Long Range Shooting / "Hunting"

[backcountryhunter]

I would like to weigh in on a topic that gets my blood boiling .... Long Range Shooting of Big Game - Now, I'm not necessarily talking of the occasional 500 or even 600 yd shot some of us have taken at an elk BUT the "vendors" who now offer 3,4 or 5 day courses on "how to kill your elk at 900 yards" that have sprung up in the last several years - The "outfit" advertising in the Huntin' Fool comes to mind first - These guys openly advertise that they will "teach you to HUNT your elk or deer" and "confidently" take that shot at 900+ yards - Now there are Outdoor Channel shows specifically showing this type of "hunting" in scenarios where some "hotshots" are sharing one rifle (usually a Christensen or Weatherby) and "sniping" an elk that could have been hunted by a true sportsman with FAIR CHASE in mind - There is now a well known riflesmith in the Powers OR area that is doing the same type of offering and selling HIS custom rifle in the process ...

Please don't misunderstand me, I love long range shooting and will regulalrly take those long pokes at a prairie dog or even a coyote, and I am guilty of killing a couple of elk in excess of 500 yards BUT I never chose the long distance option unless I saw no other viable way to get closer or set an ambush - I am going to leave it at that for now and see what some of the other opinions are on the subject

 

[DrMike]

I would be less inclined to disapprove if those I know to have invested in equipment designed for long range shooting and intending to do so spent the time in practise preparing for what they seek to do. I have set up more than a few rifles and scopes for people who intend to shoot at extended distances. Frequently, those intending to take those shots are never seem on the range. Local Conservation Officers have spoken of their concern about wounded game or game that has been killed and left because it couldn't be found as result of being shot at such a long distance that the shooter was unable to verify where the animal went after the shot. I am pleased at anything that introduces more people to shooting, but like all facets of the shooting sports, those engaging in the activity are responsible to prepare. It is a matter of respecting the game.

 

[backcountryhunter]

DrMike - Again, well said - I am not necessarily talking of the hunter who ventures forth intending on a HUNT who is prepared to take that long shot if the need arises - I am talking about a relatively "new culture" that proposes this ultra long range shooting at big game as a pursuit in itself - There is a vast difference between shooting at a bull elk at 500 yards and 900+ yards -

If a person wants to be a SNIPER then that person should just join the military ...

 

[Guy Miner]

Backcountry - consider if you will, that some folks think your 500 yard elk is just as vile and offensive as you find the 900 yard elk shot you don't like. Most of my mule deer are taken between 200 - 300 yards, some out farther, some as close as 20 or 30 yards. When I mention that I shot a buck at 250 - 400 yards in some circles I get the same kind of bashing you just handed out about the guys who shoot at 900 yards... I'm declared to not be a "real hunter" whatever that is... Had a guy cussing me out as a coward because I shot a bear at just over 300 yards earlier this year.

I understand what you've written, but I don't know where to draw the line. Should we all restrain ourselves to mere 300 yard shots? 500 yards is okay, but 600 yards isn't? What about those guys who spend the hours and the money and feel confident out there at 700? If they're real good at 700 yards, why is 800 wrong? And so on...

Anymore I tend to be pretty forgiving of the hunting choices of others, as long as it's legal and safe. On the long range stuff, I know my limits, and I can only hope others know theirs. When I'm afield, I take some pride in making a good shot, be it at 30 yards, 300 yards, or way out there.

Regards, Guy

 

[backcountryhunter]

Hey Guy - Your response has alot of merit, as in all things there is a "subjective" side to consider - Mostly, when mentioning the long range TV shows and "advocates" one can see that the terrain they are hunting in would lend itself to putting a "hunt" on the beast rather than picking a promontory and lobbing bullets - I think I may have deleted a key part of "my" thinking on the subject, It is obvious that these "businesses" are more concerned in making money than in respecting the game and I think that is where my chief complaint might originate

I see your point clearly and must agree that each of us must make personal choices, hopefully with common respect for our intended quarry present in our conscience - I am mostly lamenting the proliference of "purchasing" success in the field rather than "earning" those successes (but I've always been notorious for choosing the "hard way")

 

[257 Ackley]

I have to agree with Greg on everyone making their own choices on what is considered too far of a shot. In my book, there is more satisfaction in stalking, setting a good ambush, and scouting to know movements of the game you are hunting, than there is in making the "long distance shot" to brag about. I have several bow hunting friends that feel most of us on this website are not doing fair-chase hunting...so where do you draw the line?

When it comes to varmint shooting, I will "stretch" the limits of the caliber being shot, but that is usually to learn something about what a bullet will do at longer distances and how it performs with wind and other conditions. It is more fun for me to watch "skippy" explode at 50 yards that at 500 :shock: :mrgreen:

The individuals and groups that are setting up shooting schools are practicing capitalism; good for them! I hope that the people going to the schools or seminars are doing it for the right reasons, which for me would be to understand my rifle/caliber of choice and to become a better shooter no matter what the distance is.

 

[JD338]

This is an interesting topic and ethics can get heated up with a lot of passion.

Here is my take on LRH...
We have the tools to do it but is the hunter truly up to the task? There are too many that may have shot long range a few times that think they can do it in a hunting situation. Even the seasoned hunter that does shoot a lot of LR can have something go wrong.
Reading the wind it the hardest part and cross winds, swirling winds and thermals can all affect the bullet down range.
What is the animal doing when the shot is taken, one step and the shot is now off the hunters aiming point.
Using a target bulet, one with a HP and BT to get the highest BC is yet another issue. The VLD bullets have less drop and wind drift but they are NOT intended for big game hunting.
If you can get closer, do it. I have done a fair amount of reading on LRH yet I never read about the long range set up and the hunter MISSED the shot. I also never read about the set up and the hunter WOUNDED the animal, never found it. I have read about the hunter that make a perfect shot killing the game. Also read about the hunter that used a borrowed proven rifle and shoots an elk at 1206 yds, hitting the elk in the head. Someone questioned the shot location and he was railed for it yet everyone knows that the head was NOT the intended target.

Be honest with yourself on making the shot. If you do not have 100% confidence, get closer.

JD338

 

[Songdog]

Please don't misunderstand me, I love long range shooting and will regulalrly take those long pokes at a prairie dog or even a coyote, and I am guilty of killing a couple of elk in excess of 500 yards BUT I never chose the long distance option unless I saw no other viable way to get closer or set an ambush - I am going to leave it at that for now and see what some of the other opinions are on the subject

I find it a bit interesting when folks are opposed to shooting "big game" at extended range... but somehow justify "Taking the occasional long poke at a prairie dog or coyote". How is it... that your hunting scruples extend only to big game?

 

[Charlie-NY]

I've been hunting long-range for quite a few years. Shooting at groundhogs out to 1,000 yds or so has taught me quite a bit about the sport. Given the right equipment, carefully assembled ammo and the prerequisite knowledge and experience, I can't image that humanely taking a deer or elk at the same distance is an unethical thing to do.

Personally, I haven't taken big game at the distances that I've killed varmints but that's more a result of rarely having shot opportunities at those distances. I have taken deer and antelope at 500yds, which many others feel is a stunt. I had no problem making one shot kills at that distance and just ignore the nay-sayers. For those guys who are capable of taking big game at even greater distances, I'd rather learn from them then condemn them.

With regard to the guys who take the long-range (hunting) training classes that are offered by some of the best long-range shooters/hunters in the country, I give these guys a lot of credit for taking the time and spending the money to take their interests to the next level rather than just winging it as some shooters may be tempted to.

I have no problem with skilled long-range hunters.

 

[SJB358]

I think we are all saying the same things for the most part. Like Jim, I haven't heard of a wounded bull elk from any of the stories, or a miss. Either way, we as hunters can't condemn anyone really, we are too small to start with. I tend to think that your shooting range should be what you practice at. Meaning, I really don't have anything further than 500 yards to practice at, so I don't shoot further than that. Then again, if the wind is howling and unshootable, I would not shoot alot further in than 500. A man has to know his limitations! I heard that somewhere. I am sure there are score of hunters who zero on a pie plate with a magic marker dot at 100 yards with their 270-7mag-300mag and call it good to 400 yards. Those are the maniacs that really upset me. I guess I take it personal if you don't know your weapon and ammunition. I would rather hunt with a guy that knows his equipment and utilization than a 5 round Sept zeroer and calls himself good to 4-500 yards cause his 300 mag shoots so FLAT he doesn't have to worry about holdover.

Ever think about the amount of times you do a round zero at 100 and then take it back to 300-400 yards and see how far your actual zero is off. Not just elevation, but a 1/2" to left grouping at 100 yards, really magnifies itself at 400. I know there are alot of folks that never shoot past 100, cause they pull up a ballistics calc, punch in their speed, BC and the data says 3" high at 100. they do that and figure they are good to go. Sorry for the rant, but people don't like bowhunters either, I am not out for anyone. As long as hunters use their heads and practice the minimal amount, they are good by me, most of the time. Scotty

 

[nodak7mm]

Be honest with yourself on making the shot. If you do not have 100% confidence, get closer.

JD338

Nuff said!! 8)

 

[Greg Nolan]

I agree with all that is said. It's a personal decision and about as subjective with opinions as it can get. One other facet is the caliber of gun. Hitting an elk in the kill zone at 900 yards is one thing. Having enough retained energy for the necessary upset and penetration is another. 1500 FPE seems to be the standard minimum for elk. If hit in the kill zone. The old saying "Let your conscious be your guide" comes to mind.
Greg

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

Hey now, I've made posts where I set up and "missed". It happens to everyone, and it can happen at 100 yards or 1000 yards. Missed 3 black bears in a weekend few years ago, posted the whole story lol.

I practice out to 1K on a regular basis with the rifles I hunt with. That way when somethign steps out at 500-600 yards, its "usually" considered dead meat...in good condidtions, meaning about 5mph wind or less, and laying prone w/bipod while figuring out angle and everything else you need to take into consideration.

Its not rocket science, its about having the right equipment and knowledge, place and time to put it all together. Many people have all the above but the "place" this is why some must travel to a special school to learn and hone there skills, or travel a great distance which doesn't permit them to do it often enough to become good enough. I on the other hand have gone out of my way to secure places to shoot LR around my town. Living in the west, or the desert of northeast oregon allows me to shoot as far as I can see because a lot of times there is not much cover for sneaking up on coyotes or antelope or big muley bucks. I like to be prepared out there aways, its saved me from going home empty handed many of times knowing that I can make a shot way out there if need be.

Everyones going to miss plain and simple. I just get sick of people blaming LR hunters for wounding game. I guaruntee you 1 milliion times more animals are wounded by stick throwers and your average day ding dong with a rifle that cant even sight it in and hit a paper plate at 100 yards. Thats really who you should be talking to here...

On the other hand, yes I do agree with the TV advertisements. They make it sounds like you buy a 300 RUM, brake it, scope it with target knobs or some crazy BDC retice and supposedly your killing elk at 1K with no practice?? Gimme a break people...Like I said, its not rocket science, but its a little more complex then that..

However I will say that pretty much its the guys setting up the rifle who are doing the work. Its like the spotter/shooter in a sniper team, who does all the work? The spotter, the sniper just squeezes the trigger. I say this becasue I've taken people out shooting with me from 800-1K and they hav little problems hitting a 15" plate off a bench at those distances with my rifles/loads/and me settin the scope up, really all they have to do is hold dead on and squeeze trigger right? But thats because I tend to know what I"m doing and have thousads of hours practice and rounds fired downrange. It would take the average guy quite a while to learn on his own before he was able to start hitting things at 1K reliably, I know it took me a few years to graduate out to 1K before I actually considered myself a 1K shooter because I had no teacher, I spend my time reading and applying it in the field.

Anyways, I tend to not get much into the discussion anymore because quite frankly I dont care what people think of it. If you dont like it oh well, cant please everyone. Theres also those who will just never see the other side of things. Times are changing, not everyone likes to shoot stuff at 200 yards away with the rifles/scopes/calibers/bullets/rangefinders/etc, we have now a days.

 

[JD338]

Jory,

You are one that I look up to regarding LRH. I have no doubt about your equipment, technique, and experience. Its fellas like you that make LRH fascinating. The key is that you and a few others here do a lot of long range shooting. You made a key point that some don't have access (like me) to long ranges so they take a class and then go hunting.
I feel very strongly that if you want to shoot long range, you have to committ to long range practice.

JD338

 

[Guy Miner]

"I find it a bit interesting when folks are opposed to shooting "big game" at extended range... but somehow justify "Taking the occasional long poke at a prairie dog or coyote". How is it... that your hunting scruples extend only to big game?"


Yeah, I'm ready to admit it - I'll happily take shots at rock chucks, sage rats and coyotes that I might not make... Whereas on a deer, I'll not try a shot unless I'm confident.

For some reason, the fate of a varmint or coyote just doesn't bother me much. That's why I'll take "iffy" long range shots on coyotes or rock chucks that I won't try on mule deer. Oh, I don't want to see a poor rockchuck drag himself off into the rocks to die slowly, and normally I just blow 'em up with a high-velocity varmint bullet. If I miss, or make a poor hit on a rock chuck or a coyote, it really doesn't bother me. So yes, I think my "hunting scruples" extend only to big game. Or birds. I absolutely hate wounding and losing a bird...

There's probably some dark psychological explanation to this, but mostly I think it's because I value the mule deer much more than I do the rock chuck.

Regards, Guy

 

[Anonymous]

I have to agree with the original poster on this one... I don't care for it much at all. I think shooting long range is a remarkable skill but I can't say I think highly of shooting a game animal at that kind of distance.

There are those who do it well and I've talked to a several who don't do it well at all but still try. At this point I've heard enough horror stories that started with dropping the striker at 500yds+ to dissuade me from wanting to even try. I've spent a fair amount of time shooting at 500 meters and up, so I've a fair idea of what it takes to make shots at that range.

If a guy wants to impress me he can kill an elk with a bayonet. That'll do it.

 

[Songdog]

I know a lot more guys who practice at 400-600 yards... than I do guys who practice shots at moving targets. Yet, most folks have no problem with taking, or other folks taking, shots at moving deer.... as long as it's inside a couple hundred yards. Personally... I know I have a much better shot of making a clean kill on an unaware deer at 400-600 (even 800) than I do shooting at a deer that's running... even inside 100 yards.

Hunting Ethics is a never ending debate... at the end of the day, ethics is a hole through the clock-work of the intended critter... no matter the range, or angle, or chosen projectile...

 

[JD338]

Excellent point Songdog!

JD338

 

[cloverleaf]

OK, I'll bite-
Guy I dont think there is any "dark psychological flaw" to your reasoning unless you are fond of coyote jerky or prairie poodle soup :shock: . My guess would be that you get closer, because you want to eat that Mulie and cause it is the challenge. For some one such as your self, who is an accomplished and practiced long range shooter, you undersatnd what it takes and what can go wrong. Also your 25-06 with a 115 gr BT is much more likely to canvas a coyote at 400+ than it will even an antelope, much less a elk. Now I know ya'all got bigger guns to do this kinda thing with. If you think you are set up to do this with your WSSSSSSSSSSM Howitzer OK, your conscience. I wont do it. I have muffed one to many shots and not had an outcome I want. Human factors can be minimized, its true but at a 1000 yards I can see a myriad of things going wrong. Ive seen some of those shows. Takes an hour to get from where you pulled the trigger to where you think he was when you shot. Another variable, good luck finding that elk. On TV they will. They dont show "the ones that got away". This does a great dis-service to the average shooting public with a 30-06. Factors like drop, velocity loss and drift are not the constants that science says they are when you combine them with human factors like arenaline, fatigue, respiration, and even pulse. The average guy with his '06 cant hit a 10 inch circle with his rifle at 200 yards on a consistent basis, but if I see it on TV suddenly I think I can.
On this board we frequently talk about good shot form and recoil flinch etc. To say we can teach you how to make those things not happen permanently and do so behind a 300 grain bullet and 60 grains of powder is Bull$%^% for 98% percent of the shooters out there. Long range for most folks (myself included) is 300 yards. That is a big reason why the antelope is probably the single most wounded big game animal. As a kid I watched an otherwise healthy deer run across the plains with a busted jaw (shot). He would most likely live until starvation slowed him down enough that the coyotes got him. Things like that can happen at 50 yards, but to ignore the fact that the odds of that kind of thing can happen more easily as the range increases is foolish and unethical IMHO. Selling this kinda of superman mentality to the public is even more so. Kinda like saying that becuase you own a Corvette you can drive 100 MPH all the time. You can but sooner or later its gonna go wrong. I know this is what we sell, and want. I am guilty too. More power, faster, flatter. But if you convince yourself that it is OK as a planned activity on a regular basis, I will suggest that you are gonna get bit, and a game animal you want will come out on the loosing end. Will I take a shot over 300 yards on a game animal? Some day possibly, but not if I can avoid it. Forgive me, I do not mean to cast aspurtions on any of you who hunt long range. For me, because I am not perfect, and because I have to rely on some one else to do my tracking and retrieving, I have some pretty strong opinions. CL

 

[DrMike]

I suspect that most of the fellows posting on this forum are conscientious and make an effort to be ethical. No one would have a problem with conscientious people who hone their skills through repeated practise engaging in long range hunting. The rub comes when people who neither know their weapon/ammunition nor spend the time honing their own skill attempt to duplicate what they witness others doing. I confess that I have a concern that if the shooting fraternity fails to regulate itself, and even when it does, some well-intentioned politician will attempt to regulate the sport. I know that there is already discussion of such regulation here in BC because of the growing interest in long range shooting. Any attempt at such regulation will introduce a nightmare for enforcement; but that has never yet deterred politicians. We must be careful in condemning the practise of fellow hunters, unless there is a clear violation of ethical practise. The fraternity is not so large that we can afford to anathematise any segment. Debate? Absolutely! Deride? Never!