If you can demonstrate 100% first round vitals hits at that range, in unknown wind field conditions, on a target that moves at animal speeds whenever it feels like, then go for it.
If not, just admit you're OK with gut shooting animals from time to time and move on.
This is classic....
Moves at animal speeds? Does the fact that some animals are slower than others mean you can shoot the slow ones further away? Remember, the LR gang are not advocating shooting LR at animals that are moving.
Please go into further detail on MOVES AT ANIMAL SPEEDS.
Before you completely act the fool, let me give you a tip. There are people out there that can do things you or I can't, and there always will be. Some can hit a 100mph fast ball, while all you would know about it is the slap of the ball into the catchers mitt. Some can play golf on the pro level and comparatively you can only do mediocore on the silly golf range. Some can shoot and obviously as of now you are not on their level.
But I'm interested in your MOVES AT ANIMAL SPEEDS knowledge....
Wal, I'm an animal, an old one, and I can move 15 feet in one second, starting from sitting in a chair. I submit that as an example of animal movement speed. Cut that in half if we want, and it is still a miss or badly placed hit from a bullet with an eighth of a second flight time between barrel and target.
I just happened to wander by this forum and see that the same denial (of the possibility of wounding an animal) from SOME long rangers never ends. And critics are still voicing the same two basic problems: ethics and physics. I will leave the ethics to my betters. What I can never understand is that some long rangers refuse to admit the possibility of gut shooting a critter at long range due to inexorable physics.
You’re as big an idiot as the other one.
Have you dudes ever read body language on an animal. What are the real chances of movement while making the shot? I’ve never had an animal move while making a long range shot.
JW, thanks for confirming your membership in the emotional long range cult. FWIW I am considered exceptionally good at reading animal body language and at predicting what an animal will do as we watch it, from coyotes to cougars to moose to mice. But I admit that I am not perfect, which confirms my status as an idiot, compared to you who has NEVER failed to read animal body language perfectly.
Here's a recent anecdote: I was watching a young bull moose as it fed in a quiet pond, nose down in weedy water about a foot deep. Peaceful evening, no wind, glassy water, silent... and suddenly the bull leaped up and backward, flinging water high and jerking its nose way up. It looked funny and I assume that something bit or stuck the bull on its nose.
Any expert body language reader would know that the bull was going to suddenly change from standing still to a violent quick leap, and that the leap would be backwards, not forward. Easy read. I'm sure you would have read that one correctly, and had you been aiming at it would have known not to go ahead with the trigger.
Anyone who has never misread animal body language has not watched many animals, close or far.
The key phrase you use is "chances of movement while making the shot." Yep. It is chances, not sure thing. That's my point, and saying that all else being equal, the chances of a good hit go down as range increases makes me an idiot.
Jordan Smith gets it. He posted "The hard, fast statements of critisicm that some guys like to associate with LR shots on game can often be applied to close-range shots, too. Hunting has risks. It’s up to us to mitigate those risks, but we can never truly eliminate them."
We can never truly eliminate the risks. All else being equal, the risks are higher at long range. That is mere reality. Oops. That is idiocy.
