Moose Down - 778m

Status
Not open for further replies.
Almost anyone shooting offhand @150 yds+ or at any
animal moving (re. shooting at deer running thread) takes more risk
than the OP. I know the OP personally; there was probably
some overconfidence involved. On the other hand he isn't
some well financed kid lobbing bullets around. He has approached
this long range hunting quest as the engineer and professional
organizer that that makes him effective in his career. Also, although
I don't know which of his coworkers accompanied him on this
trip, but many of them have in fact spent several tours overseas lately
and could very well be using their professional experience
to function as an ad hoc "precision" rifle team. If many of
you are actually similar in person to the tone of your posts
perhaps you belong to a better class of people than I.
 
Having only started getting into hunting, I won't comment on the specific incident at hand.

However, I am a bit surprised that people tend to believe that 'ethics' ought to solely be defined by an individual when hunting. Hunting seems to be a reasonable sort of activities to define moral principles for a group (hunters) around. Just my $0.02.

eth·ics [eth-iks] Show IPA
plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
 
Shooting skill makes a big difference while hunting.
Everyone's skill varies, thus the same action can be
ethical for one hunter and not another.
 
emerson said:
Shooting skill makes a big difference while hunting.
Everyone's skill varies, thus the same action can be
ethical for one hunter and not another.
Click to expand...

I think the question about being ethical depends on the shooters skill in the first place. If you are taking large risk of just wounding an animal you shouldn't take the shot. We aren't talking about subsistence hunting here. There would be a lot more leaway there I think.

I have turned away from my share of 100 yard shots because I wasn't sure.
 
Biggest thing that surprises me is the number of people here supporting an ugly instance of clearly shooting beyond ability, as good sporting fun. Unfortunately lots of folks see this as perfectly acceptable sport, even commending it. Had he made the mistake, cleaned it up and decided to do better next time is one thing. Instead he came on here to brag about a messy incident, some are even praising him, and deriding any questioning his judgement and skill as holier than thou. Ahhhh the internet.
 
Just curious, there are a lot of people posting about ethics in regard to the length of the shot. I'm just wondering if there any experienced long range hunters/shooters that have had a similar length shot and what the outcome was. Was it a similar scenario(having to make an adjustment) or was it a one shot kill?
 
The beast could had run into the woods after the first shot and before you could shoot a second time. The result could have been a wounded , nowhere to be found, gonna die 2 miles farther moose.

I respect the animal life much better than this.

That is my ethic

Mush
 
Ok, here is a simple reality.

There are more deer wounded and lost at "normal" hunting distances(200 yards or less IMO) than there is at these larger distances.

The odds of wounding an animal at close range are just as possible and it happens.How many guys buy a new "bore sighted" axis and hit the woods or fields?Oh, it's good enough they say, grab a box of ammo and off they go.

The guys taking the long range shots(which is a personal interpretation of long range) likely have a tonne more trigger time and practice than a one shot per deer season fellow.Who has better odds, who is more practiced?

I don't see anybody jumping down anyone's throat when they come on here and say they lost a deer that they knew they hit @ 127 yards.The response is usually "that is hunting" , "don't let it get you down" , or "better luck on the next one, there will be others".

Kind of amazes me when a crowd who doesn't want to be judged or stereotyped or so quick to jump on the back of someone else and beat them for all they are worth with that imaginary stick.

If someone choose to hunt in this fashion so be it, let them hunt.Pretty soon it is gonna be a bunch of hunting threads of guys saying they saw nothing because they don't want to get criticized when they have to use a follow up or finishing shot.

Let's get the frig off everybody's back already and enjoy the hunting season.I am actually a little disgusted with some of the attitudes here.

Nobody has ever wounded or lost or had to track an animal?I am not a Jesus freak but " he who has not sinned..............................." you know the rest.
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
Ok, here is a simple reality.

There are more deer wounded and lost at "normal" hunting distances(200 yards or less IMO) than there is at these larger distances.

The odds of wounding an animal at close range are just as possible and it happens.How many guys buy a new "bore sighted" axis and hit the woods or fields?Oh, it's good enough they say, grab a box of ammo and off they go.

The guys taking the long range shots(which is a personal interpretation of long range) likely have a tonne more trigger time and practice than a one shot per deer season fellow.Who has better odds, who is more practiced?

I don't see anybody jumping down anyone's throat when they come on here and say they lost a deer that they knew they hit @ 127 yards.The response is usually "that is hunting" , "don't let it get you down" , or "better luck on the next one, there will be others".

Kind of amazes me when a crowd who doesn't want to be judged or stereotyped or so quick to jump on the back of someone else and beat them for all they are worth with that imaginary stick.

If someone choose to hunt in this fashion so be it, let them hunt.Pretty soon it is gonna be a bunch of hunting threads of guys saying they saw nothing because they don't want to get criticized when they have to use a follow up or finishing shot.

Let's get the frig off everybody's back already and enjoy the hunting season.I am actually a little disgusted with some of the attitudes here.

Nobody has ever wounded or lost or had to track an animal?I am not a Jesus freak but " he who has not sinned..............................." you know the rest.
Click to expand...
^What he said. Somebody give this guy a medal.
 
i can bang steel at 800m consistantly and is well within my capabilities but i cant put someone down for taking 3 shots to down a moose at 778 over water ( no wind indicators) first shot should have droped him being a spine shot so it was a good hit. second was one a moving animal at almost 800m was a miss, corrected and the next shot put him down whats wrong with that?
 
Ardent said:
Biggest thing that surprises me is the number of people here supporting an ugly instance of clearly shooting beyond ability, as good sporting fun. Unfortunately lots of folks see this as perfectly acceptable sport, even commending it. Had he made the mistake, cleaned it up and decided to do better next time is one thing. Instead he came on here to brag about a messy incident, some are even praising him, and deriding any questioning his judgement and skill as holier than thou. Ahhhh the internet.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
I can't figure out why so many people are defending, commending, praising... the OP. All he has displayed is that he is a terrible shot with bad judgement. I have no issue with someone making a long range shot on a game animal but you need to be certain you will make a good 1st round hit, you may still need a 2nd shot even with a good 1st round hit so the animal stays in a favorable spot for retrieval. As for the OPs "sniper team", all 3 or 4 of them $h!t the bed in my opinion, there were 2 bad windage and elevation calls. The first shot "rear spine", while hitting the moose was still a miss 3' high and right, the second shot in the water was 3' low and left...that's 6 feet from one shot to the next. All the OP has demonstrated was his incompetence as a long range hunter. While the OP recovered his moose, the only other good thing to come from this hunt and this thread was that he realised he needs more practise.
 
I had to let a nice big bull moose go this weekend @150 yds because the shot was sketchy. Had a good broadside shot but I would have had to sneak it between two large branches. I probably could have done it but the thought of wounding the bull if I pegged a branch, or hitting the cow less than 10 feet to his right convinced me to flip the safety back on. He was a damn nice bull too. I had nowhere to hide or maneuver, there was just no cover for me to use. He got away and I'm okay with that. An 800 yd shot is just not something I would attempt but I hope the OP takes Jerry's advice and practices more so he can make good first round hits with good follow ups. He got the animal but it could have been worse. More practice and the experience to build on will make the next LR hunt less sketchy.
 
supernova said:
I had to let a nice big bull moose go this weekend @150 yds because the shot was sketchy. Had a good broadside shot but I would have had to sneak it between two large branches. I probably could have done it but the thought of wounding the bull if I pegged a branch, or hitting the cow less than 10 feet to his right convinced me to flip the safety back on. He was a damn nice bull too. I had nowhere to hide or maneuver, there was just no cover for me to use. He got away and I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you made a good call. I have infinitely more respect for that approach.
 
Bow hunter , 50 yards and under = elitist.

BP/muzzle loader , 50-150 yards = traditionalist.

Rifle , 150-350 = regular hunter

precision/long range 350 + = Irresponsible

That sounds about right for the CGN crowd don't it?? ;)
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
Bow hunter , 50 yards and under = elitist.

BP/muzzle loader , 50-150 yards = traditionalist.

Rifle , 150-350 = regular hunter

precision/long range 350 + = Irresponsible
That sounds about right for the CGN crowd don't it?? ;)
Click to expand...

When it takes 3 shots, two of them off target, the OP got what it came to him and that's pretty much the end of it.

If he would have take one shot, right in the vitals and dropped him clean and solid, he would have gotten praised for it as it would have been an amazing shot.
 
And for the fellow who missed @ 150 yards? ;)

BenL said:
When it takes 3 shots, two of them off target, the OP got what it came to him and that's pretty much the end of it.

If he would have take one shot, right in the vitals and dropped him clean and solid, he would have gotten praised for it as it would have been an amazing shot.
Click to expand...
 
Can somebody be competent and properly equipped and still make an error or miss a condition change? I suspect all hunters have made a poor shot at much closer distances that resulted in a long follow up or perhaps even a lost animal...

If I understand correctly the animal was dead inside of 60 seconds of the first shot being fired and was recovered without incident...Doesn't sound too bad to me...
 
The last moose I shot was at a distance of 150 yards and I found it app 60 yards from where I shot it. That one was probably alive for 45-60 sec after the first and only shot "hit both lungs broadside". I would say that it suffered more than the OP's, so I guess that makes me an unethical hunter too by CGN standards...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom