Huskemaw optics and the Best of the west clowns

Status
Not open for further replies.
KodiakHntr said:
I have to disagree with you here. From what I've seen of long range pokes on animals (anything 400 yards plus) there is a higher percentage of bang flops. Even on marginal hits.

I've attributed this to animals that are completely unaware of humans in the area, or not making the connection with danger.

My thought being that animals don't associate a far off gunshot with the pain they experience instants before.

I've definitely seen fringe hits on animals before, where if they didn't identify where the shot came from they didn't run, and a second shot tipped them on their noses.

That would be easy to edit in as a first shot bang flop....
Click to expand...

A bang-flop is where the animal is hit and immediately falls as a result of incapacitation... An animal shot through the lungs at 1000 yards that is not frightened and continues to feed for a minute before falling over is NOT a bang-flop... Nor is an animal that requires a second shot while it is "still" on its feet...

Further, there are many issues with long range shooting that have nothing to do with marksmanship... Many fatally hit animals run-off, as do marginally hit animals... They often don't appear to be wounded in flight... I wonder how many of those long range shooter's will cross the canyon and ford the river to get to the location of the animal to do a proper follow-up... Or who at 800-1000 yards can even properly and accurately landmark where the animal was standing to do a proper search??? Further, marksmanship is the minor issue, wind slightly more, bigger yet is target animal movement and that cannot be controlled or always predicted... At that range there is sufficient time for quarry movement to cause a poor hit... JMO.
 
Last edited:
hoytcanon said:
movement and that cannot be controlled or always predicted... At that range there is sufficient time for quarry movement to cause a poor hit... JMO.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same can be said for archery.....if we compare time of flight of projectiles yet no one seems to criticize archers for shooting at game that have sufficient time to move...plus you have the added sound with archery to further cause movement....interesting.
 
In mountainous areas across valleys or draws, I find wind gusts to be the limiting factor for a successful one off shot. It may be dead calm at my location but there can be fairly strong wind gusts that are very hard to detect(for me that is). It does not really take much wind to shift ones POI out of the quick kill zone at 800 or more yards. I'm not saying it can't be done humanely or I wouldn't attempt it but I'd be very cautious in waiting for the right conditions before squeezing the trigger.
 
hoytcanon said:
A bang-flop is where the animal is hit and immediately falls as a result of incapacitation... An animal shot through the lungs at 1000 yards that is not frightened and continues to feed for a minute before falling over is NOT a bang-flop... Nor is an animal that requires a second shot while it is "still" on its feet...
Click to expand...

As a bowhunter I saw maybe one or two animals that didn't show ANY reaction to a hit. With a rifle, maybe one that I can think of..... Speaking in percentages, that would have been 10-15% with archery tackle. With rifles, less than 1%. You miss my point though, in that at loooong range, it would be feasible to poorly hit an animal, and not have it run, then fire a second shot which DOES result in a bang flop. And in my experience more frangible bullets flung out there have resulted in more bang flops at long range than the shot placement would indicate.

I absolutely rolled a trotting (big) muley this fall with a 243AI and 105 amax on a hard quartering shot at distance. Conventional theory here on CGN around bullets and cartridge size would indicate that with that shot, and that size of deer, he should have merely flipped me the bird after the bullet bounced off. It certainly should not have rolled him ass over teakettle. Had we been videoing it that would have been an incredibly dramatic bang flop with a billowing cloud of snow and legs in the air. As would the second shot when he managed to get back to his feet for a few seconds and stood wobbly legged and broadside and I put a second one through his shoulders that absolutely hammered him to the ground. All with a "marginal cartridge best suited for coyotes"....Had we been filming for a tv show, it would have been quite easy to edit out anything after the first shot. But the fact remains, that shot absolutely flattened that buck, but at under 200 yards I'm not convinced it would have had the same instantaneous reaction.


As to the rest of your post, regarding whether anyone goes to look after the shot, or how could they possibly find the same spot after crossing a canyon, it doesn't really matter on how far it was when they shot. Either that individual is a slob, or he isn't. If he isn't going to look, it won't matter if it was 200 yards or 1200.
Likewise with anyone filming a show under the intense scrutiny of guys like you. If it were to be proven that a tv show host was simply flinging lead and not doing a thorough follow up, all credibility would be lost (meaning financial backing). And with a video camera available to play back where an animal was, wih a spotter to wave you into position, it would be a lot tougher to not find the right place than it would be to find it.

There are probably more animals lost in thick ground shot at relatively short ranges by solo hunters than there are animals lost by a tv host with an entire entourage who have a vested interest in finding it.

Good discussion though.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
Pretty much the same can be said for archery.....if we compare time of flight of projectiles yet no one seems to criticize archers for shooting at game that have sufficient time to move...plus you have the added sound with archery to further cause movement....interesting.
Click to expand...

I hunt with bows, spend a lot of time at the archery lanes and am a member of several archery and bowhunting sites and am here to tell you that you are 100% wrong.
 
Moon said:
I hunt with bows, spend a lot of time at the archery lanes and am a member of several archery and bowhunting sites and am here to tell you that you are 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

Well I stand corrected. You don't see it often here but good to hear that long-range shooters aren't the only ones being slagged then.....lol
 
If everything is on the up & up, why not give a rundown on the terminal shot effects?

Edit: I'm on side with Hoytcannon on this. Way too much lower grade hunting being promoted on these 'long range hunting shows' I don't care if the hunter/shooter is a reincarnation of Sgt York. One honest mis-read of a zephyr of wind at these ridiculous shooting ranges, turns a heart/lung hit into a gut shot.
 
Last edited:
Brutus said:
If everything is on the up & up, why not give a rundown on the terminal shot effects?
Click to expand...

Most networks don't allow the inside of critters to be shown on television....networks have some very strange rules that producers must follow.
 
sheephunter said:
Well I stand corrected. You don't see it often here but good to hear that long-range shooters aren't the only ones being slagged then.....lol
Click to expand...

Slagged or educated... it's important to understand all the variables not just the ability of the individual and his or her equipment. Stuff happens even when we perceive all the variables are perfect. Always good to remind hunters, particularly new hunters, that there are variables beyond our control. We might be able to minimize risk but cannot remove it completely. Well, I can't anyway.
 
sheephunter said:
Pretty much the same can be said for archery.....if we compare time of flight of projectiles yet no one seems to criticize archers for shooting at game that have sufficient time to move...plus you have the added sound with archery to further cause movement....interesting.
Click to expand...

Not interesting really, it's just relative. If you brag about shooting archery tackle at game at long range, then I'm sure you'll get plenty of criticism for that too.
 
dpopl8r said:
Not interesting really, it's just relative. If you brag about shooting archery tackle at game at long range, then I'm sure you'll get plenty of criticism for that too.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking long range...I was talking similar flight times of the projectiles. How long does it take your arrow to fly 40 yards?
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
Slagged or educated... it's important to understand all the variables not just the ability of the individual and his or her equipment. Stuff happens even when we perceive all the variables are perfect. Always good to remind hunters, particularly new hunters, that there are variables beyond our control. We might be able to minimize risk but cannot remove it completely. Well, I can't anyway.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more and I think that's why it's important to separate the facts from fiction. There are enough facts to consider on a long range rifle shot and miring it down with fiction only serves to confuse the entire issue. Long range shots should not be taken lightly and only taken when all of the variables can be reliably compensated for. Some are more skilled at compensating for the variables than others so obviously everyone's ethical range is different. I know I'm far from the league of a John Porter but because I can't do what he does reliably doesn't mean he's a clown...only more skilled.
 
sheephunter said:
Most networks don't allow the inside of critters to be shown on television....networks have some very strange rules that producers must follow.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that sheephunter. We still have the problem of proving if that first important shot, was it THE single killer, or merely the very first in a fusillade of shots? Only the hunting party & the film editor know this for sure.
 
Brutus - I think the point is that we have 215 posts on a thread that has Huskemaw in the title. How many threads/posts have there been on the Zeiss Victory HT, or Schmidt & Bender's new Stratos line of scopes? The marketing department at Huskemaw have obviously done their job.
 
Brutus said:
Thank you for that sheephunter. We still have the problem of proving if that first important shot, was it THE single killer, or merely the very first in a fusillade of shots? Only the hunting party & the film editor know this for sure.
Click to expand...

No question not everything that happened on every hunt makes it to broadcast. When you work with video enough you can usually spot the things that have been edited around....it's not as often as many would like to portray but you bet it happens.
 
dpopl8r said:
My point was if you brag about long range with bow and arrow, you'll find criticism there too. Regardless of time of flight - facts be dammed!
Click to expand...

Fair enough but my point was that if a person is going to criticize long range shooting because an animal could move then one should be aware of the correlation between flight times of different projectiles from different weapons. If, as some have stated, that flight time and the danger of an animal moving is the biggest issue with long range shooting then they should be 100% opposed to bow hunting yet some profess to be bow hunters. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
 
1899 said:
Brutus - I think the point is that we have 215 posts on a thread that has Huskemaw in the title. How many threads/posts have there been on the Zeiss Victory HT, or Schmidt & Bender's new Stratos line of scopes? The marketing department at Huskemaw have obviously done their job.
Click to expand...

indeed.

for a scope made in the same factory as Bushnell .... wonder if someone was doing the same show with a bushnell 6500 tacticool ....

marketing is the motto and seems some love it ....

i ve shot with one and was not impressed especially at the price tag ....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom