Ethical to shoot past 400 yards at elk w/AR15 based rifle? Yes/No

[Landowner]

So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards.   Man all this time I thought I was hunting.

It's up to you what you want to call it.  Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting.  But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book.  But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you. 

[Karl Blanchard]

So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards.   Man all this time I thought I was hunting.

It's up to you what you want to call it.  Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting.  But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book.  But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you.

You do realize that a 30-30 and a .243 are both high powered rifles right?  So it's hunting if the projectile is smaller or the velocity is slower?  At what point is it not hunting?  .257? .270?  Also, what if the muzzleloader has a scope?  Is that still hunting?  So many variables that I never took into consideration before.  I'm so confused.....

[yorketransport]

So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards.   Man all this time I thought I was hunting.

From what I've learned in this thread, I think you're alright as long as you don't use an AR 15. 

So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards.   Man all this time I thought I was hunting.

It's up to you what you want to call it.  Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting.  But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book.  But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you. 

So if I do it with a 30-30 or 243 it's OK? So does that mean that if I hike in 50 miles I can use a 338 Lapua at 1000 yards since it has the same energy at 1000 yards (using a 250gr bullet) as a 30-30 does at 50 yards (with a 170gr bullet)? Then am I a real hunter? I think I'm starting to understand it now!

[Landowner]

So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards.   Man all this time I thought I was hunting.

From what I've learned in this thread, I think you're alright as long as you don't use an AR 15. 

So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards.   Man all this time I thought I was hunting.

It's up to you what you want to call it.  Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting.  But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book.  But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you. 

So if I do it with a 30-30 or 243 it's OK? So does that mean that if I hike in 50 miles I can use a 338 Lapua at 1000 yards since it has the same energy at 1000 yards (using a 250gr bullet) as a 30-30 does at 50 yards (with a 170gr bullet)? Then am I a real hunter? I think I'm starting to understand it now!

Take one of those weapons I mentioned and you will eventually figure it out.   

[Karl Blanchard]

So what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow?  Am I a hunter then?

[Karl Blanchard]

Ya York!  Those fancy calibers you shoot from A PISTOL is just cheating

[yorketransport]

So what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow?  Am I a hunter then?

No, you're a show off.

Ya York!  Those fancy calibers you shoot from A PISTOL is just cheating

Especially when I use them at long range while road hunting! When the 338 Big Baer pistol is done I can be an unethical hunter even farther away! Fortunately I only get an animal once every 6 years or so which makes me an infrequent unethical hunter.

[Karl Blanchard]

So what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow?  Am I a hunter then?

No, you're a show off.

Ya York!  Those fancy calibers you shoot from A PISTOL is just cheating

Especially when I use them at long range while road hunting! When the 338 Big Baer pistol is done I can be an unethical hunter even farther away! Fortunately I only get an animal once every 6 years or so which makes me an infrequent unethical hunter.

  OMG!!!!  You're the worst of the worst



 

[BULLBLASTER]

I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.
 







 

[Karl Blanchard]

I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.
 







 

This just blew my mind   So you're telling me that deer I shot with my bow, on your private property wasn't hunting!?!!!!

So even with archery equipment, I'm still not a hunter










 

[BULLBLASTER]

I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.
 







 

This just blew my mind   So you're telling me that deer I shot with my bow, on your private property wasn't hunting!?!!!!

So even with archery equipment, I'm still not a hunter










 

You got it.  And above all else it was over a bait pile. I mean really... Does it get any easier?
 

[yorketransport]

I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.
 







 

This just blew my mind   So you're telling me that deer I shot with my bow, on your private property wasn't hunting!?!!!!

So even with archery equipment, I'm still not a hunter










 

You got it.  And above all else it was over a bait pile. I mean really... Does it get any easier?
 

Yes. When you do it at 500 yards with an AR off the hood of your truck.

[splitshot]

   200-300 is my limit but 40-50 years ago I would shoot 5oo no problem.  mike w

[Buzz2401]

My opinion was I don't feel that a Ar-15 platform rifle has enough juice to reliably make sure kills on elk out to 400yards.  With perfect shot sure it is a dead elk everytime but stuff happens and shots sometimes miss their mark.  Now step up to a Ar-10 platform rifle and you can get a lot more powerful calibers that can help compensate for a shot that might be a little off its mark.  I do believe that the OP has something against AR platforms as a whole.  I own over nine AR's and would personally never use them for hunting simply because I like my bolt rifles better. 
But to really stir the pot I don't really agree with bow hunting either because I feel to many people fling arrows when they should have waited for a better shot.   But thats what is great about our country is that I am free to have my ownOpinions.

[JDHasty]

What I was getting at is that shooting 400+ yards is a tricky proposition.  Laser rangefinders and anemometers have helped, immensely when Newton's law makes range estimation unnecessary.  Hit a target and you know exactly what range you are shooting and with a PDA you have range at your fingertips.  Dial it in to the elevation turret and if you have done everything correctly there is little doubt in my mind that your bullet will land within six inches of where the crosshair was line up when you pulled the trigger... ELEVATION wise. 

Windage is something else all together and you can measure wind at the point of departure, but that tells you almost nothing about what it is doing between yourself and four hundred yards or further away.   

I spend a lot of time in central Washington shooting chucks and in Montana shooting prairie dogs.  I have been behind a gun, lined up in a 40-60 power spotting scope and have watched the shockwave from bullets travel 400-600 yards and can assure you that they ride the wind quite a bit horizontally, back and forth in many instances, and a bullet can be moved over a foot in a direction that is 180 degrees opposite from the direction the wind was at at the point of departure. 

On an elk, with a hold behind the shoulder that can easily mean a solid shoulder hit and anyone who has ever witnessed an elk so hit can attest to the fact that elk hit solidly in the shoulder can absorb a lot of punishment and stay on their feet and be gone a long way in a short time.   On a deer that same amount of drift could take a bullet right into the liver and a hole punched through the liver of a deer will mean that you have one sick deer, but one that will travel quite a distance unless you have MASSIVE shock as well.

People want to equate the energy delivered by a 30-30 at 30-30 ranges with the energy of a 6.5 Grendel at 400 yards and they say the 30-30 is proven effective on elk... therefore.  But what is left out of the equation is that wind drift is not a factor in the former, because shots are seldom made over a hundred yards.  Whereas it is the most difficult thing to deal with at serious yardage and that is just a stone cold natural fact that complicates getting a killing shot in with the latter at 400 yards plus.  I have seen enough animals shot in my lifetime to have a profound respect for how it is simply not possible to deal with wind to the degree that some here claim to be able to do so, under hunting conditions, reliably by dialing in windage.

I will go so far as to say that I have personally watched a guy miss a rockchuck by twenty inches in the direction of the wind at the firing point when the gunner was holding a foot into the wind or had dialed a foot of windage in to account for what he had measured at the bench and observed between the bench and the target.  I'm talking about a chuck sitting on a rock pile that we have fired hundreds and hundreds of shots at over three or four decades of shooting and so you could say that we are intimately familiar with making that shot.  Of course once the bullet splash was called the gunner held away from the wind he was feeling on his face a foot on the next shot, or dialed it over, and the chuck went to the big rockpile in the sky. 

BUT, in the case if an elk or deer hit in the shoulder or liver on that first shot the next shot is going to be at a moving animal and that further complicates things. 

A relatively small bullet that is going to perform spectacularly on a heart/lung shot simply cannot also be a first class performer on heavy bone and muscle.  It simply lacks enough mass to carry it through with sufficient remaining velocity to bust the offside shoulder as well and break an elk down.  It is simply the laws of momentum at work that demand this.

Energy = 1/2 m v^2
Momentum = m v

What is the difference between conservation of momentum and conservation of energy?

• Energy conservation is only true for non-relativistic scales, and provided that nuclear reactions do not occur. Momentum, either linear or angular, is conserved even in relativistic conditions.

• Energy conservation is a scalar conservation; therefore, the total energy amount must be considered when doing calculations. Momentum is a vector. Therefore, momentum conservation is taken as a directional conservation. Only the momenta on the considered direction have an impact on the conservation.

What I am getting at is that the energy is there enough for a clean kill on a heart/lung hit to get the job done efficiently with a 6.5 Grendel at 400-500 yards and I will never argue that point.  My point is that when hunting it is not a given that your bullet will strike where you figured it would, if you think that you are special and are endowed with special powers in the ability to judge wind under field conditions or even worse think that you are shooting a bullet that will not be affected by wind drift at the ranges I am discussing then any discussion on this topic will fall on deaf ears.   Those light 6.5 bullets just simply do not have the momentum left at those ranges to perform well on heavy bone and muscle out there.  Particularly when a light bullet meets heavy bone and muscle that absorbs a such a large percentage of what energy remains in a light bullet once it contacts and then plows through solid muscle tissue and bone.

With even a 30-06 or a 270 we have more velocity and far greater bullet weight, with proper bullet selection, and the simple laws that govern conservation of momentum are what give us the additional penetration and tissue destruction by virtue of these properties to  question whether shooting at big game at these ranges with a firearm/cartridge that allows so little margin for windage error is ethical. 

An elk hit in the shoulder with a 270 or a 30-06 is still not in the bag.  BUT, it will be hit with a bullet with much greater momentum remaining and the chances of getting sufficient penetration are far greater than with a light 6.5 bullet. 

To be clear, I don't have these issues when we are talking about limiting range to ~250 yards.  But that is not what I brought to the table for discussion.