Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Let's don't go gettin' personal. I hate to close a thread that I've been playing in, but that doesn't mean I won't. 
long range rifle questions
- Thread starter mordis
- Start date
- Status
You know, wouldn't it be fun to miss a shot and wound an animal? Then wouldn't it be awesome to not be able to track it and recover it? Wouldn't it be so much fun to let all that meat rot in a backwoods thicket?
Cause you know, I paid for my tag same as you, and just because I don't want to do anything but take long shots at animals.
Kinda like it is unethical to let your buddies raft/boat without a life vest. It isn't illegal, after all it isn't hurting anyone else is it? It might get in the way of our "fun".
That's what "long range hunters" sound like. Now if they had back ups, such as a perfectly flat prairie, a handy vehicle and group of friends to help with the spotting, tracking, and recovery, they are doing things to mitigate the risk of a fouled shot. It doesn't make it any more right, but it does make it less of risk that an animal will suffer for three days before dieing.
If you want to find out how far away you can kill something, get into long range varmint hunting. That is a legitimate way to challenge yourself while performing a conservative act; pest control.
But every deer/antelope/elk that crawls off to die in a box canyon is one less that someone else can't eat. Long range hunting has a much higher probability of doing this, and is therefor unethical as it invites waste.
"Waste Not" is one of the tenets of ethical sportsmen. If you argue the opposite you are just a dick. A quick look at history will tell you where the bison went, where the black rhinos went, where the dodo went. If we don't care for wildlife we will lose it. If anyone needs a lesson on ethics I'll be glad to help you out.
And don't get me wrong, if you can't hit a pie plate with your first shot then it doesn't matter what range, you shouldn't be taking that shot. Doesn't matter if you are shooting an Eargenshplittenloudenboomer Magnum or using an Atlatl. A wounding shot should be a freak "I don't know what went wrong" instead of "damn I didn't read the wind right".
I am begging everyone to THINK about how they are impacting every other hunter by their actions. We affect everyone else in the woods /prairie/mountain by the shots we take, and the shots we don't take.
Jimro
It has been said several times in this post that long range hunting is taking the hunt out of it and it is just shooting. Well I pretty much see the taking of big game animals at a baited feeder pretty much just shooting as well. I'd call it just waiting and shooting. Running game with dogs is more of a hunt to me but still an ethical Delmar for some.
To me as long as you are hunting within the letter of the law in your State of choice you are being an ethical hunter. Yes I want you to kill the animal as cleanly as possible. Yes I want you to haul out the meat before the trophy. Yes I want a hunter not to pull the trigger if there is any doubt about the shot. There are several other things that are not stated in any hunting regulations that I want hunters to follow as well. But I will never come on here and tell some one that what they are doing is unethical as long as they are not breaking the law.
milemission
New member
Bait makes it less sporting to kill the animal. But I'm not worried about sporting, I'm worried about wounded animals dying in the middle of the brush and going to the coyotes and the crows because somebody felt like taking an 800 yard shot and misjudged the wind ever so slightly.....
At the end of the day, that's what it's about: cleanly and humanely dispatching animals. That is why I cannot possibly go along with somebody, even with the perfect setup and perfect shot, shooting much past 600 yards (and I'm talking about a serious deadeye here who shoots 1000 yard matches. The wind is unknown, and can change speed and even direction several times between you and the target. If the drop is calibrated to the nearest 10 yards for 600+ yard shots, then you really don't know how far the bullet is falling. If you judge the range to be 980 yards but it's really 990, then you are likely to totally miss the animal. Same goes for bullet speed if its 30 fps faster or slower than you expect. There's also atmospheric pressure (elevation), air temperature, and cartridge temperature that come into effect at 700+ yards. Not to mention that shoot well at those ranges, match bullets are required, and match bullets are not made to perform on deer or elk size game. Bullet performance isn't a given. In other words, there's just so much stuff that can go wrong, that any shot pushing a half mile or farther is somewhat iffy at best. Unless of course, you have all the information on all the wind gusts, the elevation, the exact bullet speed, the exact ballistic coefficient, the exact range, the exact amount of elevation needed, and even with all that in place, bullet performance still isn't a given. Why would anybody want to take that change?
Long range varminting is one thing. Most cartridges from .30-06 on up have enough energy that any hit on a woodchuck to about a kilometer with the right bullet will kill them effectively with almost any sort of hit. But deer sized game on up aren't like that. Unless the OP wants to get a .50 BMG (with an explosive expanding bullet), then there are no guarentees of a clean kill with a solid hit at a half mile plus. And with that sort of set up, any shots under 500 yards would probably ruin a good deal of meat.
That's why this is such a hot topic. There are way too many variables at 600+ yards in order to consistently make a clean kill on a deer sized animal.
At the end of the day, that's what it's about: cleanly and humanely dispatching animals. That is why I cannot possibly go along with somebody, even with the perfect setup and perfect shot, shooting much past 600 yards (and I'm talking about a serious deadeye here who shoots 1000 yard matches. The wind is unknown, and can change speed and even direction several times between you and the target. If the drop is calibrated to the nearest 10 yards for 600+ yard shots, then you really don't know how far the bullet is falling. If you judge the range to be 980 yards but it's really 990, then you are likely to totally miss the animal. Same goes for bullet speed if its 30 fps faster or slower than you expect. There's also atmospheric pressure (elevation), air temperature, and cartridge temperature that come into effect at 700+ yards. Not to mention that shoot well at those ranges, match bullets are required, and match bullets are not made to perform on deer or elk size game. Bullet performance isn't a given. In other words, there's just so much stuff that can go wrong, that any shot pushing a half mile or farther is somewhat iffy at best. Unless of course, you have all the information on all the wind gusts, the elevation, the exact bullet speed, the exact ballistic coefficient, the exact range, the exact amount of elevation needed, and even with all that in place, bullet performance still isn't a given. Why would anybody want to take that change?
Long range varminting is one thing. Most cartridges from .30-06 on up have enough energy that any hit on a woodchuck to about a kilometer with the right bullet will kill them effectively with almost any sort of hit. But deer sized game on up aren't like that. Unless the OP wants to get a .50 BMG (with an explosive expanding bullet), then there are no guarentees of a clean kill with a solid hit at a half mile plus. And with that sort of set up, any shots under 500 yards would probably ruin a good deal of meat.
That's why this is such a hot topic. There are way too many variables at 600+ yards in order to consistently make a clean kill on a deer sized animal.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I would definitely agree that most have not taken a shot at 1000 yds. Isn't that the point most of us have been trying to make? That we haven't and never would, or did once and would never again?
I would guess most have shot at an animal before though.
I would guess most have shot at an animal before though.
globemaster3
New member
Wow. I have never taken a 1,000 yard shot, nor do I think I will ever. Why? I don't have access to a range with 1,000 yards to practice, because that's exactly what it would take. Lots and lots of it. And training with someone who could teach the ropes and mentor me.
Here's my .02. Every technological jump left a generation grumbling about the apparent "unfairness" or "unethical" implications. Going from flintlock to percussion, smoothbore to rifled muzzleloaders, round to miniball, black powder to smokeless, iron sights to scopes, breach loaders to repeaters, etc, etc. Now we have manufacturing tolerances that allow weapons to be precisely accurate. There are cartridges capable of retaining enough energy to kill at these ranges. We have a corps of shooters trained by the military either taking these shots or institutions providing instruction to others on the intricacies of taking these shots, all of whom are ethical enough to practice their shooting and are discriminating enough to judge their shots as Zak eluded to and can make their hit 90+% of the time.
Based on percentages alone, and taking range out of the equation, I would put their ability as better than the majority of "hunters" who shoot their "sighters" the day before the season kicks off and try to make a 100 yard shot.
My concern, and it sounds like it is shared by most, even the long range guys, are the wanna-be's who saw it on the internet and go out there taking shots that are well beyond their skill level. That I think is universally unethical. And I'm fairly certain that even 73-Captain can agree with that.
Can we/should we regulate the distance hunters should shoot? No! Not only is it completely impossible to enforce, but just the logistics involved in proving your ability would cost more in taxes and take up more time that you could be doing other things. But there is one thing that is for sure: we should be looking down on those fools who don't practice and only sight in and go off their ballistics tables to take shots in the woods. If you don't have the time to practice shooting and become more than just mildly familiar with your weapon, stay home.
This is where the legacy of hunting relies on those of us who are experienced hunters to teach the younger folks the ropes. This used to be done by grandpa or dad, but in today's hands-off parenting generation, its not getting done. We've all seen the newbies showing up here asking questions. If their lineage isn't going to teach them why they shouldn't just jump right in and buy a 7MMRUM for their first rifle and take a 1,000 yard shot, then we need to be that voice of reason.
BTW, Zak, that was a great 6.5 article in Shotgun News.
Here's my .02. Every technological jump left a generation grumbling about the apparent "unfairness" or "unethical" implications. Going from flintlock to percussion, smoothbore to rifled muzzleloaders, round to miniball, black powder to smokeless, iron sights to scopes, breach loaders to repeaters, etc, etc. Now we have manufacturing tolerances that allow weapons to be precisely accurate. There are cartridges capable of retaining enough energy to kill at these ranges. We have a corps of shooters trained by the military either taking these shots or institutions providing instruction to others on the intricacies of taking these shots, all of whom are ethical enough to practice their shooting and are discriminating enough to judge their shots as Zak eluded to and can make their hit 90+% of the time.
Based on percentages alone, and taking range out of the equation, I would put their ability as better than the majority of "hunters" who shoot their "sighters" the day before the season kicks off and try to make a 100 yard shot.
My concern, and it sounds like it is shared by most, even the long range guys, are the wanna-be's who saw it on the internet and go out there taking shots that are well beyond their skill level. That I think is universally unethical. And I'm fairly certain that even 73-Captain can agree with that.
Can we/should we regulate the distance hunters should shoot? No! Not only is it completely impossible to enforce, but just the logistics involved in proving your ability would cost more in taxes and take up more time that you could be doing other things. But there is one thing that is for sure: we should be looking down on those fools who don't practice and only sight in and go off their ballistics tables to take shots in the woods. If you don't have the time to practice shooting and become more than just mildly familiar with your weapon, stay home.
This is where the legacy of hunting relies on those of us who are experienced hunters to teach the younger folks the ropes. This used to be done by grandpa or dad, but in today's hands-off parenting generation, its not getting done. We've all seen the newbies showing up here asking questions. If their lineage isn't going to teach them why they shouldn't just jump right in and buy a 7MMRUM for their first rifle and take a 1,000 yard shot, then we need to be that voice of reason.
BTW, Zak, that was a great 6.5 article in Shotgun News.
Hilarious.
I guess you conveniently missed this part:
The last two years for the match the weather was 90+ degrees and average wind of 5-15 mph. The year before that it was torrential rain. This year we had 15 - 35 mph winds. I'll post the video once it gets edited down and you can hear and see the wind conditions present for yourself.
The match is held in Logan NM because that's where we have access to land for this particular match. Similar matches have been held in WY. The monthly "Sporting Rifle Match" is held in Raton. Anyone who has shot Raton or been to Wyoming knows there is just about always wind.
-z
ETA: And to clarify, there were no clouds in the sky the whole weekend, yet 15-35 mph winds. That's a fact all present observed. Yet another situation where fact and experience trump speculation.
the essence of the question
"I firmly believe that having magnum power does not make up for poor marksmanship. I just dont beleive that one should need a magnum if they can put the bullet were it belongs. Tho I wonder if there is a cut off, a line that cant be crossed so that the animal can be humanely put down.
So assuming the shooter and gun are up to the task, both equipment quality and shooter skill, what other non magnums can be used to shoot out that far on elk sized game."
The question appears, then, what caliber if the following prepositions are true: 1. "if they can put a bullet where it belongs" 2. "if there is a cut off, a line that cant be crossed so that the animal can be humanely put down" 3. "assuming the shooter and gun are up to the task".
I do not see much in the way of responses regarding caliber posted thus far, for the following reason: Having a shooter place a bullet put where it belongs with a high degree of certainty so that the animal can be humanely put down, and 1000 yards may be indeed mutually exclusive prepositions.
If hunting is about being able for reasons of personal satisfaction or bragging rights to kill at increasingly far distances without concern for the animal involved (humane), then it would seem that a shot like this would be taken without compunction. I make this "straw man" statement because, given the uncontrollable variables inherent in this shot (wind, weather, stable platform and those others listed in previous posts) I am not certain that anyone could CONSISTENTLY make the shot to a degree of certainty that would satisfy the ethical requirement accepted widely that involves humanely killing, which is one of the author's prepositions. Hence the ethical obligation to refrain from causing an inhumane kill or wounding and losing would necessarily trump the desire to take the shot, all accompanying bragging rights or personal satisfaction notwithstanding. The desire to be ethical versus desire for personal gain.
Which may foster another question, as to what distance, with what favorite firearm are we comfortablel shooting? Maybe the essence of the question is in the author's original question, "Tho I wonder if there is a cut off, a line that cant be crossed"???
David
"I firmly believe that having magnum power does not make up for poor marksmanship. I just dont beleive that one should need a magnum if they can put the bullet were it belongs. Tho I wonder if there is a cut off, a line that cant be crossed so that the animal can be humanely put down.
So assuming the shooter and gun are up to the task, both equipment quality and shooter skill, what other non magnums can be used to shoot out that far on elk sized game."
The question appears, then, what caliber if the following prepositions are true: 1. "if they can put a bullet where it belongs" 2. "if there is a cut off, a line that cant be crossed so that the animal can be humanely put down" 3. "assuming the shooter and gun are up to the task".
I do not see much in the way of responses regarding caliber posted thus far, for the following reason: Having a shooter place a bullet put where it belongs with a high degree of certainty so that the animal can be humanely put down, and 1000 yards may be indeed mutually exclusive prepositions.
If hunting is about being able for reasons of personal satisfaction or bragging rights to kill at increasingly far distances without concern for the animal involved (humane), then it would seem that a shot like this would be taken without compunction. I make this "straw man" statement because, given the uncontrollable variables inherent in this shot (wind, weather, stable platform and those others listed in previous posts) I am not certain that anyone could CONSISTENTLY make the shot to a degree of certainty that would satisfy the ethical requirement accepted widely that involves humanely killing, which is one of the author's prepositions. Hence the ethical obligation to refrain from causing an inhumane kill or wounding and losing would necessarily trump the desire to take the shot, all accompanying bragging rights or personal satisfaction notwithstanding. The desire to be ethical versus desire for personal gain.
Which may foster another question, as to what distance, with what favorite firearm are we comfortablel shooting? Maybe the essence of the question is in the author's original question, "Tho I wonder if there is a cut off, a line that cant be crossed"???
David
Nexus_MkVII
Inactive
Almost all the shooting I've done over the past 5 months has been at paper or cans, etc, less than 100 yards away. (my first 5 months of shooting, I'm very new to the sport/hobby/lifestyle).
My only rifles *SO FAR* are a yugo AK and chinese SKS (I'm sure several of you frown at that, but I wanted to base my "collection" first and foremost on a few cheap, rugged rifles that will probably outlive me, I'll buy a "quality"/accurate rifle next). The Yugo needs new sights, so long shots are pretty much out of the question since I can't zero it with a normal sight picture, and the SKS shoots quite nicely for my skill level but I begin to have difficulty approaching 100 yards. I'm sure it doesn't help my sense of progress that so far, I've almost only practiced shooting from a standing position.
Anyway, I want to eventually go hunting, and I just wanted to thank you guys for essentially talking me out of it until I'm pretty much positive I can hit the mark every time. I mean, "long range" shooting was already out of the question for me, but in reading your discussions of the ethics, I'm realizing that it is not ethical to hunt unless you are almost certain that you will hit the vitals. I promise when you finally see me go hunting, I'll be the one crawling face down in the muck until I have the ultimate idiot-proof shot (and hopefully if you do see me, you won't shoot the bright orange ground sloth!). That, and I won't even bother setting out until I know I can put tight groups on paper.
...sorry I'm incapable of short posts....
My only rifles *SO FAR* are a yugo AK and chinese SKS (I'm sure several of you frown at that, but I wanted to base my "collection" first and foremost on a few cheap, rugged rifles that will probably outlive me, I'll buy a "quality"/accurate rifle next). The Yugo needs new sights, so long shots are pretty much out of the question since I can't zero it with a normal sight picture, and the SKS shoots quite nicely for my skill level but I begin to have difficulty approaching 100 yards. I'm sure it doesn't help my sense of progress that so far, I've almost only practiced shooting from a standing position.
Anyway, I want to eventually go hunting, and I just wanted to thank you guys for essentially talking me out of it until I'm pretty much positive I can hit the mark every time. I mean, "long range" shooting was already out of the question for me, but in reading your discussions of the ethics, I'm realizing that it is not ethical to hunt unless you are almost certain that you will hit the vitals. I promise when you finally see me go hunting, I'll be the one crawling face down in the muck until I have the ultimate idiot-proof shot (and hopefully if you do see me, you won't shoot the bright orange ground sloth!). That, and I won't even bother setting out until I know I can put tight groups on paper.
...sorry I'm incapable of short posts....
sc928porsche
New member
If you are thinking about taking game a long range 300 yds+, You will need a very accurate rifle (Sub MOA). A lot of practice untill both you and the rifle of placing the shot every time at those distances, and a cartridge capable of enough energy at that distance to take the game cleanly.
If you are talking about 500yds or more, may I suggest something in a 50BMG.
If you are talking about 500yds or more, may I suggest something in a 50BMG.
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
Skill... Ethics... & Suffering...
I haven't read all these posts, ( or really even care to )...
IMO, some people don't have the skill to shoot a deer at 15ft, if someone attached a target to it's side...
while others, are likely capable of taking that 500 yard shot...
we don't have a system in place to keep the "butchers" from shooting at 15 ft, let alone determine those that have the skills to take that 500yard shot
so argueing one or the other is pointless... to some it's not hunting, but we should ( again IMO ) use the skills we are given to best put meat in the freezer... if you have skills that allow you to shneak up within 10ft of that warry buck, by all means hunt... if you have the skills to choose the right ammo & cartridge & humanely shoot & kill that buck at 500 yards, by all means shoot that buck...
but I ask that you do 2 things ( please ) shoot & kill that animal ( don't care if you use a bow & arrow, or any combination of legal means to take that animal ), but please kill it... I've personally seen 3 deer that have had butchered attempts at thier lives... one was already down during hunting season, probably shot the weekend before my season, & it died a slow death ( judged by the wound ), & been dead too long for me to tag, one had been already shot 3-4 times that season, & my killing shot, left me with not much left to put in the freezer ( the other shots had been taken with a 12 ga. slug ), & one I shot & left in the woods, that was so infected from a previous wound, that I shot it just to put it out of it's missery... please kill the dang things, & have enough respect for the animal, to find it after you shoot it, rather than letting it go to waste...
2nd... please quit argueing about the ethics of successfully harvesting a game animal... it should not matter if the animal is shot with an arrow, or a slug, or a L O N G range rifle shot, as long as it is humanely killed & put to good use... far too many deer ( for example ) are killed by the front bumper of a vehical every year, than should be ... go out & hunt them... however you are legally able to do so, provided you can do it efficiently & humanely
thanks...
I haven't read all these posts, ( or really even care to )...
IMO, some people don't have the skill to shoot a deer at 15ft, if someone attached a target to it's side...
while others, are likely capable of taking that 500 yard shot...
we don't have a system in place to keep the "butchers" from shooting at 15 ft, let alone determine those that have the skills to take that 500yard shot
so argueing one or the other is pointless... to some it's not hunting, but we should ( again IMO ) use the skills we are given to best put meat in the freezer... if you have skills that allow you to shneak up within 10ft of that warry buck, by all means hunt... if you have the skills to choose the right ammo & cartridge & humanely shoot & kill that buck at 500 yards, by all means shoot that buck...
but I ask that you do 2 things ( please ) shoot & kill that animal ( don't care if you use a bow & arrow, or any combination of legal means to take that animal ), but please kill it... I've personally seen 3 deer that have had butchered attempts at thier lives... one was already down during hunting season, probably shot the weekend before my season, & it died a slow death ( judged by the wound ), & been dead too long for me to tag, one had been already shot 3-4 times that season, & my killing shot, left me with not much left to put in the freezer ( the other shots had been taken with a 12 ga. slug ), & one I shot & left in the woods, that was so infected from a previous wound, that I shot it just to put it out of it's missery... please kill the dang things, & have enough respect for the animal, to find it after you shoot it, rather than letting it go to waste...
2nd... please quit argueing about the ethics of successfully harvesting a game animal... it should not matter if the animal is shot with an arrow, or a slug, or a L O N G range rifle shot, as long as it is humanely killed & put to good use... far too many deer ( for example ) are killed by the front bumper of a vehical every year, than should be ... go out & hunt them... however you are legally able to do so, provided you can do it efficiently & humanely
thanks...
sc928porsche
If you can't hit a 2 MOA target at 600 yards with a 260REM, or 7RM, or 300WM, or any of the other normal cartridges which are competent within 1000 yards, 50BMG isn't going to do you one lick of good.
A student of mine bagged two antelope between 400 and 500 yards, one shot each, with his just-barely-under-one-moa M1A shooting Hornady bullets.
-z
This is amongst the most ridiculous statements in this thread so far.
If you can't hit a 2 MOA target at 600 yards with a 260REM, or 7RM, or 300WM, or any of the other normal cartridges which are competent within 1000 yards, 50BMG isn't going to do you one lick of good.
A student of mine bagged two antelope between 400 and 500 yards, one shot each, with his just-barely-under-one-moa M1A shooting Hornady bullets.
-z
I been there and now I am here.Reality is often expensive.
The judgment of Ethics,ability,knowledge,experience and intelligence is ultimately in a individuals mind.The average individual will conduct their selves accordingly with complete disregard for reality or the judgment of others.Many will repeatedly and in vain attempt to change the mind of such.Many post reminds me of the story of Don Quixote and his attack on the windmill.I seem to see a relation here.
I do believe that there are more self proclaimed 1000 yard shooters,experts and snipers on line than I have ever been able to find in all of the recorded competition and military recorded history of such since the invention of firearms.
What bullets other than soft lead will expand at these ranges and the remaining velocity at these ranges?Will they remain a solid?What research and findings do they have on such?Will this even be taken in consideration?
I once read of folks in a club in Pennsylvania killing deer at a thousand yards.I got the fever as I had access to wide and long power line cuts.I could even put up marked range post.Heck fire!Anything them Yankees could do this ol Georgia boy could do.
28 years ago I paid over $2500.00 for a custom rifle and scope that consistently put 3 shots in 1" and 5 in 1 1/2" from a cold clean barrel repeatedly before I accepted it.It was Chambered in 300 Wea.I spent another small fortune in reloading gear and components to reload from approx.110 grain bullets in 30 cal carbine velocities to 250 grain bullets in approx.338 Win.Mag.velocities.I bought it just in case of opportunity.I learned to perform and tuned my abilities to use the gun by spending far more in firing it than I had invested before.I never had the opportunity to need it for a long shot!BUTT!I had it!
I also know that it is far easier to zero in on and repeatedly hit a target at any fixed range or ranges than it will ever be on a "un fixed and movable target.
I wish the shooters and the game luck.They will need it.
It is a lot harder to learn and accept your limitations in life than it ever is to learn and accept your abilities!alfred
The judgment of Ethics,ability,knowledge,experience and intelligence is ultimately in a individuals mind.The average individual will conduct their selves accordingly with complete disregard for reality or the judgment of others.Many will repeatedly and in vain attempt to change the mind of such.Many post reminds me of the story of Don Quixote and his attack on the windmill.I seem to see a relation here.
I do believe that there are more self proclaimed 1000 yard shooters,experts and snipers on line than I have ever been able to find in all of the recorded competition and military recorded history of such since the invention of firearms.
What bullets other than soft lead will expand at these ranges and the remaining velocity at these ranges?Will they remain a solid?What research and findings do they have on such?Will this even be taken in consideration?
I once read of folks in a club in Pennsylvania killing deer at a thousand yards.I got the fever as I had access to wide and long power line cuts.I could even put up marked range post.Heck fire!Anything them Yankees could do this ol Georgia boy could do.
28 years ago I paid over $2500.00 for a custom rifle and scope that consistently put 3 shots in 1" and 5 in 1 1/2" from a cold clean barrel repeatedly before I accepted it.It was Chambered in 300 Wea.I spent another small fortune in reloading gear and components to reload from approx.110 grain bullets in 30 cal carbine velocities to 250 grain bullets in approx.338 Win.Mag.velocities.I bought it just in case of opportunity.I learned to perform and tuned my abilities to use the gun by spending far more in firing it than I had invested before.I never had the opportunity to need it for a long shot!BUTT!I had it!
I also know that it is far easier to zero in on and repeatedly hit a target at any fixed range or ranges than it will ever be on a "un fixed and movable target.
I wish the shooters and the game luck.They will need it.
It is a lot harder to learn and accept your limitations in life than it ever is to learn and accept your abilities!alfred
MedicineBow
New member
I, too, have not read all the above posts. Nevertheless, I get the drift, and see that it's a highly charged issue.
First off: last season I took my elk in the high country with a 450-yard shot. I hunt with a .308. I consider that a long shot for a hunter of elk, where the goal is clean kill, and the downside of a miss can be horrific.
This may not be a long shot for a some fellows on the range, when the weather is nice, everything's all set up for them, breathing is normal, they haven't hiked the mountains all day, etc., and the downside is that paper gets punched in the wrong place and a miss results in tinkering with the scope or the sandbags. But it's different in the field for those folks.
Nevertheless, I understand there are some for whom much longer shots than mine, even during a long hunt, are well within their skill.
Now, my shot was at my limit, I'd say. I took it based on, oh, say, 20 variables, too lengthy to list or even parse. Of course, at bedrock, those factors have to start with the fact it's a shot I was completely comfortable with (in all respects, which I won't belabor). But the one factor I want to mention is this: no matter how much more I hunted, I wasn't going to get a shot that was more comfortable. (Roughly, anyway...it's conceivable the next day I could have gotten around 350-400 yards...with no guarantee the rest of it would have been within the comfort zone.)
For me, that's the key in this sort of discussion. At the risk of being too obvious, I think hunting should be about hunting, not shooting. And if any part, no matter how small, of your hunting thought is setting up a long shot then -- and I'm not trying to offend someone, so cut me some slack -- then part of you is no longer hunting. Part of you is target-shooting. And that's no good with a living thing.
So, I say this (with all respect): hunt the hell out of whatever you hunt. Get as close as you can; that helps ensure a swift kill. Only take a shot when both of these things are true: 1) you are as close as you will get, and 2) the shot is well within your comfort/skill range. Then you pass all ethical tests.
Fair?
First off: last season I took my elk in the high country with a 450-yard shot. I hunt with a .308. I consider that a long shot for a hunter of elk, where the goal is clean kill, and the downside of a miss can be horrific.
This may not be a long shot for a some fellows on the range, when the weather is nice, everything's all set up for them, breathing is normal, they haven't hiked the mountains all day, etc., and the downside is that paper gets punched in the wrong place and a miss results in tinkering with the scope or the sandbags. But it's different in the field for those folks.
Nevertheless, I understand there are some for whom much longer shots than mine, even during a long hunt, are well within their skill.
Now, my shot was at my limit, I'd say. I took it based on, oh, say, 20 variables, too lengthy to list or even parse. Of course, at bedrock, those factors have to start with the fact it's a shot I was completely comfortable with (in all respects, which I won't belabor). But the one factor I want to mention is this: no matter how much more I hunted, I wasn't going to get a shot that was more comfortable. (Roughly, anyway...it's conceivable the next day I could have gotten around 350-400 yards...with no guarantee the rest of it would have been within the comfort zone.)
For me, that's the key in this sort of discussion. At the risk of being too obvious, I think hunting should be about hunting, not shooting. And if any part, no matter how small, of your hunting thought is setting up a long shot then -- and I'm not trying to offend someone, so cut me some slack -- then part of you is no longer hunting. Part of you is target-shooting. And that's no good with a living thing.
So, I say this (with all respect): hunt the hell out of whatever you hunt. Get as close as you can; that helps ensure a swift kill. Only take a shot when both of these things are true: 1) you are as close as you will get, and 2) the shot is well within your comfort/skill range. Then you pass all ethical tests.
Fair?
Seems to me that you need to decide whether you're interested in hunting or long range shooting. If it's hunting you need to develop the skills necessary to get within a reasonable distance of your intended target - realizing that what's considered a reasonable distance will depend on the terrain, the conditions, the prey, how good a shooter you are, etc. Bottom line is that you need to be 95% certain that you can make a clean kill before you pull the trigger.
If what you are primarily interested in is taking long range shots and proving your skill at taking those shots, you're not a hunter you are a long range shooter. Go find a nice 1000 yard range and take as many shots as you want at that paper target or steel plate. Feel free to shoot off sandbags, a tripod, prone, sitting, standing, and upside down with one hand tied behind your back. Go ahead and try to hit that plate when it's 5 degrees out and you're in the middle of a blizzard. If that's still not challenging enough, try painting the plate white first. Feel free to come back here and boast about your extraordinary marksmanship. Just don't go out and try to shoot a live animal that you won't be able to track and will suffer needlessly when you f*ck up.
If what you are primarily interested in is taking long range shots and proving your skill at taking those shots, you're not a hunter you are a long range shooter. Go find a nice 1000 yard range and take as many shots as you want at that paper target or steel plate. Feel free to shoot off sandbags, a tripod, prone, sitting, standing, and upside down with one hand tied behind your back. Go ahead and try to hit that plate when it's 5 degrees out and you're in the middle of a blizzard. If that's still not challenging enough, try painting the plate white first. Feel free to come back here and boast about your extraordinary marksmanship. Just don't go out and try to shoot a live animal that you won't be able to track and will suffer needlessly when you f*ck up.
Wyatt Earp
New member
Not if you are shooting at an animal. I believe that is the very definition of hunting: To pursue (game) for food or sport.
I don't see anything wrong with long range hunting if you are able to make those shots, I am not. If I was able, I Would Not Hesitate to take the shot.
It's absurd for you people to sit back and call these HUNTERS, unethical and not hunters. By your standards how are you any different when you step into the woods with a compound bow or a firearm. If ya'll are such amazing hunters why not just use a stick and a rock, or might as well use your bare hands.
It really makes me sick when these animal loving PETA idiots try and cause problems, but it's even worse when fellow hunters are making these accusations.
Last edited:
- Status