243 win 105 berger vld, dead elk 688 yards

Superbrad said:
So she owns a bigger rifle, drives a truck and works in a lab?.... how does that justify pulling the trigger?... I suppose all of her upland game experience prepped her for a 688 yard shot at an elk with a .243.....
Click to expand...

The point isn't weather or not it is justified but that he was incorrectly posting that she had never been hunting before.
 
kman300 said:
Going on a guided hunt is hunting then? Or to Africa? All you're doing is going for a walk and shooting when they tell you too. The guide/tracker do all the "hunting".

Hunting is finding the animals. Everyone is a shooter once you found them.
Click to expand...

i was referring to the range that they were shooting from requiring zero hunting skill. every african hunt ive seen on the tv involves some sort of stalking at ranges much closer than 700 yards...
 
Huntin' Gun said:
And what I have to say to these "facts" is: so what? None of that makes her an experienced hunter. Her experience at big game hunting and long range shooting [before this vid was taken] remains nil, as I said, even if she does own a dually and ride horses. Shooting grouse and pheasants don't make you an authority on long range shooting.
Owning a bigger gun doesn't mean you're practiced at using it.
Owning a dually and riding horses doesn't make you a long range crack shot.

The vast majority of hunters on here know that what that video showed was in poor form, and in poor hunting ethics.
Even those who were stalwartly defending it, after more info came out, also agreed.

So what's your ties to this guy?
Click to expand...

You don't know how much she has shot her 300 wsm, again you are assuming she has no prior knowledge shooting center fire rifles. Pulling a trigger from a stable platform isn't hard. Like I mentioned previously the kid of a 1000 yard benchrest shooter shot a 6" or so group with his dads gun. The hard work is what John did, the easy part was squeezing the trigger. I also thought that hunting was defined as locating or pursuing animals. Killing them is called shooting apparently.

Ethics are debatable. Is jumping out of your truck on a logging road and killing a moose on the road hunting? Killing deer over apples? Bears over bait? Is bow hunting ethical? Takes critters a lot longer to die from a bow shot then a gun shot. Like I said ethics are debatable. I find nothing wrong with what she did and I have no ties to him.
 
kman300 said:
You don't know how much she has shot her 300 wsm, again you are assuming she has no prior knowledge shooting center fire rifles. Pulling a trigger from a stable platform isn't hard. Like I mentioned previously the kid of a 1000 yard benchrest shooter shot a 6" or so group with his dads gun. The hard work is what John did, the easy part was squeezing the trigger. I also thought that hunting was defined as locating or pursuing animals. Killing them is called shooting apparently.

Ethics are debatable. Is jumping out of your truck on a logging road and killing a moose on the road hunting? Killing deer over apples? Bears over bait? Is bow hunting ethical? Takes critters a lot longer to die from a bow shot then a gun shot. Like I said ethics are debatable. I find nothing wrong with what she did and I have no ties to him.
Click to expand...

John himself said she had hardly practiced that shot... and done a few "dry fires"... yet when you watch the video he has to take the safety off for her....

As far as the hunting vs. shooting debate it really doesn't matter.... I am not condemning someone with the skill and ability for killing an animal that they are going to eat....

What comes into play is ethics... taking that shot was irresponsible.... an almost unpracticed shot with an unfamiliar caliber from an unfamiliar rifle on live game....
 
Yes. The shot taken was irresponsible. I don't really blame Kassandra for taking it, though. She didn't have enough experience to know it was irresponsible. John, on the other hand, was the irresponsible one. And he did that stunt for the sole purpose of selling his stuff. That's what's poor form about it. Now it all worked out in the end, so that's good, and congrats to Kassandra, but the end can't justify the means, so shame on John. He should know better.

Now, the video of John pulling the trigger at the pronghorn from a greater distance, but with a much more powerful cartridge, that I don't have issue with.
It's the inexperienced shooter using the 243 that bugs me. Yes, he even had to take the safety off for her. Tell me how familiar with guns she is :rolleyes:
 
in 20yrs no one will even bother to stalk game. laser, twist, bang, roll up on quads.

lets not forget the micro-boom crane you bolt onto you 2500cc atv, because you're so fat and lazy you won't be able to field dress your own animal without it.

I have lost hope for the human race, and those that enjoy the simple joys of a little hard work.
 
Superbrad said:
.... because hunting is, by definition, "the pursuit of game for food or sport"..... there is no pursuit here... No doubt some can make the shot (obviously).... but using elk as a substitute for a gong is not hunting.... and using an inexperienced shooter and an underweight caliber (which is likely used DUE to the inexperience of the shooter) to kill game opens up a high FAIL percentage.... and that is inhumane....

When you bait deer do you just throw apples out anywhere and sit on a stump?... no.. you scout, research, set up cams, look for sign etc.... I think if the shooter in that vid had any real interest in harvesting game they would have done some of these things and gotten something better than that cow...
Click to expand...



so is that you in your avatar? if so where you Hunters orange? And does a big Horned Elk taste better the that cow? or is it just about the big rack?

also how do you know they didnt stalk the elk? hell there no cover in that video do you think they drove up that cliff? I am done with this nonsense and what you seem to think is ethical, It was a one shot kill at long range Bravo


oh and at the range a miss is not just a low hit...its a miss
 
Superbrad said:
So she owns a bigger rifle, drives a truck and works in a lab?.... how does that justify pulling the trigger?... I suppose all of her upland game experience prepped her for a 688 yard shot at an elk with a .243.....
Click to expand...

As much as I've loved arguing with you this whole thread I agree with you on this. I made that clear over on yhe fire, though it went over many of their heads. Wether John cares or not means little to me, but I feel like a sickness for sticking up for a shooter like him that should know better than to put a rookie behind a gun they've never shot.

Would I take the same shot if John was coaching me? Absolutely, but the day before the hunt I'd be smashing gongs way the fugg out there all day with that .243 to make sure I have a good handle on the rifle and gear.


Oh and huntin gun, I'd take the same shot, but I'd throw the Excalibur back at him and bring my Model 7 with me (grin).
 
kman300 said:
Is bow hunting ethical? Takes critters a lot longer to die from a bow shot then a gun shot. Like I said ethics are debatable.
Click to expand...

Nope. You're wrong about a lot here. "Critters" die about as fast from bows as from guns. A good broadhead through the right spots (placement) is as lethal and about as fast as a bullet. Arrows are also absolutely lethal from hits to places no bullet would work at all (femoral artery shot for one).

You don't help your relativistic ethics much when you are just wrong.

Ethics may be debatable, but debates do not end in ties very often. One side usually wins. "Debatable" does not mean there is no right or wrong, and disagreement does not mean both sides are right. One can be absolutely wrong in terms of ethics, so it is possible that there are ethical and non-ethical ways to hunt.

For example, I bet we could get a profound majority to agree that it is "not proper hunting ethics" to pay someone to allow you to walk up to a cage and shoot an animal inside it. The whole canned hunt argument is not about anything more than "how big a cage does it take to make it ethical". Everyone knows that if the cage is too small, it just isn't right.

It is not enough that hunters use the "whatever you want, as long as it's legal, is OK because we must hang together and not criticize hunters" line. I think we MUST become critical of unethical hunting, or some practices will be used by the anti-hunters as easy proof that we are not ethical.

Hunters must have these discussions and bring them to a conclusion about what hunting ethics are, and our ethics must be "debatable" in the sense that we must be able to defend them with reason and logic. If we defend hunting practices that the vast majority of people would condemn as "unethical", we will only hurt hunting in the long run. Hunting must be "fair chase".

So this argument is not about anything more than "how far is too far to snipe animals without most people knowing full well that it wasn't fair chase at all."

I think that it isn't fair chase if you are not at least on the same quarter section as your target. I bet most people would agree with that. :rolleyes:

So what is the "distance we will tolerate and defend"? Don't forget you may have to debate it, so think it through.
 
Jamie said:
so is that you in your avatar? if so where you Hunters orange? And does a big Horned Elk taste better the that cow? or is it just about the big rack?

also how do you know they didnt stalk the elk? hell there no cover in that video do you think they drove up that cliff? I am done with this nonsense and what you seem to think is ethical, It was a one shot kill at long range Bravo


oh and at the range a miss is not just a low hit...its a miss
Click to expand...


Yes... that is me in my avatar.... the gun is unloaded and I am in my back yard.... I did not realize backyards required the use of blaze orange.... my bad....

How can you call it a "stalk" when you can sit there and banter back and forth about turning the safety off and ready to shoot and put it behind the shoulder....

And yes.... at the range a miss is just a miss... that is exactly my point....

Your point about cow VS. bullis well taken...
 
With my skills at the present time, I don't think I'd take that shot. I'd tell them to sit tight, and keep in view of the elk. Then I'd work on getting closer. Looking at the video of the terrain, and with the amount I've hunted similar terrain in Southern Alberta, I really think I could get closer. Even just 250 or 3 hundred yards closer, and I'd be a lot more comfortable taking the shot. And I'd use my own 300 WSM or 308 Norma Mag, with a BDC reticle. So 688 becomes 388 yards, and I'd be more than happy to pull the trigger. My bull this year was taken at a range very similar to that.

Oh, and I've practiced a fair bit with those rifles, so I'm comfortable taking 400 yard shots with them.

Just like John has practiced a fair bit, and so I have no issue with the vid of him taking the pronghorn.
 
Superbrad said:
Yes... that is me in my avatar.... the gun is unloaded and I am in my back yard.... I did not realize backyards required the use of blaze orange.... my bad....

And yes.... at the range a miss is just a miss... that is exactly my point....
Click to expand...



sorry my bad what I meant to write is at that range 688 a miss is a miss, Not trying to sound like a smartass but dial a few moa to much or to little and watch were the bullet lands, oh and nice deer!
 
Huntin' Gun said:
So you're saying that at 688 yards you either get a perfect placement, or a clean miss? Because if you are, I don't agree.
Click to expand...


no just dial say 3 moa more than you need at 600 meters and pull the trigger bad shots happen at all ranges, but the longer they are a miss called range the bigger the miss
 
rral22 said:
Nope. You're wrong about a lot here. "Critters" die about as fast from bows as from guns. A good broadhead through the right spots (placement) is as lethal and about as fast as a bullet. Arrows are also absolutely lethal from hits to places no bullet would work at all (femoral artery shot for one).

You don't help your relativistic ethics much when you are just wrong.

Ethics may be debatable, but debates do not end in ties very often. One side usually wins. "Debatable" does not mean there is no right or wrong, and disagreement does not mean both sides are right. One can be absolutely wrong in terms of ethics, so it is possible that there are ethical and non-ethical ways to hunt.

For example, I bet we could get a profound majority to agree that it is "not proper hunting ethics" to pay someone to allow you to walk up to a cage and shoot an animal inside it. The whole canned hunt argument is not about anything more than "how big a cage does it take to make it ethical". Everyone knows that if the cage is too small, it just isn't right.

It is not enough that hunters use the "whatever you want, as long as it's legal, is OK because we must hang together and not criticize hunters" line. I think we MUST become critical of unethical hunting, or some practices will be used by the anti-hunters as easy proof that we are not ethical.

Hunters must have these discussions and bring them to a conclusion about what hunting ethics are, and our ethics must be "debatable" in the sense that we must be able to defend them with reason and logic. If we defend hunting practices that the vast majority of people would condemn as "unethical", we will only hurt hunting in the long run. Hunting must be "fair chase".

So this argument is not about anything more than "how far is too far to snipe animals without most people knowing full well that it wasn't fair chase at all."

I think that it isn't fair chase if you are not at least on the same quarter section as your target. I bet most people would agree with that. :rolleyes:

So what is the "distance we will tolerate and defend"? Don't forget you may have to debate it, so think it through.
Click to expand...

You are going to shoot a deer in the femoral artery (located in the back hip) with a bow and arrow? That is very interesting. Also please explain to me how a bullet breaking the hip and severing the artery isn't effective? Not that I would ever aim there though. I have also never seen a deer DRT from a bow and arrow. Maybe you have some cooler super arrows though. You can CNS shoot a deer for instant death with a rifle as well as blow up the lungs and heart. Lacerations made from an arrow do not kill as quickly as a bullet.

You have also not commented on the other issues of contention I mentioned regarding ethics. Shooting moose on the road? Over bait? etc. Is it right or wrong? Do we need to discuss it? Does the government need to tell us what is ethical?

Again what you consider ethical or fair chase is your opinion. Nothing more. If you look at our hunting regulations you will see that different provinces/territories have different ideas as to what should be allowed and what shouldn't. Again those are different opinions. Nothing more, nothing less.

The antis want to get rid of all hunting, not just some forms of it so that argument has no weight.

Let people set their own range and decide for themselves what is ethical. I find it much more ethical to shoot an animal with excellent equipment from a rock solid rest where I know the exact range etc. than walking through the woods, and shooting offhand at some deer running away from me.
 
archie_james_c said:
As much as I've loved arguing with you this whole thread I agree with you on this. I made that clear over on yhe fire, though it went over many of their heads. Wether John cares or not means little to me, but I feel like a sickness for sticking up for a shooter like him that should know better than to put a rookie behind a gun they've never shot.

Would I take the same shot if John was coaching me? Absolutely, but the day before the hunt I'd be smashing gongs way the fugg out there all day with that .243 to make sure I have a good handle on the rifle and gear.


Oh and huntin gun, I'd take the same shot, but I'd throw the Excalibur back at him and bring my Model 7 with me (grin).
Click to expand...


I think the debate here really comes down to ethics.... whether I consider longe range sniping of animals hunting is irrelevent.... I don't consider it unethical in the hands of someone who is capable and is using a better weapon.... I gurantee you that elk or any other animal harvested long range had a better life than a farm cow....

The other issue I have with John letting her take this shot is that he has the knowledge yet the firearm is in someone else's hands.... I don't know how many of you have done a lot of long range shooting but a critical part o fit is the ability to call off the shot at the last split second when conditions change.... and that only comes with HUGE amounts of practice....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom