Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Long Range Shooting

525 yds is too far,
for an arrow

I would wonder if that was his best 3 shot group. What would a 10 shot "group" have looked like. The real squirrel in the attic in long range shooting is doping the wind.

I don't think we were rowing in circles at all. The OP described a shooter with a new rifle who'd "practiced to 500" whatever that means, and had a self-described unsteady shooting position for a long shot in tough conditions. A lot of good points were made about the difference in practicing to 500 and making the shot in the field, and they were all as germane if not more so than an anecdote about an equipment failure causing a miss.

Classic case of an irresponsible hunter shooting beyond his means and capabilities, regardless of the distance, and not putting in the necessary practice time to make the shots he'll risk taking in the field.

What I get out of it was that the shooter didn't have the skills to set up and make the shot, or the judgement/experience to realize the same.

Since I don't belong to a range, ALL my long range shooting is done as some variation of hunting field conditions. One thing I've learned is that prone is prone and everything else is not. If he was up off the ground as it sounds like he was, then his position was nowhere near as solid as what he was likely used to.

My longest shot on game, 602 yards, I not only moved closer (to find a flat enough spot to get truly prone) and also took over 30 minutes to set up for the shot, counting the time it took to get to the better spot, sneaking through the sage and boulders. I could've taken a ~ 675 yard shot from a more awkward position, and it was a deer I wanted, but again, prone is prone and nothing else is prone.

There's plenty that can wrong with ANY hunting shot. LR just has its own particular set of considerations, and perhaps requires a bit more good judgement than some other shots. I don't like seeing these sorts of stories presented as a "see why LR hunting is bad?" Where's the corresponding tongue-clucking story about screwing up the 100 yard shot in the timber? Like THAT doesn't happen?

Jeff,

There aren't "corresponding" stories about short-range misses because they've ALWAYS been part of hunting, even before there were rifles. Why repeat millions of them, especially while clucking our tongues?

What's different about instances like the OP described, of course, is nowadays many hunters think they can BUY the ability to kill big game animals at whatever they consider "long range" after very little real practice.

You nailed that one, big time.

Good dope is priceless. CDS, no doubt.

On the money there.

I've seen some pretty unbelievable things from people. This year a guy was using his new scopeon a hard to draw hunt..sighted in, then the dope was taken right off the factory drop chart on the cartridge box..

If that weren't enough, the range he shot at the first elk at called for 38" of drop, so he promtly dials in 38MOA.

I bet he was good to 1k if you had asked him before he started shooting.

Unbelievable

I guess it's the new magnumitis, right? The notion there being that you can "buy" the ability to just shoot 'em dead....

That's been happening for decades. Before I got into modern equipment and techniques for LR shooting, I spent several years doing it the old way- kentucky windage using duplex reticles the best I could. But I took the time and spent the money to become intimately familiar with my load's trajectory before taking long shots on game. Most didn't.

Me too. I was pretty good with a duplex, 500 was getting out there but still very doable. IF you knew WTF you were doing. reoccurring theme there. Some things will never change in the practice department..ammo is expensive you know

Yeah, that's the way I did it before laser rangefinders and scopes designed for dialing. Used a Duplex reticle as both a rangefinder and longer-range aiming point. Was guiding back then, partly for antelope, and being able to put a wounded one down at what was then considered long range came in handy on occasion. Finished one buck somebody else had wounded at around 550--took two shots to get it done, but was very close on the first one, thanks to having a realistic idea of the range.

I'd be hosed in open country without my rangefinder, or as Jordan keeps pushing me to try, a (preferably for ranging) FFP scope w/appropriate reticle.

I was consistently badly misjudging distances by eyeball up on my high desert mulie hunt this fall. Badly.

If he'd put one shot in that 6 inch circle, it would have been good enough

If the circle was in the killing spot!

I've met some folks who can use a rangefinder and turrets well, but I've never met anyone who could range without a rangefinder well enough to make kill shots at long range.

I mean fast kill shots; ie, heart/lung.

You'll notice I didn't say it could not be done, but ...

That's the crux of the matter. Today's advertising makes many think all they have to do is buy turrets, a scope with some wild cross hair, a ballistic app for their phone, and a mega buck rifle and anyone can hunt long range. Seldom mentioned is the trigger time necessary to be proficient at long range especially figuring out the wind.

I agree that can happen at moderate ranges also but the mistakes are compounded by distance.

I'm pushing you to an FFP scope for other reasons, though...

With modern RF's, using a reticle to determine distance is nothing more than a seldom-used, last resort.

"... 525 yards across a canyon...some blustery wind..."

His guide should have NEVER have allowed him to shoot that far in those conditions no matter who he was. Don't forget that the wind is much faster over the canyon because there are no trees or grass to block it.