Long shot anybody?????

[ICEMAN]

Holy crap! 

Scary story gearhead.

[Chimmer10]

I've been reading this thread holding my thoughts back until I've really thought about it.....Though its a impressive shot at that distance, I would have to question the the possibility of another human, hunter, hiker, etc.... that could be in the area of your target...If the land is so thick as stated above, it just adds to the chance of a unseen human.  I've hunted very thick stuff in Oregon.....IMO you can always get closer...If by chance I can't....I wouldn't take the chance.  Btw I practice shooting at extreme distance at the range only......Its alot of fun, but I would not feel comfortable shooting game at that range.  Not trying to judge anyones ethics, and I don't think anything less of a person taking that shot, but its not for me.....

[JoshT]

Ok... Ok... I have a proposal. Lets use the word QUESTIONABLE...rather than ETHICAL. Was this a 'questionable' shot... I think we'll all agree the answer is yes. Was this an 'ethical' shot... only the shooter can be the true judge there.

Debating ethics is like trying to nail jell-o to a tree... like trying to shoot pool with a rope... like trying to get a Democrat to accept responsibility for pretty much anything.

I know I'm certainly not immune to the temptation of a questionable shot... especially on a coyote... but does that make it ok? There are two lines of thinking that I see all the time... but are never called into the 'ethics' question... those are:

"I'll take a shot at a coyote at any distance"... how is this ok, when it's not ok to do the same thing on a deer? I know... I know... coyotes are dispicable, ner'-do-well vermin... BUT, they're still a critter that deserves a clean dispatch

"I'd use "X" caliber if the conditions were perfect"... ie: .223 on deer or .25-06 on elk/bear. How is this ok? If you're willing to take a shot that's 'perfect' in this situation... doesn't that insinuate that you're willing to take a less than perfect shot with a larger caliber? Isn't that a 'questionable' ("unethical") shot... after all... it's not perfect?

I have a ton of respect for bow hunters... I still own a bow... I've killed both mule deer and elk with a bow... but I just don't enjoy shooting a bow... that's why I don't hunt with one. I took over a dozen guys to the range with me last year... and I know for a fact that I can shoot better at 600 yards... than any of those guys could shoot at 200... seriously. And, I personally know a couple of bow hunters who've lost critters recently who swear their shots where true. So I think it's fair to say that that it's the loose screw behind the trigger... or dull stick behind the sharp one... that ultimately decides where the projectile ends up... and how effective it is when it gets there.

At the end of the day what matters is a clean dispatch of critter... period. Just don't call what I do 'unethical'... you can question it all you want.

[Colville]

None of the long shooters really answered my question.

Can you make that 1000+ shot 18 or 19 times in 20? If not what rate of missing is acceptable on living targets? Noting that Bone has a hell of a point about what you can't see at 1000 yards, we'll leave that one alone for the time being.

This is not a gun/bow question. It's not a 100 yard 1000 yard question. The question of ethics is how much compromise a person accepts for the shot he's willing to take. Everyone get's to draw that line. I draw it at 90%+. No one has suggested that the guy in question at 1073 was or would be able to meet a very high standard for rate of kill zone hits.

The ethics don't lie in the methods. They lie in the willingness to take dice toss shots and make big compromises. If you can make that shot at 90%, you're fine with me. If not, not, whatever the range. Not that it means I have to agree with those shots, I can still think they are asinine, if not the shooter an ass.

[deaddog]

how is shooting at 700yrds the same as stalking to within 50? I dont see how you can associate the 2? and what situation would not allow anything closer then 700 yrds?

You must not hunt the same areas as me. In my canyon country you may be able to get closer, but you won't be able to see what you're looking for when you get there. Stuff is thick, and steep... you could be within 10 yards of a bear and never be able to see it. I'm looking for a good vantage point where I can see and shoot from, if that means 8 bills... so be it. You can call it "sniping", or "shooting" if you want... but I've never seen a "sniper" hauling a 100 pound pack of bear meat 5 miles off a mountain. Come to think of it... I don't think 99% of hunters out there are willing to haul their own a$$ up a mountain, hunt hard, freeze tail, sweat off 10 pounds,and risk hide/hair to actually earn a critter. Yet... somehow... they're (you're) the ones who get to decide that shooting a deer from the hood of a truck at 100 yards is Ethical... but me hammering a bear across a canyon at 600 isn't?

I think you're kind of being a ? Hoyt... this ain't a 3-D shoot here... this is hunting. This is dead critters in the freezer and bone on the wall. If you want to hunt from a tree stand over a food plot (bait), and limit yourself to whatever range is ethical... TO YOU...  then that's up to you... but quit acting like you're immune to the "questionable" shot. I hunt hard man... and I practice hard... and I'll be damned if I'll let some monkey with a sharp stick dictate what's ethical TO ME... or the guys I hunt with. Just because you'd have a better chance falling out of a tree stand and landing on a deer... than shooting one with a rifle at anything greater than sling-shot range... doesn't mean you should impose your inadequacies on others.

I would have to agree with every point you made here josh, well spoken.

[rasbo]

I once drove 30 miles for a shot,they kept loading the chamber and before I knew I was feeling like a rock star and damn good looking!

[Intruder]

Very good points Colville.  Another question is... "what is the magic range that is too long?".  Many of the folks on here have implied if you can't stalk to w/in bow range it's too long. Or is it past the point you can't shoot with open sights?  Or maybe its the point you can't shoot past using a 4x scope.... a 9x scope maybe?  

I mean no disrespect but there are a lot of people bashing long range shooting that don't know anything about it other than they think it is wrong.  I'm not trying to convince anyone to go out and take it up but I think it is pretty closed minded to make your decision about it based on limited info or a couple Youtube vids.  

I'm not condoning anyone shooting past their capabilities.  There are probably more folks doing that now thinking technology can make up for practice and hard work.  I think people's ire should be directed more to those folks than to a general category of hunter.  A buddy of mine just relayed a story to me about a guy who over the last 4 years has wounded and lost at least 6 deer with a bow.... 2 this year.  That means we should outlaw bows right?  Hell no, apart from the guy being a total prick it really doesn't mean anything.

As far as the earlier question regarding getting closer than 700 yards.  I've hunted tons of places where in the particular situation it isn't practical based on terrain, time of day, etc to get closer than that.      

[cascademountainhunter]

i would do it if i was that good of a shot and new i could do it......

[Wenatcheejay]

"Bow Hunters wound and waste to much game," "Rifle Hunters are lazy," "Muzzle Rifle Hunters steal hunting seasons," "Shooting a bow passed 20 yards is unethical," "Shooting a Muzzleloader passed 50 yards is unethical", "Shooting a Modern Rifle passed 100 yards is unethical, "Hunting in the Rut is unfair," "Hunting during the summer is unethical," "Trophy Hunting is unethical it takes out the best breeding animals," "Hunting does or cows is lazy because you can't get a buck or bull," "Hunting during the winter when animals are trying to survive is unethical," "Private Property hunting is unfair," "Using an outfitter is not really hunting, you must DYI to be an ethical hunter," "Special Tags is unsportsman like," Using an ATV is cheating," "Roadhunting is wrong," "Using any modern technology is being lazy, unethical, and not being a sportsman," "Guns must have a sporting purpose," "More than two shells is lazy," "More than one shot is lazy," "If you ever miss a shot, even at the range you should not hunt," "Using leadshot is killing the earth, and poisoning everyone."

STOP EATING OUR OWN

[runamuk]

I once drove 30 miles for a shot,they kept loading the chamber and before I knew I was feeling like a rock star and damn good looking!

 

[GoldTip]

Intruder.....Very well said.

[AOD]

well put intruder. there are a few people on here that seem to understand the topic at hand and a few who do not. the guy that dropped the big blacktail on page one knew what he was doing. he had to shoot it twice. big deal! he hit the target twice from a looong ways away, and recovered the animal. successful hunt in my book. congrats again!

[Ray]

I think it's fairly arrogant to tell people they don't understand what we are talking about here.

When we give an example of someone taking long shots and having to take multiple shots - there can be two sides to perception. A cynic will say that they needed two shots because bullet penetration was not at it's maximum due to excessive range. Or possibly that the first bullet was not a kill shot but the second one was. Sometimes it takes more than one shot though...

Ayway I don't have a problem with people taking long shots a majority of the time. I can also criticize them how I choose. It doesn't make me a bad person to do that. It just makes it clear where I stand is all.

[Intruder]

"Bow Hunters wound and waste to much game," "Rifle Hunters are lazy," "Muzzle Rifle Hunters steal hunting seasons," "Shooting a bow passed 20 yards is unethical," "Shooting a Muzzleloader passed 50 yards is unethical", "Shooting a Modern Rifle passed 100 yards is unethical, "Hunting in the Rut is unfair," "Hunting during the summer is unethical," "Trophy Hunting is unethical it takes out the best breeding animals," "Hunting does or cows is lazy because you can't get a buck or bull," "Hunting during the winter when animals are trying to survive is unethical," "Private Property hunting is unfair," "Using an outfitter is not really hunting, you must DYI to be an ethical hunter," "Special Tags is unsportsman like," Using an ATV is cheating," "Roadhunting is wrong," "Using any modern technology is being lazy, unethical, and not being a sportsman," "Guns must have a sporting purpose," "More than two shells is lazy," "More than one shot is lazy," "If you ever miss a shot, even at the range you should not hunt," "Using leadshot is killing the earth, and poisoning everyone."
STOP EATING OUR OWN

Here here.... there are a lot better things to focus our energy on.  Respectful debate is one thing... I luv drinkin a couple beers an discussing the merits of A vs. B.  However, we need to be careful when it comes labeling things and dividing us as hunters.

[AOD]

ray-
from my experience one of the objectives of hunting is recovering your animal. when shooting at extended ranges, most long range shooters would agree that recovering a animal in a known location is easier than blood trailing one to a unknown location. i thin using the words "don't understand" is quite mellow, when you look at the facts. you can guess and try to predict all you want, but in the end we know what this equation adds up to.