The present trend of ultra long range hunting/shooting

c-fbmi said:
Many a front leg has been removed at 25-250 yds as well, my point is that given the terrain a second lethal shot should be within the ability of the shooter in a matter of seconds, given a good spotter and the right equipment and skill level. Regardless of range there is no guarantee the first shot is lethal it is a matter of finishing the the harvest quickly and humanely, IMHO. I believe that is all any of us ask.
Click to expand...

So your advice is to attempt shots which are beyond your capabilities only when the terrain permits subsequent shots which are still beyond one's capabilities and you're using a big gun. Got it.
 
There are too many variables in any shot for a hunter to be absolutely confident of a 1 shot kill. Anyone who says they can be this confident is full used dogfood. It's easy to be supremely righteous on the internet. Bird hunters use shotguns. How ethical is an area weapon? Or are birds less valuable than other Disney characters? 102 posts demonstrating how we waste our lives.
 
Bird hunters use shotguns. How ethical is an area weapon?
Click to expand...

You make it sound as though all wing shooters are unethical. Have you ever shot skeet competitively? A good skeet shooter will be shooting in the high 90s with most shoots being decided by a shoot off after multiple competitors shoot perfect 100s. Now look at the cross section of a clay target used in skeet, and you will see just how much smaller it is than upland birds, let alone waterfowl. When I hunt pheasant or upland birds with the people that I normally shoot skeet with, lost birds are very rare. Our shooting percentages are very high, and the dogs will find any bird that isn't killed instantly.

Now if a person is losing birds, it's not because he is using a shotgun, it's because of his lack of shooting skills.
 
emerson said:
There are too many variables in any shot for a hunter to be absolutely confident of a 1 shot kill. Anyone who says they can be this confident is full used dogfood. It's easy to be supremely righteous on the internet. Bird hunters use shotguns. How ethical is an area weapon? Or are birds less valuable than other Disney characters? 102 posts demonstrating how we waste our lives.
Click to expand...

So it would be more ethical to use a single projectile on birds? Your post makes no sense.
 
stubblejumper said:
You make it sound as though all wing shooters are unethical. Have you ever shot skeet competitively? A good skeet shooter will be shooting in the high 90s with most shoots being decided by a shoot off after multiple competitors shoot perfect 100s. Now look at the cross section of a clay target used in skeet, and you will see just how much smaller it is than upland birds, let alone waterfowl. When I hunt pheasant or upland birds with the people that I normally shoot skeet with, lost birds are very rare. Our shooting percentages are very high, and the dogs will find any bird that isn't killed instantly.

Now if a person is losing birds, it's not because he is using a shotgun, it's because of his lack of shooting skills.
Click to expand...

Move over God,somebody wants to sit beside you.
 
Move over God,somebody wants to sit beside you.
Click to expand...

And I see that he has made his appearance. Now could you slide over and get your pointed tail and your horns out of my way.:)

And park that pitchfork somewhere else while you are at it.
 
From what I've seen in the field, the problem in question isn't wether or not those inclined can shoot 4 or 500 yds at paper from a bench, the problem arises when they think they can kill a deer from 700 yds in the field. No different than those that shoot 3 shots a year the day before season from 100yds. A kill shot is either within their capability, or it's not. From what I've seen, it's mostly not in both cases. That's my 2 cents.
 
bearkilr said:
So your advice is to attempt shots which are beyond your capabilities only when the terrain permits subsequent shots which are still beyond one's capabilities and you're using a big gun. Got it.
Click to expand...

bearkilr, you're just being belligerent and argumentative now, in all my posts I have stated that one must also have the SKILL LEVEL as well as the right equipment and a good reliable spotter. I use the 50 for example because I know it has the downrange energy to effectively take game but there are other longrange cartridges which I am not personally familiar with which would work as well.
Nor is this ADVICE, it is my opinion only as related to the longrange taking of game, and the ethics involved. There are many more factors involved in the ethics of longrange harvesting of game than just the range, is my point.
There are (IMHO) scenarios where it is as ethical as any other form of hunting and there are scenarious where the chances of wounding and losing game are too high to be considered ethical.
Hunting and shooting is an art more than a science and as such will always have "the human factor" which makes it imperfect. There will always be game lost and there will always be birds lost, that doesn't mean the hunters, whether bow, black powder, CF rifle or shotgunner, weren't ethical shooters. It is just one of the agonizing realities of the hunting game and something all hunters live with, if they have done any amount of hunting at all.
You know bearkilr, even if everyone limited their shots to 50 yds or less and only broadside and standing still, there would still be lost game and front legs removed and gut shot animals. I have seen video of 2 different gentlemen who completely missed large African elephants at less than 25 yds and have heard of several more, close proximaty does not guarantee cleaner kills. I'm sure you, yourself have witnessed shooter failure at close range, it happens. I just shot over the back of a reedbuck at about 75 yds standing, no equipment failure, no intervening cicumstances, just plain shooter error. A little too confident after 6 one shot kills and I didn't do all the right things that I know to do. I was given a repreve and was able to harvast that reedbuck, but it woke me up and made me screw down and pay attention to every shot after that no matter how seemingly easy it was.
 
Last edited:
c-fbmi- The margin for error increases exponentially with distance, there's no denying that. So while there are of course animals being wounded at close range, the risk of it happening at extreme range is far greater due to variables you're quite familiar with.

My point was simply that different equipment or larger calibers don't excuse someone attempting shots at a distance they're not comfortable with. Perhaps you meant something different, but that's how I read your post.

If you don't think you can kill an animal with the first shot, then you have no business shooting, regardless of equipment,spotters,distance or terrain. That's what I would classify as ethical anyhow.
 
bearkilr;7869136 If you don't think you can kill an animal with the [U said:
first[/U] shot, then you have no business shooting, regardless of equipment,spotters,distance or terrain. That's what I would classify as ethical anyhow.
Click to expand...

I let a beauty of a bull moose go last year on this regard.
Took over an hour to get down to him and between the sweat and rain on
my glasses and scope, I let him go.
Couple seconds he was in my cross hairs and I wasn't absolutely sure I could take him down.
He slid into the shadows.
I am still kicking myself on that one.
I know that if the river got him instead of me, it would of ruined my hunt.
It's all part of the hunt, experience and the pride one has of himself.
 
bearkilr; I accept your ethics and your very rational response. I agree it truly does come down to comfort level and that is always a good yardstick for any hunter. I believe we all want the one shot bang flop kill, it is humane and eliminates the possibility of lost game. It is the best case scenario, bar none. It doesn't always happen but I believe every ethical hunter out there tries his best for this scenario, and prefers it to any other.
 
c-fbmi said:
bearkilr; I accept your ethics and your very rational response. I agree it truly does come down to comfort level and that is always a good yardstick for any hunter. I believe we all want the one shot bang flop kill, it is humane and eliminates the possibility of lost game. It is the best case scenario, bar none. It doesn't always happen but I believe every ethical hunter out there tries his best for this scenario, and prefers it to any other.
Click to expand...

Then how can you advocate "walking" the shots in with a spotter as an ethical long range hunting tactic?
 
AAHHH rral22.....there you are, I've been waiting for you're post critisizing me. In direct response to your question, I did not advocate this, I said I have used it, but that was before the glut of accurate rangefinders and adjustable scopes that we have today. That was 20-25 years ago but it was very effective and I also did not advocate "walking the shot" onto the animal, what I said was the first shot was held for a kill shot and then the miss, as it always was, is used to dope the wind and distance for a killing second shot. Hardly "walking the shot" onto the animal, my old sheep hunting partner and I have made several 2nd shot clean kills this way. But I'm not talking 1000 mtrs I believe the longest shot was made by my buddy at an estmated 700-750 mtrs. I believe my personal longest is about 600 mtrs. Using this method the actual distance isn't important as you, as the spotter, just tell the shooter where to hold to correct the shot. It is very effective within moderately longish ranges out to say 700-800 mtrs.
 
the first shot was held for a kill shot and then the miss, as it always was, is used to dope the wind and distance for a killing second shot.
Click to expand...

So what if the first shot takes a leg off of the animal, or smashes it's jaw, causing it to run off? If you only managed to wound the animal with a standing shot, how do you expect to finish the job once it is running away?
 
IMHO, I believe if the hunter feels confident in making the shot (no matter what the distance) then it is an ethical shot... for those that believe if there is ANY Remote possibility of not making an absolutely 100% one shot kill then again IMHO I feel that you should not be hunting as that isn't a realistic view. I've seen more shots missed off hand at less than 100 yards than I've seen missed at 400 with a proper rest. In todays world of laser range finders with ballistic drop readouts and high magnification scopes with ballistic turrets, 500 and 600 yard shots are the old 250 yard shots.
A 200 yard off hand shot with a open sighted 30-30 or 7.62 x39 sks I would consider unethical...a 600 yard ranged shot with a magnum rifle equiped with a high power ballistic drop compensated scope from a good solid rest I would consider ethical.
Ethics are in the eye of the shooter. If you're not comfortable in taking the shot then you probably shouldn't!
LOL...as my uncle Olaf use to say "each to his own" and that's the way I see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom