Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 09, 2016, 04:09:05 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RrQqPdRgw_w
Post by: BULLBLASTER on November 09, 2016, 04:17:43 PM
Post by: h20hunter on November 09, 2016, 04:20:38 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on November 09, 2016, 04:34:45 PM
Big adventure for the kid. Awesome shot.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on November 09, 2016, 04:38:50 PM
Post by: kukusya on November 09, 2016, 05:26:14 PM
Way over gunned, should have used a 6.5 :stirthepot:6.5 way over gunned do to bullet terminal ballistics and trajectory.
I'm really surprised on 308 performance, when I shot my elk 80 yards away bullet went through one side both lungs and stack on other side under the skin.
Post by: Stein on November 09, 2016, 06:16:37 PM
My 30-06 maxes out between 400 and 500 yards before it doesn't have enough energy for what I feel is an ethical shot.
Personally, I admire the guy that brags about the 20 yard shot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JJB11B on November 09, 2016, 06:20:02 PM
Post by: Reidus on November 09, 2016, 06:22:56 PM
Post by: quadrafire on November 09, 2016, 06:51:38 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 09, 2016, 07:09:47 PM
you could do that with an AR-15 type rifle :chuckle:
6.5BRX and .270AR come to mind.
Post by: snake on November 09, 2016, 08:03:26 PM
Post by: Landowner on November 09, 2016, 08:04:52 PM
And that's hunting these days? Hmmmm not for me
It's not hunting.
Post by: h20hunter on November 09, 2016, 08:07:05 PM
Post by: quadrafire on November 09, 2016, 08:10:37 PM
Maybe why I'm
Not that successful in the kill dept. but I have a lot of cool
Experiences.
Just me. But I don't get the long range thrill of the hunt.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on November 09, 2016, 08:11:55 PM
So, how close in yards must one be for it to be hunting? Legit question. 200? 300?You are questioning the elite?? :chuckle:
Post by: horsehunter509 on November 09, 2016, 08:14:37 PM
I get if that's not your style. I've shot some close and some long range shots. Would like to see landowners "rule book" on what is and isn't hunting.And that's hunting these days? Hmmmm not for me
It's not hunting.
Post by: quadrafire on November 09, 2016, 08:17:49 PM
Post by: 3nails on November 09, 2016, 08:23:32 PM
Post by: JJB11B on November 09, 2016, 08:36:41 PM
LOL YES!you could do that with an AR-15 type rifle :chuckle:
6.5BRX and .270AR come to mind.
Post by: Bob33 on November 09, 2016, 08:37:11 PM
So, how close in yards must one be for it to be hunting? Legit question. 200? 300?I don't think that can be adequately answered. The concept of "fair chase" may be an applicable consideration. Boone and Crockett states the following:
Fair chase is part of an overall hunting ethic. It reflects an ideal to pursue game in the field in a manner that pays respect to the animals hunted and the traditions of hunting as a mechanism for conservation. Fair chase is an approach that elevates the quality of the chase, the challenge, and experience above all else. By not overwhelming game species with human capabilities, fair chase helps define a hunter’s engagement in conservation. Fair chase has been embraced by hunters as the proper conduct of a sportsman in the field, and taught to new hunters for over a century.
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 09, 2016, 08:48:33 PM
So, how close in yards must one be for it to be hunting? Legit question. 200? 300?I don't think that can be adequately answered. The concept of "fair chase" may be an applicable consideration. Boone and Crockett states the following:
Fair chase is part of an overall hunting ethic. It reflects an ideal to pursue game in the field in a manner that pays respect to the animals hunted and the traditions of hunting as a mechanism for conservation. Fair chase is an approach that elevates the quality of the chase, the challenge, and experience above all else. By not overwhelming game species with human capabilities, fair chase helps define a hunter’s engagement in conservation. Fair chase has been embraced by hunters as the proper conduct of a sportsman in the field, and taught to new hunters for over a century.
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
Boone and Crockett carried what were then the most advanced rifles of their day. I'm sure the shots taken at that time were considered extreme.
What some of us are doing these days is no different.
Post by: Dan-o on November 09, 2016, 10:44:44 PM
What does bother me is the neck shot. That was just plain lucky and as Bean pointed out he could just as easily have drilled it in the butt. Poor form. Unless he can affect neck shots on elk at over 800 yards, in which case I am truly impressed.
Post by: PA BEN on November 10, 2016, 05:36:47 AM
Post by: mountainman on November 10, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
Post by: Stein on November 10, 2016, 10:23:56 AM
So, how close in yards must one be for it to be hunting? Legit question. 200? 300?I don't think that can be adequately answered. The concept of "fair chase" may be an applicable consideration. Boone and Crockett states the following:
Fair chase is part of an overall hunting ethic. It reflects an ideal to pursue game in the field in a manner that pays respect to the animals hunted and the traditions of hunting as a mechanism for conservation. Fair chase is an approach that elevates the quality of the chase, the challenge, and experience above all else. By not overwhelming game species with human capabilities, fair chase helps define a hunter’s engagement in conservation. Fair chase has been embraced by hunters as the proper conduct of a sportsman in the field, and taught to new hunters for over a century.
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
Boone and Crockett carried what were then the most advanced rifles of their day. I'm sure the shots taken at that time were considered extreme.
What some of us are doing these days is no different.
I'm not sure I would compare myself to Daniel Boone when it comes to hunting ethics.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 10:26:08 AM
So, how close in yards must one be for it to be hunting? Legit question. 200? 300?I don't think that can be adequately answered. The concept of "fair chase" may be an applicable consideration. Boone and Crockett states the following:
Fair chase is part of an overall hunting ethic. It reflects an ideal to pursue game in the field in a manner that pays respect to the animals hunted and the traditions of hunting as a mechanism for conservation. Fair chase is an approach that elevates the quality of the chase, the challenge, and experience above all else. By not overwhelming game species with human capabilities, fair chase helps define a hunter’s engagement in conservation. Fair chase has been embraced by hunters as the proper conduct of a sportsman in the field, and taught to new hunters for over a century.
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
Boone and Crockett carried what were then the most advanced rifles of their day. I'm sure the shots taken at that time were considered extreme.
What some of us are doing these days is no different.
I'm not sure I would compare myself to Daniel Boone when it comes to hunting ethics.
I wasn't. I was pointing out that they were using the most modern weapons of thier day.
Nice try though.
Post by: jasnt on November 10, 2016, 10:26:18 AM
Post by: The Gobble-stopper on November 10, 2016, 11:02:10 AM
To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.Exactly, Is it my imagination, or wasn't the one he shot a calf? And the one above that the big cow. Maybe he really missed his mark way low, and to the left, and just got lucky and hit something???? I am all for a gun that will shoot where you want, but I thought half the fun was the stock not the kill??? Am I wrong, seems like they had time to get closer.
Post by: Chesapeake on November 10, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I was wondering about his wind call. He said "2MOA to the right", and "1/4 value wind", and "2MOA was closer to 1/3 value". So he was holding ~18" right and hit maybe 15" left of POA. Unless he was aiming for the neck at 875 yards.
Sure looked like the tree's in the video were swaying pretty good.
Post by: Stein on November 10, 2016, 11:18:04 AM
So, how close in yards must one be for it to be hunting? Legit question. 200? 300?I don't think that can be adequately answered. The concept of "fair chase" may be an applicable consideration. Boone and Crockett states the following:
Fair chase is part of an overall hunting ethic. It reflects an ideal to pursue game in the field in a manner that pays respect to the animals hunted and the traditions of hunting as a mechanism for conservation. Fair chase is an approach that elevates the quality of the chase, the challenge, and experience above all else. By not overwhelming game species with human capabilities, fair chase helps define a hunter’s engagement in conservation. Fair chase has been embraced by hunters as the proper conduct of a sportsman in the field, and taught to new hunters for over a century.
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
Boone and Crockett carried what were then the most advanced rifles of their day. I'm sure the shots taken at that time were considered extreme.
What some of us are doing these days is no different.
I'm not sure I would compare myself to Daniel Boone when it comes to hunting ethics.
I wasn't. I was pointing out that they were using the most modern weapons of thier day.
Nice try though.
OK, in that case I agree we are all using modern weapons. I guess I missed the part where this thread became about the age of the rifle.
I am sure Daniel Boone took long shots whenever he had the chance, his goal was to kill as many deer as possible, harvest the hide and leave 99% of the meat. His goal was certainly not to humanely harvest an animal with a clean shot.
When someone posts a "great" head or neck shot at long distances, we all know they hit far from where they were aiming - several feet. When you see the long distance shots on TV and the rifle covers up the gut shot, the butt shot, it's the same thing. I don't celebrate that as awesome.
The ballistics are terrifying, 250-350 inch drop, a measly 600-700 foot pounds of energy, and over 100 inches of wind drift for 10 mph.
Post by: Landowner on November 10, 2016, 11:22:28 AM
I get if that's not your style. I've shot some close and some long range shots. Would like to see landowners "rule book" on what is and isn't hunting.And that's hunting these days? Hmmmm not for me
It's not hunting.
I ain't got no hard core ranges in mind. But I remember my grandpa teaching me how to hunt and what hunting was all about. It was about a lot more than the kill. As far as killing animals long range, each to their own.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 11:28:30 AM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
Post by: Dan-o on November 10, 2016, 11:43:30 AM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 10, 2016, 11:46:12 AM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
I disagree
Just say'n
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 11:51:37 AM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
I disagree
Just say'n
LOL
Post by: 2MANY on November 10, 2016, 12:06:21 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 10, 2016, 12:07:49 PM
It's like posting a winning lottery ticket. You don't see the pile of tickets that didn't win.
My 30-06 maxes out between 400 and 500 yards before it doesn't have enough energy for what I feel is an ethical shot.
Personally, I admire the guy that brags about the 20 yard shot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That didn't take long! :chuckle: That was a great shot. You don't know they took other shots and missed, and all due respects to you, no one cares what range you're comfortable with shooting your .30-06. .308s have been making 800-1000 yard kill shots since Hathcock and before. :chuckle: Long range game isn't my thing but this guy dialed it in and put it right in the boiler room. Give credit where it's due. :twocents:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 10, 2016, 12:09:03 PM
It's like posting a winning lottery ticket. You don't see the pile of tickets that didn't win.
My 30-06 maxes out between 400 and 500 yards before it doesn't have enough energy for what I feel is an ethical shot.
Personally, I admire the guy that brags about the 20 yard shot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That didn't take long! :chuckle: That was a great shot. You don't know they took other shots and missed, and all due respects to you, no one cares what range you're comfortable with shooting your .30-06. .308s have been making 800-1000 yard kill shots since Hathcock and before. :chuckle: Long range game isn't my thing but this guy dialed it in and put it right in the boiler room. Give credit where it's due. :twocents:
:yeah: I'm not qualified to make the shot personally but if I was I don't think it would be unethical at all.
Post by: Curly on November 10, 2016, 12:16:34 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 12:18:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 10, 2016, 12:19:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 10, 2016, 12:20:19 PM
Boiler room is usually a heart/lung shot. Just sayin'.
I didn't see where it hit. I thought it was the boiler room from the way it went down. Spine then?
Post by: Curly on November 10, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
It was a good kill shot though even if he got a little lucky. I've gotten lucky before on shots before too. Cool video and the hunter should be congratulated.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 10, 2016, 12:23:01 PM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
Shoot me in the toe with a BB and I'm going down right there. :chuckle:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 12:28:30 PM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
Shoot me in the toe with a BB and I'm going down right there. :chuckle:
Hey man! BB's fricken hurt!
Post by: Mike450r on November 10, 2016, 12:38:20 PM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
The knocking a man back several feet is not accurate. Wouldn't knock a man back several feet from point blank range. But can definitely kill a man at either range.
Post by: Angry Perch on November 10, 2016, 12:39:02 PM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
Shoot me in the toe with a BB and I'm going down right there. :chuckle:
Hey man! BB's fricken hurt!
You're telling me! Come to think of it, I've got a couple old friends they need a little payback! How far away from my buddy to I need to be before popping him with some copper becomes unethical?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 12:41:20 PM
When I was in the military and trained on the M60 machinegun we were told that the maximum effective range for the 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) was 1100 yds and would knock a man back several ft when hit square in the chest. Also, it was the sniper round for many years.
Human Beings are relatively easy to kill compared to wild game...
Just say'n
Shoot me in the toe with a BB and I'm going down right there. :chuckle:
Hey man! BB's fricken hurt!
You're telling me! Come to think of it, I've got a couple old friends they need a little payback! How far away from my buddy to I need to be before popping him with some copper becomes unethical?
I suggest the kneecap at 20' or closer.
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2016, 02:45:57 PM
To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2016, 02:47:18 PM
I get if that's not your style. I've shot some close and some long range shots. Would like to see landowners "rule book" on what is and isn't hunting.And that's hunting these days? Hmmmm not for me
It's not hunting.
I ain't got no hard core ranges in mind. But I remember my grandpa teaching me how to hunt and what hunting was all about. It was about a lot more than the kill. As far as killing animals long range, each to their own.
In today's instant gratification society........
You guys get the rest.....
:tung:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 02:48:05 PM
To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2016, 02:50:34 PM
To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 02:53:07 PM
To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Reasoning was how far they had to pack out.
You would have to be a complete moron to miss by that far at 875.
Post by: 3nails on November 10, 2016, 03:01:43 PM
I'm guessing he missed his target by 3 feet ish?To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Reasoning was how far they had to pack out.
You would have to be a complete moron to miss by that far at 875.
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2016, 03:10:27 PM
Wonders never cease to amaze me.To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Reasoning was how far they had to pack out.
You would have to be a complete moron to miss by that far at 875.
Nothing for nothing, but that's weird to me. I'm trying to have that conversation in my head. I'm going to shoot the smaller elk because it's smaller and we have too far to pack it out??
Maybe they should have hunted a little closer to the road. Better yet...maybe if they didn't have to shoot so far, it would have been closer to the road.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 10, 2016, 03:15:05 PM
I'm guessing he missed his target by 3 feet ish?To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Reasoning was how far they had to pack out.
You would have to be a complete moron to miss by that far at 875.
He hit the animal he was aiming at.
Post by: jasnt on November 10, 2016, 03:30:17 PM
it stated before the shot that the young cow was his target.To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
Post by: mountainman on November 10, 2016, 03:41:18 PM
looks like they had horses with them...Wonders never cease to amaze me.To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Reasoning was how far they had to pack out.
You would have to be a complete moron to miss by that far at 875.
Nothing for nothing, but that's weird to me. I'm trying to have that conversation in my head. I'm going to shoot the smaller elk because it's smaller and we have too far to pack it out??
Maybe they should have hunted a little closer to the road. Better yet...maybe if they didn't have to shoot so far, it would have been closer to the road.
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2016, 04:03:37 PM
looks like they had horses with them...Wonders never cease to amaze me.To be fair, the guy missed his target drastically. Pretty sure he wasn't trying to make that neck shot. Could just as easily missed the other direction and clipped it's butt.
I feel like he missed his intended target and hit the innocent calf bystander.
They called the shot on the smaller animal
OK. I don't have any sound on my work computer.
Reasoning was how far they had to pack out.
You would have to be a complete moron to miss by that far at 875.
Nothing for nothing, but that's weird to me. I'm trying to have that conversation in my head. I'm going to shoot the smaller elk because it's smaller and we have too far to pack it out??
Maybe they should have hunted a little closer to the road. Better yet...maybe if they didn't have to shoot so far, it would have been closer to the road.
Just saw that too. Just have to watch till the end.
Post by: yorketransport on November 12, 2016, 07:58:49 PM
you could do that with an AR-15 type rifle :chuckle:
6.5BRX and .270AR come to mind.
I'm intrigued.......
Wonders never cease to amaze me.
Nothing for nothing, but that's weird to me. I'm trying to have that conversation in my head. I'm going to shoot the smaller elk because it's smaller and we have too far to pack it out??
Maybe they should have hunted a little closer to the road. Better yet...maybe if they didn't have to shoot so far, it would have been closer to the road.
I have this conversation with myself every time I think about shooting any critter. Have you ever tried to carry a porcupine 2.4 miles back to the truck? It makes you reconsider your views on road hunting! :chuckle:
Am I the only one who's amazed that he made that shot with a Vortex PST? The fact that he was able to make out the elk at that range through that scope is a noteworthy feat if you ask me!
Post by: brew on November 12, 2016, 08:41:13 PM
if you look at the video at 8:45 you can see the wound in the upper spine area in front of the shoulders...i wouln't neccessarily classify this as a "neck shot" ...have no idea why they targeted this cow and said that it would be "easier" to pack out as far as the distance from the road when they are packing with horses...the cow above this one in the video appears to be almost double the size of the one he killed. As far as the Carlos Hathcock similarites someone made in the post Hathcock used a remington 30-06 (which is similar to the 308 in ballistics) but everything that i have researched has shown that his shots over 1000 yards, including his documented 2,500 yard shot) was done with a 50 bmg...even the shot he killed the NVA sniper that was shot trough the scope was at around 100 yards even though that was tried to being accurate in the American Sniper movie...not saying that Chris Kyle didn't kill him at that range but there is no way with the drop of the bullet at a mile that it went through the scope and killed him...just my :twocents:Boiler room is usually a heart/lung shot. Just sayin'.
I didn't see where it hit. I thought it was the boiler room from the way it went down. Spine then?
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 12, 2016, 09:01:24 PM
if you look at the video at 8:45 you can see the wound in the upper spine area in front of the shoulders...i wouln't neccessarily classify this as a "neck shot" ...have no idea why they targeted this cow and said that it would be "easier" to pack out as far as the distance from the road when they are packing with horses...the cow above this one in the video appears to be almost double the size of the one he killed. As far as the Carlos Hathcock similarites someone made in the post Hathcock used a remington 30-06 (which is similar to the 308 in ballistics) but everything that i have researched has shown that his shots over 1000 yards, including his documented 2,500 yard shot) was done with a 50 bmg...even the shot he killed the NVA sniper that was shot trough the scope was at around 100 yards even though that was tried to being accurate in the American Sniper movie...not saying that Chris Kyle didn't kill him at that range but there is no way with the drop of the bullet at a mile that it went through the scope and killed him...just my :twocents:Boiler room is usually a heart/lung shot. Just sayin'.
I didn't see where it hit. I thought it was the boiler room from the way it went down. Spine then?
Uh your losing me 50 BMG wasn't even out during VIetnam.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 12, 2016, 09:05:46 PM
if you look at the video at 8:45 you can see the wound in the upper spine area in front of the shoulders...i wouln't neccessarily classify this as a "neck shot" ...have no idea why they targeted this cow and said that it would be "easier" to pack out as far as the distance from the road when they are packing with horses...the cow above this one in the video appears to be almost double the size of the one he killed. As far as the Carlos Hathcock similarites someone made in the post Hathcock used a remington 30-06 (which is similar to the 308 in ballistics) but everything that i have researched has shown that his shots over 1000 yards, including his documented 2,500 yard shot) was done with a 50 bmg...even the shot he killed the NVA sniper that was shot trough the scope was at around 100 yards even though that was tried to being accurate in the American Sniper movie...not saying that Chris Kyle didn't kill him at that range but there is no way with the drop of the bullet at a mile that it went through the scope and killed him...just my :twocents:Boiler room is usually a heart/lung shot. Just sayin'.
I didn't see where it hit. I thought it was the boiler room from the way it went down. Spine then?
Uh your losing me 50 BMG wasn't even out during VIetnam.
Uhhhh. It had been out for quite a while by Vietnam. If you are thinking Barrett style rifles you are right. Hathcock used a M2 with an improvised optic.
Post by: brew on November 12, 2016, 09:21:53 PM
Post by: Alchase on November 12, 2016, 09:27:31 PM
Post by: Thefishguy77 on November 13, 2016, 12:40:56 AM
30-06, 308, 270, 260. It has nothing to do with the round but everything to do with my ability and confidence behind the rifle. Unless you are using a stick and string you made with wood arrows and bird feathers for fletchings. We are all using some sort of technological advantage. So to say it's not right because you prefer spot and stock or another form is your choice. It does look like the shooter missed and got lucky. But there are people out there that take and make that shot with a higher percentage than the average shooter at 100M. So don't bash the shot. You can disagree with it and that's fine. We are all untitled to our choice. Just like some of us meat hunt and some of us only want mature animals. Some of us modern rifle and some archery and some muzzle load. It all personal preference and ability.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers but I know people that can make that shot all day long. Hell my dad would take that shot as well. He was a shooter before joining civilian life and would tell you the vertebrae he hit while we were walking up to the animal. It's amazing when you get to see it in person.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: csaaphill on November 13, 2016, 02:56:00 AM
Good shot though if you have the confidence in your gun and abilities no big deal.
Post by: The Gobble-stopper on November 13, 2016, 02:38:29 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 13, 2016, 02:50:49 PM
My apologies! I stated earlier that he must have missed the upper cow and got lucky and hit the calf. The sound didn't work the first time I watched. So he was shooting at the calf. Ok so he got a portion of the meat he would have gotten had he shot the cow instead. Hey he had to go to the elk anyway. I personally would have taken the cow, even if it meant two days of packing. But that is just me. Still I wonder why with daylight hours still there, why people don't use there hunting ability to stalk an animal. Almost anyone can shoot a well equipped rifle at a target at that range and hit the bullseye. And that is just marksmanship, with a little tuning. But a true hunter I thought would try his real skills and try for the close shot. Is anyone with me... And not saying any of this to offend anyone.
I could care less about the stalk and will shoot as soon as I have a viable legal shot.
Post by: mountainman on November 13, 2016, 03:00:28 PM
My apologies! I stated earlier that he must have missed the upper cow and got lucky and hit the calf. The sound didn't work the first time I watched. So he was shooting at the calf. Ok so he got a portion of the meat he would have gotten had he shot the cow instead. Hey he had to go to the elk anyway. I personally would have taken the cow, even if it meant two days of packing. But that is just me. Still I wonder why with daylight hours still there, why people don't use there hunting ability to stalk an animal. Almost anyone can shoot a well equipped rifle at a target at that range and hit the bullseye. And that is just marksmanship, with a little tuning. But a true hunter I thought would try his real skills and try for the close shot. Is anyone with me... And not saying any of this to offend anyone.there is "hunting" and there is "shooting"....not necessarily the same. Many head to the field for different reasons. Satisfaction is in the eye of the individual..
Post by: JJB11B on November 13, 2016, 03:06:07 PM
Post by: mountainman on November 13, 2016, 03:07:52 PM
I'm right, you're wrong case closed next topic....👍
Post by: Damnimissed on November 14, 2016, 12:18:30 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2016, 12:40:24 PM
Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70, in 3006 with a 8X Unirti scope.
My mistake. My friend Rocky, who was a Scout/Sniper during the same period told me it was a .308, or at least that's what I remember. I'll have to double-check my signed copy of Marine Sniper. It's not really signed by Charles Henderson, the author. It's signed by Hathcock. :) Pretty cool to have.
Post by: JoeE on November 14, 2016, 01:14:05 PM
Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70, in 3006 with a 8X Unirti scope.
My mistake. My friend Rocky, who was a Scout/Sniper during the same period told me it was a .308, or at least that's what I remember. I'll have to double-check my signed copy of Marine Sniper. It's not really signed by Charles Henderson, the author. It's signed by Hathcock. :) Pretty cool to have.
Marine snipers also used model 700s in 308 towards the end of the war. The first version of the M40 was introduced in Vietnam.
Post by: Goshawk on November 23, 2016, 06:20:45 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on November 23, 2016, 06:28:12 PM
I'll always be impressed by the hunter who has powder burns on their game, not someone who pulls off a distance stunt. Too much can go wrong on these long shots that leads to wounded game. Not exactly the press we need as hunters.
For you it's a stunt, but for others it isn't.
As long as people stay within their own skill sets I see no problem with it.
Last, I do not care what kind of "press" I generate.
Post by: mountainman on November 23, 2016, 10:33:56 PM
I'll always be impressed by the hunter who has powder burns on their game, not someone who pulls off a distance stunt. Too much can go wrong on these long shots that leads to wounded game. Not exactly the press we need as hunters.tend to agree for the most part. Many can, many more try unsuccesfully. That's the "blackmark" on hunters. As said before, there is hunting, and there is shooting. Satisfaction is in they eyes of the beholder....
Post by: NWShooter on November 26, 2016, 08:56:59 PM
Chip shot. :tup:
Post by: Lefthook on November 27, 2016, 09:32:56 AM
Post by: mountainman on November 27, 2016, 02:08:14 PM
"They just wanted to record a long shot."that's the impression I got viewing this also....
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 27, 2016, 02:13:47 PM
So, if you want to be in the cool club now you need to make an 876 yd shot with your .308 on an elk."They just wanted to record a long shot."that's the impression I got viewing this also....
Post by: Lefthook on November 27, 2016, 02:24:18 PM
So, if you want to be in the cool club now you need to make an 876 yd shot with your .308 on an elk."They just wanted to record a long shot."that's the impression I got viewing this also....
876 yds and a rack would be cool.
Post by: dvolmer on November 29, 2016, 01:46:12 PM
Post by: dvolmer on November 29, 2016, 02:08:10 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on November 29, 2016, 02:20:06 PM
Just my :twocents:
Post by: Curly on November 29, 2016, 02:29:54 PM
The more times I come back to this thread the more I think he was aiming for the big cow above the calf. I think they edited the audio to line up with the final outcome post mortem.
Just my :twocents:
That does seem to make the most sense.
Post by: JJB11B on November 29, 2016, 02:35:22 PM
cool club is 900 plus now isn't itSo, if you want to be in the cool club now you need to make an 876 yd shot with your .308 on an elk."They just wanted to record a long shot."that's the impression I got viewing this also....
No, that does not get you into the cool club
Post by: Woodchuck on November 29, 2016, 02:40:45 PM
Shoot, I can miss like that at 875 all day.The more times I come back to this thread the more I think he was aiming for the big cow above the calf. I think they edited the audio to line up with the final outcome post mortem.
Just my :twocents:
That does seem to make the most sense.
That would have to be an epic miss at 875.
Post by: Rainier10 on November 29, 2016, 02:50:26 PM
Post by: swanny on November 29, 2016, 02:53:20 PM
What concerns me is him shooting across a canyon and over a ridgeline to the next canyon. Could you image if you were a hunter on that ridgeline and a shot from 500+yds rings over your head to the canyon wall you are watching! :yike:
Post by: JLS on November 29, 2016, 02:58:19 PM
What concerns me is him shooting across a canyon and over a ridgeline to the next canyon. Could you image if you were a hunter on that ridgeline and a shot from 500+yds rings over your head to the canyon wall you are watching! :yike:
Yes, and it wouldn't concern me a bit.
What concerns me is why they didn't cross the bottom and shoot from the closer ridge.
I guess it wouldn't be as cool.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 29, 2016, 03:09:01 PM
I was thinking they got the cow they wanted. Maybe he was shooting for the neck, but I'd more easily believe aim was for the heart and hit was neck. I don't know what elevation they sight in and practice at, but that looked like it could be the reasonable vertical error. And no mention of direction being shot to compensate for Coriolis or spin drift.The more times I come back to this thread the more I think he was aiming for the big cow above the calf. I think they edited the audio to line up with the final outcome post mortem.
Just my :twocents:
That does seem to make the most sense.
Post by: Bob33 on November 29, 2016, 03:35:11 PM
Here's an interesting article on them, for those interested:I was thinking they got the cow they wanted. Maybe he was shooting for the neck, but I'd more easily believe aim was for the heart and hit was neck. I don't know what elevation they sight in and practice at, but that looked like it could be the reasonable vertical error. And no mention of direction being shot to compensate for Coriolis or spin drift.The more times I come back to this thread the more I think he was aiming for the big cow above the calf. I think they edited the audio to line up with the final outcome post mortem.
Just my :twocents:
That does seem to make the most sense.
Spin drift at that range might be 6" right and coriolis much less.
https://loadoutroom.com/13415/reaper-tips-spin-drift-coriolis-effect/
Post by: JJB11B on November 29, 2016, 03:43:03 PM
at 875 yards that bullet would pass 20 feet over your head. that's a long ways
What concerns me is him shooting across a canyon and over a ridgeline to the next canyon. Could you image if you were a hunter on that ridgeline and a shot from 500+yds rings over your head to the canyon wall you are watching! :yike:
Yes, and it wouldn't concern me a bit.
Post by: jackelope on November 29, 2016, 04:02:21 PM
at 875 yards that bullet would pass 20 feet over your head. that's a long ways
What concerns me is him shooting across a canyon and over a ridgeline to the next canyon. Could you image if you were a hunter on that ridgeline and a shot from 500+yds rings over your head to the canyon wall you are watching! :yike:
Yes, and it wouldn't concern me a bit.
I'd be pissed off if someone was shooting over my head. Don't care if it was 2' or 20'.
Post by: JJB11B on November 29, 2016, 04:12:13 PM
so would I but that's beside the pointat 875 yards that bullet would pass 20 feet over your head. that's a long ways
What concerns me is him shooting across a canyon and over a ridgeline to the next canyon. Could you image if you were a hunter on that ridgeline and a shot from 500+yds rings over your head to the canyon wall you are watching! :yike:
Yes, and it wouldn't concern me a bit.
I'd be pissed off if someone was shooting over my head. Don't care if it was 2' or 20'.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 29, 2016, 04:36:48 PM
I like the "good old days" argument. Like taking risky shots is a new thing.
Post by: mountainman on December 01, 2016, 10:36:21 PM
ditto that. And the time it took to set up the shot (which was not that great of a shot) and they never noticed the elk right below them? Curious as to motives for the long shot...at 875 yards that bullet would pass 20 feet over your head. that's a long ways
What concerns me is him shooting across a canyon and over a ridgeline to the next canyon. Could you image if you were a hunter on that ridgeline and a shot from 500+yds rings over your head to the canyon wall you are watching! :yike:
Yes, and it wouldn't concern me a bit.
I'd be pissed off if someone was shooting over my head. Don't care if it was 2' or 20'.
Post by: Stein on January 27, 2017, 01:30:34 PM
One shot kill. Looked like a rock steady rest. Know thy weapon. Very cool.
One shot shown in the video, I'll agree with that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 27, 2017, 02:10:10 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 27, 2017, 02:24:10 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on January 27, 2017, 02:49:38 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on January 27, 2017, 03:40:14 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 27, 2017, 06:25:03 PM
Awesome!:chuckle: ;)
Post by: Taco280AI on January 27, 2017, 07:01:15 PM
Like someone else touched on, I'm more impressed with a 20 yard shot and the ability to get that close. If you want to show off your skills, do it on paper or steel.
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 27, 2017, 07:14:16 PM
Post by: mountainman on January 27, 2017, 07:15:41 PM
For every successful kill, how many wounded animals are there out there? Some people can do it every time because they have the knowledge, experience, and equipment. Others... flinging lead.Its been said earlier Taco, there's shooting. And there's hunting, neither mutually inclusive usually..
Like someone else touched on, I'm more impressed with a 20 yard shot and the ability to get that close. If you want to show off your skills, do it on paper or steel.
Post by: mountainman on January 27, 2017, 07:16:30 PM
Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?maybe bowhunting, but why not rifle? 👍
Post by: JJB11B on January 28, 2017, 12:45:38 AM
:bash: It's back alive.wasn't me!
Post by: kentrek on January 28, 2017, 06:43:19 AM
Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?
I would love to shoot a big bull or buck at 20 yards with a rifle !!!! But I'd shoot him just as fast at 600 :chuckle:
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 28, 2017, 06:50:56 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on January 28, 2017, 07:18:13 AM
Post by: kentrek on January 28, 2017, 08:05:38 AM
My chances of making a better shot at 400 are probably better than at 40!
I know that's the case for me ! My short range snap shooting sucks in comparison .....although I did make a decent off hand snap shot at 200 this year....talk about unethical :chuckle:
Post by: Elkcollector82 on January 29, 2017, 08:15:17 AM
Post by: yakimanoob on February 02, 2017, 02:31:31 PM
Personally, I don't understand why you would take an 875 yd shot with a 308. Especially in the apparent situation of the video. Why not saunter yourself down to that next ridge, or along the hill to their left and take a 300-500 yd shot? He said he was using VLDs, and Berger recommends 1800fps at minimum to ensure expansion. Running some rough numbers, I imagine his terminal velocity was something closer to 1400-1500fps.
And like others have pointed out, the shooter got LUCKY by putting the bullet through the lower neck / upper spine at that distance. By all means, take that 875-yd or 1500-yd shot if you have the skill and equipment for it. But in this video at least, that level of skill was not demonstrated.
Post by: dvolmer on February 06, 2017, 11:44:02 AM
Post by: Taco280AI on February 06, 2017, 11:56:10 AM
Look at it this way, I used to ride sport bikes. On the street and track doing trackdays and racing schools. Got pretty fast too. One thing I always considered was there was a time and place for everything. I hated when people would speed around in the cities. Hated when they would stunt in popular, populated areas. It made us all look bad. Turned people who didn't care about bikes, against bikes. Made cops look at me when I wasn't the one doing these things in front of anyone.
Keep doing stupid things and it'll attract negative attention. 900 yard elk shots with a 308 in high winds? Stupid. May have worked that time, but doesn't mean it is a good idea or will work next time.
Anyone see the Utah cow elk 900 yard head shot with a 260 video? Stupid. BTW, only wounded it and didn't kill it, but doesn't state that in the video.
Police yourselves before someone else does
Post by: jay.sharkbait on February 06, 2017, 12:16:30 PM
As for the argument that we're all on the same team. We need to police ourselves so someone else doesn't.
Look at it this way, I used to ride sport bikes. On the street and track doing trackdays and racing schools. Got pretty fast too. One thing I always considered was there was a time and place for everything. I hated when people would speed around in the cities. Hated when they would stunt in popular, populated areas. It made us all look bad. Turned people who didn't care about bikes, against bikes. Made cops look at me when I wasn't the one doing these things in front of anyone.
Keep doing stupid things and it'll attract negative attention. 900 yard elk shots with a 308 in high winds? Stupid. May have worked that time, but doesn't mean it is a good idea or will work next time.
Anyone see the Utah cow elk 900 yard head shot with a 260 video? Stupid. BTW, only wounded it and didn't kill it, but doesn't state that in the video.
Police yourselves before someone else does
No.... just no
I will not be judged based on someone else's skill sets.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 06, 2017, 12:40:46 PM
Foot pounds of energy is what knocks down your animal.
Period, end of story? Nope but it is a factor.
There is room for a good argument that he hit a different animal then he was even aiming at.:
Did you watch the video? Could you hear it when you did?
Most guys would think its extremely un-ethical to shoot at elk with a 30-30 at 350 but don't think that this new fad of long range shooting is neat and cool.
It's not a fad. It's called people with better equipment and talent and they've been doing it for hundreds of years :chuckle: for what it's worth, I think that 875 is a heck of a long way for me personally to shoot at a healthy animal. For lots of guys with a good gun, good glass and lots of trigger time and a good spotter, it's not even a stretch. That's where your .30-30 comparison falls flat. A gun that is shooting flat nosed bullets and spraying bullets at 350 isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Unless ft lbs of energy is your only consideration.
Post by: SilkOnTheDrySide on February 06, 2017, 01:18:22 PM
Foot pounds of energy is what knocks down your animal.
Period, end of story? Nope but it is a factor.There is room for a good argument that he hit a different animal then he was even aiming at.:
Did you watch the video? Could you hear it when you did?
Most guys would think its extremely un-ethical to shoot at elk with a 30-30 at 350 but don't think that this new fad of long range shooting is neat and cool.
It's not a fad. It's called people with better equipment and talent and they've been doing it for hundreds of years :chuckle: for what it's worth, I think that 875 is a heck of a long way for me personally to shoot at a healthy animal. For lots of guys with a good gun, good glass and lots of trigger time and a good spotter, it's not even a stretch. That's where your .30-30 comparison falls flat. A gun that is shooting flat nosed bullets and spraying bullets at 350 isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Unless ft lbs of energy is your only consideration.
A few years ago I missed two bears between 400-500 yards using hold over on my rifle.
I made it a point to never be in that situation again. So I spent some money. Learned how to hand load, practice a lot, work on dry firing drills etc, and feel confident with my rifle.
At this point with today's equipment, ballistic programs, and trigger time, this isn't even that hard of a shot under good conditions.
The wind looked a little tricky here though.
He called 1/3 value of whatever hey had.
For me a 10 MPH wind is 26" at that range.
So a 15 Gust could have kicked it to 39 and a miss...
My buddy gave me a rest piece of wisdom shooting long range, "guys don't miss on elevation, that's just math. Guys miss because of wind."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 06, 2017, 01:21:59 PM
Post by: mountainman on February 06, 2017, 08:11:15 PM
And that's for inanimate targets. Add animal behavior and you get another variable that's not so well mathematically modeled.So true
Post by: Jpmiller on February 07, 2017, 05:37:41 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on February 07, 2017, 05:59:41 AM
Post by: SilkOnTheDrySide on February 07, 2017, 06:39:56 AM
For you long range guys how long does it take (on average) a bullet to travel 8 or 900 yards?
.9 seconds at 800 yards
1.04 at 900 yards
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jdb on February 07, 2017, 07:43:03 AM
Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?why would you not? For me it's about being a skilled hunter. ITs a completEly diffrent skill set than it takes to shoot something 875 yards away. I have no desire to do that. (Not judging those that do just not my thing). To me shooting an elk in its bed is bragging something to brag about!
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2017, 07:59:48 AM
Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?why would you not? For me it's about being a skilled hunter. ITs a completEly diffrent skill set than it takes to shoot something 875 yards away. I have no desire to do that. (Not judging those that do just not my thing). To me shooting an elk in its bed is bragging something to brag about!
That's cool. Not really my thing when rifle hunting. I prefer to use my skills to take the first shot that I can reliably make.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2017, 08:01:14 AM
Post by: yakimanoob on February 07, 2017, 09:09:35 AM
Overall this thread is like reading a bunch of high school quarterbacks talk about how NFL quarterbacks shouldn't make long passes because of how hard it is to do it accurately.
No living, breathing creature gets mortally wounded and dies a slow, agonizing death when a QB misses. Making a bad shot on an animal is not something to be taken lightly.
To me, and I would think most of us, taking an ethical shot means being DAM# SURE your bullet will hit its mark (skill) and cause enough damage to kill the animal quickly (equipment). If you're not sure, don't take the shot.
The discussion here is whether or not it's even possible to be SURE in the first place that you'll kill the animal quickly shooting with a .308 at 875 yards.
Post by: Redbeard on February 07, 2017, 09:24:36 AM
Overall this thread is like reading a bunch of high school quarterbacks talk about how NFL quarterbacks shouldn't make long passes because of how hard it is to do it accurately.
No living, breathing creature gets mortally wounded and dies a slow, agonizing death when a QB misses. Making a bad shot on an animal is not something to be taken lightly.
To me, and I would think most of us, taking an ethical shot means being DAM# SURE your bullet will hit its mark (skill) and cause enough damage to kill the animal quickly (equipment). If you're not sure, don't take the shot.
The discussion here is whether or not it's even possible to be SURE in the first place that you'll kill the animal quickly shooting with a .308 at 875 yards.
Well said
Post by: JDHasty on February 07, 2017, 09:26:46 AM
Overall this thread is like reading a bunch of high school quarterbacks talk about how NFL quarterbacks shouldn't make long passes because of how hard it is to do it accurately.
No living, breathing creature gets mortally wounded and dies a slow, agonizing death when a QB misses. Making a bad shot on an animal is not something to be taken lightly.
To me, and I would think most of us, taking an ethical shot means being DAM# SURE your bullet will hit its mark (skill) and cause enough damage to kill the animal quickly (equipment). If you're not sure, don't take the shot.
The discussion here is whether or not it's even possible to be SURE in the first place that you'll kill the animal quickly shooting with a .308 at 875 yards.
Well said
True that
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2017, 09:39:23 AM
Overall this thread is like reading a bunch of high school quarterbacks talk about how NFL quarterbacks shouldn't make long passes because of how hard it is to do it accurately.
No living, breathing creature gets mortally wounded and dies a slow, agonizing death when a QB misses. Making a bad shot on an animal is not something to be taken lightly.
To me, and I would think most of us, taking an ethical shot means being DAM# SURE your bullet will hit its mark (skill) and cause enough damage to kill the animal quickly (equipment). If you're not sure, don't take the shot.
The discussion here is whether or not it's even possible to be SURE in the first place that you'll kill the animal quickly shooting with a .308 at 875 yards.
I think you miss the point noob
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 07, 2017, 09:54:45 AM
Post by: JDHasty on February 07, 2017, 10:01:03 AM
Overall this thread is like reading a bunch of high school quarterbacks talk about how NFL quarterbacks shouldn't make long passes because of how hard it is to do it accurately.
Actually it impresses me as more like a bunch of high school "street racers" who think that they possess the skills, and not to mention the reflexes, of a guy like Mario Andretti.
The really sad part of it is that a lot of the nonsense on television / internet gives the impression that all it takes is to buy the right equipment (scope, rifle in the flavor of the day chambering) and you are "in like Flynn." I saw a show at a friend's house the other day and what kept being said was "range it, eliminate it," and left out the effect of wind and or an animal taking a step at the moment the trigger is pulled.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2017, 10:02:04 AM
Post by: Harbor_hunter on February 07, 2017, 10:25:25 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2017, 10:26:25 AM
How about shoot the cow and not the calf? More meat!!
:tup:
Post by: dontgetcrabs on February 07, 2017, 10:41:00 AM
How about shoot the cow and not the calf? More meat!!
Veal. :drool:
Post by: Redbeard on February 07, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
I hear of guys who every year want to make farther and farther shots. Just never understood it.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on February 07, 2017, 12:30:45 PM
I see multiple discussion points that have been brought up throughout this thread.....
1) CAN a 308 kill an elk at 875? Yes. At least a calf. I assume it would kill a larger elk as well, although bullet placement becomes even more crucial. As bone, muscle, and hide densities will all increase.
2) Was the shooter CAPABLE of making the shot? I hate making judgements from video, because its only a short clip into the circumstances surrounding the incident. Sure he could have edited footage after hitting the wrong elk. He could have edited multiple poor hits and misses prior to the kill, he could have exaggerated the range. He also could have left out that he is a highly trained shooter, who spends alot of time behind the gun and has extensive experience in long range shooting. I dont know. My opinion leans one way, however if being objective it is impossible to know.
3) WHY would any hunter CHOOSE to shoot an animal at that range? This is one that seems strange to even ponder for me. Why hunt private property? Why hunt the rut? Why take vacation time to hunt? To INCREASE the odds of being successful!! I had an aquaintance once who was always bragging about how he was raised to hunt "the right way" and he would run down long range guys, and guys that shot smaller animals. He was pretty successful and I always gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was entitled to his opinion. Then one day he revealed nearly ALL his hunting was done on large blocks of private land either through permission or leases. I am gonna be honest his opinion didn't meant much after that. I am not against private property hunting, but to compare game dense private acreage and very limited pressure, with the majority of public land is lunacy. Running down another hunter for choosing to take a smaller deer when its the only buck they have seen in a week of hunting, or for practicing all year long to be able to take a shot at last light on a bull that is not in range of your grandpa's trusty AUGHT 6. Is not a reasonable comparison. We ALL use the gifts we have been given/developed.
4) The VARIABLES are why its unethical. I will be honest I was in this camp for many years. It took an extra large slice of humble pie, to realize EVERY shot has variables potentially outside your control, or that you haven't prepared for. Be honest with yourself and prepare to the level it will take to make the shots you will encounter.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 07, 2017, 12:56:48 PM
I see multiple discussion points that have been brought up throughout this thread.....
1) CAN a 308 kill an elk at 875? Yes. At least a calf. I assume it would kill a larger elk as well, although bullet placement becomes even more crucial. As bone, muscle, and hide densities will all increase.
2) Was the shooter CAPABLE of making the shot? I hate making judgements from video, because its only a short clip into the circumstances surrounding the incident. Sure he could have edited footage after hitting the wrong elk. He could have edited multiple poor hits and misses prior to the kill, he could have exaggerated the range. He also could have left out that he is a highly trained shooter, who spends alot of time behind the gun and has extensive experience in long range shooting. I dont know. My opinion leans one way, however if being objective it is impossible to know.
3) WHY would any hunter CHOOSE to shoot an animal at that range? This is one that seems strange to even ponder for me. Why hunt private property? Why hunt the rut? Why take vacation time to hunt? To INCREASE the odds of being successful!! I had an aquaintance once who was always bragging about how he was raised to hunt "the right way" and he would run down long range guys, and guys that shot smaller animals. He was pretty successful and I always gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was entitled to his opinion. Then one day he revealed nearly ALL his hunting was done on large blocks of private land either through permission or leases. I am gonna be honest his opinion didn't meant much after that. I am not against private property hunting, but to compare game dense private acreage and very limited pressure, with the majority of public land is lunacy. Running down another hunter for choosing to take a smaller deer when its the only buck they have seen in a week of hunting, or for practicing all year long to be able to take a shot at last light on a bull that is not in range of your grandpa's trusty AUGHT 6. Is not a reasonable comparison. We ALL use the gifts we have been given/developed.
4) The VARIABLES are why its unethical. I will be honest I was in this camp for many years. It took an extra large slice of humble pie, to realize EVERY shot has variables potentially outside your control, or that you haven't prepared for. Be honest with yourself and prepare to the level it will take to make the shots you will encounter.
Excellent post
Post by: jasnt on February 07, 2017, 01:31:38 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2017, 01:32:54 PM
I don’t have the skill to make 875 yard shots, but I do tend to get a bit more satisfaction out of shooting an antelope at 400 yards than 200 yards.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 07, 2017, 01:50:46 PM
I agree with The Jon, outstanding post.
I see multiple discussion points that have been brought up throughout this thread.....
1) CAN a 308 kill an elk at 875? Yes. At least a calf. I assume it would kill a larger elk as well, although bullet placement becomes even more crucial. As bone, muscle, and hide densities will all increase.
2) Was the shooter CAPABLE of making the shot? I hate making judgements from video, because its only a short clip into the circumstances surrounding the incident. Sure he could have edited footage after hitting the wrong elk. He could have edited multiple poor hits and misses prior to the kill, he could have exaggerated the range. He also could have left out that he is a highly trained shooter, who spends alot of time behind the gun and has extensive experience in long range shooting. I dont know. My opinion leans one way, however if being objective it is impossible to know.
3) WHY would any hunter CHOOSE to shoot an animal at that range? This is one that seems strange to even ponder for me. Why hunt private property? Why hunt the rut? Why take vacation time to hunt? To INCREASE the odds of being successful!! I had an aquaintance once who was always bragging about how he was raised to hunt "the right way" and he would run down long range guys, and guys that shot smaller animals. He was pretty successful and I always gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was entitled to his opinion. Then one day he revealed nearly ALL his hunting was done on large blocks of private land either through permission or leases. I am gonna be honest his opinion didn't meant much after that. I am not against private property hunting, but to compare game dense private acreage and very limited pressure, with the majority of public land is lunacy. Running down another hunter for choosing to take a smaller deer when its the only buck they have seen in a week of hunting, or for practicing all year long to be able to take a shot at last light on a bull that is not in range of your grandpa's trusty AUGHT 6. Is not a reasonable comparison. We ALL use the gifts we have been given/developed.
4) The VARIABLES are why its unethical. I will be honest I was in this camp for many years. It took an extra large slice of humble pie, to realize EVERY shot has variables potentially outside your control, or that you haven't prepared for. Be honest with yourself and prepare to the level it will take to make the shots you will encounter.
Excellent post
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2017, 03:00:43 PM
:yeah: Kaboom and mic drop.
I see multiple discussion points that have been brought up throughout this thread.....
1) CAN a 308 kill an elk at 875? Yes. At least a calf. I assume it would kill a larger elk as well, although bullet placement becomes even more crucial. As bone, muscle, and hide densities will all increase.
2) Was the shooter CAPABLE of making the shot? I hate making judgements from video, because its only a short clip into the circumstances surrounding the incident. Sure he could have edited footage after hitting the wrong elk. He could have edited multiple poor hits and misses prior to the kill, he could have exaggerated the range. He also could have left out that he is a highly trained shooter, who spends alot of time behind the gun and has extensive experience in long range shooting. I dont know. My opinion leans one way, however if being objective it is impossible to know.
3) WHY would any hunter CHOOSE to shoot an animal at that range? This is one that seems strange to even ponder for me. Why hunt private property? Why hunt the rut? Why take vacation time to hunt? To INCREASE the odds of being successful!! I had an aquaintance once who was always bragging about how he was raised to hunt "the right way" and he would run down long range guys, and guys that shot smaller animals. He was pretty successful and I always gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was entitled to his opinion. Then one day he revealed nearly ALL his hunting was done on large blocks of private land either through permission or leases. I am gonna be honest his opinion didn't meant much after that. I am not against private property hunting, but to compare game dense private acreage and very limited pressure, with the majority of public land is lunacy. Running down another hunter for choosing to take a smaller deer when its the only buck they have seen in a week of hunting, or for practicing all year long to be able to take a shot at last light on a bull that is not in range of your grandpa's trusty AUGHT 6. Is not a reasonable comparison. We ALL use the gifts we have been given/developed.
4) The VARIABLES are why its unethical. I will be honest I was in this camp for many years. It took an extra large slice of humble pie, to realize EVERY shot has variables potentially outside your control, or that you haven't prepared for. Be honest with yourself and prepare to the level it will take to make the shots you will encounter.
Post by: Okanagan on February 07, 2017, 05:04:00 PM
Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?
Because I couldn't get to 10 yards.
Closer range increases the odds of a hit by any shooter-- and vice versa. This is mere reality.
Every shot at any range has variables, but the closer to the target, the more the shooter can control or compensate for variables, and the less influence the variables have on a vital hit.
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2017, 05:14:09 PM
I tend to think somewhat differently in many instances. At 10 yards the odds of an animal detecting my presence as I'm about to shoot is much higher than if I'm several hundred yards away. A vast majority of the big game animals I've shot were not aware of my presence, and I consider that to be of significant value in not having to rush a shot in fear of the animal spooking. :twocents:Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?
Because I couldn't get to 10 yards.
Closer range increases the odds of a hit by any shooter-- and vice versa. This is mere reality.
Every shot at any range has variables, but the closer to the target, the more the shooter can control or compensate for variables, and the less influence the variables have on a vital hit.
Post by: yakimanoob on February 07, 2017, 05:23:23 PM
I think you miss the point noob
What was the point that I'm missing?
Post by: yakimanoob on February 07, 2017, 05:40:00 PM
No one here would argue that it's ethical to take a shot on an animal if you're not sure your scope is sighted in. Saying that it's impossible to know with 100% certainty that your scope didn't break between the range and the field is, technically speaking, missing the point.
As a side note: the guy in the video does indeed put in a lot of trigger time, as demonstrated by his many videos on reloading, honing his setup, etc.
Post by: Okanagan on February 07, 2017, 05:57:11 PM
I tend to think somewhat differently in many instances. At 10 yards the odds of an animal detecting my presence as I'm about to shoot is much higher than if I'm several hundred yards away. A vast majority of the big game animals I've shot were not aware of my presence, and I consider that to be of significant value in not having to rush a shot in fear of the animal spooking. :twocents:Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?
Because I couldn't get to 10 yards.
Closer range increases the odds of a hit by any shooter-- and vice versa. This is mere reality.
Every shot at any range has variables, but the closer to the target, the more the shooter can control or compensate for variables, and the less influence the variables have on a vital hit.
Valid point to a limited extent, but it is introducing another variable besides distance to target.
Closer range increases the odds of a hit by ANY shooter-- and vice versa, assuming shots at identical or similar targets of course. That remains reality. My bad not to spell out the unstated assumption. If we start changing the nature of the target, then we aren't controlling the experiment so that it measures the influence of distance to target on ability to hit. And distance to the target is THE issue.
Moving targets are a related but different topic, as is the nervousness factor of different shooters at close range. Movement of a target at 10 yards is less critical in most hunting contexts than movement at 875 yards.
FWIW close can be done, and done without taking wild shots at terrified fleeing animals. I powder burned my first rifle killed bull elk. Killed another 6x6 bull walking slowly unaware of me at 12 yards, a large bull moose standing still at about 7 feet, black bear standing still at 6 yds. , 180 class mule deer walking slowly unaware of me at 11 yds., etc. all with rifle. All of these were hunting on foot, no tree stands etc. All on public land, over the counter tags, general season, several of these in WA State. Also killed a bull elk at 690 yds. when it was getting away wounded. I prefer the ten yard shot over 690 but we have agreed to disagree as to whether getting close increases or decreases a hunter's odds of hitting where he or she aims. :)
It's all good and we all enjoy hunting.
Post by: Jpmiller on February 07, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
Post by: mountainman on February 07, 2017, 07:38:13 PM
Just don't start walking away from the animal so you can take a longer shot.have to agree for sure. But with the $$$'s in video sales, many won't head that advice :(
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 08, 2017, 11:56:58 AM
Why would anybody want to get to 20 yards when rifle hunting?
Because I couldn't get to 10 yards.
Closer range increases the odds of a hit by any shooter-- and vice versa. This is mere reality.
Every shot at any range has variables, but the closer to the target, the more the shooter can control or compensate for variables, and the less influence the variables have on a vital hit.
Yeah I think I'd rather take a shot at 100 than 20.
Post by: Thefishguy77 on February 10, 2017, 04:36:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkcollector82 on February 12, 2017, 07:32:30 PM
For every successful kill, how many wounded animals are there out there? Some people can do it every time because they have the knowledge, experience, and equipment. Others... flinging lead.
Like someone else touched on, I'm more impressed with a 20 yard shot and the ability to get that close. If you want to show off your skills, do it on paper or steel.
Ok Mr ethical. How high does your bullet hit its mark at 20 yards versus the 100 yards you probably have it sighted in at. Those inches matter to. Still gonna miss vitals at 20 yards if you don't know how high your bullet hits at 20 versus 875. It's all about trigger time. Also how tight of a group the guy has his gun sighted in at. Most people are happy with a one inch group at 100 yards. But you stretch that 1" group out to 300,400,500 yards. Whatever your comfort skill level range is. You talking 14-18 grouping out at that far. "Roughly" that's ethical under your book. Right? Cause your shooting a one inch group at hundred so your good to go out to 500. Or whatever your comfort skill level is. Wrong. You be shooting wounded animals all day long. Long range shooters have their rifle dialed in to pretty much drive tacks at 100. Shooting the same hole. So really before you throw stones look at your own setup. Then when you realize your grouping at a hundred is 1" or more. Go ahead open mouth and insert foot.
Rant over.
Post by: JLS on February 12, 2017, 08:30:16 PM
Ok Mr ethical. How high does your bullet hit its mark at 20 yards versus the 100 yards you probably have it sighted in at. Those inches matter to. Still gonna miss vitals at 20 yards if you don't know how high your bullet hits at 20 versus 875.
I highly doubt the difference in trajectory at 20 yards versus 100 (assuming 100 yard zero) is going to make anyone miss the vitals on an elk. Should one miss vitals at 20 yards, the are much bigger problems afoot.
Post by: kentrek on February 12, 2017, 08:41:30 PM
Ok Mr ethical. How high does your bullet hit its mark at 20 yards versus the 100 yards you probably have it sighted in at. Those inches matter to. Still gonna miss vitals at 20 yards if you don't know how high your bullet hits at 20 versus 875.
I highly doubt the difference in trajectory at 20 yards versus 100 (assuming 100 yard zero) is going to make anyone miss the vitals on an elk. Should one miss vitals at 20 yards, the are much bigger problems afoot.
Typically youl be one inch high at 20 if sighted in @ 100.....
The problem with close range shots has nothing to do with trajectory, the problem with long range also has nothing to do with trajectory
Post by: Taco280AI on February 12, 2017, 08:46:20 PM
For every successful kill, how many wounded animals are there out there? Some people can do it every time because they have the knowledge, experience, and equipment. Others... flinging lead.
Like someone else touched on, I'm more impressed with a 20 yard shot and the ability to get that close. If you want to show off your skills, do it on paper or steel.
Ok Mr ethical. How high does your bullet hit its mark at 20 yards versus the 100 yards you probably have it sighted in at. Those inches matter to. Still gonna miss vitals at 20 yards if you don't know how high your bullet hits at 20 versus 875. It's all about trigger time. Also how tight of a group the guy has his gun sighted in at. Most people are happy with a one inch group at 100 yards. But you stretch that 1" group out to 300,400,500 yards. Whatever your comfort skill level range is. You talking 14-18 grouping out at that far. "Roughly" that's ethical under your book. Right? Cause your shooting a one inch group at hundred so your good to go out to 500. Or whatever your comfort skill level is. Wrong. You be shooting wounded animals all day long. Long range shooters have their rifle dialed in to pretty much drive tacks at 100. Shooting the same hole. So really before you throw stones look at your own setup. Then when you realize your grouping at a hundred is 1" or more. Go ahead open mouth and insert foot.
Rant over.
How many inches off is my bullet at 20 yards? :chuckle: It isn't "inches" off
And what is this 1" @ 100 yard group you speak of? Rather than making stupid assumptions how about you look up my rifle and the proven groups I shoot with it. Little hint, I average .36" with my RBros 280AI and fixed 6x scope. And when I go shooting I'll take it in the mountains for practice and shoot at a target I set up, or rocks generally for fun. I'll practice out to 600max because I have zero desire to shoot beyond that at all, just personal preference.
Any more off the wall assumptions?
I think a real problem is when you have people who think they're long range shooters when they're not, especially when they think - or maybe even actually have a long range setup. Or when making a long range shot on video is more important for the bragging rights than it is to get meat in your freezer. Or when people think a 308 is a good choice for 900 elk. Or a 260 is a good choice for 900 elk. Or a 243 is a good choice at 700 yards. They aren't
Post by: Bob33 on February 12, 2017, 08:55:49 PM
With a sight at least 1.5 inches above the bore, a gun sighted in one inch high at 100 will still be slightly below point of aim at 20 yards (at the muzzle it is 1.5 inches low, and generally first crosses between 30 and 35 yards while rising), but not anywhere near enough to miss the vitals of a big game animal.
Ok Mr ethical. How high does your bullet hit its mark at 20 yards versus the 100 yards you probably have it sighted in at. Those inches matter to. Still gonna miss vitals at 20 yards if you don't know how high your bullet hits at 20 versus 875.
I highly doubt the difference in trajectory at 20 yards versus 100 (assuming 100 yard zero) is going to make anyone miss the vitals on an elk. Should one miss vitals at 20 yards, the are much bigger problems afoot.
Typically youl be one inch high at 20 if sighted in @ 100.....
The problem with close range shots has nothing to do with trajectory, the problem with long range also has nothing to do with trajectory
Post by: cbond3318 on February 13, 2017, 05:45:13 AM
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 06:01:35 AM
For every successful kill, how many wounded animals are there out there? Some people can do it every time because they have the knowledge, experience, and equipment. Others... flinging lead.
Like someone else touched on, I'm more impressed with a 20 yard shot and the ability to get that close. If you want to show off your skills, do it on paper or steel.
Careful. Next thing you are going to have someone say all you have to do is hit them in the heart lung area w/a 308 and you have a dead elk. Especially if they are shooting a bullet the manufacturer of that bullet says is not a reliable big game bullet.
That is not necessarily true, if velocity has dropped off to the point the bullet no longer expands an elk can be hit through the heart w/a 30 caliber bullet and not die right away.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 13, 2017, 07:07:53 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 13, 2017, 08:01:10 AM
Also a 1 moa rifle should shoot 5" at 500 with out wind. If your getting an 18" group at 500 you may need a lesson On parallax. I've never known a long range guy to be happy with a moa gun. I average 2.5"-3" at 500 with wind but still not happy with that. Always chasing that better group.
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 08:17:25 AM
Are you high? If you want to say a .308 isn't LR medicine, that's one thing. But saying you can hit it in the heart and lose the animal isn't your argument
You guys simply don't know what you are talking about. You have probably been watching too much hunting on television wherein every elk that the hero touches with a bullet tips over and dies. The dirty little secret that really isn't so secret is that what you get to see is actually put together from cuts from footage that leave out, as Paul Harvey used to say, The Rest of the Story.
A jacketed bullet that does not expand is not going to be any more lethal than would be shooting an elk with an arrow w/a field point on it. Or as the Ballistic Engineer form Sierra I referenced in an earlier thread put it: ... would be no more immediately lethal than stabbing them with a pencil.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 13, 2017, 08:53:17 AM
I am so glad and feel very blessed that you are taking the time to educate us all with your unwavering knowledge hasty... :puke: :puke: :puke:
You still haven't explained how the numerous elk and other animals shot with "target" bullets have ever died. By your posts it seems like there should still be thousands upon thousands of animals out there with pencil hole scars!
Post by: jasnt on February 13, 2017, 09:00:32 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 13, 2017, 09:01:52 AM
To suggest that a big game bullet travelling at supersonic velocities which penetrates the heart or lungs of a big animal won’t kill it is foolish and ignorant of how bullets work.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on February 13, 2017, 09:03:00 AM
You guys simply don't know what you are talking about. You have probably been watching too much hunting on television wherein every elk that the hero touches with a bullet tips over and dies. The dirty little secret that really isn't so secret is that what you get to see is actually put together from cuts from footage that leave out, as Paul Harvey used to say, The Rest of the Story.
A jacketed bullet that does not expand is not going to be any more lethal than would be shooting an elk with an arrow w/a field point on it. Or as the Ballistic Engineer form Sierra I referenced in an earlier thread put it: ... would be no more immediately lethal than stabbing them with a pencil.
Do you believe the things you post or are you just trolling?
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:08:45 AM
Wow!
I am so glad and feel very blessed that you are taking the time to educate us all with your unwavering knowledge hasty... :puke: :puke: :puke:
You still haven't explained how the numerous elk and other animals shot with "target" bullets have ever died. By your posts it seems like there should still be thousands upon thousands of animals out there with pencil hole scars!
I have explained adnauseam that there is a difference between what is know as anecdotally derived conclusions and statistically valid conclusions that are derived from data that has been collected and analyzed using the "scientific method."
The problem your average shade tree ballistics expert has is that they cannot hope to have the resources available to get to a valid conclusion and another issue is that they tend to discount data that does not support their desired outcome.
I have never said that "numerous elk and other animals shot with "target" bullets have never died," that is you trying to set up a what is known as a straw man. I have said that Sierra engineers have done exponentially more testing than any shade tree ballistician and their conclusions were based on enough data to give their conclusions statistical probability of being valid that your small set of data lacks.
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:09:38 AM
Even a 22 cal hole threw the heart would be a dead elk.
Also a 1 moa rifle should shoot 5" at 500 with out wind. If your getting an 18" group at 500 you may need a lesson On parallax. I've never known a long range guy to be happy with a moa gun. I average 2.5"-3" at 500 with wind but still not happy with that. Always chasing that better group.
That would be through, not threw. Anyway: No it is not, not with a bullet that doesn't expand!
Post by: Bob33 on February 13, 2017, 09:12:20 AM
That would be "through", not "trough".Even a 22 cal hole threw the heart would be a dead elk.
Also a 1 moa rifle should shoot 5" at 500 with out wind. If your getting an 18" group at 500 you may need a lesson On parallax. I've never known a long range guy to be happy with a moa gun. I average 2.5"-3" at 500 with wind but still not happy with that. Always chasing that better group.
That would be trough, not threw. Anyway: No it is not, not with a bullet that doesn't expand!
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:12:45 AM
Unlike pencils and arrows, bullets create hydrostatic shock even at velocities too slow to allow full expansion. The shock creates trauma and damages blood vessels in its wake. This effect can easily demonstrated by shooting a handgun bullet into a media such as ballistic gelatin.
To suggest that a big game bullet travelling at supersonic velocities which penetrates the heart or lungs of a big animal won’t kill it is foolish and ignorant of how bullets work.
It may or may not kill it. It PROBABLY will not kill it soon enough to recover the animal if it does kill it though. But just because an elk is shot through the heart with a bullet that does not expand that does not mean it is going to tip over right where it is standing.
Post by: Jpmiller on February 13, 2017, 09:13:27 AM
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:13:43 AM
A bullet that dosent expand still has kynetic energy. What happens when you shoot a milk jug with an fmj?
Depends on striking velocity
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:14:32 AM
You guys simply don't know what you are talking about. You have probably been watching too much hunting on television wherein every elk that the hero touches with a bullet tips over and dies. The dirty little secret that really isn't so secret is that what you get to see is actually put together from cuts from footage that leave out, as Paul Harvey used to say, The Rest of the Story.
A jacketed bullet that does not expand is not going to be any more lethal than would be shooting an elk with an arrow w/a field point on it. Or as the Ballistic Engineer form Sierra I referenced in an earlier thread put it: ... would be no more immediately lethal than stabbing them with a pencil.
I deal in fact
Do you believe the things you post or are you just trolling?
Post by: coop2424 on February 13, 2017, 09:15:11 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on February 13, 2017, 09:16:42 AM
You guys simply don't know what you are talking about. You have probably been watching too much hunting on television wherein every elk that the hero touches with a bullet tips over and dies. The dirty little secret that really isn't so secret is that what you get to see is actually put together from cuts from footage that leave out, as Paul Harvey used to say, The Rest of the Story.
A jacketed bullet that does not expand is not going to be any more lethal than would be shooting an elk with an arrow w/a field point on it. Or as the Ballistic Engineer form Sierra I referenced in an earlier thread put it: ... would be no more immediately lethal than stabbing them with a pencil.
I deal in fact
Do you believe the things you post or are you just trolling?
No you deal in ignorance.
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:19:02 AM
I am glad that I now know that animals hearts can still function with holes through them!! I didn't realize we were dealing with this kind of super animal.. Guess I need to rethink my weapon of choice.
If you are one of the Volleyfire Brigade who advocate in favor of mag dumping at elk at ranges approaching a quarter mile w/an AR 15, or if you are sending hail Mary shots at two to three times that that distance w/a 308 then you very well might want to reconsider whether you want to continue down that road.
Post by: JDHasty on February 13, 2017, 09:20:25 AM
You guys simply don't know what you are talking about. You have probably been watching too much hunting on television wherein every elk that the hero touches with a bullet tips over and dies. The dirty little secret that really isn't so secret is that what you get to see is actually put together from cuts from footage that leave out, as Paul Harvey used to say, The Rest of the Story.
A jacketed bullet that does not expand is not going to be any more lethal than would be shooting an elk with an arrow w/a field point on it. Or as the Ballistic Engineer form Sierra I referenced in an earlier thread put it: ... would be no more immediately lethal than stabbing them with a pencil.
I deal in fact
Do you believe the things you post or are you just trolling?
No you deal in ignorance.
It is you who deals in ignorance and the saddest part of it is you get all smug about it.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 13, 2017, 09:22:50 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on February 13, 2017, 09:23:20 AM
You guys simply don't know what you are talking about. You have probably been watching too much hunting on television wherein every elk that the hero touches with a bullet tips over and dies. The dirty little secret that really isn't so secret is that what you get to see is actually put together from cuts from footage that leave out, as Paul Harvey used to say, The Rest of the Story.
A jacketed bullet that does not expand is not going to be any more lethal than would be shooting an elk with an arrow w/a field point on it. Or as the Ballistic Engineer form Sierra I referenced in an earlier thread put it: ... would be no more immediately lethal than stabbing them with a pencil.
I deal in fact
Do you believe the things you post or are you just trolling?
No you deal in ignorance.
It is you who deals in ignorance and the saddest part of it is you get all smug about it.
HAHAHAHA You're a joke, :tup:
Post by: h20hunter on February 13, 2017, 09:28:07 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 13, 2017, 11:19:14 AM
Sounds like some need to spend less time on the internet and more time shooting large animals :twocents:
:tup: