quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Hey KB
Can you please tell us what you think the step by step process entails?

That's part of my point as well. There must be processes which vary. Consult this gadget and that - ponder the matter for a while - take the shot - hopefully seeing where the hit is - adjust - shoot again, etc., etc.

That all takes time, and proper setup. It's greatly inconsistant with my "hunting" style. I like the least gadgets, and quick response - and perhaps most important the ability to make a quick followup if necessary.

It's one thing for me to be testing a rifle's potential and the handloads for it, off the bench with a steady rest. It's another thing to use it in the field. It's assurance for me to know what it can do, knowing that I can't physically match that in the field, I try to limit my shots to what I'm comfortable with, rather than what the rifle itself is capable of. That's in contrast to the long ranger who pushes the limits of the rifle and his ability, under variable influencing conditions, beyond his control. It's a crap shoot for a lark.

This thread started about long range shooting, arguably "hunting". You come along spouting your prowess at the range. No wonder we are confused.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by KB
...the long ranger who pushes the limits of the rifle and his ability, under variable influencing conditions, beyond his control. It's a crap shoot for a lark.

This thread started about long range shooting, arguably "hunting". You come along spouting your prowess at the range. No wonder we are confused.

I've not "spouted" anything about "prowess", simply stated what I do as a matter of course shooting a rifle. If you think it's "spouting", then that's your problem.

I ask the question about how an accurate long range shot is made to you and any other of the guys who have posted here who think "it's a lark" to find out what you all know about the subject. You all seem to have no problem telling ga sixgunner and anyone else with any EXPERIENCE in long range shooting that it's unethical and a Wild Ass Guess to make such a shot.

It's obvious you don't know the first thing about it, yet have no problem displaying that lack of knowledge here by telling everybody how unethical it is.

quote:

Originally posted by KB..
Consult this gadget and that - ponder the matter for a while - take the shot - hopefully seeing where the hit is - adjust - shoot again, etc., etc.----------------------------------------------------------

I try to limit my shots to what I'm comfortable with, rather than what the rifle itself is capable of. That's in contrast to the long ranger who pushes the limits of the rifle and his ability, under variable influencing conditions, beyond his control.

The above is simply laughable!

Thank you for answering the question and disqualifying yourself from the discussion!

I think it would be relevant to see what all the other flamethrowers think goes into making a long range shot as well. It will separate the wheat from the chaff.

DC Roxby?
Cane Rat?
Randy Bohannon?

The Internet is amazing! I think I'll put my 2 cents in on a Molecular Bonding thread because I CAN!

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You all seem to have no problem telling ga sixgunner and anyone else with any EXPERIENCE in long range shooting that it's unethical and a Wild Ass Guess to make such a shot.

It's obvious you have no problem telling everybody how unethical it is.

I said that such shooting at game is pushing the limits. I raised the question of ethics, but didn't flat out say it's unethical, although I actually feel it is. The point is that whether it's unethical or not is subjective. I just wanted to point out, and which you have adequately demonstrated, that the long rangers have moved the bar or simply ignored the ethical question, in favor of rationalizing the sport. In doing so, you have put all of us who value hunting and the outdoors on the spot, especially in the face of anti-hunting sentiment.

Personally, I find such behavior from fellow shooting enthusiasts and rationalizations embarrassing, and see no way to justify it with a straight face, except to simply say this is a supposedly friggin free country, and it's legal, and leave it at that.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I said that such shooting at game is pushing the limits. I raised the question of ethics, but didn't flat out say it's unethical, although I actually feel it is. The point is that whether it's unethical or not is subjective. I just wanted to point out, and which you have adequately demonstrated, that the long rangers have moved the bar or simply ignored the ethical question, in favor of rationalizing the sport. In doing so, you have put all of us who value hunting and the outdoors on the spot, especially in the face of anti-hunting sentiment.

Personally, I find such behavior from fellow shooting enthusiasts and rationalizations embarrassing, and see no way to justify it with a straight face.

KB

The point is that it is unethical TO YOU because you have no KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE of how it's done. You're experience is limited to 300 yards and it is a feat to you to hit something at that range. I presume it is the same for all of the other dudes who've concurred with you on the subject.

How can you make such judgements with absolutely no EXPERIENCE or KNOWLEDGE on ANY subject? Do you do this as a matter of course in all discussions? Don't you think that before making such a judgement, you should have some experience shooting targets beyond 300 yards and should have some background knowledge on how it's done and what is possible?

Amazing! And what you are doing here is exactly like a Salem Witch Hunt; damning and judging others on your opinion of a subject of which you have absolutely ZERO EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE about!

The part about "putting those who value hunting and the outdoors on the spot" and "finding such behavior from fellow shootng enthusiasts embarrassing" is absolutely rediculous. Yet another assumption made from a preconceived idea that is derived from NO EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE.

In the rifle matches I participate in, targets from 200 to 900 yards are engaged with one shot only per target in a timed stage; 6 targets in 4 minutes. Most are shot from prone but some with sticks. The better shooters routinely hit 50 of the 60 targets. The winners usually hit 55 to 58 of the 60. Hitting 58 targets equates to 97% hits. Hitting 50 equates to 83%. At the last match 13 of 40 shooters broke 50.

You're telling us that a guy who can put a lethal shot on 90% of anything he shoots at out to 900 yards in hunting conditions on shot #1 is unethical and an embarrassment to the hunting and outdoors enthusiasts if he applies the same skill to shooting a big game animal?

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I said that such shooting at game is pushing the limits. I raised the question of ethics,

Personally, I find such behavior from fellow shooting enthusiasts and rationalizations embarrassing, and see no way to justify it with a straight face.

KB

The point is that it is unethical TO YOU because you have no KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE of how it's done.

I gave two fine examples of stuff I witnessed. I have never seen what you can do, but I have little doubt that you can do what you say, so that's not the issue.

There is a wide gap between a guy like you and those that I witnessed. To me, they are the normal representatives of the long rangers, and guys with your skills are an anomaly.

I'm getting after you because you make no such distinctions.

KB

I again stress that what you saw and consider to be "long range shooters" are nothing more than Slob Hunters. I do make the distinction and have in previous posts.

Also, I'm just one of many guys like me. You don't realize how many men and women are accomplished at this skill. I'm nothing special. There are many on this site who know what they are doing and can shoot this well.

Any hunter owes it to his quarry to learn to shoot as well as his equipment is capable, and I submit to you that those who don't are the unethical hunters.

Well, ok, we both make our points. If not on the same page, perhaps we are on adjacent pages in the same chapter. How's that?

If I was around it as much as you are, and witnessed some more positive events, my attitude would probably be more positive about it overall. It just so happens - probably - that the events I see, and for the most part those aspiring to make long range kills do not impress me, as a potential participant, or inspire me to want to remain in their company. Whatever they have to say, and do, grinds against my intuition about their character, usually, and I see nothing useful to learn from them. The technical aspects of the "sport", selection of optics or turning knobs, custom barrels, I can learn elsewhere if I so choose. They usually impress me as having little hunting skill, or appreciation for the game animal, or the environment in which they live. It's just meat and/or a target. Evolution of the meat-heads, sorta.

As a competitive target sport as you described, I'm very impressed. As a competitive hunting sport, I'm greatly underwhelmed.

KB

These ethics arguements are a slipery slope IMO. Kabluewy, you are correct in assuming that there are not many shooters out there who can make that shot on a regular basis, but I would argue that more deer (or whatever animal) are lost every season at much closer ranges by hunters. How come no one argues ethics with the guy who can't shoot well at 70 yards, or even 50 yards? There are lots of hunters who don't dust off their deer rifles until the day before the season opens.

One thing I know about long distance hunters and shooters is that they take their craft very seriously and they tend to put the necessary time in behind the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
These ethics arguements are a slipery slope IMO.

How come no one argues ethics with the guy who can't shoot well at 70 yards, or even 50 yards?

One thing I know about long distance hunters and shooters is that they take their craft very seriously and they tend to put the necessary time in behind the trigger.

Yes, I know it's a tenuous and tedious argument.

Just as there are long rangers who are serious, skilled, and studied in their sport, yet there are others who will take similar shots at game who are not. Likewise with the 50 or 70 yd shots you mentioned. One difference - perhaps - in the argument - is that to hunt at all, practically, the 50-70 yd shots are the norm. I suspect every or most kids starting wouldn't be considered a good shot, yet the 50-70 yd shot isn't a big deal, ethically. Gotta start somewhere. The choice to take a 900yd shot isn't a start, it's a deliberate decision to push the limits, by a supposedly adult, self-proclaimed skilled and disciplined.

I was talking to a friend yesterday, on our way back to town from the range, and I just blurted out the question "what do you think of the long range shots at game"? He doesn't read AR. I was a bit surprised at his answer. He said "been there - never again". It took a while to get the rest of the story. Seems that a few years ago on the last day of the season, he saw a moose at about 700 yds, and couldn't get closer before dark. (big marsh) So, with a spotter he shot it, and on the third shot it dropped. Then it stood up, so he shot again and it went back down. The next morning at daylight he went back with a friend who has an airboat. (planned ahead) When they arrived, there were two dead moose. the first one didn't stand back up, but instead the other sleeping moose stood up and he shot them both. Fortunately he had a friend with an unfilled tag.

The point is that the probability of that happening increases with range. And there are other probabilities, (Murphy Variables) which have more to do with field circumstances and hunting situations, and less to do with the shooters marksmanship skills.

KB

quote:

Yes, I know it's a tenuous and tedious argument

And a complete waste of time with someone who knows nothing about the subject.

But I have a cold, so I've got nothing better to do

quote:

Just as there are long rangers who are serious, skilled, and studied in their sport, yet there are others who will take similar shots at game who are not.

Those idiots are Slob Hunters. The same guys who cut fences, leave trash in camp, "flock shoot" into a herd of game hoping to hit something, take running shots no matter the distance hoping to hit something, etc...

They see animals way out there. They don't have "gadgets" that are necessary for long range shooting. They have no idea how far the animal is. They have no idea the range their rifle is sighted in for or even if it is sighted in. They have no idea what the ballistics are for their load. They don't know what effect wind has on their bullet. They just stick the crosshair somewhere over the target, jerk the trigger, and hope.

This describes your moose shooting friend as well. 3 shots to make a hit? Poor ethical choice based on his experience and lack of it. Visibility was poor as you stated and on and on.

quote:

The choice to take a 900yd shot isn't a start, it's a deliberate decision to push the limits, by a supposedly adult, self-proclaimed skilled and diciplined

Absolutely WRONGO yet again. But what would anyone here expect from someone who has formed an opinion based on watching Goobers and Gomers fling shots into the great blue yonder?

I made a 934 yard shot and that was as close as I could get without being seen by the animal. It depends on where you live. You live in a heavily forested landscape. Others live in places where you can shoot out to the effective range of the rifle. The ground is barren and you as well as the quarry (who can see better than you) can see a long way.

Since you have no idea of the process of making a shot, I'll fill you in.

Strangely enough (at least to the ignorant) most of what goes into being able to make the shot occurs well before the shot is taken. Just like being able to win the Masters, bowl a 300 game, win a shooting event, etc...

It takes work and hours of practice to perfect the act. Just like anything that requirs skill, it's not a "lark". It's a complete fruition and coming together of everything we do here on AR. Equipment, load development, practice with your equipment, learning to read wind. Mastering your skill.

For a long range shooter, this means having the equipment. A range finder, a scope with target knobs, a decent rifle (which you have, I've seen your rifles pics you post. Any would suffice). A Kestrel weather station is a must for atmosphere and wind accuracy. Portable ballistics program.

It means having done the work of load development. Finding an accurate load that has no vertical dispersion. Shooting that load over a chronograph, inputing the parameters into a ballistics program (portable PDA is best so that atmospheric changes can be input), spitting out a drop and wind chart and shooting that load A LOT in practice at ranges, positions, and wind conditions its use is intended. Learning your limits and the limits of the equipment.

After the work has been done and proficiency demonstrated, the shot can be ethically made. I'm sure this is what ga sixgunner has done. Why don't you ask him?

Now comes the time for the shot or hunt.

Instead of your PDA, you print your data for the conditions expected at your location and tape it to your stock. At a competition, the PDA is used periodically for the best accuracy. Changes in atmosphere can be input throughout the day and there's plenty of time to do so. Your rifle is perfectly zeroed because you know its importance.

Now you are hunting. On foot over hill and dale. You spot your target and make a decision to shoot based on distance, atmosphere, ability, shot angle, and any number of other variables every ethical hunter uses. Can you get closer? That's one of them. You RANGE your target with your "gadget" and check your stock for the appropriate drop data. You DIAL it into your elevation knob. This RE-ZEROS YOUR SCOPE for the exact range of the target. You know this because you have done it many times before. If you have time and the animal has not detected your presence, you use your wind meter to accurately measure the wind at your location. If wind is negligible or your experience in reading it is good, the meter may be unnecessary. You simply use your printed data, DIAL WINDAGE OR HOLD OFF with your reticle that is set up in MOA or mRad. The shooter is checking mirage and foliage movement between he and the target to detect any wind not at his location. The trigger is squeezed and the shot surprises the shooter. He remains on the stock to watch the bullet impact, then cycles the bolt to chamber an fresh round.

That's the simple version. How does that compare to watching people you call "long range hunters" drive around chasing animals in vehicles jumping out periodically to jerk off a few rounds at running animals in the unknown distance?

Good job, RC, in explaining most everything, and the difference in those I witnessed, and those you associate with.

Do you really think you and your associates are not pushing the limits? I think that for the competitive and goal driven type of guys, if the limits weren't being pushed, there would be little interest in the endevor. It's a foundation to what makes it worth doing to a certain kind of person, like driving fast cars, perhaps racing, or mountain climbing. Heck, if it was easy, why join the ranks of the mundane? I'm not implying that there is anything wrong with that. After all, it's an example of the spice of living, IMO.

At some range, the normal hunting rifle cartridges run out of steam. Cartridges like the 7mm mag, 300 mag, 338 mag. So to do the really long range "hunting", there are cartridges like the 338 Lapua, and the 40 calibers, and the 50 BMG. Whad ye think about that? Is there an outer limit for guys like you? Given the tools technology and equipment and gadgets to make "chip shots", is there a limit that calls forth the concept of ethics? Or, is ethics not relevant in this conversation at all, since as a practical matter the real range limit is whatever is possible? And, what is possible now will certainly be different next year, and most likely keep progressing over time, moving the bar out to the unimaginable, and so forth. Perhaps what can be done today was not imaginable 20 years ago, perhaps especially for guys like me.

The rhetorical question: If it can be done, then should it be done? The "it" inside that question is vast. In the big scheme of things, defining the "it" as long range shooting of game, is a small thing. Nonetheless, worth thinking about, IMO.

KB

To hit a target like paper or steel there's no matter. All the bullet has to do is pierce the paper or move the steel. Of course ethics are in play with respect to yardage. The bullet has to have enough momentum and energy (oh boy, a can of worms!) to kill.

A guy some time back posted on the American hunting forum about a 497 yard mule deer kill with a 6.5 Grendel. I took issue with the choice of cartridge, not the distance.

I think we have beat the nitty gritty out of this. I'm satisfied that we have peacefully discussed this, for the most part.

KB

Sorry about my tone at times, but you left me no choice by lumping the Slob Hunters in with those with skill and ethics under the label "long range hunters".

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Sorry about my tone at times, but you left me no choice by lumping the Slob Hunters in with those with skill and ethics under the label "long range hunters".

I did it because it has more meaning and perhaps credability when you say it, rather than me just harping. It is the old thing about "it's a good idea when it's your idea". I put you on the defense on purpose, so we could reach agreement, about certain basics of this discussion. We can disagree all day - for nothing. I'm now satisfied that for the most part we agree, and the rest probably doesn't matter anyway. Much ado about semantics.

BTW, I envy and appreciate your skill and grit, and your sport.

Best regards,
KB