Closest shot of big game

[Dagny]

Upon review of the last year of post headings here, this topic may have warrant attention.

Many express a "need" for a high power rifle for deer or other North American big game. Many posts here discuss the pros and cons of 30-06, .308, .338, etc. Often these hunters already have a moderate power centerfire rifle or shotgun which is all they NEED for deer hunting. With adequate woods/hunting skills and marksmanship deer CAN be humanely taken with anything bigger than a .22-class centerfire. You can also humanely take deer with a 12 or 20 gauge and rifled slugs (or 000 buckshot - that's why they call it buckshot).

Impersonally standing off so far that the "target" is treated like a paper target in a 20x scope is like an "engagement" from Desert Storm, the video of which was broadcast on TV. A helicopter gunship "acquires" two target tanks while hovering thousands of yards away. The gunner paints the target with a laser and fires a smart missile.

For gosh sakes folks! This whole idea of "needing" a high power rifle and sniper scope to drop game from several hundred yards is the equivalent of calling in an airstrike. Sportsmanship includes giving the animal enough respect to meet it on its own terms.

Take the time to learn your quarry and to stalk it. Get close enough to see its skin quiver as it fends of flies and mosquitoes. When you accomplish this, then open sights and a moderate rifle are entirely adequate for a clean kill and a shotgun slug seems like a bludgeon.

Who among us here have stalked to within several yards of deer or other similar game? I have. Bowhunters often do so. I know of a fellow who gave up bowhunting because he felt he was being was unfair and unsportsmanlike. He then hunted deer with a spear! Okay, that may be taking it too far, but compared to that, any moderate centerfire rifle or large caliber handgun or shotgun is more than adequate for the job IF we do our part.

I'll concede that high power rifles and scopes are needed on the open prairie or in lightly forested mountains where your quarry can spot you from a thousand yards and gets skittish at a hundred yards. But in forested or shrubby areas you generally should be able to closely stalk big game. After all, this is not a matter of survival where efficiency is paramount. What do we hunt for? The art and craft of hunting in its fullest meaning or for target practice. For the latter we can use a 1000 yard range.

[Dogger]

Interesting post.

A few rambling thoughts:

I have taken deer cleanly with bow at 7 yards and with shotgun slug at 20 yards. The only deer I shot at with a rifle (at 50 yards) I lost. I did not do my part. I had more than enough rifle. Where I hunt you do not get shots over 200 yards.

I find bow hunting the most challenging, and the most fun. The most exciting part of hunting is the stalk. If you don't get an animal -- no big deal -- I go home satisfied -- the best part of hunting is getting out into the forest and away from civilization. However, I can see where a hunter who paid BIG bucks for a special trip far away would disagree. He wants to bring that animal home.

Anyway, back to rifles. For me, there is something appealing about bringing down a deer with a single shot at 200 yards with a wonderful rifle/scope combination. I haven't done this yet.

After careful consideration of what I hunt (Eastern white tail deer) and how much rifle I need, I settled on a 6.5x55 Swede and a 7x57mm Mauser. I passed on the more common .270, .280, .308, and 30-06 because I figured they were too much gun for Virginia deer. And I figured a .243 Winchester was too little gun (for my skills). The Swede and the Mauser were "just right".

I have a beauty of a Ruger Mark II with a Leupold scope in 7x57. Light recoil, light report, and I am sure it will bring down any deer I stalk.

HOWEVER, I am now smitten by that peculiar American Bug that whispers in my ear, "Bigger caliber! Flatter trajectory!! More velocity! More energy!!"

The American quest for bigger and faster is in the blood. I suppose that is why we have the world's best tank, best sub, best fighter airplane, and only successful landings on the moon.

It takes a considerable effort on my part to resist this bug.

I applied salve to the itch by buying some stiffer arrows for my bow and some Hornady light magnum SST ammo for my 7x57mm.

But I am still looking at that Model 70 Classic in .270 Winchester, and that Ruger #1B in 30-06, and that Marlin in 45-70...

[Dr.Rob]

I for one have emptied a scoped high powereed rifle at an antelope at 25-50- yards (at a full run) even with both eyes open I could not hold over and forward enough to hit the buck. (mind you they can run at 50mph for an hour.. with iron sights I MIGHT have made that shot... but its pretty tough with your heart pounding and your fingers sweating and the thunder of hooves in your ears.

[Jack Straw]

Dagny,

Perhaps you didn't intend this post to sound snooty, but it definitely smacks of it. In the first place there is nothing that bugs me more than someone questioning or telling me what THEY think I NEED. I also can't stand it when someone questions my motives for hunting. Whether it is for target practice or for sexual gratification or for the "art and craft of hunting" or for herd management matters not one bit; three out of the four work for me. Furthermore, I consider the .308 and 30-06 to be moderate cartridges. I hunt with a .308 and scope (spare me the "sniper" language) because I respect the game enough to use a caliber that is sufficient for the game. BTW, I used to bowhunt (which has been replaced with revolver hunting) so yes I sometimes have to stalk very close to my quarry. Sometimes I choose to carry my .308 and sometimes I take the revolver. It just depends on my mood.

Your choice of words (ie.."sniper scope") reflect the same sort of crap the animal rights thugs use. Long range rifle hunting is equal to a military airstrike? Give me a break. I consider a part of sportsmanship to be the using of enough gun to make a quick and humane kill.

As for someone that stops bowhunting because he thinks it is unfair -- well that is his choice. I choose not to expand the challenge. BTW, hunting is not necessarily supposed to be fair,IMHO. Why should I be called into question for that?

You say you have stalked to within close range of a deer (as have I), but you didn't say you have killed one. Have you? Your words lead me to believe that you don't hunt. I could be wrong about that, but as I said -- your choice of words leads me to believe that you don't.

Perhaps I have read you wrong and if that is the case I offer my friendliest apologies. You struck a nerve with me there. I will never apologize for hunting or the methods I use to kill animals with so long as it is an efficient and humane method.

Jack

[Ron Ankeny]

I am an archery hunter, but I do use a rifle from time to time. I think the issue of range kind of depends on the country. In the wide open spaces of Wyoming stalking that Boone and Crockett buck antelope probably isn't in the cards. OTH, a long range flat shooting rifle can go a long ways toward success.

I have killed 2 Pope and Young antelope at 5 yards from a blind on a waterhole. I have killed many SCI Gold Medal antelope with flat shooting rifles at long yardage.

I have killed mature bull elk at 10 yards with a bow. I have also shot elk at 400 yards with my 30-338 loaded with Partition bullets.

I have a deer mount above my computer monitor that ranks in the top 20 SCI for archery. I killed it with a bow at 30 yards. Would I be any less of a hunter or human being if I shot it across a deep canyon with a 7mm STW?

My point is this; so long as a hunter stays within the limits of his ability and has a quick, humane kill (ethics) it really doesn't matter to me if he/she uses a .50 BMG or a spear. My 2 cents worth.

[BadMedicine]

Hmmmmm......

[bk40]

I concur with Ron.

That said, last deer season I took 4 whitetails, 2 bucks and 2 doe. Closest shot was 7yds (6" NMSBH .357mag) and longest shot was 70yds (Rem 7-08). All one shot kills, all dropped in their tracks. The distance and weapon used make no difference if the hunt is legal and the hunter stays within ethical guidelines. A 250yd 1 shot stop is no less impressive than a "hunter" jumping out of a tree with a spear.

[rr41mag]

oh no not another one of these replies!
we (hunters) need to stick together. Rifle,shotgun,pistol,bow&arrow, or spear. It is getting bad out there. I really do want my son to be able to go out and "hunt" when he is of age. Hunting accomplishes many things in a young mans life and "we" need to utilize our energy on keeping this privledge. bottom line thats why we hunt.

[Al Thompson]

Dagny, don't confuse the means with the ends. I'm hunting until the moment I decide to kill the animal. At that time I'm willing to use any means to end the animals life with as little pain as possible. Proximity is very secondary - I would much rather someone have a clean kill at three hundred yards than a poorly executed one at 3 feet.

I do agree that stalking is almost as much fun as any other part of hunting. But it has little to do with a clean ethical kill.

Giz

[Jack Straw]

rr41mag,

I agree with you completely; hunters must stick together. That is why I responded the way I originally did to this topic.

The antis (anti-gun and anti-hunting) both use the same methods. Divide and conquer and attacking at both ends. According to the anti-gunners you don't need small "Saturday night specials" or big "military assault weapons". With the anti-hunters you are cruel and unfair (and "impersonal") if you take an animal at long range with a scoped rifle and at the same time you are cruel and heartless if you shoot an animal with a weak and inefficient weapon like a bow (not that I think a bow is inefficient, that is their argument).

I saw this post as an anti-hunting attack by questioning the "fairness" of hunting with high power rifles. As I originally stated, I might be wrong about Dagny's intentions, but judging from his language, I really don't think so.

Jack

[crow slayer]

Hello Everyone,
I have never posted on this forum but now I will. First let me say that I too believe that all hunters, gun hunters, bowhunters, and prarrie dog shooters. should stick together.
I heard of people who us custom target rifles and target scopes, range finders, and wind meters to shoot deer at 600+ yards. At these ranges alot can go wrong. A small movement by the deer, the slightest change in wind speed, anything but a perfect trigger pull and you have a wounded deer on you hands and no chance for a follow up shot.
I don't care what gun/scope you use. All I ask is that you know your limitations, are you really that good of a shot to be shooting at deer a 300+ yard.
With all the new gadgets coming out(range finders, wind gauges, scopes that compensate for bullet drop and wind speed) ask yourself where will it stop? When does it cease to be deer hunting and become deer shooting.
Thank you
CS

[Art Eatman]

Well, Dagny, I use a scope sighted rifle because I wear tri-focal glasses. I don't use a bow because of arthritis in my right shoulder. I don't use a pistol because most mule deer aren't really "stalkable" in my little chunk of desert.

I have stalked a buck for some 250 yards and got close enough to toss a pebble and hit him on the butt. I was laughing way too hard to even begin to think of shooting. I have walked up on mule deer does, to within 10 yards--and talked to them and watched them walk off a few steps and go back feeding. I've had deer lie down to chew their cud, under my tree stand.

The only things of importance are that almost all my kills were one-shot, and all the deer I killed were eaten.

And all this talk about hunting is making me hungry for natural food.

, Art

[Jack Straw]

crow slayer,

I think you have contradicted yourself. First you state that hunters must stick together and then you proceed to question those that use new technologies in their hunting. You asked "where will it stop?" I say why should it? If someone chooses to use those items, then that is fine, it is their choice; I may not use those items, but I have no problem with those who do.

Somewhere along the line this notion got started that hunting is supposed to be fair, but it isn't. A grouse would be doing good to reach 40mph while a falcon can dive at 200mph (not to mention the fact that a falcon has a powerful beak and sharp, deadly talons). Is that fair? Of course not. Then there is this notion that when humans hunt it shouldn't be with advanced technologies because that would be unnatural. I disagree with that notion also. All predators have an advantage, and with humans that advantage is the ability to reason which means that we can create tools to give us a greater advantage. What is wrong with that? Do you really think that those who use technology are somehow immoral or even to the lesser extent unethical? I do not.

You ask "When does it cease to be deer hunting and become deer shooting?" The answer: it does not matter. By questioning some hunters' motives you have accepted the animal rightists notion that hunting CAN be wrong. I think the animal rights movement has managed to instill, even amongst hunters, the idea that animals have a RIGHT to a certain level of fairness. That idea is wrong. We, as hunters, do have the ethical obligation to see to it that our kill is carried out as quickly and humanely and efficiently as possible (which is aided by increasing technology), but animals have no rights.

Don't get me wrong. It isn't as if I have no concern for animals at all. I am sure I share the same sort of "love" that you do for the animals we hunt (have you ever tried to explain that one to a non-hunter?...it ain't easy!), but I will not give one inch to those who seek to demonize me and outlaw hunting.

Jack

[Jack Straw]

crow slayer,

I just gotta ask. When did you cease to be a crow hunter and become a crow slayer?

No flame intended, I just thought there was a little irony to be pointed out there.

Jack

[LoneStar]

First I'd like to say that hunting, as a sport, is between the hunter & hunted, meaning it's you're game, you do it however you think is best - just keep it legal, and do not willfully abuse the animals. We ALL need to stick together, and just practice YOUR sport however YOU want.

That being said, I love hunting "close up". I have found that a doe taken at 10 yards to be as much or more rewarding than a fair sized buck at 100. It is also infinately more challenging. You may be able to get within 50-100 yards of a whitetail on plain dumb luck, but when you close the gap to 20 or 10 or 5 yards, you are walking a much finer line. And for me, that's what I like MOST about hunting. When I'm 5-15 yards from a wild animal, I've beaten that animal whether I take him or not. Not the same at 100 yards.

I do not bow hunt, as I've never gotten to a level I was comfortable with. I like having the assurance of a quick clean kill that a firearm offers. I'll be looking into a hand cannon soon.

[Jack Straw]

LoneStar,

I stopped bowhunting for the same reason you don't bowhunt. I no longer had the confidence that I could make a clean kill. That is why I took up handgun hunting. Even though my revolver has a greater effective range, I limit my shots to what would normally be considered bow range. I get the added challenge of getting close to the animal, yet I am confident in my abilities with a Redhawk .44. It is a lot of fun, and it'll give you another reason to spend more time at the range.

Stop looking into a hand cannon...just do it!

Jack

[crow slayer]

I live in Iowa and here deer hunting is big. Every year I see several hunters wound deer because they shoot at them at crazy distances. Every year my father and I spend part our deer season trying to track down deer that someelse wounded and didn't follow.
Personally wounded deer make me sick. I am not saying that shooting deer at long ranges is bad, I am say that people should know their limitation and not try to go beyond them. I do think deer have rights. I think deer do not deserve to be wounded. (I also know that sometimes things go wrong.) I think that hunters should get as close as they can to game(within reason) to help ensure a clean kill. When a hunter wounds an animal because he was shooting at it when it was out of HIS range, it makes all hunters look bad.
Just my opinion
CS

[Al Thompson]

The distance is almost immaterial - slob shooting is immoral and disgusting.

If someone came up with a LOS death ray, I'd use it - once I decide to take an animal, the hunting part is over and the shooting part starts. The quicker and more painless I can make it, I will.

Giz

[Jack Straw]

crow slayer,

We do agree that wounding a deer and losing it is a sickening thing to have happen. We also agree that a hunter must know his limits; "slob shooting" as Gizmo so accurately put it, is harmful to us all and should be stopped wherever possible.

However, in your first post you were questioning those who choose to use new technologies as a part of their hunting; that is different from saying that hunters must act responsibly. That new technology can help us make cleaner kills. If a hunter thinks technology can make up for his lack of skill and he consequently wounds an animal, the problem is not the use of that technology but rather the irresponsible behavior of that hunter.

Furthermore, animals have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!!! (said with a smile). If you are going to state that deer have rights, I want to hear your definition of "rights" and I would like to know what rights you think animals have.

I will entertain your notion that deer have rights. As a pre-emptive argument (without hearing your definition of rights) I will take a stab at one right you might offer -- that being that deer have a right not to be wounded. Nope won't work. You have to wound a deer in order to kill it. How would a deer's rights not be violated if you kill it within moments of wounding it, but its rights are violated if it dies later or if it survives? What criteria do you use to decide if the deer's rights have been violated? The severity of the wound, the length of time it takes for the animal to die, or what? What happens to a hunter who violates those rights? Can the deer's family file a civil suit or can the hunter be criminally charged with a rights violation? It just wouldn't make sense to say that an animal has a right to not be physically harmed, but it is okay to kill it.

It probably sounds like I am trying to be a smart@$$, but I honestly am not. It is just that to argue that an animal has rights merits ludicrous retorts because the idea of animal rights is itself ludicrous.

BTW, I think it great that you get to hunt with your dad. I have hunted all my life with my father; he is my partner and best friend. I cherish the time we spend together in the woods. You and I and others who get to hunt with our fathers are truly lucky people.

Jack

[Turk]

Let's face the facts. It doesn't matter what type of firearm or bow is used in hunting there's hunting slobs in the categories.

Something I've seen since coming to the forum is it seems like the members have an ethical approach to hunting.

I personally like handgun hunting but wouldn’t hesitate to take my 06 scoped with a 3X9 to the field. Different boats for difference folks.

Regardless of the discipline we as hunters must strive for one thing. Fast and humane harvesting of the game we’re hunting.

Also if I wanted to be fair hunting lets say Brown Bear my choice of a hunting tool would be a Buck knife in each hand or would a 338 Win. Mag. be a better choice.

Turk

[Dogger]

Interesting posts about hunters not bowhunting because they are concerned about their ability to make a clean kill with a bow. I applaud their ethics and integrity. On the other hand -- I am amazed at how lethal a bow is. I am more confident with a bow than with a rifle. I use mechanical broadheads, and the effects are quick and lethal on deer. But -- I don't take a shot beyond 20 yards. I find that with bowhunting I am less likely to take a risky shot. I also find that I can't estimate range for crap beyond 30 yards. Which is why I think flatshooting rifles must be great.

[crow slayer]

Hmmm... How to reply. When saying deer have rights I was refering to the fact none should have to suffer needlessly due to poor shooting. Mostly I was talking about the hunters ethics. Some of this I find hard to explain over the computer so forgive me if some of my statement seem alittle rash. I don't have a problem with the guy knows his effective range and uses a rangefinder to verify that his game is inside that effective range. When someone you uses a rangefinder just because know the range gives him an excuse to shoot farther it goes against MY opinion of "fair chase"
I hope this clears up what I am trying to say, and I thank all of you who posted for being civil when some of our opinions didn't match. Thank you and good hunting
CS

[Art Eatman]

Drifting off from close shots toward the use of technology: I'm not gonna fuss if somebody uses a rangefinder-type scope, or a laser range-finder. Or, carry a radio or cell-phone. It depends on the circumstances, the terrain, and how stuff is used.

Personally, while I have a lot of "stuff", I rarely bother with it. My rifle, a box of ammo, a folding knife, a length of rope and maybe a day-pack to hold the clothes I take off as the day warms up is plenty. I'm good for eight to ten hours and eight to fifteen miles, "depending". I'll eat and drink when I get back to camp.

I can guesstimate range pretty good, 'cause I've been doing it a long time. Scratch the laser. Cell phones don't work in my country, and hunting alone means there's no point in trying to radio somebody 20 miles away.

Oh. Toilet paper. Ya use it to flag the bushes where Bambi's layin', so you can find him when you come back somewhere closeby with a truck...Maybe put a tee-shirt over him to keep the lions off.

, Art

[Long Path]

He does it, too, y'all.

Each to his ability, y'all.

Just keep it ethical.

[Jack Straw]

crow slayer,

Thanks for clearing up what you meant by "rights". No, the animals we hunt should not be made to suffer needlessly, but that is a hunter's ethical responsibilty not a right of the animals. We probably agree far more than we disagree; expressing one's self via computer isn't always the clearest way to convey one's true thoughts.

Art,

Yeah, I've got a box full of goodies too, but like you I tend to stick with the basics.

Dogger,

No doubt about it...bows are highly lethal weapons. My dad and uncle bowhunt almost exclusively and they are deadly. I just couldn't hit the side of the $#!+house if I were sitting in it!

Good posts everyone!

Good luck this year, it is just around the corner.

Jack