as per mr. jack o'connor, here are some "rules" for long-range hunting. i believe that they can be agreed on by most of us here, even the long-range hunters!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a long-range shot should never be taken if there is a reasonable chance of getting closer.

a long-range shot should never be taken if the rifleman feels doubtful of his ability to make a good, solid, well-placed hit.

a long-range shot should never be taken if the hunter cannot get into a solid position - prone with a sling, from a rest, etc.

a long-range shot should never be taken at any dangerous animal - a brown, grizzly or polar bear, a lion, a tiger, a leopard, a cape buffalo.

a long-range shot should never be taken at an unwounded, running animal.

a long-range shot should never be taken if the animal shot at can get out of sight so quickly that it would be difficult to ascertain the effect of the shot.

a long-range shot should not be taken if the range is so great that a hold on top of the shoulders will not drop a bullet into the chest cavity.

these rules may seem ultra conservative to many, and i must admit that there have been times when i did not follow them myself. however, the more i hunt and the more i see others shoot the more convinced i am that they are wise and sensible rules and if they were universally adopted the number of game animals that get away wounded to suffer and die would be greatly reduced.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the question then remains, what defines a long-range shot on a game animal?

i believe that each hunter has to make an honest evaluation of his own abilities (not the rifle's) and let his moral and ethical judgement guide his choice when the game is sighted.

[ 08-28-2003, 09:01: Message edited by: tasunkawitko ]

The only rule that should apply is don't shoot beyond your abillty. If that is making could soild killing hits at 50 yards so be it. If you have the skills equipment for the longer stuff no trouble. Having read lots of O conner he must not of thought shooting at running deer 200 and 300 yards away as long shots.

tasunkawitko,

Excellent post. O'Connor is right on the money with all of his conditions, and your post of his advice is a good reminder to all of us that there is a big difference between hunting and shooting.

As for a definition of "long range"--we must bear in mind that nearly any decent rifle has a degree of inherent accuracy that far surpasses the practical accuracy that a human being can achieve with it.

And the flattest shooting rifles out there--that is, the rifles chambered for the flattest shooting calibers that are practical to hunt with--will still drop their bullets between six to eight inches below point of aim at 300 yards when they are zeroed at the usual and reasonable 200.

Then there is wind drift, which, depending on wind velocity, can move even a fast, flat shooting bullet several inches at 2-300 yards.

So, I would submit that any shot of more than 300 yards is long range when hunting non-dangerous big game animals, and any shot taken at such a distance should be subject to O'Connor's conditions.

For dangerous game, I would submit that any shot of more than 100 yards is long range (and some might argue, and I might be persuaded, that for elephant, lion and leopard, 50 yards is more like it), and that any shot taken at such a distance should also be subject to O'Connor's conditions.

If more of us would adhere to O'Connor's conditions, more hunting and less shooting would be done, and fewer wounded and lost animals would be the result.

[ 08-29-2003, 07:14: Message edited by: mrlexma ]

jon -

while these are good guidelines for ANY shot taken at game, they are particularily true when talking about hunting at longer ranges.

i have absolutely no problem with the hunter who dedicates the time, the effort, the research, the study and the practice to become proficient with a rifle at "long" distance. this may or may not include you, i don't really care either way. as i said in the original post, each person must make a frank and honest evaluation of his/her own skills.

my problem is with the yahoos who think that just because they have a RIFLE that can shoot and kill "way out there," then somehow they are blessed with some superior marksmanship skills which even carlos hathcock was unaware of, and he did his best work with a winchester m70 .30-06. these people are either deluding themselves or are being duped by fancy marketing. the end result is the same: missed shots, game wounded and crippled, left to die agonizing deaths, and a tarnished image for hunters and hunting.

the fact remains that as distances increase, the variables and possibilities for a missed shot increase, and large-caliber rifles that shoot flat and fast will not make up for poor marksmanship. the ultimate responsibility lies in the trigger finger of the shooter.

Tas,
Good post. You point out the difference between accuracy (equipment) and marksmanship (human) for the most part. I was lucky as a youngster in the Marines. A running mate of Hathcock's from the old days was my 1st Sgt. Therefore I got to meet Gy Hathcock, Hatfield (my 1st Sgt) and later LtCol Melton. All of whom had a bit of fame on dangerous targets in VN. All of them related pretty much the same thing- You don't take a shot, you make a shot, and the shot has to be made before you pull the trigger. In other words, mental preparation and marksmanship. As you say, it varies for everybody but I see clients miss turkeys at 25 yards, hogs at 10 and so on. I'm always impressed by someone who states their max with authority. It shows they've done their homework.
By the way, I lived at a range when I met Hatfield and Hathcock. I thought I knew how to shoot. Hatfield didn't just beat me, he held SCHOOL on me. I learned a lot from those guys even though I didn't spend as much time as I would have liked with them.
M

I think most would do well to observe the "wobble rule". If the sights are wobbling off of the vitals at all, don't take the shot.

Experienced shooters can learn to "grab the shot" (to a degree) but frankly most don't familiarize themselves with the trigger enough to do it. And there's worlds difference in doing it on the range and doing it in the field.

And a lot can happen with an animal's position in the half second it takes for the bullet to get there at long range. And there is a fraction of a second of "trigger commitment" and lock time on top of that. Add the wind, if any.

Closer is better for sure. And the satisfaction of a good stalk is incomparable.

My 660 yd steel plate will tell if I can shoot but only the stalk tells me if I know how to hunt.

My longest shot to date was on a small muley, I had practiced at longer ranges and new my equipment and my self. The shot was slightly quartering away and I placed it right in the pocket behind the sholder. There was a blood trail for about 40-50 yds and dinner waiting at the end of it. One shot, one kill. At over double what some experts recommend as a practicle max range.

It was 52yds with a Darton Lightning and a 125 Thunderhead.

.

quote:

---

Closer is better for sure. And the satisfaction of a good stalk is incomparable.

My 660 yd steel plate will tell if I can shoot but only the stalk tells me if I know how to hunt.

---

Great post Steve Y.

I think a majority of the ultra long range crowd are shooting at extreme ranges purely for bragging rights. I can't read a man's conscience, but that is the tone of many posts.

If a man can't get within a quarter mile of his quarry, he needs to become a better hunter . Marksmanship should be a given at any distance.

Still though, it seems to me that we always need to question our motives. If the idea is to bring the animal to the dinner table or the trophy to the wall, get as close as you can. If you on the other hand want to compare phallus length based on 600 yard skill, do it on paper.

Once again, well said Steve.

Gabe

jon -

you've proven your intellect, or lack thereof; consider yourself ignored.

[ 08-29-2003, 11:36: Message edited by: tasunkawitko ]

That really hurts coming from someone who can't even write at the 1st grade level.

Gabe, sorry, 440 isn't close enough. Didn't you get the memo? The "Ethical Limit" has been set somewhere shorter than 400 yards by TasunkaWitko.

He starts a thread quoting O'Connor's "ultra conservative rules." And yet, even they aren't conservative enough for him. When Jack wrote them he was doing so from the perspective of a guy with a 270/130 load, no rangefinder, etc.

He thought a long shot could be ethical. He stated that sometimes there is not a reasonable chance of getting closer--even for him--and when that happens there's nothing wrong with taking the shot if you are sure of a solid hit, etc. I guess TasunkaWitko must just be a much better hunter than he was.

More likely just a lousy shot. Tell me, Tas, honestly--you have never practiced at 400 yards or beyond, have you? Jack did. I do. If you choose not to, fine. But spouting off on subjects about which you know nothing, while writing as well as my five year old, isn't going to make me take you seriously.

BTW, I got my whitetail buck at 15 yards last year. Didn't even bother to range him.

Okay, here's what it boils down to, IMHO:

No one can stop anyone who decides to take one of these "next county" shots at an elk or any other big game animal. But if you, as the shooter, have any respect for the animal, any humility, any conscience about the propriety of your actions, you had better be 100% certain that you will kill, rather than wound, the animal in your sights.

Because if you only wound the animal, and it gets away from you, then you will be the one who has to live with it, even if no one else is watching or ever finds out about it. And all the cocky talk about how well you can shoot will then seem awfully hollow.

I have wounded some big game animals at which I have shot--at ranges that in some cases were embarrassingly close, and for several different reasons, including just plain bad shooting--but I am lucky in that I have been able to recover them all.

I am not proud of this. I'd much rather be able to say that I have never needed more than one shot. But I'm pretty sure that no one who has hunted very much can honestly say that. There are just too many variables, some of which are uncontrollable, and one or more of which will eventually come into play and inevitably screw things up for the shooter.

All I can remember is the embarrassment I felt each time when I realized that the shot went wrong, and the huge sense of relief I felt each time that I (or we, when I was assisted by other hunters or trackers) finally tracked the the animal down and I was able to kill it outright.

In my view, coming home empty handed is a blessing when compared with coming home after wounding one that got away only to die a lingering death in the bush. And it's really just this simple: when you shoot at a big game animal at long range, this is much more likely to happen.

[ 08-29-2003, 21:45: Message edited by: mrlexma ]

Hmmm...Don't take a long-range shot (Which O'Connor, at least here, doesn't define what range that is) if the animal is running, unwounded, about to duck into cover, or if you have doubts to your ability, rifle's capability, and if you can't get a solid rest to shoot from. Or if you could get closer.

Doesn't sound that difficult of a proposition to me.

[ 08-29-2003, 21:54: Message edited by: JLHeard ]

I would like to throw my 2 cents worth in on this thread, as I have strong views about the issue of long range hunting.

I am not trying to get anyone off-side here, but I do not believe that there is any such thing as long range 'hunting'. Once you get out to such a range that a game animal has little, or no, chance of detecting you then you are a sniper, and not a hunter.

Rather than setting the limits of long range 'hunting' against the ballistics of your firearm it would seem, to my way of thinking, that it would be more appropriate and fairer if the limits were set against the sensors of the animals being hunted.

The longest shots I have taken on big game animals are at around 250 yards and I still wish that I had stalked closer. The trophies that I am proudest of are the ones that I shot up close because I had actually beaten the animal at its' own game, on its' own ground and not through my use of technology.

[ 08-30-2003, 09:32: Message edited by: BwanaBob ]

Since I have shot at running game and flying birds I can't say a lot about those that shoot at long range.

There is even a website (longrangehunting.com) where it seems that the goal might be to hunt at only long range? To each his own but I always want to get closer.

The fact that some in that long range hunting group seem to promote the use of target bullets makes it them seem suspect in my eyes but again I shoot at running and flying stuff.

"If you can do it then it's not bragging"

Give 10 to 1 odds that you will make a kill with one shot, and put up $100 with a buddy in camp. Then, just go hunting!!

We all did this in the 60's for $10 against $100, but it was the camp repair and maintenance pot. Without exception, the guys that shot the smallest groups and highest scores from the bench put in the most money.

It is refreshing to see so many posts by practical, experienced, and disciplined HUNTERS who limit the distance of their shots even though we all know they could have "taken" a shot from a longer distance.

The few others who are presenting the opposing point of view appear to have more youth bravado than experience.

edited for spelling

[ 08-30-2003, 19:45: Message edited by: Elkslayer ]

mrlexma, I can honestly say that I have never needed a second shot while hunting big game with a rifle. You are correct in stating there are variables but you always have control over your trigger finger. If you have doubts, do not shoot, regardless of range to tgt! How's that for a simple solution?

Sabot, that sounds like an interesting gamble pool you had at your hunting camp. I would have gotten in on it without a doubt.

JonA & pdogshooter, you both make very good points that any intelligent experinced person should have trouble disagreeing with. Equipment is vastly superior to what Mr O'Connor had yet so many here apparently believe no one can develop the skill to take advantage of it. Even if someone has they should not have becuase others here refuse to and it all makes them feel somehow inferior. In an attempt to recupe some damaged self esteem they rant about those of us who can shoot well because we can not stalk, and claim we are not even worthy of the title "hunter", regardless if we have demonstrated the sportsmanship and restraint to never fire if the outcome of the shot was not a certainty.

Unfortunatly we must no longer be a nation of riflemen. It would seem the marksmen I associate with are the exception rather than the rule.

Just curious: How many here fired more than 300 shots at tgts more distant than 300 yds in the last year? How many fired more than 300 shots at tgts at any distance in the last year? How many have ever shot out the barrel of a rifle? I fired over 4000 rds since my rifle was completed last summer, all from the same rifle and very few at distances less than 300 yds. It is currently being rebarreled, and it is not the first rifle on which I have worn out a barrel.

[ 08-31-2003, 03:58: Message edited by: RuffHewn ]

I rest my case.

Let's see, I went to 8 matches. Each match had 20 rounds for record at 300 yard rapid and 20 rounds for record at 600 slow fire so that's 40 X 8 = 360 all using iron sights. Not counting the shooting I did in practice. Count in doping the wind and mirage. In one match I had 8 FEET of windage dialed in (it can get pretty windy in Wyoming and Montana) and yes I was hitting in the 10 ring on some of those shots.

Ah - yep, guess you can say I did some shooting at 300 or more.

Quite Simply.... Long Range is the point where your shooting ability to reliably make a humanely killing shot ends with the equipment available at the time of the shot.

For many people that starts just beyond the muzzle of their rifle and for some that have "the gift" AND that practice a LOT, it's several hundred yards out there.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people think that it's not hunting unless it occurs at under 100yds.

Elmer Keith often killed game at several hundred yards with a handgun boys and girls.

I have friends that often kill prairie dogs at several hundred yards on the first shot.

Note: My handle... LDHunter (Long Distance Hunter)

www.longrangehunting.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LongRangeRifle

$bob$

I've taken 3 Muleys at the 500ish mark. Each took one shot. One droped at the shot, the other two made it at most 20yds after being hit with a 25-06 lightning bolt. There was definatly some hold over there.
I've also taken deer around 30yds with a bow.
Last years deer was 85 yds with a .357 revolver.
This year, I'm hopeing to use my 70 cal Howda. I'm sure I'll have to be close for it.

To each there own, just be responsible in what you do.

In the past, after deciding that a particular rifle was going to be my go to gun for hunting, I just spent a lot of time and powder and bullets becoming familiar with what I could do with it. In the field, I knew on sighting game if the game was within those limits. To think I could have just had a check list in my pocket to confirm, instead! Live and learn.

LDHunter

So you are a person who likes to take 700-800 yrds shots on Elk, Deer and such? So after every shot do you phyiscally go to the spot where the animal was and see if the "miss" was a miss and insure that you didn't wound the animal?

I have no advice to offer on the maximum distance anyone should take a shot. Just too many variables to generalize as far as I am concerned. I can tell you that bullet drop is not the problem especially when the range is read with a rengefinder. Reading the wind is much harder. The distance even a five mile per hour crosswind can move a bullet way out there never ceases to amaze me.

A rant that needs to be included in this thread:

The one I got last year I snuck up upon in the thick brush. While I�m proud of that, I won�t pretend that luck had nothing to do with it. It always does in hunting. I�ve done that more times than I can count but most of the time I find a �small� buck at the end and let him go. This one was a �keeper.�

But just the day before I had either him or his twin in my crosshairs from beyond 300 and decided to let him go (it was my first day of hunting that season and I simply didn�t want to stop hunting already). But had I decided to take him, I don�t think that would have made me any less of a hunter. Being able to take him, had I chosen to do so, having that ability I think makes me a better hunter (given my definition at least.)

Marksmanship is a part of hunting ladies and gentlemen. It always has been, it always will be. Jack O�Connor thought so. Elmer Keith thought so. Every good hunter who has ever lived has been very proficient with his tool of choice. To hear you people talk, one could be the best mechanic in the world but not be able to work a wrench worth a damn. �Sorry, I can�t get that bolt out. It�s hard to reach so I can�t get the wrench on it. I prefer those close and easy bolts!� �Are you kidding? What am I paying you for? Give me the damn wrench! You suck! You�re fired!�

To those who say, �they�d rather get closer� well duh, wouldn�t we all? Sometimes you can�t. Not even the best �hunters of our time.� In that case, if you can�t hit the broad side of a barn at 300 yards with your $2000 custom fancy-assed CRF 30-06, and you need to get closer because you can�t shoot worth a damn, I�d say that doesn�t make you a better hunter. It makes you a lousy shot who hunts. You go home empty-handed because you can�t shoot. You go home thinking you�re �a better hunter� because that giant bull or buck was at 350 yards and you couldn�t get closer. You just keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel better.

Having the ability to �harvest� that animal under those conditions and not go home empty-handed makes me feel better.

I know many here will simply say that�s because I�m a better shot and not a better hunter. Whatever. Shooting is part of hunting, if you hadn�t noticed. Like I said before, I snuck up on a big buck to within 15 yards last year. I can do that. Does having the ability to nail him at 400 (if that�s the only chance I�m going to get) somehow make me a worse hunter?

It�s my opinion that you people simply are lousy shots. 300 yards is not that far. Shiest, I was nailing beer cans at that distance with my 7-08 before I was old enough to drive a car! And you people can�t hit a deer or elk from that range? You are the ones who should be ashamed of yourselves. Not just because you suck as marksmen, but because any good hunter who is by definition a good marksman, you lambaste and call them �unethical��because they can make the shots that you can�t. You try to make people feel guilty for nailing their game with a single shot, killing it quickly and cleanly�only because it happened at a distance from which you couldn�t do it-----------Because you suck! Learn how to shoot! Please!

To give you an idea, here�s where I grew up and will be hunting for another (hopefully bigger) whitetail this year:

You see that river bottom that is well wooded? That�s where you still hunt and can sneak up to within 15 yards of a big buck (if you�re good enough). Walk 100 yards to the right or left and you can see a big buck more than a mile away. How far are those mountains in the background? 800 yards? A mile? No, they�re about 20 miles away. That�s how �big� this country is for those of you who have never hunted ground like this.

[ 09-06-2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Jon A ]

Jon A,

I have and will continue to take exception to your "400 yrd ELK shot". I have also stated that I would shoot farther than that in wide open country on other game if I had to. Have you ever seen an Elk shot? Somtimes you can hit them right square in the shoulder and they will show no sign of anything. Did you overlook O'Connor's criteria "a long-range shot should never be taken if the animal shot at can get out of sight so quickly that it would be difficult to ascertain the effect of the shot"? Have you seen where Elk hang out in rifle season (deep in the timber or close to it). Couple this with the FACT that they often don't show signs of being hit and the VERY LIKLIHOOD that they are in or very close to cover during rifle season and you should rethink those long shots. I am willing to bet that you could be a very good marksman, but you are ignoring VERY GOOD AND EXPERIENCED advice. Even that of Mr. O'Connor.

Deke.

Jon A,

You have now given us more information that is important to know. You are most likely talking about Elk clearly in the open maybe even on winter range. The clarification is important. Like I stated in my other post the 400yrd shot for most is too far in field conditions. If conditions like I stated in the other thread are "perfect" meaning I have ranged the animal, the animal is not on more of a 15degree incline/decline, Wind less than 3mph, no snow/rain, insignificant mirage, glare non-existant, My eyes are not too sore and watery from glassing/hunting all day, I myself am not TOO tired (the mountains take a toll on you especially when on foot), I have a solid rest that I am comfortable on, the animal is broadside and not moving/grazing, and the hunter is capable/certain, then 400yrds is very doable. I have yet to have these "perfect" conditions when it came time to pull the trigger.

Like I stated before, my choice of an adequate cartridge would be .30-06. Some might say .270, but I don't have personal experience with that cartridge. My Elk rifle of choice is a .30Gibbs which shoots stronger than an 06 and is on the heels of a 300Mag. With Barnes 180XLCBT's, it has 2000#'s of energy @ 500yrds.

Deke.

Quiethunter,

I am assuming that your reply was made 'tongue in cheek' as your comment takes my point way out of context and to lengths way beyond what I said. I know that I should just let your comments go .... but I can't help myself and so I will elaborate further. Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough and maybe it does require some clarification.

First of all, I didn't say that technology is taboo for hunting nor did I say that I was ashamed of my longer range kills. It is just that I am more proud of the trophies that I took through hunting skills rather than just through marksmanship and the use of technology. As I said in my previous email; we all use technology - but we shouldn't missuse it.

And I certainly won't be using a rock or a spear as they are not adequate weapons for the game I hunt and, accordingly, would be highly unethical and cruel. I am a firm believer in the principle of 'use enough gun' and so I tend to use larger calibre rifles than most other hunters and these firearms are fitted with either low powered variables or open sights - that is just the way I personally prefer it.

But enough of that.... the point I was really trying to make is that I see a growing trend where SOME hunters are deliberately shooting from greater ranges than is required. It is one thing to take a long shot (if you are a good enough marksman) at a great trophy if the situation prevents a closer stalk but too many 'hunters' seem to be deliberately gearing themselves up for shooting at game over long ranges without any attempt to learn how to hunt.

Now before you jump on that last comment, let me just state that I am not saying ALL hunters .... but there are definitely SOME who have lost sight (excuse the pun) of what hunting is really about.

I have friends whose hunting has gone this way and we regularly have lively (but never heated) discussions about this very topic. These are guys with the experience to make this choice (although, as you can guess, I do not agree with them). Yes, I have shot some game at long range but I have difficulties describing those long range kills as hunting and generally think of it as 'shooting' instead.

I guess that the real issue I have, with long-range shooting of game, is that newcomers to the sport of hunting learn their skills from the rest of us and there is no doubt in my mind that some of these newbies are not learning all the skills they need. Some of them are using technology to compensate for the skills they do not have and the end result is more wounded game - and that is not acceptable.

The art of hunting is a combination of skills - and marksmanship, while absolutely vital, is only one of them. I guess that Jack O'connor summed it up with his first rule - a long range shot should never be taken if there is a reasonable chance of getting closer - that is my point in a nutshell!

[ 09-10-2003, 17:58: Message edited by: BwanaBob ]

It would seem to me that this has turned into a pissing match. so i mine as well pee. wouldnt the solution be as stated before that the Comfort level of said shooter be his or her judge? here we go i my self with bow am not comfortable at more than 30yards. yet with long gun 150yards. thats just me. i however do live in the northeast lots a brush.

BUT the point in this,was to say EVERYONE will have a differnet point of view. so WHO is right and WHO is wrong. to each his own. i dont believe in wounding game to Say I shot a animal at 500yards.If said person has taken time to find there own range of accuacy meaning putting the time on the shooting range working there loads to what soots them and they know where that weapon shoots at said range than so be it.

sorry to have offended anyone .