Long range shooting skills vs traditional hunting skills

[Longwalker]

I just had a look through my journal tonight. Did a little tabulating. Of the 114 big game animals that I have taken so far, fully one third have been running or fast moving shots. My farthest first shot at an unwounded animal was under 400 yards. The average kill distance was not calculated, but I would estimate just over 100 yards. I am from Saskatchewan, with plenty of opportunity to fling bullets at animals waaay out there. My personal experience is far different than what I read about on this site.

I am a little mystified by all the emphasis on long range shooting at North American big game. In my experience, it is always preferable to stalk closer, not shoot further. It is also always preferable to shoot at a standing animal from a rest, but in real hunting situations being able to accurately hit a moving animal is often a huge advantage in thick cover. But what I see on these discussion forums is almost all about long range rifles, cumbersome bipods, super high power scopes, and little discussion about real field marksmanship, where an animal is close, alert, and may be moving out. Many shooting ranges apparently do not even allow offhand or other field shooting positions for practise, just from a bench. Rifles and shooters are praised for their grouping ability, not the rifles handling characteristics. Shooters are assessed for their ability to make tiny groups from a bench rest, not whether they can hit the target quickly and decisively from a variety of field positions.

It is very different here from Germany, where I have hunted a few times, and South Africa, where I have hunted only once. German hunters know how to hit moving game, and practise field shooting with and without a rest. They even have "shooting cinemas" to simulate shooting running game on driven hunts. They have a lot of professionalism and take pride in good shots and a low incidence of wounding. In Africa a hunter pays the trophy fee for any animal hit, whether or not it is brought to bag. Interesting how that pretty much eliminates all the long range attempts from the field. People don't tend to do so much long distance shooting if there are personal consequences for a bad shot and wounded game.

I have no quarrel for those who really enjoy the challenge of long distance shooting. Some are even pretty good hunters. But I think far too many beginning hunters have been given bad advice and are limiting themselves with specialized equipment meant for long range sniping at stationary game. I have had several guests at our elk camp in recent years who could not quickly take a shot at a close elk because they were carrying too much scope magnification, too long and heavy a rifle, and a cartridge that kicked them too much. When the shot was presented, they were worried about estimating the range, trying to deploy bipods, and all the other BS that doesn't apply if the game is within 300 yds and you know something about taking a good field rest or shoot from sticks. Just some food for thought. Many of us hunt with different styles and with the equipment that appeals to us. No argument with that. I just have to chuckle at all the newbies who want to be able to shoot big game from 400 to 600 yds away, when that is a very rare occurrence, and requires specialized equipment and skills that aren't applicable to 95% of real hunting. Just my observation, flame on if you want.

 

[sheephunter]

I wouldn't suggest running shots for newbies either! I'd be shocked if I've shot at a half dozen running animals in my life. I have killed a few African critters at a fair distance though.

 

[TheTooner]

I've only shot at a moving deer when I'd already wounded it and it was about to move into cover where I feared losing it. I am disappointed in myself getting into that situation but having done so, I had to try to finish it. I'm not good enough at shooting moving targets to make my first shot at a deer when it's moving, and I don't have the time and facilities to practise to get that good.

Even before that, I would say I much prefer getting close by stalking or ambush. I don't want to take shots beyond 200m and will try to get within 100m. I don't object to people preferring to take long shots to avoid the work of stalking if they are putting in the necessary work to be good enough at shooting. Either way, if you are taking care to kill as humanely as possible, hunt the way you want.

 

[nowarningshot]

Most of my hunting has been in the interior of BC. Most of my animals from 80 feet to 80 yards.

Groups are nice on the range. Speed is nice when you encounter something close, accuracy is final. My super magnums are nice for specific situations, but the last few years my go to has been a T3 30-06 with a cheap Leupold....almost always left on 3X.

It is almost a drive for show ....putt for dough thing...golf analogy. Everyone practices with the long range stuff....whether that be the rifle or golf driving range. But all the important shots are close range. Only shot a few that were moving, i am OK at it....not great..OK...so i avoid if possible. But they dont die of fright.

 

[exophysical]

I'm of the opinion that when it comes to success absolutely nothing can make up for good hard hunting. I generally hunt big timber and my shots are close, although I'm comfortable making shots in the field out to 300 yards I kill way more game at under 100 than over. Even when hunting terrain where long shots are quoted as necessary I generally go with a different approach, I hang back and watch everything for as much time as I can, then head in once I've got a good plan and make a kill from closer. Even Jack O'Connor said in regards to long shots "An animal you have not shot at is generally an animal you can hunt tomorrow" A few years back I started to see the wisdom in that statement.

 

[berger]

...But what I see on these discussion forums is almost all about long range rifles, cumbersome bipods, super high power scopes, and little discussion about real field marksmanship, where an animal is close, alert, and may be moving out. Many shooting ranges apparently do not even allow offhand or other field shooting positions for practise, just from a bench. Rifles and shooters are praised for their grouping ability, not the rifles handling characteristics. Shooters are assessed for their ability to make tiny groups from a bench rest, not whether they can hit the target quickly and decisively from a variety of field positions.....Just my observation, flame on if you want.

And a good observation it is. I am a new hunter. When I say new, I literally mean new. I have had my license for 3 weeks and was on my first Moose hunt 2 weeks ago. I have been shooting for many years...in the bush and at the bench. After hunting with some very seasoned guys, men who have hunted for 40 years, with great success I might add, I have come to the realization that many of the guys here, the ones who argue vehemently whether a rifle is actually a 1-2MOA rifle or a 2-3MOA rifle, are simply out of touch. I understand that some shooters may only have access to a bench and paper targets, but to truly appreciate accuracy and marksmanship, you need to witness a 62 year old hunter, with cancer, take a young bull moose, on the run at 100y with one shot. That one event has changed me pretty profoundly when it comes to this sport.

 

[kennymo]

Most of my hunting as well is around 100 yards or less. And I have also nailed a fair number of deer and coyotes on the run, but mostly up close. My record is 125 yards (ranged after the fact) on a running coyote with a .50 cal muzzleloader though, I suspect there was a small amount of luck involved with that one too, I even had an awestruck witness lol. There have been some further shots, but my biggest buck was killed running at probably 20ish yards when I accidentally walked in and unwittingly broke up a fight. It's nice to be ready for a longer shot if it presents itself though, I try to practise at 400 once in a while, didn't get a chance this year with the kid arriving. Haven't done much shooting at all this summer actually, noticed my skills are suffering a little bit when I sighted in some hunting rifles a couple weeks back.

 

[rral22]

I like hunting. Hunting, for me, means sneaking up on an animal to as close as possible. Once I'm close enough, I will, on occasion, shoot it if it is the animal I want, but the shooting part of it is not the most fun for me at all, so I really have no desire to shoot long distances just to kill something. I'm "hunting", after all.

I agree that the glamour of long range shooting in videos tends to make new hunters think that is what hunting is all about. It is way more difficult to video a careful spot and stalk, or a still hunt though heavy forest because of all the disturbance that spooks game. If you see an animal at over a quarter mile, and it is unaware of you, it is easy to film a long shot (and you can always edit out the disasters that will occasionally, and inevitably, occur when extreme long shots go bad). So new hunters watch this stuff and think it is normal. Those videos of much longer shots are seriously harmful to a new hunter's understanding of what hunting is all about. If you can't get onto the same quarter section as the animal you're after, you're not much of a hunter. You may be a great shot, but you're a poor hunter.

My average shot would be less than 100 yards. I think the longest shot I ever took at unwounded game was a little over 200. Long range shooting skills are definitely real and hard to acquire, so I have lots of respect for anyone who can place a first shot on a target at 600 to 1000 yards. But that is not hunting in my understanding - it's great shooting, and to take that first shot at a living animal has all sorts of "issues" for me. I have shot enough to know it cannot be made every time because of variables that cannot be controlled in actual hunting situations. On a range, at a target, things are much more manageable, and a miscalculation (and long range shooting is all about math) will not result in suffering for some animal. When a living animal is on the end of the trajectory, I believe it deserves more certainty that it will not end up dying days later from a badly placed shot due to either miscalculation, or a wind gust, or animal movement, or any of several other uncontrolled factors. That is the "ethical" issue for me of long range shooting of game animals.

The other issue is that I like to hunt.

 

[cet]

I don't hunt, in any way shape or form. I just punch holes in paper as a sport.
Many of my friends do hunt, and I appreciate the talent and knowledge required to do it properly.

Every fall, without fail, a friend hunter wants to go to the range and shoot with me.
Well, I'll tell you, it is a tough job trying to explain to them that what I do is NOT well related to hunting, only
a very few aspects, nothing else.

It seems that new, easilly influenced hunters, want to shoot small groups at 500 yards with
a hunting rifle, hunting scope and factory ammo, and get discouraged when they fail.

I do my best to steer them in the right direction, that entails going to the range with an experienced HUNTER.

My point: New, and some older hunter, would be far better served by understanding the differance between the two shooting diciplines. Granted, there is SOME overlap, but not much.

 

[CV32]

I just had a look through my journal tonight. Did a little tabulating. Of the 114 big game animals that I have taken so far, fully one third have been running or fast moving shots. My farthest first shot at an unwounded animal was under 400 yards. The average kill distance was not calculated, but I would estimate just over 100 yards. I am from Saskatchewan, with plenty of opportunity to fling bullets at animals waaay out there. My personal experience is far different than what I read about on this site.

I am a little mystified by all the emphasis on long range shooting at North American big game. In my experience, it is always preferable to stalk closer, not shoot further. It is also always preferable to shoot at a standing animal from a rest, but in real hunting situations being able to accurately hit a moving animal is often a huge advantage in thick cover. But what I see on these discussion forums is almost all about long range rifles, cumbersome bipods, super high power scopes, and little discussion about real field marksmanship, where an animal is close, alert, and may be moving out. Many shooting ranges apparently do not even allow offhand or other field shooting positions for practise, just from a bench. Rifles and shooters are praised for their grouping ability, not the rifles handling characteristics. Shooters are assessed for their ability to make tiny groups from a bench rest, not whether they can hit the target quickly and decisively from a variety of field positions.

It is very different here from Germany, where I have hunted a few times, and South Africa, where I have hunted only once. German hunters know how to hit moving game, and practise field shooting with and without a rest. They even have "shooting cinemas" to simulate shooting running game on driven hunts. They have a lot of professionalism and take pride in good shots and a low incidence of wounding. In Africa a hunter pays the trophy fee for any animal hit, whether or not it is brought to bag. Interesting how that pretty much eliminates all the long range attempts from the field. People don't tend to do so much long distance shooting if there are personal consequences for a bad shot and wounded game.

I have no quarrel for those who really enjoy the challenge of long distance shooting. Some are even pretty good hunters. But I think far too many beginning hunters have been given bad advice and are limiting themselves with specialized equipment meant for long range sniping at stationary game. I have had several guests at our elk camp in recent years who could not quickly take a shot at a close elk because they were carrying too much scope magnification, too long and heavy a rifle, and a cartridge that kicked them too much. When the shot was presented, they were worried about estimating the range, trying to deploy bipods, and all the other BS that doesn't apply if the game is within 300 yds and you know something about taking a good field rest or shoot from sticks. Just some food for thought. Many of us hunt with different styles and with the equipment that appeals to us. No argument with that. I just have to chuckle at all the newbies who want to be able to shoot big game from 400 to 600 yds away, when that is a very rare occurrence, and requires specialized equipment and skills that aren't applicable to 95% of real hunting. Just my observation, flame on if you want.

Good post.

 

[caramel]

A very good range shooter, inexperienced hunter, could blow it easy at any distance if while hunting, he experience Buck fever... JP.

 

[Slaymoar]

Every type of hunting I have accompanied or conducted myself ended up within 200 yards of game, with the average at maybe 30-50 yards. Even then, I don't think I've ever seen a shot taken at 200 yards. We always tried to get closer and closer. Probably ended up around 100-150 yards. But that's over 10 years ago when I didn't give much thought to yardage, more about a clear and fatal shot.

 

[dan belisle]

Been hunting for over 40 years now; have taken shots from about 15 yds to a paced 375. That last one was sitting from a rest. Only a couple running shots at deer or bigger game in that time. Quite a few running shots at coyotes, managed to kill them but I'm not great at it. I do like to shoot LR on the range, just haven't had a lot of call for it in the field. Couple exceptions, but generally in the places I go, super long shots just don't present themselves. On the subject of running shots, we used to put cardboard targets in old tires and roll them down from the sides of the range we shot at (elevated burms on the side of the target areas). That was good practice too, though it would probably give the CFO palpitating fits today. For a hunter, I think practice using 8" paper plates from kneeling, sitting and standing should be part of routine. Your practical distance is however far you can still keep all your shots on the plate from your least steady position. FWIW - dan

 

[t-star]

however, the cdn army manual of marksmanship( I forget the exact title) covers how to hit walking/running targets quite well-basically, it involves picking a spot ahead of your target and allowing the prey to walk/run into the path of the bullet- it's the manual that uses the no 4 as an illustration- a lot of people dehorn the front sight not knowing what the "ears" are really for

 

[kennymo]

A very good range shooter, inexperienced hunter, could blow it easy at any distance if while hunting, he experience Buck fever... JP.

Heh, heh. My buddy got his archery elk a few weeks back with a fresh, first time hunter in the blind. When the elk started moving in with the bull bugling right at last light all he could do was crouch on the floor of the blind whispering "omigod, omigod, omigod...". Lol, I'm sure he'll be back after that little adrenaline rush and seeing two elk down (buddy in the other blind took the second elk at the same time by some stroke of luck).

 

[kennymo]

One other thing relating to this topic is the complete inability (or complete B.S.) of many people when judging distance. I have a friend that shoots a lot of game at '400 yards, 300 short mag!'. I had the opportunity to have a look at some of the spots where he's made these shots and come to the conclusion that he has no idea what a yard is. But he's a good buddy, so mostly I shut up about it.....mostly....

Also, I love my Bushnell range finder. I actually find it's made me better at judging distances rather than absolutely reliant on it. I like to guess distances then range them while sitting on stand, just a little game to keep awake, it seems to train your brain a bit I suppose. The thing has actually been largely irrelevant to hunting shots though, I think I've only had to bring it out maybe twice in five years for an actual shot...

 

[Northman999]

Good original post.

Long range hunting has a cool factor, and that is the major draw. The other benefit it has is taking the odd animal that otherwise could not be taken.

I've had a bit of a tug towards long range hunting myself, but never bit the bullet, gear wise, as it's a complete luxury for me, since most of the game I shoot is around 100 yards, and I'd have to really go out of my way to find hunting opportunity that I would consider "long range".

I do share Longwalker's experience with moving game. Very common for me to keep on getting closer to game until they start to get skittish or actally take off, and for me to shoot them as they get going. Probably over 50% of the game I've shot has been taken like this. It is a bit of a different skill to shoot a black bear at a full run than one lounging around eating grass.

 

[caramel]

An experience hunter will usually live his adrenaline rush, after the shot, that's good as those 5 or 6 minutes you take to calm down are needed for you target to stop and just bleed to death not to far from the hit, making tracking a short walk proposition... JP.

 

[exophysical]

One other thing relating to this topic is the complete inability (or complete B.S.) of many people when judging distance. I have a friend that shoots a lot of game at '400 yards, 300 short mag!'. I had the opportunity to have a look at some of the spots where he's made these shots and come to the conclusion that he has no idea what a yard is. But he's a good buddy, so mostly I shut up about it.....mostly....

Also, I love my Bushnell range finder. I actually find it's made me better at judging distances rather than absolutely reliant on it. I like to guess distances then range them while sitting on stand, just a little game to keep awake, it seems to train your brain a bit I suppose. The thing has actually been largely irrelevant to hunting shots though, I think I've only had to bring it out maybe twice in five years for an actual shot...

This! I've seen an awful lot of hunters who are terrible judges of range. A guy at work who talks about making long shots told me about a gravel pit that he figured I could practice shots out to 300 yards. I know the gravel pit he's talking about, I've never shot there because I paced it off one time and I think unless you get really creative you've only got about 90 yards. I notice that more hunters are carrying range finders these days but IMO its unnecessary for most hunts, sight the gun 3" high at 100 yards, figure out where it is 3" low, anywhere in this range is "Close enough", anything beyond is "too far". That's the only two ranges I need to be able to judge and I don't need a range finder to do it.

I've always said that the ability to quickly put a bullet into the front half of a deer at 100 yards will put down more animals than the ability to shoot golf balls at 400.

 

[NL-Hunter]

Excellent thread, thanks OP.

I for one was almost swallowed up by the long range rifle wave that is sweeping the nation, came to my senses at the last minute. .30-06 is plenty for what I hunt, in hindsight I should probably have gone the .308 route.

Originally from Europe I was surprised to see that you do not have to do a shooting test here to get a licence. Do a Firearms/Hunter Capeability Course (paper) and apply for licence.

Where I came from you had to prove your skills to get your tags, if you could not show your proficiancy with a rifle, you did not get a licence. There are even areas now that the shooting test is partially completed on a moving target.

Long range are for a select few, most with appropriate equipment would wound and maim animals at longer ranges. It takes a lot of practise and equipment that can hit same area every time you pull the trigger to pull it off. A package rifle and walmart ammo may do it once, equipment has to be able to repeat task every time under every type of condition.