View Full Version : How many agree with this philosophy/strategy espoused by an Outdoor Channel "guru"?

May 6, 2007, 04:21 PM
Ol' boy on the outdoor channel (forget which show), hunting the "high country" for mulies, first explains that his rifle is a .30-.378 Weatherby, with a 200 grain Nosler partition load. Doesn't say, but the barrel looks like a 26"er with muzzle brake. Then he explains that this is very effective for long range on high country mulies. In fact, he says, it is so effective at long range, he's decided (and recommends the same for the viewer) that there is now never any need to get closer to your game than 300 yards. He explains that there's a far less chance of a blown stalk, etc. So don't even bother trying to get under 300. This struck me as 180 degrees opposite of what hunting is about. 'Specially since, it doesn't matter how big of a gun you're using, you still have to hit the target, and that's pretty difficult to hit consistently and not wound animals, at 300 yards, with any crosswinds, or with an unsteady rest. Am I crazy? Does the ol' boy give good advice, (or as I suspect), more likely just work for Weatherby with their $80/box ammo? :rolleyes:

May 6, 2007, 04:23 PM
Nope, but to each their own. I'd like to learn to bow hunt one day. I admire those who tilt the odds away from certain success.

May 6, 2007, 05:29 PM
I suppose it might make sense in the particular area he's hunting. If there is no cover up in the "high country", he might be stuck with pretty long shots.

Did they happen to show the 300 yard shots that he missed, or did you just get to see his perfect shot? :p

May 6, 2007, 05:43 PM
Long shots are fine if you are in steep country with skimpy cover or even if you just get a chance to take a nice animal that you can't get close to.

But I agree that closer is generally better. Jumping a deer at 5 yards in the swamp and taking a chamois at 600 yards at a 50 degree angle both require skills... I just like the former a little better.

May 6, 2007, 06:53 PM
I say long shots are fine IF YOU CAN MAKE THEM. Example: Don't take a 500 yard shot on an antelope that's qurtering away at a 70* angle with a 9x scope. Sure you can make out the markings but the kill zone will be about the size of a BB.

May 6, 2007, 09:44 PM
Agreed. Unless you KNOW you can make the shot, get closer.

Art Eatman
May 7, 2007, 02:44 PM
I use an '06. The drop for my 200-yard zero is 6" at 300 yards. I know from experience that I'm a pretty good judge of distance in open country, although when it gets out around 400 or more I'm much less sure. But if Bambi doesn't know I'm there and is just standing around, I'd readily take a 300-yard shot.

Closer is better, though.


Shooter 973
May 7, 2007, 03:24 PM
Sound more like "Shooting" more than hunting. I have some experiance from my military service on long range shooting and I don't think "most" hunters are prepared to make long range shots of over 300 yards. Just my personal observation.

May 10, 2007, 12:24 AM
I think... that feller is nuts.

I hunt mule deer in open country. They are STUPID. This guy must be a slack jawed cannon toting yokel. He probably drives a hummer too because hes got something that needs to be compensated for.

I know lots of people who hunt deer with .243, .30-30, .303Brit and whatnot and they kill mule deer every year usually two or three.

If you need a 200 grain .30 caliber NOSLER PARTITION to knock over a deer at 300 yards you suck. I did it with a .270 and a 130 grain softpoint this year... 1 shot.

May 10, 2007, 12:36 AM
I have seen a up swing in this kind of "hunting" as of late. i agree its more like shooting than hunting. long shoots have there place but very rare places. i have seen some very impresive long shoots but thats all they are and they are not hunting. at least not too me. i say, spend some of the time you have spent learning to make 1000 yrd shoots on deer and learn to hunt them. im not saying to not practice shooting or that just because you take a long shoot you are not a hunter just that if you never get closer than 300 yrds you are not "hunting" all that much. just my opinion:)

Art Eatman
May 10, 2007, 10:12 AM
I've seen a fair amount of country where, if you saw a deer at 300 or 400 yards, it was physically impossible to get any closer within a short enough time period that he'd still be hanging around.

Sure, you could pass the shot and hope to find another deer later. I've also spent a lot of fruitless time doing just that, however. I want Bambi to be 40 or 50 yards away, standing by the jeep trail.

I guess to me the deal is to BE ABLE to make a long shot. That doesn't mean it's the best way to kill Bambi.

I dunno. I'm definitely influenced by the number of witnessed 500-yard one-shot kills my father made with his '06 and a 150-grain bullet. Witnessed, called shots, not "claimed". The old, "Hell, I can break his neck, from here," and he did. Or, "That white spot makes a pretty target, doesn't it?" and offhand at 250 yards he broke Bambi's neck.

Reading about it and shooting from a benchrest won't enable that sort of shooting, though...


Jack O'Conner
May 10, 2007, 11:01 AM
Let me guess: this guy is over 50 years old and 50 lbs overweight? I've met plenty of these guys over the years.


May 10, 2007, 11:07 AM
Hunting isn't the same everywhere and I suppose because of that, different words are used in different places. Where you have to approach the game from a distance using good technique (like the Indians did), it is called stalking. Where you don't have to do anything, it is called simply shooting. I imagine safari has some special meaning but I don't know what it is.

Game is rather scarce where I'm from (though not where I live now in Northern Virginia), possibly because people shoot everything in sight. So the challenge there is to actually find game; that is called hunting.

Still, I can see his point even though some people may have the need to get closer. Where I'm from, however, I suspect that most game is taken within 75 yards.

May 10, 2007, 11:34 AM
I passed up a 300 yd shot at a nice buck last year because I was unsure on how to get to where he was at. He was on the top of a cliff and I was looking across a valley at him through my scope. I was sure I could make the shot because he didnt see me and I had a stump I was using for stability. It would have been a decent opportunity if he wasnt up some really rough terrain. On the long shot when hunting subject I have passed up shots that I felt were too far to ensure a good clean kill. I dont regret it because its being a responsible hunter. And thats something that I strive for now that im not so young and foolish. (as I used to be) :o

May 10, 2007, 03:39 PM
I have no doubt there are a whole lot of guys that can take that shot and hit it every time and then there are guys who have never practiced over 100 yards,,,,EVERYBODY hunting should know their limitations and STICK to them...to me those are the good hunters!

May 10, 2007, 10:10 PM
i dont doubt that i can make the shoots i just think the hunt is more about hunting and not just shooting.

Art Eatman
May 11, 2007, 10:08 AM
"Safari" is a specifically African term. It began before automobiles, with natives hired to carry the camping equipment. Ruark's books describe safari hunts quite well.

As far as long shots, it's like all hunting: The style varies with the terrain and vegetation. There's no "One size fits all."

My hunting area, with desert mule deer, is sorta challenging. First off, absent luck, you might walk some ten miles or more in a day, looking for a buck. Bucks tend to lay up; mulies aren't real curious, and spend more time doing nothing than something. So, you might jump one out from right under your feet, or you might have spooked one and don't see him until he's 200 yards out and working hard on being way-out elsewhere. And he might be the only buck you see during the sixteen-day season. If you don't think you could hit a running buck at 200 to 400 yards, you might as well forget walking hunting and just sit down and take it easy while hoping something good happens. That's just the way it is.


May 11, 2007, 06:20 PM
I hunt whitetail in Kentucky and a long shot is 75 yards. A short shot could be under 5 yards. I'd never dream of taking a 100 yard shot where I hunt.

Each year, however, I make the trek to Wyoming and hunt antelope. My shortest shot has been about 125 yards and my long has been over 300 yards. There is very little cover and antelope will see you long before you see them. I love to stalk them and get as close as possible, but there are times that a long shot is the only shot you'll get. Out west is a hell of a different game than it is in the East.

I passed up a 400 yard shot this year. We stalked to within 100 yards and got busted. The herd took off but stopped at just over 400 yards (got to love range finders). I lined up but decided that it wasn't a shot I could make. Some times you win with antelope and sometimes you lose.

May 11, 2007, 07:30 PM
If I where hunting in very open terrain, I would take a shot at 300 to 400 yrds. In wooded areas like where I hunt those kinda shots are few. And if you do have one and do not drop him right there, you may loose him. I feel that alot of these guys on tv will do anything for air time. Good press or bad. You can trust them like a politition you know. But that is just my opinion.

May 11, 2007, 08:52 PM
Before I answer whether or not I agree with someone spouting excrement over the superiority of super-magnum cartridges, I would love to hear of who has a rifle that won't shoot 400 or 500 yds. After all, the main advantage of high velocity is the flatter trajectory and the ease of calculating trajectory at longer ranges in order to hit your target. A 30-06-class cartridge has enough energy to kill cleanly out to 500 or 600 yds. Most people can't even hit a target that far, let alone a real live animal.

Before you start in with the old "but it's different out west", I have lived in several states where you could literally see for 50 miles on an average day. I still have never shot a deer at over 400 yds. And I shoot a 7X57! Friends shoot 7mmMags and 300 Mags, and 264 WinMags, so I have been around them, but they don't kill the animal any deader. You just hold where you want to hit. And out to 400 yds, you can do that. Beyond 500 yds, it's too tricky and becomes a stunt. I like clean kills, and I like recovering my animals.

Fat White Boy
May 11, 2007, 11:31 PM
"Let me guess: this guy is over 50 years old and 50 lbs overweight? I've met plenty of these guys over the years."

Um. actually it is closer 60 and closer to 100 pounds over weight. But I can still sneak up on 'em if I have a mind to. It depends on how far away I am from the road....BTW- I use a .270 or 308.


Old age and treachery will always defeat youth and talent...

May 12, 2007, 12:28 AM
Take advice from real hunters and shooters. Not people who are in it for business. This is true for 90% of all the tv guys. Still entertaining to watch, but take it for what its worth.

May 12, 2007, 01:26 AM
Ever see a deer taken at 890 yards?


These guys are something else.

May 12, 2007, 04:02 AM
Wow. 15 minutes. I don't know what that means but I have a guess.

May 23, 2007, 09:30 AM
I didn't know that caribou were such tough animals, I would imagine anything like a .25-06 or .243 would take it at that range just fine:rolleyes:

Magnum Wheel Man
May 23, 2007, 11:06 AM
Probably wouldn't feel comfortable shooting in steep angled mountains at 300 + yards...

... exceptions being...

a monster trophy with no chance to get closer...
I had a chance to "really" sight in the rifle at that angle & distance...
I had the time to use a good range meter, calculate my shot, & calm my nerves...

May 23, 2007, 11:34 AM
Nope, but to each their own. I'd like to learn to bow hunt one day. I admire those who tilt the odds away from certain success.
Go for it. It's a whole lot of fun. I've been hunting with my recurve for the last few seasons, no sights- strictly traditional, and it's been a blast. I haven't killed anything with it yet, and I've seen plenty of deer that would've been dead if I'd had my rifle, but the challenge is so much fun that I don't regret it one bit. I've had more fun letting deer get within 10-20 yds and waiting for a clear shot just to let them slip off without getting a good shot than I have had actually taking deer at 50-100 yds with a rifle. You get to see and notice alot more things about the deer that you would've missed out on by taking them at longer ranges. It's a real blast to have a buck within 10 yds of you, while you are just waiting for the perfect shot with your stick and string. That said, I ain't givin' up the gun altogether, either. I like to have meat on the table ;) !

To the OP: I disagree with his (Outdoor channel guy's) philosophy. It might actually work for him, I don't know. My question is where's the fun in it?


May 23, 2007, 02:31 PM
I agree with you... I think it is opposite of what, at least, I try to accomplish hunting.

May 23, 2007, 07:12 PM
Try hunting mountain goats or bighorns. Very difficult to get withing 200 yards of where they stand let alone 100. Almost mandatory that you be able to take a long shot.

May 23, 2007, 09:26 PM
I've hunted mulies with a buddy of mine out in West Texas for years. With the canyons and open spaces getting very close is sometimes not all that easy. A 300yd shot is about average where we hunt...having said that...my buddy hunts with a .243 and I've seen him drop big mulies with a single shot at over 600yds. I've seen him punch paper with that gun much further...just wish I could do that.

May 24, 2007, 10:50 AM
I guess it depends on the game and the terrain, but I always have alot more fun when I can get in close or get them to come in close on me. I know you might not be able to do that with certain game and in certain areas (mountains, etc.), but I hunt mostly whitetails, in the woods, and the excitement of having a big buck within spitting distance (even if it is to no avail) is alot more exhillerating than taking one at 200 yds or so where there isn't nearly as much chance of you being detected. I think the danger of losing the prey makes hunting alot more exciting. Just my opinion.


May 24, 2007, 03:07 PM
In fact, he says, it is so effective at long range, he's decided (and recommends the same for the viewer) that there is now never any need to get closer to your game than 300 yards. He explains that there's a far less chance of a blown stalk,

the surprise here is that anyone listens to an outdoor channel with the sound on. I have never seen so much misinformation, dumb suggestions, and BS in my life as I see and hear on one of those shows.

May 24, 2007, 04:35 PM
the surprise here is that anyone listens to an outdoor channel with the sound on. I have never seen so much misinformation, dumb suggestions, and BS in my life as I see and hear on one of those shows.
+1. Most of what you see is bunk that is designed to sell stuff to guys that think they just have to have the coolest, latest, most expensive toys to bag a buck. That said, I still enjoy watching it sometimes :D