eating and going to the bathroom. And I don't know too many that could shoot for 8 to 10 hours and do it well or consistantly. Sure you could pull the trigger that many times, but could you execute the shot correctly each time? I doubt it.

And if this guy is shooting from a 120 lb rest that soaks up the recoil then he is no where near simulating how the gun will be shot in the field, I don't care if he is gripping it by the fore arm or not. And how would pulling down on the rifle in a rest do you any justice? What are you going to pull down on in the field off hand? You will just be pulling the gun down. I support the weapon with my hand, not grip it. As a matter of fact I don't even place my hand on the fore arm, mine ends up on the receiver or wherever the gun happens to balance the best. I also shoot with a sling off hand. I rarely shoot off hand though. I don't do drives or shoot at moving game.

I'll give you credit, you are tenacious. However what it boils down to is I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong. I don't believe that will ever change, at least on this subject. Isn't the internet great.