Moose shot at 1100 yards

[Northman999]

That's one hell of a fast bullet to cover 1100 yards in the time between the report and the animal's reaction. If the timing of the sound to video is correct, it's no where near 1100 yards.

Edit: I may be wrong. I see from a ballistics calculator that a 30 cal bullet of 180 grain would take around 1.7 seconds to cover 1100 yards, so that does seem about right.

I agree with your edit. The time between the shot and the impact was one major factor which led to me feeling the video and the range were legit.

As for fellows arguing about energy levels at that range not being adequate...a spine shot does not take that much energy to do it's damage - CNS shots are are about precision, not brute force.

And, very often, lesser velocities (due to range in this case) lead to less bullet deformation and MORE penetration at modest velocities, which is plenty to sever a spine at long range. Also remember that a broadside spine shot on a typical moose only has to penetrate about 10" to completely cut a spinal cord (much less if shot in the hump); not very deep at all.

Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not a fan of these long shots, but I feel the video and accompanying story are very likely true and that this spine shot could have been done with even a medium bore non magnum, like a precision .308 (and some goodly amount of luck).

 

[teenahlake]

the impact was under about 1 second after the shot, just guessing at 2700ft/sec rough yardage about 400 yds. backed up by the shot outside the hide with his kid the trees on the opposite shore weren't that far.

my thoughts BS

 

[Ardent]

Proof of great marksmanship if that's where the shot was intended to hit.

Proof of great hunting skill would have been to get within 100 yards.

Therefore not impressive, IMO. May as well set up a target across the lake. To each his/her own.

Very well said, I respect a guy who can work in to 45 yards far more than a yahoo shooting at 450 and crossing his fingers.

 

[rookie wildcat]

Let's just say it was a .300 WM, and with the estimate we were given that it would have approximately 602 ft. pounds of energy at that range. Easily sufficient to get the job done IMO, seeing as my bow doesn't quite hit that hard at 35 yards.

Okay, gotta weigh in here again. I am not sure where I got this, but I have used this my entire life since I learned to reload. Probably from one of the old guys at a former gun club, but I have never seen it published.

I have always worked hard to build cartridges that would deliver the required amount of energy at the furthest distance I would be hunting at. Someone once told me that it took not less than 700ftlbs of energy to properly kill a deer sized animal, 900 for Elk, 1000 for moose, and bear. To this date, I have never built a cartridge that would be used in any situation that would consciously place it outside those parameters. I design my rifle/cartridge combo around the game and area I will be hunting, it is not always the same gun/cartridge every day of the season.
I have been lucky, I have learned to shoot, practiced it, tempered it with judgement, and picked the right time. Because of this I have only lost 1 animal. I have spent hours looking for others, only to find them dead, but not nicely. I missed a shot on a doe once as well, held for a heart shot, forgot about the wind and gutshot her. She dropped into a gully, got up and ran away. No blood, nothing. A week later, I shot another doe, dropped right there at 260yds. When I was gutting her, heartshot, but she had a hole in her gut, it was the one I had shot at a week earlier. She had gone a whole week!! Was she eating? Well she had lots of fat, was I lucky, again?? Yes.. It doesn't always work, but you shouldn't take intentional chances outside of your abilities.
As H4831 has stated, there is no way in hell that he could have found that moose if he had missed the spine!! 1100metres?? I would take him 20 minutes to walk there, at least, let alone go over by boat. There would be little or no blood since there would have been little to no expansion and NO exit wound. Given a twenty minute lead on a gutshot Bull...he would not even stop this side of the moon until he died from some sort of infection or from wolves that smelled the wound.

 

[Eagleye]

I don't see how experience would justify judging a topic, I've been hunting around 15 years and shooting long range targets for about 5. I'd say 600 yards at an animal with a typical mass-produced hunting rifle is no different than shooting 1100 with something accurized, but I don't know exactly what you use for a weapon. I say this because that is pushing both types of guns, nearly to their designed limit to stay accurate.

Those who know me will vouch for my hunting rifles. If it won't average MOA or better, I rebarrel or sell off. My <600 yard shot would have to be taken with a load that was ¾ moa or better, and then only under ideal conditions with the caveat that there was no way for me to get closer, that I knew the exact distance, AND that this animal could be seen for some time even if he decided to move a few yards after the hit. As I said, I shoot 1000 yards in competition. My best group to date is 5-7/8" at 1000, many groups 9" or less. That is definitely much smaller than the vital area on a moose. Does this mean I would take a shot at a moose at 1000 yards with that rifle if I knew he was exactly 1000 yards away? Not on your life!! Not trying to start a pi**ing match here, but I believe it is unethical and unconscionable to shoot at an animal that far away, regardless of skill or equipment. Eagleye.

 

[crazydave]

If there is 1-2 seconds before impact then there is time for the animal to move, DOESN'T MATTER HOW WELL YOU CAN SHOOT IF THE ANIMALS NOT THERE ANYMORE, UNETHICAL TO SAY THE LEAST!

 

[Redfrog]

I've hunted for 50 years as well. I don't have to post on an internet forum to know what is ethical. I also don't hesitate at shooting a coyote at 5 or 6 hundred yards, providing the conditions are right. Guess what? I have a rangefinder, a scoped rifle that is up to the task and I have the experience and skill to do it. I doubt I'd be looking for permission to take the shot from people on the interent who have never tried it and think 150 yds. is a long shot.


Ethical.? I think it is unethical to dnce with ugly women. It only leads them to keep coming out to dances and the next thing you know they're bred and producing more ugly women. YMMV but that's my ethical standard.

The guy took the time to set up the shot. he took the shot and the moose died.

What if it had moved? What if the shot was 100 yds and the moose moved.

Because the guy can make a shot that most wouldn't or couldn't he must be lying about the distance? Gimme a break.

If you don't have the skill or desire to take the shot and opt for that choice, more power to you. If you do have the skill and desire to take the shot, more power to you.

It's YOUR choice...

 

[Ardent]

I've hunted for 50 years as well. I don't have to post on an internet forum to know what is ethical. I also don't hesitate at shooting a coyote at 5 or 6 hundred yards, providing the conditions are right. Guess what? I have a rangefinder, a scoped rifle that is up to the task and I have the experience and skill to do it. I doubt I'd be looking for permission to take the shot from people on the interent who have never tried it and think 150 yds. is a long shot.


Ethical.? I think it is unethical to dnce with ugly women. It only leads them to keep coming out to dances and the next thing you know they're bred and producing more ugly women. YMMV but that's my ethical standard.

The guy took the time to set up the shot. he took the shot and the moose died.

What if it had moved? What if the shot was 100 yds and the moose moved.

Because the guy can make a shot that most wouldn't or couldn't he must be lying about the distance? Gimme a break.

If you don't have the skill or desire to take the shot and opt for that choice, more power to you. If you do have the skill and desire to take the shot, more power to you.

It's YOUR choice...

He didn't make the shot he very evidently spined it, likely above and behind the shoulder. That was not a clean kill or an ethical shot by any measure, 50 years hunting or 5.

 

[Eagleye]

He didn't make the shot he very evidently spined it, likely above and behind the shoulder. That was not a clean kill or an ethical shot by any measure, 50 years hunting or 5.

Exactly!! Eagleye.

 

[Ardent]

What if it had moved? What if the shot was 100 yds and the moose moved.

Magnify the error of it moving at 100 yards by twenty to fifty times and then you're getting in the ballpark due losing velocity over the time of flight, and this doesn't factor in winds or anything else. It's a plain bad idea no matter what one thinks of oneself.

 

[fuzzynuts54]

notice how he almost immediately zooms out after it hits the ground, he probably didnt want to show 25 minutes of it flailing, bawling and trying to drag itself to safety while he launched his boat, cruised over and finished the job. A standing animal that may take a step or 4 between ignition and impact is a little different than a bedded down sleeping animal. One is dependent on your rifle and your skill (accuracy) the other is pure luck it didnt decide to move.. Its kinda like me racing around on the highways at 240kmh or so, I know Im not going to swerve into a car as I pass, but I have no idea if they might change lanes. A parked car with its hood open is a different story.

 

[Redfrog]

Sounds like you should never take the shot or pass anyone, cause you just never know.

 

[Redfrog]

Magnify the error of it moving at 100 yards by twenty to fifty times and then you're getting in the ballpark due losing velocity over the time of flight, and this doesn't factor in winds or anything else. It's a plain bad idea no matter what one thinks of oneself.

That's just silly. A fifty times magnification means if he can hit a 6 inch circle at 100 it is 25 FEET circle at 1000.

Wind?? look at the water.

The fact is the guy set the shot up and took it. He obviously felt a reasonable chance for success. He killed the moose.

If you aren't comfortable with that shot DON'T TAKE IT'

Or you could send me a list of activities you engage in and I'll let you know which ones I approve of and which ones are unethical.

 

[rookie wildcat]

Sounds like you should never take the shot or pass anyone, cause you just never know.

Nothing wrong with taking the shot if you can. But, obviously, he couldn't. The bullet did NOT land where he wanted it to. Just because you can hit it at that range doesn't mean you should take the shot. If you can't PLACE the shot, you Should not take it! If you can't call it, like a snooker shot, leave it alone. No matter how long you hunt, how much you shoot, THAT was a bad shot!!

The worst thing is it won't be his last...

 

[bearkilr]

That's just silly. A fifty times magnification means if he can hit a 6 inch circle at 100 it is 25 FEET circle at 1000.

Wind?? look at the water.

The fact is the guy set the shot up and took it. He obviously felt a reasonable chance for success. He killed the moose.

If you aren't comfortable with that shot DON'T TAKE IT'

Or you could send me a list of activities you engage in and I'll let you know which ones I approve of and which ones are unethical.

A reasonable chance for success?

An ethical hunter should never take a shot unless he/she's 100% certain of making a kill, no matter the distance.
I'd bet there are many skilled long range target shooters on this forum. Throw a big bull moose out there instead of a target and things change in a big hurry, I've seen it many times.
I'd suggest to read some articles/books by David Miller, one of the very few accomplished,ethical long range hunters in North America.

 

[wsmnut67]

A reasonable chance for success?

An ethical hunter should never take a shot unless he/she's 100% certain of making a kill, no matter the distance.
I'd bet there are many skilled long range target shooters on this forum. Throw a big bull moose out there instead of a target and things change in a big hurry, I've seen it many times.
I'd suggest to read some articles/books by David Miller, one of the very few accomplished,ethical long range hunters in North America.

just plain dumb to take that shot,I've never had to shoot an animal over 100 yrds(have shot lots).At the range is a different story.I've let alot of animals go because they presented no good shot.reminds me of the guy I know who shot a real nice buck a couple years ago and proudly showed me the picture of it with an entire hind quater blown apart.Now he wants to by a semi-auto hunting rifle.SCARY! To me it's not about hitting it and trying to find it ,it's about a nice clean kill.

 

[Bigbubba]

When I was hunting in Nebraska a Big fat Yankee and his son were both there and they had Lazzeroni rifles. Weighed about 28 pounds, and shot a 30 cal bullet but the shell was huge. They had laptop computers, wind detection instruments, a big table with sand bags to shoot from and they packed it all in a big trailer. So the guide had them overlooking a big field and the fat old man shot a deer at 973 yards (and they had it all on tape of coure). The deer was quartering toward them and took 1 step between the shot and getting hit so it was hit a bit far back but went down (lucky) because neither of these 2 guys had the energy or the physical ability to track down anything except a ham sandwich. Can it be done - sure. Is it hunting? Thats your call I guess.

 

[abolt]

When I was hunting in Nebraska a Big fat Yankee and his son were both there and they had Lazzeroni rifles. Weighed about 28 pounds, and shot a 30 cal bullet but the shell was huge. They had laptop computers, wind detection instruments, a big table with sand bags to shoot from and they packed it all in a big trailer. So the guide had them overlooking a big field and the fat old man shot a deer at 973 yards (and they had it all on tape of coure). The deer was quartering toward them and took 1 step between the shot and getting hit so it was hit a bit far back but went down (lucky) because neither of these 2 guys had the energy or the physical ability to track down anything except a ham sandwich. Can it be done - sure. Is it hunting? Thats your call I guess.

You never see the vid's of the one's they wound and are not recovered. Only the glory shot's!!!.

 

[Redfrog]

When I was hunting in Nebraska a Big fat Yankee and his son were both there and they had Lazzeroni rifles. Weighed about 28 pounds, and shot a 30 cal bullet but the shell was huge. They had laptop computers, wind detection instruments, a big table with sand bags to shoot from and they packed it all in a big trailer. So the guide had them overlooking a big field and the fat old man shot a deer at 973 yards (and they had it all on tape of coure). The deer was quartering toward them and took 1 step between the shot and getting hit so it was hit a bit far back but went down (lucky) because neither of these 2 guys had the energy or the physical ability to track down anything except a ham sandwich. Can it be done - sure. Is it hunting? Thats your call I guess.

I saw a little skinny guy from Vancouver island hunting with his son in the kootanays. The little skinny guy ran on and on about his perfctly balanced handloads and what a deadly shot he was. Next day he and his son tagteamed a whitetail fork at 60 yds when it came for a drink from the stream. Every quarter had a bullet hole in it. What's your point?

If hitting or missing the animal is the criteria, or if the distance is the criteria, then I've seen a whole lot of unethical hunters.

If it is distance, then at what distance does the shot become unethical?

From reading this thread it looks like a lot of guys are lucky to have an animal stand around at less than 200 yds while they climb down from their high horse ann make the ethical shot on an animal that never moves.

Every hunting season I read posts from guys who just shot a deer or wahtever and now can't find it. 30 minutes of daylight left and the guy is on the internet asking what to do.

Ethics are like condoms ....one size does not fit all. Some pricks are different and some hunting situations are different.

Talk to an anti and you will learn fast, quick, and in a hurry, that no killing of animals is ethical. What do you think the E satnds for in PETA?

Who do you want deciding your ethics. Peta, Disney, The Greens, Dexter, Hannibal Lecter, Jack Layton?

I'll decide mine. Then when I'm out there with no computer, I'll still know what "I" should do. My choice, my decision, my responsibility.




A bolt. Have you got pictures of animals you missed????

 

[tracker]

I think it was a great shot, would the moose died any quicker if it was a 50 yard spine shot, in the real world some moose hunters have missed a few 50 yard or closer or farther shots, some of these close shots have also wounded animals never to be recovered. If you can't follow a moose track, or a wounded moose leaking blood than you shouldn't be hunting, is this long shot illegal, did the moose run off wounded or not found. If it would of been a bad shot you wouldn't of seem it taped. If you never wounded an animal than you likely never shot one or even at one.
At what shot distance does ethics kick in or become an issue, is it when you can't hit a pie plate at 10 yards or 100 yards or 200 or ??
He killed the moose dead.