|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Aug 24, 2018 3:17:43 GMT -5
Just to play Devil's advocate, if your life depended on the meat for survival, would you take a really long shot? This is what it comes down to .
|
|
|
Post by bula on Aug 24, 2018 7:30:49 GMT -5
My concern is people "buying accuracy" that is a short cut to downing game at distances beyond their skill level. Taking iffy shots for 1st shots. That hunting, woods/field skill are not being learned. These thoughts are not aimed at anyone here.
|
|
|
Post by bula on Aug 24, 2018 9:13:57 GMT -5
Thinking the arthritis in my feet is making me grumpy. Been much worse the last few days. Think I need one of them next zip code rifleguns.
|
|
|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Aug 24, 2018 10:45:37 GMT -5
This week at our local shooting range . I came upon 3 carts of ejected and left rifle brass. 11, 300 RUM 15, 7/08 7, 6.5 Creedmoor.
The caribou are migrating now and every city boy with a tag and a gun is chasing after them. The 300 RUM guy is far over gunned and making things worse by overshooting his shoulder. I predict 4 fringe hits on an animal. The 7/08 guy , probably 2 hits from 200 yards or closer The 6.5 Creedmoor shooter. He's probably good to go for 1 shot kill out to 500 yards.
|
|
|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Aug 24, 2018 21:22:35 GMT -5
My concern is people "buying accuracy" that is a short cut to downing game at distances beyond their skill level. Taking iffy shots for 1st shots. That hunting, woods/field skill are not being learned. These thoughts are not aimed at anyone here. Handgun hunting can be an Iffy proposition. It takes A Lot of practice to be consistently accurate with a handgun and much more with a bow. People have been taking far too long a shot pretty much Forever ! It's just that nowadays technology has advanced so that more people can afford to stretch the limits of ethics. But ethics are pretty much limited to what an individual themselves can do. For myself, I know that at this point I am limited to about 30 yards with a handgun max. Iron sighted rifle that I've practiced with, 150 yards with ok light. With my 6.5 Creedmoor 1-4×24 SWFA SS Classic scope , 130 gr Barnes TSX or 130 gr Swift Sirocco ll both @ 2775 fps . I'm good on caribou and deer past 400 KNOWN yards. But not exceeding 500 yards at this time. A man's gotta know his limitations ;-) However, If someone doesn't push his limits, he'll never know where they are. When it comes to killing brown bear. I get all kinds of bent out of shape about ANYBODY shooting at an unfounded brown bear at much over 100 feet and consider 50 feet to be a realistic maximum distance. I also firmly believe that a 375 H+H ect is a very minimum cartridge for Brown bear killing . The 416s and 458s are VASTLY SUPERIOR !!! In EVERY WAY. If someone is too --------------- to handle the recoil and be a very good and fast shot with the 5k ft lb rifles, they just shouldn't shoot at Brown bear. Those are my ethics. And I have dozens and dozens of actual known instances where guys wounded brown bear that ran off because they were shooting too small a cart and not shooting it worth a hoot. Imo the rule should always be 1 shot kills either instantly or immediately. A person should be ethically bound to obey that 1 rule. Regardless of weapon used or distance to target/animal shot.
|
|
|
Post by bula on Aug 25, 2018 7:12:28 GMT -5
I guess ole Clint is right. "A man has got to know his limitations". Be honest with your self appraisal. Where I used to be confident to about 75 yds with my open sighted 44SBH if I had any kind of rest or sitting, I haven't been that shooter in some years now. I also think, some of these looong shots we hear about, read about are kinda like gamblers. Quick to tell of winning, but you have to pry it outta them if you want to hear of their losses. I wish you all a safe and lucky hunting season.
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Aug 25, 2018 8:37:38 GMT -5
My concern is people "buying accuracy" that is a short cut to downing game at distances beyond their skill level. Taking iffy shots for 1st shots. That hunting, woods/field skill are not being learned. These thoughts are not aimed at anyone here. Lots of people are willing to go take “tactical” classes and protection classes. In the last couple of year I’ve wondered if there would be enough interest in a hunting field craft class. One of my competitive sponsors has a large shooting complex in Northern NM, and normally runs long range shooting courses for competitive shooters, but I’m thinking a well run, affordable hunting related class might be a viable idea. Field expedient positions, moving targets, stalking, offhand shooting, and everything 200-250 yards and less, handguns, rifles, shotguns, archery, etc. Trapr
|
|
|
Post by bula on Aug 25, 2018 8:51:07 GMT -5
Great idea. Less and less people learn from Grandpa or Dad or an uncle now. I had a few non-family mentors and Fur-Fish-Game magazine !
|
|
|
Post by contender on Aug 25, 2018 9:42:47 GMT -5
I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll throw in my measly .02 cents worth.
I'm a Hunter Safety Instructor. Part of my class is "Ethics." This topic has been brought up in some of the above posts.
Now, I live in a mountainous area where real long shots are not as common unless you happen to hunt a field, a power line right-a-way or something like that. As such,,, we mostly have much closer shots. And for centuries,, open sights, lower powered firearms, etc all made men HUNTERS. Of course,, until the more recent few decades,, the main reason was to get meat to feed the family. Often,, in the older years,, ethics were not even considered. As we got more urbanized, and modern technology abounded,,, we got better & better equipment. And,, more food was being procured by the grocery store & less by hunting. As such,,, the skills necessary to put meat on the table have decreased all while the advancements in equipment has increased. Skills have suffered, and necessary meat hunting has greatly decreased, creating more sport hunting, and the meat, (for the most part) is a bonus to most households. Yes,, there are still many of us who rely upon a good annual supply of meat to feed our families,, but it's not as big a necessity as it was 100 years ago. Enter ethics. When I teach a class,, I tell the students that an ethical hunter knows when to pass on a shot of an animal. That any animal you are hunting deserves a clean swift kill. Plus,, by doing so, you are assuring yourself an abundance of fine eating. For to hunt for the sport & not eat the meat,,, or at least give the meat to needy folks if for some reason you can't eat it,,, is just a game. And a game where a life is taken is not an ethical game. We teach our kids in sports to respect the other teams, and to accept a loss of a game with grace & dignity. But in the struggles of life & death, it's not a game, and ethically, a hunter should be required to make the easiest & best shot to provide a quick, clean kill. If not,,, walk away, or let the animal walk away.
I watched a movie the other night,, with Kevin Costner,, who played a Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer. he was proported to have saved over 200 or over 300 people. ASton Kutcher was a young hot-shot who wanted to break Costners records. In one scene, he asked Kevin; "So, how many?" To which Kevin replied; "22." Kutcher said, "Huh, just 22,,, I know you have saved more than that." To which, Kevin replied; "That's the number I couldn't save. It's the only number I remember."
An honest & ethical hunter will not easily remember all the exact details of all the clean kills,,, but he will remember all the bad shots, wounded & lost game.
I know, because I've taken well over 150 whitetails, and the details of most of them are not nearly as sharp as the few I've made bad shots on.
I know equipment & technology has advanced to the point where extreme distance shooting is a much easier thing than it was even 10 years ago. And I know there are serious marksmen & women who can & have devoted time & effort to perfect the skills necessary to shoot targets & hit at extreme distances. And we have much more emphasis on military sniping nowadays due to the recent wars in Iraq, Tran, & Afghanistan. But,, the biggest difference in military sniping & hunting is in the military,, it's a necessity,, while hunting is not. And even your best snipers will tell you that getting as close as possible is much more desirable to achieve the goal.
The goal is to make a clean, one shot ethical kill as often as possible.
Sadly,,, TV has to sell. And to sell,,, they create shows to attract viewers,, and do things that most will not do. What we do not see is the "behind the camera stuff." Watching closely,, I have seen editing stuff to "correct" a mistake a "hunter" (using the term loosely,) to make it appear better than it actually was. Plus,, many of these TV shows are filmed in places most of us can't afford to hunt. BUT,,, they get discounts for advertising these places etc, so these TV types get all kinds of special assistance in their "hunt." To me,, the worst part is that it gives the anti-hunting crowd more ammunition to use AGAINST us who are true hunters.
A true, honest ethical hunter will do all he can to assure a clean, quick, one shot kill. And this includes getting as close as he can, or be willing to pass on a shot.
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Aug 31, 2018 14:09:58 GMT -5
Personally, I look at each shot individually. I do not put limitations on myself prior to a shot presenting itself. I look at the conditions at the time and decide then if I feel right with the shot and the conditions. If there is no wind and I’m steady, you truly don’t want me after you with a rifle. Can you buy accuracy, absolutely but you can’t buy trigger time and practice. We shoot routinely at 2200-2900 yards with our LR rifles. Our cold bore shots are 1700. Makes the other shot seem really easy when conditions are favorable. Those shots are on steel plates, not game! I’m the same with a handgun. I’ve had shots that didn’t feel good at 50 and shot deer with a 10” 44 mag at 190 because it was perfect. She took 4 steps and was done. So it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Aug 31, 2018 20:42:52 GMT -5
I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll throw in my measly .02 cents worth. I'm a Hunter Safety Instructor. Part of my class is "Ethics." This topic has been brought up in some of the above posts. Now, I live in a mountainous area where real long shots are not as common unless you happen to hunt a field, a power line right-a-way or something like that. As such,,, we mostly have much closer shots. And for centuries,, open sights, lower powered firearms, etc all made men HUNTERS. Of course,, until the more recent few decades,, the main reason was to get meat to feed the family. Often,, in the older years,, ethics were not even considered. As we got more urbanized, and modern technology abounded,,, we got better & better equipment. And,, more food was being procured by the grocery store & less by hunting. As such,,, the skills necessary to put meat on the table have decreased all while the advancements in equipment has increased. Skills have suffered, and necessary meat hunting has greatly decreased, creating more sport hunting, and the meat, (for the most part) is a bonus to most households. Yes,, there are still many of us who rely upon a good annual supply of meat to feed our families,, but it's not as big a necessity as it was 100 years ago. Enter ethics. When I teach a class,, I tell the students that an ethical hunter knows when to pass on a shot of an animal. That any animal you are hunting deserves a clean swift kill. Plus,, by doing so, you are assuring yourself an abundance of fine eating. For to hunt for the sport & not eat the meat,,, or at least give the meat to needy folks if for some reason you can't eat it,,, is just a game. And a game where a life is taken is not an ethical game. We teach our kids in sports to respect the other teams, and to accept a loss of a game with grace & dignity. But in the struggles of life & death, it's not a game, and ethically, a hunter should be required to make the easiest & best shot to provide a quick, clean kill. If not,,, walk away, or let the animal walk away. I watched a movie the other night,, with Kevin Costner,, who played a Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer. he was proported to have saved over 200 or over 300 people. ASton Kutcher was a young hot-shot who wanted to break Costners records. In one scene, he asked Kevin; "So, how many?" To which Kevin replied; "22." Kutcher said, "Huh, just 22,,, I know you have saved more than that." To which, Kevin replied; "That's the number I couldn't save. It's the only number I remember." An honest & ethical hunter will not easily remember all the exact details of all the clean kills,,, but he will remember all the bad shots, wounded & lost game. I know, because I've taken well over 150 whitetails, and the details of most of them are not nearly as sharp as the few I've made bad shots on. I know equipment & technology has advanced to the point where extreme distance shooting is a much easier thing than it was even 10 years ago. And I know there are serious marksmen & women who can & have devoted time & effort to perfect the skills necessary to shoot targets & hit at extreme distances. And we have much more emphasis on military sniping nowadays due to the recent wars in Iraq, Tran, & Afghanistan. But,, the biggest difference in military sniping & hunting is in the military,, it's a necessity,, while hunting is not. And even your best snipers will tell you that getting as close as possible is much more desirable to achieve the goal. The goal is to make a clean, one shot ethical kill as often as possible. Sadly,,, TV has to sell. And to sell,,, they create shows to attract viewers,, and do things that most will not do. What we do not see is the "behind the camera stuff." Watching closely,, I have seen editing stuff to "correct" a mistake a "hunter" (using the term loosely,) to make it appear better than it actually was. Plus,, many of these TV shows are filmed in places most of us can't afford to hunt. BUT,,, they get discounts for advertising these places etc, so these TV types get all kinds of special assistance in their "hunt." To me,, the worst part is that it gives the anti-hunting crowd more ammunition to use AGAINST us who are true hunters. A true, honest ethical hunter will do all he can to assure a clean, quick, one shot kill. And this includes getting as close as he can, or be willing to pass on a shot. Maybe as a (sportsman) As a bush Alaskan, the ability to efficiently put meat on the ground is my Primary goal. There isn't much leisure time when living in the bush . Until AFTER everything is completed. And freeze up happens. Then its time to start on the winter work. Once a person learns how to put meat on the ground at distance . Then it just becomes another thing that can make the difference between having enough to eat or NOT. Not is not very good tasting ! Another thing I've found is game tends to die faster and easier at distance than at close range. It really throws a curveball into a guy's thinking about necessary external ballistics. As far as required energy or k.o. value ect. Huge amount of difference between an animal that is keyed up because it heard or smelled something that was too close for its comfort .
|
|
|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Aug 31, 2018 20:55:09 GMT -5
I also think that nobody has much business talking about the ethics of a shot ( BEYOND THEIR FARTHEST SUCCESSFUL KILL) So if someone hasn't killed game beyond 200 yards . Their opinion of a hunter that consistently and successfully takes game at 400 or 500 yards. Is pretty much null and void. Makes me think of/ sounds to me like liberals wanting to have ( common sense) revisions to the 2nd Amendment) or banning evil looking guns and high cap mags ect.
Self determination is a bed rock of our republic.
|
|
|
Post by contender on Aug 31, 2018 22:06:31 GMT -5
coldtriggerfinger,,, I can agree that a person who is hunting for necessary meat,,, AND is capable of making longer shots is an acceptable thing. To that person,, it is ethical,, because the meat is necessary. But,,, if you make a bad shot, due to excessive range,, or more importantly,, at a range beyond your capabilities,,, then a wounded animal can be the result. Then, it's either a tedious tracking job,, or worse yet,, a lost animal, and no meat for the table. The OP was discussing how these TV shows portray folks actually backing up to make it a harder shot. Sadly,, too many armchair weekend hunters think; "If that guy can do it,, so can I!"
"Another thing I've found is game tends to die faster and easier at distance than at close range. It really throws a curveball into a guy's thinking about necessary external ballistics. As far as required energy or k.o. value ect. "
I have seen a lot of hunters who live by the mantra; " I like big calibers because XYZ,,,,,etc." Properly matching the caliber, the bullet selection, and correct bullet placement will give very quick, clean, one shot kills. Look at all of us who shoot big game with a handgun,, and see how the ballistics compare to many of the "loudenkickinboomers" used by many. A 300 win mag on a whitetail at 50 yds is way overkill, while a .22 mag at 200 yds is not enough. Back in the early 1980's when I'd show up in deer camp with just a handgun,, I got chastised, scorned, and all kinds of negative attitudes. yet,, over time, as I stacked meat on the pole, and won the pools we did for fun each year,,, I proved it is not necessary to have the biggest & baddest caliber. Yet, today, even after all these years,, there are local groups of bear hunters who refuse to invite me on a hunt because I use a handgun. Why? they feel I'm undergunned. No matter how many times I've proven I can be just as effective as their favorite caliber is,, mine will do the job too. You are correct that an alert animal may be able to go farther and possibly escape if a hunter is too close. But again, a proper bullet selection & placement will still give a clean kill.
I'm not trying to argue the point that SOME folks can & do take game at longer distances,, in an ethical manner,, but I am trying to say that TV is misleading too many folks with their broadcasting such activities.
And for the record,,,my longest shot on an animal,, 646 yds, on a prairie dog. On a big game animal,, an elk, at 407 yds (both with a rifle,). But, most of my shots have been much less, mostly due to the terrain I hunt. And I have passed on shots I didn't feel I could make.
|
|
|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Sept 1, 2018 4:46:56 GMT -5
The whole thing rests on the individual shooter taking responsibility for their actions. I don't watch actual tv so I have no idea what kind of stuff they get up to. As a rule I don't like the hunting shows I've seen ( big game anyway) . Too much high fiveing and stuff. For me anyway. Most of the game I've killed is well under 100 yards. And that is common for big game hunting. I sure won't Try to get farther away from an animal to shoot it. That's for sure. Where I hunt , most shots have to be taken from sitting, kneeling or standing. I use a willow stick as a shooting stick and have been very successful with that setup when shooting my 6.5 .
|
|
|
Post by bula on Sept 1, 2018 7:01:35 GMT -5
Don't believe I ever mentioned a yardage. Did mention right up front that distances will vary by habitat and game. Did mention being respectful of the game, gracious in your hunting. If your skill level and weapon is good to xxx and you regularly cleanly take game to xxx, I'm not talking about you. Stay safe folks.
|
|