Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Youth longer range hunting caliber?

No, that's from about 40years of my life being a hunting guide. In my day we didn't have 300s. Only 308s.

And I didn't say "best". I said "they do well."

"Best" is more a function of the marksmanship of the shooter, and the ability of a bullet to penetrate in a relatively straight line without blowing up or veering off.

Shooting long distances is something I have a lot of experience at. I have a range in my front yard and by walking sown the road onto public ground I can fire to 750 yards any time and any day I want to. In a 15 minute drive I can be at a place we can fire out to 1 mile.

But shooting is not hunting. And hunting is not sniping.

Assuming I have a student who has the desire, (and the money for the ammo,) I can turn about anyone into a good long range shooter. "Long range" being out to the trans-sonic range of the shooters load. I don't say I can make a world class competitor, not one but the shooter can do that, and most of them can't. But a competent and proficient shooter is what I am talking about.

I was invited to a conference about 15 years ago in New Mexico as a guest speaker. It was a "Sniper's Invitational Competition". I was asked to be in the "think tank". We hashed over guns, bullets, cartridges gear, clothing and so on, for 3 days.

When I was asked about a training course I told the others there that my idea of the Ultimate Sniper Training course" would be a bit different than what we taught in the USMC, and also what was taught in the Navy and Army. I think very highly of the courses that are being taught today, but if I were in charge (and if the budget was there for it) I would take sniper training one step farther.

If I could work my will, the course would induce the Shooting/Ballistics and Field craft, Land-Nav, Photo-Recon and Sketching, Scouting, Winderness Survival/S.E.A.R. and so on, but one thing I would add is a mandatory requirement of archery hunting.

I got a lot of shocked looks when I said that.

I then went on to explain.

Train a man in all of the above, but then give him a recurve bow, about 1 DZ arrows and let him practice on targets until he can shoot all arrows into a 6" circle at 20 yards. No sights, no triggers, no wheels and nothing too modern. I want to make this a weapon and ammunition that is not good for long range.
If I were in charge, no one would get his final sniper's badge until he could kill 6 white tail deer with that archery equipment. He has to know how to move and HUNT and not be seen by deer. Deer don't shoot back, but they have ears and eyes that makes a mans look pretty primitive. Give me a company of men that can kill Whitetails at 20 yards and closer,, with primitive equipment, and do so on demand, and then let me give them rifles that reach to 1000 yards and communications equipment that can reach Com/Sats and have all the other training too, and then let me integrate them into the Fleet Marine Force with missions that use them the way snipers should be used, and I will give the people of the USA a VERY frightened group of enemies.

I got a standing ovation.

(Too bad it will never be implemented into the course of instruction.)

But back to the OPs question.
I do have a background in long distance shooting. But I grew up hunting since I was in grade school. I am also someone what some history of political activism and I know how laws and regulations come into being. It's not done (unfortunately) by men and women that often know much about the subject they regulate. If you doubt this take a look at some of the weapons restriction I see coming out of various states.

I am 100% for the idea of a Trained Citizens Militia, and I know historically what that is supposed to be. I would LOVE it is most of our young men and girls coming out of high-school were far better at shooting and gun handling then they were are driving a car.

Again,,,If I were in charge marksmanship would be as important in school (or more-so) then PE and at least equal to Driver's Education. I'd love to be in a nation where at least 75% of the teens could hit a man sized target at 1000 yards coming out of high school, and were taught the history of what and why a "well organized Militia" is so important to a "Free State". Government is SUPPOSED to fear the people!!!!

But deer and elk are not our enemies. They are a blessing given to us by God and we should show them the respect any good Stewart should show.

Just because I can hit a deer at 1000 yards doesn't mean I should.

What is to be gained from doing that? A deer? What hunter can't get closer than that to a deer and still call himself a hunter? That's not a hunter, it's a selfish person wanting to brag, and it's like bragging about how well you can drive drunk. Or bragging about how drunk you got so that you had to sh-t yourself. It's the mark of a fool to brag about such things. Killing a deer or elk at 1000 yards is not something to brag about. Killing one at 10 yards is.

Brag about your abilities to hit a target ON DEMAND with your rifle (and do not be exaggerating) and that is impressive and will get well deserved complements from many, except corrupt politicians and those that follow them.

Such marksmanship is an outstanding skill for warfare and something tyrants fear to a huge degree. But we don't eat them and they deserve no respect if they are fomenting the destruction of your rights and the rights of your children.

But big game is not the enemy.

Respect the game as the blessing it is. They are not score cards. If you shoot, kill them clean, and never risk loosing one to try to build up your ego.

That's how I see it, and that's why I see it that way.