I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
That's a broad oversimplification. Would you agree that the more you limit yourself, the more you'll have to pass up opportunities and go home empty-handed? To paraphrase another poster, I like stalking close but I like meat in the freezer even more. I like to train and develop all skill sets that can lead to taking advantage of as many opportunities as possible (both related to stalking close and shooting long).
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are:
Where did that animal go after it was shot?
Will I be able to find the game?
Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance?
Will I find the game animal during daylight?
Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Those are not unique to LR shooting, and can be issues regardless of shot distance.
I whole-heartedly disagree, for a multiple of reasons!
Please elaborate! memtb
Bullet performance at - 200 yards vs. 600 yards
Watching an animal after it's hit - 200 yards vs. 600 yards
Ability to place bullets where they should go - 200 yards vs. 600 yards
The chance of wounding a game animal -200 yards vs. 600 yards
First, let me say that if shooting game at LR isn’t your thing, I completely respect that. I get that different people have different priorities when hunting, and if stalking close or going home empty-handed is what cranks another man’s gears, I’m all for it. Now to illustrate my point…
“Bullet performance at - 200 yards vs. 600 yards” - this requires some thought for both 200 and 600 yards. Think of a C&C bullet launched at 3500 fps and impacting at 200 yards at just under 3000 fps. Regardless of distance, selecting a bullet that impacts within the velocity range for which it is designed is important.
“Watching an animal after it's hit - 200 yards vs. 600 yards” - consider shooting an elk at ~200 yards out of a herd that is mingling at the edge of the treeline of thick boreal forest. Now consider a lone elk on an open hillside at ~600 yards. I have personally been in each of these scenarios.
“Ability to place bullets where they should go - 200 yards vs. 600 yards” - there are many who struggle to place a bullet correctly at 200 yards, and many who are very capable of doing it successfully at 600.
“The chance of wounding a game animal -200 yards vs. 600 yards” - see above.
All of these issues can be a challenge, whether at 200 yards or 600.
The "whoopee" of I was able to kill an animal at 600 yards seems more to me like poor sportsmanship, low respect for the game. To me it's just a bragging thing not a hunting thing!
I think in some cases you are right. For some, it likely is a bragging thing, and for others it’s a pragmatic thing. I’ve been in many situations where, due to time constraints, terrain, etc., my options were to either shoot at 400, 500, 600, etc., yards, or not at all. In some of those cases, the conditions were not right and I didn’t shoot. In others, they were and I did. People hunt for different reasons. I spent many years as a student trying to provide for a young, growing, and hungry family. Meat in the freezer was truly important for us every year. If I could ethically put meat in the freezer, whether the shot was 200 yards or 600, I did.
So to simplify the myriad of reasons for which a person might shoot a game animal at 600 yards by saying that it’s for the bragging rights, again, is a broad oversimplification IMO.
