long range rifle questions

[taylorce1]

Deer and elk are most active at dusk and dawn, luckily these pronghorn we had time to set up the stalk because we have all day. But tell me how you would get closer to a deer in the last 15-30 min of legal light in this terrain? This is the stuff I hunt in for deer and pronghorn, that is why I practice at ranges out to 400 yards.

 

[73-Captain]

Mordis,

You sure stirred up the internet want to be experts, thought police and self-proclaimed ethics controllers!!!

This backwards mentality is NO DIFFERENT than someone who doesn't want anyone to hunt at any range.

I'd NEVER shoot game at 1000 yards but will not condemn you for wanting to try.

If you have the rifle/optics/cartridge combination that is capable of sufficient accuracy that delivers adequate energy and you are willing to spend the time and resources required to develop the skill to make such a shot, DO IT.

Those that can't make that type of shot know THEIR lack of ability. Don't try to limit someone WITH the ability.

If YOU think 100 yards or 200 yards or whatever range YOU want to limit YOURSELF to is "ethical" that is fine for YOU. YOU need to limit YOURSELF, NOT anyone else. Those are YOUR "ethics" NOT MINE, Mordis' OR ANYONE ELSE'S ethics.


Unless you are shooting game at the muzzle, FORGET about muzzle energy or muzzle velocity. You need to worry about energy and velocity at the range the game is at. What is needed is a cartridge that has enough muzzle energy and velocity so it still has adequate energy and velocity at extended range.

A better way...

Just use a cartridge that RETAINS velocity/energy better! This is where cartridges/calibers that use high BC and high SD bullets really shine. This is where the 6.5mm especially stands out.

C.

 

[tyrajam]

When I think of long range hunting, I think of a 400 yard shot. Thats a freakin quarter of a mile! If you can ring a gong at twice that distance, from a bench, on a summer day with no wind, then you are a great shooter. But taking that shot on a blustery winter day off of shooting sticks or with your gun laid across your pack is a completely different animal.

Every summer I go to ND for a week of prarie dog shooting, and shoot 1000+ rounds at 200-500 yards. This is not only a fun way to practice, but also a humbling experience. A puff of swirling wind or a miss-estimate of only 50 yards, and I miss the long shots.

Maybe 1 in 1000 hunters has business taking a shot at 500+ yards. The problem is to many people think they are that 1. If you think you are, then try this. Get up at 4am, drink 4 cups of coffee, nd wearing all of your hunting clothes, hike a few miles through the woods and then pick a rock 500 yards across a field, drop down into a stable position and take the shot. If you can hit that consistently, I'd like to buy you a drink.

Thats my perspective, but I'm a hunter who shoots, not a shooter that hunts.

 

[garryc]

The ethic is that you should never fire on at a range that you cannot hit the target consistantly under field conditions. Alot of people think that if they can hit on the range then they can do it in the field, t'ain't so.

In the field you are fireing one shot. With that shot you have to calculate bullet drop, wind, humidity, angle of fire and a little Coriolis effect. That's with no sighters and very little time. I read that as irresponcible on an animal. Alot of people have shot at 500yrds and done well, but 1000yrds is an entirely differant ball game. As far as the round, one of the important things is that the bullet remain super sonic all the way to the target. Funny stuff can happen to a bullet as in goes trans sonic.

 

[milemission]

For any cartridge, even .50 BMG, 1000 yards is way too long to try on a healthy animal that does not pose a threat to you. The difference between 980 yards and 1000 yards can make the difference between a hit or a miss. And if you misjudge the wind only slightly, it's the same difference between a good lung shot, a gut shot animal, or best case, a complete miss. Besides, the remaining energy at such long range for most cartridges that aren't utterly overpowered for deer within 200 yards is trivial, and not enough to cleanly take the animal. And at such long range, such things as atmospheric pressure (elevation), cartridge temperature, air temperature, and a bazillion other things I can't think of come into play. Doping a .50 BMG at one mile in order to figure out point of impact involves running a 22 part equation through a scientific calculator. I am vehemently against using an animal as a guinea pig for such endeavors. The life of any animal is too precious for such asinine antics, and should be treated with the utmost respect and harvested in the most humane manner possible. You owe it to that animal.

 

[TheManHimself]

If a hunter is a good enough marksman to make clean, consistent kills at 500 or more yards, how is taking shots at that distance any different from a hunter who 's only confident in his shooting to 200yards taking a 200 yard shot at game? Either way, the end result is a bullet in the animal's vitals and meat in the freezer. Yeah, that 200 yard hunter should be passing on those 250-1000 yard shots, but telling the guy who can do it that it's unethical to do so as a blanket generalization seems a bit foolish. After all, there are plenty of hunters out there who can barely hit a basketball at 50 yards, never practice, and sometimes don't even bother to check their scope zero before season, and nobody's telling them they should be banned from the woods...

 

[fisherman66]

After all, there are plenty of hunters out there who can barely hit a basketball at 50 yards, never practice, and sometimes don't even bother to check their scope zero before season, and nobody's telling them they should be banned from the woods*..

*emphasis added

That's just not true. It has been said many times that the Joe Blow you just mentioned has no business in the woods. They scare the bejebers out of me. This is the same guy that shoots at the foliage that moving.

 

[milemission]

Taking a shot at a living animal at extreme ranges is way different than shooting a target that never moves. Bullet performance doesn't matter on the target. It does on the animal. And when the animal moves out of sight after the shot(s) are you willing to trek over 1000 yards to check and see if you hit the animal, and follow it for a few hundred yards to make sure (after all, the bullet may not have expanded and may leave a very meager blood trail, if it does at all)? Shooting at an animal that is so far away that you don't know you are shooting at it is no real challenge. You can shoot until you hit it, then it will run off and die somewhere in the bushes after a few hours or a few days after being shot in the gut, which many will write off as a miss and not trek a mile or more to check out whether or not they did score a hit.

If you want a real challenge, get a .22 Hornet (if one is legal in your area), use 45 or 50 grain FMJ, stalk to within 50 yards, and shoot them in the head. That is far more humane than what you are proposing to do. Do you know all the variables that affect bullet impact at 1000+ yards?

 

[Candiru]

I think the ethics of a long-range shot should not be based on the shooter's ability to make the shot, but on his ability to track and humanely kill a wounded animal if he botches the shot. Someone with the means and determination to cross 1,000 yards quickly, acquire the blood trail, and follow the wounded animal however far it takes is more justified shooting at that distance than someone taking a shot at less than 100 yards from a blind who, if he bobbles the shot and the animal hobbles away, will just shrug and pop open another beer.

Some people justify the long shots by explaining failing light at the end of the day, but that seems like more like an argument against the shot. If you're a few minutes away from not being able to see the critter, can you track the wounded animal as night falls? Will you?

By way of disclaimer, I don't hunt but do think that it's the most humane way to get meat. More importantly, nobody needs my permission or approval to hunt how they want, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just hate to see animals suffer needlessly.

 

[fisherman66]

I think the ethics of a long-range shot should not be based on the shooter's ability to make the shot, but on his ability to track and humanely kill a wounded animal if he botches the shot. Someone with the means and determination to cross 1,000 yards quickly, acquire the blood trail, and follow the wounded animal however far it takes is more justified shooting at that distance than someone taking a shot at less than 100 yards from a blind who, if he bobbles the shot and the animal hobbles away, will just shrug and pop open another beer.

It's usually the same guy in my experience. There are a lot of people I don't hunt with any more that fit into both scenarios.

If you're a few minutes away from not being able to see the critter, can you track the wounded animal as night falls? Will you?

Absolutely, but I opt for low neck shots exclusively in the last 15 minutes of light and pass if the setup isn't perfect.

By way of disclaimer, I don't hunt but do think that it's the most humane way to get meat. More importantly, nobody needs my permission or approval to hunt how they want, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just hate to see animals suffer needlessly.

All due respect, but until you have helped trail a game animal that a fellow hunter wounded only to see lay down after lay down soaked with blood and rumen it's hard to understand the suffering an animal that's gut shot goes through. I've done just that a few times for Uncle Leroy. He refuses to get new glasses and I suspect he flinches with his mini canon.

At 1000 yards an animal has time to take a leisure step or two forward after the trigger breaks, but before the bullet arrives.

For those who are capable of a long shot; literally, I will reserve judgment, but that number is exceedingly rare and makes up a tiny, tiny fraction of this forum's membership and likely a much smaller fraction of the general pop of game hunters.

 

[taylorce1]

Candiru, I like what you had to say in the first part of your post. It makes a lot of sense too me. Now the second part here about justifying long shots because of failing light, well a lot of hunters will shoot in failing light regardless of distance. Most will try and find the animal that night, I know I would. There are often times when the search is called off until daylight. I don't know how many countless times I've watched bow hunters shoot an animal and wait to come back for it the next day on the Outdoor Channel.

Most of the time I have seen these long range shots, they were not rushed and well thought out. Using failing light might not be an excuse, but would you rather take 10 min to do the calculations and set up for the shot or make a 10 min stalk that only brings your 500 yards closer before you ran out of light? Me I wouldn't trust my ability at 1000 yards so I know I would have to make the stalk probably be out of breath and not be able to take the shot anyway especially when hunting elk above 10K feet.

Most hunting bullets will perform on game as long as you keep the speed above 1800 fps. So that is another consideration in your long range caliber selection. Another thing to think about is time to target of the bullet. Using the good ol free JBM calculators most rounds take over 1 second to reach a target over 700 yards away. We all know a lot of things can happen in 1 second. So when shooting game at long range it is very important to find animals that are very relaxed and not being pressured by other things.

If you want a real challenge, get a .22 Hornet (if one is legal in your area), use 45 or 50 grain FMJ, stalk to within 50 yards, and shoot them in the head.

Even if legal to hunt with a .22 caliber center fire rifle most States have made it illegal to use FMJ bullets for hunting big game. Plus to a lot of us what you just wrote is as unethical as the person who wants to take long range shots on game. It might be more humane in your eyes but what you would do will get you a fine at the minimum if caught in most States.

 

[milemission]

Well, taylorforce, the thing with such a setup is it is much more likely to result in a clean kill in the hands of a skilled hunter than taking a 1000 yard shot. There are far fewer variables as well, including the ability of an animal at 1000 yards to take a few steps between the bullet leaving the barrel and arriving at the target. Even so I can understand your ethical issues with such a setup (a .22 Hornet and a head shot), as it is something that only a select few should try, and 90+ percent of hunters have no business doing something like that. Also, you are right that it is illegal in a majority of states. But nonetheless, my main point isn't necessarily using the .22 Hornet, but that stalking an animal is much harder than what he is proposing..

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Even so I can understand your ethical issues with such a setup (a .22 Hornet and a head shot), as it is something that only a select few should try, and 90+ percent of hunters have no business doing something like that.

Can you explain to me how this shouldn't be applied to long range hunting also. Ethical or unethical it sounds to me like you have solved the problem.

This, long range hunting, is something that only a select few should try, and 90+ percent of hunters have no business doing something like that.

 

[Hello123]

If someone can hit consistently at those distances, I see nothing unethical about it.
Calling others hunting techniques unethical is a slippery slope. Is using a modern weapon unethical?

The distance I can put three shots into a pie plate is my maximum hunting distance. I see nothing wrong with this. I would rather take an avid shooter who can hit with his rifle, as knowing his limits, than an armchair hunter that deems he knows what is best for the rest of us.

 

[milemission]

Earp, there are many things influencing a 1000 yard shot.

Do you know the drop of your rifle at 975 yards versus 1000 yards versus 1020 yards versus 1050 yards? There is a significant difference at all of those ranges. Do you know what direction the wind is blowing at all places between you and the target, and how that will affect the bullet? The air could be blowing west at 5mph at you, blowing 20 mph 200 yards away, 10 mph 400 yards away, 15 mph at 600 yards, and 1 mph at the target. Are you going to be aware of that wind at every single point between you and the target? Do you know how your 200+ grain match bullet will perform in deer to elk size game at 1000+ yards? Are you willing to walk 1000+ yards after the animal has left in order to see whether or not you hit it and are you willing to trail it for several hundred yards to make sure (after all, a .338 bullet that didn't expand in the heart lung region isn't going to make a very good blood trail)? Do you know the temperature of your ammunition, and how that affects ballistic performance at 1000 yards plus? Do you know the air temperature and humidity, and how that affects ballistic performance at extreme ranges? What about elevation? What about the shot angle (if applicable)? Often times these set ups are on a high hill overlooking a valley, and shooting 1000 yards into a valley with such a setup is significantly different than shooting 1000 yards on flat ground? And how do you know whether or not the animal might move between the time your bullet leaves the barrel and the time that it arrives at the target? For every cartridge of which I am aware, flight time to 1000 yards is going to be at least one second, if not more. That is plenty of time for a deer to move 3 feet (gut shot) or more complete miss, even when the shooter's aim was perfect.

Now, none of those variables are present when stalking to within 50 yards of the game animal (except perhaps bullet performance, which isn't generally an issue if one is using a bullet designed for the task at hand). With a .22 Hornet head shot at 50 yards, there isn't a significant difference in point of impact with a slight wind, or an extreme difference between sight in temperature and hunt temperature, or any possibility of the animal moving more than the slightest bit between the shot and the bullet's arrival, nor is there a difference in poi with shot angle, or much else. And with an FMJ, one knows exactly what they are getting, and if they can discipline themselves to take nothing but head shots with perfect angles, then it is possible to get a clean kill every time. That is something that isn't possible with all of the forementioned variables with a 1000+ yard shot.

To one up the .22 Hornet suggestion, "TheManHimself" could get a .50 flintlock, learn to shoot it, and stalk within 50 yards and shoot a deer with that. I would be much more impressed with that than some bozo who claims he shot a deer at a 1000 yards with a .30-378.

 

[Scorch]

Lots of information and ideas here to consider when evaluating ethics of shooting game animals at any distance.

Although I am fond of varmint shooting, I have never shot a game animal over 350 yds, mainly because of where and how I hunt. Many of the people who make these long shots seem to want to shoot an animal at long range because they have a rifle that is capable of very good target accuracy at that range. As pointed out in another post, targets don't move, and a lot can happen to the bullet in 1,000 yds. Wind drift, loss of velocity are considerations. And the movement of the animal itself will change the outcome of the shot. At 5 mph, leisurely walking pace for deer or elk, they will cover 7.5' in one second, or about 10' by the time the bullet arrives from 1000 yds away. That can turn a good shot into a miss, or worse, a gutshot animal. Now you have to go looking for it. In mountainous country, it can take an hour or more to cover 1,000 yds, depending on terrain.

I am not sure, but how many of these long-range shooters are careful that there are no other hunters between them and their target? If you are 1,000 yds away, and I am only 200 yds away from the animal, who is in the wrong if someone is hurt? That one is pretty clear.

I remember reading articles when I was younger that called people who shot from more than 300 yds unethical and irresponsible, primarily due to the lack of experience of the typical hunter, the equipment available at that time, and the bias of the writer. Now we are involved in the same finger-pointing. I am not sure I like pointing fingers to begin with, but judging others' actions by our experience and bias can be hard to justify in the long run.

I guess the main objection I have against shooting game at 1,000 yds is the low odds of recovering the animal if it does not drop at the shot. A wounded animal can cover a lot of ground, and shooting from 1,000 yds, you really have very little chance of seeing where the animal runs to, how they are acting after the shot, and you will likely not hear the shot strike, meaning you will not know where the animal was hit. I may frown at other people shooting from extreme range, but very little about ethics is absolute. I hunt and take shots I have the equipment and experience to be successful at most of the time, and if the 1,000-yds shooter has the experience and the equipment to make the shot almost every time, the decision is up to him.

 

[fisherman66]

With a name like milemission I expected the opposite (although I now see the err of my ways.)

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[taylorce1]

But nonetheless, my main point isn't necessarily using the .22 Hornet, but that stalking an animal is much harder than what he is proposing.

Is it really harder to stalk an animal? Sure it takes time to learn but I'm not sure that is harder. To me dedicating the time time and money to shoot at 1000 yards would be harder for me. Stalking is a skill like anything else, what the OP is doing is learning a new skill. You go out and try an shoot 1000 yards keep a 3 shot group under 10" consistently and tell me that it isn't a hard skill to learn!

I don't have any ethical dilemmas with your setup either as long as it is legal to hunt with. I wouldn't use a .22 Hornet on any big game nor would I shoot 1000 yards at them either. My point is that there is nothing unethical about the person who has the honed their skills to take big game at 1000 yards.

 

[milemission]

The gist of my post is that there are far too many variables involved at that range in order to make a humane kill almost every time (95% +), including possible movement of the animal between the shot and the bullet's arrival. However, it wouldn't be hard to get a magnum rifle, a hell of a lot of ammo (if money weren't an issue), and blast away at something at 1000 yards until you hit through guesstimating, providing it stood still long enough. While a marksman shooting at that range will do a lot better job guesstimating than most of us (through lots of practice), it's still guesstimating. If he hits low, he doesn't spook the animal, so he holds high. If it hits behind, he holds in front. And he may use a scientific calculator to figure it out. And he can continue to do that until the animal drops, or wanders off. And if it wanders (or runs) off, then the hard part is crossing 1000 yards plus over unknown terrain to check the result of his shot, tracking the animal a few hundred yards to check the result, and then continuing to track if it was a hit.


If he's good enough to score a first shot kill at one thousand plus yards on a consistent enough basis to make it humane, then go for it. But that's an investment few of us have the time and money to make, and figuring out the bullet impact at that range is almost literally rocket science, and does literally require a scientific calculator and a lot of information. But there are only a couple hundred guys on the planet who have any business doing this sort of stuff at 1000+ yards. My point is, this is not something to take lightly, and gaining the ability to make it work all the time is nearly impossible. I don't know how many people, if any, could make a first shot hit at that type of range at anything other than nearly perfect conditions.

 

[taylorce1]

If he's good enough to score a first shot kill at one thousand plus yards on a consistent enough basis to make it humane, then go for it. But that's an investment few of us have the time and money to make, and figuring out the bullet impact at that range is almost literally rocket science, and does literally require a scientific calculator and a lot of information. But there are only a couple hundred guys on the planet who have any business doing this sort of stuff at 1000+ yards. My point is, this is not something to take lightly, and gaining the ability to make it work all the time is nearly impossible. I don't know how many people, if any, could make a first shot hit at that type of range at anything other than nearly perfect conditions.

Now we are talking as this is how I view the whole subject of long range conditions. It is a specialized skill that is not easily mastered. But I'm sure that there are quite a few people out there who have spent the time to master this skill set.