Long Range Ethics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aw, RumRunner, the style includes clean, ethical kill, which I believe becomes rather problematic when you're looking at 400 yards or more. Not saying I can't do it; just that I sorta figure that it's not really fair to shoot at something that's so far off he doesn't have a clue you're in the territory.

I guess I figure that if I can get a bunch closer and he still doesn't know I'm around, I've actually hunted. Hunting's fun. With the killing, the fun's over and the work begins.

Then there's the other extreme. I felt sorta ashamed, the last mule deer buck I killed. It didn't really seem righteous to use a rifle at 30 yards. But, I didn't have a pistol with me. :D

Even "extremer", I guess, was the buck I didn't shoot. Soggy day, and I sneaky-snaked up to within about ten feet of him. Hit him in the butt with a small rock. Pandemonium and laughter ensued.

Snipers don't have to worry about clean, ethical kills. I do. :)
 
If you have to take a shot at 1000 yards, then you're not "hunting". If you can't get closer to the animal than that, then your skills need improvement
Click to expand...
its people like you i dont understand. how is it not hunting?? IMO it takes the same amout of skill to get within 10 yards of you prey then it does to regulate your breathing and take an animal at 1000+ yards.

one could say that if you have to get closer than 1000 yards, your skills need improvement... unless im totally missing something???


Aw, RumRunner, the style includes clean, ethical kill, which I believe becomes rather problematic when you're looking at 400 yards or more. Not saying I can't do it; just that I sorta figure that it's not really fair to shoot at something that's so far off he doesn't have a clue you're in the territory.
Click to expand...
Mr Eatman, you said it yourself:
Even "extremer", I guess, was the buck I didn't shoot. Soggy day, and I sneaky-snaked up to within about ten feet of him. Hit him in the butt with a small rock. Pandemonium and laughter ensued.
Click to expand...
he didnt know you were there... if you took him at 800 yards with a .300 Win Mag, he didnt know either.
 
Arrgh!

I don't even know what to say. You guys that are against 800 yard shots, why do you have a holier than thou attitude? Do you just dislike people that are much better shots than you? Do you really think that a 800 yd shot placed by an expert with a finely tuned <0.5 MOA rifle is worse than a novice @200 yds with a 2 MOA gun?

I have seen several guys take 700+ yard shots, and they were all 1 shot kills that ran less than 50 yards. These guys know what their rifles do better at those ranges in field conditions than most guys know what their rifles do at 100 yards.
 
People can do what they want. I certainly don't have a holier than thou attitude. To me, taking an animal at 1000 yards is impressive long range shooting. However, I believe hunting implies pursuing an animal in its natural terrain and defeating its superior senses through cunning. I wouldn't be so confident that the people advocating traditional hunting methods are poor at shooting. Some folks just don't see the two activities as the same thing.
 
To me, taking an animal at 1000 yards is impressive long range shooting. However, I believe hunting implies pursuing an animal in its natural terrain and defeating its superior senses through cunning.
Click to expand...
it takes just as much training and practice to be a long range shooter than it does to stalk within 20 yards of your prey :banghead:
 
I will shoot to 400 yards under ideal conditions but only becuse i have a gun and round that can stay with in a 8" circle from muzzel to 400yards. Even then i still want to see the target well enough to know that the buck is a good target and forget shooting doe's at those kind of distances. Could be a spike or a yearling, if over a clear cut it could wiegh 80lbs not the 160 you think. Good binos are needed and time to judge your buck . I have a rifle that shoots 2" 400 yard groups but my limit is most time a lot less. OH those long shooters ,,, let see some of them hit a slow moveing deer or target that is of quality sized animal out of a tree stand or the average hunters tri-pod with no spotter. Just his ability. Then thats impressive. I know of one club that run off a club member that built a tower on a power line cut and would shoot deer 600 to 800 yards away. He was a great shot. Just could not tell if deer were big enough to kill or not. Some of those deer were so small you could carry them over a shoulder back to camp.
 
skiking said:
Arrgh!

I don't even know what to say. You guys that are against 800 yard shots, why do you have a holier than thou attitude? Do you just dislike people that are much better shots than you? Do you really think that a 800 yd shot placed by an expert with a finely tuned <0.5 MOA rifle is worse than a novice @200 yds with a 2 MOA gun?

I have seen several guys take 700+ yard shots, and they were all 1 shot kills that ran less than 50 yards. These guys know what their rifles do better at those ranges in field conditions than most guys know what their rifles do at 100 yards.
Click to expand...

Well, my main point of concern was in wondering how often people miss their intended shots at 700-1000+ yards, thereby wounding (and perhaps losing) the animal instead of cleanly killing it.

Clearly it is a different style of hunting, and obviously some folks like to stalk in close while others like to shoot from a distance. But, if the distances are pushed to the extremes it makes me wonder how often the margin for error sneaks in and leaves bad results. A video on Youtube hardly tells the whole story, since it only shows the shots that the shooters want you to see, and not any of the misses that might have also occured.

To answer your question, in many ways I don't think shooting at extreme distances is any worse than a poorly placed shot at short range. However, it does seem that it would be much easier to track wounded game that was 100 yards away from you, rather than tracking an animal that started its wounded run half a mile away.

I'd also wager that the follow-up 100yd shot on a running animal (even by a novice) would be more likely to strike the game than the follow-up shot at 1000yds that was shot by an expert. Again, there is just too much going on at that distance.

For example, I just ran some numbers in a ballistic calculator to show this, using data for a .338 Lapua Magnum with 300 grain Lapua Scenar bullets. Even with that exceptional long-range caliber, the lead on the running target (at 10mph) would be over 20 feet at 1000 yards. Increase that animal's speed to 20mph and your lead would increase to over 41 feet. Beyond the problems associated with trying to lead by that distance, or dial in a correction for the lead, you are also faced with a huge margin of error in not knowing what the running target's speed really is. Thus, your only viable alternative on the wounded animal is to wait until it stops running, which may not leave you with another viable shot. If that doesn't work, you are stuck trying to track an animal that was half a mile away when you wounded it. I wonder how often that works out for these hunters?

I'll clearly acknowledge that these guys have some great skills, but being able to do something doesn't always mean that you should do something... obviously the opinions vary on this subject, which is why I brought it up originally!
 
What long range hunter proponents do not understand is that at extreme distances the probability of an error or unpredictable event (a whiff of wind for example) grow exponentially, no matter how good you are...shooting paper at long range is very fun...ethical hunting is different....if you snipe at 1000 yards and you only wound the bad guy, who cares...you did put him out of commission...but hunting is different.....

I wonder for every successful youtube long range hunting video, how many goes wrong...

Here's another video of guys that can do it. I have mixed feelings on it.
Click to expand...

Dr. Tad...those guys in that video you posted claim to be using Sierra Match King bullets....that is the first sign of being unethical....not using appropriate hunting pills....


However, here you go:

890 yards deer hunting...338 Winchester Magnum using ballistic tips on a Remington 700 action with custom 28" barrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwIJOkFb4lg

1016 yards Back Bear hunting in Idaho with a 338 Allen Magnum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daDk-tLZs5Q
 
Buffaler shootin' was for money, pilgrim. They weren't a worried about bein' sportin'.....

/festis hagen

it takes just as much training and practice to be a long range shooter than it does to stalk within 20 yards of your prey
Click to expand...

This is why I don't try it. I don't have a good place to practice such shooting. I'll bet, though, with only self training I could get to the point of taking such shots. I know the principles, have the shooting skills, just need a bit of equipment (portable ballistic computer, longer range laser range finder), and a place to practice. No real need, though, around here. No place I can use those skills. :D If I lived in New Mexico, I might just be into it. I could get my "stalking" in black powder and/or archery seasons. No reason a person should do both if he has the skills. Nothing says you don't know how to stalk if you can shoot 1000 yards and make consistent hits. The two skills are not mutually exclusive. Snipers use both all the time.

I do know that for ME to try an over 400 yard shot would not be very sporting of me. I'd have a high possiblity, even on the best of days, of wounding the critter. I'm pretty confident up to 400 yards. For 1000 yard shooting, I'd be in search of a 7mm STW with 1/2 moa creds, though. :D
 
If someone is proficient enough to consistantly make one shot kills at 500+ yards in an area than only allows for such shots(i.e. mountain goat hunting) then by all means go for it. I do not take such shots but they would be rarely offered where I hunt anyway. I don't consider it unethical if it means a long shot or no shot are the only options. I do think it is reckless at best to take such a shot when it would be possible to stalk to within 200 yards or less.
 
I'm with Art. I respect the skills, but not the practice or ethics of conducting hunting like that on table meat or fur game. Groundhogs, fire away, never seems to a shortage of those every spring.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Art. I respect the skills, but not the practice or ethics of conducting hunting like that on table meat or fur game. Groundhogs, fire away, never seems to a shortage of those every spring.
Click to expand...
sounds a little contradictory to me. you want clean, 'ethical' kills... but it does not matter what happens to a groundhog, its not big enough to worry about. WTH? or am i missing something?
 
long range

I'm in agreement with most.I've seen a shooter in the Bitterroot that shoots a 72 lb mcmillan .50,to over 1,000 w a-max bullets.His only hobby is long range shooting,and when the hunting gets hard out it comes.
I've shot on a range where untill recently,had distances to 600.Thanks to an Idiot and His Buddies,we are now 300yds max.We held an informal match,[ Can Clobber Classic ] which was qt oil jugs at 440,and an egg or something for a turkey at 450.
1/4 mile loads: .223 25gr varget w/69 mk, .22-250 39 gr 380 w 55gr nosler bt ,7mm mag 63 gr h4831 w/175 gk, .338 rum 85gr h4831 w/250 gk [ only 2700 but accurate and good case life ]
If I was'nt clear,I would'nt shoot a deer or elk at much over 440,I've shot the .338 to 900 [ ie Leica 1200 range finder ],cranking all 16min left on 3-9 v2 scope and using the duplex crosshair like a post. I'm not going to change the scope for a tactical etc,it sets low on the reciever and recoils straight back,w/o pounding your face.The only change I made was to change the recoil pad to limbsaver,and I still shoot a .22 after shooting this rifle off the bench,it's reputation is true.
 
This is why I don't try it. I don't have a good place to practice such shooting. I'll bet, though, with only self training I could get to the point of taking such shots. I know the principles, have the shooting skills, just need a bit of equipment (portable ballistic computer, longer range laser range finder), and a place to practice.
Click to expand...
using a portable ballistic com is cheating if your going to hunt. and shooting long range is harder than you think ;)
 
...and I can't help but wonder how many animals have been wounded and lost because of these techniques.
Click to expand...

It is not the distance that is the issue, but the capabilities of the hunter and the equipment relative to the conditions, terrain, and prey. I know of plenty of hunters that have buggered much closer shots and lost their game as well. I would certainly be much more inclined to believe that more animals are lost in short range heavy vegetation shots by hunters with buck fever than my long range hunters who can hit an animal at 1000 yards.

If you have to take a shot at 1000 yards, then you're not "hunting". If you can't get closer to the animal than that, then your skills need improvement
Click to expand...

I always love to read what are the standards of what defines hunting, sort of like what defines sniping. I honestly didn't know that hunting was defined by distance being too far. I will add that to my list along with being too close, hunting from a stand, hunting over bait (food plot, feeder, water), using certain modifications, using the wrong caliber, etc.

I guess it is like George Carlin's categorization of drivers. If you are driving slower than me, you are an idiot. If you are driving faster than me, you are a maniac.
 
...claim to be using Sierra Match King bullets....that is the first sign of being unethical....not using appropriate hunting pills....

Beg to differ, at that range is where SMKs shine as a hunting bullet. Many of your typical 'hunting' bullets will not expand at that velocity.

Not all rules apply at extended distance.
~z
 
Well, one thing, that sort of hunting/shooting, I don't think tracking would be a big deal. If you can see that far to make the shot, you'll probably be able to watch him run, pause, keel over. I've had a bullet fail to expand before with a good lung hit. The deer only went about 75 yards even though the bullet didn't expand. AND. it was a .257" diameter bullet.
 
RumRunner, I don't think anybody here denigrates the effort it takes to be good at 1,000 yards. But that skill is only part of the package of skills one uses in what I think of as hunting. And it need not even pertain to hunting game animals at all; there's target shooting and military use.

(Keep in mind, please, that were I to see a guy make a one-shot kill at 1,000 yards, I'd comment, "Good shot!" and never, ever, bad-mouth his deal. A clean kill is a clean kill. I don't believe in raining on another guy's parade, no matter what I might think of how he did his deal.)

I guess the way I look at it is that 'hunting" involves more than just shooting skill. The package is not complete unless I use my stalking skills to find a critter and keep him unaware of my presence until I'm in some comfort-zone of range.

I dunno. I just don't like the idea of carrying a bunch of specialized or extra gear besides my rifle, knife, maybe binoculars and not much else. At some point, it just doesn't seem like hunting.

I guess that to me, at some point in all this long-distance stuff it gets to be less about hunting and seeking skill and more about only the shooting skill. To me, something gets lost, there, in the total package.

So, yeah, I respect the shooting skill. I just don't have much use for the style...

To tie back to the original question, though, if it's a one-shot clean kill, I don't see it as unethical--which is different from my views on how I think of hunting as a package deal.
 
Addendum: I may be a bit overboard with my penchant for "up close and personal". Aside from a ten-goot Bambi, I once lip-squeaked a fox in close enough to boink his nose with the toe of my boot. I like to sneak up on house cats. All that sort of happiness.

But have you any idea how high a poacher can levitate when he hears "GOOD MORNING!" from about two feet off his left ear? Did you know that raw terror can indeed cause a loss of control of certain bodily functions? That you'd never want to detain a really smelly person?

Ah, the hunting experience!

:D:D:D
 
But have you any idea how high a poacher can levitate when he hears "GOOD MORNING!" from about two feet off his left ear? Did you know that raw terror can indeed cause a loss of control of certain bodily functions? That you'd never want to detain a really smelly person?
Click to expand...

LOL Oh that is priceless!
 
How come this debate has to make the assumption that the hunter who might shoot that distance always does? I would bet that a great percentage of those guys have done their share of spot and stalk, still hunting, bait hunting, etc. I doubt if they are less skilled or passionate than other hunters.
Myself, I hunt with many weapons from archery, black powder, big old slow centerfire and the most modern magnums from under 10 yds to over 500 and enjoy every minute.
One of my goals is proficiency at 1000, don't know if I will hunt at that distance but for somebody to tell me I don't know how to hunt or don't have the skills after almost 40 yrs and around 200 head of big game animals is full of crap just because I want to try it a different way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
"guidelines" for long-range hunting
Replies
2
Views
598
labgrade
L
R
  • Locked
High tech hunters push ethical envelope
Replies
4
Views
752
BenW
B
D
  • Locked
In Hunting, Tech Pushes Envelope of What's Ethical
Replies
1
Views
456
Art Eatman
A
deerhunter61
  • Locked
Hunting?...shooting game at long range....I have a few questions
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
sscoyote
S
The Grand Baboon
  • Locked
What is the value of ethics to a hunter?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top