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

[Biggerhammer]

How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards? 

Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion. 

AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington. 

What say you?

I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.

Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..

[JDHasty]

I love how this thread is all just a big black and white argument.  Nobody will win this one. 

The truth is that it's all a shade of grey (yes, I just did impose the "shade of grey" argument!).  Personally, I do have ethics which I will impose on others.  Anyone who says "My ethics are mine and I don't care what you do, your ethics are yours" is just not recognizing what goes on in everyone's life every day.

If you were hunting with someone unexperienced, and they wanted to shoot at a mule deer at 500+ yards with "marginal" caliber and that hunter said "I'm just going to hold over a few feet, see if I hit him!", would you sit there and say "Hey, your ethics, not mine, fire away."  I doubt it.  You can all sit there and speak to every individual situation between bullets, calibers, experience, wind, etc., but when it comes down to it, my guess that everyone has said at some point, "Uh buddy, that's not a real good idea" and "imposed" their ethics on someone else, in a myriad of situations, based on their own experience and judgment. 

I do feel a responsibility to bring my ethics into play when it appears something unethical might occur.  I don't go around looking to boss everyone around, but everyone imposes their ethics on others.  If you raised a child, how did you not?  If you've given advice, how did you not impose some sort of ethics into the conversation?  Some people, like myself, are paid to have ethics and review the work of others to make sure what they are proposing is in fact "ethical".  If not, someone could lose their life.  Not that someone WILL lose their life, but someone could.  It's not as simple as one OR the other, it's all probability, or shades of whatever color you want to go with.  Same with shooting at long ranges with any caliber, the results aren't guaranteed before you pull the trigger, the final results are a shade of probability based on hundreds of factors. 

JDHasty has his ethics.  It works for him, and I don't recall him saying "YOU will not shoot at an animal over xxx yards with an AR, and if you do, you're a -insert personal insult-"  It is also obvious that JDHasty feels it unethical to shoot at any animal at a long distance by rapid firing and hoping to hit something.  This is right for JD.  For you, you might say "I hate coyotes" and be fine with emptying a magazine from a .223 at 500 yards in an attempt to kill a coyote running across an clearing.  Would you do the same with a deer, elk, bear, moose, lion, turkey?  Would you allow someone else to, someone on your hunt with you, someone who might lack judgement?  I doubt anyone would.  Everyone has their own ethics and will impose them onto others at times. 

As with anything, this is just a discussion, but it also has taken an turn towards getting personal, snarky, and a bit "he said THIS, and I take OFFENSE".  Lighten up, it's a discussion.  Nobody is going to come to your hunting spot and physically restrain you from shooting at something they feel is unethical.

Very well said. 

[Possum197]

400 yards is a bit far for 90% of all rifled and hunters. It's little more than a Hail Mary unless you've had lots of practice. 

[Karl Blanchard]

I love how this thread is all just a big black and white argument.  Nobody will win this one. 

The truth is that it's all a shade of grey (yes, I just did impose the "shade of grey" argument!).  Personally, I do have ethics which I will impose on others.  Anyone who says "My ethics are mine and I don't care what you do, your ethics are yours" is just not recognizing what goes on in everyone's life every day.

If you were hunting with someone unexperienced, and they wanted to shoot at a mule deer at 500+ yards with "marginal" caliber and that hunter said "I'm just going to hold over a few feet, see if I hit him!", would you sit there and say "Hey, your ethics, not mine, fire away."  I doubt it.  You can all sit there and speak to every individual situation between bullets, calibers, experience, wind, etc., but when it comes down to it, my guess that everyone has said at some point, "Uh buddy, that's not a real good idea" and "imposed" their ethics on someone else, in a myriad of situations, based on their own experience and judgment. 

I do feel a responsibility to bring my ethics into play when it appears something unethical might occur.  I don't go around looking to boss everyone around, but everyone imposes their ethics on others.  If you raised a child, how did you not?  If you've given advice, how did you not impose some sort of ethics into the conversation?  Some people, like myself, are paid to have ethics and review the work of others to make sure what they are proposing is in fact "ethical".  If not, someone could lose their life.  Not that someone WILL lose their life, but someone could.  It's not as simple as one OR the other, it's all probability, or shades of whatever color you want to go with.  Same with shooting at long ranges with any caliber, the results aren't guaranteed before you pull the trigger, the final results are a shade of probability based on hundreds of factors. 

JDHasty has his ethics.  It works for him, and I don't recall him saying "YOU will not shoot at an animal over xxx yards with an AR, and if you do, you're a -insert personal insult-"  It is also obvious that JDHasty feels it unethical to shoot at any animal at a long distance by rapid firing and hoping to hit something.  This is right for JD.  For you, you might say "I hate coyotes" and be fine with emptying a magazine from a .223 at 500 yards in an attempt to kill a coyote running across an clearing.  Would you do the same with a deer, elk, bear, moose, lion, turkey?  Would you allow someone else to, someone on your hunt with you, someone who might lack judgement?  I doubt anyone would.  Everyone has their own ethics and will impose them onto others at times. 

As with anything, this is just a discussion, but it also has taken an turn towards getting personal, snarky, and a bit "he said THIS, and I take OFFENSE".  Lighten up, it's a discussion.  Nobody is going to come to your hunting spot and physically restrain you from shooting at something they feel is unethical.

I agree and disagree.  I think everyone should hold themselves to a higher standard but I think comparing imposing ethics upon someone in the field who is about to make a poor desicion based on personal knowledge of that individuals abilities and equipment vs. imposing ethics upon an internet forum and a bunch of individuals who you have zero knowledge of ability and equipment is apples to oranges.

[JDHasty]

How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards? 

Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion. 

AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington. 

What say you?

I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.

Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..

Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating.  I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely.  Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of. 

[JDHasty]

400 yards is a bit far for 90% of all rifled and hunters. It's little more than a Hail Mary unless you've had lots of practice. 

That is consistent with my four+ decades of observation.  And I would add that means lots of experience shooting away from a bench at the range.  Getting in position to make a shot is not as intuitive as it appears to a someone who has not practiced doing it.   

[Biggerhammer]

How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards? 

Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion. 

AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington. 

What say you?

I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.

Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..

Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating.  I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely.  Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.

Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.

[Karl Blanchard]

I've lost track of what the issue is you're bouncing around so much.  First it was the platform and calibers, now it's the shooter that is the issue.   Which is it that you're hung up on?  Shooter or gun  

[Karl Blanchard]

 

How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards? 

Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion. 

AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington. 

What say you?

I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.

Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..

Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating.  I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely.  Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.

Your who original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made. This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.

[Biggerhammer]

Most didn't see his tantrum that was deleted out of the the .300 Blackout thread concerning his attack on the ethics of the two DEAD animals mentioned above.

Hence the total reason for this thread.

[DaveMonti]

BLRMan, this is a perfect example of the shades in the argument.  Everyone has their own shade. 

Personally, I did not feel that JDHasty is imposing anything upon me.  His communication style may be more direct, but I didn't get the feeling that he was trying to get me to comply with something that he believes in.  BUT, I don't see things in black and white, and to people that do, anything that is in disagreement from what they believe IS a black and white issue. 

JDHasty has given me reason to think.  I don't shoot any of the newer tactical stuff (forgive me if "tactical" is the wrong term, technically or emotionally).  I have no desire to shoot them.  While I can't see why I would ever want one, (I prefer to shoot long distances with solid bolt actions), I don't think that NOBODY should want one. 

I do think everyone has a responsibility to be ethical AND to influence others to be ethical as well.  I do not think anyone should be the "ethical police", but yes, we are all responsible for taking game cleanly, not target shooting in a high line behind someone's house, and stopping that guy who had a bit too much from getting into his car and hitting the road, even if you think he deserves what he has coming to him, because everyone's actions have at least SOME repercussions on others. 

[JDHasty]

How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards? 

Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion. 

AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington. 

What say you?

I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.

Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..

Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating.  I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely.  Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.

Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.

And in the 1960's O'Brein killed brown bear with a 17 caliber rifle, as well as moose, elk and IIRC African plains game.  Does that make it reasonable to suggest that it is reasonable to suggest that a 17 is a good choice for an average sportsman to hunt brown bear with? 

[Biggerhammer]

How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards? 

Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion. 

AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington. 

What say you?

I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
P
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..

Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating.  I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely.  Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.

Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.

And in the 1960's O'Brein killed brown bear with a 17 caliber rifle, as well as moose, elk and IIRC African plains game.  Does that make it reasonable to suggest that it is reasonable to suggest that a 17 is a good choice for an average sportsman to hunt brown bear with?

Maybe he should have asked you before he took that shot! 

[JDHasty]

Most didn't see his tantrum that was deleted out of the the .300 Blackout thread concerning his attack on the ethics of the two DEAD animals mentioned above.

Hence the total reason for this thread.

The point I made is that you should be careful that you are not giving a false sense of what the capabilities a novice armed with any AR15 based cartridge are when in the field.  For that I was called names and responded to with snark.  If you consider that to be a tantrum.... 

[Biggerhammer]

Most didn't see his tantrum that was deleted out of the the .300 Blackout thread concerning his attack on the ethics of the two DEAD animals mentioned above.

Hence the total reason for this thread.

The point I made is that you should be careful that you are not giving a false sense of what the capabilities a novice armed with any AR15 based cartridge are when in the field.  For that I was called names and responded to with snark.  If you consider that to be a tantrum....

It was a tantrum. Maybe you should start a "Novice hunter" thread.