It is kind of late in the post but I know Sharpsguy, I have been to his house, and have watched him shoot long distances at his personal range. I have also seen the video when he was in South Africa which was professionally made for Goex. He can accurately shoot at those distances. While watching him shoot a couple of months ago south of Houston at the Big Bore Shoot and Hoot, he put four shots into one ragged hole and reloaded quickly. He can shoot that Sharps.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
If anyone wishes to be REALLY ethical on his hunts, he should:

1. Get on a raft that he had built himself, then rows to Africa.

2. Once he gets there, he should use stone tools to make himself a spear.

3. Find the animal of his choice, be it elephant or buffalo, and spear it to death.

This silly notion of using an aeroplane, then cars, then living in a moder tent with all amenities, then using a moder high power rifle with smokelss powder, is highly unethical

Forget the spear, I think it should be just the weapons nature gives you. Nothing like sinking your teeth into a raging beast.

quote:

On the topic of the thread, until your post, the thread was remarkably free of vitriol, though certainly full of different opinions and disagreement.

If my diatribe offended you JPK, my apologies, but the whole question of what is ethical and what isn't has become really tired and old, especially when Ethics are Individual concepts.

If it got you or anyone else to stop for a moment and realize that each peron is free to make individual choices and develope their own ethics as far as hunting or anything else in lifer is concerned, so much the better.

Sometimes spreading a tad amount of Vitriol, as you put it, in my opinion, Common Sense and readily understandable Texan around shows exactly how the oft mentioned "Ethics of ________________", is most of the time a circular arguement at best.

I have never met SharpsGuy, probably never will, same goes for you.

I would be willing to bet however that both of you are fine people and well thought of in your Socio-Economic circle of friends and aquaintances.

With that said, it does not change the fact that questioning another persons ethics/motives/abilities on an Inter Net Forum/Bulletin Board accomplishes nothing, especially if what ever it is they are planning on attempting on a hunt is perfectly legal, and they are confident with their abilities and equipment.

It's easy to envision the setting and shot I would want on an elephant, etc. But that's too far to travel and too much money spent to pass up what could possibly be my only opportunity on a good animal.

quote:

If it got you or anyone else to stop for a moment and realize that each peron is free to make individual choices and develope their own ethics as far as hunting or anything else in lifer is concerned, so much the better.

Very true indeed!

Crazyhorseconsulting,

I gotta call bull.

Prior to your screed there were different opinions posted, little vitriol, as I mentioned previously, just, for the most part, an exchange of opinions amoungst those who don't nessecarily see eye to eye.

Reasoned exchange is how we learn, how we at least have an opportunity to see a point through another's eyes. Take Sable Trail and I - very different positions on shooting distances (for plains game anyway), but no animosity, no vitriol, just a respectful exchange of opinion. Same with respect to Sharpsguy, with whom I've exchanged views and opinions over a number of years and not on every occasion with the mutual restraint shown here.

Your screed added nothing to this thread, contributed nothing, makes no point worth even typing.

Also bull is your assertion:
"If it got you or anyone else to stop for a moment and realize that each peron is free to make individual choices and develope their own ethics as far as hunting or anything else in lifer is concerned, so much the better."

Bull on a number of issues, fisrt being that your underlying premise is flat out WRONG. Like it or not, on the greater issue, we are not free to choose or develop our own ethics, our choices are now, have always been and will forever be bounded. Through history there has been remarkable similarity between the boundaries of even remote societies, even while there have been differences within any one society.

On the issue of hunting, let' s look at just one question - which ought to have currency for you based on your vitriolic screed on another thread - wastage. How may here believe it would be ethical to shoot a game animal, lets pick an impala, just for the hell of it to see if you can make the shot, and to leave it crippled and dying without recovery effort or even an effort to kill it?

As far as your mention of socio-economic circles, that too is a bunch of bull. Who the hell cares what scocio-economic circles one or another runs in? Sport hunting, the ethics of sport hunting, african hunting, most all of the topics discussed here transcend socio-economic boundaries. We have those who dream of going, we have those who are decades or life long veterans, we have Americans, we have Brits, we have any assortment of nationalities, ethnic background and religions, economic means, income earners, asset owners, maybe birth right or lottery winners. Who cares, why is it an issue for you? Sport hunting transcends, and that is one of the more interesting aspects isn't it?

JPK

To above post I should have added - 'assuming I felt confident with the shot.'

JPK, why don't you stop and take a second and tell everyone how you really feel.

I don't know one thing about you or you about me, other than the conclusions we both are drawing about each other from a computer screen.

You call BS on what I posted, well let's look at some of your BS:

quote:

Reasoned exchange is how we learn,

, that is pure BS.

If a person developes a certain hunting/shooting style, it is because of what that individual tried and worked for that person, it ain't done by committee.

I am not sure what SCREED is, guess I am just to dumb to understand your language.

But let's look at this right here:

quote:

Bull on a number of issues, fisrt being that your underlying premise is flat out WRONG. Like it or not, on the greater issue, we are not free to choose or develop our own ethics, our choices are now, have always been and will forever be bounded. Through history there has been remarkable similarity between the boundaries of even remote societies, even while there have been differences within any one society.

That is Bull Shit from the word go, we are given or saddled with written Laws and Regulations concerning all aspects of Sport Hunting.

The DECISION, on whether to take a shot or not, lies solely with the hunter, and that individuals PERSONAL ethics, Again, Not A Damn Committee.

Lastly there is this:

quote:

As far as your mention of socio-economic circles, that too is a bunch of bull. Who the hell cares what scocio-economic circles one or another runs in? Sport hunting, the ethics of sport hunting, african hunting, most all of the topics discussed here transcend socio-economic boundaries. We have those who dream of going, we have those who are decades or life long veterans, we have Americans, we have Brits, we have any assortment of nationalities, ethnic background and religions, economic means, income earners, asset owners, maybe birth right or lottery winners. Who cares, why is it an issue for you? Sport hunting transcends, and that is one of the more interesting aspects isn't it?

Here is another great piece of BS, Sport Hunting as it is today, DOES NOT trancend ANYTHING, because if it did, topics like this one would not come up.

How can something TRANSCEND, when other people raise questions about the manner another person does something, on the so-called issue of ETHICS, when what they are doing is perfectly legal and the person has the confidence in their abilities and equipment to do so successfully.

Why don't you throw a few more odd or archaic words out there to try and confuse the issue or make yourself look super intelligent.

Maybe you would like to further pyschoanalyse me and explain why, I have no problem with another hunter that is using what can/could be considered proper equipment, is confident with the performance of that equipment, and his own abilities.

While on the other hand I have a big problem with folks using mariginal, at best, equipment, and not anywhere near the experience, attempting the same thing.

The Original Post concerned where/when/how/under what circumstance, does hunting DG go from hunting DG to pot shooting something with no REAL danger involved.

The fact, regardless of your opinion remains, if a PERSON'S ethics, allow them to take such risks, let us hope that those same ethics will make sure that whether that shot is a clean kill or a wound, they will take the responsibility of finishing off the animal.

Since you seem to have focused on just trying to prove to everyone what kind of un-ethical arrogant fool I am, if you will go back and actually read some of the responses that have been given, I believe you will see that while PERSONALLY, I would not want to take a Long Range shot if at all possible, I have No Problem with anyone that does feel so inclined.

To me, and I know, that is just one fools opinion, you seem to have a problem with the fact that more people are on the side of a person wanting to/willing to, take a shot that they are confident in making, because of their equipment and ability with said equipment, and since you can not change their mind on the "ETHICAL" issue, you are going to find som,ething to try and pick apart to prove your point.

If I or my posts are the best you can come up with, you are freaking pitiful.

I've said this on here a few times before, but I seriously don't think getting closer to buffalo makes the hunting any more dangerous. I can't speak for elephant hunting with experience, so I don't include them in my comments.

I prefer to get as close to any game as I can before taking a shot, but I don't have any predetermined maximum distance. I like to hunt...so if I feel I have hunted, and the shot presented is reasonable to me, I'll take it.

In buffalo hunting, it seems to me that 99.9% of the time (my late friend Bob Fontana excepted) the danger from hunting buffalo comes after the first shot, particularly if its misplaced. Since the liklihood of a poor shot is actually greater from 100 yards than 10 yards, one could conclude that its more dangerous to take your first shot at no less than 100 yards. We could even say, since danger is the objective, maybe its unethical to take anything but an offhand shot!

To say that hunting buffalo at more than XX yards is unethical is beyond me.

Cheers
Canuck

I'm just waiting for the sequel knock-off of Quigley Down Under:

Quigley Goes African

It is time for a big-budget safari film, with actual kill-shot footage of long range Sharps 1874 action, just to give it some socially redeeming value.

Directed by Marc "Black Sheep" Watts, starring Saeed as Quigley, and Walter in drag as the camp strumpet, and/or witchdoctor.

Screenplay in the works ...

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:In buffalo hunting, it seems to me that 99.9% of the time (my late friend Bob Fontana excepted) the danger from hunting buffalo comes after the first shot, particularly if its misplaced. Since the liklihood of a poor shot is actually greater from 100 yards than 10 yards, one could conclude that its more dangerous to take your first shot at no less than 100 yards.

HA, so it was you Chris! Here I thought is was one of the old-school trolls! (read my post on the bottom of page-1)

This was a typical thread which was totally pointless.

I think it is fair to say that most hunters would like to get as close to a game animal as they possibly can. Regardless whether it is dangerous or not.

But, modern technology gives us the ability to shoot and kill at longer distance. So as long as one has the rifle, and is capable of pulling off the shot, I see absolutley no reason not to do it.

Saeed--Agreed, 100%

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
This was a typical thread which was totally pointless.

I think it is fair to say that most hunters would like to get as close to a game animal as they possibly can. Regardless whether it is dangerous or not.

But, modern technology gives us the ability to shoot and kill at longer distance. So as long as one has the rifle, and is capable of pulling off the shot, I see absoluteley no reason not to do it.

With all due respect, Saeed, I couldn't disagree more. First, to your point about how “pointless” this thread has been. As numerous posters have written, this has been an interesting and thoughtful discussion, with over 130 posts and 3,000 views over the course of a few days. One of the great things about AR is that it brings a community of hunters – many with African experience – together to discuss issues in a forum unique to their interests.

We’re not going to agree with every post, but this forum lets us debate and consider issues that hopefully will challenge our preconceptions - and occasionally change our minds. I know that I’ve changed my opinions based on some of the well-considered arguments I’ve read. Your board allows us that (thanks, by the way). We may not like everything that we read, but we can either ignore a post altogether, or we can jump in and mix it up with other like-minded friends from around the world. Pointless? I don’t think so.

As to your assertion regarding advancing technology and our ability to “shoot and kill at longer distances”, I’ll go ahead and voice what I’m sure is another opinion that will be unpopular.

If the only goal of hunting is to net a dead animal, then naturally you’re right. But in my view, technological leaps in hunting must be looked at with a jaundiced eye. When technology ensures a safer hunt or a cleaner kill, then great, we should adopt it! However, when technology supplants skill and makes time-honored techniques of stalking and fieldcraft irrelevant, then I think something is very wrong. An animal should never become a substitute for a paper target.

Several people have made the point that, so long as it is legal, no one should venture an opinion on the relative ethics of a particular style of hunting. They’re wrong. This is precisely what will play into the hands of the anti-hunters, as it already has in the recent past.

Ethics have a vital role in our sport, and Crazyhorseconsulting and others notwithstanding, we ignore discussions on ethics at our peril. The Boone & Crockett Club emerged in the 1890’s as guardians over both our game and our sport, and to preserve both they developed the concept of ‘Fair Chase’ – a fundamental approach to hunting ethics. A basic tenet of this concept is that the hunter must never have an improper advantage over the animals that we hunt.

I’m not sure about you, but when I read about electronic, auto-shot-calculating, laser-adjusted, high-power scopes and field-grade portable bench-rests and the like, I have to wonder if we aren’t heading down a path of ‘improper advantage’ the natural consequence of which is shooting animals over a computer from our office desk.

Internet hunting (or cyber hunting or computer-assisted remote hunting, whatever you want to call it) allows someone connected over the internet to fire a rifle from virtually anywhere, killing an animal in real time. This practice is legal in many states, but would you – or anyone on this board – consider that ‘fair chase’ much less ethical? Such ethical lines can and should only be drawn by our community, unless you are sanguine with letting politicians do it for us. To bury our heads in the sand and simply say, "if it's legal then it's right" consigns us to be judged by the behavior of those that should rightfully embarrass us.

You may not agree with me on this, Saeed - and obviously most people don’t, from what I’ve read - but the conversation is important all the same.

Very good, thoughtful post KPete.

While I do agree with much you bring up, some points much more than anyone would ever guess.

One assumption you made in your post however, that I disagree with, and I think it is because of a misunderstanding on your part and perhaps other peoples part as to the interpretation being made concerning my stance on discussing Ethics questions.

I have no problem with reading/or participating in Ethics discussions, as long as EVERYONE involved keeps the premise in mind that each of us has our own individual set of ethics that we operate under when hunting/fishing or just life in general.

The ethics a person hunting in one state/country/region developes, while perfectly acceptable/legal in that location, may be totally unacceptable and even illegal in another place.

One other point you brought up:

quote:

Internet hunting (or cyber hunting or computer-assisted remote hunting, whatever you want to call it) allows someone connected over the internet to fire a rifle from virtually anywhere, killing an animal in real time. This practice is legal in many states, but would you – or anyone on this board – consider that ‘fair chase’ much less ethical? Such ethical lines can and should only be drawn by our community, unless you are sanguine with letting politicians do it for us. To bury our heads in the sand and simply say, "if it's legal then it's right" consigns us to be judged by the behavior of those that should rightfully embarrass us.

To the best of my knowledge No State in the U.S. allows InterNet hunting. The concept was thought up by a person in Texas, and Texas and every other state in the Union I believe outlawed it before the first animal was killed.

The problem with Ethics Questions and what is or does constitue "Fair Chase", is that the two terms mean different things to each person.

I do agree that using technology to replace skill is wrong.

Using technology to enhance a persons abilities is not wrong.

I don't like variable scopes and the only reason I have one is because it came on the rifle when I bought the gun. It is not against my ethics for someone else to use one however.

Too often the ethics and "Fair Chase" discussions, such as this one, deal with one persons concept of what distance hunting a certain group of animals changes from being hunting DG to just shooting DG, and if a person shoots an animal beyond a certain arbritary distance, then the shooter should not claim to have hunted DG.

As I said in an earlier post will PH's have to start carrying tape measures with them and measure the distance of a shot and fill out a certificate for the hunter verifying whether or not the animal was shot within Ethical DG ranges or outside of Ethical DG ranges.

These type questions are QuickSand for all hunters, simply because of our individuality.

That is why these type questions do more for the anti-hunting element than for hunters.

The anti's point out that discussions like this show that hunters themselves can not agree about the concept of killing animals.

Hunters are not going to change how they do business, and if the accepted practices of a certain state'area'locality do not mesh with a hunters own personal standards, then simply do not hunt there, BUT Do Not Look Down On Those That Do Not Have A Problem Hunting Under Those practices, that is just wrong.

I do not really care what you think of me or my opinions on these issues, because they are my opinions and I am entitled to them.

While I have never hunted in Africa, I have hunted in a few states in the U.S. and 2 Canadian Provinces.

I have never hunted under any circumstance that I felt was unethical or illegal anywhere I have hunted.

I would be willing to bet that most folks on here could say that same thing.

I don't know how many years of hunting experience or life experience you have KPete, I am almost 59 and have been hunting for 45 years of that.

I have seen how hunting has changed and how practices that were once accepted have either been outlawed or have been replaced by modern technology, and I have seen, over the past few years, an increase in the hunber of people wanting to quetion other hunters ethics, and find fault with those ethics and give reasons why their ethics are better.

For anyone that has not noticed, when a hunting or fihing practice reaches a point where ethics no longer dictate those partaking in the practices actions, then laws and regulations are put in place.

Think what you want KPete, I stand by my responses on this issue, the distance a person decides to take a shot from is strictly up to them, and if they are confident of their abilities and capable of making the shot with their equipment, then that is their business and if they can live with that decision, that is their business and no one has the right or reason to look down on them.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
To the best of my knowledge No State in the U.S. allows InterNet hunting. The concept was thought up by a person in Texas, and Texas and every other state in the Union I believe outlawed it before the first animal was killed.

From what I understand, internet hunting is legal in 17 states, with a bill pending before Congress to make it a federal crime. And as you say, it never really took off. But my point wasn't the degree to which it is practiced, but rather the potential consequence of abdicating our responsibility to stand up and say "that's wrong". Internet hunting is on one end of the ethical scale (I hope), and it was robustly criticized by everyone from the Humane Society to SCI - as it should have been.

quote:

I do not really care what you think of me or my opinions on these issues, because they are my opinions and I am entitled to them.

If you've interpreted anything I've written as personally critical, please accept my apology. From your writings, I see you as a passionate defender of our sport and someone who's opinions I respect - even if I don't always agree with them.

quote:

From what I understand, internet hunting is legal in 17 states, with a bill pending before Congress to make it a federal crime. And as you say, it never really took off. But my point wasn't the degree to which it is practiced, but rather the potential consequence of abdicating our responsibility to stand up and say "that's wrong". Internet hunting is on one end of the ethical scale (I hope), and it was robustly criticized by everyone from the Humane Society to SCI - as it should have been.

In how many of those states are there operations actually offering the service?

Also, hunters being in bed with the HSUS on any level-any subject is not a good thing.

The HSUS wants hunting stopped just as much as PETA does, they are just going about getting their goal accomplished in a more realistic and covert manner.

quote:

If you've interpreted anything I've written as personally critical, please accept my apology.

No apology asked for or warranted, I have learned over the time I have been participating on the various forums that some folks become judges of character due to words on a computer screen.

Not sure what some of you other members experiences have been, but this forum even with the problems it has, is a whole lot better and more mature that many sites on the web.

We are fortunate that discussions such as this one are allowed normally, to run their course.

KPete, I have no problem with you or what you have stated, I just view the issue at hand and the whole issue of ethics in general on the InterNet differently than you and other folks.

As I stated earlier, I have no problem with discussions about ethics, as long as everyone keeps in mind that ethics are personal and that no one person's ethics are right for everyone in every situation.

This has been a good discussion, but in reality, it has been aa most or all such conversations are, circular.

Some folks are not going to have any ethical problem with taking a certain type shot, while others, because of their ethics would not consider taking the same shot.

In reality, there is no right or wrong.

It is when one person or group believe so strongly that THEIR ethics are the proper ones and should be followed by everyone else, is where I have a really major problem and some really strong opinions.

If I have offened anyone I apologise, but it does not change my opinion or my willingness to defend that opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
JPK, why don't you stop and take a second and tell everyone how you really feel.

I don't know one thing about you or you about me, other than the conclusions we both are drawing about each other from a computer screen.

You call BS on what I posted, well let's look at some of your BS:

quote:

Reasoned exchange is how we learn,

, that is pure BS.

If a person developes a certain hunting/shooting style, it is because of what that individual tried and worked for that person, it ain't done by committee.

I am not sure what SCREED is, guess I am just to dumb to understand your language.

But let's look at this right here:

quote:

Bull on a number of issues, fisrt being that your underlying premise is flat out WRONG. Like it or not, on the greater issue, we are not free to choose or develop our own ethics, our choices are now, have always been and will forever be bounded. Through history there has been remarkable similarity between the boundaries of even remote societies, even while there have been differences within any one society.

That is Bull Shit from the word go, we are given or saddled with written Laws and Regulations concerning all aspects of Sport Hunting.

The DECISION, on whether to take a shot or not, lies solely with the hunter, and that individuals PERSONAL ethics, Again, Not A Damn Committee.

Lastly there is this:

quote:

As far as your mention of socio-economic circles, that too is a bunch of bull. Who the hell cares what scocio-economic circles one or another runs in? Sport hunting, the ethics of sport hunting, african hunting, most all of the topics discussed here transcend socio-economic boundaries. We have those who dream of going, we have those who are decades or life long veterans, we have Americans, we have Brits, we have any assortment of nationalities, ethnic background and religions, economic means, income earners, asset owners, maybe birth right or lottery winners. Who cares, why is it an issue for you? Sport hunting transcends, and that is one of the more interesting aspects isn't it?

Here is another great piece of BS, Sport Hunting as it is today, DOES NOT trancend ANYTHING, because if it did, topics like this one would not come up.

How can something TRANSCEND, when other people raise questions about the manner another person does something, on the so-called issue of ETHICS, when what they are doing is perfectly legal and the person has the confidence in their abilities and equipment to do so successfully.

Why don't you throw a few more odd or archaic words out there to try and confuse the issue or make yourself look super intelligent.

Maybe you would like to further pyschoanalyse me and explain why, I have no problem with another hunter that is using what can/could be considered proper equipment, is confident with the performance of that equipment, and his own abilities.

While on the other hand I have a big problem with folks using mariginal, at best, equipment, and not anywhere near the experience, attempting the same thing.

The Original Post concerned where/when/how/under what circumstance, does hunting DG go from hunting DG to pot shooting something with no REAL danger involved.

The fact, regardless of your opinion remains, if a PERSON'S ethics, allow them to take such risks, let us hope that those same ethics will make sure that whether that shot is a clean kill or a wound, they will take the responsibility of finishing off the animal.

Since you seem to have focused on just trying to prove to everyone what kind of un-ethical arrogant fool I am, if you will go back and actually read some of the responses that have been given, I believe you will see that while PERSONALLY, I would not want to take a Long Range shot if at all possible, I have No Problem with anyone that does feel so inclined.

To me, and I know, that is just one fools opinion, you seem to have a problem with the fact that more people are on the side of a person wanting to/willing to, take a shot that they are confident in making, because of their equipment and ability with said equipment, and since you can not change their mind on the "ETHICAL" issue, you are going to find som,ething to try and pick apart to prove your point.

If I or my posts are the best you can come up with, you are freaking pitiful.

Your newest vitriolic screed makes the points I was trying to make better than I can.

This one tidbit says it all:
quote:
From me: "Reasoned exchange is how we learn,"

Your response: ", that is pure BS."


But with one exception, no where did I alledge that you are or were an unethical hunter, those are your words, your idea, not mine.

JPK

I conceede Sir, you win, I am totally wrong and should never be issued another hunting license anywhere on this planet.

I was born ignorant and never received your totally correct and enlightened view of sport hunting and the Holy Grail Ethics that you seem to have the key to, My Deepest Apologies for my blatant and arrogant stupidity.

One last thing and I am thru with this topic.

Did your parents have ANY children that lived.

Good Night Gracie!

Another thoughtless, pointless rant, eh?

I have actually enjoyed this discussion very much. For those who have experience, it's perfectly okay to say that shots beyond 50 yards shouldn't be taken (especially if you're willing to go home without a buffalo). For those who have the skill and knowledge of their equipment, it's equally okay to take a longer shot (whatever that means to each of us). My concern is for the folks in search of knowledge who have not had the experience. One of the great problems in hunting unfamiliar game in unfamiliar country is prec-conceived notions. A couple of years we were filming some hunters, and only one had actually hunted buffalo. On the first night he pontificated that the "essence of hunting dangerous game was with open sights at no more than 30 yards." Okay on elephant, dumb on buffalo. If you want to use open sights, great (but limiting). If you want to get close, even better. But for most of us it is foolish to place artificial limits or accept only certain scenarios. You don't know what kind of shot the hunting gods will give you--so it's a good idea to be mentally prepared for whatever your equipment and skill level give you confidence to handle. That particular guy, by the way, passed some great buffalo, then, late in the hunt, growing desperate, he winged a wild shot at a rat while the PH was glassing, no idea a shot was going to be fired. The PH killed it in a charge a couple hours later. So much for pre-conceived notions.

Craig Boddington's post nails the essence of this debate. That pretty well says it all.

+1 for another voice of reason

-1 for for the quibbling voices of B.S.

quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
A couple of years we were filming some hunters, and only one had actually hunted buffalo. On the first night he pontificated that the "essence of hunting dangerous game was with open sights at no more than 30 yards." That particular guy, by the way, passed some great buffalo, then, late in the hunt, growing desperate, he winged a wild shot at a rat while the PH was glassing, no idea a shot was going to be fired. The PH killed it in a charge a couple hours later. So much for pre-conceived notions.

Geez, Craig. I was hoping you would have forgotten I'd said that!

Seriously, though, your points are well taken - and predicated on a world of experience greater than mine. Thanks for adding your thoughts to this discussion. I think we all feel privileged that you take time from your hectic schedule to join in the fray.

A picture's worth a thousand words. Below is a target shot by my friend Sharpsguy at 500 yards. Simply amazing and it's made a believer out of me. The rifle is a Shiloh-Sharps Business rifle I believe with paper patched bullets. Enjoy...

Jorge, I agree. I spent the day with Sharpsguy today at his range. He really knows what he's doing with those buffalo guns. I hit the 400 yard gong on the first two, and only tries. He's got those things dialed in. By the way, I hit that same gong 2 out of 4 tries with my scoped rifle...set on 10x. He made a believer out of me. It was much easier to hit the long range targets with his rifles.