Darryl, what is ridiculous about the bet proposed by If It Flies it Dies? You both shoot at the same size target, you at your preferred distance, he at his. That is parrallel to real hunting, he within his chosen limits, you within yours, which is what this is about. That's the real playing field, whether it is level or not. Your proposal to pit an off the shelf hunting rifle against a super sniper beast at 1500 yards stacks the deck as much as racing a VW bug against a Farrari. Yes, your LR rifle is more accurate at LR. No one has ever disputed that. I guess I'd just like a trace of acknowledgement that it is much harder to hit at long range than it is at short range, for any marksman, with any portable rifle. Your response indicates that you agree, since your counter proposals always give a huge advantage to the LR shooter.
<br>
<br>Again, this proposed contest eliminates all the variables except range. Even you will hit more consistently at 100 yards than you will at 1500. That is the issue. I've no doubt that you are a superb long range shooter.
<br>
<br>I re-read Big Stick's target proposal, a life size cut-out with vitals outlined, and I really like it. His scoring suggestion is even better, giving credit only for hits within the vitals, and penalizing hits outside that since they represent a wounded animal. Again, that's parrallel to real hunting.
<br>
<br>Darryl, I'm not on any crusade to stop you from shooting a mile or two at a deer if you want. Your willingness to teach and share LR info with others is laudable. You have advanced to the world class leading edge of LR game shooting in your quest to eliminate all the "miss factors" ballistic and natural. But no one can control all of those factors all the time, and the longer the range the less control we have over animal movement, wind gusts, etc. The seeming refusal to face that kind of reality is what I think is behind my posts on this topic. May you never miss.
