quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Is anyone on this forum, capable of consistently hitting an 8" bull, at 600 yards, in a 16 MPH crosswind? Pick any of your favorite long range specific chambering.

I'd like to hear AAZ's opinion on this. He's a long range guy and seems pretty knowledgeable.

I would also like for someone to post the firing solution. If I see this correctly, A 1" gun is off by up to 6 inches at 600 in perfect conditions? Is this the correct manner in calculating it?

Steve, I agree with your premise of the question for sure.

I feel qualified to answer this based on personal experience.....of watching, studying numerous snipers from all over the world train with the LR shooting guru, Todd Hodnett, up in the TX Panhandle. I've been hunting deer up there for almost 20 years, and my buddy is very good friends with TH, therefore I get to tag along. They love to train up there, mainly because that's where TH lives, but also because of the ever present wind.

These guys shoot in teams of two, obviously, and primarily use .308, 300WM, and a very occasional 6.5CM. In a nutshell, these are probably the best shooters on the planet, and they cannot make cold bore, 1st shot kills every time. That's why the spotter is calling the hits and adjustments after sighting the first shot. Now lots of times they can, especially when there is no wind, or a zero value wind, but in swirling, inconsistent wind they absolutely do not. Thus far I've seen mainly US guys, Israelis, Swedes, and Canadians shoot, and they are supremely talented. If these guys can't do it, no LR wannabe can do it either, period.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Is anyone on this forum, capable of consistently hitting an 8" bull, at 600 yards, in a 16 MPH crosswind? Pick any of your favorite long range specific chambering.

I'd like to hear AAZ's opinion on this. He's a long range guy and seems pretty knowledgeable.

I would also like for someone to post the firing solution. If I see this correctly, A 1" gun is off by up to 6 inches at 600 in perfect conditions? Is this the correct manner in calculating it?

Steve, I agree with your premise of the question for sure.

I feel qualified to answer this based on personal experience.....of watching, studying numerous snipers from all over the world train with the LR shooting guru, Todd Hodnett, up in the TX Panhandle. I've been hunting deer up there for almost 20 years, and my buddy is very good friends with TH, therefore I get to tag along. They love to train up there, mainly because that's where TH lives, but also because of the ever present wind.

These guys shoot in teams of two, obviously, and primarily use .308, 300WM, and a very occasional 6.5CM. In a nutshell, these are probably the best shooters on the planet, and they cannot make cold bore, 1st shot kills every time. That's why the spotter is calling the hits and adjustments after sighting the first shot. Now lots of times they can, especially when there is no wind, or a zero value wind, but in swirling, inconsistent wind they absolutely do not. Thus far I've seen mainly US guys, Israelis, Swedes, and Canadians shoot, and they are supremely talented. If these guys can't do it, no LR wannabe can do it either, period.

So your saying they can't make each shot at long distance like most hunters who cant make the shot every time at 200 yds or under. So the difference is what a few don't like a way some guys hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Is anyone on this forum, capable of consistently hitting an 8" bull, at 600 yards, in a 16 MPH crosswind? Pick any of your favorite long range specific chambering.

I'd like to hear AAZ's opinion on this. He's a long range guy and seems pretty knowledgeable.

I would also like for someone to post the firing solution. If I see this correctly, A 1" gun is off by up to 6 inches at 600 in perfect conditions? Is this the correct manner in calculating it?

Steve, I agree with your premise of the question for sure.

I feel qualified to answer this based on personal experience.....of watching, studying numerous snipers from all over the world train with the LR shooting guru, Todd Hodnett, up in the TX Panhandle. I've been hunting deer up there for almost 20 years, and my buddy is very good friends with TH, therefore I get to tag along. They love to train up there, mainly because that's where TH lives, but also because of the ever present wind.

These guys shoot in teams of two, obviously, and primarily use .308, 300WM, and a very occasional 6.5CM. In a nutshell, these are probably the best shooters on the planet, and they cannot make cold bore, 1st shot kills every time. That's why the spotter is calling the hits and adjustments after sighting the first shot. Now lots of times they can, especially when there is no wind, or a zero value wind, but in swirling, inconsistent wind they absolutely do not. Thus far I've seen mainly US guys, Israelis, Swedes, and Canadians shoot, and they are supremely talented. If these guys can't do it, no LR wannabe can do it either, period.

So your saying they can't make each shot at long distance like most hunters who cant make the shot every time at 200 yds or under. So the difference is what a few don't like a way some guys hunt.

Not speaking for anyone but myself here.

If a rifle is a half minute capable, at 600 yards, that is 3 inches, right? So, if you hold dead center of a 6 inch circle, just the rifle's accuracy can be off the bull completely. Now, you add in a 16 MPH crosswind and I call it an impossible shot to make without "walking it in"

Isn't my assessment technically correct? I will admit I'm not a ballistics guy but it seems like math to me.

The point is ethically, we should give our quarry a quick, painless death to the best of our ability.

I suspect that pretty much everyone can get closer than 7-800 yards.

If you are capable of hitting a 8" vital zone say 80% at 800 yards, you should be dang near 100% at 400. You also can take the animal moving between firing and impact mostly out of the equation.

The converse argument that many cannot get to 90% at 100 yards neglects that the same guy will likely not be able to get that high a hit percentage at 50 yards either. He is not giving up much lethality compared to the expert who wants to "challenge himself". That is the crux of the ethics argument.

Shooting challenges are all well and good, but belong on the range, not the game fields.

The long range hunting TV shows are bragging at best, most likely infomercials, and encouraging bad behavior, and at worst are somewhat unethical if they hide the freuency of first shot misses and fail to accurately portray wounding losses.

quote:

The point is ethically, we should give our quarry a quick, painless death to the best of our ability

Correct...this isn't golf where you just swing away because it's fun. There are consequences on the other end and if you can't respect that you should take up the aforementioned sport and leave hunting alone.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

So the difference is [t]hat [sic] a few don't like a way some guys hunt.

So what exactly is wrong with that? We have to accept whatever standard someone chooses to employ to hunt? If anyone thinks their standard is okay, we are all supposed to acquiesce to the standard? We never hold each other accountable to a higher standard of conduct? I guess it is wrong to question shooting soft-bossed buffalo, captive-bred lions, using a .22 Hornet to hunt deer, the practice of live pigeon shoots . . . if someone else finds the practice okay and it is legal, we all just need to stand up for their right to do so? Sorry, some of us refuse to be reduced to the lowest common denominator in terms of hunting standards.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The point is ethically, we should give our quarry a quick, painless death to the best of our ability.

I suspect that pretty much everyone can get closer than 7-800 yards.

If you are capable of hitting a 8" vital zone say 80% at 800 yards, you should be dang near 100% at 400. You also can take the animal moving between firing and impact mostly out of the equation.

The converse argument that many cannot get to 90% at 100 yards neglects that the same guy will likely not be able to get that high a hit percentage at 50 yards either. He is not giving up much lethality compared to the expert who wants to "challenge himself". That is the crux of the ethics argument.

Shooting challenges are all well and good, but belong on the range, not the game fields.

The long range hunting TV shows are bragging at best, most likely infomercials, and encouraging bad behavior, and at worst are somewhat unethical if they hide the freuency of first shot misses and fail to accurately portray wounding losses.

Excellent post!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

So the difference is [t]hat [sic] a few don't like a way some guys hunt.

So what exactly is wrong with that? We have to accept whatever standard someone chooses to employ to hunt? If anyone thinks their standard is okay, we are all supposed to acquiesce to the standard? We never hold each other accountable to a higher standard of conduct? I guess it is wrong to question shooting soft-bossed buffalo, captive-bred lions, using a .22 Hornet to hunt deer, the practice of live pigeon shoots . . . if someone else finds the practice okay and it is legal, we all just need to stand up for their right to do so? Sorry, some of us refuse to be reduced to the lowest common denominator in terms of hunting standards.

Lets try this again. No you do not need to stand up for things you don't like or want to do. YOU ALSO DON'T NEED TO FIGHT TO TRY AND STOP THEM because you do not like them. I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters. You can keep trying to give bs examples of 22 hornet for deer and pigeon shots but your kidding yourself if you think your helping just picking your side or dislikes.

I for one am sick of getting my ass handed to me by people fighting to stop hunting and all you guys come up with if we give in on this or we police ourselves they will go away. Got news for you unless your taking a camera and not any weapon to kill something they don't give a shit about how or why we hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

Steve why do you hunt with double rifles ? After talking with a Zim PH he said about 50% misses the brain with their open sighted double.

To hunt with different styles, rifles, dogs, range etc is the beauty with hunting, just train and make the shot with whatever rifle and range you prefer!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

No because all I have is laws to go by as what I believe in maybe different then others and I don't think I have more rights then anyone else. Anyone breaks the law hunting I hope they throw the book at them. You poach,break laws or waste your not a hunter. Because you shot raised game or a further distance then some others may does not make you any less of a hunter then me or you.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

No because all I have is laws to go by as what I believe in maybe different then others and I don't think I have more rights then anyone else. Anyone breaks the law hunting I hope they throw the book at them. You poach,break laws or waste your not a hunter. Because you shot raised game or a further distance then some others may does not make you any less of a hunter then me or you.

The problem is at some point freedom to blast away at extreme distance becomes irresponsible to the animal..I wont offer a specific distance but in field conditions math tells us that the margin of error becomes too great to be respectful of the animal. If your ok with shooting it in the ass or leg and calling it good then by all means, but that isn't how I was taught to treat animals. How many times have you seen these long range fools on TV take a 900 yard shot and hit a deer in the back quarter and high five each other. Ive seen it more than a few times and it is low rent

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:
Steve why do you hunt with double rifles ? After talking with a Zim PH he said about 50% misses the brain with their open sighted double.

To hunt with different styles, rifles, dogs, range etc is the beauty with hunting, just train and make the shot with whatever rifle and range you prefer!

Hi Anton, I like the tradition aspect of DR's. I've killed 15 or 16 Buffalo with DR's. The longest shot I've taken was ~35 yards.

I hunted with a PH in Tanzania last year that wanted me to take a shot of about 40 yards. The Buffalo was partially obscured by brush. I refused the shot. He went off on me on the way back to the truck. I went to war over this with him.

Point being, I know my limitations and I refuse to go beyond them. In this specific (Klipspringer) scenario, do you think the shot is makable and or repeatable?

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

No because all I have is laws to go by as what I believe in maybe different then others and I don't think I have more rights then anyone else. Anyone breaks the law hunting I hope they throw the book at them. You poach,break laws or waste your not a hunter. Because you shot raised game or a further distance then some others may does not make you any less of a hunter then me or you.

The problem is at some point freedom to blast away at extreme distance becomes irresponsible to the animal..I wont offer a specific distance but in field conditions math tells us that the margin of error becomes too great to be respectful of the animal. If your ok with shooting it in the ass or leg and calling it good then by all means, but that isn't how I was taught to treat animals. How many times have you seen these long range fools on TV take a 900 yard shot and hit a deer in the back quarter and high five each other. Ive seen it more than a few times and it is low rent

I agree and each person most know there limits. But what is worse some guy who puts hundreds of round practicing long range who may not make the perfect shot or the fool who shots his gun once a year before going out hunting. There is many types of hunters and I may not like how some do things but I will be dammed if I am going to tell others who follow the rules and laws we have because I don't like it.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

No because all I have is laws to go by as what I believe in maybe different then others and I don't think I have more rights then anyone else. Anyone breaks the law hunting I hope they throw the book at them. You poach, break laws or waste your not a hunter. Because you shot raised game or a further distance then some others may does not make you any less of a hunter then me or you.

. . . laws just establish the minimal level of acceptable behavior. That is why in any field of endeavor ethics are relevant. Behave unethically and you can expect over time to see the minimal level of acceptable behavior, i.e., the laws, changed to prohibit the behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

No because all I have is laws to go by as what I believe in maybe different then others and I don't think I have more rights then anyone else. Anyone breaks the law hunting I hope they throw the book at them. You poach, break laws or waste your not a hunter. Because you shot raised game or a further distance then some others may does not make you any less of a hunter then me or you.

. . . laws just establish the minimal level of acceptable behavior. That is why in any field of endeavor ethics are relevant. Behave unethically and you can expect over time to see the minimal level of acceptable behavior, i.e., the laws, changed to prohibit the behavior.

I know I just wish the ethics of shooting pregnant elephants would change the law after all once is bad enough but 2 or 3 times is just to much for anyone ethical hunter. I know it is ok because it was not planned to happen like that. Wait I wonder if that guy who takes that long shot but it does not go perfect was trying to do that or it happens sometimes to.

. . . I am reminded of a quote by Churchill regarding wits but I won't bother to repeat it here.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know all you moral and ethical hunters just don't get it in the end your hurting one group and that is fellow hunters.

Ever paused to consider that it might actually be the other way around . . . that a handful of immoral and unethical hunters are hurting their other fellow hunters by their conduct? I happen to believe that unethical hunters do far more harm to the future of hunting than the failure of ethical hunters to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with unethical hunters in defense of all hunting practices.

No because all I have is laws to go by as what I believe in maybe different then others and I don't think I have more rights then anyone else. Anyone breaks the law hunting I hope they throw the book at them. You poach, break laws or waste your not a hunter. Because you shot raised game or a further distance then some others may does not make you any less of a hunter then me or you.

. . . laws just establish the minimal level of acceptable behavior. That is why in any field of endeavor ethics are relevant. Behave unethically and you can expect over time to see the minimal level of acceptable behavior, i.e., the laws, changed to prohibit the behavior.

I know I just wish the ethics of shooting pregnant elephants would change the law after all once is bad enough but 2 or 3 times is just to much for anyone ethical hunter. I know it is ok because it was not planned to happen like that. Wait I wonder if that guy who takes that long shot but it does not go perfect was trying to do that or it happens sometimes to.

Who is shooting pregnant cow elephants?

For the record I don't want to ban anything..I simply wish hunters would put a little more thought into what they're doing and have a lot more respect for the animals being hunted. A little self restraint and less ego is much needed in the hunting community.

My guess is that a decent percentage of tuskless cows are pregnant . . . as are a good percentage of does, sows, hinds, cows, ewes, mares, etc. that are shot hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
My guess is that a decent percentage of tuskless cows are pregnant . . . as are a good percentage of does, sows, hinds, cows, ewes, mares, etc. that are shot hunting.

Yup and my ethics would just hate that it happens but it does. I guess with my ethics now I should fight to stop hunting of female elephants. But instead I try not to apply my ethics to others and support there rights to do a legal hunt.

If you want to discuss the ethics of shooting female animals by all means do so . . . the conservation benefits are well settled though. If you see that as being the ethical equivalent of taking a 600 yard shot at a small antelope in a 16 mph crosswind . . . I would suggest that the Churchill quote is apropos.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
If you want to discuss the ethics of shooting female animals by all means do so . . . the conservation benefits are well settled though. If you see that as being the ethical equivalent of taking a 600 yard shot at a small antelope in a 16 mph crosswind . . . I would suggest that the Churchill quote is apropos.

I am using my ethics on shooting female elephants as I have no problem with the taking of female animals. It is legal to hunt females that maybe pregnant so I support the hunt.But my ethics may vary from yours but I still support your right. I don't need any quotes to help me through life. Time to live in the new big world so many like to fight against because of there ethics not matching others.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
My guess is that a decent percentage of tuskless cows are pregnant . . . as are a good percentage of does, sows, hinds, cows, ewes, mares, etc. that are shot hunting.

I received an email from Alaska Fish & Game this year asking Joyce and I to both fill our Nelchina Caribou tag with females to help population control. We killed a cow each. Yummy meat and less of a load to pack out.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
If you want to discuss the ethics of shooting female animals by all means do so . . . the conservation benefits are well settled though. If you see that as being the ethical equivalent of taking a 600 yard shot at a small antelope in a 16 mph crosswind . . . I would suggest that the Churchill quote is apropos.

Are the conservation benefits for female elephants hunted hunted singularly out of a herd well settled ?

Does any one who manages elephant herds scientifically shoot single females from a herd?

The save before the parks debacle used to shoot less than 12 sole bulls as trophy/client hunting and took down entire herds by professional hunters in culls for population management.

Mike

Also this whole line if it is legal it is acceptable is irrelevant to African hunting. Hardly any client hunters in Africa have a clue about the legality and hunting rules in Africa.

We are much better saying my ph told me it is legal and therefore actionable than saying it is legal


No one in Africa gets a booklet explaining hunting laws when we so on safari.

Mike

quote:

Lets just leave the "E' word out of it and just focus on the skill required.

My apologies Steve, but I have watched too many of these discussions, as have you, to believe that the "E" card is not going to be played, over and over again.

It is part and parcel of being a hunter, and being a member of this site.

I should have heeded your advice, but I knew it would not end that easy.

I've found that people who simply rely on the law do so for the convenience of never interrogating their moral compass for fear of what they may find.

When Donald Ker saw how effective playing sound recordings of lions was at drawing them close, he immediately went to the EAPHA and petitioned for their banishment. The law was driven by ethics and morals, not the other way around. This is the right way in my opinion if there is to be a law (Finch-Hatton also did this)

Furthermore, if one's ethics/morals are constantly kept in self-check (and by one and self I also mean the public of hunters)there is rarely a need to draw up a law to direct the actions of those who don't keep them in check.

It's fashionable now to both criticize and to push back on the criticizing of some hunting methods. One side sees criticism as a positive step forward, to elevate the concept of sport and ethics as applied to hunting, the other side sees it as divisive and doing the job of the anti-hunters for them. For me, I stand with Socrates.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Lets just leave the "E' word out of it and just focus on the skill required.

My apologies Steve, but I have watched too many of these discussions, as have you, to believe that the "E" card is not going to be played, over and over again.

It is part and parcel of being a hunter, and being a member of this site.

I should have heeded your advice, but I knew it would not end that easy.

You're right Randall.

I still haven't seen one member explain the mechanics of this shot and no one has made a claim that they could make it consistently.

Where's AAZW when you need him.

Gentlemen,
Is the horse not dead yet?

quote:

Is the horse not dead yet?

No Sir, and it never will be, until hunting no longer exists.

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Gentlemen,
Is the horse not dead yet?

I Dunno, let me phone Mark Sullivan and ask him.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Gentlemen,
Is the horse not dead yet?

I Dunno, let me phone Mark Sullivan and ask him.

"The Horse will choose how he dies"

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Well now we have this topic being discussed in two areas, here and in the American Hunting topic area.

In both the "E" word is getting tossed in occasionally. Another word that has surfaced is "Sniper".

I really do not view these type discussions concerning the various "Hunting" methods others use or other hunters individual concept of "Ethical Behavior" as giving fuel to any of the anti-hunting groups, but as wedges dividing hunters.

To me this is one of those issues that reminds me of a line from some movie I watched, "Just because a person CAN do a thing, SHOULD they do that thing???".

Hi Randall, Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Lets just leave the "E' word out of it and just focus on the skill required.

Is anyone on this forum, capable of consistently hitting an 8" bull, at 600 yards, in a 16 MPH crosswind? Pick any of your favorite long range specific chambering.

I'd like to hear AAZ's opinion on this. He's a long range guy and seems pretty knowledgeable.

I would also like for someone to post the firing solution. If I see this correctly, A 1" gun is off by up to 6 inches at 600 in perfect conditions? Is this the correct manner in calculating it?

Steve:

I wasn't on AR all weekend. I see the usual "if you can't do it yourself, don't knock others" comments. Fair enough, but at some point, there are too many things that can go wrong.

You quote a eight inch vital area for a klippie; that to me is greatly exaggerated - I would say six inches. But I would also say if you gut shot the thing you could probably eviscerate it so badly it would die quickly. However, the other side of "eviscerate" is a miss to far forward, so let's keep it at six inches.

I agree with Larry; hitting a grapefruit at 600 yards is not terribly difficult. Every Friday at PRG we shoot at 500 yards and I can normally hit my 3 inch circle or come with one or two inches, even in a moderate wind, even shooting sitting with a bipod. However, I think any shooting school deludes you with a false sense of security, since you normally start shooting close and then move out farther. For example, suppose I go out shooting in the desert. The odds of hitting a rock at 500 yards is much higher than hitting the same rock at 800 yards. But shooting the 500 yard rock first allows me to get a good idea of the wind, making it much easier to hit the rock at 800 yards. My long range drill is to go our in the desert and see if I can hit within five inches of my point of aim the first time. The time it takes to evaluate the wind is about as long as it would take to stalk to within a few hundred yards, but that is beside the point. Once I have fired once, my odds of hitting the next time go WAY up. In this way, shooting schools are somewhat delusional: how many guys hit that grapefruit the first time?

Here is one thing no one discusses: not all bullets travel in a straight line. Suppose you can shoot 1/2 MOA in the field (it isn't that hard with a custom rifle). That means 3 inch groups at 600 yards, which means some bullets are going to hit 1.5 inches left of your point of aim, and some will hit 1.5 inches to the right. A six inch vital area has only 3 inches on either side before you begin to miss wide. So in order to have a 100 percent chance of hitting that klippie, we must judge the wind deflection within 1.5 inches, or we risk missing.

I don't know what this guy was shooting, so let's use a 210 Berger at 2950 fps out of a 300 RUM, one of my favorite long range cartridges (actually I like the 338 Edge or LM better). Let's assume the wind is left to right and the animal is facing to our left. At 16 mph, the wind deflection is 27.2 inches, or 4.34 MOA. But suppose the wind is only 15 mph, and the bullet we fired is the one that hits 1.5 inches of the left our point of aim. Because the wind is only 15 mph, the drift will be 25.6, or 1.6 inches less than we thought, which combined with the fact the bullet hit 1.5 inches left even before the effect of the wind is enough to cause a miss. Granted, the odds of misjudging the wind too light while at the same time shooting the bullet that impacts at the left side of our group are small (we are just as likely to shoot right or left, and just as likely to overestimate or underestimate the wind), but they are there.


Personally, I have hit such a vital area with a 4 to 6 MOA wind hold (at targets, not at animals), but I have learned once I have to hold more than 2 MOA for wind, the miss rate really increases. What really irritates me are the shows that show shots beyond 1000 yards; I shoot every week at 1290 yards with my big 338s. The time of flight is so long I can shoot, recover, put my scope on the target, and see the bullet strike the rock. A one mile per hour wind error results in a drift error of 10 inches!! With a 2 second time of flight, the wind can easily change 1 mph during the TOF.

At some point, it is too far. I would also say if you don't practice weekly at wind calls, you don't have much business shooting at game that requires a wind hold. Being able to shoot at long range several times per week is why I live in AZ - it isn't for the fishing.

With some of the epic misses that I have witnessed in the field I would suggest that 50 yards is 45 yards too far for some.

As a once upon a time F Class shooter, I have seen plenty of guys who can accurately hit a 6" target at 600 yards in all conditions with enviable consistency.

At the end of the day, shooting at 50 or 500 yards depends on conditions and the hunter's true capabilities. Some guys claiming long range competence probably shouldn't have in retrospect. Other shooters can perform some awe inspiring shots.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
With some of the epic misses that I have witnessed in the field I would suggest that 50 yards is 45 yards too far for some.

As a once upon a time F Class shooter, I have seen plenty of guys who can accurately hit a 6" target at 600 yards in all conditions with enviable consistency.

At the end of the day, shooting at 50 or 500 yards depends on conditions and the hunter's true capabilities. Some guys claiming long range competence probably shouldn't have in retrospect. Other shooters can perform some awe inspiring shots.

Opus:

Flags help a ton, as does that rock solid F Class bipod. And let's not forget the sighters.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Who is shooting pregnant cow elephants?

Pretty much every one of us who hunts tuskless.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
With some of the epic misses that I have witnessed in the field I would suggest that 50 yards is 45 yards too far for some.

As a once upon a time F Class shooter, I have seen plenty of guys who can accurately hit a 6" target at 600 yards in all conditions with enviable consistency.

At the end of the day, shooting at 50 or 500 yards depends on conditions and the hunter's true capabilities. Some guys claiming long range competence probably shouldn't have in retrospect. Other shooters can perform some awe inspiring shots.

Opus:

Flags help a ton, as does that rock solid F Class bipod. And let's not forget the sighters.

No question, but my long range rig has a Nightforce with the MOAR reticle and I use a G7 ballistic rangefinder. As long as one can properly dope the wind, the rest is amazingly easy to put bullet on target. Technology is definitely making LR shots a lot more accurate.

I am not going to debate if this is hunting or shooting or ethical, but there are a lot of guys in the field that can make consistent and confident kills at very long ranges. Then again, a lot of these guys do it for a living.

Jumping back and forth between this discussion and the one concerning the same topic in the American hunting area is interesting as far as comments are concerned.

The one thing I have not seen mentioned in either discussion however is the idea that there are/will be "Hunters" reading the article in question and watching the various shows/videos that have been made concerning long range shooting of game animals that will decide they can accomplish the same goal, without the necessary equipment or experience.

More simply put, "Monkey See, Monkey Attempt". While I do not agree with the concept, those that have put in the time/effort/energy and acquired the necessary equipment to attempt such shots, more power to them.

It is the folks out here in the Real World, that don't take the steps necessary, don't obtain the proper equipment required, and all too often do not have that much actual hunting experience that will try to duplicate a 1000 yard shot, even though they may have never shot at anything, including paper at over 200 yards.

It is a somewhat similar situation as I have witnessed in some folks when getting their first AR and sighting it in, instead of firing one round and seeing where it went, they will "Double Tap" the first few times, because that is what they ave seen on TV or at the movies. Don't worry about where the first shot goes, just make sure you get off that second shot.

To me that is a potentially more damaging aspect of the "Long Range" concept, as far as hunting is concerned, people not having the experience or equipment taking such shots and if whatever they shot at does not fall dead right there, they look for a new target.

Shooting a klipsringer at 600 yards is nothing but a stunt!

Under any hunting conditions I have been on.

There is no doubt that there are hunters who are capable of killing one at the distance, but I suspect anyone who puts that on a TV show is just bragging, and no one knows how many were missed or wounded to get that one on film.

On the opposite end of the scale, there many people I think should never go hunting anyway.

Some are incapable of making a killing shot at any reasonable distances.

Some only go hunting to brag about it.

I have heard of clients arriving in camp, with a brand new rifle, never fired by him.

His gunsmith apparently installed the scope and sighted it in!!??

I have heard of clients arriving in camp with a counted number of rounds, as required for the animals he wishes to COLLECT!!??

I have personally seen clients arrive in camp with a rifle, made so heavy because he could not handle the recoil, that it required a tracker to carry it all day.

These are some of the clients who should have stayed home.

TV shows?

I have stopped watching them.