What has happened to us???
- Thread starter jgcoastie
- Start date
- Status
Huntergirl
New member
I remember talking to a Game and Fish officer a couple years ago, who said that alot of elk found dead by F&G and not harvested, were from poorly placed shots. He said he watched hunters in the field taking ridiculously long and difficult shots, knowing from experience, that those hunters would never bother to track down a wounded elk. Most were not in good enough shape to even be hunting. I think that's a big point right there why some hunters go to a big boomer. They think a big magnum will compensate for poor placement. And we know that's not true.
longranger
New member
Huntergirl,
You are spot on as well you have must have been talking to the same Fand G guy I did.Except he was talking about all of the the 3 legged Antelope that were going to die because of hunters not knowing ranges and expected trajectories for their rifles.
You are spot on as well you have must have been talking to the same Fand G guy I did.Except he was talking about all of the the 3 legged Antelope that were going to die because of hunters not knowing ranges and expected trajectories for their rifles.
wyobohunter
New member
Well...
This should make most of you happy. I went out Moose hunting w/my 30-06 because the boomer isn't all dialed in just right yet. I've got the 06' set up for 350 yds (max) and carry a rangefinder that compensates for shot angle. Only legal Moose we found was ranged at 504 yds (after angle compensation). Long story short, she was in grass so tall it looked like she was laying down and we were at the edge of that grass. Stalking in closer was impossible because once you drop down in you can't see a durn thing but grass (unless you are an NBA player). Had to let her go, but if I had the .338 all dialed in, nother story
This should make most of you happy. I went out Moose hunting w/my 30-06 because the boomer isn't all dialed in just right yet. I've got the 06' set up for 350 yds (max) and carry a rangefinder that compensates for shot angle. Only legal Moose we found was ranged at 504 yds (after angle compensation). Long story short, she was in grass so tall it looked like she was laying down and we were at the edge of that grass. Stalking in closer was impossible because once you drop down in you can't see a durn thing but grass (unless you are an NBA player). Had to let her go, but if I had the .338 all dialed in, nother story
Last edited:
You have no regret.Good for you.
Its funny,that 600yd elk rifle I built has taken a deer and an antelope,both inside 300 yds.
I haven't taken it elk hunting.
The rifle I have been using has a 1.5-5 scope on it,a 21 in bbl,and a 308 like trajectory.OK it is a 260 gr .375 bullet,but I always have liked Elmer Keith.
Its funny,that 600yd elk rifle I built has taken a deer and an antelope,both inside 300 yds.
I haven't taken it elk hunting.
The rifle I have been using has a 1.5-5 scope on it,a 21 in bbl,and a 308 like trajectory.OK it is a 260 gr .375 bullet,but I always have liked Elmer Keith.
The funny thing about this thread is that it reminds me so much of the late, great, Jack O'Conner and his thoughts about distance shooting and the cartridges to avoid. The thoughts that he put down in his books and Outdoor Life articles were just as many feel here, don't take long shots UNLESS you have plenty of practice and skill behind that trigger finger and try to lessen the distance as much as is reasonalble. One of his big pet peeves he had was with what Joe Hunter was trying to do with his "rainbow trajectory" 30-30 "leg breaker". But he always blamed the Joe Hunter, not the 30-30. The reality is that no matter what rifle/cartridge combination you select, you need to know what YOUR limitations are. I won't be critical of someone taking a shot at "X" distance if he honestly believes that he can make the shot. I will be critical of someone who just blazes away. I will close with a quote from Mr. O'Conner, "The man who "hopes" he can hit almost never does. The man who "thinks" he can hit often makes a good quick kill, but sometimes wounds. The man who "knows" he can hit almost always does a neat job and almost never wounds." Whether you choose to hunt with a 243 or a 375, know your rifle and your limitations.
Legionnaire
New member
What has happened to us? Too much saturation by marketing-driven media from companies that make their money selling "stuff," especially new guns and new cartridges. Heck, look at all the new stuff at Cabela's every year! One doesn't need the latest "leafy camoed gore-tex scent-blocking 3-D polar fleece" outfit every season. But we've become easily-influenced consumers. Too few of us left that really enjoy the out-of-door experience; "the hunt" has, for many, become an endless search through catalogs, magazines, and stores for the gratification that comes from a new purchase. Sigh.
I used to be a hunter safety instructor before my last move (unfortunately, PA wouldn't recognize my NY credentials and I don't have time to get recertified). I miss the interaction with the kids who really wanted to learn about hunting. Some of the best conversations started with the question, "What do I need to hunt (insert favorite game)?" "No, you don't need a six-inch-tanto-blade-combat/survival knife for deer ... a folder with a three-inch blade is plenty for field dressing." You get the point.
Can't really blame the companies who keep coming up with more stuff; we're suckers for it, and it keeps them in business. But we're losing the connection to the outdoors and are spending too much time on the "virtual" hunt, which takes us through pages of new "stuff." Too bad that time isn't spent honing field skills, or just getting and staying in shape!
I used to be a hunter safety instructor before my last move (unfortunately, PA wouldn't recognize my NY credentials and I don't have time to get recertified). I miss the interaction with the kids who really wanted to learn about hunting. Some of the best conversations started with the question, "What do I need to hunt (insert favorite game)?" "No, you don't need a six-inch-tanto-blade-combat/survival knife for deer ... a folder with a three-inch blade is plenty for field dressing." You get the point.
Can't really blame the companies who keep coming up with more stuff; we're suckers for it, and it keeps them in business. But we're losing the connection to the outdoors and are spending too much time on the "virtual" hunt, which takes us through pages of new "stuff." Too bad that time isn't spent honing field skills, or just getting and staying in shape!
.
Ninety percent of the time I wear blue jeans unless I'm bow hunting and sometimes even then.
It's kind of nutty to have on a bunch of camo and then put a full size orange vest on top of it.
But, try and buy a good hunting jacket with good pockets and compartments that is not camo. They don't make them.
hunting vs shooting
I very much agree with the OP.
600 yards....775 yards....400 yards.
That's finding an Elk.
Taking the shot....that's shooting the Elk.
Getting close....stalking it.....crawling up if need be....THAT is hunting the Elk.
A quick story: I know a fellow, a friend of my son, who travels every year to Alaska to hunt caribou up North. He is a bow hunter. There are no trees on the tundra. He will glass an animal at those long distances and then make a decision....then he gets down and crawls toward the animal until he gets close enough to take a bow shot. He may have to crawl nearly as long a distance as those Magnum shooters shoot. He takes a caribou each year. THAT is hunting.
Pete
PS -
Very true. It ain't hunting though.
I very much agree with the OP.
Don't know about ethics and long shots but...
600 yards....775 yards....400 yards.
That's finding an Elk.
Taking the shot....that's shooting the Elk.
Getting close....stalking it.....crawling up if need be....THAT is hunting the Elk.
A quick story: I know a fellow, a friend of my son, who travels every year to Alaska to hunt caribou up North. He is a bow hunter. There are no trees on the tundra. He will glass an animal at those long distances and then make a decision....then he gets down and crawls toward the animal until he gets close enough to take a bow shot. He may have to crawl nearly as long a distance as those Magnum shooters shoot. He takes a caribou each year. THAT is hunting.
Pete
PS -
Very true. It ain't hunting though.
oneounceload
Moderator
http://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/st...oreId=1&catalogId=1&langId=-1&from=SR&feat=sr
I've always liked this one - have used one similar to it for years
wyobohunter
New member
... By your definition only. The guy who uses a compound with all the goodies may not consider going out with a rifle "hunting", the trad bowhunter may think that the guy with training wheels is cheating a little, the fella with a self bow could think the same thing of the guy with a bow that is laminated, the hunter with atlatl in hand etc etc... It's pretty easy to find fault in somebody elses way of doing things and say "this aint that & that aint this", it's nonsense IMO. Do what you do so long as you do it well, call it whatever you want and "judge not".
OK
Yeah, OK. I can go with that. The bow, however, was just a fact of the story, not its point. It isn't the weapon that makes the hunt; it's the weapon that ends the hunt. What I was thinking about primarily was not the instrument but the whole act of getting close, of hunting an animal close enough that, in the case of that anecdote, a bowshot was practical - or an atlatl throw if you wish. Maybe a close, accurate shot with a pistol or a flintlock.
Or...as the late Peter Capstick once tried after stalking a water buffalo, a spear thrust.
Pete
PS: In a way, the answer to the OP's question is in here. The human condition and the search for an easier, softer, way. The progression from old to new - the spear, the atlatl, the bow, the rifle. Each more efficient, more accurate, easier on the operator.
Yeah, OK. I can go with that. The bow, however, was just a fact of the story, not its point. It isn't the weapon that makes the hunt; it's the weapon that ends the hunt. What I was thinking about primarily was not the instrument but the whole act of getting close, of hunting an animal close enough that, in the case of that anecdote, a bowshot was practical - or an atlatl throw if you wish. Maybe a close, accurate shot with a pistol or a flintlock.
Or...as the late Peter Capstick once tried after stalking a water buffalo, a spear thrust.
Pete
PS: In a way, the answer to the OP's question is in here. The human condition and the search for an easier, softer, way. The progression from old to new - the spear, the atlatl, the bow, the rifle. Each more efficient, more accurate, easier on the operator.
Last edited:
wyobohunter
New member
Agreed...Great observation.
Last edited:
DiscoRacing
New member
Ive always had a 30.06.. probably always will.... I wouldnt hesitate to shoot any animal with one of my reloads.... if a 200grain 30 caliber bullet wont kill it..give it up...... but I dont hunt out west... there are NO places here to shoot 300 yds.... let alone 700.... the only 300yard shots made here..... are the ones that you hear of in the local bar after the hunt....knowing full well of the 50%gain in distance after the first beer.
skydiver3346
New member
How far should you shoot an animal?
Nothing wrong with making long distance shots (600-1,000 yards) on paper!
Sure, lots of us out there can make long to extremely long range shots in a hunting situation. Some of us can't... Bottom line is that no matter how good a shot you are, the longer the distance (and larger the animal) the more varibles enter the equation in hunting situations. Even slight movements by the animal and/or shooter (at the time of the shot) can result in poor shot placement (by anybody, period). I know because it has happened to me and I have been told I am a pretty good long range hunter.
So, I decided if it is longer than 400 yards (with rangefinder) then I won't make the shot. That is my personal decision. I belive it is fair to the game and to the art of hunting. I feel we must be able to make a sure clean kill of the animal being hunted. Nobody can guarantee that at extremely long distances in these type hunting situation. The temp, wind, movements and distance all play major factors in making the perfect kill shot. Think about it..
Nothing wrong with making long distance shots (600-1,000 yards) on paper!
Sure, lots of us out there can make long to extremely long range shots in a hunting situation. Some of us can't... Bottom line is that no matter how good a shot you are, the longer the distance (and larger the animal) the more varibles enter the equation in hunting situations. Even slight movements by the animal and/or shooter (at the time of the shot) can result in poor shot placement (by anybody, period). I know because it has happened to me and I have been told I am a pretty good long range hunter.
So, I decided if it is longer than 400 yards (with rangefinder) then I won't make the shot. That is my personal decision. I belive it is fair to the game and to the art of hunting. I feel we must be able to make a sure clean kill of the animal being hunted. Nobody can guarantee that at extremely long distances in these type hunting situation. The temp, wind, movements and distance all play major factors in making the perfect kill shot. Think about it..
Yea and i know of a lot of people who
go out hunting at far distances to feel like a sniper
and dropping deal like they are in iraq in the middle of a war
and get the concept of it all wrong and just wanna feel tough bragging
about the range they put one down at.. and dont enjoy the stalk as
much as we all use to.. it comes down to the i see.. i shoot.. oh i hope
i hit it......
go out hunting at far distances to feel like a sniper
and dropping deal like they are in iraq in the middle of a war
and get the concept of it all wrong and just wanna feel tough bragging
about the range they put one down at.. and dont enjoy the stalk as
much as we all use to.. it comes down to the i see.. i shoot.. oh i hope
i hit it......
FrontSight
New member
If you are capable of making a good killing shot, then it is a good shot & is hunting, no matter the distance.
Same can be said for any firearm compared to a bow, compared to an atl (spelling?), compared to spear, compared to a club, compared to a rock, compared to scaring them off a cliff to their doom. Somewhere in there you compare it to traps and snares.
Each is just a more refined tool that allows you to harvest the animals from a greater distance, and none of them are unethical or make you less of a hunter.
That's just my 2 cents...
Same can be said for any firearm compared to a bow, compared to an atl (spelling?), compared to spear, compared to a club, compared to a rock, compared to scaring them off a cliff to their doom. Somewhere in there you compare it to traps and snares.
Each is just a more refined tool that allows you to harvest the animals from a greater distance, and none of them are unethical or make you less of a hunter.
That's just my 2 cents...
what happened?
As you can tell from my earlier post, I disagree with that. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we all try to run down a deer and club it to death or fall on it out of a tree with a knife in our teeth. Nor do I denigrate the skill that it takes to judge and successfully make a long shot kill.
But....the progress of time has moved many of us (Most? All?) away from the hunt. The shot is the very last part of the hunt. In many ways it's the easy part. The hard part has been bypassed. The availability of almost laser like weapons and advanced optics allows us to take those 300, 400, 500, 600 yard shots. The focus is there in virtually every post and inquiry about firearms.
The hunt - what used to happen in those intervening yards between sighting and shooting - has been diminished. It has been relegated for many to the act of seeing the game through binoculars and then shooting it. Is that bad? No. Is it "hunting"?
Compared to "What gun should I buy? What is the effective range of...? Is such and such caliber the best for "----" game?, how often do we read about the best techniques for crossing the last two hundred yards on a treeless plain, or moving from tree to tree quietly so as to get the best handgun shot. Even in this wonderful set of fora here at TFL, how many are devoted to firearms and how many to the hunt. Even at fora supposedly devoted to Hunting (Hunting.net/Nodak Outdoors to name two) the majority of the posts are not about the techniques of hunting.
Why? Because in many cases people aren't interested in or capable of hunting; they are interested in harvesting and that's just what a 600 yard shot allows - for all the shooting skill it takes. The harvest is the end; the middle - where the hunt is - is missing for many who go afield.
The definition of hunting has changed as we have developed better instruments, field craft has become less important for many who go seeking game. Makes sense, though, doesn't it? Who would want to crawl those last two hundred yards if they didn't have to or cross that deep ravine and make the climb on the other side (even though they will have to do it if they make that long shot across.)
Pete
As you can tell from my earlier post, I disagree with that. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we all try to run down a deer and club it to death or fall on it out of a tree with a knife in our teeth. Nor do I denigrate the skill that it takes to judge and successfully make a long shot kill.
But....the progress of time has moved many of us (Most? All?) away from the hunt. The shot is the very last part of the hunt. In many ways it's the easy part. The hard part has been bypassed. The availability of almost laser like weapons and advanced optics allows us to take those 300, 400, 500, 600 yard shots. The focus is there in virtually every post and inquiry about firearms.
The hunt - what used to happen in those intervening yards between sighting and shooting - has been diminished. It has been relegated for many to the act of seeing the game through binoculars and then shooting it. Is that bad? No. Is it "hunting"?
Compared to "What gun should I buy? What is the effective range of...? Is such and such caliber the best for "----" game?, how often do we read about the best techniques for crossing the last two hundred yards on a treeless plain, or moving from tree to tree quietly so as to get the best handgun shot. Even in this wonderful set of fora here at TFL, how many are devoted to firearms and how many to the hunt. Even at fora supposedly devoted to Hunting (Hunting.net/Nodak Outdoors to name two) the majority of the posts are not about the techniques of hunting.
Why? Because in many cases people aren't interested in or capable of hunting; they are interested in harvesting and that's just what a 600 yard shot allows - for all the shooting skill it takes. The harvest is the end; the middle - where the hunt is - is missing for many who go afield.
The definition of hunting has changed as we have developed better instruments, field craft has become less important for many who go seeking game. Makes sense, though, doesn't it? Who would want to crawl those last two hundred yards if they didn't have to or cross that deep ravine and make the climb on the other side (even though they will have to do it if they make that long shot across.)
Pete
Last edited:
- Status