Carpetman no out of the 72 deer I have shot I never have missed. What the hell do you think? Anyone who hunts has missed and dont pull that well you said you can shoot one 10 out of 10 times because I can under the conditions I choose to shoot. I also go and check EVERYTIME I shoot at something and it does not matter if it is 40 yards or 300 yards. I just do not go out and look for a deer to be standing at 500 yards and put the hairs on him and pull the trigger. The wind, my shooting position, how the animal is acting and the land scape all come into play. When I am shooting long range I believe one bullet one kill end of story. As for the people that think the wind is so hard to beat maybe if you try practice a few times in it and use the right equipment you may find out you can still be accurate at long range in with the wind. As for your comment about the bass the difference is I helped gut the deer and I was there when he had it scored.

dakor---You go and check EVERTTIME 40 yards or 300. Now don't tell me you missed a 40 yard deer---you dont CHECK on those that don't run off. Those 15 of the 72 that were at about 500 yards---any others at that range that got away?

Yes I have missed a 40 yard running deer before and others running. A 40 yard deer standing never have missed with a rifle anyway and that's a fact. I check on every deer I shoot even if they run. I look for blood or hair just like anyone should becuase animals sometimes to do not react when hit even with the biggest rifles. This year I bought a 375 H&H and used it on a few deer I shot. I doe got up in front of me she was running broadside about 50 yards. I followed her in the scope and fired. She did not even flinch and kept running over the hill. I said to myself how in the hell did I miss that deer? I followed the direction she ran and about 60 yards over the hill she was lying in a patch of grass stone dead. The 300 grain Barnes TSX went right behind the front shoulder and just missed the top of the heart. I found her because I followed up on her like I was taught to do. As for any deer around the 500 yard mark that got away? I missed one when I was young and should not have tried the shot in the first place. But when you are 16 you think you know everything and I shot over his back. Range was around the 450 mark. So I guess you guys can burn me at the stake because I made a bad shot and thought I knew everything when I was 16. Now let me ask you this. Have you ever had to shoot a animal more the one time? Have you ever missed a shot in your range? Have you ever crippled a duck or goose or any other kind of animal that got away? If anyone on here says no. The Flag is comming out.

Time for this one to die already

Dakor,

I think the big difference that you stated is that you always go and CHECK! That is what I don't think some of the other guys that do all the long range shooting don't do.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Apparently you are not the only one who knows his limits, since no one has taken up the offer.

I could sure use a vacation from this frozen place right now but, I have to admit, the experience I have with long range shooting is much but, that's also what has taught me that an 800 yard kill shot "anytime, anyplace" is just not guaranteed on a 10"x10" target no matter how skilled you are.

Your one shot per hour and 5 shots per day for two days scenario is definitely a test very, very few would pass. But again, anyone that regularly shoots at this range and beyond will readily admit you've set up a poker game... with the odds in your favor, easily by a large margin.

It would be a fun, and very challenging, though nothing more.

With practice, knowledge and understanding of effects on internal and external ballistics, an 800 yard shot on a 10"x10" is not difficult 10 out of 10 times... in basically perfect conditions that is. Keeping POI within 5" of POA becomes exponentially more difficult as the varibles increase... especially the wind variable.

What you should offer up in a challenge to the "first round hit" long range hunter is the option to pass on a shot just as he could in the field if conditions tell him it's less than a 100% chance of a clean kill shot. In return, you would now expect all 10 shots within the 10"x10" target, not just 9. A condition of 30 minutes minimum between shots and a maximum of 3-4 days etc. total time for all ten shots might be more reasonable.

There are reasons that Darryl Cassel and others now post on www.wildcathunting.com and not www.longrangehunting.com

www.longrangehunting.com is Len Backus's site where he determines what content will be permitted and limits how it will be discussed. He has pretty much zero tolerance for the conflict end of things and keeps his board focused toward his learning and interests, and those closely likeminded. Most people fit right in and enjoy the relaxed and considerate atmosphere. The board is an unparelelled resourse of in depth technical info. for long range hunters rarely or never discussed anywhere else.


Goodgrouper and Darryl Cassel may well have made poor decisions and may well even admit to that... I've made them before (at even much shorter ranges), you have too. If we've learned from them, that's what sets us apart.

Any hunter firing on game outside of his or her abilities ends in the same result, missed or worse, wounded game that deserves better. How many younger, or worse, older hunters think little about this before taking the kill shot... regaurdless of the range.

I believe most hunters grossly overestimate their shooting abilities in the field. Either lack of practice in field situations and ranges or simply extrapolating their ability at the bench to further ranges etc probably accounts for the vast majority of them.

If you ask me, every hunter should be required to shoot in multiple field positions at 300 yards, minimum, in order to qualify for a hunting license. This probably covers over 90% of all game taken and would apply to a majority of actual field situations. Much more, it would be the education many need in order to see they can't shoot for shit as far as they think they can in most situations and that it takes perfect practice.

hey, the longranger has more to say about thhis forum on page 4 of the link and about half way dwon. He sounds pretty knwoldgeable, I will cut him some slack.

Brent,

Your idea of a shooting test at 300 yards probably takes more like 99% of all big game hunting. Probably not a real bad idea. I understand that they do something like that in Sweden for moose hunters. I too have seen some pretty lousy shooters for even a 50 yard target.

I agree that is the learning from your mistakes that makes a good student, whether in hunting or anything else, but to learn from them you first have to admit to them and this is where I see very few of these "long range hunters" doing anything of the kind.

quote:

Reply

LR hunting is not for everyone, nor is muzzleloading with round ball and flintlocks.

It has highly technical aspects such as developing an accurate drop chart off real world scope adjustments and determined bullet BC is and not what the latest computer program says. Contrary to popular opinion 1/4 minute scope adjustments do not actually mean or measure the same.

If you do not have first hand experience doing it to that level then you really might want to temper your supposed knowledge. Writing a couple hunting articles or reading a few posts does not make you the expert.

Before you disparage Darryl Cassel and his knowledge of LR hunting you might want to read some of Dan Liljas articles on LR hunting and his comments about Darrel and his ability. Dan Liljas articles go back years before some here were dry behind the ears and still shooting BB guns.

Comments about the size of bullet impacts on steel somehow being relevant to seeing bullet impacts at distance once again show ignorance of real world circumstances. The Ohio and Iowa 1k BR clubs hold regular "mile shoot" matches and bullet impacts are pretty easy to see with the right equipment.

Maybe someone should write a story about quality "Bigeyes"? Might be educational to the uninformed.

Now to the self exclamed experts here, maybe Dan Lilja is another novice unethical person. if that is your opinion, then that pretty much tells everyone your knowledge and character (lack of).

As for artifical contests by a self serving writer (I will get to write the article), no LR hunter shoots on the hour or when a "writer" says to shoot. They pick the time and many do not take shots during high wind situations. Even then the use of sighter shots is pretty routine for most.

You do not have to agree to try LR hunting particularily if your skill and knowledge is not up to it, just as everyone does not have to be a muzzleloader or bowhunter. Because they do not hunt like you do does not make them unethical!!

BH

AnotherAZWriter, GoodGrouper (the one that shot the ELK at 820 yards) has informed me if you would like to fly out to where he lives he will take you up on your challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by BountyHunter:
You do not have to agree to try LR hunting particularily if your skill and knowledge is not up to it, just as everyone does not have to be a muzzleloader or bowhunter. Because they do not hunt like you do does not make them unethical!!

Really?

Elk.

1850 yards.....shot behind it.

1950 yards.....shot above it.

2100 yards.....shot above it.

You can damn well bet some qualitative and ethical analysis would be brought to bear on anyone who had similar misses at ranges of 150, 200, and 250 yards respectively.

The misses at those extreme ranges are somehow enobled because Darryl Cassel pulled the trigger?

GV

quote:

I thought the idea of the act of hunting, as opposed to mere killing, was to get within the flight distance of an animal without it being aware of it, then killing it cleanly.

As far as I know the idea of hunting is to have something to eat. Have times changed so much in the last 1000 years that we don't kill if the animal if the above conditions are not met? I don't know. I don't shoot past 250 yards because a) no where on my place is there a shot that long to be taken b) I don't practice 300 yard shots (see a, no where to practice) and c) I'm a lousy shot. There are plenty of guys who routinely make long long shots and who am I to infringe on there right to do as they choose? But then, who are some of you to say it can't be done or shouldn't be done? If you don't like it lobby to get the laws changed but the last time I looked it was legal to shoot at any distance you choose. The next thing you know you guys will want to change what color socks or brand of gun someone has to use. Just my opinion and it's worth what you paid for it. Don't yell at me (you know hwo you are) just because you think you have the right to tell someone how long of a shot you can take.

The shooter in question practices military sniping on game.
Military snipers do take calculated risks at times to neutralize targets. They do their best for the killing shot, however if it is an arm shot off or a gut shot, well it ties up enemy personell. An added bonus.
I have no problem with that scenario.
I do have a problem doing it with game animals.
Deer, moose, elk, bear etc. are not terrorists, or enemy combattants, and deserve better treatment.

It is our responsibility as hunters to serve them a quick as possible death with minimum suffering.
I like to call it a sign of respect towards the animalI am killing to eat or for trophy or for cull.
This is not war for pete sakes.
There is no hunting bullet that opens up at those ranges beyond 500 yards. Sooo.... you be shooting game animals at long range with for practical purpose solids!!!!! Not the best scenario if you plan to retrieve your animal for consumption or trophy. Neither are accidental gut shots or shot off legs an "option as a part of a calculated risk" like in military sniping.
No matter of the appologists of this sort of practize, where the "personal ability" of each shooter should dictate the maximum range he ought to shoot game, is a moot point. Military snipers do miss targets too, far more often then is led to believe, because of their calculated risks on extreme ranges. Except in their situation it is justifiable to do so.

If you want to shoot wildlife at ultra-long range for challenge, take your heavy sniper rifle and shoot gophers and prairie dogs.
A hit of a large cal. bullet will mean a relative swift death.

What is the responsible max. range for game shooting for a very skilled shooter in true field conditions??.
All variables included?
I say 400 yards. Prove me dead wrong I challenge you.

It is not my intention to denigrate anyone or tell another hunter(s) what to do, whether I qualify as a self-proclaimed expert or not. In nearly 50 years of shooting, I have shot very small groups with my .338s, etc., all the way out to 500 yds and enjoy the rare challenge of long range sniping very much....at targets.

With this in mind, I concur 110% with Shrike's post on this issue and feel strongly that anyone who attempts a shot beyond any range that he can consistently hold a maximum 8" group, under field conditions in his hunting area, is being unethical, period. We must define ethics in a wide variety of human activities, that is the responsibility aspect of freedom without which freedom becomes mere licence; an example of this is the legislative limits on adult-juvenile sexual behaviour.

If, we do not police ourselves in the hunting/shooting sports, we will be policed as is all too obvious worldwide. I consider excessively long range shooting to be one of the issues where the anti's can really hurt us, thus, I favour 400 yds. as a realistic, self-imposed limit on shooting at game animals.

Hey AAOW, sounds like you've got a fish on...Now set that hook! Hey, this should be fun!

Kamo Gari

WTF is happening to this Forum? Now you want to make a law about how far you can shoot? Whats next you can only use a Savage and not a Remington? I mean get real and get a life. Oh and to the comment about hunting bullets not being able to open past 500 yards. I think you have no experiance on the subject because if you look at the 180 Accubond that GoodGrouper shot a Elk at 820 yards it opened up just fine. Also velocity opens a bullet up. Most bullets will open all the way down to 1800 FPS so get a ballistics calc and take a look at it. Where is ANOTHERAZWRITTER hiding? GoodGrouper is willing to take your challenge where he lives. I would like to state one more thing and then I am done with this thread. People on here like to press there own limits on others. Not everyone can shoot long shots just like not everyone can hit a home run or dunk a basketball. So if you cannot do the task yourself do not try tell someone who can what they should be doing and how they should be doing it.

No Dakor, this is not the forum that wants to dictate anything to anyone. It is just my humble personal opinion. I tried to inject some ethics and "respect for the resource" into this debate. I was trying to imply that a deer is not just another "target" to be shot in a high risk challenge to satisfy an ego that wants to prove that "he can do it".
I see that as a rather callous outlook to life.
I killed a lot of game as a part of my job before I retired. I am conditioned to see death for sure. I hunt for trophies and meat, big and small game. However, I do not feel indifferent to inflicting death on game animals..I think they deserve the best we can give them, a respectfull sure swift death.
I am suggesting wannabee snipers no matter what their self perceived skills are, should think about that, before they take another poke at a deer/elk or whatever big game animal at extreme ranges.
I suggested those shooters take their equipment and specialized skills to thin out the overpopulated gopher and prairie dog towns.
And one more thing Dakor..............you know that 1800 fps is near the bottom rung of velocities for strong bullets withstanding high MV's to open up. Consistent reliable expansion occurs a few hundred feet/sec faster. The bullet in question hit 2 shoulder blades, At that velocity it only expanded just because of that!
Try to counter the "gist" of my argument instead!.
The shooter in question, fully exposes his true callous attitude, with his description of the sheep he first crippled @760 yards then finally managed to kill @ 650 yards is in my view nothing to brag about even if the sheep finally dropped like "Rosie O'Donnels rating" as he descibes it. To me, that says it all.............I rest my case.

shrike,
goodgrouper has an explanation for the ram and many other things on his last post on page 4.
Check it out before you go ripping on him as that gives this forum a bad color!

quote:

Originally posted by dakor:
Where is ANOTHERAZWRITTER hiding? GoodGrouper is willing to take your challenge where he lives. .

Dakor:

I own my own business and have been on the road taking care of business.

I spent 236 nights away from home last year and would have to think long and hard about going somewhere on a weekend. My offer was to foot the bill for the shooter to travel. But I might find myself in his area, so who knows?

Have goodgrouper send me an email at info@theoutdoorwriter.com

Brent:

Your scenario is a more realistic one. Unfortunately, given 4 days off, I am going hunting.

But passing on the shoot is fair, as long as you get in ten shots. At ten different targets, not the same one, at ranges 800-1000 yards. BYOR (bring your own rangefinder)

Hiking further away from a big game animal to take a longer shot at it is NOT hunting, and in my opinion is not ethical. I am pretty opened minded, and very tolerant of the "long range crowd" generally speaking, but I don't that could ever be justified to me.

What it is, is chest thumping, plain and simple. The sad part is that it really proves nothing that sniping a target at that distance wouldn't have proven equally as well.

I'm not of the mind to place limits on anyone. When a hunter goes to the field and finds himself in a position to take a shot at his quarry, its a personal choice to do so whether it is a long shot or a short one. If they feel they are practiced enough, and the conditions are suitable, they can go ahead and pull the trigger. There is no law that says they can't and its their own conscience they have to live with if they wound the animal.

BUT, the act of going to the field with the explicit intent to kill an animal from a specific distance, should not be called hunting. To hike further away from that animal than you could have taken it from (and then to express disappointment that you could not get even further away!) is just not right, and should not be called anything other than sniping.

JMHO,
Canuck

Call it what you want. He still had a huntin license, packed out meat, and had blood on his hadns same as a bow hunter or muzzlloader hunter or anything else. I wouldn't want him hunting me!!!

You hit the nail on the head Canuck, couldn't agree more.

I like this stuff... really neat to see grown men babble like children...

Look people.. the short range guys will always bash the long range guys and say they are unethical.. bla .. bla... bla.. why becuase they don't fully grasp the concept, or understand it and more often than not resist change of their old fashioned ways... this debate has been all over these types of boards...

My real comment is to AZwriter guy....

if you travel so very much... stopping off somewhere to perform this challenge should not be that difficult... I know there are several guys who can perform that task at 800 yards.. and if you shoot as often as you do... you too should know it is very possible to hit 10"X10" 9 of 10 times at 800 yards.... the winds does not affect a 300 gr matchking all that much at 800 yards.... ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Ric Horst:

Look people.. the short range guys will always bash the long range guys and say they are unethical.. bla .. bla... bla.. why becuase they don't fully grasp the concept, or understand it and more often than not resist change of their old fashioned ways... this debate has been all over these types of boards...

Resist the movement to extreme long-range shooting? Certainly.

Not fully grasp or understand the concept? Poppycock.

It certainly is an ethical issue when the taking of big game becomes an exercise to see how long a shot the "hunter" can successfully accomplish, rather than taking the necessary precautions to insure everything has been done to accomplish a quick sure kill.

The intentional long-range hunter dismisses the important element of the equation that does the most to insure a quick sure kill.........reducing the distance between him and the animal. The issue is not taking a long shot because a particular situation demands it. The exercise has now become that of selecting a predetermined distance that a shot will be taken. The justification for this is the skill, practice, and equipment investiture the shooter possesses. When confronted, frequent protestations are offered that the long-range shooter is more capable at 1000 yards than the average shooter is at 300 yards. And that the frequency of mishaps is no greater than the average shooter at 1/3 the distance. Those are pathetic excuses and justification. If your skill is the same as the average hunter at triple or four times the distance.......your percentage of sure kills would be absolutely improved at nominal ranges. Beyond that, the mindset of the long-range shooter is to continue to increase the distance until the "intangibles" make the shot intentionally difficult.......forcing a higher premium on shooter skill and equipment. The increased distance is pure self-aggrandizement. It has precious little semblance to ethical hunting.

The leaders of this "hunting" movement are starting to publicize their misses at ranges exceeding a mile. Refuge behind their retorts of "Yeah....let's see how close YOU could come!" is disgusting.

The hunting community at large is frequently reticent to castigate any of their fraternity for what may be considered infractions.......particularly ethical infractions. The pressure of not high-lighting any hunting negatives to the non-hunting public is enormous. However, in this case that practice should be examined a bit closer. Unchecked, the long-range shooting movement will ultimately do more damage to hunters. Mostly because it's evolving into a practice that doesn't resemble hunting at all.

A skilled, trained, expensively equipped shooter that goes afield and intentionally attempts shots at the absolute limits of both his skill and equipment under the guise of hunting deserves the same treatment as the person who goes afield untrained, unskilled, and poorly equipped. I don't feel guilty in the least for publicly pointing that out.

GV
Boddington - The Trouble With Long Range Shooting

quote:

Originally posted by GrandView:
It certainly is an ethical issue when the taking of big game (birds or rabbits, or running big game) becomes an exercise to see how long (fast moving) a shot the "hunter" can successfully accomplish, rather than taking the necessary precautions to insure everything has been done to accomplish a quick sure kill.


The intentional long-range (moving or wingshot) hunter dismisses the important element of the equation that does the most to insure a quick sure kill.........reducing the distance (having a still target) between him and the animal.


The justification for this is the skill, practice, and equipment investiture the shooter possesses.


the mindset of the long-range (moving target) shooter is to continue to increase the distance (or speed and/or angles) until the "intangibles" make the shot intentionally difficult.......forcing a higher premium on shooter skill and equipment. The increased distance (running/wing shooting style) is pure self-aggrandizement.


The hunting community at large is frequently reticent to castigate any of their fraternity for what may be considered infractions.......particularly ethical infractions.


A skilled, trained, expensively equipped shooter that goes afield and intentionally attempts shots at the absolute limits of both his skill and equipment under the guise of hunting deserves the same treatment as the person who goes afield untrained, unskilled, and poorly equipped.

The main problem with "ethical" lectures or posturing is.... where do you draw the line?

Change a few words, like I've done above in italics, and what happens? You have the exact opposite argument.

Is it normally considered ethical to shoot a duck sitting on the water? How about a grouse sitting on the ground? A dove on a wire? Why not?

If we were truly interested in nothing but absolute chances of clean kills, we'd NEVER shoot at flying birds, running rabbits, running deer (sometimes even INTENTIONALLY pushed by dogs or other hunters...), or anything else that didn't offer a motionless, broadside, up close target.

A guy that shoots long range (according to somebody's "arbitrary" definition; BTW, where does long range "begin"?) is considered unethical, but a guy that screws a full choke into a shotgun, loads up high speed magnum loads, and then pushes the limit on a flock of ducks flying by (that he has no idea of exact range, other than another "arbitrary" "unseen" line in the sky, and CERTAINLY hasn't lasered with a rangefinder ahead of time to be sure) is MUCH more ethical than some hack that would sneak up on those ducks after they landed, creep in close using cattails for cover, and shoot one while it's sitting still on the water.

A guy that shoots long range, and takes all of the necessary steps, is somehow less ethical than a guy who jumps a buck in some brush, throws up his open sighted lever action, and starts banging away, with no idea of what kind of branches or other obstructions are between him and the deer to deflect his bullet, or if another hunter happens to suddenly find himself behind the deer as it runs sideways, or if he gut shoots it because he has done absolutely ZERO running practice with his rifle?

So what's the difference here??

OK.... so lets here how unethical you think ALL long range hunters are... see this is typically the problem... guys like you associate ALL long range hunters as one person with ALL the same ethics and morals.... when in fact we are not all alike...
Now lets turn the table... let us long range hunters associate ALL you sort range hunters as one and compare the facts...

1. Accidents
2. wounded animals
3. wounded animals never found
4. Animals missed cleanly
5. Animals missed and then harvested cleanly
6. Animals where a shot opportunity was achieved but passed on.
7. Actual time per hunter spent honing your skills

I could list more but I feel this is a good place to start...

I feel if we compare the 1st 3 items and compare then accordingly with the correct ratio ie: per active hunter you will find "your" hunters practice and achieve much higher standards of "unethicalness"

For every counter point you generate I can generate a post counter point to yours as well... Mr. Boddington is well respected but his word is not "God like" I am sure well respected individuals such as Mr. Lilja could have long drawn out discussions and or articles as well....

lets take your post in quotes as you did mine...

quote:

rather than taking the necessary precautions to insure everything has been done to accomplish a quick sure kill.

It has been proven time and time again a well place LR shot equates to a quicker kill. How so you ask. Well, typically in a SH scenario the animal not only reacts the the wound but also the rifles report which in turn generates an adrenaline rush resulting more often than not a fleeing animal... Typically in a LR scenario the rifles report is delayed and often reduced considerably and thus results in the wounded animal to collapse from shock of the bullet strike because the animal is unaware of what happened. This tends to lead to a very quick death.

quote:

The exercise has now become that of selecting a predetermined distance that a shot will be taken

Please enlighten me on how this is any different from hunting from a tree stand or blind. LR hunters cannot control the animal any more than the SR hunter.

quote:

If your skill is the same as the average hunter at triple or four times the distance.......your percentage of sure kills would be absolutely improved at nominal ranges. Beyond that, the mindset of the long-range shooter is to continue to increase the distance until the "intangibles" make the shot intentionally difficult.......forcing a higher premium on shooter skill and equipment. The increased distance is pure self-aggrandizement. It has precious little semblance to ethical hunting.

To quote you..."Poppy Cock" It has also been proven that the "average" long range hunter spends considerably more time and money investing into improving his skills to levels the average hunter cannot even begin to accomplish without the same amount of time and money. Please do not misinterpret and the "money" simply meaning more expensive rifles.. this infact means that the "average" ethical and serious LR hunters spends thousands of dollars on reloading equipment and supplies. Why you ask.. because the LR hunter continually shoots and reloads to define and refine his techniques and loads to insure the utmost in accuracy. I will without question "stack" up the "average" LR hunter in a skill test against ANY "average" SR hunter.
This however is a stacked deck in the LR hunters favor.... because the "average" SR hunter does not tend to spend the time, money and effort honing his skills.... Most of the "average" SH hunters are satisfied with "minute of pie plate"

quote:

"Yeah....let's see how close YOU could come!" is disgusting

I personally have not witnessed this reaction or reply ... not to say this cannot besaid or hasn't .. I just havn't seen it... at least not from one of the responsible LR hunters...

quote:

Unchecked, the long-range shooting movement will ultimately do more damage to hunters. Mostly because it's evolving into a practice that doesn't resemble hunting at all.

touche' lets put this into perspective.. given the fact hunting has been around for centuries and that LR hunting is relatively new.. the spot light is generated by the newness not the unethicalness... point being there have been soooo many unethical SR hunters that quite frankly it isn't news anymore.. and it has become rhetorical and isn't as "news worthy"

quote:

A skilled, trained, expensively equipped shooter that goes afield and intentionally attempts shots at the absolute limits of both his skill and equipment under the guise of hunting deserves the same treatment as the person who goes afield untrained, unskilled, and poorly equipped. I don't feel guilty in the least for publicly pointing that out.

I agree... to a degree ;-) please don't think for one min. that the goal of a LR hunter is to go to the limits of his equipment... I have a rifle capable of 1500 yard clean quick kills but that doesn't mean that I will only attempt to shoot at 1500 yards.. most "normal" LR hunters have limits.. mine personally is 800 yards..

my whole point to this is.... you cannot lump all LR hunters into one group.. just as we cannot lump all SH hunters into one group....

because if we did ... apples for apples I am most certain.. you group per capita would clearly demonstrate more unethicalness...( if there is such a word....

ok men let the flaming begin....

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Bore:
A guy that shoots long range, and takes all of the necessary steps, is somehow less ethical than a guy who jumps a buck in some brush, throws up his open sighted lever action, and starts banging away, with no idea of what kind of branches or other obstructions are between him and the deer to deflect his bullet, or if another hunter happens to suddenly find himself behind the deer as it runs sideways, or if he gut shoots it because he has done absolutely ZERO running practice with his rifle?

That's your supposition......not mine.

They both are irresponsible and reckless in my opinion. And you conveniently detailed the negatives of the deer jump-shooter....without detailing corresponding negatives of the long range shooter. They certainly exist......such as ranges in excess of one mile.

quote:

So what's the difference here??

Precious little. Both are a blight on the reputation of hunting.

GV

Grandview... I am dissapointed.. you so elequently used big fancy words to attempt to degrade and dismantle the sport of LR hunting... and I get no reply in reply to you post... humph.... I assumed you were a man of words....

quote:

Originally posted by Ric Horst:
Grandview... I am dissapointed.. you so elequently used big fancy words to attempt to degrade and dismantle the sport of LR hunting... and I get no reply in reply to you post... humph.... I assumed you were a man of words....

Patience, Good Sir.

Your lengthy dissertation deserves a quality response. Particularly those portions that ascribe theories I've not advanced.

GV

fair enough

Ric:

I shot Friday and Saturday at 750 and 700 yards (not even 800).

My first shot at 750 yards (clean barrel) was in a 3 mph wind left to right. I dialed in 6 clicks, which at that range is 11.2 inches. My bullet hit about 7 inches to the left, perhaps due to a clean barrel.

Before my second shot the wind switched to head on, a little left to right, so I dialed out all but 2 clicks. I hit 4 inches high but on the money for wind.

Granted, this was a lowly SAUM, but a RUM has almost that much drift. How can you say it doesn't matter at 800 yards? Ballistics tables all say just about any bullet drifts 4 inches per one mile of wind...I suppose they are wrong and you are right? Even a 240 grain MK at 3100 fps drifts over 3 inches per mile of wind at 800. At 1000 yards it is 4.8 inches. At a more reasonable velocity of 2900 it is over 5 inches.

If it is so easy, come to AZ and show me. I will foot the bill. But you better be able to do it.

AZwriter DUDE....

Now see this is how pissing matches starts....taking what I said and puting YOUR spin on it... for a writer you don't read very well...

First off... I would have to see your rifle shoot to see just how good you are.. meaning your first shot was from a cold clean bore... the "cold" part doesn't bother me but I would have to believe that it is possible your rifle prints differently from a clean bore compared to a dirty one.. so I would have to see where the clean bore prints in relation to where your dirty bore prints... so your first shot means nothing to me until I see that targets....

Also please elaborate on your weapon... BR set up bi-pod.... typical hunting rifle .. what were ya using?

I'm sorta new here..sorta.. but you say you shoot all the time.. competition? Fun? please elaborate... and what do you shoot .. BR rifles, hunting rifles, tactical...??

Now as far as the ballistic tables... that is subjective material as well... unless you have a load that matches exactly to what your computer spits out... the ballistic tables are not 100% on.... especially with wind...

what did you measure wind speed with?


dance dance dance.... I never said it was easy did I? I think you were wishing I had...where did I mention I could do it.... I just know some who are capapble... I am not a BR shooter...and if you read my post I never meantion I wanted to come visit you.. YOU are the one who travels so very much....

However, If you make the target a bit more reasonable for what I do ... say 15"X15" or maybe 18"X18" for the distances I practice and am confident at... say 750 yards and YOU have traveled to MY neck of the woods( see you mentioned you travel all the time) I might be willing to give it a go.... see I may not have 2 days to feed your ego... or bruse mine.. I live and work from my ranch....


so for future reference.... please read what I type.... the way I type it....

your turn...

If the shot had been taken on a paper target, I would have applauded. But on a creature of flesh and blood ?!?! What if the animal had moved or taken a step between bullet departure and arrival ??? In my mind, shooting and hunting are different matters, the former demands good hardware and the skills to use it, the latter needs woodsmanship and above all, RESPECT & ETHICS !
A true hunter would have stalked 600 yards closer.

really....

ever bow hunt? ever hear of "jumping the string"

bow hunters have the same risks.. but everyone seems to think that is ethical...

ever time an animals death from a broadhead?

ever shoot at a running animal...?

this was my point ... LR hunting is very similar to other types of hunting that everyone sees as ethical... yet because they are ignorant of this new sport they term it as "un-ethical" or "non-hunting" when in fact it is more often proven it is a more humane way than some methods practiced and accepted...

Not all LR hunters find an animal and back up to make a longer shot... most of us select and area where we know there is significant signs of animals habit. We practice the sport of LR shooting in realistic scenerios to prepare for a hunt which may provide opportunity of a 70 yard shot or a 700 yard shot but either way we are prepared to accuratly place the shot.

oh and I'll place my "woodsmanship" skills against anyones on this board....take it for what it is worth...just because I/we can shoot accuratly at longer ranges doesn't mean I/we cannot harvest an animal at closer ones...

Rick Horst.
You continue to ignore bullets that will not open up at those long ranges, specially those that hit soft tissue and thin bone such as rib-shots. The bullet in question from "small grouper"expanded only at that range because it encountered 2 shoulder blades. Other then that it would have been like a solid.
As well you ignore wind currents that are unpredictable at long range.
The attitude that all can be overcome with lots of training and high tech gadgets is sticking your head in the sand. Military snipers shoot at those ranges at enemy personel. A kill is fine, a cripple terorist is fine too. And.........misses do occur a lot too. However nothing ventured nothing gained. On a human target 6 inches off laterally is most of the time a miss. On an animal it is a gut shot.
Like I said once before, I never met a big game animal that was involved in terrorist activities.
They therefore deserve much better treatment then being viewed as just another target of opportunity.
I guess the argument on this thread is one of HUNTING VS SHOOTING.
Shooting is not synonomous with hunting.

300 win mag why not? i know of a couple of guys who use to shoot woodchucks 800-900- yds with there 30/06 .

Shrike....

OK..let me ask you this.. how many different bullet types have you used and what were the results?
WHat makes you so sure you knwo these bullets do not open up? Do you have personal experience?Tell me how a hollow point doesn not open up?
and don't worry about them exploding either as their jacket is actually thicker than most "hunting" bullets...
Honeslty if you do not have data to back up your words .. sit back and listen

I have an aquaintence who literally cut in half numerous "hunting" bullets and the SMK.. wanna know which ones were actually constructed better?

6" is hardly a miss with a 15" target On Elk it is 18"

If you want to start the ..."I'm not a hunter" crap.. I gurentee I spend more hours in the mountians than you scouting for places to hunt!!!

I don't have alot of high tech gadgets.. what I do have are pages of notes used to compile realistic factual data of what my rifles do in all types of weather conditions, atmospheres, and altitudes... I promise you I know my equipment better than you do yours.. you already told me that if you think hollow points don't open up...

careful of what you speak... if you do not have proof...
...

Where hunting stops and target shooting starts:

BENCH REST!!!!

Even though he had a rangefinder, i have found that most people that that claim to shoot an animal at "800 yards" is more like 350.

Best shot I ever made was an elk at 10 yards with my bow. Anyone that brags about a long shot on a late season cow hunt is not a hunter.