Long Range Question
12-12-2007, 04:09 AM
#51
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pine Hill Alabama USA
Posts: 1,280
RE: Long Range Question
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. I'm not sure if you've ever attempted shooting, either at a target or an animal, at a range over 500 yards. As RR said, the majority of the guesswork can be eliminated with proper equipment and some fairly simple math.
HOWEVER....deer don't always show up on shooting ranges...shots can be on an unknown angle, the direction and speed of the wind at the shooters location can be quite different, or constantly changing, from such at the location of the target. These aren't things a shooter has any control over. From an average "long" hunting distance of 100-300 yards, these facts don't deliver as much of an effect as they do further downrange.
So, derived from that logic, it seems to be irresponsible to target an animal at such an extreme distance. I'm in no way challenging RR's abilities as a shooter, I can tell from how he speaks here that he's more than knowledgable. It's just my opinion that taking game at the distance isn't hunting in the classical sense, and the ethics of it are debatable.
HOWEVER....deer don't always show up on shooting ranges...shots can be on an unknown angle, the direction and speed of the wind at the shooters location can be quite different, or constantly changing, from such at the location of the target. These aren't things a shooter has any control over. From an average "long" hunting distance of 100-300 yards, these facts don't deliver as much of an effect as they do further downrange.
So, derived from that logic, it seems to be irresponsible to target an animal at such an extreme distance. I'm in no way challenging RR's abilities as a shooter, I can tell from how he speaks here that he's more than knowledgable. It's just my opinion that taking game at the distance isn't hunting in the classical sense, and the ethics of it are debatable.
I know that it takes a lot more skill, determination, patience, equipment, etc... to hit an animal over 500 yards then it does to plant a food plot and set up a tree stand.
So who is the "better" hunter??
So who is the "better" hunter??
I have absolutely no doubt that RR knows a lot about long range shooting and is better equiped and practiced at it than me. But I am far from a novice.You reach a point where the distance is so great under field conditionsthat the variables become hard to detect and therefore near impossible to properly compensate for on your first shot. Shooting at targets on a flat range lined with wind socks is one thing. Shooting at a live potentially moving animal on uneven terrain with variable swirling winds that you have no definative means to gauge over the course of the 700 plus yard shot is another. If RR can truely land a bullet squarely in the vitals at over 700 yards, first shot, every time, under such hard to percieve, and variable conditions then he is wasting his vaulable time shooting does and debating us goobers on the internet. He needs to be competing on our nations Palma team.
12-12-2007, 05:15 AM
#52
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
RE: Long Range Question
"Food Plot"? Talked to a game warden buddy a couple of weeks ago about that. He confirmed to me that's considered "baiting" in Wyoming, and unless you're legally blind or in a wheelchair, it's "prohibited". Says you can "feed the deer" all you want, but you'd better not ever hunt over it.
Not a matter of "ethics" here, it's simply illegal - as opposed to taking a shot at 800 yards, which is not illegal.
Not a matter of "ethics" here, it's simply illegal - as opposed to taking a shot at 800 yards, which is not illegal.
12-12-2007, 06:58 AM
#53
Fork Horn
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 298
RE: Long Range Question
ORIGINAL: leben_sie_gut
Well, it seems you answered my question....
But, regardless, our opinions have been stated, and while it seems to me that yours just makes you seem ill informed and mildy ridiculous, it is indeed your opinion. So, more power to you.
I've stated mine as well, simply based on the fact that I personally believe it is unethical to put a game animal at a higher risk of a non-lethal shot simply because an individual thinks that he or she can hit it a half mile away. Just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you should....
Well, it seems you answered my question....
But, regardless, our opinions have been stated, and while it seems to me that yours just makes you seem ill informed and mildy ridiculous, it is indeed your opinion. So, more power to you.
I've stated mine as well, simply based on the fact that I personally believe it is unethical to put a game animal at a higher risk of a non-lethal shot simply because an individual thinks that he or she can hit it a half mile away. Just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you should....
Your first argument would even indicate that driving your car is unethical because it COULD result in a wounded deer.
12-12-2007, 07:08 AM
#54
Fork Horn
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 298
RE: Long Range Question
ORIGINAL: jeepkid
Yep, its all the guys that sit 50 yards from a food plot that are saying anything over 500 yards is unethical. Whats more ethical, the guy that shoots THOUSANDS of rounds a year preparing and practicing or the guy that shoots once before season and says "good enough"?
The people that are capable of "long range" shots should do it any time they want. The people that aren't capable, but think they are since they bought a new "ultra-mag" are the ones that are giving long range hunting a bad name.
ORIGINAL: Badger_Girl93
Does it matter?
ORIGINAL: jeepkid
I know that it takes a lot more skill, determination, patience, equipment, etc... to hit an animal over 500 yards then it does to plant a food plot and set up a tree stand.
So who is the "better" hunter??
I know that it takes a lot more skill, determination, patience, equipment, etc... to hit an animal over 500 yards then it does to plant a food plot and set up a tree stand.
So who is the "better" hunter??
The people that are capable of "long range" shots should do it any time they want. The people that aren't capable, but think they are since they bought a new "ultra-mag" are the ones that are giving long range hunting a bad name.
If everyone worried about themselves as much as they worry about what the other guy is doing, I think we would all be better off.
Really, does it matter who is a "better" hunter? Is it even possible to determinea universalanswer to that? It sounds like the "my dad is stronger than your dad" arguments on the playground all us 12 year olds meet at.
12-13-2007, 09:34 PM
#55
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 581
RE: Long Range Question
ORIGINAL: Badger_Girl93
While I disagree, at least this argument makes sense. This is probably what you meant to say the first time, but instead you (likely mistakenly) argued that ANY activity that COULD result in a wounded animal is UNETHICAL. Surely you are sharp enough to see the error in that logic. Thanks for clearing up your previous post....the argument quoted here makes much more sense, and is likely what you meant to say all along.
Your first argument would even indicate that driving your car is unethical because it COULD result in a wounded deer.
ORIGINAL: leben_sie_gut
Well, it seems you answered my question....
But, regardless, our opinions have been stated, and while it seems to me that yours just makes you seem ill informed and mildy ridiculous, it is indeed your opinion. So, more power to you.
I've stated mine as well, simply based on the fact that I personally believe it is unethical to put a game animal at a higher risk of a non-lethal shot simply because an individual thinks that he or she can hit it a half mile away. Just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you should....
Well, it seems you answered my question....
But, regardless, our opinions have been stated, and while it seems to me that yours just makes you seem ill informed and mildy ridiculous, it is indeed your opinion. So, more power to you.
I've stated mine as well, simply based on the fact that I personally believe it is unethical to put a game animal at a higher risk of a non-lethal shot simply because an individual thinks that he or she can hit it a half mile away. Just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you should....
Your first argument would even indicate that driving your car is unethical because it COULD result in a wounded deer.
12-13-2007, 10:04 PM
#56
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Towanda,pa
Posts: 772
RE: Long Range Question
All very interesting in deed..Long range hunting..It is all find and dandy if you know what your doing,but there is a lot that can happen between here and there..I shot 1000 yard comp. for a long time..My 30-338 with a 190 grain bullet and muzzle velocity of 2950 fps..A ONE thats right 1 mile an hour wind will blow it off 6 inchs at 1000 yards..So if you don't have the wind flags to read you have no idea what is going on out there unless you can read the mirage...
The only thing I have against this is ,if you wound an animal it is hard to tell where he was in the first place...I know alot of guys around here who can put a bullet where they want it at 600 or better,but they don't hunt that way..My 6.5x284 can hit a man with almost every shot at 1000 to 1200 yards.....IF Conditions are right....With enough practice and enough money to play with we all could do it.....
The only thing I have against this is ,if you wound an animal it is hard to tell where he was in the first place...I know alot of guys around here who can put a bullet where they want it at 600 or better,but they don't hunt that way..My 6.5x284 can hit a man with almost every shot at 1000 to 1200 yards.....IF Conditions are right....With enough practice and enough money to play with we all could do it.....
12-14-2007, 08:55 AM
#57
Fork Horn
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 298
RE: Long Range Question
ORIGINAL: c j
So you're admitting that you disagree with what makes sense?
ORIGINAL: Badger_Girl93
While I disagree, at least this argument makes sense. This is probably what you meant to say the first time, but instead you (likely mistakenly) argued that ANY activity that COULD result in a wounded animal is UNETHICAL. Surely you are sharp enough to see the error in that logic. Thanks for clearing up your previous post....the argument quoted here makes much more sense, and is likely what you meant to say all along.
Your first argument would even indicate that driving your car is unethical because it COULD result in a wounded deer.
ORIGINAL: leben_sie_gut
Well, it seems you answered my question....
But, regardless, our opinions have been stated, and while it seems to me that yours just makes you seem ill informed and mildy ridiculous, it is indeed your opinion. So, more power to you.
I've stated mine as well, simply based on the fact that I personally believe it is unethical to put a game animal at a higher risk of a non-lethal shot simply because an individual thinks that he or she can hit it a half mile away. Just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you should....
Well, it seems you answered my question....
But, regardless, our opinions have been stated, and while it seems to me that yours just makes you seem ill informed and mildy ridiculous, it is indeed your opinion. So, more power to you.
I've stated mine as well, simply based on the fact that I personally believe it is unethical to put a game animal at a higher risk of a non-lethal shot simply because an individual thinks that he or she can hit it a half mile away. Just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you should....
Your first argument would even indicate that driving your car is unethical because it COULD result in a wounded deer.
My mistake for saying I disagree.
