Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 900 yd head shot Video

If you read through the whole thread - you’ll recall this guy was later called out for posting on another site that they did not recover the animal. He had posted this “shot” on multiple websites at the time.

Turns out it was probably a lower head jaw shot that didn’t immediately kill the animal, and it ran off to die later - probably from starvation or weakened to predators.

Utah Fish and Game was notified by members here and he was investigated for potential violations. I don’t if he was ever cited - but I know his world got very uncomfortable quickly afterwards.

Life to many seems an endless circle of self justification a component of which is self aggrandizement.
The rifle skills are worthy of appreciation, the action itself should be considered as shameful. Sadly to many, it is not.

JS, I have no doubt that some folk with the equipment available these days can make the 800-900 yd shot under ideal conditions. I can easily believe you are one of those. And there are others here who can also.

I think I disagree with the “either you know you can make the shot, or not”. I don’t think it’s just a binary possibility. Everything that can go into a miss at 200 yds is exponentially present at 900 yds. There have always been people who cripple at 50 or 150 yds and it is beside the point..or maybe that adds to it — now the guy who would miss or wound at 150 yards buys a Best of The West rig and thinks he is automatically a 900 yard killer.

From personal experience, the thing that brought it home to me was an across a small canyon shot at a nice bull. I had a lay-down shot but with a 25 mph wind hitting my left side. The bull was broadside at a lasered ~430 yards. I figured 20-25” drift so held on his neck to drift the bullet into his chest. He went down like an elevator but only to find that at the bull the wind was just as strong but from the opposite direction so I indeed broke his neck. We had no idea. He was on a rocky, boulder-strewn slope so no grass or tree limbs to check for the wind.

More troubling to me is this scenario: I know of a very good Western outfitter/guide operation (and very good people) who is booked years in advance at $12k an elk hunt. His country and access is excellent with all of the NA game present. However, he regularly has clients show up with inappropriate firearms; they haven’t shot them or sighted them in; or can’t shoot and miss or wound animals and then later complain online. His policy is if you wound an animal that’s not recovered your hunt is over as it should be. But some guys who are not competent then make for a strained camp.

His answer was to invest in a bunch of BOTW rigs which clients MUST USE…no using your own rifle, hand loads, etc. They will laser the animal and presumably whirl the turrets for the client and have him shoot at very long range.

I completely disagree with this approach for a variety of reasons and I suspect it will not turn out very well over time. The concept of hunting and firearm competence has slipped away from him. He has consciously or not decided that any hunt without an elk on the ground is a failure which isn’t true at all. He doesn’t owe any clients an elk, just his best effort to give them an opportunity; the rest is on them. The exercise becomes a “shoot”, a “sniping”. At best, an execution. Or, a wounded animal perhaps not recovered.

Just my opinion Jordan.

I think the outfitter/guide in that last post probably could afford to do some more screening of his clients. And could also take the opportunity to educate his clients. If he has clients booked years in advance, he could easily tell the sort of dumbass who is going to pay $12,000 for an elk hunt what sort of rifle to bring and how to prepare for the hunt. He is the one who sells the service and there seems to be plenty of demand. If he wants to sell an "elk execution service", then he is free to do that. Or he could sell an "elk hunting service."

I went on one guided big game hunt in my life. Some Marine Corps buddies wanted to go on a white tail hunt on a huge ranch in Oklahoma. I agreed to join them. When I found out that the "hunt" consisted of being dropped off in a tree stand 150 yards from a pile of corn, I was pretty disappointed. I got my buck, but it was an endurance test (it was cold as [bleep] in that tree stand), not a hunting event. Then the guide would not let me gut the deer right away and insisted that gutting the deer was part of his job. And he waited at least twelve hours to gut it for me, so all the meat tasted terrible. I was thoroughly annoyed with all the "hunting" aspects of that trip.

George,

I certainly agree with you, and I have written variations of this very thing on more than one occasion, that confidence in shot outcome is not a binary thing. I would point out a subtlety here, which is that there is a difference between knowing you can make the shot, and knowing that you will make the shot. Knowing that you can make the shot comes from a bunch of experience making similar shots in similar conditions. More importantly, that experience also teaches a hunter what types of shots he is not yet capable of making with close to 100% certainty, and should not take at a game animal. Unknown variables that are unique to every specific situation make it very difficult to predict if you will make the shot, even at short range. Some of those unique variables, regardless of shot distance, include: a gust of wind moves the shooter as the trigger breaks; the scope lost zero and this goes undetected until a shot is taken; the cartridge fired at game has a faulty primer or incorrect powder charge and is a squib load; etc.

My primary point is that taking irresponsible shots is an attitude and judgement problem, not a distance problem (kind of like "gun crime" is a mentality and judgement problem, not a problem with the tool). Irresponsible hunters will take poor shots, regardless of the distance, and in some sense, it may be better for the animal if said hunter buys a BOTW rig and attempts 900-yard shots instead of 200-year shots with a traditional hunting rifle, because they are more likely to miss completely at 900 yards and more likely to wound at 200 yards.

I also agree with you about the approach to guiding and outfitting. If it was all about guaranteeing an animal on the ground, regardless of the hunter that shows up, you would have to remove any influence of the hunter on the outcome, which, to a large extend, the outfitter you described has done. I guess some hunters would be just as happy to pay their money, press a button on their phone, and go home with a trophy rack.

Taking 900-yard Headshots at animals is ridiculous and highly unethical.

I don't care who the shooter is or how great a shot they consider themselves, it's disgusting, by any stretch of the imagination.

As to your first paragraph, I agree completely, and would think that would be the first and obvious inclination of the outfitter — to be very clear on your website. And maybe, at the expense of not being clear enough (ie, blunt) that has not made any difference. To add some context, these are very nice people to be around.

Maybe your friends need to post this at the top of their website?

Chuck Norris doesn’t go hunting, he goes killing. Hunting implies you might not kill.