Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What's Petzals beef with the 7mm RM?

My buddy used to head shoot grouse with his 270.

[video:youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfN_gcjGoJo[/video]

I seem to remember one writer from the past who would, when pressed, probably have conceded that the .270 could be used for that application, IF the shooter didn't mind losing some wounded ones.

Never read about the 9mm, but he was a great Fan of the 375 Weatherby.

Amen. I don't really care what some writer from the 30's thinks of the technology I use, or what anybody else thinks of my hunting style. Hunting to me is the deliberate pursuit of something with the objective of killing it. Period. Distance of the shot, weapon used, size of the deer's nuts, or anything else don't factor in for me. As long as I feel that I'm being respectful to the game animal, ethical, and responsible, that's all that matters to me.

An ethical shot is different for everyone. For some an 800 yard attempt is more ethical than an 80 yard attempt would be for others. I've seen the guys who can't hit a standing deer broadside at 50 yards. No shot is ethical for them to attempt.

Only to ignorant azzbags who spout off as if they know what they�re talking about, yet can�t so much as produce one picture to back up their stories. Like yourself.

The Kimber debacle was rather entertaining, as the fixes were something any halfway decent rifleman (which you claim to be) would look for, regardless of the rifle in question.

So, for the people who believe hunting ethocs are totally a personal choice: If some company offered a scope that automatically compensated for range, wind-drift and even movement of the target out to 1000 yards or more, would you use one for hunting?

For myself, no. That would be shooting, not hunting, again for myself!

No.

800yd, on a game animal, without a rangefinder was never ethical, unless a person has some hellacious land nav skills.

I'd use a scope that had a military quality rangefinder in a heartbeat.

I think a lot of people confuse what's "ethical" with personal ethics. If someone was equipped with such a scope that virtually guaranteed a lethal hit, then the animal would be killed in an ethical manner.

You could make an argument about fair chase, and talk about the range at which the animal's senses and defenses are taken out of the equation by superior technology, and at what point the playing field is skewed so far in favor of the hunter that the animal doesn't have a fair chance at escape.

But IMHO, those arguments don't hold up because you could make the same argument about a 300 yard shot (or 200), but most guys can make those shots so the guys who say a 1000 yard shot is "unethical" but a 300 yard shot is not are somewhat hypocritical.

Whether a 1000 yard shot with a failsafe scope fits with someone's personal ethic is a different subject.

Very well stated.

Thanks, but I couldn't leave well enough alone.

Guys can argue physics until they are blue in the face, but the numbers always win. You can't get 3" of drift in a 15mph crosswind with a .625 BC going 3000 FPS.

The rest is personal choice and ability. No sense in arguing, but it will never stop. .

smokepole,

Whether or not somebody else (especially the mythical "average hunter") is a lousy shot at 200 yards is irrelevant. Yeah, it's brought up every time the discussion of long-range hunting comes up, but it doesn't justify OR disqualify shooting at longer ranges. It's a separate issue, very much like when you went to your parents and said, "Everybody else is doing it."

What does matter is whether or not we're justified in using tools that reduce hunting to shopping: Use the technology and "harvest" an animal.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, if what we want is a dead animal. That's why early humans who absolutely had to hunt to survive used every means of their technology possible, including driving animals over cliffs, or using fire to push them into lakes or canyons where they could be clubbed to death, or into spiked pits. The very desirable end result was food, obtained the most efficient way possible.

If pure survival is the whole point of hunting today, then yes, any method is ethically correct. I freely admit that one of the primary reasons I hunt is the meat, since I hate not only paying for domestic meat, but eating all the stuff usually added. But I also prize the process of hunting, because it's much older and essentially satisfying than pressing a button or writing a check. Both the process and the product are intertwined.

If all I wanted was the product, the difference between killing a wild animal with every advantage today's technology offers and buying domestic meat is so tiny as to be almost indistinguishable.

Come on man.....

Is cow elk meat better tasting and far more nutritious.... when you run it off a cliff.... or spear it... or kill it with a fuggin' flintlock?

Exactly. It doesn't matter what everybody else is doing. Everybody has a different set of standards and moral benchmarks in this life. You simply have to ask yourself if the proposed activity is legal, and if you feel good about it. If it's legal and you feel good about it, based on your ethics and moral standards, then who am I or anyone else to tell you what you should or shouldn't do.



Good post, MD. I think the answer is different for everyone. To respond to your question about the fail-safe rifle system out to 1000 yards- I personally wouldn't typically use it, but I wouldn't say I would never use it! And if another guy chose to use it all the time for his hunting, I certainly wouldn't try to say he shouldn't!

It comes down to our reasons for hunting. I can tell you that there are days when I'm simply going out to put some meat on the ground and then into my freezer, while other days my objective for going out is simply to be out in the hills, mountains, or forests. Yet other days I'm going out in pursuit of the biggest specimen possible of whatever species I'm hunting, and I'm completely prepared to pass up "meat" than I might have shot on a different day. If it's a meat/grocery day, I'm liable to take whatever the hills offer, using whatever technology I can legally use to bolster my chances. If it's an "out for the experience" day, then I almost don't care what's in my hands, and I might even choose not to shoot a legal animal, so I don't "ruin" the day by making a lot of work. And so on and so forth.

How we feel about the technology and ethics that we embrace really depends on our motivations for going hunting in the first place.

Mule Deer: I think you missed the point of my post. I said nothing about the average hunter being a lousy shot at 200 yards or any other distance. What I said was, most guys can make a 200 or 300 yard shot. Would you argue that?

The point being, in my opinion 300 yards is far enough to defeat the senses of the animal and rely on superior technology to the point that the animal is at a distinct disadvantage.

The secondary point being, since most guys can make that shot, they consider it "ethical" whereas a 1000-yard shot is somehow "unethical." In my opinion, both the 300 yard shot and the 1000 yard shot use superior technology to put the hunter at a distinct advantage, so this is like the pot calling the kettle black.

And again, I never said anything about the average hunter being a lousy shot at 200 yards. You brought that up.





So answer this question. If a guy simply wants wild game meat, and doesn't value what you and I value about hunting, and uses a failsafe scope to make a clean, one-shot kill at 1,000 yards, is he being unethical?

Probably not.

I'm like you, and hunting for me is more than just collecting meat. But that's my personal ethic. The guy who just wants the meat and makes a clean kill using available technology is every bit as ethical as you or I, he just doesn't share the same personal ethic.

Possibly better than young and dead.


Another thing about 600 yard hunting. Apparently all you need to drop game in its tracks at 600+ is be able to ring steel gongs that far out. That seems to be the litmus test for the crack big game LR hunter.

Never mind that some of the bullets they are using are far less than perfect for taking game, especially at some of the low speeds those bullets are doing out that far, and at range where the error factor is magnified greatly.

Personally I think the 7mm IS a better long ranger than the 270 Win. But I can't agree its a better hunting cartridge unless you really need a 175g bullet. And in any of those situations I'd wager a 150g premium outta the 270 Win is less than a few percent behind in all aspects.


Anyone who says one of those cartridges is better than the other is mad.