Agree with this completely. I've had a number of clients over the years that have been through long range shooting schools, and they soon find out that taking a longish shot in the field is much different....longish being 300 yards or so. I personally dont know of any guides that are going to let you take a 5-600 yard shot anyway, so all the gizmos are a waste anyway. After seeing his custom rifle I just cant imagine packing that thing all day in sheep country. My personal favourite is a Ruger compact 338 RCM with a 2.5 power leopold, its short, weighs only 7 pounds loaded, and is good to 350 even with the iron sights.
I've used guides about half dozen times. Never had one yip about range or muzzle brakes.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Agree with this completely. I've had a number of clients over the years that have been through long range shooting schools, and they soon find out that taking a longish shot in the field is much different....longish being 300 yards or so. I personally dont know of any guides that are going to let you take a 5-600 yard shot anyway, so all the gizmos are a waste anyway. After seeing his custom rifle I just cant imagine packing that thing all day in sheep country. My personal favourite is a Ruger compact 338 RCM with a 2.5 power leopold, its short, weighs only 7 pounds loaded, and is good to 350 even with the iron sights.
I've used guides about half dozen times. Never had one yip about range or muzzle brakes.
That might be true in the lower 48, but you would be hard pressed to find a guide in the north that would allow you to take a super long shot. Not even sure why you would want to, in over 30-years I've never missed a chance at an animal because of distance. Average distance over those years has been under 200 and I guided sheep exclusively for 5 years. I've got no problem with guys doing it on their own at all if they are capable but wouldnt take the chance when its an expensive hunt and I will be the one looking for a wounded animal for days if things go south. In my experience the vast majority of hunters shouldn't be shooting past 250 let alone 500.
As a guide,(ex guide now) and knowing a lot of other guides, past and present, we often compare notes and come to generalities we agree upon.
"Yip about muzzle breaks or range."
We need to define "yip"
As a guide I cannot stop anyone from firing at game if they insist. What I can do and I have done is to let them know if they miss or wound an animal that I tell them not to fire at, my job ended at the shot. If they wound the animal I will do all I can to help recover the game, but if I don't (so far I have been lucky and have recovered them all) I am not taking them out the next day. It's over when we are done with that animal.
If they wound I often have allowed the hunt to go on, but that is if they have not defied my instructions. If I can get a man a lot closer and he decides to show off and fire, I am OK with it, as long as he kills clean, but if he doesn't the hunt is over as soon as I am done with that animal.
If I were to try to track it down and was unsuccessful the hunt is over.
If I do track it down and it's killed, the hunt is over.
If the kill is quick and easy, the hunt is over.
But the next hunt the next year is going to be with some other guide.
See, my job is to not just show game to the hunter, but get them into a place where they have a very high chance of bagging an animal. If the hunter refused my skills, knowledge and my advice he is not under my command. I know that. But the opposite is true too. He pays the bill so he's the boss, but if a boss refuses to allow an employee to do the job, the employee can always quit. If the boss wants the employee to break the law or help "bend it" by allowing waist of game, quitting the job is not only reasonable, but should be expected.
If I can easily get a hunter from 800 yards to 400 yards, or even 150 yards or 75 yards , and he were to refuse to let me do it, I feel no obligation to do anything more for him.
Anyone out there think that's unreasonable?
Now most of this is theoretical. So far I have not had any clients lock horns with me on these issues. And I speak form about 1/2 a century of experience. IT IS SOMETHING I DISCUSS WITH THEM before the hunt, so we are all on the same sheet of music.
And most hunters are fun loving, reasonable men who want to take advantage of all the services I can provide to them.
But that is not to say there are not some fools out there. My cousin Clint is also a full service outfitter, and he has told me of 4 clients he's had that wanted to fight him at every turn. He did exactly what I would have done. Let them do as they see fit -----and let them handle the consequences by themselves too.
An animal that is hit and not recovered is always interesting to the wardens and if they find that animal with the dogs, that hunter is done with his hunt. Clint has told me of that happening 1 time here in Wyoming, once in Montana and 2 times in Arizona.
So Ringman may be correct in saying guides don't "yip".
I don't. But that's because most hunters are not fools.
I just want the hunter to understand I am there to help him get an animal, but not to chase unreasonably wounded game and then allow for another chance on another day. There is no reason to fire from X range if I can put he hunter to 1/2 or 1/4 of that range.
And Ringman, you'd be 100% wrong in saying that longer shots are not missed more then closer ones. I do know the truth of the matter. How did you come to a different conclusion?
If I am wrongs then go out with a friend and let him place 4 10" targets at unknown ranges of 300 yards and less, and them place 4 more at unknown ranges or 600 yards and more---- and see if your average is better (or even the same) at the longer shots, and then see if you can find 10 hunters, selected out of the crowd randomly, to do the same test that disapprove me.
Do you actually believe that their all going to do as well at longer range as they do at close to mid range? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?
Yes Ringman, we that have guided over several decades DO talk about these things.
Now nothing I have said here is meant to be an affront. You say in your profile you like to study and discuss the Bible. "Be at peace with all men as much as is possible." I say nothing here that is not based in many many many years of experience and truth. If you take offense, please think, and examine why you are offended. It not because of the truth. It would only be because you don't like the truth. I expect if there is offense it's simply a case of cognitive dissonance.
But all I am doing here is reporting what I know, what I have seen and learned since I started hunting back in the 60s. Between hunting and guiding hunters I personally have been doing this since 1964. So my conclusions are not arbitrary. _________________
lastly:
"Yip" about muzzle brakes?
I don't know why that was inserted here, because it had no context within the thread, but speaking for myself alone, I don't care one way or another. I plug my ears with my fingers if I am close by anyway. If I am looking through binoculars I just get behind the hunter, so I have not found brakes to be a big deal in most cases. And I am ALL FOR THEM is they help the hunter shoot better. Less kick is often a help, so I think of them as a tool that some use and some don't. Some outfitters hate them but personally I think it's a bit unreasonable to whine about them. I tell them to keep plugs in their pockets. If it's a snap shot and the shot rings the ears of the guide, well I know it's unpleasant, but lets fate the truth here. It's part of the job. Like having to muck out stall if you love horses. It's just part of the package. (My opinion anyway)
For practice, when many rounds are fired I insist on wearing hearing hearing protection, so again I don't mind them. If the hunter wants to damage his own ears, it's OK as long as I don't have to. My hearing is bad enough now from "close encounters of the worst kind" in my USMC and DOD days. I don't need to harm them more. But I can plug my ears with my thumbs when holding binos, and I do if I need to. No big deal.
Agree with this completely. I've had a number of clients over the years that have been through long range shooting schools, and they soon find out that taking a longish shot in the field is much different....longish being 300 yards or so. I personally dont know of any guides that are going to let you take a 5-600 yard shot anyway, so all the gizmos are a waste anyway. After seeing his custom rifle I just cant imagine packing that thing all day in sheep country. My personal favourite is a Ruger compact 338 RCM with a 2.5 power leopold, its short, weighs only 7 pounds loaded, and is good to 350 even with the iron sights.
I've used guides about half dozen times. Never had one yip about range or muzzle brakes.
That might be true in the lower 48, but you would be hard pressed to find a guide in the north that would allow you to take a super long shot. Not even sure why you would want to, in over 30-years I've never missed a chance at an animal because of distance. Average distance over those years has been under 200 and I guided sheep exclusively for 5 years. I've got no problem with guys doing it on their own at all if they are capable but wouldnt take the chance when its an expensive hunt and I will be the one looking for a wounded animal for days if things go south. In my experience the vast majority of hunters shouldn't be shooting past 250 let alone 500.
I'm a wanna be. The longest kill for me on game is 410 yards. The longest rock chuck is 527.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
And Ringman, you'd be 100% wrong in saying that longer shots are not missed more then closer ones. I do know the truth of the matter. How did you come to a different conclusion?
If I am wrongs then go out with a friend and let him place 4 10" targets at unknown ranges of 300 yards and less, and them place 4 more at unknown ranges or 600 yards and more---- and see if your average is better (or even the same) at the longer shots, and then see if you can find 10 hunters, selected out of the crowd randomly, to do the same test that disapprove me.
You are talking about experienced shooters. I am including every Tom, Dick, and Harry who buys a .30-06 or .308 and heads to the woods or fields.
Originally Posted by szihn
Do you actually believe that their all going to do as well at longer range as they do at close to mid range? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?
See above.
Originally Posted by szihn
Now nothing I have said here is meant to be an affront. You say in your profile you like to study and discuss the Bible. "Be at peace with all men as much as is possible." I say nothing here that is not based in many many many years of experience and truth. If you take offense, please think, and examine why you are offended. It not because of the truth. It would only be because you don't like the truth. I expect if there is offense it's simply a case of cognitive dissonance.
But all I am doing here is reporting what I know, what I have seen and learned since I started hunting back in the 60s. Between hunting and guiding hunters I personally have been doing this since 1964. So my conclusions are not arbitrary.
No offence was meant or taken.
Originally Posted by szihn
_____________
lastly:
"Yip" about muzzle brakes?
I don't know why that was inserted here, because it had no context within the thread, but speaking for myself alone, I don't care one way or another. I plug my ears with my fingers if I am close by anyway. If I am looking through binoculars I just get behind the hunter, so I have not found brakes to be a big deal in most cases. And I am ALL FOR THEM is they help the hunter shoot better. Less kick is often a help, so I think of them as a tool that some use and some don't. Some outfitters hate them but personally I think it's a bit unreasonable to whine about them. I tell them to keep plugs in their pockets. If it's a snap shot and the shot rings the ears of the guide, well I know it's unpleasant, but lets fate the truth here. It's part of the job. Like having to muck out stall if you love horses. It's just part of the package. (My opinion anyway)
For practice, when many rounds are fired I insist on wearing hearing hearing protection, so again I don't mind them. If the hunter wants to damage his own ears, it's OK as long as I don't have to. My hearing is bad enough now from "close encounters of the worst kind" in my USMC and DOD days. I don't need to harm them more. But I can plug my ears with my thumbs when holding binos, and I do if I need to. No big deal.
I included the brake statement because usually when someone tells us about guiding they tell us they would not have a client who has a brake.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
szihn, you are freaking awesome. And tell a mean story.
Haha god damn I guess!!!
Ping pong balls for the win. Once you've wrestled everything else in life is easy. Dan Gable I keep my circle small, I’d rather have 4 quarters than 100 pennies.
Up here its a bit different. It is made clear right from the beginning that a hunter never, under any circumstances shoots until he is told to do so. To many bad things can happen. The animal might not be legal, think sheep, goats, and bears; or there could be another animal behind your intended target. Like szihn said most hunters are real good guys and there is very seldom any problems at all, but if a guy decides he doesn't need to listen, we just go back to camp and call the plane, ending the hunt. The areas we hunt are just to remote to take chances with some fool getting hurt or hurting someone else. Gun safety is a big issue with us, you are expected to know how to handle a rifle before you get here, we're not instructors. The fastest way to end your hunt is to forget about muzzle control. I dont know of one outfitter that will give you a second chance.
In 33 years of doing this full time there is maybe 5 guys I wouldnt want back, but I've never had to send anyone home. When an animal is wounded the wardens up here dont come into the picture. The law says you must make a reasonable "effort", and of course we do that and then some, but if we find blood or see the bullet or arrow strike, your hunt is over period. Last fall I had a bowhunter wound a moose on day one, we spent the rest of the hunt looking for that bull, unfortunately to no avail.
Personally I wouldnt own a rifle I needed a brake on, and Im the first to admit I dont like recoil. Anything over 338 is to much for me. That being said I've guided a lot of hunters that had them, and Im sure some of my hearing loss is because of them but thats part of the deal I guess. szihn said a mouthful when he said he likes to see a hunter with a well worn rifle show up. Im betting there its one guide on the planet that would argue with that. Those guys are almost always great shots, and you can be sure they are not overgunned like so many are today. A First Nation friend of mine likes to say " if you cant kill it with a 30/06 you better hide."
There's more to the enjoying the hunt than killing with a .30-06. I make wildcats and want to play with one. Even my light caliber rifles have brakes 'cause I like seeing the bullet impact.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
so lets see the guy went to the shooting school and you have been a hunting guide for 30 years? and you guys can't figure out how to adjust a rifle scope? the huskemaw adjusts exactly the same as any other scope. its called turrets you move them. sounds like the blind leading the blind. I recently did a review on the one I have.
so lets see the guy went to the shooting school and you have been a hunting guide for 30 years? and you guys can't figure out how to adjust a rifle scope? the huskemaw adjusts exactly the same as any other scope. its called turrets you move them. sounds like the blind leading the blind. I recently did a review on the one I have.
Your video won't load so cant see the video. It wasn't my rifle so I didnt want to mess with it, but his certainly didnt adjust "exactly" the same as other scopes. He could move the point of impact up and down or sideways by using the turrets, just like he was taught to do shooting at distance in a wind, but that still didnt fix the problem. On a normal scope I could have had it fixed in 2 minutes as long as the scope wasn't damaged.
No I've been a guide for 33 years, not 30, and I can assure you I have more time in the bush around hunting and rifles than anyone you know. I havent been around long range rigs because we see few of them up here, and until this last hunt I had never seen a Huskemaw scope up close before, so I certainly didnt want to start messing with it. The hunter assured me he wasn't taught how to reset the scope at the school, whether thats true or not I have no idea. What I am sure of is that he didnt have a sheep rifle. The rifle he ended up borrowing was a Tikka T3 lite in 300WSM, with a 3x9 L scope zeroed at 200. That rifle has been bounced around the bush for a decade now and has even made several trips to Africa, and it still shoots into one hole if the shooter is able. It weighs in at just over 7pounds loaded making it a dream to carry, and cost a fraction of his custom rig.
Ringman nothing wrong with wildcats or breaks. I like oddball stuff myself. Just picked up a Ruger 338 RCM about a year back to replace my old 338 Federal, and so far I love it, but think necking it up to 35 would be really interesting!
I have watched some of their shooting school clips no TV. I would just about guarantee that he was taught how to work the scope. Sounds to me like the guy was an idiot that never absorbed what they told him.
You did not "seen" anything, you "saw" it. A "creek" has water in it, a "crick" is what you get in your neck. Liberals with guns are nothing but hypocrites.
Gear-queers flock to these scopes like democrats flock to promises of free stuff.
I have seen a handful of them and so far I am not overly impressed. Widgets and Gizmos. Yet another company promising you that for XXX $$$ they will sell you better marksmanship.
But what many people seem to miss is the fact (which is a FACT, not an opinion) that no scope will make you hold a rifle steadier.
If you can hold for drift and elevation you can hold for it. If you can't, spending a lot of money on a fancy looking scope doesn't make it any better or easier. 2 things you need for long shots is #1 Skill and #2 knowledge of your drifts and drops. Scopes can be made to let you see a grid for those things, but they don't hold it for you, and holding X many inches up or over is no harder to do with a plane scope then it is with a scope full of grid-patterns.
When I take hunters out I am always a lot more confident in them if they show up with a Waver K4 or some simple scope (or even irons sights) on a worn rifle then those that shot with with the "latest-greatest gear".
Can rifles shoot well with those scopes on them? Sure.
Can they shoot well with K4s on them? Sure.
Can they shoot well with iron sights? Sure.
No sight shoots! A rifle shoots, and it cannot be made to shoot better then the man or woman holding it.
American marketing is tried and true and has shown that offering something as "new and improved" sell products, even if it's not improved at all. And even if it's not really new.
In the story the OP told us it sure sounds like a man showed up with a scope on a rifle he had very little of no experience with. Either he didn't know how it works, or it was defective (many or most Chinese scopes are) Huskemaw is a brand that is said to me "made" in Wyoming, but I have heard from a number of people it's really Chinese. Others say it's assembled in Wyoming with 100% Chinese parts.
I don't really know myself. What I do know if that I have heard complaints and that most folks say it's a gimmick. Is it? That depends on how it's used I suppose.
But if it is not 100% reliable under all conditions and also impervious to hard knocks and rough handling, I would say it's not something I personally would spend money on. And they do cost a lot of money.
I shoot long range for fun these days, but I refuse to shoot over 550 yards (about 500 meters) at game. Just my own convictions, but I believe doing so is only working against us as gun owners and hunters, and gives "ammo" to the anti-hunting crowd. Also, there is never a reason to do it on an unwounded game animal. I speak from experience. I started hunting deer before it was even legal, and got my own licenses from my first legal year. I have over 50 years of hunting behind me now in many states and in 5 countries.
I have killed a pretty good number of game animals at 600-900 yards in my life, but I "grew up" and stopped doing it about 25 years ago. I realized I was not doing anything that I needed to do, and that I could always get within 500 yards of game. In fact, since I made myself that promise, I have not even had an opportunity to shoot past 500 yards so I have not had to 'keep my self-made-promise" in all those years.
I don't condemn those that do it because I did too, but I do try to get them to think about what they are actually trying to do. In every case so far, what they are trying to do is to impress themselves and others as the #1 goal and #2 is trying to kill game and fill a freezer.
Is that bad? Only if you wound an animal and don't bag it. (which does happen a lot more with long shot then normal ones) some can honestly say they have shot over 600 yards "X number of times" and never wounded an animal and lost it. I am one of them. But I decided to quite while I was ahead.
Learning to shoot long range is a valuable skill in combat. So I am ALL FOR men and women learning how. But 1st shot from a cold bore on a milk jug at an unknown distance pst 600 and ot to lets say 1500 yards is FAR more impressive to me then killing a deer or elk out there. Shooting steel and milk jugs shows me skill and dedication, but also shows me that these people don't treat game as an enemy to be destroyed. It shows me someone who thinks about the big picture.
This doesn't make me right and others wrong. But I do think it's a point worth consideration.
Anyway............. I believe a hunter who showed up in your camp with an old well used rifle with a K4 on it would have been just fine and had a happy successful hunt. When I did all my long shots I always used a Redfield 3X-9X, a Leupold 4X, and a Weaver K4 scope. ALL my kills over 600 yards were done with rifles with those 3 scopes on them and I never had any problem with them, never needed 2 shots, and never lost a deer or antelope. I have never had a shot at an elk in my live over 400 yards because I have never seen an elk father that I didn't easily close the distance to within 400 yards. All the game in my 54 years of hunting that were over 600 yards away have been deer and antelope, with the only excepting being my 1st moose.
Rambling now....... Time to shut up.
Agree with this completely. I've had a number of clients over the years that have been through long range shooting schools, and they soon find out that taking a longish shot in the field is much different....longish being 300 yards or so. I personally dont know of any guides that are going to let you take a 5-600 yard shot anyway, so all the gizmos are a waste anyway. After seeing his custom rifle I just cant imagine packing that thing all day in sheep country. My personal favourite is a Ruger compact 338 RCM with a 2.5 power leopold, its short, weighs only 7 pounds loaded, and is good to 350 even with the iron sights.
Fellas, this just seems like flawed logic, in my opinion.
Matter of fact, I'd go the other way - I'd question the shooting ability, common sense and seriousness of a hunter who showed up on a 10 day sheep hunt with a sub $200 scope.
I'm a member of a shooting club where there's some serious shooters (and hunters too) who are very proficient with their equipment, they are great shots on live game and none of 'em are rockin' a $135 Weaver K4.
You will, however, find some Huskemaw Blue Diamonds on the line.
I like oddball stuff myself. Just picked up a Ruger 338 RCM about a year back to replace my old 338 Federal, and so far I love it, but think necking it up to 35 would be really interesting!
"Like!"
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
This is exactly the reason I'm not a fan of the "Out of the box" 1000 yard guns. It's actually not the gun but who it's marketed towards is my real problem. Most of the guns are beyond capable of shooting that far. Obviously this guy knew nothing about shooting or his setup. He eve paid for a school and couldn't even figure out how to adjust his scope! He knows nothing about long range shooting but buys a rifle setup for it. It is possible the scope was damaged in transport but it seems he still didn't even know how to adjust it back on target. Also was his turret setup for your elevation or for his home range? I'm sure he had no clue either!
