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.
Something similar happened to me over a decade ago.… at under 100 yards.
I had drawn a special license for an area that came with 3 MD doe tags. I located a feeding herd and got to within 100 yards. I selected a doe that was alone on the edge of the herd. I got a steady rest, and got set up behind the rifle. In the time that it took me to ready a perfect shot, because of my scope magnification setting and the limited FOV at that range, I didn’t notice another animal rushing in from my strong side toward my targeted animal, where my support eye couldn’t see it. It was just as the trigger was breaking that the animal came into my FOV in the scope, as it lunged in front of the doe I was targeting. As the trigger broke, I wished I could take back the shot, knowing that my targeted animal was no longer separate from the others. My bullet struck the “lunger” in the ear hole- an instant kill. Luckily for me, I had three tags.
I maintain that if the shot had been at 450+ yards, my FOV would have been large enough that I’d have seen the rogue animal coming before starting my trigger squeeze. So I’d argue that in some circumstances, it can be easier to make a bad shot at close range than far, due in part to the increased FOV at longer distance, and also, because LR shots are not rushed, the calmer situation to assess.
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.
Exactly, but those that don’t theorize and spouts BS
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
