Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Extreme Long Range Shots?

I haven't had any of the channels that show hunting for quite some time, so I've been taking advantage of watching some during a free preview month. I've been watching pretty much anything with sheep/ibex hunting, Africa, or Western big game and across the board, seems like everyone is using a Gunwerks LR-1000 and every freaking shot is 900+ yards. I don't get it ...

Some things I am trying to figure out/understand:

1. Why does a hunter, who has drawn the bighorn sheep tag he's been coveting for 30 years, switch to a Gunwerks LR-1000 for the hunt rather than use his trusty deer rifle (or the rifle he shot all his other sheep/ibex with)?

2. Why does everyone have a LR-1000? On one show, and I get that Gunwerks is a sponsor of this particular show, every hunter in camp was shooting a LR-1000. Across two episodes, they had 3 hunters shoot bighorns with their LR-1000! Are they giving these out as a prize when you draw a bighorn tag or something?!

3. Why is everything shot at 900 yards?! What happen to the art of sneaking up on your prey?

4. I've seen tons of bighorn sheep hunts in the past couple weeks, enough that it makes it seem like tags are not as hard to get as they are. Do they film every freaking person who draws a bighorn sheep tag?

Guess it's a bit of a rant because I can't seem to understand it. I like light rifles that are easy to carry. If I drew a bighorn sheep tag and, lets say, I get called and agree to be filmed by a show. I don't care if they want me to use a rifle made by the show's sponsor, I'll shoot my own rifle, stalk as close as I can, and keep my shots under 500 yards. Seems that formula has been working for lots of hunters in the pass.

Sevens,

Some people can so they do. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm hoping my six pound thirteen ounce 6.5 wildcat will be good enough to keep five shots in a 12" circle at 1000 yards. Never-the-less my longest kill was a rock chuck at 527 yards. Life is rough for us wannabees.

Part of it is merchandising (selling Gunwerks rifles). Another part is the natural human inclination to buy better technology and put it to use. Still another is an infatuation and fascination with killing animals at great distance.

A lot of internet press is devoted to it,so it gets talked up a lot. Much of this emanates from the west,where game is more easily seen and killed due to the more open nature of the country,and the fact that deer and elk are easier to kill if they hang around in the open where they are visible.

Some folks don't see the sense in walking or stalking over "there" when they can shoot from "here". Modern scopes and bullets allow this,but it takes a new skill level and many (most) simply are not up to 900 yard shooting at BG animals. But that's not what the makers of LR rifles want us to believe.

Ohh they will tell you otherwise...but then show some 13 year old killing an elk at 900-1000 yards. Subliminal message? This is so easy a 13 year old kid can do it,and so can you if you buy our rifles and scopes. In real life, nothing could be further from the truth.

I feel bad for a lot of newbies who are led to false conclusions about western hunting,and may feel that you can't hunt in the west unless you are lethal to 1000 yards. Nothing could be further from the truth but if they spend enough time watching these shows,it's easy to feel somehow inadequate.


Used to be that we prepared for 500-600 yard shots "in case",but only because at that point the wheels had fallen off, the "hunt" was botched and desperate measures were called for.

Today, to read on here and see on TV,such distances are considered "normal" by some. But, as John Burns once said...500 yards on BG animals is still "long" among honest men. The honest LR BG hunters I have spoken with say the same things.

Personally I am not opposed to LR shooting of BG animals if the shooter is truly capable. But I am skeptical of anyone trying it whose annual round count in practice or competition isn't approaching several thousand rounds a year under conditions.

As well put as could be Bob. Pushing product is what so many shows are geared towards. For the extreme long range shots on those shows the scenario where things go wrong are never shown. When the time of flight is long (and in hunting 1 1/2 seconds is long enough) an animal can easily take a step and everything changes regardless of how well you've doped the wind, the distance, etc.

I appreciate the guys that do it well and as you say that comes largely from practice with round count in the thousands, not just dropping the cash on a long range rig and "dialing it up and letting it go"

Thank goodness for long range shooing and shooters, it helps us better all aspects of our equipment. Big difference between long range shooting and long range hunting.

I'd say most of it is merchandising. The rest is giving the audience what they want.

Why would anyone agree to be filmed and join in any circus of hunting on TV short or long range?

But I agree do it your own way. Long or short. As noted some are capable some are not. But sure is nice to know your limits and stick to them.

And get rid of all the damn hunting shows on TV.... almost all of them are advertising and worthless.

Agreed. It's like a 30 minute infomercial. No thanks. That said this is my year for a bighorn tag and I'm practicing to 2,000 yards.

I know that there are shooters and rifles that are easily capable of making those shots,but I wonder (through the magic of editing) how many are wounded before the "money shot" was filmed!!!!!! That said,I would like to become proficient at 1K+ yards. However,not for shooting big game animals,they deserve more respect! memtb

David personally I like playing at 600 yards (as far as my local range goes). It's interesting to see what happens to the bullets in the wind,and far enough to show up flaws in me and the load, yadayada...

Besides, it makes 300 yards seem a whole lot easier!


If I lived out West I'd be banging away a lot further for yuks and fun.

For me it's common sense.

If I've never had a critter see me beyond a certain range in a certain terrain, it's NOT hunting...

The the number of yards vary... And it varies per type of game.

It used to be about sportsman, now for parts of the people it's how far I can shoot.

It's a valuable skill in some situations, but it's not part of hunting if it's a one sided game.

It has degenerated into a long-range, furry target shoot. I enjoy the quality rifles and the science of long-range shooting, but not necessarily as it applies to game animals.

One of the popular shows lost an elk lease in Wyoming, when the owner kept finding dead elk that they had shot at long range and not followed up. Another show had a cameraman quit because he got sick of watching the wounded animals not be recovered.

Only personal ethics will dictate what you do, as it is not illegal, but the art of getting within reasonable range of an animal and actually hunting it vs just shooting it, seems to be fading for some people. Now it is bragging rights to say they shot it at extreme range, instead of bragging about how close they got.

I talked to an outfitter in Wyoming and he actually had clients come in and say that they did not want to shoot at anything under 600 yards. Disgusting.

Just a bit more info. on this aspect of shooting.. For me 500 yards as Bob said is long.. We just came home from an elk hunt and saw elk at 500-1500 yards many times.. But it was too far for us.. The wind was horrible.. We ended up taking our game at about 200 yards.

I also enjoy long range shooting at varmints and plastic jugs. In the pasted I have shot some elk at beyond 600 yards, but in those days an elk in the freezer was important to our budget.. Fortunately we never lost an elk in long distance shooting.. Today, I generally limit my shots to 400 on elk and deer..

As for Gunworks, two of my good friends here in the area drew bighorn permits a couple years ago.. They both ended up hunting out of Cody.. Maybe with the same outfitter..
At any rate, one fellow is a hunter, but not a shooter.. His rifle is a plastic stocked .280 and he shoots factory ammo.. The other guy is a gun man.. He has several long range rifles and has made some long shoots on his own..
They both used the guides rifle for a ram at long range.. More than 700 yards.. The guide had a 6.5-284 both made successful shots.. So maybe it is something with the guides also.. Less stalking, I don't know, but to me the pleasure of hunting is using MY rifle.. But times are changing, and we must live with I guess.

Part of hunting is being undetected. I've killed WT deer from 20-30 yds that did not know that I was in the State.










Yes but what I've seen is some 'think' they can so they try. I know a guy in a deer lease where I hunted that bought a Ruger Compact 270 WSM with a SHORT barrel. He 'believed' the velocity quoted and "THOT" he could shoot at long range.
I do not know how many deer he wounded---I do know of some--- because I didn't hunt with him very much. YUK.
















Yes indeed. In 1 1/2 seconds an animal can turn from broad side to perpendicular. However some 'here' don't mind taking BUNG HOLE shots. IMO that ridiculous.

THIS is the reason I like/prefer rather fast bullets. The closer to 3100 fps, the better.


For the record I feel comfortable killing deer up to 400 yds. For some that's not long range. At an honest 400 yds a WT is NOT a large target.

IF things are NOT RIGHT I won't shoot at almost any range, and especially at long range.


Jerry

Good points, BobinNH!!

I strongly agree with your comments above, EXCEPT for the number of rounds you've cited. I don't think you need that many, and truthfully, most long-range hunting rifles won't survive an annual round count that high. You will need several thousand rounds lifetime to become truly expert, but true expertise is a rarity among hunters of any stripe IMHO. I am firmly in the camp of "shoot a lot, but shoot correctly only a few times, many times over". I've got maybe 2000 lifetime shots at 600+ yards in my lifetime, but because I have been able to shoot small numbers of rounds over many, many range sessions, I've become a lot more comfortable at those ranges than a guy who spends 3-4 weekends of 250-round-count shots prior to his first Western speedgoat hunt.

I have dabbled in long-range shooting and hunting in Wyoming and here in Texas. It's deceptively easy to make long shots with a good long range rifle, but doing so on living creatures is a lot different than ringing a gong over in the next township. Learning to dope the wind is the hardest part of long-range shooting, and experience can teach you a lot about doing it... but even a Carlos Hathcock would have trouble doing it every time in many parts of the West. So there's a level of uncertainty that no amount of practice can compensate for.

Most easterners aren't aware of how long shots can be out here, and how often stalking closer simply isn't practicable. I tend to prefer spot-and-stalk hunting over any other method, and I love to get close. Which is why 5 out of my last 7 speedgoat bucks were taken at ranges under 150 yards. The two I took at distance (350 and 540 yards) were taken in spots that were table-top flat, with sparse short grass and zero terrain available for putting on a sneak. Those two shots would have been unthinkable if I hadn't had the use of a really good rifle built for long-range shooting & hunting.

FWIW, I didn't have any long-range practice time with that borrowed rifle before I made those shots. However, I had done a LOT of practice that season--and for several seasons prior--at 400 and 600 yards with my 270 WSM and my tactical 308. Having a good rifle was crucial to my success, yes, but far more important was 5 years of moderately frequent long-range shooting at the range. I'm talking about a couple hundred rounds per year, over a 4-6 month period each year.

BTW, at the end of that hunt I bought that rifle from its maker, Pat Varland of Douglas, WY. I've killed 4 whitetails with it since, on my lease in TX, at ranges from 340 to 560 yards. I intend to take it on my trophy antelope hunt I have planned for September in the Red Desert of Wyoming, where it's a challenge to stalk within 600 yards of a trophy speedgoat buck, so a rifle that you can hit with at 1000 yards is a definite advantage.

But as for the TV show mentioned in the OP, phuq them. It's high-dollar advertising is all that show is. I won't waste the brain cells I'll lose by watching that kind of horseshit on TV. That sort of show has about as much about long-range hunting as watching porn teaches young men about how to make love to a woman.

This whole discussion blows my mind. I'm a true easterner and have never killed anything out side of the state of Maryland, nor have I ever killed anything over 125 yards. I've always wanted to go out west and kill a mule deer and/or a pronghorn. This makes me a little nervous, if I ever do book a hunt. Hell, Ive never even shot at a target over 150 yards. My biggest problem would be finding a place to shoot over 200, not to mention 500, 700 or even 1000 yards. Where the hell would I practice?

A 1000 yards? That's over a half a mile!

I'm used to shooting deer at point blank out to 50 yards.

Stone, If you get the chance, while ranges tend to be longer out here, with a good flat shooting rifle they are quite do able.. Like jawall, I like fast shooting calibers.. But I also like some bullet wt. at least 150 gr. When I drew my bighorn permit, I practiced shooting all summer to 500 yards.. When the time came, I needed it.. But the 150 gr. bullet dropped less than 2 feet at that distance.. This is easily achieved with quite a few calibers..

On the last trip for elk, our guide told us we would shoot at about 300 yards max.. We both got them at about 200.. For a .270 300 yards is do able with a dead on hold..

Can we all stop for a sec and calc the 1mph wind drift for our load at 900 yards? Can we pick up a 1mph change? It's surprising..

Thanks, that makes me feel a little better. If I do get out there, I'll need to find a field, maybe on the farm behind my house, and set up some targets out there. All of the ranges here are 100 yards. Hell, we aren't even allowed to use a rifle here. The only hunting rifle I own is a 30-06. I do shoot 150 gr. bullets though. I'm not sure if it will be accurate enough out to 300, much less than the operator being good enough out that far.

Stone, the old 06 with 150's shot in 3" high at 100 will be a bit low at 300, not much, but some as I remember.. A good bi pod will be a big help in open country also.. I ALWAYS have one on my rifles..
I think if you can find an accurate load for your 06, you will be surprised how you can hit at 300.. Just squeeze, and let your rifle do it..

I grew up in Eastern Pa. and also hunted Md. where a long rifle shot is still in bow range!!!
When I moved here I practiced a lot and learned to trust a good range finder. My longest shot on antelope is 615 yds. I have shot quite a few between 450 and that 615 and with practice it's not a big deal. There are lots of ways to determine , drop and such , but the practice is to figure out wind.
Wind is the big problem on long shots. And only practicing will help.

Doc I din't have any particular number of rounds in mind and "several thousand " isn't set in concrete. Just my way of trying to quantify the experience factor side of things.

Although I do know competition and match shooters whose round count does go that high. These boys go through 2-3 barrels a year.... that's a lot of shooting.

At the peak of my shooting activity I used to go through about 4000-6000 rounds a year of CF,through BG rifles since I have never been a competitor.This amounts to only about 400-500 rounds a month. A prairie dog shooter will go through a thousand rounds in a few days...


My only real point is it takes a lot of concentrated practice in real world conditions to make first shot hits on BG animals at extended range, and many of us (me included) are not up to it. Maybe I am too conservative...

I guess I snuck up on you because you didn't read what I wrote...

If a animal has never seem me ... Means it's beyond thier range of detection...

I am not invisible.

TFF

Quite a few years ago I built a .257 Ackley for my deer and pronghorn antelope rifle. I've shot dozens of deer and antelope with it.

I've been lucky enough to have killed 3 bighorn rams on DIY hunts in several of Montana's unlimited tag units and a Dall ram in the Mackenzie Mountains in Canada's Northwest Territories. All of these rams were one shot kills with my .257 Ackley shooting 117 grain Sierra GameKing bullets. The longest shot was 206 yards.

I now regularly (weekly) practice with my .300 Weatherby at 430 yards (the longest berm at our range). This practice makes me completely comfortable at 300 yards.

The longest shot that I've taken at any animal was 350 yards. The last animal that I shot with my .300 Weatherby was at 50 yards.

Just about every one of extreme long range shots that I see on TV, I think to myself "I could easily sneak to less than half that range."

I guess I'm just old school (and I'm not trying to sell Gunwerks rifles or Nightforce scopes).

Long range shooting of game animals is almost entirely about bragging rights and marketing, not about real hunting hunting skills IMHO. Nothing illegal about it, but not something I aspire to or would encourage in others. Wounding percentage goes up exponentially with each animal hit at more than about 300 yards. There is a very good reason that very, very few shots are attempted at more than 300 yards in Africa. The PH is watching, and every animal hit equals a trophy fee paid, no matter if the animal is brought to bag or not. It's no great mystery that behaviour changes when there are real consequences. Sadly, nobody watches in North America, and far too many hunters in North America are not up to the challenge of making a real effort to stalk within sure range. It is easier to rely on technology and shooting skills instead of perfecting actual hunting skills. There's also a lot of "entitlement" behaviour among those who shoot at every legal animal they see, regardless of distance. As hunters, I think we'd do better to limit long range shots at game to only those animals already wounded.

I agree with you 100%
I'm waiting to see the video of all the wounded game that staggers of into the woods. All we see is the kill porn.

When I was young I killed a buck at 300 yards with a 150 grain power point out of my 30-06 with a 4x scope. I was zeroed at 200 yards.

LAFFIN here.

Undetected is not invisible.

Jerry

Long range hunting is an oxymoron.

Long range shooting is challenging and a bunch of fun.
Was out at a friends range a few weeks ago and my son ran his AR out to 800 yards, shot my friends 260 out to 1000 yards. Hit his last 4 in a row after taking two shots to get dialed in. Took the 338 lapua to a mile (3 hits out of 4).

My son is 14 years old and has never shot long range before.

At the other end of the spectrum, I killed my archery buck at 4 yards with my longbow last fall.

That's an interesting point about long range shots in Africa, but I can't agree that it's sad that there's not always someone watching here. Given the choice, I'll take no one looking over my shoulder, and no requirement for a PH or guide.

Lot's of moralizing and value judgments here.

Just because you or I like to sneak in close doesn't mean that people who don't are not "hunting." There are a lot of different reasons people hunt, even a lot of different reasons I hunt over the course of a year. I might bow hunt in September for the challenge and the charge I get out of calling in a bull elk and shooting it within 30 yards.

If I don't get my bull, I might get a late season cow tag and hunt solely to fill my freezer. If I see a herd of cows out on the prairie, over on the next hill at 600 yards with no cover between us, settle in, and make a shot that I've practiced literally a thousand times, am I not hunting?

Would I have been a "better hunter" if I'd attempted to sneak in to 300 yards? Or 200 yards? How close do I need to get before I'm hunting?

The difference is that you have practiced the shot and did not go afield with the purpose of taking that shot. You cold not get closer and that makes a difference. Going out with the idea of taking only extreme-range shots is a different deal than taking the only shot you get and being competent to do it.

But if I take the shot at 600, I'm engaging in "long-range hunting," right?

I understand your point and agree with it, but I don't think a blanket statement that "long range hunting" is an oxymoron can stand on its own.

Do you practice shots at moving targets with your deer/elk rifle?

If not..... then by yourreasoning above..... you're an immoral hunter if you take a shot at a moving critter.... because you haven't "practiced that shot".

Furthermore..... if the animal is moving because you spooked it.... it has seen (or smelled) you..... therefore, if you shoot it now, you're not "hunting".... as you didn't "fool it's natural senses".

Quite frankly.... I'd rather have an occasional dumbass shoot at a critter that's "out of range".... than encourage folks to take shots on moving critters because they're "in range" (under 200 yds).

I guarantee that exponentially more game is wounded inside 150 yards because of poor shots on moving animals.... than is wounded by "wanna-be snipers" at "extreme long range".

I agree the advertising and "shows" imply that it fairly simple to "range, dial, shoot". But there's lots of advertising like that everywhere. I can't dunk just cause I bought some Jordan's.....

I hear ya. I didn't take your post as being set in concrete kind of deal. Get it? "Post"? "Set in concrete?" Hahaha! Ahem. Sorry.



Lots of folks have no idea much better they are at distance than they think they are, cause they don't try. If you have access to a 300 or 400 yard range, you'll probably surprise yourself at how well you shoot. Do it over a half dozen sessions, and you'll amaze yourself.

Doc my club has a 600 yard range 20 minutes away, and i shoot 300-600yards a few times a week. Been doing it for decades now.

I would be there later today but the grandkids are coming over!

c&b...

I make two inferences from your post: first, that you have never actually done any longrange hunting, so you are ignorant of the skills and challenges it entails; second, that any exposure you've had to longrange hunting is of the type portrayed on the "hunting shows" described in the OP.

If I have inferred wrongly, then please correct me.

But if I am in fact correct, then you might want to go hunting with some long-range hunting folks and find out what it's all about before you condemn us all. To be frank, your blanket condemnation is not much different from Jim Zumbo's "no real hunter needs an AR15".

Long-range hunting is an art of its own, but that doesn't mean it's exclusive sport for most of us who practice it.

Again, this is an opinion rooted in ignorance of the realities of the long-range hunting art.

A few years ago I attended a hunt with a number of 24HCF members. Our host had a very nice long-range rifle along, which he offered to many of the guys attending to take longish shots at pronghorn, where stalking closer was not possible. Ranges varied from low 300's out to 725. Eight pronghorn were targeted by 6 different shooters, and all 8 goats were DRT.

All of the shooters were skilled riflemen, but none had experience at those kinds of ranges. Shooting conditions were ideal, or the shots would not have been offered or taken. Coaching by experienced long-range shooters was supplied.

At the end of that hunt our host shot a buck at a laser-measured 934 yards. One shot, DRT.

No wounded animals "staggered into the woods". And in my experience after 40+ years of Western hunting, this sort of long-range hunting success is the norm, not the exception.

Sorry, Bob, I didn't mean "you" when I typed "you". I know you shoot a lot at good ranges. I meant "you", as in "a fella". My bad.

I do

I practice to 700 yards in the off season but don't shoot animals that far. Have killed a few at 600 but sure didn't turn my crank at all. Practicing to 7 sure makes the 300-400 yard shots seem like chip shots. Give me my bow and 20 yards anyday

So every Hunter should think like you and hunt for the same reasons?

CRS,



If you were correct the long rangers would go out to a place and shoot rocks or whatever was there. They don't. They hunt. Sometimes for days before they get a shot at the game.

The idea you killed a game animal at spitting distance is no big deal now-a-days with sent blockers and Hecs clothing.

Where did I say that?
Don't like opinions other than your own?

Nothing like a bunch of dudes badmouthing something because it doesn't fit their wool-plaid and canvas idea of "hunting"... What a joke...

Tanner

Good grief! Where did you all of a sudden come up with moving animals? That has nothing to do with this.

If you would read what I said, you would not have brought that crap up. You took a long shot because you were capable of taking it and could get no closer. I have no issue with that. The thing that I have issue with is taking ONLY extreme shots to use it for bragging rights or whatever.

I don't care what the argument, purposely taking extreme shots when the opportunity to get closer is there, is just plain irresponsible and not fair to the animal.

Extreme shooting is not an "art". it is purely equipment, ballistics and practice.

It's as much an Art as it is a Science. Same goes with Shotgunning

I guess, sbhooper, that settles it. You have spoken.

N

There are only two kinds of shots at big game.....
1. Shots you've practiced....
2. Shots you haven't practiced....

If you're taking #2.... you're the unethical ass hat as far as I'm concerned..... 25 yards or beyond 1/2 mile.

Furthermore, if you're ok with shots under 200 on moving game..... but you preach against "long range shots" because "the animal can move", or "no one can judge the wind exactly", or "you don't know exactly where that bullet is going".... then you're a hypocritical dip-schitt as far as I'm concerned.... because ALL those things are applicable to moving shots as well. AND, I know a hundred guys who practice out to 700-1000 weekly.... NONE of them practice moving shots with rifles..... DO YOU?

You said that the blanket statement "long range hunting is an oxymoron" can stand on its own, did you not?

"Long range hunting is an oxymoron" means that killing an animal at long range is not hunting, does it not?

So, if you agree with the above, you believe that killing an animal at long range is not hunting.

Why don't you explain why it's not hunting?



No, I enjoy different opinions. They just have to be backed up by something other than personal value judgments or bias.

I'm all for a guy taking any shot he is comfortable with.

No where did I denigrate it. I just stated that long range hunting is an oxymoron.... a contradictory statement.

It is long range shooting nothing more, nothing less. A challenging acquired skill where the target happens to be alive.

It is a pursuit that has transitioned the challenge from the hunt, to the shot.

Having killed many animals under 5 yards and having banged a plate at a mile, I know what I prefer for my personal hunting endeavors.

While still enjoying the challenge of hitting a plate at long range.

CRS,




Are you now saying you made a mistake in your original post?

No, an oxymoron is a contradictory statement.

Long range hunting = oxymoron, IMO.

You know at least one

We have a mover at the club. I routinely shoot movers at precision matches at 600 yards

Precisely, and no one can argue with that because you stated it as your personal preference.

But when you cross the line and transfer your own personal values to all hunters, as you are when you say "long range is not hunting" you're in effect saying "if you don't agree with my value judgment, you're not a hunter." Which is obviously not a tenable position.

It's the same as if I say "I prefer not to hunt deer out of a tower blind because it removes the challenge of being detected and bores me to tears." So far, so good.

But when I say "hunting whitetail deer out of a tower blind is not hunting" or if you prefer "is an oxymoron" I've crossed the line and transferred my own value judgment onto all hunters.

Which is obviously bullsh**.

smokepole,



Good explanation.

Got it.
Only your opinions matter.

That's not what I said at all, but keep repeating it. Maybe someone will believe it.

Or better yet, support your own opinion with a logical argument, or by refuting what I said.

If you can't, then you must not have much faith in your own opinion.

Why don't you explain why long range hunting is an oxymoron?

+ 2

I don't mind the LR fad. It means less guys hunting the timber where most of the animals hang out. And less guys willing to hike because their rifles weigh too much. Everyone just wants to post up and watch the openings. Then complain when all they see are spikes and cows.

Doc, (and smokepole), you are correct, sort of.

The long range "hunting" that I have done is limited to shooting gophers ( ground squirrels) at hundreds of yards away on the open prairie. I can only surmise that the skills involved in shooting a gopher in the head at 400 yards is not too different than hitting an elk in the chest at 700. But I'll never know. Because I treat gophers as pests, and targets of opportunity. Their fate is to be poisoned otherwise. I have way too much respect for an elk to take the same approach with them. And because I think we have a moral responsibility to the game animals we hunt.

I have not been influenced by television hunting shows, because I have not had a television in my house for several years. But I have been hunting elk and deer too often with people who watch TV and fancied themselves as long range "hunters". That experience has been entirely negative. In my experience, my companions were focused on technology, and equipment, shooting, and not on hunting skills. Any animal that they saw was an opportunity to shoot, not an opportunity to hunt. And several animals paid for their attitude of entitlement to run away gut shot, or with a jaw dangling, or a leg swinging. Those shooters did not have the skill to follow the tracks of the wounded critter, or even to find the exact spot where the far distant animal was standing with any consistency.

Ironically, these same sad excuses for hunters were not giving themselves all the advantages they imagined with their specialized equipment. Unable to make a shot on a game animal that trotted across an opening in front of them at under 100 yards, because they were so focused on their long range obsession that they couldn't find it in their 16X scope or swing their bipod encumbered 26" heavy barrel rifle in time to make the shot. But there is never any real harm done by not taking a shot.

We all have the great good fortune to live in countries where we do not have anyone looking over our shoulder when we hunt. But the game laws in North America are only the absolute minimum of behaviour that the public requires. Yes, I am guilty of moralizing, and of value judgements. I would be happier if more of us chose to hunt with our responsibilities in mind, not just our rights. I am guilty of believing that the animals we hunt deserve our respect and also our best behaviour. Amoral behaviour and lack of judgment is not doing our hunting fraternity any good.

Well said sir!

Smokepole,

I do not care if you shoot deer out of towers or at long range. I am not ranting against it, saying it should be outlawed, or it is a crime against humanity.

You seem to care an awful lot that I consider shooting animals at long range a tremendous display of marksmanship, not hunting prowess.

What demonstrates more shooting skill, shooting an animal at 1000 yards or 50?

What demonstrates more hunting skill, getting within 1000 yards of an animal, or 50?

I say it takes zero hunting skill to get within 1000 yards. If that hurts your feelings, tough sh!+, not BS.

That is why long range hunting is an oxymoron.

Just like the term prairie dog hunting, there is no hunting involved, it is prairie dog shooting. But you probably do not understand that either, or it hurts your sensibilities.

Once again, I am done responding to you.

I say if a guy has the skill and right tools, go for it. Everyone has different tastes and opinions. Some guys love archery,some handguns, some black powder, what ever floats your boat.

Heck I remember a time when 300-400 yards was a long shot. Now with modern scopes and range finders it is cake for most guys. That and guys shoot a lot more these days then say back in the 60s,70s and 80s. How many of us can remember our dads and his friends having a box of ammo that was several years old. Those boxes are considered collectors items now. That and the fact they grew up coming out of the depression era and ww 2. They always said ammo and guns were hard to get in those days, so they didn't waste anything.

But what pizzes me off the most is how tv shows have turned hunting into an enterprise. A billion dollar business. For Petes sake, to go try to shoot hogs today is going to cost me 250 bucks apiece for me and the kid. Then add gas, food and want ever else. And, we might not even see anything.

However I look at it as time spent with the boy, as he is 15 now and will be doing his thing shortly. It will be nice to make memories while we can.

You and me both, pal. The best shot I never made was at maybe the biggest bull caribou I've ever seen at 261 laser ranged yards. The rifle was zeroed at 225. No rest, heavy brush within 100 yards of the animal, near dark, cross-hairs all over the place. The boy and I came back to the camper grinning like fools after a very fine stalk from a half mile away. A fine time was had by all!

The last caribou I shot was at 433 laser yards, with a rest (snow machine windshield) and very much sub-MOA .30-06 zeroed for 300 yards. I'll shoot that thing as far as my Leupold 800si will read. With a good rest. And other considerations.

IMO, anything beyond 300 yards (all my other guns are zeroed for 200) is "long range". One must stay within one's capabilities, the rifle, and those of the conditions. All of which may vary.

I personally will not push much past 500- about the range the si will read an animal. Even with a range finder that will read beyond that, it is shooting (IMO), not hunting. Heck- I consider anything past "point blank" of the firearm sight in to be shooting, rather than hunting. But I shoot beyond that to eat, sometimes. I'm prepared to do that, to some extent.

If the bastids will hold still for a 30 yard shot, that's my menu!

Thank you for that but I don’t partake in either. The longest shot I’ve taken at a big game animal was 400 yards, and every elk I’ve killed has been with a muzzleloader or bow. The difference between you and me is, I don’t denigrate the way others choose to hunt by saying they’re “not hunting."




No, I really don’t care what you think. I just care what you post on a public forum about hunting, and if you post something I disagree with I’ll comment on it. I hope you don’t mind.



Do you realize that you could substitute “200 yards” for “1,000 yards” here and what you’re saying would be just as true? So tell me, is a 200 yard shot “not hunting?” I’m sure you (and lots of others who say long range is not hunting) think a 200 yard shot is hunting, because it’s something within your capabilities, and something you’ve probably done. But it’s still hypocrisy.





No, it doesn’t hurt my feelings, it’s just wrong, so I commented on it. And I see that you're now qualifying your remarks by saying 1,000 yards, where you previously used the broad brush of "long range," which is what I commented on.

The thing is, the distance at which an animal can detect you and react depends entirely on the animal and the situation. I’ve been on late-season pronghorn hunts where they’ve been chased around for a month or two. In those situations, if they see you at 600 yards, they’re moving. In some situations, it’s probably more “ethical” and shows more “respect” for the animal to have practiced your shooting enough so that you can make that shot on undisturbed animals, rather than risk sneaking in closer, spooking the animals, and getting a closer shot on alerted animals, which don't tend to stand around broadside. The best hunter is the most versatile hunter.

And by the way, this past August I hunted animals that could spot hunters at over a mile, and would spook at that distance. We spent a lot of time belly crawling at over a mile away.

Now, if you want to say "sneaking in to 50 yards is more difficult, and more of a challenge than taking a 500-yard shot," I'd agree with that under most conditions. That doesn't mean the 500-yard shot is "not hunting."



LOL, talk about oxymorons!

Have a nice day.

C&B, Thanks for taking the time to write that out, I can't say I find much to disagree with. Slob hunters like the ones you describe below are a minority for sure, but all too common at short range and long range. They are really a disgrace. I count myself lucky that I've never hunted with anyone like you describe below. And I agree that as hunters it's our responsibility to call out unethical practices.

Which is why I try to draw such sharp lines between "unethical," "not really hunting," and "not how I like to hunt."

As far as long-range hunting, I think it comes in for a lot of unfair criticism because it's an easy target (sorry) and also because most hunters don't shoot long range so it's an "us and them" thing. I hunt mostly in the early primitive weapons seasons (bow and muzzleloader) and I see the same things happening. A guy with a bow who tells me "I just got a shot, but missed" and I ask him how far. His reply, "not sure, I think about 60 yards." Lots of animals are wounded but not recovered during archery season, but archers get a pass because they're "really hunting" and "sh** happens." Or hearing seven shots in quick succession, and then seeing the guy who shot, with a muzzleloader and a .44 revolver (illegal), and nothing to show for it. Or the idiot who shot a 14 year-old bowhunter in the chest and killed him here last season with a muzzleloader.

To me, the whole thing comes down to limiting yourself to the shots you can make, and that applies equally to all weapons at all ranges.

And yes, the merchandising of long-range hunting gear (or any gear for that matter) on TV shows makes me want to puke also.

"The idea you killed a game animal at spitting distance is no big deal now-a-days with sent blockers and Hecs clothing."

Bullshit.

I'm prepared to kill as far as my Leupold 800si will read an animal, but no farther. Conditions pending... More than 300 yards is mere technology. My last 2 caribou kills, a couple minutes apart, were at @ 290 estimated, and a ranged 433, with a sub MOA rifle zeroed to 300 yards. Easy-peasy, but the "hunting" was all in running the country (snowmachine) and finding the 'bou... .not in a stalk. And yes, I had a helluva good time... The killing was the least/worst of it. But I gotta say, I was satisfied with the skill of it.

It is far more challenging, and satisfying to me (YMMV), to get within "spitting distance", especially in open country, than to "rangify" my kills.

But I like to eat....

Me too. Sometimes, it's not all about "the stalk," it's about putting meat on the ground.

Have you seen the Canadian hunter proficiency tests? It's been a couple years sonce I last viewed them, but as I recall, only about 30% of "hunters" can make a killing shot on a whitetail at 100 yards, first time.

Somehow, I don't think that's limited to Canadians.....

I just want to know what skills are required to get within 1000 yards of an elk (seems that yardage has come up several times). Not shooting skills, the hunting skills needed. mtmuley

Real men bowhunt...haha although as of late I hear more and more folks talking about practicing and shooting out to 100 yds.

Go figure...?

I want to know what skills are "required" to follow a Hunting Guide around the woods? He's hunting, you're just the shooter.

I want to know what "skills" are required to shoot a cougar out of a tree? The dogs were hunting.... again, you're just the shooter.

I know it takes tremendous "skill" to sit in a tree over a trash can full of donuts and "hunt" bears.

I don't LIKE any of those scenarios..... and I'd prefer to never participate in those practices. But, I'm not gonna stoop so low as to drag folks who do through the mud, or tell them they weren't hunting.

Hey, just asked a simple question about the topic at hand. mtmuley

castnblast,



When I started on my journey to be a good rifleman thirty years ago, I had a 28" heavy barrel 7-.300 Weatherby. The first time I took it hunting I didn't take a shot at a walking deer about 30 yards away because there was no bench rest. I started doing lots of offhand shooting with that rifle. I would the not hesitate to take a 200 yard shot offhand at a deer's head. I could hit running dear in the chest with ease. It's not the long barrel, it is the guy holding it.

CRS,

You lost the logical argument with Smokepole so you're leaving?

Those who can do and those who can't complain. My son-in-law practices at 100 yards a lot. One time he came to where I was digging a ditch for some wiring. He got ready to shot at something. I looked and said, "That's at least fifty yards away." He corrected me and said, "It is fifty-five." He shot one shot and hit a cap from a one gallon milk jug. A couple years ago he got a coyote at 89 yards. You have to know your equipment and ability. I don't bow hunt. I tried it fifty years ago and didn't like it.

I'm not entering any discussion -aka-argument, just expressing MY feelings & opinions.

dogshooter, I totally agree.
I've been a hunter as long as I can remember.

I have no desire to 'shoot' a lion out of a tree NOR a bear eating bait. Anyone else can it IS legal just not for me.


Jerry

Not many skills required to do that. Non-hunters do it every day, and some don't even know they're within 1,000 yards.

But then again, IMHO, it's not very difficult to get within 100 yards of elk in timber. You have good cover and quiet footing, so all you have to worry about is wind. I can't count the number of times I've been that close or closer, but couldn't get a shot. Last time I went elk hunting as a matter of fact it happened twice. Getting within 200 is a breeze compared to the skills required to get within, say 30.

But we're not talking about just getting close, we're talking about hunting. Getting within range is only part of the equation, and sometimes it's the easy part. If you ask what skills are required to hunt and kill an elk at 1,000 yards, you get a different answer.

And if you ask which is more difficult, killing an elk at 1,000 yards or at 100 yards, that would be interesting to ponder. I'd wager that very few if any participating in this thread have the skills to reliably kill an elk at 1,000 yards.

And almost all who've been hunting elk for any length of time can say they've killed one at 100 or less.

Does shooting bunnies and jacks with a scope sighted rifle count as moving target practice, because if does, then I do.....

I have never taken a far shot just to take a far shot, some do and if they can, good for them. I have taken far shots and cleanly killed because that was the shot I had and I used my equipment to it's potential. furthest shot on a game animal with a rifle is 730 yards, furthest with a bow was 47 yards. In both cases I hit exactly where I was aiming and cleanly killed the animal. After all, that's why I was hunting in the first place, to put meat in the freezer. you may think differently but that's ok. I won't be the one to say "you don't take long shots because you're a poor shot and have to get closer" you take shots for your own reasons, who am I to tell you any different?

I know people who can't hit the broadside of a barn at 200 yards, I hope they hold themselves a different set of self imposed limits than I do for myself.

We were argueing?
I made a statement of opinion that he does not like. He feels the need to try and change my opinion. I choose not to respond to him, simply because I am not going to change his opinion, and he certainly will not change mine. It is simple to admit that we disagree.

It is also simple to admit that you and I do not share the same opinion. I am ok with that too.

I will state it again, it takes zero hunting skill to get within long range distance of an animal.

I am nor ranting against, saying it should not be done, nor trying to outlaw it.

But it is a very narrow minded view to not consider the social, biological, and policy/legal ramifications that some practices in the field impact.

As humans, we have proven that we can decimate game populations. Laws were put in place and restrictions imposed to protect, and raise money for game population recovery.

Having sat in on numerous commission meetings, and having conversations with policy makers, I do not go into these types of conversations lightly.

I have personally seem the negative impact and reduced bowhunting opportunity in my state due to increased technology being used in archery seasons. Certainly off subject, but cannot we not learn from those experiences?

But I digress, I made a statement of opinion that I do not feel long range hunting is an appropriate term. I backed up my statement with actual personal experience with both long range shooting and extremely close range hunting experience.

Once again, how much hunting skill does it take to get within 1000 yards? I say zero.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If people disagree, that is their right, free speech and all.

Once again I say getting within range is only part of hunting. And lots of times, the easy part. Closing the deal is the hard part.

Even with bow hunting.

Closing the deal is significantly more difficult the closer you are.

Long range shooting has replaced the hunt part of the equation with shooting prowess.

I watched a show where they had a shooting bench on a hydraulic bale hauler. Mounted on the back of the pick up. They saw antelope, parked the truck, set the bench up and proceeded to shoot antelope.....Is that hunting? Or shooting?

IMO, they had certainly taken the hunt part out of the equation.

What about the show where the shooter backed up to make the shot more difficult?

Are those examples hunting? Yes, No, Maybe?

That's strange, I've killed a couple inside 30 yards, but wouldn't even attempt a shot at 1,000. If it's so easy to kill one at 1,000 you'd think people would be doing it right and left.

[quote=wyoming260
Does shooting bunnies and jacks with a scope sighted rifle count as moving target practice, because if does, then I do..... [/quote]

It might be better than most anything else you can do.

Smokepole,

I did not say it was easy, The challenge lies in the 1000 yard shot, not the "hunt" as you like to call it.

I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

First, I don't feel the need to change your opinion, so don't try and put words in my mouth or attribute motives to me that aren't there. I'm just trying to show anyone reading this that your opinions are not backed up by facts.

There’s no tactful way to say this, so I’ll just cut right to the chase—you are as FOS as a Christmas turkey. You try to say “I choose not to respond to him” but anyone who can read can see that you’ve been responding (and arguing) all along, you continue to respond and argue in this post, and you continue to respond and argue in the two posts after this. You’ve tried to back up your opinion with facts, but every time you’ve tried to make a point I’ve shown that it doesn’t stand up to simple logic. So then you want to say ”we’re not arguing, we just have differing opinions.” What a crock of horsesh**.






To get within long-range distance? I thought we were talking about hunting, not sightseeing.

Getting within range is only part of hunting. Unless you can come up with a definition of hunting that does not include making a shot and killing an animal (or at least going out with that as the goal) it’s an inescapable fact that long range hunting takes a lot of hunting skill. Making the shot and killing the animal is an integral part of hunting, no matter how many times you try to exclude it.

And once again, not everyone hunts for “the thrill of the close-range stalk.” Some people just want to put meat in the freezer, and if a long-range shot is the most efficient way to accomplish that, who are you to tell them that their reasons for hunting are not as valid as yours, and that they’re not hunting?




This part of your post is really offensive, because you’re implying that I’m being narrow-minded, and that I don’t care about the future of hunting. Nothing is further than the truth. Responses are below.

1) It’s narrow-minded to say that a certain style of hunting is “not hunting” just because it doesn’t fit your concept of what hunting should be, or doesn’t give you what you want out of a hunt. There are many valid reasons to hunt that don’t involve “the thrill of the stalk.” But to your point, why don’t you name some actual biological or policy ramifications of long-range hunting, instead of just throwing out those terms in a red herring emotional appeal? Go ahead, name some.

2) Another red herring. I’m very familiar with this concept and I teach it to new hunters in our Hunter’s Ed. Course. Game populations were decimated at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, but since then they’ve recovered and no species in North America has been decimated or even threatened by regulated sport hunting. The laws you’re referring to work by limiting the number of animals taken, and in western states that’s accomplished by tag allotments. And it makes absolutely no difference in population management whether a hunter with one of those tags takes his animal at close range or long range. But I may have been wrong when I called this a red herring—it’s a platinum herring.

3) You may not go into the conversation lightly, but you do go in armed with misconceptions. But to the point, why don’t you cite some of the biological and legal ramifications of long-range hunting that were deliberated in these commission meetings?




Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people are of the opinion that Barack Obama has been an outstanding president, and Hilary Clinton will be even better. They’re also entitled to their opinions. That doesn't mean they can back up their opinions, and it doesn’t mean they’re not F.O.S.

I thought you were choosing not to respond to me? No, you didn't say that, you said this:



And if as you say closing the deal is more difficult the closer you are, then it must be true that closing the deal is easier the further away you are, correct? And if that's true, then the longest shots we've talked about (1,000 yards) must be the easiest of all, correct?

This is just another example of a blanket statement you've made that doesn't stand up to a simple test of logic. I'd say your statement holds true from somewhere around the 100-yard mark, but falls apart at longer ranges, i.e., a 300 yard shot is more difficult than a 200 yard shot, and a 700-yard shot is more difficult than either.

But go ahead, say we're not arguing, you choose not to respond to me, and it's just a difference of opinion.





The short answer is, yes it's hunting. But I didn't see that show, I don't watch them. Let me see if I've got the question right. The hunter had gotten "within real hunting range" (whatever that is) but then backed up to take a longer shot, is that right?

Did he make a one-shot clean kill? I'm betting the answer is yes. Did he violate your personal code of "what constitutes a hunt" by not stalking in as closely as possible? Obviously.

Do you know why he was hunting, and what he wanted to get out of the hunt?

Is it possible that this hunter has the skills to sneak in close, has done it many times, and no longer finds a challenge in that? You don't know, and neither do I.

Is it possible that his particular hunter finds more challenge in making longer shots, and that's why he hunts and what he wants out of the hunt? Certainly.

Is it possible that this hunter couldn't give a rat's ass why you hunt and what you want to get out of a hunt?

I'm betting the answer is yes.