I totally agree with that statement.

Did anyone check out the link I posted? It is an actual long range school, its like $1200 or something like that.

It takes lots of practice and preparation to make accurate shots at long range. Probably just as much practice and preparation as it takes to learn how to get close in on game, maybe more. I won't say that it isn't hunting; it seems to be more of a stlye difference. Would you rather spend the majority of your time in the woods or at the range? My choice is made for me. There isn't a range longer than 300 within 200 miles, and even if there was, the longest shot opportunity I could get is about 200 yards. Besides, since I have started doing archery, its more important to me to develop close-in skills, and I enjoy it more than the range.

The way I see it, if you can make the shot consistenly, great, just don't ask me to help you drag that animal out the extra 1000 yards.

A lot of those video clips are floating around on youtube as well. One of the main dudes putting them up (and I know he took a speed goat on one, but not sure if its the same) is using a 30-378. To each his own with long range shooting...

I man can practice all he wants and have all the equipment in the world to make that long shot. However you have no control over the wind or over what that animal may do at that last split second. IMO We owe it to the game we hunt to eliminate every possible variable to making a clean fast kill. The closer the better.

I'm a big fan of close shots! I'd settle for a heated truck bumping one off driving in the pasture overMY poor long distance skills!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ssh8Vsbvn2A

I don't care for advocating shots of that distance. Some people may be able to shoot consistently on a range at those distances (not many however) but under field conditions there are just too many variables. Variable wind speeds and direction, mirage, up and down hill angled shots, to name just a few. Hell out past 1000 yards even things like variations in altitude, temperature, and humidity can affect the degree of bullet drop. Not to mention the increased likelyhood of not being able to find an animal that was hit and ran at that distance. Hell, I've shot animals at 200 yards and had troublepicking upthe blood trail. Just imagine the potential difficuties of striking the trail of an animal that was standing 1100 yards away and ran 100 yards after the shot. Besides every game animal in this country are hunted and routinely killed by bowhunters at ranges less than 50 yards. If a bowman can get that close then I can't see any reason why a rifleman can't at least get within 500 yards. It's a sad @$$ commentary on his hunting skills if he can't.

"It's a sad @$$ commentary on his hunting skills if he can't."

Bingo!!! That comment said it all.

The only constant is change.

Many of the points made against "long range"taking of gamewere also no doubtuttered by Mountain Men using flintlock musketsand considering a 70 yard shot for a large/tough game animal as being"long range."

Now hunters usings scoped centerfire riflesroutinely consider a 200-300 yard shot easy and ethical.

Technology moves ever forward.
Techniques and talents improve.

And those who are steadfastlyanchored in the past.... complain.

I've shot plenty of stuff close, now long is starting to look quite interesting.

IMO every reliable rifle can shoot and kill at that distance. It's not the gun or caliber as much as it is the shooter and scope.

You've got to know your ballistics out to that distance. Scopes used for that either have some kind of bullet drop reticle or an adjustable elevation turret. They "dial in" the distance on the turret, and let 'er go. I've seen a DVD by this guy in Wyoming where they are dropping elk in their tracks at 700 yards and beyond. Unbelievable. The guns used are customized and have that type of scope on them. And, most important, practice / praCTICE / PRACTICE! I think they said the caliber was closest to a 7mm Mag.