Some selected quotes from the discussion:

“You're telling me that Joe Hunter doesn't wound more than an accomplished rifleman regardless of range?”

“Our goals are the same, just different ways of achieving them.”

“Thousands of dollars worth high tech rifles, scopes, range finders.”

“As far as this thread and gasgunner's video and goal, it's obvious from the video and results that he has done the work to accomplish what he set out to do. “

“And you know, what about long range hunting? But you sure make a lot of wrong claims. “


We can argue all day about "Joe Hunter" vs the "accomplished rifleman", and maybe that's meaningless.

I suggest that the goals of the average "hunter" are not the same as the self-alledged or aspiring "accomplished rifleman", as RC defines the term.

RC sums it up by declaring that the "goal" appears to be accomplished with the 926 yd shot. He "set out to do" it, and with discipline and work and luck, accomplished it.

Therein is the key issue. Most "hunters", IMO don't share the same goals as the long range shooters. As in my case, it's not just the fact that I don't want to spend the money on the necessary equipment, but I actually don't want to shoot at game at the ranges discussed herein. It's not a "goal" that I want to set myself up for. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of those who do have such goals.

Obviously there are those who can achieve it. The question is it a worthwhile goal, from the "hunting" perspective? From the military sniper, and target shooting, that's a different issue and question, and IMO not the same thing as the taking of game animals.

To me, there is no difference in the 926 yd shot that started this thread, and the guys with the 50 cal BMGs, with the fat muzzel brakes to reduce recoil to that of a 243. I have no idea what the range limit is on those rifles. It's a question of where the line is drawn on what's "hunting", and what's not. To some people there is no line. To me there is. Such people can call themselves "hunters" all day, and act like ethics is not a factor. That's part of the basis for my skepticism of their whole way of thinking, because they have moved the line out to somewhere that I can't identify with.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by DC Roxby:
We never get to see the videos of the animals with their jaws blown off and their guts hanging out.

and that only happens with long range shots?

saw a kid (17 or so) last year blow the lower jaw off a mulie buck at 125 yards or so. scoped ruger rifle. not exactly long range

So, what's a "long range shot"?

Is the answer different if the target is paper, compared to a buck?

What is the range at which a "long range shot" becomes excessive, regardless of the equipment or skill?

I know the questions have a lot of "it depends" imbedded. Thus the answers are subjective.

So, consider the questions rhetorical, which leads to the real question: Does any of it matter? If not, then proceed as you wish. If yes it matters, then please explain.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Second, jpl, you do not make a good case comparing sniping in war to hunting.

I never mentioned "hunting." I was talking ethics not politics or semantics.

As it is, I don't care. After 4 pages of this it's pretty clear that this is all tantamount to talking politics and religion. Lots of jaw working and no one's going to change their mind and the ultimate result is a waste of time and bandwidth. The axiom stands: Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And that's as much as I'm going to add to this mess.

It's easy to understand goal oriented persons. People are driven by some choice or another. For example, there are rock climbers, who strive for goals most of us never dream about. My point is that at least rock climbers make good organ donors. I can't figure out what long range shooters are good for, as civilians.

I keep expecting the market to provide a lazer weapon affordable to the wannabe long range "Joe hunter". If there's no line called "this is excessive" with the more conventional tools, I can see the same types hyping 3 mile shots, and disregarding ethical questions, with their new high tech lazer toy. Instead of conventional wind to worry about, I can see the next problem being solor wind, or the phase of the Aurora Borealis, or the interplay of the earth's gravity with that of the moon in whatever phase it's in.

After all, if it was really "culling" elephants for the mutual benefit of the species and the human inhabitants, I suspect it could be far more efficiently accomplished selectively with a war bird's high tech weapons, and inhanced vision instruments, as compared to the old-fashioned way of close up and personal with a simple old big-bore rifle. I'm sure the meat would be just as tasty to the natives either way, if culling and food were really the "goal".

KB

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Second, jpl, you do not make a good case comparing sniping in war to hunting.

I never mentioned "hunting." I was talking ethics not politics or semantics.

As it is, I don't care.

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:
I've never heard any remonstrations regarding the ethics of a sniper taking a 2000+ meter shot and successfully killing/maiming someone in a military operation. In fact such an occurance is met with applause and awe. Take it out of a military context and put a beautiful, unsuspecting, furry animal on the receiving end and a fervor about how morally objectionable it is crops up regardless of the shooter's skillset.

You must care a little to have responded. By the way you may reread your quote and it was a direct comparison to hunting a "beautiful, unsuspecting, furry, animal".

quote:

After 4 pages of this it's pretty clear that this is all tantamount to talking politics and religion. Lots of jaw working and no one's going to change their mind

.

You're right jpl.

Trying to make a "Short range guy" understand that it's not some miracle and that rifles are capable of consistent long range accuracy is like:

1. Trying to convince a "Flat Earther" that the earth isn't.

2. Trying to convince a 16th century "doctor" that leeches aren't the best treatment for anemia

3. Freaking a Cave Man out with a Bic lighter

Etc...

Next I bet KB will use the "if he sinks and drowns, he's innocent but if he floats he's guilty of being a "Long Ranger"

Burn him at the stake! .

.


600 yard load development 5-shot group.

(no animals were harmed during the filming)

Rick,

Are you a moderator on this forum? If so why are there only 16 post per page instead of the usual 40? That way there would slightly over one page of jaw working.

Not a bad group. 60 shots like that at 600 would win some F-class matches.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Rick,

... why are there only 16 post per page instead of the usual 40? That way there would slightly over one page of jaw working.

quote:

After 4 pages of this it's pretty clear that this is all tantamount to talking politics and religion. Lots of jaw working and no one's going to change their mind

I have experienced a change of heart about long distance hunting over the past few years. Some of it can be attributed to AR, some of it to experience (maybe old age or wisdom).

IMO the most important thing is to know your limitations and it becomes more important the further out you are.

It is still not for me but some of the hunting I do is probably not for you.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
if he floats he's guilty of being a "Long Ranger"

RC, you have a sense of humor? Guess what else floats?

You are certainly an accomplished rifleman. Shall we call you henceforth the "Long Ranger"?

You should know that I'm mostly just messing with you. I'm playing the opposition advocate, but I can sorta see both sides of this.

The truth is that I advocate practically any kind of "hunting" and fair chase. I sorta have an issue because I'm leaning towards thinking that you long rangers aren't engaging in hunting or fair chase, but something else.

I'm not as real passionate about my point of view on this subject of long range shooting at game, as you might think. It's more like I'm interested in it, and with almost any aspect of the sport of hunting that is pushing the limits, I question the rationalizations that I see inside the advocacy POV.

I don't see others raising questions, which I think should be considered, so I just do it to stirr a bit of discussion. After all, as the fellow said, changing minds is not likely, and if it's legal, who's to say what should be and what should not be? Did you know that they actually BAIT game in Texas? And then shoot the poor hungry critters when they come in for a bite to eat? I've even been guilty of that a time or two myself, and I'll probably do it again. So, I'm not about to get too self-righteous and start throwing serious stones at others.

I can truely understand how some guys get their thrill from long range accuracy. Heck, I get a lot of satisfaction out of near three inch groups at 300 yds. With my gear, and loads, that's an accomplishment. I can see how that satisfaction is applicable at any range, and perhaps especially as the range increases. I like tight groups at any range. I can't imagine a rifleman and handloader who wouldn't.

Actually, I believe that with the right optics, with the fancy little knobs, and the right rifle, and with a little technique development, I could do alright with long shots. It's just a matter of wanting to do that. So far, I haven't been motivated. Actually, the places I hunt don't offer such opportunities, and it hasn't occurred to me to consider that some kind of loss.

Hauling the kind of gear around that seems typical of the long ranger types would be kinda silly around here. Heck, I'm still using the 2x7 shotgun scopes that I bought several years ago, and getting great groups out to 200 yds. I consider myself lucky to have such great hi-tech gear every time I adjust the scope, and feel the assurance of those 1/4" clicks.

I forgot to ask a question of the fellow who mentioned seeing a 17 year old shoot a deer in the jaw. The question is: Was the deer recovered with a follow up shot?

You'll have to pardon me now, since the rubber band sustaining my computer is nearly undone now. I'll take a break to rewind it.

KB

Ha!

I've never shot a big game animal at long range since I knew anything about long range shooting. Since I learned how to shoot at long range, the longest shot I've made on any animal was a varmint; a coyote. I shoot steel regularly to 1000 yards.

You seem to think I'm a long range hunter.

I learned to shoot accurately at long range so that if I ever was on a trophy hunt and the ONLY opportunity I had to take the huge buck that I saw was at long range, I would be able to do so.

After my experience the last few years shooting matches at long range in hunting conditions, I've seen for myself that it can be done in the field with big game ethically, which is more than I can say from the people who never fire a shot past 300, think that 400 is halfway to the Moon, and flamethrow on guy's threads like ga sixgunner's.

I'm posting simply to tell you that his goal is not as crazy as the inexperienced say and that an accomplished long range shooter taking a 700 yard shot at a big game animal may be more ethical than the average hunter's 150 yard shot

Hey KB

After digesting all of your posts, I get the idea that you really have no clue of how an accurate long range shot is put on target.

Can you please tell us what you think the step by step process entails?