Guys,
I feel terrible for being the architect of resentment - I was just interested in understanding how the equipment was used and to what purpose. However, the morality or otherwise of hunting only serves to hand a walk-over victory to the likes of the League Against Cruel Sports and PETA, so I would ask everyone to forge a common front and simply agree to disagree, please.
I've shot service rifles to half a mile with iron sights, but on paper only. I've also shot match rifle at 1K with a x24 on top, again paper only. Did I need to practice to hit that Fig 11 / X? You bet - so the skill factor cannot be refuted. I've always maintained, it's the idiot behind the rifle that makes it work. Yet, all of the above was within a controlled environment - the range. The field, I would submit, is not. Therefore, I can only state that within my particular "field", 250m is about as far as I would practically attempt to kill game and only then, with good light. The reason is simple - husbandry. I must select the right target, determine age, condition and sex in all seasons and pelage, be it dawn or dusk. To do so, I use the finest German and Austrian optics, allowing me to check, re-check and check again. Only then, will I unsling the rifle and mount it on an improvised rest (tree, stalking sticks, knee). The shot itself needs to be accurate and lethal, with no holdover. Hence, I must respect my capabilities under the above circumstances - I'm very competent, but no Olympiad.
Landscape and custom will dictate what is both acceptable and safe, I realise. Hence, what works in my backyard may fail in yours. There remains but one caveat, which we all must respect - fallability. Nothing is certain other than the Physical Law. The flight time of a bullet vs. the spacial change of a dynamc target are two factors, I for one, could neither compute, nor consider. To those that can, fair play.
Regards,
Jacobite
