Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Small rant, sure most can relate

I think you need to be addressing SLM since he's the one who brought up archery

First, when rc made the statement I responded to, he was not talking about compound bows.

Second, I like RC, he seems like a good guy. I'd have no problem hashing this out over a cold beer or two, and I'm sure I'd learn something in the process.

But it's not just semantics. He made a sweeping general statement that I disagree with. I know guys who hunt with nothing but traditional archery gear. They are the most extreme example I can think of to refute his statement, so that's what I used. You may be talking about compound bows, but I'm not.

Third, even with compound bows, yes there is a difference. It's the difference between getting within 100 yards and getting within 800 or 1000. Or for most people, the difference between 60 yards ( a long shot with a bow) and 1000. There are a lot of guys who have absolutely no interest in taking a 700, 800, or 1000 yard shot with a rifle, but would take the 60 yard shot with a bow.

They are not incomplete hunters. That is my point.

Sh** storm? Hardly. This is barely a good fart, and it's breezy.

Actually, that was me but I do think I quoted you accurately, and you mentioned bows?

If I get a shot at 10 yards, I'll be driving the Bugatti at top speed

Obviously there is a difference between 800 YDS and 100. My point is people are always bashing long range with rifles but I don't see much difference in the guy that has worked to be proficient with a bow at extended range. Can't remember if it was you or Bob that brought up an animals comfort zone. If a person thinks a rutting bulls comfort zone is the same at 50 as it is at 100, they have not called in many elk. People will always try to hedge things in their favor, some will just hedge a little farther.

For the record I don't consider myself a long range shooter/hunter.


Eta; rc', did you see where the commission shafted us again on BH? LO authorizations soon to come.

My "incomplete hunter" statement was in regard to those who hunt with a rifle and are only able to use it effectively to ranges like 250 yards.

Rifles are effective (depending on cartridge and game) to much longer ranges and to be unable to capably use them from 250 yards to their maximum effective range, I consider "incomplete"


BTW,
Watched Western Extreme with Jim Burnworth. Watched him shoot his bow and make one-shot hits on a target from 100 to 180 yards.

He has killed prairie dogs with his bow at 121 yards.

He shoots softballs at 150 yards and baseballs at 100 yards.

I don't bash long range, I have rifles more capable than I am, and I'd be better at long range if it was important to me. But it's not that important to me. I can hit a vitals-sized target almost every time in good conditions out to about 600. That's good enough for me but the rifles could do better.

Does the fact that my rifle is more capable than me mean I'm an incomplete hunter? Hardly. People hunt for different reasons. Making a 700-800 yard shot on a big game animal is not one of the reasons I hunt. I like to hunt the early seasons, so if I had more time to spare I'd work on being a better bow hunter.

And that was me who brought up an animal's comfort zone. My point was, at some distance, the animal can know you're there but ignore you because you're not perceived as a threat. Because for millennia, as the animals evolved and adapted to being hunted by humans, humans at that distance were not a threat. Or maybe the hunter is far enough away that the animal has no real chance to see, hear, or smell him. That distance will vary with the location, season, weather, and individual animal, so you can't put a number on it and I'm not trying to. Just making the point that beyond that distance, a hunter is using superior technology to defeat the animal's senses. So taking those shots raises the issue of fair chase.

As far as a rutting bull at 100 yards, he may be so pre-occupied as to not notice your presence. But if he knows you're a human and he knows you're there within 100 yards, he's not going to stick around.

You can bring up all the other technology hunters use like tree stands, "scent-lok" clothes, and all that. So let me take those off the table by saying, yes, those are examples of using technology to defeat the animal's senses too.

That doesn't mean that shooting from long distance isn't.

And I'm not saying the distance a hunter chooses to take a shot at is anyone's business but his own (provided he can make the shot), or that it should be regulated in any way. It can't be.

Just acknowledging a fact that no one seems to want to talk about.

I don't know if this is the Long Range Hunting Forum's first bow kill entry but...




84 yards
Jennings Carbon Extreme
Gold Tip with a 125 grain Thunderhead

So you've never encountered anyone who chooses to hunt with an open-sighted lever action rifle?

Hell, back east where I grew up hunting whitetails in the hardwood forests, I never even had an opportunity at a 250 yard shot.

I'm not afforded the ranges most people out west are. I live in the south east. I do rather enjoy hitting targets at 400 yards. What people fail to realize is 400-500 to people like me is about all we'll get the pleasure to shoot.

We never really get the experience to see what 1000 yards look like, but those of us whom never get to see 1000 yard ranges are awe struck the first time we finally do. So In my opinion being a complete, or incomplete hunter based on whether or not it's achievable to me is moot if 400-500 is the maximum I'm likely to ever see. 1000 yards in my state is very possible in the eastern part of our state. But the north west is going to be more difficult.

I can say without any doubt at all that even my 30-06 is more capable than I of reaching farther ranges lethally. In perspective it's relative to what you have to work with in equipment and range. Why do I not shoot a 300 WM? Because I simply do not need it.

I concentrate my time on what's important to me. Making my 30-06 shoot as accurately as possible at the ranges I'm likely to shoot. I will not ever see a need to shoot any bullet heavier than 180gn accubond in my location at 400 yrds. I'm confident it will kill with lethality and authority at that range.

I take no credibility away from anyone's opinion at all when it comes to their experience at longer ranges, because I have no experience to do so. I know what works for me so far.

Before I forget, I'll toss this out there, and this falls into the category of keeping things in perspective. My buddy and I were at our local Gander Mountain looking at different factory ammo as they keep it out on the floor for ppl to pilfer through. He picked up a box of 338 lapua ammo and said "screw it! I'm just going to buy a 338 lapua." My response was if you can't make deer hit the ground with your 300 Winny, that 338 Lapua really isn't the answer to your problems. Practice, and a rifle you can shoot comfortably is. He looked at me like I slapped his mother.

In Pittsburgheze; Glad to see younze are still at it�.

The real question is-

How many do you hit that you don't find?

Course not!

John, yes....mule deer. You gonna be in the neighborhood?

Absolutely.

That is what makes hunting so interesting. We all have a bunch of room to improve and we choose the areas or skillsets to work on based on our interests and desires.

The "Complete Hunter" would be able to run in cross country mountain races and win.

He would know the biology, habits, food resources, ect of his quarry and all other plants and animals in the area at a level that would allow a PHD dissertation.

He would know the topography of the hunting area, including landownership, to such a level that he could draw accurate, useful maps for those of us with out that level of dedication.

He would be able to shoot all manner of weapons to the ragged edge of the weapons reach in all condition and under time pressure.

Ricks analogy with sporting clays was pretty good. The objective of a good target setter is to find the holes in a shotgunners game and make him pay. If a springing teal stumps you do not expect to win much.

I got a bunch of holes in my hunting game (conditioning is one that is staring me right in the face this September) but have put in some time on the shooting side of things. We tend to invest more in things we enjoy and skimp on other things that don't spark our interest. Human nature.

Seem to recall the first target on the old archery field course was eighty yards...of course that was before compounds...and ethics...:)

Staying in Art Laha's bowcamp (complete with bar and restaurant) in Wisconsin, did spend a little time as a pup riding around in a truck on Wisconsin's logging roads with some old boys who used to shoot those field courses across the country, here and there, with Howard Hill--Hill was a few years before my time...:)

I had Laha's American Arms recurve and the old boys either had long bows or recurves. Art Laha was a lesser known competitor to Fred Bear and far more colorful.The interesting thing to me was any deer that looked "a ways off" was gauged in terms of that 80 yard target. Then the next guy up on the offside would get out as the truck kept rolling and take a shot.

The biggest deal was a buck at the longest range for those two-track hunts. That was something and that was the topic of note. Some of those guys were amazing shots at amazingly long ranges well past 80 yards. Most were not. Like I said, that was before ethics...and before range finders.

Nobody talked about what they missed or didn't find, and no one took pictures of a woods setting with a missing deer to brag to their buddies.

"Look Tom", Art said to me with a grin to clarify the issue, "it's not bullshitt, it's promotion"

Or you could say we tend to value the things we're good at over all else. That's human nature. That's why guys who are good long range shooters think other guys who have zero interest in it are "incomplete."

Your list above of what comprises a "complete hunter" sounds like a competition. That "competition" attitude is one of the things I think is wrong with hunting today, especially as it's depicted on TV shows. A 1,200 yard shot is somehow "better" than a 1,000 yard shot. It's all in the numbers. Where's Dick Vitale when you need him, "Johnnie B. is going looooooooong baybeeeee!!!!"

For lots of guys, it's not a competition. In any case, a "complete hunter" is not yours to define.

I'm not a very good squirrel hunter. You may think that makes me "incomplete." But that's just your opinion, it's not a fact.

Anyone who is any good at anything had to put hard work, time, blood, sweat and tears into becoming good.

Do you think JohnBurns came out of the womb with a .264 with verified drop data to a mile?

Lots of people who have "zero interest" in certain activities have tried them, realized they have zero natural ability and zero work ethic to do the work to master them.