What has happened to us???

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess that if I have a point (and if I part my hair right, it won't show) it's that we need to use the word "some" when we go to denigrating what we see as idiotic hunting/shooting styles.

"Some" long-range shooters hadn't oughta. "Some" magnum rifle shooters shoulda stayed with medium power critters. But, "some" do quite well with Big Bertha and Ma Bell shots.

I just don't get into the "One size fits all" stuff. Bits and pieces: "Oh, never take a neck shot. The deer might move." Lordy! I was middle-aged before I knew there was any other place on a deer to shoot! Hey, that's what my uncle and my father told me to do, back when I was a teeny-bopper.

In my stomping ground here, ya gotta go to the deer. These lazy mule deer (bleeps) generally don't get up and come to you. So, you walk a lot, and try to have worked into the ability to take long shots. Back around Uvalde and at the old family place near Austin, I often just parked the jeep, sat back and snoozed--and roused and shot Bambi.

But, like a lot of y'all, I've seen some idiots who really ought to have taken up a new line of work. Some.

:), Art
 
I spend alot of time archery hunting with a recurve bow in the fall where my shots are 20 yds or less.If I have tags left by rifle season then it's "fill the freezer" time.It is almost unfair for me to hunt with a gun after having my hunting skills honed razor sharp during archery season.I still would not shoot an animal over 300 yds with the rifle.For me an animal at 600 yds is just the hunt about to begin.If I couldn't get closer the animal walks untouched!!!
 
For me an animal at 600 yds is just the hunt about to begin.If I couldn't get closer the animal walks untouched!!!
Click to expand...
For me... If I took a shot at 600 he would still walk "untouched" I bet!:o
Brent
 
For me... If I took a shot at 600 he would still walk "untouched" I bet!
Click to expand...

That made me laugh.... it'd probably be true for me too.:D

Never tried.... how does a woodchuck at 300 compare to an elk at 600? 300 on a chuck is relatively easy, IMHO.
 
davlandrum said:
Peetza - how big is a woodchuck? I would swag the kill zone on an elk at 12-18"
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
The groundhog (woodchuck) is the largest sciurid in its geographical range, typically measuring 40 to 65 cm (17 to 26 in) long (including a 15 cm tail) and weighing 2 to 4 kg (4.5 to 9 pounds).
Click to expand...

So, taking off 5-6" for the woodchuck's tail, the kill zone on an elk is roughly woodchuck-sized. Convenient, isn't it? If you can hit a woodchuck, you can probably kill an elk at the same distance, under the same circumstances.
 
Davlandrum said:
Peetza - how big is a woodchuck? I would swag the kill zone on an elk at 12-18"
Click to expand...


When they're sitting up I'd say they might be 12 inches tall, on average, and maybe 6-8 inches wide, depending on age and how fat they are. They can get a whole lot bigger than 9 pounds though, I guarantee that.

I made a shot on one that was 184 yards that I consider to be the best shot I ever made, only because it was a baby.... probably the size of a 20oz soda bottle.
 
That's pretty hard then.... cuz a woodchuck at 600 is pretty friggin' darn hard to hit. I would guess that the "average" shooter would not hit a woodchuck at that distance more than 1 in 20 chances, and that might be generous, especially without trying a couple and correcting, which is not something most living things are prone to allow.
 
So, taking off 5-6" for the woodchuck's tail, the kill zone on an elk is roughly woodchuck-sized. Convenient, isn't it? If you can hit a woodchuck, you can probably kill an elk at the same distance, under the same circumstances.
Click to expand...
The difference of course is that if you miss the woodchuck, you miss.

If you miss the woodchuck-sized-vitals of the elk, you may miss, you may have a cripple. Some people are evidently OK with that. I am not.
 
Fremmer said:

"So let him have fun with the gun he wants. If the guy practices with his mag and shoots it well, I have no problem with it. To each his own. He may be hunting in an area where you have to take long shots, and if he wants more power, well, more power to him. I wouldn't worry so much about what some guy uses to hunt elk.

What has happened to us? Maybe we worry to much about what other people are doing. "

I agree. However, personally I have been downsizing my deer rifle the last few years from 7mm Rem Mag to .270 and now I'm using a 7mm-08 this year. Even with the 7mm Rem Mag I limited my range to 300 yds maximum.
 
+1 emcon5. see my sig. line.

Peetza - agree, dang hard shot. Add in to that all the variables: wind blowing, freezing to death, fingers numb, heart pumping, etc.

Not something I could or would try.
 
Making a long story short: I learned that at about 550 yards, a "breeze" if misjudged a tad can carry a .30-'06 bullet from a deer's nose to his hind foot. I'd figured on drift to around the heart area. (I'd also figured the distance at around 400, but that's not pertinent.)

At my 500-yard range here at the house, I've held two feet upwind of the target plate, to hit dead center--and it truly was just a gentle breeze at the shooting table.

IOW, if you know the distance, trajectory is the easy part.
 
less than 7% of hunts that take place in Namibia and s-Africa are hunts with foreigners of which the most are British and German hunters and the rest n-Americans and some Russians and so on. according to the s-African hunters and wild life conservation's research. so amongst the odd 93 % of hunts are done by local hunters and of them the 338 was voted as one of the top 10 worst calibers to own in Africa with the 30-06 as the best.

so i agree with your uncle.
 
Other than prairie dogs, I don't hunt so I probably shouldn't comment but I will.

I honestly havent met that many "hunters" who were "shooters". I have tried to help alot of guys sight in deer rifles around here. The 1" high at 100 seems to be the gold standard in these parts, yet I've seen guys take the 4-500yd shots they have no business taking. There's also alot of 3 legged deer around!
Most of the "hunter" group will complain about the cost of ammo, fire 3-5 shots, and declare "thats good enough for me"!

You never hear stories about the guy who missed, or miserably wounded the deer at extreme range.

Damn few people have the time and resoursces to develop the skills needed to shoot effectively at these ranges. And all the range time in the world wont compensate for field skills.

I dont know.........but to me it just ain't ethical!

Andy
 
I consider myself an ethical hunter,I know my rifle and what it's capable of.I have been shooting the same model 700 7mm Rem mag for 21 years and I've killed alot of game with it.I was taught at an early age that you OWE it to the animal if you're going to shoot it to make its death as quick and humane as possible.Unless you are able to pin point a shot into the animals vitals it's UNETHICAL to take the shot.The only excuse for taking a 600 yd shot would be at a wounded animal you are trying to finish.
 
Peetza - how big is a woodchuck? I would swag the kill zone on an elk at 12-18"
Click to expand...


This is my biggest ever chuck. Easily the fattest and widest one I've ever seen too. He had really thick layers of fat on him.

For perspective, the shoe size in the photo is 10 1/2:

3846278841_a3b0daca9a_o.jpg


Most of the chucks we shot that day were bloodied badly, and had good sized holes in them. Some were even ripped apart pretty good.

But the 50 gr VAX bullet from a .223 went into this fella, and it never came out.

--
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top