skinewmexico
New member
Well, if there is a long range forum, and people talk about it on the forum, it must be OK. Never mind that there is a forum somewhere online, where people get together and rationalize all sorts of abberrant behavior.
long range rifle questions
- Thread starter mordis
- Start date
- Status
Boy, some people take it as a personal insult that anyone would question the wisdom of taking a 1000+ yard shot. All I can say is get over yourself.
If you put in the time and practice and dedication to hit a target at 1000 yards you should be proud. That is as much practice and work as being able to play a cocert violin or play a professional sport. But at the range, under YOUR circumstances, is where these shots take place.
There are probably many folks on this forum who have put in the time and made these shots, and I doubt those are the people advocating taking these shots because they actually know what is involved, they don't just watch an edited clip on youtube and think they can do that too.
The FACT is, shooting at an animal in the wild at that distance brings in factors that are not in your control. Period.
If you put in the time and practice and dedication to hit a target at 1000 yards you should be proud. That is as much practice and work as being able to play a cocert violin or play a professional sport. But at the range, under YOUR circumstances, is where these shots take place.
There are probably many folks on this forum who have put in the time and made these shots, and I doubt those are the people advocating taking these shots because they actually know what is involved, they don't just watch an edited clip on youtube and think they can do that too.
The FACT is, shooting at an animal in the wild at that distance brings in factors that are not in your control. Period.
Mordis, no sights, no release aids, no compensator, cables, pulleys or cams. A stick and a string, instinct shooting. When I took second place in the Ca. state championship (a long time ago) I used all the technology available. I lost by one point. After the match, as I was putting my freestyle bow away I realized that I didn't have any fun because of that one point. I sold all of my gear and started shooting primitive. Now I have fun.
I will not shoot at an animal if I can't be 100% sure that I can kill with one shot. That means that long range hunting is out of the question. I have shot enough 1000 yd matches to know that at any time, a gust of wind, a flinch, a fly on my face, or intestinal gas can make a shot go very wide. If there is a living creature on the receiving end it can have a very bad ending. I won't take that chance.
In the military, any hit on a human is incapacitating. And allowable. But there is no sport in war. There should be no war in sport.
I will not shoot at an animal if I can't be 100% sure that I can kill with one shot. That means that long range hunting is out of the question. I have shot enough 1000 yd matches to know that at any time, a gust of wind, a flinch, a fly on my face, or intestinal gas can make a shot go very wide. If there is a living creature on the receiving end it can have a very bad ending. I won't take that chance.
In the military, any hit on a human is incapacitating. And allowable. But there is no sport in war. There should be no war in sport.
LanceOregon
Moderator
It would be possible to reliably take game at that sort of range. But one would have to do some extraordinary things in order to accomplish that:
1) You would have to invest in a most expensive long range rifle. Probably a very heavy benchrest type of rifle.
2) You would need to have a full benchrest setup, to give you the absolutely solid position to be able to repeatedly hit at that long range.
3) You would need to practice, practice, and do more practice with your equipment.
4) Finally, you would need ideal shooting circumstances, with virtually no wind.
While there are some people who do engage in such hunting, I think they give hunting a black eye. Here is a video of this type of long range hunting in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwIJOkFb4lg
For only a fraction of the above cost and effort, you could instead buy a typical hunting rifle, and simply have to stalk within 200 or 300 yards of your target, depending on your skill level.
.
1) You would have to invest in a most expensive long range rifle. Probably a very heavy benchrest type of rifle.
2) You would need to have a full benchrest setup, to give you the absolutely solid position to be able to repeatedly hit at that long range.
3) You would need to practice, practice, and do more practice with your equipment.
4) Finally, you would need ideal shooting circumstances, with virtually no wind.
While there are some people who do engage in such hunting, I think they give hunting a black eye. Here is a video of this type of long range hunting in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwIJOkFb4lg
For only a fraction of the above cost and effort, you could instead buy a typical hunting rifle, and simply have to stalk within 200 or 300 yards of your target, depending on your skill level.
.
Why are 3 shot groups misleading? I hunt with a hunting rifle not a benchrest rifle, I don't need a 10 shot group to know where my POI is. If I shoot 3 shots under an 1-1.5 inches, I'm happy because I know with a cold barrel that my first shot is going where I want it and my second and third are going to be right there if I need them. If I can't bring down my animal by the second or third shot then I have no business out there hunting, I don't need 10 rounds under an inch to be satisfied with the performance of my hunting rifle. It is generally accepted that a 3-5 shot group is acceptable for hunting rifles. I don't even carry 10 rounds while hunting, I usually only carry 4, if I need anymore than that I'll have to go back to camp or my truck and get some.
Just one more question, how is the long range shooting of big game animals any less ethical than the people who shoot big game over bait/timed feeders or run them with dogs?
scorch thanks for that usefull and informative post that acutally contributed. Now may i ask were have i even hinted that i was lying about my sincerety about killing the animals? OH thats right, i didnt i was being truthfull.
As was just said, those who neither have the ability nor the desire to practice sure seem to have alot of opinions as to whats possible... There is windage adjustments on scopes for a reason... IF it were only ment to be used to boresite and adjust for a 200 yard zero, then the scope manufacturers wouldnt put 40+moa on the windage adjustment screws. Infact they wouldnt need more then 7-8 moa on the windage scale right, the hunters shouldnt be shooting past 200 yards and wont be adjusting for wind in the field so why should we put that much adjust ment on there?
Edited to add, how is hunting with anything other then speers and knives and our bare hands any more ethical then a accuratly placed long range shot?
As was just said, those who neither have the ability nor the desire to practice sure seem to have alot of opinions as to whats possible... There is windage adjustments on scopes for a reason... IF it were only ment to be used to boresite and adjust for a 200 yard zero, then the scope manufacturers wouldnt put 40+moa on the windage adjustment screws. Infact they wouldnt need more then 7-8 moa on the windage scale right, the hunters shouldnt be shooting past 200 yards and wont be adjusting for wind in the field so why should we put that much adjust ment on there?
Edited to add, how is hunting with anything other then speers and knives and our bare hands any more ethical then a accuratly placed long range shot?
You're right about practice but wrong about just about everything else.
Here's a rifle competent at 1000 yards.
............... Larger version of above photo.
Zak, you seem to know your stuff and someone here vouched for your expertise so I'll take that. So let me ask you straight up, do you believe that a shooter who practices on the range hitting gongs at 600 or even 1000 yards should be confident enough to take a 1000 yard shot on a big game animal without a bench, without knowing the wind at the target, and not being in a controlled environment where you have all the time to shoot at a stationary target?
This doesn't seem to be about "knowing your limits". It is more about shooting in an uncontrolled environment. Maybe I can make the shot at 400 yards, another with more practice can make it at 500, and you can make it at 700. But nobody knows what is happening or will happen 1000+ yards away in the field.
This doesn't seem to be about "knowing your limits". It is more about shooting in an uncontrolled environment. Maybe I can make the shot at 400 yards, another with more practice can make it at 500, and you can make it at 700. But nobody knows what is happening or will happen 1000+ yards away in the field.
Regardless if you are talking about a special built long range rig or a regular hunting rifle a 3 shot group is going to tell me more than a 10 shot. Again you are not going to get 10 shots on your game so what is the point. If you can hold 3 shots on a vital zone target for several different groupings in different conditions, then I think the shooter has as good a chance as any to make a clean kill on an elk.
I'm pretty sure most of us hunters on here have made a bad shot or missed on game animals before. We all strive for perfection but will never get it and sooner or later a muffed shot will happen regardless of range. I'm sure there have been plenty of deer and elk shot inside of 100 yards that were never found as well. 1000 yard shots are not for the lone person hunting elk, to shoot that far you need more than one set of eyes on target.
I'm pretty sure most of us hunters on here have made a bad shot or missed on game animals before. We all strive for perfection but will never get it and sooner or later a muffed shot will happen regardless of range. I'm sure there have been plenty of deer and elk shot inside of 100 yards that were never found as well. 1000 yard shots are not for the lone person hunting elk, to shoot that far you need more than one set of eyes on target.
73-Captain
Moderator
No argument from me Jimro...
I just don't need YOU or any other "internet expert" deciding what is ethical for me or anyone else for that matter. Save YOUR ethics for YOURSELF or someone who cares to listen.
Looking through the list of moderators, I didn't see you listed as the "Chief of Ethics".
Personally, I think very long range shooting of any animal should not even be attempted by the vast majority of hunters. For that small group who, like I previously said, has the rifle/cartridge/optics to do it and is willing to spend the time and resources to develop that skill GREAT, do it IF you can.
What IS "just plain stupid" as you put it, is your inability to comprehend what I wrote. NEVER did I say I would take a shot like that.
My rifles limitation is 500+ yards but my PERSONAL limitation is 300 yards. But, that is MY PERSONAL limitation NOT a limitation IMPOSSED on me by "Jimro internet Chief of Ethics".
Want to preach ethics? Become a minister/priest and spout your S#$% to everyone who will listen on Sunday.
Mordis, was just asking a question. He just wanted information. You can't answer his question? If you can't answer his question, you have nothing to add. Don't think he needs your lecture and I know for sure he didn't ask for or want a lecture in YOUR supposed ethics.
C.
I just don't need YOU or any other "internet expert" deciding what is ethical for me or anyone else for that matter. Save YOUR ethics for YOURSELF or someone who cares to listen.
Looking through the list of moderators, I didn't see you listed as the "Chief of Ethics".
Personally, I think very long range shooting of any animal should not even be attempted by the vast majority of hunters. For that small group who, like I previously said, has the rifle/cartridge/optics to do it and is willing to spend the time and resources to develop that skill GREAT, do it IF you can.
What IS "just plain stupid" as you put it, is your inability to comprehend what I wrote. NEVER did I say I would take a shot like that.
My rifles limitation is 500+ yards but my PERSONAL limitation is 300 yards. But, that is MY PERSONAL limitation NOT a limitation IMPOSSED on me by "Jimro internet Chief of Ethics".
Want to preach ethics? Become a minister/priest and spout your S#$% to everyone who will listen on Sunday.
Mordis, was just asking a question. He just wanted information. You can't answer his question? If you can't answer his question, you have nothing to add. Don't think he needs your lecture and I know for sure he didn't ask for or want a lecture in YOUR supposed ethics.
C.
Zak,
I ain't talking "possible" I'm talking "ethical".
I'm positive that you've seen shots get blown off target by a gust of wind, a bad trigger pull, or mirage so bad that the point of aim was off. I'm sure that you've seen your fellow competent, regular long-range shooters miss the target completely at times.
You know that long range shooting isn't impossible, it's not even that hard, but the longer the range the greater any initial imperfection in the shot will be magnified.
And everybody has a bad day now and again.
Jimro
tyrajam and Jimro,
What you guys are leaving out of the question is judgement: the skills an experienced field LR shooter gains which enable him to predict his chances of making a first-round hit at the given distance, conditions, shoot position, etc. The ethical complement to this skill is making the right choice if his chances of that first-round hit are not sufficient.
There will be some debate on what the cutoff for this "chance" is. I know that the "hunters" do not make 100% of their first-round shots on game at "close range" (within 250-300 yards) for a variety of reasons, yet many of them are not criticized for making unethical shots even with a first-round success rate of maybe 60%. I would personally draw this cutoff line for expectation around 90-95%.
Over the last week I've (with help) been running the 2008 Steel Safari held in NM. The shooters are keenly aware of the conditions and the level of "unknowns" in the environment, and can generally pretty well gauge their chances of making a first-round hit on the practical (ie, deer vitals-sized) targets placed in the field.
tyrajam,
No, because you have asked a straw-man question: changing the other side's argument to a weaker form and then argue (if rhetorically) against it. Shooting a single gong at one shooting position at 600 yards does not prepare a shooter to make hits on different size arbitrary-distance different-sized targets (to 1000 yards in your question) in a variety of field conditions and locations and weather.
However, there are shooters for whom the answer is "yes." They have the experience to know how to make shots in a variety of situations and conditions, and have the judgement to know when the conditions are beyond their ability.
After the first day of competition in wind that started at 15 mph and was gusting to 35 mph, the average hit rate for the competitors on the course was about 60% on targets from 150 to 750 yards. These are conditions in which most of them would not have chosen to take any shot on game. If you let them only take shots they have high confidence in, the first-round hit rate will be 90% or better.
-z
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Ethics: I see it as unethical to take a shot where there is a high probability that it will more likely be a wound than a clean kill. Doesn't matter if it's 100 yards or 1,000 yards. Since the issues of wind and of knowing the range enter the equation, there is a strong argument there against taking shots at an animal at 1,000 yards.
Shots per group: Based on messing with a lot of rifles during numerous decades of reloading and testing, I strongly believe that a hunter gets all the useful information he needs from three-shot groups. IMO, the must useful knowledge is whether the first shot from a cold barrel always goes to the same point of impact.
Dispersion: Anecdotal. My pet '06 commonly gives me 3/4 MOA three-shot groups, testing at 100 yards from my front-porch benchrest. That's reliable, year after year. My one test at my 500-yard range provided sub-MOA, with three different weights of bullets.
Wind: An impromptu couple of shots at the 500-yard plate with my '06. A "just a nice breeze" from my left. I held two feet upwind from center and hit the vertical centerline of the target. A nice breeze at my location does not mean the same wind speed at 1,000 yards. So, back to ethics: There are no ethics involved in shooting at paper. Ethics control how I deal with game animals.
Art
Shots per group: Based on messing with a lot of rifles during numerous decades of reloading and testing, I strongly believe that a hunter gets all the useful information he needs from three-shot groups. IMO, the must useful knowledge is whether the first shot from a cold barrel always goes to the same point of impact.
Dispersion: Anecdotal. My pet '06 commonly gives me 3/4 MOA three-shot groups, testing at 100 yards from my front-porch benchrest. That's reliable, year after year. My one test at my 500-yard range provided sub-MOA, with three different weights of bullets.
Wind: An impromptu couple of shots at the 500-yard plate with my '06. A "just a nice breeze" from my left. I held two feet upwind from center and hit the vertical centerline of the target. A nice breeze at my location does not mean the same wind speed at 1,000 yards. So, back to ethics: There are no ethics involved in shooting at paper. Ethics control how I deal with game animals.
Art
Dearhunter61
New member
Long Range Ethics or Why or why not a magnum?
Nicely said Art.
This thread sure has taken a life of its own...
You can not base hunting ethics AS A RULE on simply the distance of a shot. Ability must be taken into consideration...I have seen guys at the range who have no more business shooting at deer at a 100 yards based on what I saw at the range, 6-8 inch groups, than I do at a 1000 yards, heck 500 yards.
I also know that hunters have different things they enjoy about hunting. My brother used to love simply making the perfect shot. That is what it was all about for him. I personally enjoy the hunt. The scounting, the preparation, stalking game etc. The shot is simply the beginning of hopefully the end of a great HUNT. So for me I do not choose to shoot out beyond what I am comfortable with and that is about 300 yards.
So ethics need to be based on ability and the persons conscience.
It sounds like a lot of folks are like my brother was...it is all about the shot and not as much about the hunt. To me the hunt and the challenge would be to close the distance between me and the game...that is what it is all about...hunting. If I fail to get close enough...oh well I will just keep trying. If it is all about the shot then go get you a Silhouette of the game you want to shoot and shoot at that at a thousand yards. Let that provide you with the satisfaction? Just a thought.
I will say that if you can not make the shot you are attempting 90% of the time then you should reconsider...stalk closer...THIS IS JUST MY ETHICS. But hey we live in a country where you are free to choose to do this if you want and you are not bound by mine or anyone else's ethics.
As far as the magnums...it is about performance. They will shoot longer with more energy and therefore more killing power. I purchased mine, 7mm Win Mag and 300 Win Mag, when I was a lot younger and I was a lot more macho. Not so macho anymore...amazing how that tends to work as we get older. 
But that being said I still hunt primarily with my 7mm Win Mag just because its performance, or mine with it, is better than the other rifles I have.
Nicely said Art.
This thread sure has taken a life of its own...
You can not base hunting ethics AS A RULE on simply the distance of a shot. Ability must be taken into consideration...I have seen guys at the range who have no more business shooting at deer at a 100 yards based on what I saw at the range, 6-8 inch groups, than I do at a 1000 yards, heck 500 yards.
I also know that hunters have different things they enjoy about hunting. My brother used to love simply making the perfect shot. That is what it was all about for him. I personally enjoy the hunt. The scounting, the preparation, stalking game etc. The shot is simply the beginning of hopefully the end of a great HUNT. So for me I do not choose to shoot out beyond what I am comfortable with and that is about 300 yards.
So ethics need to be based on ability and the persons conscience.
It sounds like a lot of folks are like my brother was...it is all about the shot and not as much about the hunt. To me the hunt and the challenge would be to close the distance between me and the game...that is what it is all about...hunting. If I fail to get close enough...oh well I will just keep trying. If it is all about the shot then go get you a Silhouette of the game you want to shoot and shoot at that at a thousand yards. Let that provide you with the satisfaction? Just a thought.
I will say that if you can not make the shot you are attempting 90% of the time then you should reconsider...stalk closer...THIS IS JUST MY ETHICS. But hey we live in a country where you are free to choose to do this if you want and you are not bound by mine or anyone else's ethics.
As far as the magnums...it is about performance. They will shoot longer with more energy and therefore more killing power. I purchased mine, 7mm Win Mag and 300 Win Mag, when I was a lot younger and I was a lot more macho.
Not so macho anymore...amazing how that tends to work as we get older. But that being said I still hunt primarily with my 7mm Win Mag just because its performance, or mine with it, is better than the other rifles I have.fisherman66
New member
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I'd bet most of the folks standing on the "1000 yard shot is ridiculous" side would have a very similar viewpoint as you. There is nothing like the smell of deer. With the wind just right I can take that musky sweet smell through my nostrils at 60 or so yards. Watching a ghost of a deer materialize out of thin air is quite the experience. Man, it doesn't get any better than that...even if I go home with an empty cooler.
I enjoy making the perfect shot too, but it's the culmination not the entire experience.
I'll guess this viewpoint is what comes after stuffing the freezer many times and reflecting over a mouthful of backstrap. I love the meat, but the chase is what I spend my free time thinking about.
MY 600 yard going is only my furthest target. I have others randomly placed and of different sizes all around my range. Currently im using a bolt .223 and am enjoying much succsess at ringing my various targets, AND shooting the Ground chucks at those ranges with consistent succsess.
I have more to post, but i have to go to a grad party, so ill post the rest of my thoughts later.
I have more to post, but i have to go to a grad party, so ill post the rest of my thoughts later.
I agree, but there is a difference between shooting multiple 3 shot groups and compairing them and a 3 shot group.
also we are on the same track I'd like to see a ten shot group each from a clean cold barrel that would be very telling. If you could do that on a pie plate consistantly @1000 then you'd have the ability to read the conditions well enough to decide. even then IMHO the ethical thing would be to error to the side of caution.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Did you notice that on the second shot the der ran away? It was wounded pretty bad and probably did not make it too far, but just goes to show that even a couple retired guys with a ridiculous set up, money and time can't get it right every time. Also who knows how many shots they took to get the three they put on video.
Running with dogs- obviously an ethical dilemma, I doubt you would drum up much support for it here
Hunting over bait/feeder-I don't see how this is inherently less ethical than normal hunting, I think you would probably find many people against it are against it b/c it is boring/lame. If I was poor and needed food to support my family(not starving, just to put some meat in the pot), I wouldn't think twice about hunting over bait. I would not take a shot at a range where wind change during the course of the bullets flight could lead to wounding the animal.
Don't ask for advice from people then be unable to handle their criticism.
Why should someone explain how to do something they believe is unethical?
Why is it held in NM? Oh that is right b/c where there is no cloud cover you have no wind. Is he going to take this shot in a desert?
- Status