CalHunter

Play nice gentlemen. Good shot for the OP. Some might complain it's a little far back but the same thing could have happened with a much closer shot too. The OP shooter could have tried to get closer with that ridge to his left but the buck could have busted him and/or just happened to get up and move anyway. That's why they call it hunting.

Everybody has their own opinion about what is an ethical range to shoot animals and what's not. Everybody has their own particular limitations as a rifle shooter too. Some people are challenged at even 100 yards and the OP is apparently not at 670 yards. Just because it's not your cup of tea whether through ability or just personal beliefs/ethics, etc. doesn't mean you should attack another hunter for doing something successfully. I happen to remember when Zumbo wrote an article bashing AR-15's, saying they had no hunting use or application. It was his opinion and he was certainly entitled to it but it was also unwise and didn't reflect well on hunting (erroneously as it turns out).

I don't know that I'll ever shoot an animal at 670 yards (400 yards is my longest shot to date) but I don't necessarily know that I won't either. If the OP was wounding a bunch of animals, missing them, etc. at that range, I'd say he was in over his head and should seriously reconsider shooting at that distance. Since he hit the animal, killed it and recovered it pretty darn close to where he shot it, I'd say he's capable at that distance and it's pretty much a personal decision on his part to shoot at that range. I'm definitely not going to bash him for it and instead offer my congratulations on a good shoot and a very nice muley.

Bullcamp82834

I hear you Cal. It's fun to debate these things as long as we keep it civilized.
It's even fun to listen to these young pups thump their chests and tell us old dogs what great shots they are.

Just as long as we aren't expected to take it seriously.

streetglideok

Hopefully this will not add fuel to the bonfire, but my two cents to this all is this. Riddle me this. Some call it shooting, and not hunting because the hunter is spending money for specialized gear and uses patience and practice to become a long range hunter. Some also judge long range shooting in a bad way, because there is no way to reliably shoot that far. On the flip side, many hunters blow a lot of money on fancy camo(redneck fashion shows), the latest charcoal inner suits, 4000 gram thinsulated gortex lined synthetic wool, more calls than the Robertsons take on a duck hunt, their iPhone, $700 rifle with a $50 scope, and the same box of shells they've carried for the last 4 years, and somehow call that hunting. Not everyone fits that profile, but that can be applied to the long range haters too. How many actually spend time on their shooting skills? Judging by the high sales in hunting apparel and accessories, especially for whitetail hunting, and the insane hunting lease prices, many of us are less about hunting, and more about keeping up with the Jones'. The point of this is, there are many aspects to hunting, shooting skills are a big part of it, and it would be erroneous to be critical of someone who spends a great deal of time on it, rather than worry about the latest fashion of orange camo with scent blocking power,lol.

Muley Hunter

I'm glad you said everybody doesn't fit into what you said. All of my gear is cheaper than just the long range shooters scope. I use a peep sight.

Scent products??? I use the wind in my favor.

No phone. There's no service where I hunt.

Practice? More than you can imagine.


I'll give credit for the skills a long range hunter has for long shots, but those are shooting skills. There is shooting skills for the still hunter too. Running shots.

I won't get into the skills a still hunter needs to be good at it. I've been at it 62 years, and i'm still learning. A deer can't use any of it's senses at 700 yds. It can't hear, smell, or see you. What challenge is that? How is the shot at that distance any different than shooting a paper target?


btw I was taught at a very early age to not shoot game that's bedded down. It's like shooting ducks in the water.

MZS

Some basic geometry of similar triangles provides the answer: 1 inch off at 100 yds = 7 inches off at 700 yds. So you would want to be in a 1/2" group at 100 yds.

But hey, if you can shoot that well (I can't) then more power to you!

streetglideok

I myself don't make it a practice to shoot bedded down game. It may not be illegal, but it doesn't make it right either. To some, it may not be an issue, that is their thing though. Muley, I'm glad you took note of what I said, this does not fit everyone. You have hunted many years, and have seem plenty of out of towners come in to hunt here, so you have surely seen plenty that fit my description. When I lived and hunted out east, it fit the description of a large portion of whitetail hunters I met or hunted with. My post is merely to point out that we have a lot of "fashion hunters" out there, and many of them are the ones pointing the fingers at people who shoot past 300 yards, because they themselves can't hit the broad side of a barn at 5 yards,lol.

Bullcamp82834

OK, I'm a believer now. No more short range shots for me and if the game is standing still at short range I'll yell to get it moving just to make things challenging.

Big Uncle

When to take a shot is always a question of ethics, and a personal decision of the shooter. Capability is not always the deciding factor. There are many shooters that are capable of hitting a target at longer ranges if the conditions are right. Go to the benchrest competitions and meet some of the real shooters. Some (I believe most) of them do not think game animals should taken unless they believe that the shot is certain to take the game quickly with the least amount of pain.

I believe that everyone can agree that a super accurate rifle and top quality scope are minimum requirements for consistent long range shooting. Although I am sure there are exceptions, lightweight factory rifles are simply not good enough for consistent long range work.

The OP did kill his deer, good for him. I certainly would not brag about the placement of the shot. I do not think videos of deer with broken backs are good for the image of hunters.

Muley Hunter

Yes, I know what you mean. I see the same fashion statement in fly fisherman. I have a hard time keeping a straight face when they pass me.

I look like i've been dropped from the 50's into this time. Lots of red and black wool. Sometimes for laughs I tuck my pants in my high boots. I love the stares I get from other hunters. One guy told me I look like his grandfather who hunted in the 50's. I told him.....thanks!

Bullcamp82834

I heard that.
I've been wearing the same old Filson coat since Heck was a pup. I don't own any of the cool high dollar gear you see in the Cabelas catalog.

And fly fishermen....... I love to watch my wife stand in the river and catch more and bigger trout on worms than the "purists" with 2 grand worth of gear on them do. They may not be catching fish but they are looking good not doing it.

I think maybe our one mile wonders around here have some of that purist attitude.