800-1000 yard shots?

B

Buccsboy55

Active Member
Messages
401
Not a big fan of these 800-1000 yard shots seems pretty unfair in my book I hear people bragging about long shots to me that just = s good shot sh***y hunter if u can't get closer than that. wanna hear some opinions on this also I do respect anyone who can shoot and hit something that far just saying doesn't seem fair to the animals
 
REDDOG Shoots out to & Beyond 2,000 Yards!

Not Even Sure I can See that Far anymore?:D








[font color="blue"]dude has his Resume turned in to be Hillary's
Intern[/font]
 
Although I agree with what your saying, if hunters are so busy arguing with each other it makes it easier for antis to argue with the bunch of us. There will always be someone who goes harder than you; archery hunters, speer hunters,backcountry hunters and people that actually live in the woods, etcetera. When I hear people at work bash people that high fence hunt, I defend them. What we have against each other for the way we hunt, antis have against us all. There are too few of us left to be squabbling amongst each other. If you feel the need to complain, search the history on this forum and read the posts, it's all been covered. Support your fellow hunter even if his methods are different than yours. My ?2.
 
I agree if you can't get closer go golfing or go fishing!
hornkiller.jpg
 
>Although I agree with what your
>saying, if hunters are so
>busy arguing with each other
>it makes it easier for
>antis to argue with the
>bunch of us. There will
>always be someone who goes
>harder than you; archery hunters,
>speer hunters,backcountry hunters and people
>that actually live in the
>woods, etcetera. When I hear
>people at work bash people
>that high fence hunt, I
>defend them. What we have
>against each other for the
>way we hunt, antis have
>against us all. There are
>too few of us left
>to be squabbling amongst each
>other. If you feel the
>need to complain, search the
>history on this forum and
>read the posts, it's all
>been covered. Support your fellow
>hunter even if his methods
>are different than yours. My
>?2.


+1

Although high fence bugs me I try to keep it to my self

There are people that practice those long distance shot and also have the rifles to back it up. Do I agree? Not necessarily. But I'll say this I can't shoot that far consistently so I can't say it makes it easier to shoot them from that far.
 
So, as an archer, should I argue yout are being unfair to the animals using ANY rifle, or if you shoot your rifle further than 50 or 60 yards you are just a poor excuse for a hunter?

Bragging is a reflection on the immaturity and insecurity of the bragger, whether it be inches of antler or yards of shot.

And getting upset about someone acting immaturely isn't all that morally superior of a position.

It takes skill, money, and practice to do it right. A different challenge, but still a challenge. I'm not able to do it, so my hats off to those that truly can. I prefer the challenge of practicing my calling and archery shots year-round. To each their own.
 
"Long Range" shooting has absolutely nothing to do with being a "sh**ty hunter". Long range hunters take long shots because they are capable of doing so. They spend thousands of dollars on their rifle, scopes and calibers of choice and put hundreds of hours in at the range learning how to do it.
A sh**ty hunter is the guy who takes "lob shots" trying to hit an animal they have no business shooting at.
My last statement goes for archers and muzzy guys as well. If its beyond your comfort range, you have no business "trying".
Ive guided many hunters who can ethically take animals at long ranges with rifles and do it effectively. I've NEVER let or told a hunter to take a shot either he or I am not comfortable with.
If a person is fully capabe with a 1000 yard shot, go for it.
If an archer is fully capable of a 100 yard shot, take it!
And if a muzzleloader hunter is fully capable of 300 yard shot, take it!
I shoot a 338 Lapua and am not yet comfortable with a 1000 yard kill shot, therefore i won't risk it out of respect for the animal ?




avatar-1.png
 
I just don't like the guys that buy a .300 magnum something or other then buy a night force scope to mount on it, then zeroes to 100 with factory ammo and theorettically think they can shoot a deer at 700 yards because they know (and everyone else knows) how to adjust elevation.
 
>"Long Range" shooting has absolutely nothing
>to do with being a
>"sh**ty hunter". Long range hunters
>take long shots because they
>are capable of doing so.
>They spend thousands of dollars
>on their rifle, scopes and
>calibers of choice and put
>hundreds of hours in at
>the range learning how to
>do it.
>A sh**ty hunter is the guy
>who takes "lob shots" trying
>to hit an animal they
>have no business shooting at.
>
>My last statement goes for archers
>and muzzy guys as well.
>If its beyond your comfort
>range, you have no business
>"trying".
>Ive guided many hunters who can
>ethically take animals at long
>ranges with rifles and do
>it effectively. I've NEVER let
>or told a hunter to
>take a shot either he
>or I am not comfortable
>with.
>If a person is fully capabe
>with a 1000 yard shot,
>go for it.
>If an archer is fully capable
>of a 100 yard shot,
>take it!
>And if a muzzleloader hunter is
>fully capable of 300 yard
>shot, take it!
>I shoot a 338 Lapua and
>am not yet comfortable with
>a 1000 yard kill shot,
>therefore i won't risk it
>out of respect for the
>animal ?
>
>
>
>
>
avatar-1.png


I hear what you are saying...however is there a point at which it is no longer defined as "hunting" and more defined as "shooting?"
 
>Jesus. New guy drags this stupid
>crap up. Beat the horse.
>mtmuley


Jesus. It's just discussion. You don't need to join in if it doesn't interest you. As far as long range, it's not for me but to each their own if their equipment and capabilities permit.
 
How about running deer with dogs, That a good way to move swamp deer.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
I think Slamdunk said it best. Stay within your own capability. When I hunted archery, I would practice to 80 but my comfort zone was 50- 60 hunting. I use open sights on my muzzy and love lobbing 300 yard shots plinking rocks for fun but when hunting I stay within my 175-200 zone. Are there hunters capable of 80+ kill shots with a bow? Sure. Can someone kill an elk at 300 with a muzz? Maybe so. Point is, while I don't agree with long range, I won't judge someone for their choice to do it as long as they're effective.
 
A few years and Hillary will make any shot a non-topic. More time after that and PETA will make hunting a non-topic. People are more interested in infighting and less about the man behind the curtain.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
>Although I agree with what your
>saying, if hunters are so
>busy arguing with each other
>it makes it easier for
>antis to argue with the
>bunch of us. There will
>always be someone who goes
>harder than you; archery hunters,
>speer hunters,backcountry hunters and people
>that actually live in the
>woods, etcetera. When I hear
>people at work bash people
>that high fence hunt, I
>defend them. What we have
>against each other for the
>way we hunt, antis have
>against us all. There are
>too few of us left
>to be squabbling amongst each
>other. If you feel the
>need to complain, search the
>history on this forum and
>read the posts, it's all
>been covered. Support your fellow
>hunter even if his methods
>are different than yours. My
>?2.

totally disagree. The fact that there are more of them vs. us, means we DO have to pick our battles. If you want to hunt with a spear, great. You put a go pro on it and put it on you tube, then you deserve what is coming. Not a fan of the LR. But, if your doing it as a challenge, I get that. Doing it on film on youtube to be the man, you deserve the bad PR. We as a community get dragged into wayyyyyyy to many issues by jackwagons, and mainly jackwagons on film. We likely won't gain mainstream exceptance anymore, but NO ONE is going to accept go pro spear dude. NO ONE is going to be convinced that your into hunting for the hunt, if your setting up computers to make a shot on something you can't see without optics. We can't keep wasting time and effort defending the Walter Palmers of the world, because quite frankly, those guys didn't ask us what we thought of there dumbazz idea before hand, so why should we circle the wagon afterwards? If you love the sport, if you honor the sport, you do everything you can to not bring negetivity to it. But we should spend zero time defending the Kim Kardashians in camo. My .02


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>Jesus. New guy drags this stupid
>crap up. Beat the horse.

Agreed. If you're accomplished at long range, more power to ya...
 
I don't agree with it, I think should get closer too. HOWEVER, if a hunter can make that shot as consistently as the next guy at 200 yards, I don't care. If the animals dies a clean quick death, makes no difference.
Long range hunters put their time into shooting at huge distances, I put my time into getting closer.

besides, what is long distance? Growing up in MN hunting whitetails, we thought 100 yards with a rifle was long distance.
Now I hunt out here, 100 yards is a chip shot standing up free hand.


Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
 
>I hear what you are saying...however
>is there a point at
>which it is no longer
>defined as "hunting" and more
>defined as "shooting?"

You do realize, don't you, that an eerily similar argument is used by anti-hunters to justify applying their own version of moral relativism on hunters? They would say that ANY modern firearm is no longer "hunting", but just unfair "shooting" of an animal. That if you want to have a "fair chase", then put on your running shoes and run it down putting it in a choke hold. Moral relativism is a slippery slope with no end. Again, should I deem you as not "hunting" if you shoot your rifle at a prey greater than 50 yards simply because that is my self-imposed archery range? Why shouldn't I, if you appear willing to impose your set of ideals on others shooting further than you? It makes very little logical sense to make this judgement of others.
 
>
>Don't be jealous just because my
>800 yard group is better
>than your 200 yard group.
>

Ain't that^^^^ the truth!

It's the same old argument and hopefully it gets us nowhere except where we are now.

I'm totally fine with EVERYONE using archery tackle only but I can see where that argument is stupid too.

Some of you boys need a little time to grow up and it wouldn't hurt if you spent some time with a HUNTER who can shoot too!

Hunting is about personal choices and personally imposed limits PERIOD. Let's not limit AND REGULATE THE HELL OUT OF THOSE CHOICES! Damn near everything else in our lives is over-regulated and taxed already.

By the way, I'm NOT a big fan of the dial and kill crowd BUT IT SHOULD BE THEIR CHOICE and anything else is a ridiculous argument for the sake of gaining brownie points with other like-minded misguided souls..

Zeke
 
I saw a video a couple years ago about a 12 year old making a 1100yd kill shot on an elk, somewhere in Utah I think.

Ok...except his dad adjusted the scope and chambered a round for him.

That kid was a good trigger puller.

Had he done that all by himself it would have been a different story.
 
hossblur, I see what you are saying, and generally agree, but I think there may be some semantics causing disagreement.

I don't believe the point was to stick up for an defend the acts of people choosing to do dumb things. At least I didn't take it that way. But, we must realize that we need to defend other's right to choose to do legal dumb things, so as to preserve our own right to make our own dumb choices (or choices that others think are dumb).

The moment we don't defend other's rights to make their own choices is the moment our own rights begin to erode. It is the lifeblood and foundation of this great nation, and must be preserved if we wish to retain our freedom to choose for ourselves.

I'm listening to KSL radio right now about a 12yo girl posting photos of her African hunting safari, and receiving all sorts of death threats and horrible response. Do I agree with the style of hunting she did? Not particularly. BUT, I will NOT criticize or claim she shouldn't have the right to choose to do that if legal to do so. If I don't stand up for her and her dad's right to make that choice, then there are fewer right-to-choose people at the table able to defend my choice to archery hunt. If we don't stand up for everyone's right to choose, there just may not be anyone left when it comes time to defend our own right.
 
What about the guys that use trail cams, highend spotting scopes, game calls, bait, etc? All of which are legal mind you including shooting at how ever far anyone wants to. We all strive to be better hunters correct? We use every piece of technology (camo, scent killer, etc) to make us better at hunting. All of which make us better hunters... So spending the time and money on a rifle and getting your skills up where you can take those longer shots when necessary is no different. I have worked up over the years that I can consistently hit targets at 1200 yards. I've put thousands of dollars into my setup, spent many hours reloading, shooting and improving my skills. Have I ever shot an animal that far? No but who cares? I will not pass up a shot at 50 yards but I hunt areas where a close shot is 500-600 yards.

If you want to talk about ethics and such then talk about the trail cams and everything else that puts the hunt in the favor of the hunter...

My $.02...

Workman Predator Calls Field Staff
http://www.workmanpredatorcalls.com
 
Hossblur, you said you totally dissagree with me. I just don't see where you actually did. You won't catch me defending the spear hunter with the gopro, that guys an idiot, yes he makes us all look bad. As far as lr goes for me there's a difference between shooting a deer at 700 yards because he's across a canyon and you can't gain the distance on foot and backing up to 700 from 500 just for sh*ts and giggles. When I hunt with a muzzleloader it's a load from the font with open sites, does that mean someone's a total douche because he uses an inline with a scope? Absolutely not. Not being argumentative just don't understand what part of what I said you disagree with.
 
Not completely against long range hunting, but I do hate the stories of guys who say they back-up to make it the distance they want. I hear stories every year from guys who were closer, but back-up to have their 750 or 1,000 yard shot. That too me just feels disrespectful to the critter. Most all the stories of backing-up either deal antlerless or antelope. Seems like inches of bone on a buck or bull give enough ego boost to not back up to gain yards.....

Animals Aren't Gongs.

...
 
I guess it's all up to the individual. However, I have elected to go by what my father taught me...."Whatever range you can hit a pie plate EVERY SINGLE SHOT...that's your max range." Here's the thing, I have seen MANY LR shooters at the range pushing it out there, and doing well about 70-80% of the time. Then I listen to them brag about the elk they took at that range. Well, to me, that's just not good enough.
On another note, LR shooting is going to do nothing but lead to fewer tags and opportunities. This goes for Rifles as well as archery. I spoke with a biologist in AZ last year and she was well aware that the technology in archery has made it so the success rate has climbed to the point at which too make bucks were being harvested. Therefore, there was a reduction in tags. This will probably happen with the LR capabilities now available. Same probably goes for scopes on muzzle loaders. You could add game cameras to the mix as well.
Personally, I enjoy the hunt itself...but that does not give me the right to impose my feelings on anyone else. Do I agree with LR hunting/Large numbers of game camera/scopes on ML'ers...nope, but I do shoot farther now with my bow than I could 10 years ago. So I guess that sort of makes me part of the problem :-(
 
>>I hear what you are saying...however
>>is there a point at
>>which it is no longer
>>defined as "hunting" and more
>>defined as "shooting?"
>
>You do realize, don't you, that
>an eerily similar argument is
>used by anti-hunters to justify
>applying their own version of
>moral relativism on hunters?
>They would say that ANY
>modern firearm is no longer
>"hunting", but just unfair "shooting"
>of an animal. That
>if you want to have
>a "fair chase", then put
>on your running shoes and
>run it down putting it
>in a choke hold. Moral
>relativism is a slippery slope
>with no end. Again,
>should I deem you as
>not "hunting" if you shoot
>your rifle at a prey
>greater than 50 yards simply
>because that is my self-imposed
>archery range? Why shouldn't
>I, if you appear willing
>to impose your set of
>ideals on others shooting further
>than you? It makes
>very little logical sense to
>make this judgement of others.
>

Alright, let me try this another way. In your response you said..."You do realize, don't you, that an eerily similar argument is used by anti-hunters to justify applying their own version of moral relativism on hunters?"
I'm not taking sides, and don't want to impose my personal feeling on anyone...BUT! Is there a point at which the anti's argument would be valid? 500 yards-800 yards-1000 yards....2000 yards? Again, is there a point (any range) at which the pendulum swings away from hunting, and more towards shooting? I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone...just curious.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-16 AT 05:44PM (MST)[p]I shoot a recurve so I think all of you compound bow guys. Are s####y hunters geez get close to your game like a real hunter.

This is the stupidest argument ever I feel bad for people who worry so much about others hunting style.must not have much going on in life
 
>Hossblur, you said you totally dissagree
>with me. I just don't
>see where you actually did.
>You won't catch me defending
>the spear hunter with the
>gopro, that guys an idiot,
>yes he makes us all
>look bad. As far as
>lr goes for me there's
>a difference between shooting a
>deer at 700 yards because
>he's across a canyon and
>you can't gain the distance
>on foot and backing up
>to 700 from 500 just
>for sh*ts and giggles. When
>I hunt with a muzzleloader
>it's a load from the
>font with open sites, does
>that mean someone's a total
>douche because he uses an
>inline with a scope? Absolutely
>not. Not being argumentative just
>don't understand what part of
>what I said you disagree
>with.

My disagreement was with the idea that we all have to band together and cover each other no matter what. Like I said, and like some other guys mentioned, I am not a fan of LR, but I won't go out of may way to try and have it banned, or whatever. I also won't go out of my way to "stand up" for the guys who want to always push the limit. Spear guy, same thing. I am not necessarily pro or anti spear. I am VERY MUCH anti "put my dumbazzness on youtube". That goes for spear guy, 2000yrd guy, or open carry guy with his AR straped on his back shopping in the mall. Because you have a right to do something is FARRRRRR different than just doing something for attention. But I realize that in this I am old school.(42yrs old). I hunt the same area that I have and my dad did. I hunt with the same guys every year. I use the 06' I got when I was 16. Most years I don't see a deer worth taking my gun off safety(Manti), but its about the tradition to me, the heritage. I realize that the younger generation is about being seen, being "the man", not being disrespected, everyone is equal, yada, yada, yada. This is the reason, that in my house, despite having 2 outdoor channels, other than maybe Meateater, once in awhile, I don't watch. To me this possee, newest, loudest, greatest, isn't a positive to our sport. I know I very much may be totally wrong, but I'm not expecting anyone to back me up(nor should extreme LR guy, spear guy, etc, etc,)


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-16 AT 06:30PM (MST)[p]>>Hossblur, you said you totally dissagree
>>with me. I just don't
>>see where you actually did.
>>You won't catch me defending
>>the spear hunter with the
>>gopro, that guys an idiot,
>>yes he makes us all
>>look bad. As far as
>>lr goes for me there's
>>a difference between shooting a
>>deer at 700 yards because
>>he's across a canyon and
>>you can't gain the distance
>>on foot and backing up
>>to 700 from 500 just
>>for sh*ts and giggles. When
>>I hunt with a muzzleloader
>>it's a load from the
>>font with open sites, does
>>that mean someone's a total
>>douche because he uses an
>>inline with a scope? Absolutely
>>not. Not being argumentative just
>>don't understand what part of
>>what I said you disagree
>>with.
>
>My disagreement was with the idea
>that we all have to
>band together and cover each
>other no matter what.
>Like I said, and like
>some other guys mentioned, I
>am not a fan of
>LR, but I won't go
>out of may way to
>try and have it banned,
>or whatever. I also
>won't go out of my
>way to "stand up" for
>the guys who want to
>always push the limit.
>Spear guy, same thing.
>I am not necessarily pro
>or anti spear. I
>am VERY MUCH anti "put
>my dumbazzness on youtube".
>That goes for spear guy,
>2000yrd guy, or open carry
>guy with his AR straped
>on his back shopping in
>the mall. Because you
>have a right to do
>something is FARRRRRR different than
>just doing something for attention.
> But I realize that
>in this I am old
>school.(42yrs old). I hunt
>the same area that I
>have and my dad did.
> I hunt with the
>same guys every year.
>I use the 06' I
>got when I was 16.
> Most years I don't
>see a deer worth taking
>my gun off safety(Manti), but
>its about the tradition to
>me, the heritage. I
>realize that the younger generation
>is about being seen, being
>"the man", not being disrespected,
>everyone is equal, yada, yada,
>yada. This is the
>reason, that in my house,
>despite having 2 outdoor channels,
>other than maybe Meateater, once
>in awhile, I don't watch.
> To me this possee,
>newest, loudest, greatest, isn't a
>positive to our sport.
>I know I very much
>may be totally wrong, but
>I'm not expecting anyone to
>back me up(nor should extreme
>LR guy, spear guy, etc,
>etc,)
>
>
>"The only thing that stops a
>bad guy with a gun
>is a good guy with
>a gun"

I agree with almost everything hoss said, especially the part about all the dumbazzes putting all their "exploits" on the web. Too many stupid folks but I also think we could regulate ourselves right out of our sport if we're not careful....just because we don't like how the other guy does it.
Attention stupid people: keep your sh!t off the Internet!

Zeke
 
Back to 800-1000 shots. Those shots are for younger guys. Look at every swat tea in America. Every shooter is under 40 years old for a reason. As an old GEEZER I can still shoot very well out to 400-500 yards. When it's over that distance it goes to hell. My 35 year old son shoots that same rifle out to 800 yards and hits the kill zone every time. So much wisdom and the physical prowess has gone to less than desirable. Sucks.
 
I agree with you also hoss, I was just simply saying that because someone hunts differently than I do doesn't mean they're a pos or an idiot. Speer guy different story. But if someone puts in the time and effort to shoot long range more power to him. It's not for me but I try not to bash someone because they hunt differently than me. Sorry if that was repetitive.
 
>
>Don't be jealous just because my
>800 yard group is better
>than your 200 yard group.
>

Hey booty?

Is that what You Tell Travis?












[font color="blue"]dude has his Resume turned in to be Hillary's
Intern[/font]
 
Bow, Rifle or Muzz. Don't confuse marksmanship with hunting.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I realize this always becomes a long cockk contest and if you can hit a 12 in circle at 1000yds everytime congratulations, yers is longer than mine. But you still can't control what an animal does during time of flight. At 1000yds it's close to 2 seconds. How far can an animal move in 2 seconds? A hundred yard arrow shot has a time of flight of more than a second. Again how far can that animal move in that time? The simple question is is it worth the risk? Call me holier than thou if you want, congratulations again, but to me it isn't.
 
>>
>>Don't be jealous just because my
>>800 yard group is better
>>than your 200 yard group.
>>
>
>Hey booty?
>
>Is that what You Tell Travis?


The only thing I tell Travis is.... quit being a pillow biter! ;)
 
Surprised the monstermuley police haven't tried to get a moratorium on long range shooting in all western states. Which reminds me, my Hornady ELD-X 200 & 212 grn bullets just showed up. Need to get some loads made up to try out at the range this weekend...
 
I don't like the 1000 yard shots either, but what bothers me most with the long range shots is the lack of care for the meat. I don't watch any TV and very little Youtube videos. But I have seen some and the ones that shoot one across a canyon and then say there is no time to go get it that night drives me crazy. They almost want the meat to go bad so they say it is spoiled and only take head. The moral side is what is way off. A big difference in shooting an Antelope on flat ground that you can walk over to in a few minutes to take care of, and shooting an Elk across a canyon that will take the better part of a day to get across. I know I'm different as I'm all about the meat. I want it cut up and hanging in less then an hour from the shot going off. Another thing is I'm not a hound hunter but I will support them and same with trappers and archery and Muzzy guys. But when our morals turn to wrong side I'm not going to support that.

2 Cents, DZ
 
Why wouldn't you want to back out to 1000 or 1200 yards and take the shot? No one ever misses or wounds game at that distance, just ask 'em.
 
I've stated this before and it's just my opinion. As a hunter and shooter I shoot long range quite a bit. I spend hours building rifles, fine tuning loads, and testing them in various conditions. More time spent reading wind and practicing good field shooting. I personally won't take a long range shot without conditions being perfect. I have confidence in myself and my equipment. I'm willing to bet more bad shots are taken under 400 yards than longer range. Mainly by the average joe who goes to the range the week before season with Walmart ammo and shoots 3 shots at 100 and is good to go for season. Everyone is responsible to know their equipment and limits of it.
 
I'm still trying to figure out from those that jump on their soapbox on this, just when does it go from "hunting" to "shooting?" What is that magic number?

At what yardage mark does it go from "ethical" to "unethical?"

The OP mentioned 800-1000 yards shots, that's why I asked if 775 was okay. I still want to know. For you that get on your high horse on this, what is the number? At what yardage mark does it become not okay?
 
>I've stated this before and it's
>just my opinion. As a
>hunter and shooter I shoot
>long range quite a bit.
>I spend hours building rifles,
>fine tuning loads, and testing
>them in various conditions. More
>time spent reading wind and
>practicing good field shooting. I
>personally won't take a long
>range shot without conditions being
>perfect. I have confidence in
>myself and my equipment. I'm
>willing to bet more bad
>shots are taken under 400
>yards than longer range. Mainly
>by the average joe who
>goes to the range the
>week before season with Walmart
>ammo and shoots 3 shots
>at 100 and is good
>to go for season. Everyone
>is responsible to know their
>equipment and limits of it.
>

WE HAVE A WINNER!!! Seriously, one of the most logical and sound posts on this thread.

When did the world shift to this idea that a difference of opinions and views was a bad thing? Didn't a certain group of individuals leave England searching for freedom?? Why does it always have to be the "see things my way and agree with me, or you are wrong" attitude?
 
I don't have a problem with any shooter as long as he lives by the rules if he draws blood dead animal or no dead animal he is done. And he sure better walk his but the 2000 yards to check no matter how sure he is that he missed.
 
>I'm still trying to figure out
>from those that jump on
>their soapbox on this, just
>when does it go from
>"hunting" to "shooting?" What is
>that magic number?
>
>At what yardage mark does it
>go from "ethical" to "unethical?"
>
>
>The OP mentioned 800-1000 yards shots,
>that's why I asked if
>775 was okay. I still
>want to know. For you
>that get on your high
>horse on this, what is
>the number? At what yardage
>mark does it become not
>okay?

I don't think the question is..."what is the limit?"
but rather, simply...
"IS there a limit?"

Let's just say there is someone out there that can hit the 1000 yard mark 100% of the time? Is a 1000 yard shot "hunting" or "shooting?" 1,500 yard shot-2000 yard shot? Does it make a difference? To me it does, but that's just my OPINION...does not mean i'm on a soapbox. I'm not saying anyone is wrong in taking those LR shots. However, I am saying that, in my OPINION, that is not "hunting"...because I feel it is more "shooting" than anything.
 
Boone & Crocket. Taking the high road in saying that they feel long range is unfair. Yet they do not define what long range is. To me that makes no since. That entire statement seems like a politically correct statement carefully worded from a club that does not want to alienate any of its membership current or future.

Be ethical will all shots you take and with all weapons you hunt with. To me it is simple as that.

As a whole I have found that real actually dedicated long range "hunters" (Note I did not say shooters, as there is a difference) are better overall hunters. They are good hunters that just add long range capabilities to their skill set. They are searching to become better hunters all the way around and long range is just one for skills to develop. I have killed numerous animals with a bow, big game and small, I have killed with an open site muzzy. I have killed with a 243, 25/06, 270 win, 270wsm, 7mm Remington Mag, a 30/06, many many with a 300 win mag. 20 yards to 730 yards. Recently I got a Gunwerks 7mm LRM with the Nightforce scope and BR2 rangefinder. It didn't make me any shitttier hunter than I already was. Ironically my next purchase will most likely be a recurve lol.
 
I found this quote (see below) , in the B&C article, very applicable to my beliefs. To be sure, there is no exact line at which it is too far....but if you go out specifically looking to harvest game at LR, then my opinion would put you in the 'Shooters" bunch rather than the "Hunters" bunch. Again JMO...not saying anything is wrong with it, just not how I would define hunting.

"Hunting must involve the risk of detection and failure if there is to be any honor in having overcome the superior senses and survival instincts of the hunted. It is for this reason that sportsmen have embraced limitations so that technology does not fully overwhelm the natural capacities of the prey they pursue. This is a self-imposed trade-off that decreases the likelihood of a successful harvest, but heightens the hunting experience and shows respect for the animals being hunted. Combined, these values represent the intent and cherished traditions of hunting."
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-16 AT 12:42PM (MST)[p]Okay, Deerdon, then what is your OPINION on the yardage mark where it changes from "hunting" to "shooting?"

It's funny, because I'm not a long range hunter or shooter. I get outside my comfort zone very quickly beyond 300 yards. I only have a 3x9 scope on top of my 7mm-08, 30-06 and .338, so going out too much farther I can't see very well. One day I hope to upgrade my scope on my .338 and improve my mechanics enough to be very comfortable out to 600 yards. So this issue doesn't even impact me, but it sticks in my craw to see people bash long range when they can't even define what that is.

I will admit, my question is a ridiculous one. But sometimes the only way to address ridiculous criticism is to ask a ridiculous question. So I'll ask it again, at what yardage mark does it cross the line?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-16 AT 01:01PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-16
>AT 12:42?PM (MST)
>
>Okay, Deerdon, then what is your
>OPINION on the yardage mark
>where it changes from "hunting"
>to "shooting?"
>
>It's funny, because I'm not a
>long range hunter or shooter.
>I get outside my comfort
>zone very quickly beyond 300
>yards. I only have a
>3x9 scope on top of
>my 7mm-08, 30-06 and .338,
>so going out too much
>farther I can't see very
>well. One day I hope
>to upgrade my scope on
>my .338 and improve my
>mechanics enough to be very
>comfortable out to 600 yards.
>So this issue doesn't even
>impact me, but it sticks
>in my craw to see
>people bash long range when
>they can't even define what
>that is.
>
>I will admit, my question is
>a ridiculous one. But sometimes
>the only way to address
>ridiculous criticism is to ask
>a ridiculous question. So I'll
>ask it again, at what
>yardage mark does it cross
>the line?

Fair question and, unfortunately one that I don't think anyone could answer. However, like I said in my post, where I draw the line is when you are going out with the sole intention of taking a LR shot. I would say that, if you could close the distance before you shoot, but elect not to solely so you could take that long shot...then you would be a "shooter" and not a "hunter" in my opinion. Having said that, you may also experience just as much satisfaction and excitement as an archer at 20 yards. So I want to be clear, I am NOT saying it's wrong...just sharing my views on how the person pulling the trigger should be defined. In short...it's not as much about the yardage as it is about the intent.
 
I'll add my 2 cents in here. First, I have hunted with Bow, Muzzle loader and rifle. Doesn't matter to me. I had an interesting discussion with a fellow hunter about how he thought the Fish and Game needed to decrease muzzle loader hunts because the distance capability of taking an animal had exceeded what was intended and therefore they were taking too many animals. About an hour later he came back by and we started to talk hunting with a rifle this time. He then proceeded to explain how him and his buddy could shoot Elk out to 800 yards and had actually taken a Bull this past season at 750 yards. Of course I quickly stated, "and you're worried about muzzle loader hunters"???
What has enabled hunters to take animals at these greatly increased distances, which include all hunters, bow, muzzle loader and rifle is the modern range finder. As long as it is legal to hunt with one of these devices then it's fine, might not agree with it but it's legal. The State Wildlife law enforcement authorities are the ones that need to make the decisions, with input from the hunters, what is legal and not legal. Until a law is passed, I think we should shut up and support each other. Just as long as we, as hunters, all realize that there is only X number of animals to harvest. As we become more capable and efficient in taking animals, the seasons and number of hunters MUST decrease. Simple math.
Personally, I wish they'd outlaw a range finder if it would help preserve our current hunting seasons.
 
Haha just when I thought this thread was going to die. I believe the range finder is a valuable tool that decreases the amount of wounded animals. Not only does it increase the likelihood of a clean kill, it also discourages a lot of shots. I have been in the situation where I thought I was at 350, used my range finder and found out I was at 450 which is out of my personal range. Here in N Idaho distances can be very deceiving depending on terrain, things can look further than they are or closer than they are. The range finder isn't going anywhere nor should it. Imagine archery hunting without a range finder, it would drastically increase lost animals in my opinion.
 
800-1000 yard shots can be done over and over again with all the right equipment and know how to use it.Its all about common sense.And a lot of practice,Knowing when to take the shot and when not too.Those that get out and practice in the same conditions that they will be hunting in will get to know what is a ethical shot and what isn't.Again its all about having the right equipment to do it right.It doesn't do any good to have a long range gun and only use it on the hunts,get out and practice a lot and use common sense when it comes time to take the shot,Just like with a bow,muzzleloader,ect,practice,practice,practic.and common sence...
 
This is my first time on the forum and I just had to chime in. There are solid arguments on both sides but my concern lies with public land hunting where a guy may be working his way into his range of 300 or so yards and another hunter shoots the animal from 800 yards first. With no ill intent the second hunter screws up the first hunters effort.

I think this is a great debate that will never end but gives us all something to think about the next time we're in the field.
 
Maybe, maybe not? There's no proof either way. I have real doubts that the range finder is decreasing wounding loss and it might be increasing it. In Idaho, I'm getting braced for Archery season to be dramatically reduced, because of the enormous increase in success.
 
What part of idaho are you from oldbear? I have checked stats every year and it's always 5% to 15% success rates depending on the year. The heavy timber is hard to hunt no matter the weapon used. I realise that's a wide gap in percentages but every year is different depending on many factors. The vast majority of kills come from rifle, I don't see archery seasons going anywhere. I'm being genuine not argumentative about where your from oldbear, I always love meeting new Idahoans on the forums.
 
>>>> I know I'm different as I'm all about the meat. <<<<


you might not be as different as you think,,,,, i for one am TOTALLY all about the meat
 
Oldbear, outlaw the rangefinder? Jesus. Just what we need, more government. You are new here. Hold your breath. This will be beat to death again soon. mtmuley
 
I'm from the Eastern part. Have done my Elk hunting along the Montana line, the Pahsimeroi drainage, a lot in units 21, 28, 36A, 36B and etc.
From what I remember, before all the Hi Tech hit, archery success ran about 6-8%. Now, it looks like it's starting to go North of 15%. I can't find where the IDFG gives an overall percentage, but only each unit individually.
No question rifle is the majority, but Archery is taking way more than they use to. What use to be about 10,000 Archery hunters have also grown to about 25,000. If they take more with Archery, then the total taken with rifle is required to shrink. Personally, I don't think that is a bad thing, but those who are rifle hunters will complain.
I hope you're right, that we keep our September for Archery, but I have heard talk about it being cut to 2 weeks in some areas in the next plan. I'm hoping it's just talk??
I appreciate your genuineness and pleased to meet you nvbones.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-16 AT 07:55PM (MST)[p]Not as new as you may think. Many things are outlawed now in hunting and for good reason. We are a society made up of laws for a reason.
I was on this forum before, it has been about 6 years ago that I left. I used the name Frontier then. I don't know if I remember you, but I do remember some like Fatrooster, Idaho Ron and a few others that I see are still here.
 
You were here 6 years ago. I've been here over 6 years before that. And I'm kinda new. You might be OK with outlawing certain hunting tools. I"m not. mtmuley
 
tylercreek2, do you shoot across a canyon at dark to go look the next day for the animal?

One more thing from me is we do need to police ourselves too. I think we need to be the ones to come up with the options and not the DC guys. I'm sure the other side is all about it.

DZ
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-16 AT 08:59PM (MST)[p]I think it was 9 years ago that I joined and posted 3 or 4 years. Like I said in my original post, if it's legal then we should support each other and shut up about it. I appreciate your opinion.
 
I imagine if we don't start throwing ethics and fair chase into the sport, then someday society will do it for us. Just like using 4 gauge shotguns Isn't legal anymore, We may have to control the relentless pace of killing technology.

These Shooters may ruin it for all of us, so yes hunters debating ethics is a good thing, not bad. This Anti hunter fetish is blown way out of proportion., and supporting the "Kill them however you can" philosophy may backfire someday. IMO
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-16
>AT 08:59?PM (MST)
>
>I think it was 9 years
>ago that I joined and
>posted 3 or 4 years.
>Like I said in my
>original post, if it's legal
>then we should support each
>other and shut up about
>it. I appreciate your opinion.
>

So....it's legal so we should support it? Sorry, that's a pretty poor reason to blindly support ANYTHING. Some of the other posts have hit on the idea that we as hunters need to police ourselves to ensure our own future in this sport. In short....I agree!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-21-16 AT 09:43AM (MST)[p]"Ethical" is in the hands of the one squeezing the trigger or releasing the arrow. IMO, if you know you can make a certain shot and are confident because of your ability to do so,then you are not doing anything "questionable". But if you are that person who takes a chance with a shot trying to get lucky, then YOU are the type of hunter giving "long range hunting" the black eye regardless of the weapon of choice.

As we all know, missing shots or making bad hits happens at close ranges probably more than long range.
Let's be honest here....mistakes and lost animals happen at close ranges just as much if not more.
Is it really fair to distinguish the very experienced long range hunter who makes a bad hit over the very experienced archer who sticks a 380" bull elk in the guts at 20 yard's because he's excited and overtaken by an adrenaline rush?





avatar-1.png
 
Yes and no slsmdunk, any unethical shot by any wreapon type is bad . I think the point being made about ultrart m by range hi Tec weapons goes even beyong the fact that wounding occours at a hight rate that up close. No doubt to things like energy retention, wind drift. Bullett expansion,

What I see is people quesrioning the morality of kiling our big game. at distances far beyond an animals abitity to see smell or have any chance to react of get away
 
>>LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-16
>>AT 08:59?PM (MST)

>
>So....it's legal so we should support
>it? Sorry, that's a pretty
>poor reason to blindly support
>ANYTHING. Some of the other
>posts have hit on the
>idea that we as hunters
>need to police ourselves to
>ensure our own future in
>this sport. In short....I agree!
>

Hahahaha, good luck with that. So, someone takes an unethical shot, in your opinion. Who are you going to turn him into? The, " Unethical Shot Review Board". LOL
How we police ourselves is encouraging ethical laws to be passed. Then and only then, can sportsmen be policed.
 
Here is my opinion.

Taking shots past 600 yards is simply not ethical.

You can buy the best gear on the planet and be the best most practiced trigger puller in the world but there is still one variable you will not have control over and that is the time of flight of the projectile in the air.
 
>So you're saying 599 is ethical
>and 601 is not? It's
>not quite that black and
>white in my opinion.

This is from an earlier post, and I believe it pretty much hits the nail on the head!

"What I see is people quesrioning the morality of kiling our big game. at distances far beyond an animals abitity to see smell or have any chance to react of get away"
 
Ok, at whatever distance your bullet starts approaching 3/4 or more of a second in TOF you are taking a risk of wounding and not recovering an animal. Take that shot across a canyon that takes you an hour or more to get to the spot the animal was at and you are past the point of being ethical IMO-your opinion may vary.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

13A buck 2022.jpg
A9B40C41-003E-4259-B603-D3E2E395CE4E.jpeg
Screenshot_20220312-182028_Gallery.jpg
D81CE768-215A-4A13-8EE6-007608D50CCA.jpeg
8ECB9C03-D1CE-4F14-AEF1-FCAECC33D99F.jpeg
20150602_160524.jpg
IMG_0004.png
IMG_4784.jpeg
1685486726018.png
20220813_082114.jpg
IMG_5053.jpeg
Only 38 Inches Wide!
Back
Top Bottom