long range rifle questions

[TheManHimself]

If a hunter is a good enough marksman to make clean, consistent kills at 500 or more yards, how is taking shots at that distance any different from a hunter who 's only confident in his shooting to 200yards taking a 200 yard shot at game? Either way, the end result is a bullet in the animal's vitals and meat in the freezer. Yeah, that 200 yard hunter should be passing on those 250-1000 yard shots, but telling the guy who can do it that it's unethical to do so as a blanket generalization seems a bit foolish. After all, there are plenty of hunters out there who can barely hit a basketball at 50 yards, never practice, and sometimes don't even bother to check their scope zero before season, and nobody's telling them they should be banned from the woods...

[fisherman66]

After all, there are plenty of hunters out there who can barely hit a basketball at 50 yards, never practice, and sometimes don't even bother to check their scope zero before season, and nobody's telling them they should be banned from the woods*..

*emphasis added

That's just not true. It has been said many times that the Joe Blow you just mentioned has no business in the woods. They scare the bejebers out of me. This is the same guy that shoots at the foliage that moving.

[milemission]

Taking a shot at a living animal at extreme ranges is way different than shooting a target that never moves. Bullet performance doesn't matter on the target. It does on the animal. And when the animal moves out of sight after the shot(s) are you willing to trek over 1000 yards to check and see if you hit the animal, and follow it for a few hundred yards to make sure (after all, the bullet may not have expanded and may leave a very meager blood trail, if it does at all)? Shooting at an animal that is so far away that you don't know you are shooting at it is no real challenge. You can shoot until you hit it, then it will run off and die somewhere in the bushes after a few hours or a few days after being shot in the gut, which many will write off as a miss and not trek a mile or more to check out whether or not they did score a hit.

If you want a real challenge, get a .22 Hornet (if one is legal in your area), use 45 or 50 grain FMJ, stalk to within 50 yards, and shoot them in the head. That is far more humane than what you are proposing to do. Do you know all the variables that affect bullet impact at 1000+ yards?

[Candiru]

I think the ethics of a long-range shot should not be based on the shooter's ability to make the shot, but on his ability to track and humanely kill a wounded animal if he botches the shot. Someone with the means and determination to cross 1,000 yards quickly, acquire the blood trail, and follow the wounded animal however far it takes is more justified shooting at that distance than someone taking a shot at less than 100 yards from a blind who, if he bobbles the shot and the animal hobbles away, will just shrug and pop open another beer.

Some people justify the long shots by explaining failing light at the end of the day, but that seems like more like an argument against the shot. If you're a few minutes away from not being able to see the critter, can you track the wounded animal as night falls? Will you?

By way of disclaimer, I don't hunt but do think that it's the most humane way to get meat. More importantly, nobody needs my permission or approval to hunt how they want, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just hate to see animals suffer needlessly.

[fisherman66]

I think the ethics of a long-range shot should not be based on the shooter's ability to make the shot, but on his ability to track and humanely kill a wounded animal if he botches the shot. Someone with the means and determination to cross 1,000 yards quickly, acquire the blood trail, and follow the wounded animal however far it takes is more justified shooting at that distance than someone taking a shot at less than 100 yards from a blind who, if he bobbles the shot and the animal hobbles away, will just shrug and pop open another beer.

It's usually the same guy in my experience. There are a lot of people I don't hunt with any more that fit into both scenarios.

If you're a few minutes away from not being able to see the critter, can you track the wounded animal as night falls? Will you?

Absolutely, but I opt for low neck shots exclusively in the last 15 minutes of light and pass if the setup isn't perfect.

By way of disclaimer, I don't hunt but do think that it's the most humane way to get meat. More importantly, nobody needs my permission or approval to hunt how they want, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just hate to see animals suffer needlessly.

All due respect, but until you have helped trail a game animal that a fellow hunter wounded only to see lay down after lay down soaked with blood and rumen it's hard to understand the suffering an animal that's gut shot goes through. I've done just that a few times for Uncle Leroy. He refuses to get new glasses and I suspect he flinches with his mini canon.

At 1000 yards an animal has time to take a leisure step or two forward after the trigger breaks, but before the bullet arrives.

For those who are capable of a long shot; literally, I will reserve judgment, but that number is exceedingly rare and makes up a tiny, tiny fraction of this forum's membership and likely a much smaller fraction of the general pop of game hunters.

[taylorce1]

Candiru, I like what you had to say in the first part of your post. It makes a lot of sense too me. Now the second part here about justifying long shots because of failing light, well a lot of hunters will shoot in failing light regardless of distance. Most will try and find the animal that night, I know I would. There are often times when the search is called off until daylight. I don't know how many countless times I've watched bow hunters shoot an animal and wait to come back for it the next day on the Outdoor Channel.

Most of the time I have seen these long range shots, they were not rushed and well thought out. Using failing light might not be an excuse, but would you rather take 10 min to do the calculations and set up for the shot or make a 10 min stalk that only brings your 500 yards closer before you ran out of light? Me I wouldn't trust my ability at 1000 yards so I know I would have to make the stalk probably be out of breath and not be able to take the shot anyway especially when hunting elk above 10K feet.

Most hunting bullets will perform on game as long as you keep the speed above 1800 fps. So that is another consideration in your long range caliber selection. Another thing to think about is time to target of the bullet. Using the good ol free JBM calculators most rounds take over 1 second to reach a target over 700 yards away. We all know a lot of things can happen in 1 second. So when shooting game at long range it is very important to find animals that are very relaxed and not being pressured by other things.

If you want a real challenge, get a .22 Hornet (if one is legal in your area), use 45 or 50 grain FMJ, stalk to within 50 yards, and shoot them in the head.

Even if legal to hunt with a .22 caliber center fire rifle most States have made it illegal to use FMJ bullets for hunting big game. Plus to a lot of us what you just wrote is as unethical as the person who wants to take long range shots on game. It might be more humane in your eyes but what you would do will get you a fine at the minimum if caught in most States.

[milemission]

Well, taylorforce, the thing with such a setup is it is much more likely to result in a clean kill in the hands of a skilled hunter than taking a 1000 yard shot. There are far fewer variables as well, including the ability of an animal at 1000 yards to take a few steps between the bullet leaving the barrel and arriving at the target. Even so I can understand your ethical issues with such a setup (a .22 Hornet and a head shot), as it is something that only a select few should try, and 90+ percent of hunters have no business doing something like that. Also, you are right that it is illegal in a majority of states. But nonetheless, my main point isn't necessarily using the .22 Hornet, but that stalking an animal is much harder than what he is proposing..

[Wyatt Earp]

Even so I can understand your ethical issues with such a setup (a .22 Hornet and a head shot), as it is something that only a select few should try, and 90+ percent of hunters have no business doing something like that.

Can you explain to me how this shouldn't be applied to long range hunting also. Ethical or unethical it sounds to me like you have solved the problem.

This, long range hunting, is something that only a select few should try, and 90+ percent of hunters have no business doing something like that.

[Hello123]

If someone can hit consistently at those distances, I see nothing unethical about it.
Calling others hunting techniques unethical is a slippery slope. Is using a modern weapon unethical?

The distance I can put three shots into a pie plate is my maximum hunting distance. I see nothing wrong with this. I would rather take an avid shooter who can hit with his rifle, as knowing his limits, than an armchair hunter that deems he knows what is best for the rest of us.

[milemission]

Earp, there are many things influencing a 1000 yard shot.

Do you know the drop of your rifle at 975 yards versus 1000 yards versus 1020 yards versus 1050 yards? There is a significant difference at all of those ranges. Do you know what direction the wind is blowing at all places between you and the target, and how that will affect the bullet? The air could be blowing west at 5mph at you, blowing 20 mph 200 yards away, 10 mph 400 yards away, 15 mph at 600 yards, and 1 mph at the target. Are you going to be aware of that wind at every single point between you and the target? Do you know how your 200+ grain match bullet will perform in deer to elk size game at 1000+ yards? Are you willing to walk 1000+ yards after the animal has left in order to see whether or not you hit it and are you willing to trail it for several hundred yards to make sure (after all, a .338 bullet that didn't expand in the heart lung region isn't going to make a very good blood trail)? Do you know the temperature of your ammunition, and how that affects ballistic performance at 1000 yards plus? Do you know the air temperature and humidity, and how that affects ballistic performance at extreme ranges? What about elevation? What about the shot angle (if applicable)? Often times these set ups are on a high hill overlooking a valley, and shooting 1000 yards into a valley with such a setup is significantly different than shooting 1000 yards on flat ground? And how do you know whether or not the animal might move between the time your bullet leaves the barrel and the time that it arrives at the target? For every cartridge of which I am aware, flight time to 1000 yards is going to be at least one second, if not more. That is plenty of time for a deer to move 3 feet (gut shot) or more complete miss, even when the shooter's aim was perfect.

Now, none of those variables are present when stalking to within 50 yards of the game animal (except perhaps bullet performance, which isn't generally an issue if one is using a bullet designed for the task at hand). With a .22 Hornet head shot at 50 yards, there isn't a significant difference in point of impact with a slight wind, or an extreme difference between sight in temperature and hunt temperature, or any possibility of the animal moving more than the slightest bit between the shot and the bullet's arrival, nor is there a difference in poi with shot angle, or much else. And with an FMJ, one knows exactly what they are getting, and if they can discipline themselves to take nothing but head shots with perfect angles, then it is possible to get a clean kill every time. That is something that isn't possible with all of the forementioned variables with a 1000+ yard shot.

To one up the .22 Hornet suggestion, "TheManHimself" could get a .50 flintlock, learn to shoot it, and stalk within 50 yards and shoot a deer with that. I would be much more impressed with that than some bozo who claims he shot a deer at a 1000 yards with a .30-378.

[Scorch]

Lots of information and ideas here to consider when evaluating ethics of shooting game animals at any distance.

Although I am fond of varmint shooting, I have never shot a game animal over 350 yds, mainly because of where and how I hunt. Many of the people who make these long shots seem to want to shoot an animal at long range because they have a rifle that is capable of very good target accuracy at that range. As pointed out in another post, targets don't move, and a lot can happen to the bullet in 1,000 yds. Wind drift, loss of velocity are considerations. And the movement of the animal itself will change the outcome of the shot. At 5 mph, leisurely walking pace for deer or elk, they will cover 7.5' in one second, or about 10' by the time the bullet arrives from 1000 yds away. That can turn a good shot into a miss, or worse, a gutshot animal. Now you have to go looking for it. In mountainous country, it can take an hour or more to cover 1,000 yds, depending on terrain.

I am not sure, but how many of these long-range shooters are careful that there are no other hunters between them and their target? If you are 1,000 yds away, and I am only 200 yds away from the animal, who is in the wrong if someone is hurt? That one is pretty clear.

I remember reading articles when I was younger that called people who shot from more than 300 yds unethical and irresponsible, primarily due to the lack of experience of the typical hunter, the equipment available at that time, and the bias of the writer. Now we are involved in the same finger-pointing. I am not sure I like pointing fingers to begin with, but judging others' actions by our experience and bias can be hard to justify in the long run.

I guess the main objection I have against shooting game at 1,000 yds is the low odds of recovering the animal if it does not drop at the shot. A wounded animal can cover a lot of ground, and shooting from 1,000 yds, you really have very little chance of seeing where the animal runs to, how they are acting after the shot, and you will likely not hear the shot strike, meaning you will not know where the animal was hit. I may frown at other people shooting from extreme range, but very little about ethics is absolute. I hunt and take shots I have the equipment and experience to be successful at most of the time, and if the 1,000-yds shooter has the experience and the equipment to make the shot almost every time, the decision is up to him.

[fisherman66]

With a name like milemission I expected the opposite (although I now see the err of my ways.)

I like the cut of your jib.

[taylorce1]

But nonetheless, my main point isn't necessarily using the .22 Hornet, but that stalking an animal is much harder than what he is proposing.

Is it really harder to stalk an animal? Sure it takes time to learn but I'm not sure that is harder. To me dedicating the time time and money to shoot at 1000 yards would be harder for me. Stalking is a skill like anything else, what the OP is doing is learning a new skill. You go out and try an shoot 1000 yards keep a 3 shot group under 10" consistently and tell me that it isn't a hard skill to learn!

I don't have any ethical dilemmas with your setup either as long as it is legal to hunt with. I wouldn't use a .22 Hornet on any big game nor would I shoot 1000 yards at them either. My point is that there is nothing unethical about the person who has the honed their skills to take big game at 1000 yards.

[milemission]

The gist of my post is that there are far too many variables involved at that range in order to make a humane kill almost every time (95% +), including possible movement of the animal between the shot and the bullet's arrival. However, it wouldn't be hard to get a magnum rifle, a hell of a lot of ammo (if money weren't an issue), and blast away at something at 1000 yards until you hit through guesstimating, providing it stood still long enough. While a marksman shooting at that range will do a lot better job guesstimating than most of us (through lots of practice), it's still guesstimating. If he hits low, he doesn't spook the animal, so he holds high. If it hits behind, he holds in front. And he may use a scientific calculator to figure it out. And he can continue to do that until the animal drops, or wanders off. And if it wanders (or runs) off, then the hard part is crossing 1000 yards plus over unknown terrain to check the result of his shot, tracking the animal a few hundred yards to check the result, and then continuing to track if it was a hit.


If he's good enough to score a first shot kill at one thousand plus yards on a consistent enough basis to make it humane, then go for it. But that's an investment few of us have the time and money to make, and figuring out the bullet impact at that range is almost literally rocket science, and does literally require a scientific calculator and a lot of information. But there are only a couple hundred guys on the planet who have any business doing this sort of stuff at 1000+ yards. My point is, this is not something to take lightly, and gaining the ability to make it work all the time is nearly impossible. I don't know how many people, if any, could make a first shot hit at that type of range at anything other than nearly perfect conditions.

[taylorce1]

If he's good enough to score a first shot kill at one thousand plus yards on a consistent enough basis to make it humane, then go for it. But that's an investment few of us have the time and money to make, and figuring out the bullet impact at that range is almost literally rocket science, and does literally require a scientific calculator and a lot of information. But there are only a couple hundred guys on the planet who have any business doing this sort of stuff at 1000+ yards. My point is, this is not something to take lightly, and gaining the ability to make it work all the time is nearly impossible. I don't know how many people, if any, could make a first shot hit at that type of range at anything other than nearly perfect conditions.

Now we are talking as this is how I view the whole subject of long range conditions. It is a specialized skill that is not easily mastered. But I'm sure that there are quite a few people out there who have spent the time to master this skill set.

[milemission]

Thing is, most of these people at extreme ranges, well, what they do is they let off a first shot, see where it hits, and then adjust their scope accordingly. After a second shot, they do the same, until they eventually score a hit of some sort. That is how one of these extreme range shooters work. So one shot, one kill, is extremely rare. Most of the time, they more or less walk their shots into the animal by adjusting their sights.

Moreover, at such long range, they're going to need a spotting scope and a buddy in order to find the animal (or where it was) after it leaves in order to check for a hit. Even if it goes down on the spot, they aren't going to be able to see the animal the whole way there. They'll need a buddy on the other end of a CB radio (or walkie talkie if you prefer) to guide them to the animal. Lord knows sometimes when you shoot at 250 yards across a hollow it's not easy to find where the animal was when you shot it. Now multiply by four.

I have listed a myriad of reasons why I object to this practice. At such extreme ranges, one shot, one kill, or even one hit, one kill, isn't really possible for all situations.

[mavracer]

Is it really harder to stalk an animal?

no, but stalking to within a range that you can make a clean kill 100% is more ethical/humane and it's called HUNTING.

Sure it takes time to learn but I'm not sure that is harder. To me dedicating the time time and money to shoot at 1000 yards would be harder for me. Stalking is a skill like anything else, what the OP is doing is learning a new skill. You go out and try an shoot 1000 yards keep a 3 shot group under 10" consistently and tell me that it isn't a hard skill to learn!

3 shot groups are sooo misleading.If you want to shoot at a animal you better be able to shoot 10 shot groups. and just because you can do somthing does not mean you should.

[Jimro]

If someone can hit consistently at those distances, I see nothing unethical about it.
Calling others hunting techniques unethical is a slippery slope. Is using a modern weapon unethical?

The distance I can put three shots into a pie plate is my maximum hunting distance. I see nothing wrong with this. I would rather take an avid shooter who can hit with his rifle, as knowing his limits, than an armchair hunter that deems he knows what is best for the rest of us.

Yesterday I made a shot at a target 1,440 meters away. Even with a well trained spotter it took me three pulls of the trigger to put steel on target. My target was a 10'x40' shipping container.

A 20 degree change in temperature will affect POI by roughly 1 MOA, as will 1500 feet in elevation change. That means if you zero your rifle at 200 feet at 80 degrees, but hunt at 2000 feet and 40 degrees your POI will be off over 3 MOA. Heck even changing shooting positions can shift your POI as your eye looks through the sighting device.

Even a light wind, around 5 mph, will turn your shot into a miss at 1,000. And the wind is usually faster higher up, and the maximum ordinate of the round will be over 10 feet above line of sight.

Long range sport hunting is unethical, that's all there is too it. Those that do have the skills know exactly how great the chance of error is that they will miss and cause undue suffering in the animal. If they just don't care about making a clean kill then that is UNETHICAL behavior.

Jimro

[73-Captain]

"Long range sport hunting is unethical, that's all there is too it. Those that do have the skills know exactly how great the chance of error is that they will miss and cause undue suffering in the animal. If they just don't care about making a clean kill then that is UNETHICAL behavior."


In YOUR OPINION and with the experience and skills YOU have.

C.

[Jimro]

73-Captain,

You ever miss? Yup I thought so.

Arguing that it is ethical to take a shot at an animal at 1,000 just because you have the skills to hit a target at that range is just like trying to find out just exactly how fast your car can go.

Taking your car to a race track on a sunny day with dry pavement is one way to drive fast. That's like shooting your rifle at the range. Now imagine trying to go that fast at night in a thunderstorm on a winding mountain road. That is like shooting your rifle at an estimated distance without wind flags using dope gathered from a different elevation, humidity level, temperature, and shooting position.

It is just stupid to drive like an idiot with just yourself in the car. It is unethical to do so with a passenger. The deer or elk in your crosshairs is the same as a passenger, if you don't respect it enough to ensure a clean kill then you are unethical.

And if it isn't "unethical" to you it should be just plain stupid.

Jimro

[MacGille]

The shot I am most proud of was taken at a Blacktail deer at 15 yards. I was shooting a Jerry Hill handcrafted Long bow, and my own handcrafted wood arrows. The bow was laminated up using 59 pieces of maple and had a pull of 90 lb at 29". I still hunted up to the deer in the Sierra Nevada mountains which took about 4 1/2 hours.

If you long range hunters had ever stalked and killed a deer in its own territory without machinery to aid you, you might have some appreciation of the feeling as I looked down on that fine buck.

IMO shooting an animal at long range is a crime, unless you are subsistence hunting. The animal doesn't have a clue that he is being hunted, and has no chance for survival. And the use of technology to replace skill is inhumane. Just because you can do something is not justification for doing it. Hunting for sport is barbaric and cruel. Hunting for meat is necessary sometimes, but anyone who can take a life without remorse is a monster.

Remember this is just my opinion, and I will defend your freedom to do whatever you want within the law.
FLAME ON!!!

[fisherman66]

3 shot groups are sooo misleading.If you want to shoot at a animal you better be able to shoot 10 shot groups. and just because you can do somthing does not mean you should.

I disagree. A three shot group is more representative of a hunting situation. I'm way more concerned where a cold bore shot is in relationship to my crosshairs than any subsequent shot. I keep targets from first shots and compare for cold bore groupings.

[mordis]

have any of you nay sayers even gone to youtube?? There are a lot of videos there that show humane oneshot drt kills out past 1k yards.. Sure alot of people arnt qualified to do it, but why berate those that are?

If someone has the time and patience to put the rounds down range(like me) with a proper rifle setup and optics, and practice his shot and get it right the first time, why should we be stopped. Were does all this crazyness end, just becuase you dont like it, and dont have the skill nor desire to practice at the ranges and conditions that you wish to shoot at, dosent detract from my and anyone else who long range hunts skill.

Secondly, Why are anyone of you using any of the powerful magnums, when you never going to shoot past 200yards. Hell why use the damn .308 that will kill out past 800, so using anything other then a 30-30 is hypocritical.
Secondly, why the hell are any of you using variable power scopes with 50moa of elevation and windage adjustment?Heck even 25moa of adjustments. Thats several times more then you will ever need if your not going to shoot past 250yards.

You say, why cant you stalk closer? What about the hunter over open ground, with no cover. HOW THE HELL DOES HE GET CLOSER TO THE ANIMAL WITH OUT IT SEEING HIM? Oh ya thats right, he wont, the animal sees him and runs off.

Its like the open carry debate, like it hate, what ever your opinion is, i defend your right to carry as you choose. Same thing applies, you should support someones right to hunt ant any range he chooses, becuase the last thing you want is someone to get a damn range limiting law passed, and asking uncle same to decide what is ethhical and not ethical, to long or just right, and have even more game wardens out breathing down everyones neck.

Whats not being mentioned much, is the fact most hunters only put a few rounds per year through there gun, and never practice. I put many many more through mine every year. Why are these set my zero at 200 after only a few shots and go hunting types ok, and make up the majority of hunters, yet those with the skill to shoot out that far are ridiculed.

If it were so bad, i wouldnt have seen many magazine articles on it, like the recent ones from shooting times. What makes long range varmint hunting so much freaking better then. Its the same Fking thing. A botched shot on a varmint at 1k will leave it suffering and prolong its death just the same as with a larger animal, yet its ok to blast the prairie poodles at 1k? That is hypocritical.

Every long range hunting video i have seen, has shown the bullets impacting in vital kill zones, in varying degrees of wind and elevation and temprature and humidity. Im sure there are some that miss, but you dont learn, or grow or gain experiance if you dont ever venture out of your comfort zone and try to do something that is not normal for you or anyone else.

For the love of god, dont go around asking for range restrictions, then youll end up with over zealous beauricrats limiting you to very short range weapons and muzzle loaders with no ability to use your preacious 200yard rifles.

[mordis]

Macgille, i hope your not using artifical aiming points on your bow, if so your using artifical machinery to aid your shot...

[tuck2]

When I was in high school I ran the mile. Over the years tried to keep in shape so that I could go up from about 3500 feet to 7500 feet to hunt elk. When you still hunt elk there are a lot of up and down walking with a day pack and rifle. Try to hold a rifle steady after humping up the side of a mountain when you see an elk. I have shot an elk at about 200 yards from the prone position with a sling after running to get the shot . My heart was pumping and the cross hairs were going up and down over a foot on the rib area. That was a long shot for me that day. I have never hunted elk under ideal conditions. Shifting winds, snow on the ground, no handy rock or tree limb to help steady rifle , brush to high to use the prone position is what to expect when elk hunting. When looking over little ridges and draws its darn hard to estimate the shooting range , I bet that most of the long shots that I hear about are under 250 yards. Some years ago I was a NRA Marksmanship Instructor and I had my own 100, 200, and 300 yard range for shootin my big game rifles. Under most big game hunting conditions 300 yards is a long shot.