Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 500-yard shots at ELK.

If you think the answer to 500+ elk is simply a matter of whether you are man enough to pull it off, the argument is already lost.

Brent

Enrique, I have the highest respect for you but the comment about not believing it until you see it just doesn't hold water. That's a standard comment from long rangers but is surprising enough from you that I don't think you have thought it through. Ability isn't the issue at all. Actually, very few posters are saying that they doubt whether it can be done, none that I know of. Some of these long shooters are fabulous shots, with superb gear. We believe it. They can do it, on live game, most of the time.

However, technical ability to do something is a totally different subject from the ethics of whether a person should do it.

As to understanding the long range hunter, my problem is that after listening to many who post on the Campfire, I think I DO understand them. That's what disturbs me. The extreme long rangers have more mad scientist in the mix than hunter.

Having said, that, as I've posted at other times, I am not their moral judge and I would strongly oppose a law to prevent long range shooting at game. I've seen such a law at a particular canyon in B.C. and it penalizes anyone who hunts there, long range or not.

I found three dead bull elk in one day in a place where shooters from a road can look over a swampy river bottom over a mile wide. I was wading the swamps. I killed yet another bull hit twice by a good shot at range so extreme that the nose of one bullet barely flattened to caliber diameter. He had to have been a good shot to hit the critter at that range. Gut shot, festered and stinky, the bull had been hit days before. He was still on his feet and going, not fit to eat but just to put down.

Though I have not read all of their posts, to my knowledge the long rangers who post at the Campfire have never admitted to a single wounded animal lost. That's what requires a suspension of belief.

Did you field dress any of those Elk?

I wasn't going to answer but perhaps it wasn't obvious how I knew the bullet expanded only to caliber diameter. Yes, we field dressed the bull that I killed. My hunting partner was hopeful that the meat was OK but that's how I know it wasn't fit to eat. I've still got that recovered bullet somewhere. No question about it being extreme long range. Plenty of evidence of what happened on the others: where they were, hunters scanning and shooting from vantage points along the elevated road, nature of the wounds with no exits. I will admit to sawing the rack from one bull because my son wanted it, and so examined its wound more. It was lying half in a river in mid swamp, not dead too long and possibly not yet spoiled. Ravens marked dead animals here and there across the swamp, none of them gutted of the raven sites we checked. It was a hot and dry Fall with an unusual number of elk in the marshes for that time of year.

I have written about such a time.
I made such a mistake recently, it was on a deer, not on a elk.
I drew up a drop chart that was written in such a way that I could get numbers turned around-that is what happened. Range was in the 540 mark. I wasn't in a hurry and wasn't nervous.
It was a vertical mistake not wind issue.

Bullets have been known to not expand at close range,so this proves nothing.
No exit holes that you saw in the ones that were not field dressed,means nothing. No exits also happen at close range. You are making assumptions that may or mat not be correct.................

Both my dad and I have shot elk at 600 yards. It is not difficult if you know the range and your bullet drop.

I watched some dude shoot an elk on tv last night at 500yds, according to the narration....

jwp475, yep. And as to making assumptions, you weren't there and I was.

No amount of evidence will satisfy attachment to a position, so let's don't bother further with facts. The official explanation from the long range forum is that any elk found dead were axiomatically killed by poor shots at close range, as it is axiomatic for most of the long rangers who post that they never wound. They kill clean (or rarely) miss clean. Therefore, any dead elk lost could not have been hit by a long range shot.

As to the bullet with slightly mashed lead spitzer point, it could have been a low powder charge that fired a bullet too slow to open, or it could have been a harder batch of metal in that bullet so that it resisted opening, or it might have been raining enough when fired that the bullet passed through a LOT of water drops before hitting the elk. To assume that the most likely explanation for minimal expansion was due to distance is a stretch of logic. No proof of anything. You are right.

My position is: Increasing distance from muzzle to target increases the probability of a miss, for any shooter on earth. Good long range shots use superb equipment and skill to reduce the probability of a miss, but the risk of wounding goes up as the distance increases for any shooter. Why so few long rangers are willing to admit that is what puzzles me. Long rangers enjoy flirting with the risk and beating it. It is the arrogant unwillingness to admit risk of wounding that is annoying and an affront to reality.

xphunter, I admire your candor and courage to admit such a shot. By the way, I am dazzled by your shooting ability with that short piece. Superb. That would be fun to shoot.

You folks still don't get it? Bad shots happen to all hunters, at any range.

Ethics is not an issue. Why that even comes up is beyond me. If its legal then its not an issue. Beyond that line lays the issues of its not ethical to ground shoot a dove, not ethical to hunt with a ________ ( you fill in the blank) and on.

I freely admit to a lost animal. I have no problem with it. I"m not at all proud of it either. But it happened and I have to live with it. Range. 60 yards. Thats not a typo either. Beyond that no one has a right to say anything other than their opinion. You can opine that you don't like what I do. Thats cool. I might not like your choice of things either.

As to the matter of fact, can it be done? Still the answer is yes, and quite easily the majority of the time.

Can I admit that the error possibility increases with range? Yes to a certain extent. But how much chance of error is there at 100 yards offhand? Vs a solid prone 500 yard shot? I"d bet on the 500 yarder every time to be tighter group and closer to center. What about the odds of the running shot? What most fail to understand is that, unlike most mart mart hunters, we have and utilize the option to pass the shot up. Whereas I see most run of the mill folks start blasting right away regardless. I"ve passed up many a shot, both short and mid range because I'm not comfortable with it. I"m not the problem you think I am. There are a bunch more issues with other folks that are a much larger problem.

Jeff

Ok, btw you are correct on the error increasing. But where exactly do you draw the line? And how do you come to that point?

Jeff, I've read your posts for a long time and have no problem with you or your ethics. You're a bit sensitive and reading into my posts more than are there. I agree with most of what you just posted.

My exception is on ethics. I'm not an ethics cop but ethics enters every shot on a living creature at any range.

Don't get it? That people miss? At all ranges? That's as obvious as the sun coming up. There are far more misses at close range than at long range because there are vastly more close shots. That is irrelevant.

I do get amused at how every time this cycle goes around, those who defend long range always bring up poor shooting at close range, as if that somehow justfies shooting long range. It is irelevant. It would be a poor murder defense for Ted Bundy to claim it was OK to kill and drop bodies off in the woods because Jeffy Dahmer (sp) buried his victims close by in his back yard.

Good hunting. I exhausted this a couple of years ago with Boyd Heaton, Donknows et al and have no interest in both of us redoing a long string of counter posts.

Every time this comes up, guys new to the forum ask the same questions of long rangers because the questions are grounded in the reality of physics, gravity, wind, light, animal movement. Then the long rangers get passionate if not heated in explaining away every one of these factors and saying that questioners don't "believe" because they have not done it.

You guys are excellent shots, pioneering advances in rifles, optics and ever expanding the range that a target can be hit with a portable rifle. All that is good for all hunters.

I've no problem if you are that good on paper with a hunter deciding to try it on an animal. That's just human nature. I admit that I'm bothered by the rah rah "you can do it too" recruiting that encourages long shooting at game by people who aren't up to it. Most guys don't have the equipment, won't practice enough and they cannot do it. But when a long shot offers, they try, partly due to the rah rah about how easy it is. It ain't easy. You guys are exceptionally good, and when you offer a newbie your euipment and do the calculations for him, he has no idea how much went in to making the shot he just hit.

There is no solution and the critters will take the consequences. I guess if I killed an elk at 970 yards I'd brag to my friends. How many internet readers who read about it will try such a shot next fall with their bore sighted ol' reliable firing whatever cartridge Wally World had on sale last week?

Jeff, I think I'd enjoy a hunt with you and the conversation on the pickup ride out. Good hunting.

I live about a 45 minute drive WNW of Wichita, KS.
If you are in the area someday (I have no idea where you live), send me a PM or email and weather permitting we will go out and play with several different kinds of specialty handguns from 100 yards to 600 yards at range on paper or on a farm on steel out to about 850 yards.
I think you would have good time.
Everyone makes mistakes, I am human and not a machine and I don't mind owning up to my faults (even though I don't like them).
It is what it is.
Even though it tears me up when I make one like I wrote about earlier, because I hate missing and hate even more losing an animal.
I lost a muley one time @ under 200 yards (back in the 80's shooting a Contender) because I had the wrong bullet for it's impact velocity and I also messed up on the range estimation some (pre-rangefinder days). There was little info in those days about impact velocities/hunting bullets for Contender handgun performance. The lesson I learned for me: sold the Contender and had a Custom XP built-it has never been the same since

Okanagan

Nope we probably are not far apart in reality on many issues.

I may read more into the posts and if so I'm sorry.

I NEVER suggest(and IF I did please slap me) that anyone can do it. I say its easy for those that are practiced though, far from impossible.

Poor shooting at close range does not justify it at long range. Quite the opposite is my point, those ones at short range far outnumber the ones capable at longer distances. IE the actual error will greatly reflect the short range slobs, IMHO.

I may be proven wrong on the above, but I'd wager money when I decide to pull the trigger. I wouldn't bet on most of the slobs in the woods. Just like I refuse to shoot a running animal, my ethics are what I consider at least average or above many folks. As long as we aren't debating bow/pistol/MZ/distance etc...

The internet is a great thing. The keyboard sucks a lot of times though. It imposes no personality.

Jeff

I read an article recently about the marksmanship test necessary to get a hunting license in Germany. It consisted of several shots off-hand at a moving moose target about 50 yards away. All shots had to be in the kill zone to get the license. An experienced hunting magazine writer, and a decent shot by american standards, took several attempts to qualify. The german onlookers were very proficient and looked down at sloppy marksmanship. I wonder how many of our long rangers would qualify at such a practical test of skill.

xphunter, that's a gracious invitation and one that I'd love to take you up on. I live in the Pacific NW so it is unlikely for me to get down your way much as I'd enjoy it.

After thinking about this a little I realize that I was reacting to a fracas from a couple of years ago when this topic got a lot more heated and polarized into pretty outlandish claims. This has been downright civil.

From what I've heard of your shooting I wouldn't bet against you! :-)

500 yards is one hell of a long way. Im sure there are guys that can make that shot look easy but not alot of them, and I would bet the ones who can make that shot only do it under the best of conditions.

As a hunter I like to think I can get closer than 500 yards?

But then again I dont like to shoot at game much over 350.

Mule

Hell it doesn't take much of anything to pass a lot of tests. Only work. Just like mid range shooting.

Your problem is you just don't understand that people can be proficient at things if they have the desire.

I know and have shot with in past years, an olympic running "boar" shooter. I wont' say that I can be a champion, but with anything, its only repetitive practice.

I still wonder how many rounds a year you shoot. And since I've been firing at least 8K a year centerfire, who knows how many 22s and how much dry firing...... that adds up to being much more proficient than most.

So yep, I'm 99% sure that any proficient mid range shooter coul pass that test. But you would have to understand that we would learn about what it is, movement speed, exposure and so on and then practice. Thats what a lot of "mag writers" probably would not do.
It took me a bit of shooting to understand a local match, a moving target at 300 yards. Shot from sitting in a sling, as many as you can get downrange in a limited exposure distance. I hold the range record on that one. Around 33 hits IIRC in appx 35 seconds of exposure. Including a face scratching hit as the turned the target sideways to withdraw it.
It only took some practice. Much like it took practice to learn how to hit the moving IDPA paper and steel targets..

Now my skills at other types of shooting are worse than others. But what I'm practiced at I'm good at. The way I think everyone should be, but probably are not.

Not that I'm after you, but I don't believe you understand capability from some.... much as mentioned though, the Germans were used to it and very proficient. Of course I don't like moving targets and refuse to shoot a moving animal unless its only walking. Past that, its just not for me.

Jeff

A 500-yd shot is long but it doesn't hold a candle to this thread .

Gdv