Top 6 Shooting and Hunting Myths

    What's fact — and what's fiction — when it comes to some commonly held shooting and hunting beliefs? You might be surprised.

    Assuming sufficient load development, a handload will almost always provide an accuracy edge over a factory load because it is tailored to a specific firearm. Today’s premium ammo, however, can make it a difficult and time-consuming effort. Photo by Andrew Johnson

    — By Jon R. Sundra

    As in any pastime, there are myths and half-truths that seem to have a life of their own, and the world of hunting and shooting probably has more than its share. Because internal and external ballistics can be so … well, intimidating to those who are simply hunters and not technically oriented, it’s understandable. Then there are terminal ballistics and cartridge/rifle performance, which can be quite subjective.

    As a boy hanging around the little sporting goods store my buddy’s dad owned on 131st Street in Cleveland, we overheard all kinds of stories that, as impressionable pre-teens, we took as gospel. After all, some of the men who hung around the store had big-game experience in Pennsylvania, West Virginia — even exotic places like Wyoming and Colorado — so they had to know what they were talking about!

    Myth No. 1: Long barrels are more accurate than short barrels.

    Actually, the reverse is more often the case. Short barrels are stiffer, and, thus, the amplitude of vibrations — or barrel flex — is less. Benchrest rifles sport short, thick barrels. It’s true, however, that where iron sights are concerned, a long-barreled gun can be aimed more accurately because the sight radius (distance between the front and rear sight) is longer and the margin of aiming error is less.

    Assuming barrels of identical contours (which these are not), the shorter, stiffer barrel would have a theoretical accuracy advantage.
    Photo by Jon Sundra

    That’s why accurately shooting a handgun with a sight radius of just a few inches is so much more difficult than shooting a long gun. Conversely, using an aperture or “peep” sight further increases the sight radius of a rifle, so it provides the most precise non-optic aiming system. Of course, the use of a riflescope negates barrel length and sight radius having anything to do with aiming accuracy.

    Myth No. 2: A bullet rises as it leaves the muzzle.

    This is a myth to be sure, but there are a couple of caveats. For one, though a bullet begins to fall the moment it exits the muzzle, it does “rise” in relation to the line of sight (as opposed to the bore line, which is an imaginary line down the center of the bore out to infinity).

    This illustration shows why a bullet supposedly rises when it leaves the muzzle. It “rises” only in relation to the line of sight.

    Whether utilizing iron sights or a riflescope, the line of sight — which is also a straight line out to infinity — starts out above the bore line, so if the two are to merge (zero) at any distance downrange, the sights (iron or optic) have to be angled downward to intersect the bullet’s trajectory. Normally, this first occurs out at 20-30 yards if one is zeroing in a typical centerfire rifle at normal distances. This is where “bullet rise” comes from, because beyond that first intersection the bullet is now traveling above the line of sight. As the bullet continues falling beyond that first intersection point, the two converge again at the desired sighting-in distance — your zero.

    As for the other caveat, a bullet can, in fact, rise very slightly after exiting the muzzle. This seeming contradiction of Newton’s Law can occur if, at the moment of departure, the barrel is flexed so that its amplitude sends the bullet out on a line slightly higher than the bore line.

    The longer and/or thinner the barrel, the greater the divergence can be, but it’s so miniscule as to be purely academic. It all makes sense if you just imagine giving a violent up-and-down shake to a garden hose and watch how it undulates. That’s what a gun barrel does as a bullet accelerates down its bore. It’s also why, when zeroing in or testing loads on a 100-yard target, a load pushing a heavier bullet can impact higher than a lighter one.

    Myth No. 3: ‘Enough gun’ means dropping animals immediately.

    More a belief than a myth, it’s held primarily by “low information” hunters — to use a recently coined term for describing voters. Far too many hunters believe that if an animal doesn’t virtually drop in its tracks, “more gun” is needed. Such determinations are often the result of ego, especially if the animal is wounded and not recovered.

    “I can’t understand it; it was a perfect shot.”

    Sure it was.

    The truth of the matter is that the typical hunter today is over-gunned, and it’s especially true of whitetail deer hunters who comprise the vast majority of our ranks. If it were possible to shoot 10 identical animals under identical circumstances using the same cartridge and load, there would be 10 different reactions. With all being hit with a perfect heart/lung shot, some would drop where they stood, others would run anywhere from a few to a hundred yards or more.

    The fact is, most hunters armed with 7mm and .300 magnums would be better served — and better shots — using a .260 Rem. or 7mm-08. Either is enough gun for all but the biggest bears and long-range elk hunting. And the .270 and .280 even more so.

    Myth No. 4: Mystical ballistics really do exist.

    Back in the ’50s and early ’60s, the Weatherby Magnum rifle was more or less the Holy Grail for aspiring gun weenies like me, and apocryphal tales of Weatherby Magnum cartridges were quite common. Most often heard was that you could hit a critter in the foot with a Weatherby, particularly the .257, and it would drop on the spot as a result of “hydrostatic shock.”

    You don’t hear that one too much these days because we have so many cartridges that match or exceed Weatherby ballistics — and far too much empirical evidence to the contrary.

    Myth No. 5: Handloads are more accurate than factory loads.

    Twenty-five years ago that was a fairly safe, though not certain, wager — assuming hunting rather than match bullets, and a modicum of handload development. Today, with premium loadings put together with superior components using more stringent quality control standards, it’s often difficult to match, let alone exceed, the performance of a premium factory load with a roll-your-own.

    Assuming sufficient load development, a handload will almost always provide an accuracy edge over a factory load because it is tailored to a specific firearm. Today’s premium ammo, however, can make it a difficult and time-consuming effort.

    Ultimately, the handload will always win because the customization possible in developing a load for a specific rifle can’t be duplicated in factory ammo, but the amount of load development and range time required might not be worth what might be only a minimal difference.

    Myth No. 6: There are magnums … and there are magnums.

    There are too many examples that defy accepted lexicon to list all of them here, but here are a few magnums that aren’t, and some non-magnums that are:

    The .256 Win. Magnum, now obsolete, was a pipsqueak of a rifle cartridge based on a necked-down .357 Magnum pistol round, and the .25-06 Rem. is a magnum-class cartridge without the belt and title. Both are .25-caliber cartridges, but the .256 can’t carry the .25-06’s water.

    The 6.5 Rem. Magnum, which was rolled out in 1965, had the moniker and the belt, but it couldn’t match the ballistics of the existing .264 Win. Mag. Both carried the magnum designation, but one was and the other simply wasn’t.

    Almost every magnum-class cartridge, whether commercial or proprietary, introduced in the past 20 years has been based on beltless cases. The entire Dakota family of cartridges shown here are all in the magnum class — but not identified as such. Photo by Jon R. Sundra

    The .220 Swift was introduced in 1935 and — despite lacking the official magnum designation — has been king of the .22 centerfires ever since, tremendously outperforming the .222 Rem. Magnum introduced in 1958.

    It wasn’t all that long ago that if a cartridge didn’t have a belt, a lot of folks figured it couldn’t be a magnum. However, virtually every magnum-class rifle cartridge that has been introduced in the past 20 years or so are sans belt. Go figure.

    Editor’s Note: This article was first published in the March 2018 issue of Gun Digest and was reprinted here with permission. For more information, go to