Long range hunting for me is 300-500 yards. I can do it, If conditions are right, and I can't get closer. It's still hunting, but beyond that it's pretty much just shooting - not hunting, in my (biased?) perception. I do shoot beyond that, at times - just not at animals. At least not since I bought a range finder.
There are those who can reliably place shots beyond that. At least some of the time. But they mostly aren't telling about their f'ups, either. Many others are not, either. The question is - what is the wind and/or animal doing in the elapsed time, trigger to bullet strike.
JJHack posted something like, " At long range about 100 things can happen. Only one is good". A mild exaggeration, probably. Still- why are elephants tried to be killed at less than 100 yards for the most part?
"I would be willing to bet the farm that a way higher % of animals have been crippled and lost by average hunters/shooters, than animals that have been crippled and lost by excellent hunters/shooters at long range."
No bet, with the semantics and the numbers. That being "excellent hunters/shooters at long range." vs what - self proclaimed "long range hunters" who aren't "excellent? or maybe even "average"? What % of self-aclaimed "long range hunters" are "excellent"?? How do you define "average", or "excellent"? Comparisons only count apple to apple.
Some years ago I saw a Canadian data report on accuracy of your "average hunter". It was pretty appalling!
Fuggin Canucks.....
. Here in Lake Wobigonne, we are all above average....
.
I don't think Swamplord was being sarcastic. He seemingly believes that. Plenty of ego there. Perhaps rightly, I don't know. Assuming his record of past posts is accurate, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, his stated uber-boomer gear, range of shots, etc, & having never met him, hunted with him, etc.
I just don't believe in his philosophy.
The world ain't gonna end, for him or me.
