WyoWhisper, thanks for the courteous reply. This thing doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I truly wish I could join you and try some of your long range targets. We'd probably get along fine in person.
<br>
<br> Maybe one of the problems is that we are reading extra meaning into posts. For example, from your reply it sounds to me as if you are saying that when you run into critical disagreement, it is taken as an attack on LR hunting and must defended as such, daily. Not so. If I say I don't think MK bullets are a good choice for game, I'm not attacking LR hunting, just disagreeing over some of the components. Same when someone expresses concern about wounding. Both of those are legit concerns at any range, and they are axiomatically and geometrically compounded as range increases. That's a Duh statement of basic knowledge. A fellow hunter shouldn't be blasted for expressing concern or questioning the judgment behind the choices of shot and bullet. Give him a courteous reply, even if it is merely, "This is my preference." And just agree to disagree if he doen't buy your opinion.
<br>
<br> There are two main areas of question for LR shooting:
<br>1. Can the man and his equipment hit consistently at the range of the shot?
<br>2. Will the bullet perform when it gets there?
<br>
<br>The questions, opinions and concerns about both of these will never end, especially at extreme ranges. That range was probably under 200 yards in the days of D. Boone. The solution to not being questioned pretty sharply is to not post anything, and I hope you do not take that route. How we each react toward the first challenge or queston usually determines whether the tone drifts toward the personal.
<br>
<br>A year or so ago, Big Stick stirred some sparks when he related his long range shooting. He responded factually, reasonably and the fire went out. Try it.
<br>
<br>
