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

Approaches differ today. My group (guys I hunted with), practiced a lot out to 400 yards;at 500-600 we also shot and knew what to do....if we needed to,like a previously wounded animal,or something very desirable with no option to get closer.Generally there was time to ponder this type of shot,and it happened infrequently,and for some,not at all.

It's more a question of being certain of the shot,and the outcome.

Today,guys are mesmerized by the sheer technology of the ability to hit a lot further...but from what I see, they still don't have it "licked".

There are still humans behind the rifle,still problems of wind(what it's doing "over there" versus what it's doing closer;advocates like to refer to this as the art form of LR hunting, or "calling" wind....this seems to me a euphemism for wild ass guessing)....mirage,springy erectors,animals taking a step or shifting slightly at the break of the trigger(unlike a steel gong),less than perfect bullet expansion at distance....maybe none at all.

Couple this with a frail,error prone human making these judgement calls and the further away an animal is, the less "certain" things become.

It ain't easy and it still ain't rosy; when I see experienced match shooters with years of competition under their belts refrain from this sort of shooting (on animals), I have to wonder what chance anyone with less experience has for pulling off a cold barrel, first shot solid chest hit at any great distance. I have met very few people truly capable of it that i would bet any money on...and one posts here.But he has a lot of experience at it,not just on targets but animals,too.

It's funny that almost all the most experienced folks I personally know at LR shooting are the one's that avoid it on animals.They have years and years of competition experience and know how many things can go wrong at 600-1000 yards.

I think the ethics very much enters the picture.

I like to shoot at great distance...it's fun.But the handful of times I have had to kill something at beyond 400 yards,I really did not find it particularly exciting.

Like Johnny B said it was more like shopping, or more particularly for me, just a job that had to get done.I did not get much thrill out of the events.

One last point,then rant over....a mature mule deer buck has a "flight awareness zone" of about a half a mile If he does not like the looks of you, he will leave,undetected,or otherwise avoid you and you will never know he was in the neighborhood. Getting within 300 yards of a truly large mule deer is not an easy thing to do...they got your number.

The mule deer is the .270 of deer

No, I wouldn't use a scope that corrected drop and wind automatically if one were available. But then I've killed most of my big game with open sighted lever actions and revolvers so I'm a bit different of a bird anyhow.

Thoughtful post Bob, but it doesn't answer Mule Deer's question, in a couple of ways.

First, I agree with you on the human factors involved and the potential for human error making long shots ethically questionable, depending on the shooter's ability in the field as opposed to the range.

But I believe Mule Deer's hypothetical question, and it's a good one, stipulates that you have at your disposal technology that removes human error including movement of the animal. So human factors don't figure in.

The question of "would you use it" goes to your personal ethic. The question of "is it ethical" does not. It requires us to set aside our personal ethic, which is difficult.

Second, his question was not about old mule deer bucks. Granted, some animals are more difficult to approach than others, but if you truly believe that taking a mule deer buck with a modern scoped rifle at 300 yards is not using superior technology to defeat the animal's senses, then try hunting that buck with a bow.

Which goes to my point--the technology to make a 300 yard shot is readily available and not hard to master if you put in just a little effort. It's so commonplace that we take it for granted and don't consider it anything special, or "superior technology."

But look at the question from a historical perspective. Men have been hunting deer for thousands of years. The animals evolved with that hunting pressure and "learned" to deal with it but for the vast majority of that time it was a close range game. It's been less than a hundred years since the technology to consistently make 300 yard shots has been available to most hunters.

So yes, taking an animal at 300 yards with a modern scoped rifle is using superior technology to put yourself at a decided advantage.

We've just gotten to the point that we don't see it that way.

BobinNH
Your point about the guys that know the most about long range shooting being the guys that do it least it says volumes about long range shooting.
The point you raised about animals moving after the trigger break is an issue I have never heard explained away. If you add up the time of flight of the bullet, lock time, reaction time, there is a substantial amount of time between when the decision to trip the trigger is made and when copper collides with critter.

Great post.

Fred

Whatever the ethics of the posters here, I guarantee that if someone offered that scope to the "American Public" they'd sell a million of them.

How about incorporating drones into locating game? Will that be ethical? How about remote controlled rifles?

Doesn't matter if some one individual considers it ethical or not. If it makes it easier to locate or shoot game, lots and lots and lots of people will buy it.

Ron Spomer wrote an article a few years ago titled "Americans Like to Cheat". It was somewhat satirical as is Ron's MO but it was spot on.

Good questions. My opinion is that a remote controlled rifle would be unethical in that it's unsafe to take a shot if you're not right there behind the rifle. Because you can't be sure of the target and what's beyond it.

Using drones is a question of fair chase. The animals developed their natural defenses for hunters on the ground, not flying overhead. So IMO, using drones goes beyond fair chase. Then again, I guess you could make the same argument about tree stands.

As far as fair chase applied to technology that allows long-range kills, I would agree that at some distance we're using technology to get far enough away that the animal's natural defenses are taken out of the equation. I would agree that 1000 yards fits that description. But I'm not so sure that 300 yards doesn't fit that.description too, albeit to a lesser extent.

smokepole: Of course, killing a mule deer at 300 yards IS, de facto, the use of technology. If you hunt with a rifle, it's hard to avoid.

Historically,hunters have always sought to extend their reach. I guess my only point is, to a trained, experienced rifleman,300 yards is still a more "certain" shot than 800 or 1000.All the gremlins we discussed still have an effect, but I think would agree they do not have so dramatic an impact at the closer range than they do at the furthest distances.

This topic is like discussing "what's pornography?" It boils down to how much technology you're willing to take to the game;or even care about.

Draw a straight line on the ground, make it pretty long, as in "approaching infinity". Label it "Ethics".

Everybody pick a spot on that line, wherever one feels comfortable, and stand on it.

Everyone on your left is unethical compared to you. Everybody on your right considers you unethical compared to them.

Unless we kill animals with our bare hands, any form of hunting is using technology. I've killed gamebirds with rocks and sticks, and both are tools, but even a "stick" bow is far more sophisticated technology than a rock or stick, especially when made of materials laminated with modern glues and shooting aluminum or carbon arrows. And compound bow users have pushed the envelope of bow range just as much as 21st century riflemen, thanks to their really fast bows and laser range-finders. Today's muzzleloading rifles are also very different from a Pennsylvania flintlock.

Humans have always pushed and refined all of our weapons, including hunting weapons, and always will. Ortega y Gasset's observations, however, were not so much about that as the nature of hunting today, when most of us do not need to hunt to survive. Even though I wild meat I hunt by choice, I don't need to in order to live. The question then is: What does hunting provide humans other than food, and how does our still-improving technology fit into hunting today?

Obviously non-subsistence hunters have different opinions on all of this, and always will, partly because answers to complex questions will always vary, sometimes even from the same person as their perspective changes.

IE, I don't consider hunting bears over a barrel of popcorn and donuts "sporting". I'm fully aware of the fact that in certain locales, that is really the only way to hunt them, and that harvesting some of the population is actually a good thing. I just personally don't find it appealing. I would NEVER sit in judgement however, of someone who decided to hunt them in such a manner

I have no qualms over hunting whitetail does over corn, where it is legal to do so (a buck with a decent rack won't be seen at a cornpile during legal shooting hrs), because I'm after meat for the freezer. Thats just me.

John I came back to the thread to say precisely the same thing. Spot on.Ditto on the rest of the post as well.

Now I gotta go do some busy-ness.

That's purty good right there......

This is a good example of your personal ethic vs. what is "ethical."




No doubt. And to a certain degree, the level of technology we each choose to employ is a matter of what we want to get out of the hunt, our personal ethic. Which can change over time, with different species, etc. and never cross into "unethical" territory.

But I do believe that if we use a weapon that allows us enough setback so that the animal has virtually no chance of detecting us, we've crossed the threshold into "unethical" because the hunt is no longer fair chase.

I'm just not sure what that distance is, and of course it varies according to the species, the geography, and all kinds of other factors.

Which is why anybody claiming beyond a specific range is too long to be ethical is making a mistake.

Was talking at the SHOT Show with a friend about this a couple of years ago. He'd just killed an elk at 900 yards "because I watched it for four hours and it didn't move any place stalkable." But he also freely admitted that (in his opinion) the 900-yard kill wasn't hunting, but only killing.

I also talked to another friend at the same SHOT who'd been culling whitetail does at around 700 yards when they came out to feed on the far side of alfalfa fields. He firmly believed he was hunting, even though the entire point of shooting from that far was to bypass the deer's alarm system.

I do consider hunting bear over bait sporting. First off, a stray breeze will give you away and the bear will not come in. Second, the big bears come in last, right as shooting light is expiring. Meaning you've probably already been tempted to shoot the smaller bears coming in well before dark and if you're still on stand you have willpower and are after a quality animal. Any sound you make shifting in position will spook them too. It's more sporting to me than 600 yard shooting. It's just bowhunting with a gun.

I think "sporting" is a matter of the level of skill involved. Hunters who tiller their own bows and fletch their own arrows like to do it that way because they enjoy the skill required. Hunters who use dogs enjoy the results of their dog training skills. Handgun hunters are proud of their stalking skills, and riflemen are proud of their ability to assemble ammunition and use it effectively.

The animal has no chance other than the chance we allow it to have. We sit down in the off season and decide how many game animals need to die this year to keep the population where we want it, and issue licenses accordingly. We could kill them all any time we wanted (yes, even hogs). Giving the animal a chance, or not, is not an "ethical" decision.

Unethical is when we break mutually agreed upon rules of sport. In other words, unethical is when we cheat one another, not when we take advantage of an animal.

Suppose an old widow engages an attorney and gives him a cash retainer. After she leaves, he recounts the money and realizes she gave him $1,100, not $1,000 as agreed upon. His ethical question is: Must he tell his partner?

So, I choose the methods and game that suit me and my aptitudes. I encourage all of you to do the same - even if it means shooting a 7 mag :-)

Wait, I'm confused.....

So the more difficult the situation, the more ethical it is? I just gotta know if its OK to use a 270.

Someone forward this thread to Petzal. There's 5 years worth of Feeled & Stink articles here. Maybe even a Peabody award.