point is you do your best and even the chip shots can bite you at times.
Yes, of course. Does that somehow justify a 633 yds shot? I don't follow your logic at all.
Of course fact of the matter, if you could tally up lost deer from shots at 100 yards and under, and those lost to say over 600, the ones under 100 would be a lot higher in number.
Which of course is an irrelevant comparison since so many more shots are taken at 100 and in. But you knew that - so why make a fallaciously misleading statement like that?
Doesn't mean its right, but it pisses me off when we get the holyier than though attitude right away.
Me too. But then I didn't start this post with,
"I took my 25-06 that I'm comfortable shooting out to 350-400." and then tell everyone how we were all shooting at 633 yds. 400 vs 633 is pretty substantial, no?
Hope your holidays went well. Nice buck you got there with the MZ I saw the other day too!
Jeff
They did and thanks. I am comfortable out to 100 yds with that rifle but prefer to be less. The shot was 70 yds. I had chances at 130 but I wouldn't consider that ethical and I would expect to get my ass chewed for taking a shot like that with that flintlock. And therein lies my point.
I don't really see the logic in wanting to kill stuff at longer ranges than necessary, just to see if I can. That seems to be a big motivation on this forum, and for that reason I don't usually come here, but today I did. I don't rag on the dozens of scenarios where someone wants to shoot something at a gazillion yds even though getting closer was easily possible. But when someone says, I'm comfortable to distance X and then goes potshooting, at over 150% of X, I don't care if he is successful or not, it's poor judgement in my opinion and I am willing to say so.
