Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting The Other Side

A Girl, An Elk, A 243 Win/105VLD and 688yds makes elk steaks [Re: TBaker5390]
BuckeyeSpecial Online content
Campfire Regular

Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 381
TB Baker et al:

I am joining AlabamaEd on this one....

A very experienced shooter was the one to attempt this shot, and to determine the yardage, set the scope, dope the wind...all by herself. BUT....

While Mr. Burns, the guide, did an admirable job, the shooter didn't determine yardage, or set the scope on her own calculation, or dope the wind, and what did she learn to be able to consistently do a shot like this again, or even 80% of the time?

No mention from the guide, either, on practicing this 300-400 rounds or so, before trying it in the field.

While that 105 VLD did it this time, it ain't much of a bullet statistically out of a 243 at near 800 [error 700]yards to do it 10 times out of 10, or even 5 times out of 10 in a very experienced hand with those yardages and wind conditions.

Read what Greg Rodriguez of Shooting Times magazine has to say of this type of shooting, with far larger calibers than the .243. And, he never met AlabamaEd.
+3 AlabamaEd.

I posted this elsewhere on the 24CF, and I am re-posting it on the Long Range Forum as some of the readers here may benefit. The video is at at the Hunting Rifles thread re the title above. Falls under the category : If it happens one time, it doesn't mean it happens most of the time

BuckyeSpecial,
Are you a long range hunter? (Big game over 500yds)
Reason I ask is I just looked at your previous posts going back over a year and it appears that you rarely post in this forum..
I am not a long range hunter myself as I hunt in timber..
But then I don't go weasling about spouting off about things that I don't have any experience in..
Not saying that you do, but it kind of appears that way since you moved your rant over to this forum..


peace?

Tell you what, I would rather have 90% of the big game hunters shooting at me with their uber magnums and bushnells at rock throwing distance than a well equiped and well guided chick at LR

BuckeyeSpecial,

I am curious what you expect to accomplish reposting your thread here? Did you want conversation or what? I really am curious.

Buckeye, you are a dipschit. Mr Burns and the lass followed US Army Sniper Doctrine, the LEAST CAPABLE/EXPERIENCED member of the sniper team pulls the trigger. The senior team member won't give DOPE and set a junior shooter up for failure, neither did Mr Burns.

No one has or will assert she should attempt a similar shot on her own. I personally would not attempt a game shot at that range without DOPE from spotter with good glass who knows how to read wind. Others may be capable, that is for them to decide, not you or me.

I'll bet you still believe in global warming as well. Being biotch-slapped by the truth in Hi-Def ain't enough for some people.

I am glad you are sure what others are capable of...

LOL. Wouldn't want her shootin' at me either.

Gentlemen:

I posted this to see if any of the readers can be introduced to learning....to consider the downside of long range hunting.

Typically, it becomes defensiveness and a personality attack e.g. an outsier who "rarely posts" on the LR Forum [xenophobia], one who has "no experience"; etc.

The reference to following "sniping" doctrine is a good example of missing the point; this is hunting and not sniping, there is an ethical responsibility to exercise a responsible shot at a game animal.

Responndents are asked to consider addressing statistical probabilities of identical shots with the same bullet/caliber/energy, the Optimum Game Weight formula and that respective bullet's downrange energy at 700 yards, the female shooter's abilities (or any other shooter) to do this again everytime without help and and without practice.

Respondents are asked to distinguish a case study [one instance]from a controlled study (n=30) and consider results of significance in endorsing this type/range of shooting.

No one has apparently been curious about my reference to Mr. Rodriguez writings. Recent issue of Shooting Times, check that out; I don't believe he has posted either on the LR Forum....

I'll check back with you all later.

You appear to be a very unhappy person, go take your nap now.

You might havbe a point if the shooter had taken the shot without help and without practice. She didn't.

But the rest of your post is absurd.

Ah yes..
The ole "Optimum Game Weight formula"..
The boyz over at Accurate Reloading spent much of last winter killing game with "Gun Writer" mathematical formulas..
IIRC the "Optimum Game Weight formula" was heavily favored..

I wonder if Greg Rodriguez applied the OGW formula to the 16.5" barreled .260 loaded with 120gr TSX's that his kids used to shoot several head of African Plains game.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3334246/3

#3300320 - 09/13/09 10:42 AM Re: 260 Remington [Re: AJD]
GregR
Campfire Regular

Registered: 09/05/02
Posts: 359
Loc: Texas
Last month, I took my family to hunt in South Africa. My kids (9 and 10) are tiny (55 and 62 pounds), so they use a chopped off .260 A-Bolt stoked with Federal's new 120-grain TSX load. They took 7 animals with it, including a zebra, 2 kudu, impala, blesbok, caracal, and duiker. My daughter dropped the kudu with one perfect shot that blew right through both shoulders from 120 yards.

My son shot everything else. All required just one shot except the kudu, which needed a finisher because, although his elevation was perfect for a broadside shot, it was a little too low because of the sharp downhill angle. The bullet entered for a perfect heart shot but blew out the bottom of the chest, passing just under the heart.

No bullets were recovered, and only one failed to exit. That passed through a whole lot of zebra on a quartering shot at 208 yards and was lost somewhere in the stomach. The zebra ran a good ways, but was kind enough to tip over right next to the road. Internal damage from the tiny TSX was unbelievable.

One of my client's kids used their custom .260 to take another 7 animals, including 2 kudu and a blue wildebeest with similar results.

Just for the record, we had folks shooting various .300s and a 7mm magnum in camp who had to make a hell of a lot of follow-up shots on even smaller animals. Big guns also accounted for the only wounded-and-lost critter of the 60-odd animals our group shot. We had no such trouble with kids shooting the little .260.
_________________________
Greg Rodriguez
Global Adventure Outfitters, Inc.
www.mbogo.net
(281) 494-4151
---------------------------
BuckeyeSpecial
Personally I could give a rip what others hunt with as long as they kill and retrieve the animals that they shoot..
I use to work with three guys who are stupid enough that they'll take any shot that the animal will give them..
Two shoot a 7 maggie and the other a 30-06 which would probably meet the OGW criteria depending on range and bullet..
These clowns are not friends BTW and I gave them [bleep]..
I was just talking to a friend night before last whose friend witnessed a poke by another dough head (7 maggie) at and elk at 800 yds..
The elk walked but they have no clue as to whether it was hit or not as they couldn't find blood..
Maybe I am naive but I tend to think that most of the people that come to this site are responsible hunters..
I get that you don't feel that way and there is nothing that will change your mind..
Maybe Hammerdown/Randy has you pegged..
So have at it..

---------------------------
BuckeyeSpecial
Personally I could give a rip what others hunt with as long as they kill and retrieve the animals that they shoot..
I use to work with three guys who are stupid enough that they'll take any shot that the animal will give them..
Two shoot a 7 maggie and the other a 30-06 which would probably meet the OGW criteria depending on range and bullet..
These clowns are not friends BTW and I gave them [bleep]..
I was just talking to a friend night before last whose friend witnessed a poke by another dough head (7 maggie) at and elk at 800 yds..
The elk walked but they have no clue as to whether it was hit or not as they couldn't find blood..
Maybe I am naive but I tend to think that most of the people that come to this site are responsible hunters..
I get that you don't feel that way and there is nothing that will change your mind..
Maybe Hammerdown/Randy has you pegged..
So have at it..



[/quote]

Nrut:

You are mistaken in your belief that I think "most" of the people that come to this site (or Long Range Hunting) are not responsible hunters; the majority are likely quite responsible.

My intent is to attempt to help the ones who aren't learn more about being responsible, ethical hunters. And the ones who ARE responsible can venture into setting limits (range/energy) for the rest.

I am attaching the response I wrote Mr. Burns today over at the Hunting Rifle Forum:

Mr. Burns:

You seemed to miss my point(s)...the 105 gr. 243 bullet has approximately 600lbs. of energy left at 700 yards [presuming the 3100 FPS Maximum velocity at the muzzle: source Nosler #4 Manual].

That isn't enough energy to kill CONSISTENTLY at that range.

Yes, one can HIT the target - like a steel gong - at that range, but that's not what I am talking about. I am pointing out that killing consistently is not likely, and is more UNLIKELY, using 600 lbs of energy.

The statistics I am referring to is the probability of any shooter doing so with that respective bullet at that respective range and respective impact velocity for 10 of 10 or even 5 of 10 attempts. It's NOT discussing using the .243 at ANY i.e. shorter range(s) to kill elk; we are discussing it's use at 700 yards...

One or two kills, are case studies, and not a controlled study.

A controlled study, typically with an N=30 or more, will allow for statistical significance , or no significance. So, even 10 consecutive kills is not sufficient for subjecting data to a t-test for significance. A survey of hunters [30 or more] who have done the above, not excluding the misses and wounded eld i.e. including them, will need to be conducted and the data sujected to analysis for significance.

Do you see where we are going...? (No GPS or range finder needed.)

In other words, if you have them, post 10 more consecutive elk kill videos from the same shooter with the same range and the same bullet. Then get 20 more, or a few less. Then, we look at analysis.

And, NO, I don't speak for Mr. Rodriguez, he spoke for himself in his recent article on limits to long range hunting (and NOT with small[er] calibers such as the .243.

I would be remiss if you have access to a better protocol than the Optimum Game Weight Formula (OGW) re lbs of energy need for consistent kills, then please introduce it. The OGW is proven superior to the Taylor Knockdown formula; neither one is perfect or without exception. However, statistics is about the rule and the exception...and what happens the most typically is the rule.

Are you using ignorant prejudice or can you back this with data?



Why bring him up, then?

From one 7 year old to another��

Ha!,
You are mean!...

Oh and I hope you applied the OGW formula before you took the shot on that dead doe..

I think Buckeye woke up on the wrong end of the condom

Nrut:

You are mistaken in your belief that I think "most" of the people that come to this site (or Long Range Hunting) are not responsible hunters; the majority are likely quite responsible.

My intent is to attempt to help the ones who aren't learn more about being responsible, ethical hunters. And the ones who ARE responsible can venture into setting limits (range/energy) for the rest.

I am attaching the response I wrote Mr. Burns today over at the Hunting Rifle Forum:

Mr. Burns:

You seemed to miss my point(s)...the 105 gr. 243 bullet has approximately 600lbs. of energy left at 700 yards [presuming the 3100 FPS Maximum velocity at the muzzle: source Nosler #4 Manual].

That isn't enough energy to kill CONSISTENTLY at that range.

Yes, one can HIT the target - like a steel gong - at that range, but that's not what I am talking about. I am pointing out that killing consistently is not likely, and is more UNLIKELY, using 600 lbs of energy.

The statistics I am referring to is the probability of any shooter doing so with that respective bullet at that respective range and respective impact velocity for 10 of 10 or even 5 of 10 attempts. It's NOT discussing using the .243 at ANY i.e. shorter range(s) to kill elk; we are discussing it's use at 700 yards...

One or two kills, are case studies, and not a controlled study.

A controlled study, typically with an N=30 or more, will allow for statistical significance , or no significance. So, even 10 consecutive kills is not sufficient for subjecting data to a t-test for significance. A survey of hunters [30 or more] who have done the above, not excluding the misses and wounded eld i.e. including them, will need to be conducted and the data sujected to analysis for significance.

Do you see where we are going...? (No GPS or range finder needed.)

In other words, if you have them, post 10 more consecutive elk kill videos from the same shooter with the same range and the same bullet. Then get 20 more, or a few less. Then, we look at analysis.

And, NO, I don't speak for Mr. Rodriguez, he spoke for himself in his recent article on limits to long range hunting (and NOT with small[er] calibers such as the .243.

I would be remiss if you have access to a better protocol than the Optimum Game Weight Formula (OGW) re lbs of energy need for consistent kills, then please introduce it. The OGW is proven superior to the Taylor Knockdown formula; neither one is perfect or without exception. However, statistics is about the rule and the exception...and what happens the most typically is the rule.

[/quote]

Ass handed to you yet?...or just keep digging...one is a sign of insanity...the other...just good judgement...just sayin

What is the downside of long range hunting? Again I am really curious.

Liberals don't like it when everybody else doesn't fall inline with what they think and drink their koolaid.Buckeye your exhibiting classic liberal behavior.Everybody has an opinion and an [bleep].If you want to vent your opinion and get people drinking your koolaid try not showing them your [bleep] at the same time.There isn't a doubt to me from what I've read on this thread and John Burns post that the girls shot on the elk irritates you to no end because you couldn't do it in a million years. Your mindset and lack of ability to consider the positive outcome of making a shot like this would keep you from ever even trying. Even if you had John Burns or anyone else with his abilities at your elbow and disposal.Women are usually easy to teach to shoot well because if you are sincere with them while coaching them they do what they are supposed too, unlike guys like you who think they are a Daniel Boone descendant and know everything.This is still America and we still have the personal freedom to choose what we are going to do and that gal did, get over it.You should just read at the fire for awhile now cause your credibility as a good member is hurting and you are just digging in deeper by the minute. Remember you solicited the opinions . Magnum Man

A lot thinner wallet. This stuff's addictive.