John,

Quote " ....At 800 yds 2208 fps 1623 ft.lbs. About the same as a 30-30 at 100yds ..."

100 yard 30-30 power at impact?
From half a mile away?
For elk?

It needs to be a one shot kill (even though power wise that doesn' t sound like a one shot kill recipe). After your new converts hike 800 yards over hill and over dale it is highly unlikely that they will ever find the spot the elk was standing when it was hit unless he is laying right there. Sounds like all or nothing.

I think you missed him. Naw, I just creased him a little. Well he sure ran off, we better go down and check it out. Are you kidding? It' s half a mile down there with a 350' drop and worse coming back especially packing all this equipment. You know we aren' t going to find anything. You can go down there if you want. I' m staying right here. Yeahhhh, I guess you' re right. Well, you need to do better on the next one though! Okay.

Regretably human nature is to take the course of least resistance. Ethics become hazy and compromised in the face of a two hour, low probability shot follow up at 800am on the opening day.

Interesting, but no thanks.

Never Go Undergunned,
EKM

well put elkcampmaster

Just a thought,
Told him not to, told him not to, told him not to. Bush just kept telling us why it was ok, and kept getting ready for war. Now that it' s started, I' ve got to stand behind the USA 100%. But I' ll have to sidestep Best of the West on this one John.

Lively discussion you guys have going here. The issue of showing long shots is a good one to hash out. I have a little insight as someone who has hunted with, shot with, argued with, laughed with and known John B 45 for many years.

I spend most of my precious free time chasing critters with a recurve, but on occasion I get a chance too rifle hunt a bit also. I know it seems odd to most folks when you talk about consistantly hitting with hunting accuaracy at over 500 yards. My last experience with John and one of his rifle set-ups was a couple months ago. During a mid-day break while rabbit hunting, we decided to do a little target shooting so we headed to the truck and traded in the .22s for a 7mm.

After measuring the crosswind at 15mph, ranging our target at a little over 850 yards and making the proper adjustments according to Johns data, 4 different shooters put 5 consecutive shots in a group that would fit nicely in a deers vital area. It' s not magic. It' s a combination of knowledge and accurate rifles properly set-up. That display of accuracy is normal for John' s set-up.

Showing kills at longer ranges does need to be handled carefully. I think as long as the emphasis is put on staying within the ability of you and your equipment, and it' s clear that it requires the right tools to be proficient at long range, it can be done with a quality result.

Regardless of where a hunter sets his or her personal effective range, I can tell you this: Confidence in your equipment is a huge factor making clean kills. If you are carrying a rifle that you KNOW you can hit with at 500 yards, your confidence at 200 yards is off the charts. What John is doing does not require above average shooting ability. I am a perfect example of that. It does require some knowledge and the proper equipment.

To paraphrase something John said while discussing this same topic once; Challenging hunts with uncertain outcomes are great, challenging shots with uncertain outcomes are not. John has gone a long way towards minimizing the latter. Now, what was that comment about bowhunting I saw few posts back?

Halfdraw-Good job defending your hunting buddy but still no answer to why? I am now more a bowhunter than a gun hunter but still do both. Just don' t see the sport in the long range gig and certainly can' t imagine it gathering many sponsors if they get the same reaction you got here. Why do you hunt recurve if you have the option to get a clean long range kill first day? Because you want a challenge that the truck hunting nimrod can' t do. Now if John is handicapped we are all gonna feel like s***. If not he needs to lose a few pounds by creeping a bit closer. Good hunting.

sure John...I' ll watch this video and give you my honest opinion. I know out west it happens a ton from the way people talk.

I do however have one thing to say. I dont know about you, but I seem to notice the lack of perfect conditions when I am out hunting period. Kinda hard to set up a perfect shot at the right animal when you are on limited amounts of time. jmho!

Now I' ve done it. I' ve spent years doing my best to get under the guys skin every chance there is and I' m caught defending him in front of the whole world!

Defending the capability of John' s system is easy since I have seen it and used it. The issue of showing long range kills is different. You asked the question " why" so I guess I' ll take a stab at answering it from both sides.

Why? - Well, the premise of what they may show is not based on getting really far from an animal and lobbing a round at them. The premise is showing that above average accuracy is possible and how to achieve it. It could help the guy that will never shoot over 200 yards as well as guys looking to become effective at longer ranges. With the proper conditions, you can have the confidence and accuracy at 400 yards that most hunters will have at 200 yards and the confidence and accuracy at 200 yards that most hunters have at 100 yards. I believe the core of the show will be average range shots with all types of weapons.

Why not? - Ok, here we go. Hunters are under the microscope of society. When airing a show about hunting, there is a responsibility to depict hunting in a positive manner. Some aspects of hunting require a little more careful handling when they are out there for all the world to see. Bear baiting, hunting mtn. lions with dogs, bowhunting, hunting with kids, etc. I would say that showing long range kills would fall under that catagory. If depicted incorrectly, it could have a negative effect but, as we all know from the quality of some shows and videos, any aspect of hunting can be shown distastfully or send the wrong message.

The issue of range vs ethics is is way too individual. With my recurve, 25 yards is comfortable, with my peep-sighted 45-70 I' m good to 150, with John' s set-up it' s time to buy a new freezer. If your making good decisions based on your skill, your equipment' s capabilities and the situation at hand, thats all you can do.

All types of hunting have their own challenges. I' ve been on bowhunts that were a slam-dunk and many rifle hunts that wore out a pair of boots and ended with no tag punched. It' s a personal choice what level of challenge to take on. A bowhunt that ends with a 20 yard shot could easily be less challenging than a rifle hunt ending in a 400 yard shot depending on the circumstances.

I' m glad to see John is asking for input and it' s good to see that so many folks are concerned with upholding our image as hunters.

Take care

John B,

You are right about one thing, we can strongly agree to disagree.

Whether it be " tree" squirrels or " ground" squirrels is even more irrelevant than I have just realized. Shooting at an elk or a deer at these ranges is questionable enough, then reducing the target size down to a " type" of squirrel is even more questionable. Correct me if I am wrong here, but the ground squirrels that I know of are just about the size of the palm of my hand. Crosshairs would just about cover up an animal of this size at 400+ yards, thus leaving the shot in question. It sounds like I am knit-picking, but I will give the benifit of the doubt to the guy and assume that he has a pretty high powered scope to bring the target in better. But I still do not agree wth the shot.

I have seen long range shooting before, and I do know what is possible. This is my point. Being above timberline or not, there is no difference. The possibility of missing a shot is greatly increased at longer ranges for anyone, while the " pursuit" ability for lack of better words, or skill of the stalk (getting close to the game, undetected) decreases. We have had opportunities at game here in Missouri at these ranges. Missouri River bottoms can sometimes stretch for a mile or two of flat (2-3 feet difference in elevation) ground. But we (my hunting companions and I) do no take these shots. Usually, the only ones around here who attempt these shots at game are usually doing it out the window or across the hood of their truck.

Now, that being said, in no way do I intend to associate you with poaching or anything close to that.

I have some (all be it limited) experince shooting out 300+ yards with great results. But the point I am trying to make is that where is the skill of the stalk, the rush to get close undetected? If what you are saying is true, that everyone can obtain these skills, what will this do to hunting as a sport?? All woodsmanship and skills as a hunter, meaning the ability to get close to game undetected, is gone. There would be no worry about an animal seeing, winding, hearing, ect., a hunter at these ranges.

Another point I want to make, even though you did not enter it into the subject, but someone else did, somewhere else, is the " military training" or the likes of it, arguemental point. I have heard some say this, " I can hit targets at these ranges due to my training in the military." or " I was trained to hit targets out to 1000 yards in the Marines." Now, I have nothing against anyone in the military, and thank the good Lord they do what they do. But this arguement doesn' t hold water here. I am proud, and expect those who know this from military training, to take shots at enemy targets at these ranges. That is what the training was intended for. Wounding or gut-shooting, or ranging from the first misplaced shot, is alot different when the chance of being fired upon is there. It is a different set of circumstances than hunting a game animal.

I do not doubt that you can hit targets at these ranges you speak of, but I do question the lack of getting closer, and the increased chance of a misplaced shot at these ranges.

John: how did you come up with your figures on residual energy at 800 lbs? It just seems kind of high to me.

Thanks.

Halfdraw-Very well stated and agree that your logic makes sense and can be done with targets on the show and explained due to confidence. Also anyone who hunts dogs knows how hard that is but we wouldn' t ever show the last few minutes on TV. Now your statement that you are confident to 150 yards with your bow tells us that you are full of s*** up to your eyebrows! You can sure hit the target at that distance but you aint shootin an elk there. You guys do what you have to and have a great set of hunts this year. The old man is on the side on this one. Good hunting.