Long Range SHOOTING... - 24hourcampfire

Home

LRS guys are saying the animals are doing nothing significant, are at rest, have no idea whats going on, and when hit at extreme ranges, it falls on the spot....
 Well, isn't that what a steel gong, or paper target, does at those ranges?
 The difference is, the steel gong, paper target, etc, won't decide to run off when hit improperly, regardless of the shooter's intent, experience, ability, specialized equipment, etc. They have NO control over what may happen.
 Ethics are not involved in shooting gongs/paper targets, etc.
 So, why bother to do LRS at live animals? Its not hunting, as no hunting is involved.
 Ego? Bragging rights? Some sort of "high" playing with a higher element of risk?
 What is this about?
 ~~~Suluuq

What's it about?It's about something you don't understand.If you don't like it .Tough!!!!!We are NOT going away.....Give it up man....You will not win this one...It has been explained to people like you more than once.Some get it.........You don't.....Thick headed I guess.....I suppose you think hunting hunting over bait is ethical?How about hunting deer with dog's?It is closed minded people like you that give's ALL the hunting sport's a bad name.....I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU...Good day....And may god be with you.....

(Edited: Sorry, I took so long to write this that it's no longer the first response as it was intended. Next time I'll type faster [Linked Image]

)
 
 
 
 Okay, I'll bite.
 
 I'll assume that LRS means Long Range Shooters something you've changed from Long Range Hunters as you feel long range is not hunting.
 
 There are several variants of Long Range Hunting, there are different types of equipments for these variants. One thing that is common between the variants is that animals are hunted and killed.
 
 Is it true that in the majority of LRH cases the animal has no idea there is a hunter nearby? True
 
 Is it therefore true that these animals are going about their daily life, doing things they do when no human is hunting them? True
 
 Do undisturbed animals feed calmly, lay down and just enjoy the day, or are they constantly running about nervously checking every tree and rock.
 
 Do you think that animals know what a rifle is? Do you think they know that they've been shot. Do you think that they can comprehend that fact that a bullet has passed through their body?
 
 Why do animals flee? Do they do so to escape an enemy or threat? Would an animal perceive a pain in their chest as a threat or would they think that it's just another pain in their chest like all the others they've possibly had.
 
 Are they frightened by noise? If so, why don't they run around, going somewhere at the clap of thunder or the crash of a falling tree?
 
 In the majority of cases, as directly observed by me, animals shot at long range typically move a short distance and die on their feet or lay down and die. They seem to do this as long as there is no danger perceived by the individual or any member of the group. If one member of a group/herd begins a helter skelter dash the rest may follow but this is very seldom the case and I've only observed this on herds of WhiteTail deer customarily shot at ranges in the 300 to 500 yard area.
 
 I've seen deer lick and bite themselves to clean themselves and remove flies and other insects. Sometimes they'll even bolt ahead a few feet or run a short distance but this is usually telegraphed by their switching tail. I sometimes see actions very similar to this when the animal is shot, they sometimes bolt a few feet and look back as if to see the whatever that "bit" them. They rarely if ever react to the sound of the gunshot if the distance is great enough (this distance seems to be an individual trait but generally about 400 yards is enough for a new deer herd). Sometimes they'll begin to lick the wound while standing if there is time before death or lay down as if they are suddenly tired or analyzing the new experience.
 
 
 You're correct in that we have no control or how the animals will react when shot, this is exactly the same as any other hunter. The difference is that the animals we shoot at LR have generally been observed for a longer period of time and often the guy with the more experience observing animals in their natural state has a better understanding of how they react and what they (the animals) consider to be danger.
 
 The definition of hunting is as personal as ethics. When I hunt (as in hunt to kill), I go into the field with a rifle or other hunting implement. I do this to locate the/a game animal I intend to kill. The distance has nothing to do with the reason I go hunting. If I'm just out scouting, I'm still hunting but I don't intend to kill something, I take along a rifle or whatever just in case I happen upon a worthy trophy or meat animal.
 
 Do I sometimes not get an animal during a hunt? Yes, sometimes I choose not to shoot and sometimes I don't see an animal I consider worthy, sometimes I don't see an animal at all. Is my success rate high that other hunters? I'd say yes, it is, and it's because I can confidently take the shots that other hunters only dream about. Does this make me special or someone to be shunned? I don't think so but others do, some folks shun me and other want to learn how it's done. I'm not too terrible concerned with being shunned but I do get excite when folks won't be open minded enough to see that it's just the same as what everyone else is doing only just a little further. Each hunting trip I'm comfronted by someone, usually it's initally a skeptic, after the hunt I'm aften asked to teach folks how it's done and afterward they're very pleased with the outcome.
 
 Why do I hunt long range (my variant of Long Range Hunting)? I hunt this way because I can, it's been built into the way I hunt, it's second nature to me. I position myself where I can observe the most likely spots that an animal may appear. One of these spots may only be a few yards from my position, the furthest spot may be 1000 yards away. I watch all these sites where the animals appear or move through, why shouldn't I, they're all in range.
 
 Sure, I can stalk a deer or an elk and shoot it a 3 feet, it's difficult and a rewarding accomplishment. But, If I happen to see a B&C class deer or elk at 700 yards while I'm stalking another or possibly the same critter why not shoot it? Do I need to get inside ??? distance to make it legitimate and rewarding, I think not.
 
 Maybe it's not been addressed, but just because a Long Range Hunter can shoot long range dosen't mean he also dosen't shoot short range, we're still hunters.
 
 You mention a high element of risk. I'm not sure if you intend that to mean the risk to losing an animal or the risk or missing the shot. I'n either case the risk is minimized by experience, practice and an understanding of the limitations of the situation.
 
 LRH is not something one just takes up a rifle and does. It's a learned process with many variations and lessons. The equipment is often specialized or a modified form the standard hunter's equipment. The lessons include, marksmanship, animal behavior, tracking, scouting, ballistics, and more. Pretty much the same things as standard deep woods hunting but with little changes to meet the requirements of greater distances and follow-up time(s).

Hi Dave King.....Glad to see you join the fight......A word of advice however,They do like to hit below the belt.A protective cup IS recommended...................:)

Hey Boyd...I don't know you...but based on that post, I don't want to.
 
 Dave, that was a very well written reply. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to someone who hasn't been part of this discussion before.
 
 Suluug: You seem to be replying to something posted somewhere else that I haven't seen, so apologies if I am missing the point, but isn't the whole point of stalking to get close enough to an animal to make a clean kill?
 
 My limit at pulling the trigger on deer sized game is about 150 yards under most conditions. If I have a clear shot to take the game cleanly at 150, why would I try to get to 15? If I'm hunting that means I'm taking the first sure shot I have. I'm there to take the animal, not play games with them.
 
 Now don't get me wrong. Some guys have no business shooting beyond 50 yards, let alone 500. If some sicko lets the game walk at 20 so he can try to hit it at 2000, he doesn't deserve a license. And if he is only 90% sure he can make the shot he shouldn't try, but IF these guys know from experience that they can ring the gong 100 out of 100 under the same conditions, why not take the animal at the first clean shot opportunity regardless of the distance?

Dave King... Thanks for sharing. Boyd decided to call me "thick headed" and "closed-minded". Understand this, one does not need to be what he called me to have the views I have. Common sense tells of it.
 I simply do not agree with the way LRS do their "hunts". I question this method simply because I feel it's not necessarily the best thing to be doing, shooting at live animals at extreme ranges.
 Its possible that MORE can happen during the bullet's flight time, then if it were closer. I'm sure at least you can agree with this notion. Your experience, and that of other LRS, is taken into account here, but the higher element of risk (ie a wounded animal making off for longer periods of time to suffer) is still not justified, in my opinion. Simply you have no control over what the animal may decide to do at any given time, regardless of the ability, experiecne, etc. one may have.
 A lot of whats in my above post, concerning the simularities to target shooting and live animal shooting at extreme ranges, still stands. At least thats how I see it.
 Here's wishng you all the best. Enjoy your method of hunting. ~~~Suluuq

Rusty-Gunn
 
 You're welcome.
 
 I have no problem with your ideals and values and share some of your concerns. A very big part of Long Range Hunting is analyzing the situation(s), questionable shots are to be avoided but mistakes do happen.
 
 One thing that I haven't seen mentioned on this site is the differing LRH techniques and ranges typically involved.
 
 If you'll bear with me a bit I'll mention a few variations.
 
 There are the heavier "carry" rifle folks, these type often shoot from the prone position and sometimes don't travel in pairs (shooter & spotter). The ranges are typically limited to the 1000 yard maximum area (+ or - a few hundred). The rifles used for this are not terrible different than a heavy varmint or sniper rifle. I'll label these fellas Standard Long Range Hunters (SLRH)
 
 There are the bench style (3 legged tripod or 4 legged bench) folks. These folks will use the heavy varmint style rifles too but also use very heavy "bench" style guns. These fellas shoot to 2500 to 3000 yards depending on caliber and conditions. They are a team type shooter and use a pair of folks. I'll label these folks Ultra Long Range Hunters (ULRH)
 
 There is not a division or squabble in our ranks the distinction is to help you understand the equipment and techniques of the two major (as I see it) groups.
 
 These are generalizations:
 
 The SLRH are hard to distinquish from a standard hunter when afield, there may be a few bits of extra equipment, a LASER, a Sand Sock, a bipod or a notebook, just some little "extra" piece of gear and a heavier looking rifle.
 
 The ULRH would be easily distinquished, bench or tripod, big-eyes, positioned on a prominent point or overlook.
 
 The SLRH's generally don't have the commanding view that the ULRH's have (in many cases but not all).
 
 The position we LRH's setup in and the distances we shoot are determined by our safety/comfort factor.
 
 We're not about loosing or wounding animals, we're no different than any other concerned hunter.
 
 Don't get the idea that we ALWAYS hunt and shoot long range, it's a tool that we have and that we sometimes use.
 
 Things that are needed to be safe and enable us to retrieve animals are practiced and learned. Finding the location of an animal shot ar long(er) range is not like those of the standard hunting method. Shooter and animal positions are marked by various methods or a spotter stay at the shooting site and directs the retreival folks. Many times the shooter or spotter actually see the animal fall it it's the type critter that decides to move after being shot. The time taken to get to the animals location it to the hunter's advantage and the non-alarmed animal will bed down and not make a mad-scared dash for safety.
 
 I can't include enough info to give you the assurances that we're responsible in our methods, just be aware that we are generally are a very responsible lot and not a bunch of shoot crazed folks.
 
 Thanks for you understanding and time.
 
 /respectfully

RG,
 
 Dave, has it pretty much right, well basically he hit the nail on the head. The LRH's here prior to Dave ( me included ) have gotten so badgered that we have all our defense mechanisms in place. Honestly I think you can't blame us.
 
 I for one am the SLRH. DC is the ULRH. We both have similar interests and goals but I have many years before I can accomplish what DC does.
 
 THe objective is hunting. The goal is long range or extreme range. BUT that doesn't always happen.
 
 For instance, I have lotsa Coyotes behind my place. I called a few here and there, I found a pack on some older deer ready to kill a smaller 1 year old doe... the lead Coyote started in on the the small doe from about 150 yards from her. The others started to circle. I anchored the lead Yote after he paused about 125 yards from the small doe. He was 558 yards from me. After the shot the other Coyotes were to concerned the leader wasn't moving that the deer moved off the mountain to my pastures, to live another day.
 
 Last night same thing but it all happend at about 60 yards.... This time I didn't kill anything but a warning shot infront of the Yote had the same effect.. the small doe lives another day...
 I realize we do need Yotes but I have thinned that pack enough.
 
 I know I know I can't play with mother nature. See I have this affection for this doe, she was born on the back of our property really really late spring almost early summer.. I want her to make it to summer.... awwww the big nasty LRH has a heart.. yes it is true....

Dave... Thank you for the run-down. Although I am gaining more insight into the methods used, I'm not quite willing to give-in, as I still don't feel comfortable with some aspects of it. enjoy. ~~~Suluuq

Rusty-Gunn
 
 You're welcome.
 
 Again, I have no problem with you or your position, it's entirely natural to have reservations.
 
 There are things that some hunters do that I find uncomfortable too, When I'm around those types I also often discuss the/those issues. Sometimes it gets a little exciting most often not, it depends on their tolerance for being scutinized/studied. Most times I find the differences to be regionalized variations and an adapation to "fill the pot", many are left over from earlier days and harder times. Most times I enjoy the diversity and opportunity to exchange info and meet new folks.
 
 /r

I'm with Rusty Gunn, this day and age, the meat really isn't needed, why take a chance of wounding a living creature when a target would show positive results. I have to believe it's nothing but an ego trip, look what I did type thing. A bear will run from bee stings, don't tell this old hunter a deer or elk with a leg shot off won't leave the country, especially in hunting season when they are jumped constantly. All I see here is smoke rings trying to justify. Anyone disagree and immediately they are attacked as not knowing anything because they haven't done it. I haven't jumped off the roof but know the outcome if I did. Been hunting big game for 50 years, collecting guns for 60, shooting for 65. Handloaded for many years, was a warden in NM for awhile, been to two Texas goat ropings and a rodeo. Smelled a lot of smoke, even the funny kind they had in Dallas awhile back. Any you guys from Dallas? -- no

Need One
 
 This is meant in a light tone, not a clenched fist ear biting response.
 
 Perhaps you have confused me with someone that likes failure. When I shoot at an animal I do so with the full intentions of killing it, first shot. I'm not interested at all in shooting dozens of creatures in the hopes of eventually finding one.
 
 No ego trip, only experience and practice.
 
 Lets look at your bear and bee stings example. How far will the bear run? Until he's in the next county or only until the bees stop/subside and he feels safe/comfortable. Does he look back to see if they are following or does he run helter skelter in a non particular direction or toward a safe place or just a short distance as he's learned will be sufficient?
 
 I'm not terribly familiar with elk but quite familiar with whitetail deer. How far will they (deer) run with a broken leg? Until the leg heals or until they feel safe? Do they have a territory or do they run for miles in hopes of outrunning the unseen enemy.
 
 I don't believe deer can formulate a plan for action prior to an event outside their experience. They react in a specific manner, they flee danger not pain (pain as they perceive it). If the pain is not known to be caused by an external agent they don't flee. Have you ever witnessed an obviously injured deer that wasn't running or fleeing? Why was it stopped if pain is the cause for fleeing?
 
 I have not attacked anyone, only related what I have seen and experienced as related to the pertinent question/discussion.
 
 No justification, I shoot and hunt the way I do because it's productive for me. This is also the method you use I believe, productive and practiced.
 
 The distance I shoot is only that which is required to kill the quarry. I don't back up to make the distance further, I don't setup to shoot any further than I need to. I do however, setup in position to provide the greatest opportunity for success. The closer the distance the better I like it but I won't pass on a long distance shot that I know I can comfortably and confidently make, same as you no doubt (distances may vary depending on operator).
 
 I have no quarrel with anyone here, I only answer the questions as presented. I have no motivation to relate falsehoods or exaggerations.
 
 Experience is a wonderful thing and it's useful. It's seemingly apparent that you have considerable experience at what you do with all the years you've stated. I too have considerable experience with what I do and it's just as valid as your's but it's in a different environment.
 
 There are many types of basic personal traits, some folks are optimists and then there are the pessimists, there are time oriented folks and task oriented types. I have been described as a task oriented person and am by my own evaluation an optimist. I have structured my life around these traits and it effects the way I do things. Each event is a task at which I expect to succed, failure is a difficult thing for me (as it is for most folks). I practice and perform tasks with rigid and trained repeatability, I can't dance worth a damn but I can shoot very well.
 
 I haven't been posting on this site for very long and only post here in an effort to offer my experience in long range shooting and hunting, the forum we're posting in right now. I do this expecting nothing in return and don't expect to be belittled for the manner in which I practice these endeavors. I often meet new people (face to face) while shooting and hunting and I've not had any difficulty with them over hunting practices or ethics. It's only on these forums that things go poorly and folks get bent out of shape. I believe it's only the perception of what others think I do while hunting rather than the actual event that occur during my hunting expeditions.
 
 I believe folks have the idea that I guess at the distance to the critter and then pick a seemingly appropriate spot in the sky over the critter as the needed elevation and let lead fly. This is not at all the case, distances for successful long range shots must be know prior to the shot. There is no "hold over", the actual scope adjustment data is readily availiable to me for any distance I've practiced and am ready to shoot. The rifle(s) is/are custom made and very accurate as is the ammunition.
 
 No, I'm not blowing smoke. What I'm doing is posting into the Long Range Hunting section of this forum, a section specifically set aside for Long Range Hunting in an apparent attempt to get specifics about this aspect of hunting.
 
 I believe the folks that have the greatest opposition to the true Long Range Hunters are those that have an incorrect preconceived notion that we're the guys that fling "hail Mary's" at critters in the hopes of eventually/someday getting our first deer/elk. The real truth in most cases is far from this incorrect assumption.
 
 
 
 What are you doing? Contributing to the Long Range Hunting forum with positive productive posts or trying to belittle something that when the truth be told you may have insufficient or little actual knowledge? Are you posting only emotional, prejudiced and secondhand knowledge information or useful firsthand info..
 
 The contributions to this forum are based on the respondents, knowledge and experience are probably more beneficial than emotional outbursts and incorrect presuppositions.
 
 
 
 
 This is the reason there is a safe haven at www.LongRangeHunting.Com. More information and less emotional banter.

Dear Mr. King,
 
 I will be the first to admit you are very professional in your response. I could relate to your answers down to the final paragraphs when it became apparent you have used this many times before to calm the flood of criticism of shooting animals at extreme distance. You and I both know with distance, in the field, there are many, many, different obstacles to overcome shooting a mentalic smokeless powder powered projectile. Not to mention the whims of mother nature with temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, wind, light, mirage, along with the human elements which are the greatest problem with our reflexes,(eye hand coordination), how the rifle is held at each shot, temperature of barrel and cartridge, (at the actual shooting spot), angle of shot, and on and on. All this must be in coordination at each shot for best results. Most can be overcome by man but NOT mother nature OR the animal it's self. A 1000 yard or longer shot, the amimal can move at the touch of the trigger resulting in a wounded animal. YES, I have read all the claims from both sides BUT I live in the real world and have seen what really happens in the field to humans and the animals they hunt.
 Many are interested in long range shooting, (myself included), but we question shooting at a live creature for your personal enjoyment when a target would show the result without chance of causing a slow painfull death. Just like wearing seat belts to protect yourself, don't take the shot to protect the animal. Now I'm sure there will be a defiance from the LRH for the comparison. Yes, this board was created for the LRHs, I suggested it be moved here from the Campfire and Rick being the great webmaster he is saw the need, Amen!
 I can understand why the board you came from is monitored with an iron fist. Did it ever occur to the LRH with all the opposition from your fellow hunters you may be doing something wrong? Why do you have to shoot at a live creature at extended ranges when a plain target would gain you all the support you want? JMHO -- no

I've been in many discussions about long range hunting, this is true. The responses are as neutral as I feel necessary to reduce the defensive response of other folks. The response to you in my previous post is original, I've never used it before and probably will never use it again. It's a direct result of your post and questions. I don't have a stockpile of responses and pull one from inventory as needed, I reply as many other do, from the cuff. If the response sounds/appears pre-made it's perhaps because I spend a good deal of time studying, talking and practicing this style of shooting, it's natural to me and I fairly well versed in some aspects of it.
 
 Environmentals as you mention are an obstacle but not an insurmountable obstacle. Sufficient accuracy can be achieved by a practiced shooter with verified data.
 
 I personally have never shot at an animal beyond 1000 yards as that is too far for my equipment, style and practice. The furthest I've shot a big game animal is 905 yards, I am not an Ultra Long Range hunter. The rifles I use are just heavy hunting rifles.
 
 The real world you live in is the same one I live in, no difference. I don't know if you've ever seen the accuracy the can be achieved shooting from a bipod and a rear rest but it's plenty accurate for large critters to considerable distances.
 
 You are the one implying that I shoot at live animals for my personal pleasure. I hunt for the same reasons other folks hunt, to bag the game animal either for meat or trophy. I am telling you that I am hunting in a manner that includes the possibility of shooting animals at distances further than most hunters shoot. For me, and I speak only for me in this statement, there is no difference whether I shoot the critter at 10 feet or 600 yards, the task is to kill the critter, it's not about the distance of the shot. I don't belong to a club that gives out pins/patches for distance. I hunt the way I hunt because it's effective and I complete the task
 
 I do shoot targets and I shoot targets further and far more often than I shoot animals. I shoot in competitions at times and I sometimes win, I do enjoy winning.
 
 I'm having a difficult time convincing you that I have no intention of wounding an animal and that the shots I take are with the confidence gained through years of practice and experience. It's a simple matter to me, I shoot when I'm sure I'll be able to kill the animal, why would it be any other way. If I somehow derived pleasure from wounding animals and chasing the poor things around the countryside it'd be a lot easier than how I'm doing it now.
 
 The greatest discord comes from the folks that have somehow turned responsible long range hunting into something it is not. It is not any more wrong to shoot animals at long range and kill them than it is to shoot them at short ranges and kill them. It is wrong to embark upon an endeavor that will wound animals, it matters not the range.
 
 Again, you mention the long shot is the culmination of the event, and I'm telling you that for me it's not.
 
 Yes, the LRH Forum that many of us posting here have frequented is managed with an iron fist, it's done in that manner so that useful, technical information can be delivered and received in an environment conducive to productivity. This forum has a lot of traffic, imagine if all the traffic was for the exchange of technical information rather than the smoothing over of mismatched perceptions.
 
 I guess the only way to put it in just a few words is as follows. (Relative to the several posts we've been through)
 
 I shoot animals within distances that I feel confident that I can make a killing shot. I practice at distances up to and beyond the distances I shoot these animals. Once I feel that I have sufficient practice, expertise and data for a given distance I will shoot animals to that distance. I am as responsible as any other hunter you would happen across. My practice involves the same shooting positions I use in the field, I don't shoot from a bench at practice and then shoot off-hand in the field, the practice and field positions are the same.
 
 I can't see any difference in this regard whether the person has a personal limit of 150 yards or 600 yards.
 
 Please consider that of the many hundreds of big game animals I've shot over the years (mostly deer), most were shot at distances in the 100 yard area, long range is a tool I have but it's not the only tool I have/use.
 
 I truly desire to provide technical and factual information as I have acquired from my practice, reading and experience. I have no intention to foster inappropriate acts or falsehoods.
 
 You have considerable years of experience and I'm sure you've met numerous folks in your lifetime. I would hope that every once in a while you've met someone that is proper and offering factual information. I would like to believe that eventually you'll see that I'm one of those type folks. I invite you to browse the posts at the LongRangeHunting site and think about the information, you may find out that many of us are just hunters, quirky, but hunters.
 
 I'm sure we'll talk again, and I'd like to think it'd be about things related to LRH and animal behavior and not regarding the questioning of morals and ethics (I hope you can begin to believe I'm as ethical as any responsible hunter). If you wish to talk on the phone, call me on my cell and I'll call you back, I have a lot of prepaid long distance and I would enjoy opportunity to verbally discuss these issues. (301) 908-7970
 
 
 (Edited)
 Sorry for the abrupt ending, I was interrupted.

Mr. King,
 
 You would do well to educate your fellow LRS in communication with the public. As for me, I will never take a shot at extended ranges for big game. The risk is too great, and as you know, is not needed. Most game is killed less then 200 yards, why take a shot past 350 yards,(when conditions allow), when the possibilities of a miss increase so dramatically. I am sure with special equipment longer shots can be accomplished but MOST hunters do not have that kind of equipment. When the average hunter sees this kind of banter on the boards and claiming killing animals from 1000 to 2400 yards this opens up to anything I can see, I can shoot. Both sides claiming if they can do it, I can too!! Who suffers, the animals!! If a LRH had to post $500 for each shot past 350 yards and forfit with a wounding or missed shot, I wonder how many would take the shots. The way it is now, the only thing the hunter has to louse is a spent round and the game a slow painful death with a miss of a few inches.
 
 My personal ethics do not match the LRHs and with this post I refuse to fuel the fire and keep interest on this board.
 
 Best to you from an old hunter that has helped increase our Big Game herds all over the country. The future is in the hands of the new hunters and the ethics they hold dear. -- no

Very well, thanks for the response.
 
 Hope things remain well for you into the distant future and I wish you the best.
 
 respectfully
 
 Dave King
 
 P. S. The phone call offer is still extended, I truly would enjoy the opportunity to chat with you or other hunters that have questions about responsible(?) LRH practices and principles.

One thing I do notice, is the aspect of mother nature vs personal ability. LRS like to over-shadow the beyound-one's-control aspect with touts of their ability. One's ability/equipment does not justify taking chances with what's beyound one's control. For this, I don't support shooting animals at extreme ranges.
 It does not make any difference how great a shot one is... it won't make up for what's beyound their control.
 Its a tragedy some don't respect the difference between ability and no control. ~~~Suluuq

Aspects of Mother Nature and no control over those events.
 
 Recall that earlier I mentioned the two basic groups of LR Hunters, I will speak for me and for many of the folks shooting in my form of LRH. (I do not speak for the ULR Hunters because I believe Darryl has mentioned the aspect of spotter rounds for verification already.)
 
 I believe there is another misconception that has not been addressed, that of the shooters ability to pass on a shot. I believe there is a major misinterpretation with regard to the actual pulling of the trigger.
 
 We/I practice in the wind and weather, many of us shoot in competitions or practice ranges where there are significant and often difficult winds. When one is shooting in a competition (or perhaps a bet) the shooter is required to shoot a round or several rounds within a specified period of time regardless of the environmental conditions. Therefore practice in the wind is a good thing but a fickle wind will humble a shooter very quickly. Shooters become acutely aware of the wind and also their personal limitations on firing a high probability first round hit in varying degrees of wind.
 
 As nearly anyone knowns and what I believe is being alluded to here by Rusty-Gunns previous post is wind and it's effects on the projectile. The wind is probably the single most difficult thing to master and can be the most significant confounder in accurate shooting. This is learned early on by nearly all shooters.
 
 What I believe is being missed/omitted is that we (LRH) are not at the mercy of the wind in the same manner as a competition shooter. We can simply pass on the shot and pack our gear up or we can reposition closer if possible or we can also setup so the wind is favorable. It always nice to have a no-wind situation but that isn't always the case and there are some parts of the country that I believe never have no-wind days (the area of TX I just hunted in has trees with branches only on one side). Certainly a no-wind is better than a wind and a constant wind is better than a switching or gusting wind. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that wind's a problem when it's gusting to 20 and switching. Those days are good days for setting up for short shooting or staying in bed. My personal limit on wind when shooting at big game animals is in the 5 to 7 mph range (unless it's a no-value wind) and I don't like a full value wind no matter the amount. A no-value or half-value wind is always much easier than a full-value.
 
 (I figure wind according to the direction it's crossing the line of fire. If the wind intersects the line of fire at a angle greater than 45 degrees and less than 135 degrees it's a full-value (2-4 o'clock or 8-10 o'clock), if it intersects at less than 45 degrees or more than 135 degrees but not from 0 (zero) or 180 degrees, it's a half-value wind, 0 (zero) and 180 degrees are no-value winds for the most part.)
 
 I'm getting too involved here, sorry.
 
 Suffice to say that wind is considered and I always have the option to not shoot or reposition for the next critter.
 
 I will also mention that I nearly always nowadays consider wind values, even when shooting only 100 yards or so, it's a good habit to get into.
 
 (Other environmentals are well understood by most shooters, temperature and elevation being major considerations.)
 
 If these are not the effects of Mother Nature that were being put forth please correct me.
 
 Thanks for your time and patience.

Rusty-Gunn
 
 After I finished my previous post I noticed you had posted into another thread regarding LRH and somewhat similar concerns. Being new(er) to this board I'll take a liberty of answering that particular post here and hope that I'm not violating protocol too badly, I don't want to get bound up in the other thread (I take "newbie immunity").
 
 Here's your post:
 
 An observation, worthy of a come-back by the LRS...
 
 1 LRS have total control over a bullet in flight!
 
 2 LRS have total contol over weather ie gusts, etc!
 
 3 LRS have total control over animal behavior before and after a bullet is in flight!
 
 4 LRS have total control over what an animal may decide to do when wounded, due to #2!
 
 5 LRS do not have shooter-error!
 
 6 LRS have abolute ability, and hence have no faults of their own!
 
 You see where this is going? Its not about one's ability! Damn!
 Its the risk, or lack of respect for this risk, of taking a chance on shooting animals at extreme ranges, where one has no control of the possibilities of another outcome. Don't confuse your personal ability with the extra risk involved. ~~~Suluuq
 
 
 First I'll repeat that I only shoot long(er) range when I feel the need, it's not the method I use for all or the majority of my hunting. It's a tool that I have at my disposal.
 
 1. I don't have control over the bullet in flight, you're correct. But trajectories are repeatable and predictable to a large degree, this is what I am banking on.
 
 2. I have no control over the weather. I do however notice the weather and when it exceeds by limits I reposition more favorably or hunt in a manner suited to the weather conditions.
 
 3. I have some control over the behavior of the animal prior to the shot. I can easily make them flee in many cases and sometimes I can make them stop for a moment. What I do have at my disposal is experience with the animals I'm familiar with (local and species). I use this information to assess whether to take the shot or wait, and sometime to make the decision on which animal to shoot first (when culling). I use this same information whether I'm shooting long range or not.
 
 4. I have not control over that aspect of the animals behavior. Some animals are fighters and some are not, some die easily and other cling to life. If the animal is frightened during the event and if they apparently have knowledge of danger they may flee. I can only hazard a guess as to what they'll do when wounded and fleeing. In my experience, if they sense no external danger they will not flee wildly or otherwise. It's as though they are awaiting additional input to make an educated decision (in many cases, as they are individuals). This is also the same for shorter distances and some folks certainly have observed this while stalking.
 
 5. Yes, we have shooter error. Practice deminishes the likelihood but it's always a possibility. I'd say that external event are the main contributer, a rest may move or the leg of the bipod may creep or fall off a pebble. It is an everpresent possibility.
 
 6. I do not have absolute ability, I have known ability.
 (One thing that I do know, somewhere out there is the best shooter on the planet and he's probably not shooting in any competitions. He's probably creeping around in a woods somewhere with a squirrel rifle shooting supper. I keep this in mind and whenever I hear someone say "He's the best shooter!" it's then that I wonder what that other fella is doing, the real best shooter.)
 
 Now we come to the contested portion, the risk assessment. Yes, there is risk and some are more willing to take on a greater risk. But with any risk comes moral responsibility, the responsibility of the shooter to eliminate as many variables as possible until the risk is reduced to the point where it is acceptable to the shooter. This responsibility is the same for all responsible hunters, short and long range.
 
 And, lastly, I'll admit that I have witnessed events that I find objectionable from both communities. And during the course of my life I have made mistakes and fortunately been lucky enough to learn from most of them.
 
 I feel that a responsible hunter is a responsible hunter, distance, methods and age matters little. Hunt and shoot within limitations, venture outside the envelope as little and as infrequently as possible.
 
 If you will carefully read over the many posts offered, I believe you may see that risk is involved and that precautions are taken. These precautions may not be initially as they appear, spotters and commanding views, large caliber rifles and/or heavy for caliber bullets. Hunting in areas known and frequented by the hunter seems to be a common theme too.
 
 There may not be nearly as many animals shot at long range by professed LRH as non-LRH folks envision, far more I'd venture are shot at shorter ranges and every now and again when conditions are correct and there's not another option the shot is taken (I can't speak for the ULR Hunters here either, they hunt different terrain than I do).
 
 Again, a long answer to a short question, but I felt compelled to reply.

DaveKing,
 You are the only lucid, reasonable spokesman for LR hunting, or at least the medium range version of it, who has posted. I may not be comfortable with the risks, but I read your post above with interest and respect, since you wrote with respect. You are the first who has addressed the reality of shot difficulties and how you deal with them, rather than evading or denying that they are a problem. Thank you. You write like a hunter, who has the ability to stretch the range when needed.

Mr King I have said that I would no longer post on this subject but I feel compelled to reply to your post. Thank you for a most honest and studied discourse. Put in the perspective that you presented I have much less problem with the whole idea. If I understand your positon it is to reguard LRS as a tool to be used or that can be used if there is no other, more sure way to take a particular animal. I do not believe that any hunter would maintain that the difficulty of getting a humane kill decreases with distance.
 It is the idea that somehow some merit is attached to shooting a game animal at some vast distance when other means are available to make the shot more sure that rankles. You did not express this attitude and I thank you for it.
 While I can shoot accurately no more than @350 and have no desire to spend the time and effort it would take to stretch this futher for the miniscule opportunity I would have to use it I would not begrudge you your use of your skill.
 As a method of last resort it is quite acceptable to me provided one stays inside their skill level. As a prefered method and to risk disaster with each trigger pull simply to have braging rights on distance is not my cup of tea.
 Thank you again for your post.
 BCR

DaveKing... Thank you for such a fine explaination. Respecting what you feel is good enough for you (and other LRS), I'll toss my self of the soap box, and leave you LRS alone. You're the man I'll look for when I need a LRS question answered. Thanks. ~~~Suluuq

long range, well as others have stated, how long???at what game animal?? paper punching??? 2506,6.506,6.5284,are a few.

BCR,
 
 You would be suprized at what you can accomplish with a little practice. I am not sure what rifles you have but I bet with some hand loads and a little tweeking of your trigger, you could easily feel comfortable to 500 with good conditions.

WW Thank you for your kind observation. My primary hunting rifle is a standard 270 Win in which I use handloads utilizing the 140 Nosler BT at just under 2900 fps. This is the most accurate hunting load in my rifle after years of trial. The other is a Ruger MKII in 7.62X39 and we all know what the Russian round is don't we? I have no doubt that the 270 rifle and load are capable of hitting within the kill zone at greater distances than my self imposed limit. About the best stability I can obtain under my hunting conditions would be comprable to the sitting position with sling. You are most probably correct that with enough practice my range could be extended to some degree. I just have no desire to expend the time and effort to attempt accomplishing range extension. As the old saying goes to me "the game is not worth the candle."
 Best wishes for success in your continuing endevors.
 BCR

Well, can't say I didn't try... you would still be amazed at what you can acomplish. Basicallt if you took the time to develope those hand loads.. you already did 90% of the work and got alot more practice in than you think. Your almost there , just didn't realize it....

Dave some folks never learn, they still refer to you as a LRS not a LRH. I'm not a long range hunter or shooter. The only ranges I can pratice on are 100 Yrds. I will take a shot out to 200yrds (Selfimposed limit) becuase that is as far as I would be comfortable with my limited pratice. My brother in Pa. takes a number of deer each year at 375 yrds. He has praticed for those shots, he knows the terrain and distances very well. Last year he passed on a trophy deer at 800yrds because he wasn't sure of himself. He is now praticing at 600 yrds. He is sure of this animal and will close the gap a bit in order to get a clean kill. Every time I tried to get information about the max effective range of a 270 I get the same CRAP you have to endure. I know there are fools out there that have no business squeezing a trigger at any range and who have few morals. You can't stop them by not talking about a subject nor will talking about it have no bearing on them since they don't have common scence. If they see a nice animal at any distance they will try a shot reguardless of their lack of experence or knowledge.
 Thank you for bearing the slings and arrows of contempt to express your view so well. I Don't long range hunt but sure would like to be able to get the pratice necessary for it so I could add that tool to my belt.
 By the way, how many of us short range shooters like to pick off ground vermen at 400yrds or more? Is wounding a rat so much less a crime? It's an animal isn't it? We're not into vermen for the meat! It's fun! Small target, long distance. We're doing the farmer a favor, right? No fun involved here!
 Give the guy a break guys! He's and experienced well versed hunter with a wealth of knowledge to share if you will only give him a chance. He's also a moral and ethical hunter. I believe 99% of what he said. The only thing I don't buy into is the braging rights. He's competitive, every boy was/is. I droped two deer within two minutes of each other and droped them back to back at 150yrds this year! Heck ya I'm into braging rights. I worked hard to know where those deer would be, got out of bed at 3:30 am and slept in the woods until it was light. I was the only one to get a deer this year. Braging rights, you darn streight. Two shots two deer dead in their tracks, I praticed long and hard to take a shot like that! Like wise so have the true LRHs. I don't do it and will not take a shot over 200 yrds that's my choice. We shouldn't knock a hunter who has obviously worked hard to develope the skill level this man has. To do so only limits the wealth of information he has to offer us.

I guess we will mark you down as a vote for long range. [Linked Image]

Welcome to the campfire.

I'm sorry to respond to this thread so late, but I just found it.
 
 First of all, exactly how far does a shot have to be to be considered long range?
 
 Second, I consider hunting to be me personally outsmarting a deer's natural defenses: sight, smell, hearing. The shot is not hunting, it's getting into a position that enables me to take a shot that is hunting. If you just walk a long a huge open field, see deer 2000 yards away, shoot, kill it cleanly, how is that hunting? You didn't have to do anything special, you just had to shoot it...which is why you would be a long range shooter. If everything was out of the animals hands (metaphorically speaking), you didn't hunt the animal, you shot it. I don't consider it unethical, I just don't consider it hunting. It's shooting.
 
 Just my opinion.
 
 Richard

southern_hunter -
 
 Okay, so it looks like you're against LR?
 
 Welcome also.
 
 R-WEST

I wouldn't say that I'm against LR, I just don't consider it hunting.
 
 If you don't have to "beat" the animal in anyway, then you didn't hunt it. When you are 50 yards away, one wrong move and the hunter is caught. When you are 2000 yards away, I bet you could yell and scream and the deer wouldn't even care. 2000 yards...that's over a mile a way...can anyone actually even see a deer that far away? 500 yards to me is the same...just walk around looking for little specks, then shoot them
 
 Granted, you have to be a good shot to do it, but that's it.
 
 That said, I would still rather shoot my own food then buy it, so LRS doesn't seem unethical at all to me...just not hunting. Then again, I don't know of anyone who's ever been, so maybe there is more skill involved then I'm giving y'all credit for.
 
 By the way, did someone say that LRS (or LRH...I don't care) carry benches into the field? If that's true, then I think it's sort of sad.
 
 Richard

Yes, I believe if you go through some of the posts, they definitely used a bench or support of some kind.

Is there anyone out there who has sucessfully shot game at long range and thinks it is unethical?
 
 I believe all of the nay sayers and non believers are non participants.
 
 Blasting LRH on the platform that it does not give the game a sporting chance wears thin when delivered by anyone who hunts a scoped high power rifle.
 
 If one truly believes that you have to get close to the game in order for it to be true and pure hunting then hunt with a bow and arrow and be a real ethical hunter. In the mean time quit whining about it. At 200 yards or 2000 yards a deer does not have much of a chance aginst a hunter who has a scoped high power rifle and the skill to use it. That tune is getting old, time to sing a different song..........

I agree, Prairie Dog. There isn't much difference between 200 yards and 2000 yards. It doesn't take any hunting skills to shoot a deer that far away...it takes shooting skills, and I honestly don't see how anyone could disagree about that. As I said earlier, I have never tried to shoot anything more than a hundred or so yards away, so I don't have any personal experience. If there is more skill involved, please just tell me what it is. I have read through all of the previous post, and I can't find anyone who mentions any necessary skills besides shooting.
 
 And what do you mean that "all of the nay sayers and non believers are non participants?" Non participants of what? Long Range? Hunting in general? If you are talking about long range only, then of course the nay sayers are non participants...generally people who don't believe in something don't participate in it.
 
 I'll say it again...I don't think shooting an animal at long distances in unethical in anyway. If someone shot at a deer that was 1000 yards away and didn't think they have a good shot, that might be unethical...but I won't make a blanket statement that LRS is unethical because I simply think that would be unfair.
 
 This is not meant to offend anyone, it's just how I feel.
 
 Richard

Partsman
 
 The Ultra Long Range folks shooting at very long ranges often use a bench or a tripod style bench setup.
 
 Many of the Long Range shooters and ULR folks when shooting shorter (relatively) distance only use bipods and perhaps a sand sock or other style rear support.
 
 I have one rifle now that I use that won't accept a bipod and I shoot prone using a day pack for front support.

Ron Brill... Look up the word "hunt". It means to pursue. Taking game at 2000 yards is NOT hunting by any stretch of the word. There is NO hunt involved. Its only shooting at live targets at extreme distances.
 One doesn't need to participate in it to have an understanding of the meaning.
 Where is the hunting aspect of this sport? At what point in their bench-sitting do they pursue? ~~~Suluuq

Rusty Gunn....Hunting also mean's ( TO SEARCH OUT OR SEEK)We have to find them before we shoot them.We search for the deer.There for we are HUNTING for them.......And that's in the Dictionary also......Look it up..

Boy oh boy here we go again.... I get back from my business trip and still see some disturbing things....
 
 To all who think LRH are only LRS... there is some validity in that.. However, do not discount the skill involved to be competent enough to make a shot at over 500 yards. I suppose there are some LRH somewhere who just go out and set up and wait. I do not know of any but my guess is there are some. All the guys ( and Gals ) I know actually spend the off season scouting, making maps, taking notes on paterns and habits, genearly spending time researching the animals and areas they plan to hunt. So there IS hunting involved.
 
 I also know that at 500 yards you cannot make as many mistakes as you think and NOT be detected.... a well know poster on here ( from Texas ) seemed to think that you can do quite a number of things and not be detected by deer or elk.... I KNOW for a fact that you need to be just as carefull as you are archery hunting. The movements and scent ( in the wind ) here in the west are easily idetifiable to the animals that live here at distances of 100 to 1000 yards.
 
 Again, the nay sayers or non believers need to go hunting with a LRH to see that there is more hunting involved than you think....
 
 as always my door is open.....

I'm with you all the way and I use a singleshot making sure of my shot and placement of bullet and it teaches me to be patiant, I won't take a shot if I don't think it will do the job I expect. Dan

Of course long range shooting is about shooting skills.
 
 And archery, black powder, and handgun hunting would be more about getting close to game skills. Calling game is a skill, stalking game is a skill.
 
 More importantly, those are all methods. None of those methods are ethical or unethical in themselves. The ethics are in the person.
 
 I am just tired or hearing arguments about how close or far from game I should be in order to be considered an "ethical" hunter.
 
 When I choose to hunt with a bow I get within a distance that I know I can make a good kill or I do not draw an arrow.
 
 When I choose to hunt with a heavy, high power rifle I get within my effictive range or I do not turn the safety off.
 
 What does it matter how many yards away I am as long as I am shooting within my effective range? Which by the way, may be longer or shorter ( whichever method you choose ) for me than for you.
 
 Why does it upset so many that others are interested in learning to extend their effective hunting range? Given the choice, if the tools and equipment had been avaliable to them, I have no doubt that our pioneer ancestors would have been long range hunters. Did I miss a history lesson or was that not what the sharps rifle was to the buffalo hunter, a more effictive long range rifle?
 
 It seams silly to me that some think 200 yards gives a deer a more sporting chance than 2000 yards. [Linked Image]

200 yards requires no more stalking or hunting skills than 2000. But 2000 yards sure requires a heap more shooting skill.

Typical, the range mentioned was 2000 yards and to be specific, if you can shoot a .378, and they pay it no attention, what do you have to do to scare them at 2000 yards?
 
 BTW, Wyowhisper, you ever shoot any big game with those fabled matchkings yet, or are you just still telling us how they work for other people?

Hey IF how are ya I see its still snowing in texas. Shoot any more tweety birds yet? Heck I'm not sure why your on this part of the board if you are so against it....
 
 and yes I have shot some animals with matchkings... We needed to do some work for the game and fish and took some does. I also took a couple of Yotes with em'. See what you didn't know was that for most of my long range work I used another match bullet until I found others had excellent results with MK's. I'd tell you the other bullet but I'm tired of hearing you discredit all I say.... you know the drill....
 
 see ya around...
 
 BTW, so hows that stand over the feeder working for ya??

WW:
 
 Nah, I feed the tweedy birds this time of year, so they will be easier to hit when the season rolls around.
 
 I posted on here again since you, as usual, didn't tell it like it happened and referred to me while doing so.
 
 What is amazing to me is why you Long Range Snipers even bother to argue your case? Why don't you just state the facts, say that if you are interested, come over to our carefully controlled site and find out more?
 
 Instead, you and certain others seem to delight in telling hunters who disagree with your choices how wrong we are to disagree.
 
 Southern Hunter said it well, he just didn't use the catch phrase....... you remember, "fair chase". Look it up sometime.
 
 PS: I used a target bullet(Sierra International) on a hog, killed him dead, bullet performance was horrible, blew up on surface, no expansion of core that was left and all that was recoverable of the original 168 grains weighed 82.8. Anything but a lung shot would certainly have resulted in a lost hog. As was, it entered the neck area on a quartering angle at about a 150 yards, blewup with no bone contact, created a 3 inch entrance hole into chest cavity, shredded lungs and did not enter the back side of chest cavity. One example doesn't make a lesson, but I wouldn't use them again on hogs.

pds wrote:
 
 "Is there anyone out there who has sucessfully shot game at long range and thinks it is unethical?"
 
 pds, you must have hit send before you thought that one through. I respect you and it's not up to your usual posts. Sorry but I can't resist a little fun. Does anyone admit that what he does is unethical? Asking long rangers if what they do is unethical is as convincing as asking Arafat, or Sharon if what they do is unethical.
 
 "Mr. Osama, is what you are doing unethical? Your answer will settle the question for us. People who haven't killed anyone by terrorist attack aren't qualified to comment, of course."
 
 When the Long Rangers stick to details of how you achieve that kind of accuracy, most of it is useful and interesting. When you start defensively defending it and making claims about bullets, animal behaviour, etc. the posts range from exasperating to downright funny, not to mention contradictory, as If It Flies and anyone else who followed the thread noticed. Shoot light weight bullets, boys, they got thin skins at long range.

IF,
 
 Tell what like it happened..didn't you say you can burp, fart, wave flags and not be detected??? I believe you said that... If I'm wrong I appologize... It sounds like somthing you'd say....
 
 I never said anyone was wrong I simply pointed out that there is more hunting involved that most think...
 
 Fair chase...hmm... OK answer me this IF.. Tell me you never hunted on your ranch or anywhere else in texas over a food plot or over a feeder. I bet you have... Is that fair chase ???
 
 I've seen the same thing happen with a Nosler BT as well.. But that's a hunting bullet so it should work right??? BTW, what was a serious Big Game hunter like you using a bullet like that for? I guess your a hypocrit slamming us for using target bullets. If you are so against it why did you ever try it??? Just to see if they work... hmm.. they are not supposed to work and if you believe that and your so ethical .. according to you, you should have never tried it.....

WW:
 
 If you ever learned to read before you engaged your mouth or fingers, you would discover that I never said, anywhere, that I thought that MKs would not work. I hate to start this over again, but if you want to engage in debate then either quote my position or shut up and quit deliberately or, more likely, unknowingly, misstating it. If you paid attention, I also said that I would load some up and try them. I did, but while they appeared identical to MKs at a glance, they were International 168 gr .308s, which may not be exactly the same bullet, just were the first ones I grabbed, since my reloading supplies are jumbled in giant piles in several places right now.
 
 I also never said that I was a "serious" Big Game hunter, indeed am not very serious at all, if I have to shoot them a 1/2 mile or so away to be serious. But, no, I am not a serious BG hunter by most standards, never said I was. Nice try, but missed again, as usual. Hope you can shoot better than you can write.
 
 The only reason I didn't take your bet is the way it was phrased, "paying attention" as you put it, to someone waving a flag at 2000 yards is not the same as reacting defensively and leaving the area. If you want to make that bet using their total reactions as a measure, we'll use the deer here on my ranch and bring money, I'll supply the flag.
 
 Sure, I've hunted over feeder plots, do it all the time to cull does and spikes on my place, but getting a big deer off of one is a very rare occurrence in my area. Now, farther West, where rations are scarcer and some of the places are game fenced, the big ones will sometimes come to the feeders, but even then, they are rare visitors in daylight. I don't hunt those ranches so cannot really comment on how sporting it is. Just like most hunting, it is the hunters behavior that makes it sporting or not. Would I consider it fair chase to hunt game over bait, it is close, but in many areas and for some game, it is very difficult to see animals, much less shoot one, without the use of some attractants, so I would consider it to be a legitimate tool for hunters to use, SINCE THE ANIMAL CAN AND WILL USE HIS DEFENSIVE INSTINCTS ON THE BAITED SITE. Based on my limited experiences I wouldn't expect many hunters after trophy animals to have much success over bait, at least as far as deer are concerned. Haven't and almost certainly won't hunt bears, so have no knowledge about that area.
 
 I say again, if you don't like legitimate or, for that matter, illegitimate criticism, of long range sniping, then you should state your position regarding long range sniping of game animals and where the protected sites for it are located, and go about your "wasting" (as it was put by one LR hunter on the tape) of deer and elk..

If,
 
 pay attention.. I don't have enough money to pay attention can I borrow some of yours or can we bet on something....
 
 I though I remember you saying you've hunted alot of big game..... hmmm.. maybe I'm wrong...
 
 If you have so many does and spikes.. why would you need to bait them.. because they are hard to find.. r you just don't want to spend the time looking... funny huh...
 
 WOW we can really argue this fair chase thing when it concerns baiting... but this forum is not the place..
 
 all I can say is that.. eventually animals eat.. and if you enhance and or trick them into feeding in a specific area so you can shoot them from your heated blind.. "ain't no fair chase involved" my Texas ski resort owner friend....

WW:
 
 Funny, I've always considered it extremely marginal as to whether hiring gudes with all their local knowldege and pre-spotting of game was fair chase. After all, the animals have to be somewhere and if he knows where they are and takes you to them, then is it fair chase? Like most ethical questions, it is up to the hunter to decide.
 
 Most of us who manage our deer herds use feeder sites to cull does and spikes, since we don't want to spend all of our time chasing them in the bushes, and on a site, we can pick out the dry does and spikes much easier than in a fleeting glimpse in the thick stuff. I often let friends or their kids kill the does and spikes, as I said elsewhere, the kill is not the reason I hunt.
 
 You don't understand baiting since with the wide open spaces in Wyoming where you can see and ambush deer at 1000s of yards where they have NO CHANCE of detecting your presence, then the concept of the need to attract animals doesn't enter you consciousness. Why am I not surprised?
 
 This points up the basic difference between most hunters and some of the Long Range Snipers. I am not telling you that baiting is ethical for you, indeed, don't care if you bait, or don't bait, like it or don't like it. That is not my concern. If someone doesn't like it, I, as above will explain why it is done in some places where it is legal, once or twice and let them go about forming or keeping their opinions. I don't attack them personally because they don't like it, or argue that they just don't understand the fine points of the skills involved. I don't care. And, I don't set up sites devoted to baiting with anti-baiters screened out. Do you detect a difference here?

IF,
 
 Not sure why hiring a guide is not fair chase .. it is not like the animals stay in a 10" area.. I guess you've never hunted in my area of Wyo, which makes me wonder why you can comment so freely about my areas I hunt.. and how the animals here react. I guess your full of infinite wisdom...
 I understand baiting. and MY opinion is .. that it IS NOT FAIR CHASE.. how could it be....
 
 You say LRH is not fair chase... explain to me why baiting is more fair chase than LRH....

Rusty Gun, not much of a morning person are you! Get some coffee and clean your glasses before you type. Many of you who post here are into the body slam thing. That's unfortunate. This should be a forum where information and ideas are exchanged, not wise remarks and bitch slaps. I believe alot of you folks need to stop and look at yourselves and you own hunting techniques before you jump on somebody who does it different. In wide open spaces the only good shot you get is a long one. How many antalope are taken at close range? I don't LRH, I don't have that skill or a place to develop it, if I did I would! I will not knock a person who has taken the time to develope a skill that I haven't. There is a time and place for every type of hunting. I don't consider sitting above a pile of bait hunting but if you like that and it's legal what concern is that to me.
 To you folks who get your tail twisted over this subject do yourself and us a favor, DON'T read this post, it will only raise your blood presure and shortin your HUNTING seasons. If you must pipe in at least respect the opinion of another skilled hunter!

WW:
 
 Explaining anything to you is beyond my ken. I have no interest in your view that baiting is not fair chase, or any of your views for that matter, and, while I don't hunt deer over bait, someone who does commands more of my respect as a hunter than long range snipers. I believe that baiting involves a good deal more fair chase than shooting an animal at long range beyond its defensive parameters. But while baiting is marginal IMO, long range sniping is past my personal margins. If you don't like my views that is your problem, not mine.
 
 I make no claims to infinite wisdom or even widom, you just seem to think so. I might take that as a compliment, but, in this case.......naaaaaaa.

Ron Brill, You asked how many antelope,are taken at close range. My last 8 in 9 years have all been taken at less than 200 yds.

Hey IF...Why in the heck are you even on this part of the forum....????

Okanagan, Well I'm guilty. What I wanted to know was not what I asked.
 
 I want to know; Has anyone sucessfully hunted at long range and then given it up because they thought it was unethical.
 
 I get your point about anyone admiting that they have ever done anything unethical. I will admit that I have. I once shot a deer in the butt because I wanted to kill thatbuck and it was the only shot I had. After I did it I decided that it was not an ethical way to shoot a deer and I have never done it again. I also shot quail on the ground when I was a young man. That is not aginst any game law, but I did come to understand that it is unethical and I will never do that again either. I won't head shoot deer anymore, I did once and I did not like the ugly mess it made. Was that unethical? I don't think so from the point that the kill was instant and no meat was wasted, but I did not feel very good about it. So I won't do that again.
 
 Maybe that will make my question more clear. And maybe not. It sure seamed to stir up the stink again, sorry I asked [Linked Image]

WW:
 
 Because you keep referring to me, however obliquely, and misstating facts relating to what I have said. Keep me out of it, stick to facts, and I will not bother to rehash history. You seem to take any opinions that are not in agreement with your assessment of LR Sniping as personal attacks, which they are not, and then attack the person, not the message. The classic ad hominem argument. The sign of a losing position.
 
 For what I hope is the last time, I don't care if you snipe animals at extreme ranges, I just don't agree with the ethics of it, and what you and others seem to miss is that the game is owned by ALL of the people and that if a majority of the people decide that hunters are a bunch of killers, who don't care about the animals they harvest, but rather just killing for the sake of their egos, then that perception, right or wrong, will evolve into a loss of hunting rights for all hunters, long range or not. And, that is why I have explained my opposition to your "hunting". I stopped when I felt I had made my points, you brought me back into it, and here I am.

If it Flys, This is not ment to be flames. I killed a big hog with my .270 using a 130 gr. Hornaday bullet. I experienced horrible performance too. The bullet seperated from it's jacket and went to peices. The largest part of that bullet I found intact was about half of the jacket copper. I still have it somewhere and it weighs less than 10 grains. The rest of the bullet was just small peices scattered throughout one lung. I got no penetration. It was a side lung shot, behind the shoulder.
 
 My point being, 1. That was suposed to be a good game bullet. several more experienced hunting budies used them with good results. 2. Since that one bad experience, I have not shot another Horanady bullet. 3. Just because a bullet box says "big game", "varmint", or"target" does not mean that it will always perform as advertised or that it may not perform well at an aplication for which it is not advertised.
 
 I don't blame you one bit, when you have a bad experience with a bullet on game change bullets. But I don't discount another hunters sucess or failure with a bullet until I know the conditions. I have found that bullet performance can also be affected by a shooters style. ie. Where he likes to put the bullet, and the speed he is driving it.
 
 So, if hunter A likes blitz bullets for deer and hunter B says blitz bullets are a disaster, who do you believe? And do you even try blitz bullets when you hear mixed reports?
 
 I have found that usually, hunter A and hunter B have different styles, different velocities, and may be shooting different size deer at different ranges. If my style of shooting matches the style of hunter A I might try blitz bullets. If it matches the style of hunter B I stay clear of blitz bullets. But I will drop a bullet like a hot rock if it ever fails me and I know it was the bullet that failed and not my shooting.

IF,
 
 Hold on there a min. I did not misstate anything. You did say you can do almost anything and not be detected!
 
 See your problem is your a good at arguing. You are also good a manipulating situations to fit your needs. If you are not here reading this stuff how did you know I posted what I did. ( I bet you say somthing along the lines one of your buddies told you )
 
 Honestly, do you really think that for one min. the non hunters see a difference between LRH and archery hunting? Where, usually the animal suffers for a much longer time before it actually expires? You imply that LRH will deteriorate all hunting in general because of the way it is done. Again I see you think that you have some intelect others do not to draw such a conclusion.

pds, thank you for a generous reply. Come to think of it, there is a segment of the population that do admit they have done wrong. I have done a few things I'm not proud of when hunting, especially when younger, and I've taken a few shots that I don't take any more either. Actually, that's why I quit taking long shots that a buddy and I used to try. I never wounded anything, either killed or more often missed, but I decided I was just asking to wound an animal and decided that about 300 yards was plenty for me. My partner lost a goat, killed stone dead at about 800 yards, when a blizzard blew in and kept him and his partner from ever getting to the dead animal. I haven't called long range game shooting either ethical or un: I'll leave that to my betters. When it comes to ethics and plain old right and wrong, I know more bad things about me than anyone else does, but they are under grace.

Hey Rusty Gunn, Look up the word BIGOT. I think you'll be surprised! As for the antalope reply got ya! One of them was out there! Actually you have a point, I should have written "The only good shot you get may be a long one". Antalope is one of my future fantacy hunts. I thought about it long and hard and decided on antalope. You can see them way out there but have to sneek in for a good shot. Then you have to have the right rifle and be skillfull with it to take the shot they give you. That incorperates stalking and shooting skill. Now that's the hunt I would like, the best of both worlds.

Ron,
 
 I wish I would have known earlier we have a LR Antelope hunt coming up this Sept. You still might be able to get a leftover tag though..... Should b a good time, Alot of LR guys are gonna be there.. and We will probobly shoot some video for the 2nd LR tape there....

Ron Brill... Morning person? No, I find it more to my work schedule to go on-line in the late evenings.
 
 Coffee? Clean my glasses before I type? I believe you are insinuating I must not be in control of my thoughts before I type. Is this the type of body slam comments you speak of?
 
 I don't hunt above a pile of bait, as I've stated before. I've never been in a tree stand, either. Never even seen a deer in real life, for that matter. Caribou is what we have up here. This info was previously posted. It ain't no secret. Try read all the facts before you post something. Its available to you.
 
 Sure, them LRH can shoot, and I'm not condemning their abilities, of which I've also stated previously. Go read it.
 What I am saying, simply is LRS are only shooting at animals at extreme ranges, hese not hunters, because they don't actually pursue the anaimal. They search for it, they spot it, and they shoot it, all at extreme ranges. At what point do they actually pursue? I wonder if theyd be quiet enough lugging that bench around as they pursue... ~~~Suluuq

Ron Brill... Its clear to me you've singled me out to badger with.
 No, those were NOT my antelope comments you saw! You're so possessed with arguing with me you've got the wrong person. How does one read "Okanagan" as Rusty Gunn?
 BIGOT usually refers to condemning another's religion. But I'll accept Hypocrite, as well. Those were not my comments about shooting antelope at 800 yards, erronously mixed in with my real stand against LRH, which would have made me guilty of being a hypocrite. But you've got it all wrong.
 
 Yes, I accept your appology... your glasses were dirty.
 ~~~Suluuq

This bad talking people is too easy to get cauhgt up in. I didn't say the antalope post was yours, I simple refered back to it. Most of what I've read in this post is nothing more than bad rhetoric. It gets old fast. Why did I single you out, it was a natural responce to your Hunting crack. The next time you ask somebody to refer to a dictionary make sure you have one handy. BIGOT- 1)a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.. 2)a narrow-minded prejudice person.
 You take this stuff too personal, most of my caments are adressing the previous posters who blindly and steadfastly opose things they don't do, don't like or don't understand. Many have refered to long range hunters as long range shooters in spite of the very well stated views of the long range hunters who tried to educate them on the subject. This was an effort to insult those hunters. I'm disapointed the moderators have permitted this back and forth bashing to continue and IF my memory is correct joined in on it. What amazes me is that people with such strong views on a subject would visit a topic they disagree with. I guess they're not into an inteligent exchange of ideas, they just want to argue.
 
 Ps don't hold your breath

Ron Brill... You called me by my handle, didn't you?
 "As for the antelope reply got ya." You got me? I didn't make an antelope reply, nor did I say one thing and do another contrary to it that would cause you to believe you got me. If this was for "the other posters", then who did you get? What contrary posts did they make?
 "One of them was really out there!" 800 yards, wasn't it? As opposed to 300? 800 is really out there, I agree.
 "Actually you have a point." About asking to wound an animal if I shoot at 800, so 300 is plenty, so as to avoid it?
 Them's Okanagan's words, not mine.
 Most of your comments were to whom? Previous posters? Next time use THEIR handles when you speak to them. How will they know you're talking to them?
 
 The thing is, you goofed, and now by saying it was for the other posters, and not me, only shows you can't accept being corrected, after you made a mistake. Everyone can read and understand your post, that you were refering to me, simply because you're dwelling on this too much, ie singling me out, when it was another who posted. I hadn't been here in days.
 
 I'm not insulting these people. They already said they have the abilities/equipment. This I believe.
 But where is the 'hunt?' Simple question.
 (In my first post to you, I asked you to look up the word hunt, then I said it meant to pursue. As in a quest, a stalk. This must have offended you, insinuating you were ignorant. Sorry, but you misunderstood my point. My point was that this, IMO, is not hunting, but shooting at live animals at extreme ranges. This was in regards to your post to Dave, that we don't learn since "we" still call LRH as LRS. It wasn't meant to offend, but to make a point. You didn't get it.)
 
 Why do I visit this topic? Because I started it. I didn't join in.
 THEY are the one's who disagree with ME on my take on HUNTING. They say it is, I say it ain't. We agree to disagree.
 
 Although I hold the opposite view of theirs, it's still a legit view point. And it ain't a blind opinion. I UNDERSTAND my views. I'm not against what they do, just don't think its hunting (to pursue, to quest, to stalk.)
 May I suggest a re-read (dare I say a first read?) of my first original post? See if it makes sense to you, how it compares to shooting gongs/targets at extreme ranges, with gongs/targets not running off wounded, as a possibility. This is why I don't support it.
 ~~~Suluuq

RG,
 
 I assume you stalk every Boo-Boo you kill from reading your posts thats fine, I wonder if you have ever shot at one from distance?
 
 Here where I hunt if you get within 200 yards your doing great! You can see 15 miles at some spots!!! I never said I always take a bench into the mountains. I usually use a bi-pod, and yes I can sneak very well!!
 
 I spend alot of time studying and paterning the migrating deer. In your opinion is this not a type of premediated pusuit? Or do you always have to spot and stalk. I spend a great deal of time watching the deer herds and where the choose to live feed and bed at different times of the year. Is this not all encompased in hunting?
 
 Why do you non LRH not see that there is more involved that going to a hill setting up and "hoping" somthing happens by to where we can see and shoot it.
 
 I was badgered for not admiting to some margin of error in the field . I admitted there is some... Why can't the non LRH admit there is hunting involved in LRH....
 
 Are you guys that bull headed.. or are your ignorances controlling you???

In my big game hunting career, I've gotten all of them within 50 yards. But thats just me. just my prefered style. Can't say for other SRH.
 Finally, you, and at least one other, admit to some degree of error beyound your control. Note, this is NOT about YOUR abilities/equipment. Its about the error-factor that longer ranges inhibit. The risk factor goes up the further out the game is.
 I'm not comfortable with this extra risk, but if you insist you are, then so be it. Do as you please.
 LRH (there, does this satisfy?) expect everyone to accept it, to condone, support it. This thread, and some others, as well new ones in the future, show other-wise. So why advocate it? ~~~Suluuq

RG,
 
 You skirted around my question. I and at least one other admitted to some error. Will you or any others admit there is hunting involved in LRH?
 
 Here is another point to ponder. Could there be as much risk in the respect of error hunting at close range as well. ie; You stalk real close then there is just a subtle change in the breeze as you begin to pull the trigger. BOOM, at the instant you pull the trigger the Boo-Boo recognizes your scent, spooks, and your bullet is in the guts instead of the heart???
 
 There is error in everything. I am sure for every way of error in LRH, I can counter it with some error in SRH...
 
 For ther record, I do not expect every one to accept, support or condone LRH.. I will however, point out alot of misconceptions others have. Keep in mind ( review past posts ) most who hear and read about this come as "us" with bullets blazing... fair???

This is the first time I've visited this forum and it may be my last. A friend of mine suggested I stop here because he siad there was a lot of talk about LRH. He didn't do me any favors!
 Although there were same good pionts made, they were over shadowed by idiotic view points and insesive bickering. I feel it would have been a good idea for the moderator to step a long time ago to save his membership and credability of this forum.
 I hunt very close at times 15-50yrds. but have lost count of the number of dear I've dropped cleanly at 250-400 yrds.
 Rusty gun, get a life, get a brain and get some cheese to go with that WHINE!!!!!!!

bingo,
 
 one of the reasons that many of us use this forum is because the Webmaster isn't a petty, censoring, butthead like those found on many other forums. Sure, there is a lot of disagreement at times (free country!), but there are also many very knowledgeable and experienced hunters and shooters on this forum. We like it the way it is, thank you, and if it isn't to your taste, sorry 'bout that. Free country. badger.

Badger, well said. You pointed out some of the reasons I like this site, I don't always agree with everything either, but like newspapers or Television, I can choose what I want to watch, read or participate in. I find it is all words on a screen and surely I can not take too much offense to that. I feel our Rick is doing what he has to do when he has to, and that is working out just fine.
 Bill

Interesting thread... I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing... gets a bit tedious.
 
 I think it's good to question ourselves... our motives and responsibility. If we as hunters (and shooters... or both!) don't, then others will... including lawmakers.
 
 I hung up my bow for many of the same reasons RustyGunn has questioned LRS. That's an entirely new and different can of worms to introduce to this thread (are we going for 1,300 posts?).
 
 Suffice to say, I'm a fair to middlin shot past 300 yards. Varminting does keep one sharp in that area, and when I'm short on that sort of practice my LRS skills deteriorate. I have friends who keep their skills at max, year round, and are proabbaly better on 400 yard shots than many (or most) one-box-a-year types are at 50 yards! I have also found that most of these guys don't tend to talk much about long range hits, but rather take substantial pride in getting close. Those are the hunters I really admire. I ALWAYS try to get as close as I can. If 220 yards is it, then I'm happy I have the ability to take the shot.
 
 An aquaintance of mine guides elk hunters each year just north of Bozeman, here in Montana. He told me he has a couple of guys come out every year that shoot 1,000 yard high-power competitively. They tend to bring 300 Win Mags. To a man, none will take a 500 yard shot (their max) on an elk unless everyting is absolutely perfect... no wind, plenty of time, un-spooked animal, etc. He told me the conditions are rarely "right" so most of these gents take their bulls inside 100 yards.
 
 Food for thought.
 
 BA

What badger said !

I agree with alot of what you said...
 I too guide for big game in Wyo. Conditions rarely are exactly perfect. When I guide Most if not all shots are inside 200 yards. I have had some that got close to 400 but there were certain conditions and all the animals were harvested in 1 shot. When I personally LRH I wait until conditions are such that there is no mistake that I will kill the animal in 1 shot. I beleive it is that way with most LRH. I am confident in saying that most LRH pass on way more shots than they have taken. I usually tend to get close to my animals as well. However, there are several "honey holes" that just do not allow a man to get closer than 500 yards. Because of these spots and my interest in varmint hunting, I began to learn what it takes to be a LRH. Now it is an obsession of sorts to be an accomplished marksman to 1000 yards. I will not however harvest an animal beyond my abilities....
 I am still a neophyte in this sport but I have taken the time to surround myself with friends and people who basically gave birth to this sport and/or are the forfathers of it.

Bingo... Thems ptetty tough words for a first timer here. Try read every thing before you post, and read up on me some, of what I've posted previous to this LRH forum being made, it's quite obvious you don't know me, nor understand my view point. ~~~Suluuq

Lets put an end to this... "I", me personally, don't think shooting at live targets at extreme ranges is hunting. Thats MY view on it.
 Whatever is YOUR view on it, fine.
 I can't convince them, they can't convince me. We agree to disagree. End of story. ~~~Suluuq

I am a newcomer to this subject. There are a very few shooters who are capable of reliably killing big game at very long ranges, I assume some of you have been contributing to this discussion. Guys who shoot prairie dogs and woodchucks all summer, big bore match shooters, people who can dope wind well enough not to shoot at an animal when there is any wind at all. Maybe, just maybe, there are a hundred shooters like that in the entire USA who can be trusted to infallibly kill a deer at a thousand yards.... and who have enough sense to use a bullet heavy enough to make the kill after it has slowed all the way down out there. The problem is not those few, it is the typical hunter who listens to the tall tales, reads the bs about the new cartridges in the magazines, and who thinks that if he cranks his scope up to 10x and uses a new super .30 he can kill any animal as far as he can see it.
 
 That said, I incline to agree with the contributor who calls it "shooting", if you gents want to haul a bench rest and a twenty pound rifle up to a mountaintop it's OK by me, you're in better shape than I am, but to my mind it's more of a mathematical exercise than what this oldtimer, who considers the .270 an ultra modern cartridge, would call "hunting". Fascinating technically, no doubt, but no outsmarting the game involved, on the other hand as some have said here, there's not much sport in shooting over bait either ... but in some parts of the country, it's the only way to get game.
 
 And if you are going to show me how you use a 20mm, let me put on my earmuffs first.

Miki,
 
 
 I respect what you are saying, it's your right to express how you feel but let me touch on some of the things you said.
 I mean this as no disrespect but you touched on a key point. You said, "this oldtimer, who considers the .270 an ultra modern cartridge." Things are changing in the relm of high power. It makes sense that distances will begin to stretch as well. Don't get me wrong that doesn't mean every armchair hunter can go buy a big 30 a fire away, I agree with you there. The second thing is that not all LRH carry a bench in the woods. I feel alot would if they could. Also, as far as your comment on a mathmatical exersise, you're right there is alot of math involved. Again much like that of an archer who needs to know how is bow will launch a certain weight arrow at given distances out to 40 yards, in some cases 60 yards. LRH's just take that to an extreme with rifles and ballistics. You mentioned outsmarting the animal. I'm not sure if you realize the way alot of deer in the mountains of PA or the deer and Elk in the Rockies travel. Alot travel on specific paths "migration trails" or travel routes to and from feeding and bedding areas. LRH gives you the opportunity to watch many of these travel ways. MUCH LIKE THAT OF AN ARCHER who shoots animals at a much close distance on a travel way. But, nevertheless the LRH still puts as much effort into learning these trails like the archer would.
 I personally think that the guys who hunt over bait but denounce LRH are hypocrits.
 You mentioned outsmarting game. How does "normal" hunting differ from LRH in that respect? I'm curious to see your view and direct comparison over the techniques and skills used by a SRH as in comparison to a LRH. Maybe we can compare and help you and others see that there are not as many differences and there are many more similarities than you think.

Although it may look like I am responding to Wy, I am not. If I knew how to post a response without it "looking" like I am responding to 1 person I would, but I don't.
 
 Anyhow,
 
 I have seen some mention of using a bench for the purpose of hunting. Some of you know I use a bench "most" of the time while I whitetail hunt near my home. "Some" of you even know "why" I use a bench. I use a bench out of an elevated stand because I need to - I have a handicap that doesn't allow me to shoot offhand at a range past 50 yards and expect to hit anything. For me to shoot "offhand" beyond 50 yards would make me an "Unethical" hunter - in "MY" view.
 
 The reason I post this:
 I have the general feeling from most that have posted to this thread that we should all "Scout" an area prior to hunting said area. I couldn't agree more. However there are time constraints where we sometimes don't have the "time" to do so (such as if it is an out of state hunt). If I hunt "out of state" and I hire a guide, I feel that it is the guides responsibility to "scout" the area. I feel that that is one of the reasons I hired said guide. I have seen where some don't beleive that a guided hunt is fair chase, and thats fine, I just happen to think otherwise. We are "all" permitted to make that decision for ourselves.
 
 Another point is that (as some have suggested) if you shoot off a bench from the same spot all the time, that isn't hunting. If a person knows a peice of property because said person has hunted that same property for a number of years and knows the "routes" the animal that is being hunted takes, then to me that is hunting. I see know difference in sitting on a 5 gallon plastic bucket (like I did 20 years ago) near a "trail" then sitting in a stand with a bench in it. The only difference is that I am now more comfy. To "me" that is still hunting. If the distance becomes the issue then thats what it is per said person, an "issue". To me the difference in the distance has no bearing on the "hunt" (within your known ability).
 
 I understand the "tongue in cheek" of some of the posts with regards to carrying a bench in the woods to hunt. Actually, if "all" of us could and did carry a bench in the woods wouldn't it be better? No matter if you are killing said animal at 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1000 yards. Wouldn't everyone agree it is more "accurate" to shoot off a bench no matter what the range (versus offhand)? So when I see some poking fun at those that choose to use a bench I say, cool to the guy willing and able to use the bench. To "me" that person is acting in a more responsible manner.
 
 There is no way I could physically carry my bench in the woods along with all my other gear. My bench weighs around 90lbs.
 
 I think we all need to take a hard look at ourselves and stop all the bickering amongst ourselves and learn from each other based on each others experiences. Just because those experiences don't always coincide doesn't mean we have to sit here and toss mud at one another. We are ALL better then that, we are ALL HUNTERS.
 
 Ok time for me to get off my soap box,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don,
 
 well said... I personally do not use a bench. I use a bi-pod and a sand sock. The Ultra LRH do and use it quite effectively. Some of the LRH also use what looks like a surveyors tripod with a craddle of sorts mounted on top. With this you can rotate 360 degrees and elevate what seems like 45 degreees up or down. You can also stand while shooting.

NO,
 
 I saw what you posted but for some reason it appears as though you edited it and deleted it.. If you care to post again I will elaborate!!!!

Don Knows
 
 Very well said indeed.
 
 I use a bench for the heavy guns and for Ultra longrange "hunting" and a bi-pod on the lighter rifles and for medium Longrange "hunting."
 
 I believe Ric (Whowhisper) uses a bi-pod with his medium longrange rifles also.
 
 A bi-pod certainly helps with the rifle accuracy over most off hand shooters at extended range. The famed David Tubbs would take exception to that statement though.
 
 Good luck to you
 
 Darryl Cassel

A most civilized discussion on a topic that tends to become quite heated as a rule. All participants are to be commended. It's really rather refreshing to read this type of dicussion. .... That being said,....
 
 I do not make a habit of taking animals at long ranges. I do make a habit of shooting between 3000 and 4000 rounds annually at ranges of 300 to 600 yards. It's been my experience that practicing at longer ranges makes me a better shot at closer ranges. Some of the areas that I hunt are a patch work of canyons and mesas. More than occassionally you will see exactly that animal you want across a canyon somewhere. having the practiced ability and the right equipment for shooting at ranges of 300 to 500 yards coupled with a rifle and load that are proven at those ranges does wonders for increasing confidence. Knowing how to dope the wind across a canyon, and being willing to wait for the perfect shot reduces a considerable amount of the error potential.
 
 I can't prove it, but I would suspect that far more animals are wounded by hunters trying to take a quick shot at 30 or 50 yards offhand, than are wounded by hunter missing an animal at 500 yards. It's like any other physical endeavor. The more you train the better you get. Having faith in your equipment is also a big plus.
 
 [Linked Image]

Guys,
 
 I would like to add my comment on this discussion. I am a long range hunter. There are and will always be situations where taking long range shots for me are the only choice if I want to take a shot. I hunt in Arizona, and it is not uncommon to take shots at 300 yards plus. There is no bragging or ego's involved. Here in this state there is not too many shots that are under 200 yards. The game here in the desert and the desert terrain is brutal, so in order to have better odds, we use the long range method to inprove the odds. I have friends that usually take 400 yard + shots and CLEANLY kill there animal. This is done and is possilbe by knowing your rifle and how it shots at certain yards, Having a range Finder, and practicing with you gun at those ranges. We have targets set up at 300, 400, 500 and even 600 yards. We constantly shoot at them. my limit is 350, because of the caliber I shoot, but give me my friends gun, I would not hesitat to shoot at game over 500 yards. Practice and knowing the range is the key to LRS. Knowing the wind is also a big key aswell.
 
 To sum it up, I don't hunt or shoot long range for fun or to brag or uphold an ego. I do it to have a chance to take an animal. I always heard it won't die unless lead flies. I believe that, but if you don't have a range finder and don't know the ability of your gun at those ranges and have a good rest, then you have no business shooting at those distances.
 
 I hope you can understand why I do the LRS thing and were not affended by it. I just wanted to share why I do it.
 
 86

Nothing like shooting a praire maggot at 700+ yards .243 and to knock it down with one shot.. or couse deer on the other side of the canyon with a 22-250... But i also like to shoot them close....
 
 If you know your gun and you know how to shoot then great.. if you dont then you shouldnt be shooting at distanses you dont feel comfortable... I know guys who are crack shots but dont feel comfortable at over 200 yards, but they dont whine when I pop them at long range either.... matter of fact 2 of my buddies spot for me ..
 
 Delw

Dave, your reply was excellent, but I would like to add a point or two. What makes a LRH different from a not so long range hunter (NSLRH [Linked Image]

) is superior skill in rifle-craft. That's it. A LRH is someone who takes the time and effort to know his trajectories, and has developed his skill in determining wind drift at various distances. Most hunters just sight their rifles in so that they pretty much always aim dead on, out to 300 yards or so, and then a little high after that (assuming they ever take farther shots). You take it a step or two farther, and develope these skills in a finer way. Stalking is not the only hunting skill. Knowing your weapon thoroughly is another skill which can be developed to extremely high levels. I think this person just secretly wishes he could master his weapon as well as LRHs have.

I have been holding my keys for the likes of this post, just trying to sit back and learn a thing or two from the other side of the pasture.
 
 I have been in between long range and what some call a more realistic approach to hunting yardages for quite some years now. I believe a lot of the problem with those that don't shoot over say 350 yards is there lack of knowledge and experience in the field with shooting a rifle. Also their decline not to put in the necessary time and effort it takes to accomplish the feats in the first place. Many of the Hum Drum hunting society today are just plan ignorant of what it is all about in the first place. Their somewhat perhaps lack of gray matter, can't possibly want to fathom the idea that there are those of us who can hit a deer at 700 yards, or put a raking shot on an elk at 600 yards using a premium bullet by the way. Oh! It just can't be done in their minds................Well some of you rocking chair buzzards
 holding on to what you believe is the only way, ought to get off the front porch and get a real grip of what is going on in the real world today with those hunters that can accomplish such feets of shooting while hunting.
 
 There are always going to be Nah sayers no matter how much effort is given to try and explain to them about the technical part of shooting long range and hitting your mark. I myself don't bother any more. I make the decisions to pull the trigger.........It is my right as a taxpayer and hunter. Hell, all my shots are just lucky ones anyway right? Those that are skilled with a rifle at long range shooting are not SLOBS when it comes to hunting, lets get that straight right from the get go.
 
 I get real tired of hearing the old addages of some old timer, telling me I should shoot them at a 100 yards. Better yet saying: Gee! Don't you have the skills to get closer to your pray,..............................give me a brake. Perhaps next time out, I should just hunker up next to them and slit their throat with my knife instead. I have been belly close to elk in the black timber and have taken pictures of bulls not more than 30 feet away. So all this bunk being thrown at "long range hunters," hunters who choose to harvest game their way, with excellent marksmanship and learned technical skills that others don't pocess is a case of simple Bull Sh*$ gentlemen.