I'll go first, even though it's already happened with my first couple of posts to AR when I joined in 2008. This is a resurrection of that post. The time is right to revive it and see what happens.



I've enjoyed reading the "Long Range Forum" thread on the American Big Game forum. I hadn't paid too much attention to it for a while. Along with making me laugh my off, it was interesting to see the opposition to any type of long range hunting/shooting that remains with some.

Before the resurrection occurs, I'd like to preface it with some background information that I think is important and pertinent. Please don't take this post as some sort of self-promotion or bragging, because it is not. I think it will help some realize what goes into developing a skill that, to some to whom it is foreign, may bring some understanding.

I've always been interested in being able to make long range shots. I honestly don't understand anyone who shoots a rifle that is not. Being able to do so shows the perfection of a skill which I enjoy doing. The same goes for shooting a shotgun or a bow. As a kid using only my natural talent and accumulated skill from teaching myself, I made some incredibly long shots on birds with a shotgun and prarie dogs with a rifle. I'm sure I'll never forget them as long as I live.

To be able to make long range shots with any weapon takes skill, practice, natural talent, and the lots of work that people don't see you do. I'm not sure why folks don't realize the hours of work that go into winning a huge tournament and perfecting a skill, they think folks capable of being at the top of any game or accomplishing amazing feats do it with luck and natural talent.

Being as good as I can be with a rifle, shotgun, or a bow necessitates practicing with them at ranges that pushes their limits of effectiveness and pushes my limits of skill. I want the weak part of my shooting to be my equipment and not my skill level. When you own the best equipment possible, achieving this goal will put you in an elite class of skill.

As a shotgun competitor, I have achieved this. It took years of practice and hard work along with the desire to do it. I also have natural talent in shooting just about anything. To become the best I could be with a shotgun, I practiced targets at distances that pushed the limits of the ability of any shotgun to be able to actually break a clay target. I was able to break crossing targets routinely at 70 to 100 yards. When this can be done with targets of the difficulty that you will never see in a normal tournament, it makes the ones you do seem like baby targets; you've elevated your skill level. The same goes with a bow. I have practiced to 110 yards. With a rifle, out to 1700.

The point of the above is that what seems unethical and unrealistic to some, is another day at the office to others.

Before I really knew what I was doing with a rifle, I had made some pretty long shots. Did I go into the field with the intention of only taking long shots? No. The circumstances just fell that way. At 16 I killed an antelope at 578 paces by holding over. I've made shots on prarie dogs at 500 the same way when I was addicted to shooting them. While on big game hunts, I've seen and held over coyotes at 788 yards and killed them.

Since then, I've made a study of long range rifle shooting and tried to perfect that art and skill.

In 2008 the new world of rifles opened up for me and the light turned on. I set up my hunting rifles with target knobs on the scopes, did load work, and confirmed drop data printed on JBM. We have a 1000 yard range at our club. To use it you are required to go through a long range shooting class, then prove you can do it. At 1000 yards you must be able to put all your shots on paper or you're not allowed to use the range. With what I had learned, I was able to shoot a 15" 10-shot group at 1000 yards in 20 mph crosswinds with my .243 WSSM shooting a 70 grain varmint bullet.

Soon after while calling coyotes, made a really long shot by applying everything I had learned. I was higher than a kite! I felt as good as if I had won a major sporting clays tounament! I didn't go hunting with the intention of taking only long shots, it just played out that way and was as close as we could get in the open country without being spotted. I posted the story here and became a pinata! ("pinyata", for those who can't speak Spanish). The bullet hit the dog just in front of the hind quarter and when I posted this, all hell broke loose. It was described as a "blown shot" and "muffed shot". I guess if you think that aiming at the X ring and scoring a 10 is muffed, ok. I've never been hunting with the intention of only shooting something beyond a certain range. I just want to be able to if that's the only way I can take it.





I'm really into the sport now, never missing a Sporting Rifle Match or a Precision match at our local club. Even though I haven't had the opportunity to shoot big game at extended ranges, I am capable of doing so. I don't go looking to do so. In fact after setting my rifles up for long range hunting, the first deer hunt I went on I killed a nice buck at 25 yards.

Very well put. No flames from here.

I am glad to see this forum. Hope to learn some stuff, maybe ask some questions that will prompt others.


Most of the time my posts involve pictures of rifles, groups, pix of game, or things that can be obectified or quantified.

I not much on stuff like "what it the best.........(you take your pick.

Another thing I shy away from is discussions in regards to the manner in which folks take game, the baiting vs non-baiting, high fence vs low fence, push feed vs. controlled round feed, short range vs long range.

Finally we come to ethics.


RC posts........
"The point of the above is that what seems unethical and unrealistic to some, is another day at the office to others."

This is one of my pet peeves, and I'll probably raise the hackles of more than one. I know this isn't the political forum, but here goes.

I'll post this short article, then try to make my point.

What is Ethics?
Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/prac...on/whatisethics.html

Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."

These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987)


The problem I have is applying "ethics" to the killing of animals, and the argument that arises between men of good will in that regard.

Many here are products of a western European culture. Whether you trace your roots back to the Renaissance or Reformation , the Judeo Christian ethic is part of your ancestry. Much of our standards for ethics and morality come from that ethic. The Bible is the foundation for much of that ethic. In the first Book of the Bible, God gives the Dominion Covenant… That man is to be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth. He is given “dominion” over the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. A soul, the gift of intellect and the ability to think and reason separate us from other species.

In the not to distant past many folks hunted as a way of sustenance. Don’t recall many US Supreme court cases in regard to the “murder” of animals.

If you were to purposefully go out and hunt humans, kill them, skin them, dismember them and eat them, both your ethics and morality would be questioned by most societies.

Animals do not have a soul. They aren’t human. We go hunting/fishing etc.with the express purpose of taking the life of an animal. How it is done, when its done and where its done, can and is regulated. But ethics and morality are not part of that equation.

Both an elk and a chicken are warm blooded mammals. Intrinsically, why should the killing of a chicken be different than the killing of an elk or deer, or moose or any other game animal. Neither is human. One may have more value placed on it by the “society” in which one lives.

We destroy roaches and vermin and do not have a second thought about it. Why do we say it is “unethical for a person to shoot an animal 300, 500, 1000 yds away.

You hear folks say “we owe it to the (whatever the animal your plan is to kill) to do it in a humane fashion. The idea that it is more “humane” would seem to be an anthropomorphism.

As I stated in another post. There are probably folks that will read this that would recoil in horror if a elk or deer was shot, wounded and no effort was made at retrieval, yet would have no problem with the abortion of a pre-born human.

So, no flames from this quarter on long range shooting or hunting.

End of rant.
GWB

GW,

Your analysis is better than the article.



I hope the purpose of the thread was understood

quote:

The point of the above is that what seems unethical and unrealistic to some, is another day at the office to others.

To those who have the skill, it is ethical.

Honestly, some long range "hunting" deserves flaming. On "Best of the West", the hosts routinely take guys hunting that have never fired a shot at an animal, much less a target, at over 300 yards. They guide them in for a long range shot on a big game animal, then start teaching them on the spot what to do to hit it. Dumbfounding.

It's all to show Joe Hunter that anyone can do it if you buy their products; it's all about the cash.

RC

Not just best of the west (which I detest also), I have cut out all the hunting channels. Quit watching them. I have no problem with product placement and advertising as such. We live in a consumer driven society. I've not lost my joy of being in the field and the indescribable feeling that is evoked in me through hunting, be it varmints or big game. Rather it is the style and substance of what the individuals that are the "stars" are promoting that has prompted me to quit watching.
It sure would be nice if we could come up with a word or words to describe our distaste or displeasure at the way some folks do things without having to involve the term "ethics". Guess I'm splitting hairs an being kinda' anal in that regard.

And I prevaricated (lied) a little, a little more rant.
A different take on long range as the folks here practice it from what I've seen.

In business and in sports in particular you have folks that are the absolute best at what they do. They are head and shoulders about the crowd. Most got that way after years of practice and sacrifice. Folks that use equipment and machines in their particular line of endeavor usually equip themselves with the best money can buy.

Would you say Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or any of the premier sports figures were "unethical" for striving to be the best the could be. Why would we put down guys here that buy the best equipment and put in the range time to be the best that they can be at their chosen discipline.
GWB

Just a wisp of fur may with my comments.

The problem I see with long range shooting of big game is nothing to do with my skill, my rifle or even my bullet.

The problem is the animal.

The time of flight in shooting much past 500 yards is considerable, between half to three quarters of a second, and at a thousand much longer.

Let us assume that I shoot at long range at least once a month under the tutelage of experienced guys who are accustomed to keeping MOA out 1200 yards with peepsighted 308s with a bullet weight limit of 155 grains and can read mirage in spotting scope like you or I read the papers; in other words guys who can shoot. Further let us assume I have two rifles and matching loads that group at half a minute and a quarter of a minute at 600 yards for three and five shots respectively. We might then also assume I can read the wind and shoot like the aforementioned champion shooters and have a really good rest when an whitetail steps out at 600 yards. I get on aim, wait for him to go broadside and get his head down feeding and squeeze one off.

As the scope comes down from recoil I see that he is still chewing but his front legs appear to have swapped position, he has taken a step down the slope he is on in that three-quarters of a second and the bullet hit's him 6 inches too far back....

I appreciate there are a lot of ifs and buts to this but I take issue with the contention that long range big game hunting is purely a matter of skill and that therefore it is merely a matter of talent and practice. I do not disagree that those things help but luck is also a factor that cannot be ignore and the reason why I try not to do it.

This despite keeping 8 out 10 shots in the 14" V-bull on the thousand two weeks ago with my 308 Sako varmint and surplus, albeit the designated sniper variant, 7.62 ammo. I'm not saying that to boast, I just mean that I hope I'm qualified to comment.

Excellent points.

Since I've been geared-up and practiced enough to have the skills (as well as knowing my limits and everything else that can go wrong such as wind and erratic animal movement for HC) to be able to make such a shot on a big game animal, I've never had the opportunity.

Every animal I've taken, I've been able to stalk closer to or simply had a much shorter shot.

I have done the work although to be able to make what most would call a long range shot if necessary. Similarly, I've have done the work to make shots in difficult field shooting positions other than prone. In our precision matches we regularly shoot sitting unsupported, kneeling, off-hand, off of mock rooftops and other unstable rests, off of sticks, and even canting the gun 90 degrees bolt up. We routinely shoot moving targets and shoot stationary targets after we run to increase our heart rate.

All of these things will make you a better field shot than just going to the range once a week and shooting groups off of a bench at 200.

Ghubert,
I’d rather be lucky than good.

Perhaps this is an illustration of your point as I understand it.

We bait hogs. IIRC, on this morning a sounder of 15 or so hogs came in just after day break. I had to wait a few minutes before I could shoot. Most hogs are black. I decided to take this one.
If you hunt feral hogs much, you know that they do not stay still. They are constantly pushing and shoving and moving in and out. This hog was shot at a range of between 160 and 170 yds IIRC.

The rifle is a push feed Winchester model 70, in 270 win, that has been glass bedded, 2 lb. trigger, heavy shilen barrel. It is a genuine half minute rifle (at least to 200 yds.) with 130 gr Nosler ballistic tips.


The following two pix show the type of accuracy this rifle is capable of. One pix is two shots back to back. The next is one shot about 5 minutes later. In this instance, I was not shooting for groups, as much as I was to determine POI at 100 yds. I was satisfied.





I’d say that from the moment my brain says “squeeze, my finger obeys and the bullet impacts the hog would be +/-2 seconds.

The black dot represents the desired point of impact that I try to shoot every hog I take. It severs the spine and the beast is dead before he hits the ground. All he can do is paddle. The red entry wound to the left of the black dot is the actual POI. Two seconds or less and 4”



Best,

GWB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Excellent points.

Since I've been geared-up and practiced enough to have the skills (as well as knowing my limits and everything else that can go wrong such as wind and erratic animal movement for HC) to be able to make such a shot on a big game animal, I've never had the opportunity.

Every animal I've taken, I've been able to stalk closer to or simply had a much shorter shot.

I have done the work although to be able to make what most would call a long range shot if necessary. Similarly, I've have done the work to make shots in difficult field shooting positions other than prone. In our precision matches we regularly shoot sitting unsupported, kneeling, off-hand, off of mock rooftops and other unstable rests, off of sticks, and even canting the gun 90 degrees bolt up. We routinely shoot moving targets and shoot stationary targets after we run to increase our heart rate.

All of these things will make you a better field shot than just going to the range once a week and shooting groups off of a bench at 200.

I have a lot of sympathy for your feelings on the issue, merely no desire to go out thereand "make it happen" as such. I laud your attitude towards long range shooting, if I've understood you correctly it is why bother is you get closer as we are hunting afterall?

The practice aspect of it can be quite fun and as you say it makes a person a better field shot as long one doesn't just shoot off the bags all the time.

Do you guys have the MCQueens competition over there?

Check it out Rick, I think you in particular would enjoy it and it's good practice for the prairie dogs!

www.nra.org.uk/common/files/FactSheets/McQueen.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
Ghubert,
I’d rather be lucky than good.

Perhaps this is an illustration of your point as I understand it.

We bait hogs. IIRC, on this morning a sounder of 15 or so hogs came in just after day break. I had to wait a few minutes before I could shoot. Most hogs are black. I decided to take this one.
If you hunt feral hogs much, you know that they do not stay still. They are constantly pushing and shoving and moving in and out. This hog was shot at a range of between 160 and 170 yds IIRC.

The rifle is a push feed Winchester model 70, in 270 win, that has been glass bedded, 2 lb. trigger, heavy shilen barrel. It is a genuine half minute rifle (at least to 200 yds.) with 130 gr Nosler ballistic tips.


The following two pix show the type of accuracy this rifle is capable of. One pix is two shots back to back. The next is one shot about 5 minutes later. In this instance, I was not shooting for groups, as much as I was to determine POI at 100 yds. I was satisfied.





I’d say that from the moment my brain says “squeeze, my finger obeys and the bullet impacts the hog would be +/-2 seconds.

The black dot represents the desired point of impact that I try to shoot every hog I take. It severs the spine and the beast is dead before he hits the ground. All he can do is paddle. The red entry wound to the left of the black dot is the actual POI. Two seconds or less and 4”



Best,

GWB

Nice shooting and a nice hog there!

I was only referring to the time of flight of the bullet itself rather than the whole reaction time, two seconds from decide to shoot is pretty darn good and better than I manage on anything other than snapshots.

But that is the shooting style of an experienced hunting shooter, the target shooter will take a lot longer about trigger squeeze because at long range the trigger squeeze is as important as reading the wind right.

If I were shooting at a critter past 300 yards or so I would take more time to settle, perhaps as long as 15-30 seconds to weigh it up in the objective, taking all the factors in to account.

The time period I talk about above is the half to second and a half second period in which there is no amount of skill or technique you can bring to bear except trust your follow through to bring the rifle down pointing at the still oblivious beast and jack another one in just in case.

I'm not poo-pooing the idea of shooting at the occasional long range beast but cautioning that the wounding risk is higher and therefore fewer shots are on than closer range. I think all of the guys that have posted on this thread understand that and make their comments and express their views framed with that in mind.

To drag that difficult "ethical" word back in to the argument, I think that shooting at long range at an unwounded animal in thickish undergrowth or scrub land is unethical, if it is wounded, best skill and will in the world notwithstanding, by the time you have found the site of the shot and started on the trail the animal might have got a long way if you had say clipped the spine or wounded muscle.

The same shot on a antelope standing around on open plains would be ethical for the shot competent enough to take it.

Here's a tale of two dudes, Me and a Buddy.

We both started getting set up to shoot long range targets at the same time.

I took the path that was described; plenty of work put into becoming proficient, lots of load work, data confirmation, lots of shooting during load work, matches, etc...

He was of the belief that all that needed to be done was to have a good scope set-up, chronograph your load, print a JBM drop table, and go shoot long range targets without a problem. No shooting at all except for hunting.

I believe my buddy's scenario is the scenario that most casual hunters who watch Long Range Hunting shows fall into. They think it's a slam dunk as portrayed by the experts on TV. They can actually do it and have done the work, but to cash in, portray it as simple if you buy their stuff.

From the beginning I've been bugging him to get out and shoot some of the matches I shoot; the SRM and Precision Rifle. He wasn't interested. Finally this year he caved and has now attended two of the SRMs with me and another friend. After preforming poorly in both, he now understands how important all the work and wind reading is.

I've been interested in doing the SRM since you posted the video a while back. I've been reading and doing the homework on some of the equipment and techniques. I just haven't broken down and done a class yet as I can't seem to find a class that matches up with my free time yet.

I just wish I had your resources starting out that you did. There is a 1K range within driving distance. However there is a long list to join the club. I applied last year and still haven’t got the call yet. However I don’t think, they make you go through a long range shooting class nor have any qualifications about keeping the shots on paper.

You can do it and teach yourself taylorce1.

If you have a place to shoot, develop the load and chrono it, have target knobs, print the ballistics and go shoot to check them out.

Practice a little and then go to the match.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
You can do it and teach yourself taylorce1.

If you have a place to shoot, develop the load and chrono it, have target knobs, print the ballistics and go shoot to check them out.

Practice a little and then go to the match.

Thats my plan as long as the rifle I'm building will shoot. I've bought some AR 550 steel plate and going to set it up out on the families ranch. We have got some pretty open country that should get me out to 1K.

My goal is to at least hit 30 out of 60 my first time out. If I don't I'll just keep working on it. Raton is only thee hours away from me on a bad day.

Basically what I'm saying is that the match is like practice anyway. Really casual and fun. We're not really shooting for anything anyway. Just a bunch of guys having a good time smacking steel!