What has happened to us???

[skydiver3346]

Nothing wrong with making long distance shots (600-1,000 yards) on paper!

Sure, lots of us out there can make long to extremely long range shots in a hunting situation. Some of us can't... Bottom line is that no matter how good a shot you are, the longer the distance (and larger the animal) the more varibles enter the equation in hunting situations. Even slight movements by the animal and/or shooter (at the time of the shot) can result in poor shot placement (by anybody, period). I know because it has happened to me and I have been told I am a pretty good long range hunter.

So, I decided if it is longer than 400 yards (with rangefinder) then I won't make the shot. That is my personal decision. I belive it is fair to the game and to the art of hunting. I feel we must be able to make a sure clean kill of the animal being hunted. Nobody can guarantee that at extremely long distances in these type hunting situation. The temp, wind, movements and distance all play major factors in making the perfect kill shot. Think about it..

[CK_32]

Yea and i know of a lot of people who
go out hunting at far distances to feel like a sniper
and dropping deal like they are in iraq in the middle of a war
and get the concept of it all wrong and just wanna feel tough bragging
about the range they put one down at.. and dont enjoy the stalk as
much as we all use to.. it comes down to the i see.. i shoot.. oh i hope
i hit it......

[FrontSight]

If you are capable of making a good killing shot, then it is a good shot & is hunting, no matter the distance.

Same can be said for any firearm compared to a bow, compared to an atl (spelling?), compared to spear, compared to a club, compared to a rock, compared to scaring them off a cliff to their doom. Somewhere in there you compare it to traps and snares.

Each is just a more refined tool that allows you to harvest the animals from a greater distance, and none of them are unethical or make you less of a hunter.

That's just my 2 cents...

[ZeroJunk]

If you are capable of making a good killing shot, then it is a good shot & is hunting, no matter the distance.

Same can be said for any firearm compared to a bow, compared to an atl (spelling?), compared to spear, compared to a club, compared to a rock, compared to scaring them off a cliff to their doom. Somewhere in there you compare it to traps and snares.

Each is just a more refined tool that allows you to harvest the animals from a greater distance, and none of them are unethical or make you less of a hunter.

That's just my 2 cents...

Makes cents to me.

[darkgael]

and none of them................ make you less of a hunter.

As you can tell from my earlier post, I disagree with that. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we all try to run down a deer and club it to death or fall on it out of a tree with a knife in our teeth. Nor do I denigrate the skill that it takes to judge and successfully make a long shot kill.
But....the progress of time has moved many of us (Most? All?) away from the hunt. The shot is the very last part of the hunt. In many ways it's the easy part. The hard part has been bypassed. The availability of almost laser like weapons and advanced optics allows us to take those 300, 400, 500, 600 yard shots. The focus is there in virtually every post and inquiry about firearms.
The hunt - what used to happen in those intervening yards between sighting and shooting - has been diminished. It has been relegated for many to the act of seeing the game through binoculars and then shooting it. Is that bad? No. Is it "hunting"?
Compared to "What gun should I buy? What is the effective range of...? Is such and such caliber the best for "----" game?, how often do we read about the best techniques for crossing the last two hundred yards on a treeless plain, or moving from tree to tree quietly so as to get the best handgun shot. Even in this wonderful set of fora here at TFL, how many are devoted to firearms and how many to the hunt. Even at fora supposedly devoted to Hunting (Hunting.net/Nodak Outdoors to name two) the majority of the posts are not about the techniques of hunting.
Why? Because in many cases people aren't interested in or capable of hunting; they are interested in harvesting and that's just what a 600 yard shot allows - for all the shooting skill it takes. The harvest is the end; the middle - where the hunt is - is missing for many who go afield.
The definition of hunting has changed as we have developed better instruments, field craft has become less important for many who go seeking game. Makes sense, though, doesn't it? Who would want to crawl those last two hundred yards if they didn't have to or cross that deep ravine and make the climb on the other side (even though they will have to do it if they make that long shot across.)

Pete

[jgcoastie]

The hunt - what used to happen in those intervening yards between sighting and shooting - has been diminished.

Exactly.

[ZeroJunk]

Mostly a bunch of my way is better than your way because it's my way.

I know how I like to hunt. But, I'm not sanctimonious enough to say it is the only way, or even the best way.

[darkgael]

Mostly a bunch of my way is better than your way because it's my way.

Nope. If you are referring to my post, then you missed the point or I was not clear enough. It's not my way. I don't do the crawling thing or the stalking thing myself. Mostly, I hunt grouse with a dog - or the dog hunts the grouse and I get to shoot at them occasionally. (Actually, that kind of summarizes the idea. Look at what the dog does. Look at what I do. And I tell my wife "I'm goin' hunting.")
My point was and is that the passing of time and the search for an easier, softer, way has led to a change in what folk consider hunting and what they need to do to be successful. There is a considerable difference in the skills needed to hunt down and harvest a deer (or an elk) with a flintlock in 1809 as opposed to a modern .30 cal firearm with Swarovski optics and a 180 grain bullet at 3100 fps in 2009. They both require shooting skill. Which requires more "hunting" skill? What is hunting anyway? Is it merely harvesting game or is it something more? Does the fact that we are shooting at something living make it hunting? I shoot at paper targets at 350 yards to zero my .223. If then take it and shoot at ground hogs at 350 yards, am I now hunting? All I've changed is the target. If I move to a heavier rifle and shoot a deer at 350 yards, how much has changed? Suppose that I wake up one morning early and step out on the deck and see, there...through the trees.... a buck step out of the hemlocks. I grab my rifle, and (where it's legal of course) shoot the animal, filling my tag.
Have I just been hunting?
Pete

the only way, or even the best way.

Don't know. Never said that.

[HiBC]

Dark,you just mentioned birdhunting over a dog.
Now,I certainly enjoy hunting over a good bird dog.I like Brittanies,myself.

Most folks without a dog who have blown all the feathers off of a pheasant,and seen him tumble,think about getting a dog when that pheasant has disappeared .They just cannot find that dead bird.

It feels bad.It is so wonderful that a good dog will find and fetch the bird.

Now,that can be compared to technological advantages.That dog is better than a laser rangefinder.

I have a special appreciation for the technology of the 4 wheeler.Spot a nice antelope,crawl a couple hundred yards through sage and prickly pear making a stalk on private land have a couple of morons on ATV's come racing up to the fenceline on ATV's and see how it seems.

I don't push the "how hard you have to work" side .

Fantasy world about what should maybe work and I think I can do not necessarily deliver the one component I hope we agree on.

We owe the critter a quick,clean kill.

Poke and hope does not make it.
I cannot join theguy who shrugs and says"Coyotes gotta eat,too."

If you only have a 200 yd range to practice,ballistic charts and tech gear do not make 600 yd kills.

If you have a place to shoot 600 yds,and can assume a hunting position,and place most all your shots on a 8 in paper plate,go for it.

But,I'm thinking a fair percentage of folks who actually shoot a target that shows them what they did at these ranges will not remain so optimistic.

Or,maybe they are way better than I am.

[ZeroJunk]

Nope. If you are referring to my post,

Not in particular.

I like to bow hunt myself. I don't see so much difference between taking a shot at an Elk at 70 yards with a bow and 500 yards with a rifle. I can shoot about the same group. You can be a much better hunter to get to 70 yards , but if you make a bad shot the result is the same.

[22-rimfire]

I have never taken a shot at 500 yds except on varmints. Wouldn't even consider it. But I have never hunted elk or moutain goats either.

[Stillhunter]

Greedy and Lazy!!! To me, hunting in America the past 15or 20 yrs. is just about how our economy was run,all about the money with no integrity.Hunting all about the kill, no matter what distance. Take the Spider elk for example,Tag auctioned off to the highest bidder,just happened to be a multi-millionaire,then was allowed any weapon of choice in a bow only area.I hope some day the mount falls off the wall and hits him in the head.Also you never hear about the 500+yards misses or hit but never found him,just the great 500+yards so &so made. So go ahead and make your 500+yard shots,it just tells me what type of a person you are.

[ZeroJunk]

I have never taken a shot at 500 yds

Me either. Or, a 70 yard shot with a bow. I have been drawn back on two good 6X6 herd bulls at 60 yards broadside and let off. But, I know guys who can effectively make that shot and if they can I have no problem with it. Same with long rifle shots. Just because I can't do it, doesn't bother me if somebody else can.

[Fremmer]

Follow up: I drove through Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado this weekend, and I was thinking about this thread. Why? Because there were miles and miles of flat plains. Really flat. As in no trees, no bushes, no cover at all, flat as far as the eye can see. You'd never be able to stalk/sneak up on an animal out there; you'd have to make a long shot -- maybe longer than 300 yards -- if you want to get one. And in that case, I'd want to shoot a magnum round that has great trajectory and range. My .308 drops 12" at 300 yards. I'd prefer the .257 Weatherby magnum (or something similar) for that type of long-range plains hunting.

[mnshortdraw]

As a previous poster stated in his reply, many, many caribou have been taken with a bow on the Alaskan tundra with no trees, bushes or any kind of cover. There is absolutely no reason to have to take a shot at those super long distances. It all boils down to wanting, not needing to take those ultra long range shots. I don't even think you could spook an animal at 700 yards by jumping up and down and waving your hands. Besides, one puff of wind at that kind of distance will turn your kill shot into a gut shot or miss. If you have a shooting bench at your hunting spot, years of experiance with your particular rifle, and wind flags every 25 yards, take that 500 yard shot, if not you are fooling yourself if you think you can make a kill shot 100% of the time.

[Fremmer]

As a previous poster stated in his reply, many, many caribou have been taken with a bow on the Alaskan tundra with no trees, bushes or any kind of cover.

That may work with caribou in Alaska. But deer won't hang out when they see, hear, or smell you trying to stalk them in an area with absolutely no cover, even if they are 200 or 300 yards (or farther) away, especially when the terrain is flatter than a pancake. And they get really wary when all of the guys in orange show up all of the sudden. So sometimes some hunters have no other alternative than to take a long-distance shot.

And the supposition that long distance hunting somehow requires less skill than stalking or "normal" hunting is incorrect. Perhaps a different set of skills, but hunting is hunting.

[wyobohunter]

I don't even think you could spook an animal at 700 yards by jumping up and down and waving your hands.

Apparently this gentleman has never hunted Pronghorn. Caribou are much less wary than Pronghorn or Muledeer. I actually had two decent sized Bou bulls follow me around within easy compound bow range during a Tok Sheep hunt.

[Stillhunter]

WOW! Thanks for the hunting tips for pronghorn& mule deer in western Kansas
& eastern Colorado,Fremmer& wyobohunter.If I ever make it out that way,I just drive to where it is flat as a pancake,with absolutely no cover at all and I,ll find plenty of pronghorn&mule deer. Smart boogers,forcing hunters to make a long distance shot.

[Fremmer]

You have to be smarter than the prong or deer. Good luck.

[wyobohunter]

Smart boogers,forcing hunters to make a long distance shot.

Actually, yes. While ignoring the sarcasm I'll mention that many animals stay clear of covered areas because their defense is excellent eyesight. This includes Pronghorn and Mountain Sheep of various kinds. And not all open areas that are void of much cover are "flat as a pancake" try Dall Sheep sometime. They can and have been taken with a bow, but that requires just the right situation. 300+ yard shots are not uncommon.

[Stillhunter]

OK! I apologize for the sarcasm.But let me kindly remind you that this thread was started about 600yard shots at elk and sometimes you just can,t get any closer.No where in this thread does anybody mention that a 300+yard shot on pronghorn,sheep,or goats is not ethical.Yes they have excellent eyesight. But please don,t try to tell me that deer species,which includes elk, have excellent eyesight,because they don,t.They don,t have poor eyesight by no means.They just use smell& hearing much more efficient,than there eyesight.They see a world of white,black and grays. They do however detect movement very well,but most of the time if the movement stops at a good distance away, they don,t have a clue as to what the threat is. I know this because several times whitetails have detected me,but they just kept on coming in,stomping and snorting trying to get me to move so they can identify what the threat is.I have taken one nice buck this way,even though it wasn,t planned that way. So if you see a beautiful mule deer buck standing 600+yards away,on a flat sea of prairie grass and he hasn,t detected you yet,it is in my opinion and with a few simple rules of stalking,you can greatly increase your odds of bagging this buck by getting closer, even with just prairie grass as cover.If you can,t get any closer,and you want to take a 500+yard shot on a wind swept flat prairie,at any animal, tells me you know a lot more about your rifle,than you do the animal.So kindly putting it in my opinion,that,s just a great marksman,trying to be hunter.

Once again,I apologize for the sarcasm

[wyobohunter]

But let me kindly remind you that this thread was started about 600yard shots at elk and sometimes you just can,t get any closer.No where in this thread does anybody mention that a 300+yard shot on pronghorn,sheep,or goats is not ethical.

Some may include 300 yard shots as unethical or make the claim that a guy who takes a Dall sheep from 300 yards away is just a mountain climbing marksman trying to be a hunter. You define what hunting is and what ethical is for you and you alone or face and welcome the same type of snubbing from people who hunt in a more challenging way than you choose to.

[Rangefinder]

I've scanned through the posts, and I can say with honesty that I've been on both sides of the fence. My longest shot on game is in excess of 950 yds. I took a doe one year a while back that was WELL out of range. It was the last day of my tag, hadn't seen game for a week, and needed meat in the freezer. So in failing sun-set, I risked a wild shot on my doe in the last minutes of failing light and came out clean with a 7mm mag.

That being said, normally I won't fire on the most amazing of once-in-a-lifetime opportunity trophy game beyond 400 yards. I target shoot at ranges up to a mile. I know my rifles intimately. I have developed my loads with nothing short of OCD. And I still regard the "HUNT" as just that---the hunt.

If you can't "hunt" it, don't bother.

On a side note, I took a white-tail buck ten years ago at literal point-blank range (3-feet) out of pure hunting tactic and technique with a pistol because my rifle was TOO unfair. Don't tell me you can't get close enough to do it the right way.

[rbb50]

Look at it this way

If you cannot stalk a game animal up to 100 yards away do not even call yourself a hunter at all.

I can get them so close I can reach out and touch them and scare the hell out of them and I consider that hunting myself

If I need some meat I'll pull out my 357 and shoot them

If it's big game I'll knock them down at 25-30 yards as they are walking right up to me with a 7mm-08 that could easily make a 600 yard shot.

Guess what? I never have to walk 600 yards to retrieve them and 600 yards back again either with all that weight on my back.

Of course I have a little more common sense than some that think they are hunters I would surmise

[biohazurd]

Honestly i wouldnt take a shot at any animal at that distance with anything short of a .50 BMG, just my opinion...