Re: I suppose this Sierra MK bullet worked on deer.

27 November 2004, 04:43

Quote:

I guess congratulations are in order for the gunsmith who put the rifle together, and congratulations are in order for the guy who wrote the computer program that includes humidity and all into the trajectory calculations, and probably some congratulations are in order for the guy who practiced his breathing, aiming and squeezing. With the aid of much modern technology he certainly can shoot.

ding sing ding ding!

we have a winner!

27 November 2004, 04:37

Jim in Idaho

I would be very curious to see Reggear Outfitter's statistics on percentages of killed and wounded deer, i.e.

dead/shots fired and wounded and not recovered/shots.

Or, since we have all seen game hit and not show any indication of a hit - if it was wounded and ran off, how would they even know this?

I guess congratulations are in order for the gunsmith who put the rifle together, and congratulations are in order for the guy who wrote the computer program that includes humidity and all into the trajectory calculations, and probably some congratulations are in order for the guy who practiced his breathing, aiming and squeezing. With the aid of much modern technology he certainly can shoot.

But "Can" and "should" are two very different concepts. Lots and lots of grey here - as has been recently discussed here ad nauseum, where does "long range" begin? I dunno, this just doesn't seem to show much respect for the animals - they aren't game whose senses are outwitted, they are just targets on four feet.

'Course, the guy does follow my tag line - hit the target, which he certainly did. Geez, that is some fine shooting. Still leaves me with a distasteful feeling, though.

27 November 2004, 06:07

AnotherAZWriter

How far is too far:

Forget about the ethics; just consider these facts. Let's assume our hero is shooting that 220 MK at 3000 fps and he has the range dialed in exactly. Let's assume he can group his shots into 4 inches at that range (very accurate shooting). Because the vital area is 10 inches, that gives him 3 inches on top, and 3 inches on the bottom to play with. It also means 3 inches of error on either side horizontally.

A 1 mph wind blows this guys bullet 7.5 inches, more than twice the horizontal error.

A 12 fps deviation in muzzle velocity means he has a good chance of missing vertically. Does he know his MV for various temps?

The time of flight for the bullet is 1.5 seconds.

So forget about the ethics and everything else, this guy was pretty damn lucky.

Doc:

I have tested most rangefinders for stories I have written, and no, they don't work as advertised when the UV count is 10 or higher. The Geovid is the most reliable.

I think LR hunters are all about the shot, not the animal. Hell, it is hard to judge some animals 1000 yards away. That buck is good one, but in general, I don't see huge animals on the LR pages.

The one thing I do have an objection to is setting up a bench off a logging road. When you don't even walk a 100 yards, it truly is shooting, not hunting.

The other thing I see on LR chats are really basic blunders, the most common of which is the belief that a bullet's drop when shooting at an angle is the eq of the horizontal distance. That is just plain wrong. Time of flight matters; it is why the temp compensation is reqd at long range.

There does come a point however, where one has to wonder about technology - as my father said once, why not just buy a tank and kill them from 3 clicks away?

30 November 2004, 07:17

QuietHunter

Quote:

Take whatever shot you are comfortable with, at any range that you can.

If you have the gear and the skills to match, then do whatever is ethical and legal.

I don't judge others by thier methods.

Agreed.

I practice at ranges longer than what I limit myself to for hunting. The situation needs to be right for me to pull the trigger no matter what the range.

If your are going to put down somebody for the technology they use then go back to rocks and spears. It may not be your personal choice, but don't get after somebody else if they are doing it and doing it well. While I don't like what some people bring to the field during "primitive weapons" seasons (Muzzleloader, archery etc.), if it is legal then go ahead. Scopes, rifling and smokeless powder have all been technological advances that help with precision.

I would rather be in the woods with someone who put that much time and effort into their shot than the guy who just cannot resist a shot at 350 yards when they have never shot past 100 at the range.

28 November 2004, 02:46

Hot Core

Hey Doc, Thanks for the Site Review. I've seen it mentioned before but never looked at it.

10 December 2004, 01:51

LAWCOP

THIS ALL really breaks down as to "what your definition of 'is' is."

Same for your definition of "long range"

I just returned from my 'boo hunt in Quebec.
I wound up taking 4 boo for our party because they were hard to get this year.
The shortest I took was 325yds. THAT was also the CLOSEST one I saw. We (the group)still didn't fill out even though some of the guys were taking lesser bulls and some cows.
The longest shooting was a my double on 2 bulls at 425yds.

My partner doesn't shoot that far and we were getting late in the hunt. He won't shoot much over 250yds but thinks nothing of me shooting out to 500yds. Same for the rest of the group. Even though their limits on long range are much shorter then mine, they think it is "normal" for me to reach out to 500, so none of us are actually shooting "long range"

it just depends on what your definition of "IS" is....

27 November 2004, 04:12

<allen day>

This is really about target shooting, and not hunting. Instead of paper targets, the animal becomes the target.

Not my way of doing things...........

AD