John,
Read your post and have no disagreement but would like to add several things.
Bob and I were within a few weeks of the same age. He lived on the east coast and I in the intermountain west. However we have very similar experiences.
Each of us got interested in shooting because we were both hunters of deer and varmints. Today's new shooters come from either military or plinking/target backgrounds. Fewer come from hunting because there is less hunting in general.
Both of us enjoyed the experience of the chase. It was a way of experiencing life on the ground, up close and personal. It was not an abstract cerebral experience. We practiced the same profession and got plenty of brain work doing that.
Because we were hunters, we were very concerned with terminal performance AND with quickly making first round hits. Also we walked a lot! You might look for a giant mule deer for years and when you first see him have about 10 seconds to evaluate him, get ready, and shoot.
Given the right circumstances I am certain I can get the job done with a Creedmore. However the circumstances are not always “right”. I have been in situations where the range finder doesn’t work or the dials have moved and so on.
One of the major changes I see is that the ”modern” types shoot at known distances, with knowledge of wind, and and are dependent upon multiple electronic devices. Terminal Bullet performance is irrelevant to making holes in paper or hearing the noise of a gong. I read an article written by a long range hunter describing his kit. Rangefinder, range cards, wind meter, barometer, ballistic calculating device, tripod, bags on which to rest rifle, extra batteries, GPS device, binos, spotting scope, etc, etc. His rifle alone weighs more than I pack for a long day in the mountains. I grew up packing a snickers bar, a small knife, and a couple of extra shells. Never thought I needed a bottle of water. In really rough country I might pack a compass and a PB&J.
Today making the actual shot is more of an abstract engineering process. In fact the animal becomes an abstraction, it is a furry substitute for a metal gong. Today I hear hunters bragging about the length of their shot rather than how close they were able to get. I don’t get much of a thrill shooting big game at really long distances. If I must resort to those long shots it is evidence of my lack of skill as a hunter. When sheep hunting, there have been times when we put them to bed and retreated to go to camp, to plan a stalk for the next day. To me, that is more exciting and rewarding than whanging way at 750 yards. Thrilling is getting close enough to a wildebeest that I can hear him breathing and see the snot dripping out of his nose. I suppose it is how one measures success. Several of my most memorable experiences came about when I came back with no game.
I am more old school. I view hunting as an encounter with nature. I enjoy it most when my quarry has the chance to be as aware of my presence as I am of his. Bow hunters understand and appreciate this feeling.
Last edited by RinB; 02/17/18. Reason: Grammar
