"Long" shots while hunting

[slimmer13]

I keep reading disparaging comments to the effect of "anyone taking a shot past X distance is doing it wrong", "nobody has any business taking a blank distance shot" etc. Instead of cluttering up those threads, (I know this has been discussed before) here are my thoughts:

I do not advocate any bubba lobbing lead at any distance, but I do not believe that there is a rigid number that anyone who takes a shot past is unethical. Everyone's different and has different skill levels at any distance. A long shot for someone, could be a short shot for someone else. There are guys that shoot tighter groups at 500 meters than other guys at 100. There are guys that practice and practice at lots of ranges under lots of conditions. It's up to you to practice at any distance and under any condition that you would ever take a shot. It's up to you to be honest with yourself as to your own skill level.

I understand the argument that "the animal could move during flight of a longer shot". That is true, but the totality of the situation should be considered. If the animal hasn't moved in the last 5 minutes, there's a good chance it won't move in the next 2 seconds.

There are infinite variables when it comes to making the decision whether the shot is over the threshold that you as a hunter should consider ethical. Terrain, yes distance, wind, weather, your physical ability, your shooting ability, the limitations of your equipment etc. It is solely my responsibility to ensure any shot I take is ethical based on those variables. I won't do it for anyone else and they shouldn't do it for me.

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

Hunting for "sport", yes - each person has to make a decision on whether it is "sporting"/ethical to take a shot.

Hunting for pure survival (e.g., if you don't take the game, you and/or others starve) - that is different.

Saw an axiom today that made sense in those situations; "you miss every shot you don't take". Literally or metaphorically, that too can be true.

 

[Koda]

IMO I think there is a difference between encouraging long distance hunting and people who actually know what they are doing.
Theres a lot of people out there who buy a new rifle and zero with tight groups and think they can now just dial out to whatever they havent actually practiced at first.....

 

[slimmer13]

IMO I think there is a difference between encouraging long distance hunting and people who actually know what they are doing.
Theres a lot of people out there who buy a new rifle and zero with tight groups and think they can now just dial out to whatever they havent actually practiced at first.....

100%. There are people that have no business taking a shot at 100, let alone longer. What doesn't make sense to me is when people set a hard number like 300 yds as unethical. So if I'm an experienced hunter that regularly practices and maybe even competes, and I can put every shot in the X ring at 300, it becomes wrong if I take a shot at 301? 315?

It just seems best to me to worry about me and the shots that I am comfortable with and let others do the same.

 

[Koda]

What doesn't make sense to me is when people set a hard number like 300 yds as unethical.

I dont think anyone is criticizing someone who practices at the range they will hunt at. So your off the hook here

300yds is generally the maximum range most hunting takes place within that an "average" hunter with an "average" rifle can still make the shot. I think the reason for this is because up to 300 yds wind, elevation, humidity etc. "generally" dont have a strong enough impact as it does past 300yds. So I think its natural that generally most people shouldnt encourage hunters to shoot past 300yds. Personally, I think it should be 200yds for the average hunter.

 

[TTSX]

Depends on the cartridge and the shooter. Also the target. Just because the bullet is of large enough caliber to be legal does not make it a good choice. My rough rule of thumb is, if I can't see it with my naked eye, I'm not shooting

 

[Idaho44]

Simple test: place a water filled gal jug at the distance you feel would be your shot. What's the damage and did you hit it? That should guide you in your decision on 'distance'! A .22 has a two mile range! What about 'long bows'?

 

[osprey]

The margin for error goes up dramatically as the distance increases. I do not cast aspersions on shooting long, If the hunter has exhausted all avenues to get as close as possible, the conditions are favorable, the equipment is suited for task, and most importantly, the hunter has the ability to make the shot. Every ethical hunter should have a self imposed range that they know the are able to make the shot. This ability to connect long only comes through much training and practice in field positions. It is up to each individual to know their limits and only take ethical shots. People who purposely take long shots on big game without trying to get as close as possible are not hunters they are shooters, despite their skill level.

 

[slimmer13]

The margin for error goes up dramatically as the distance increases. I do not cast aspersions on shooting long, If the hunter has exhausted all avenues to get as close as possible, the conditions are favorable, the equipment is suited for task, and most importantly, the hunter has the ability to make the shot. Every ethical hunter should have a self imposed range that they know the are able to make the shot. This ability to connect long only comes through much training and practice in field positions. It is up to each individual to know their limits and only take ethical shots. People who purposely take long shots on big game without trying to get as close as possible are not hunters they are shooters, despite their skill level.

Probably a pretty accurate assessment.

I met a guy (a friend of a friend) that works in the firearms industry and is well known ELR world. He got a depredation tag for elk on a big farm. He set up with his rifle (I want to say a .338 Snipe Tac) and dropped one at 1660 yds. He was definitely set up to shoot not stalk. I don't think that was unethical whatever you call it.

 

[osprey]

Probably a pretty accurate assessment.

I met a guy (a friend of a friend) that works in the firearms industry and is well known ELR world. He got a depredation tag for elk on a big farm. He set up with his rifle (I want to say a .338 Snipe Tac) and dropped one at 1660 yds. He was definitely set up to shoot not stalk. I don't think that was unethical whatever you call it.

I will respectfully disagree if there was a possibility to get closer. That was not hunting it was shooting.

 

[slimmer13]

That was not hunting it was shooting.

I agree. I think what makes it ok is that it was a depredation tag and the shooters skill set. I would argue the odds of a clean hit were better than many bow hunting shots which nobody seems to have a problem with. It would be interesting to know how many bow hunters wound and lose animals vs rifle hunters taking shots some would call unethical.

Put another way, your opinion is that it isn't necessarily the probability of success that is the measure of ethical shots, it's whether or not you are able to increase that probability? For example if the best case scenario for a bow hunter to make a clean kill is 80% that is ok, but if a rifle hunter has a 90% chance and could possibly increase it to 95%, they have the ethical obligation to try and do so?

 

[No_Regerts]

I will respectfully disagree if there was a possibility to get closer. That was not hunting it was shooting.

Merriam-Webster disagrees with you. Nowhere in the definition of hunt/hunting does it discuss the mode in which you pursue or take game for food and/or sport.

It used to be that "long range" was considered to be anything beyond 300 yards for standard cartridges. This makes sense because that's the furthest that you can "hold on hair" and keep bullets in the center of the vitals. Same with archers and the distance of 30 yards.

But, velocities are faster. Ballistic coefficients are higher and sectional density is greater. Bullet performance is miles ahead. Optics are built for long range consistency and accuracy and people are finally understanding of how to build rifles to take advantage of long-range oriented ammo.

We have to be careful not to project our own skill level on others. If we did and if we applied the same logic to golf, no one would need anything but a 7 iron and a putter. But, there are specialized clubs that basically accomplish the same goals as long-range rifles. Some are better at using them than others.

 

[Mistman]

For most 'average' hunters 300 yds is a stretch, I've passed at that distance when I didn't 'feel it'. For someone who puts in the time and discipline to shoot long and conditions are good it's in their sweet spot. Some very excellent hunters won't shoot past 200 yds or even less, hunting and shooting are two very different sports. Ideally the excellent hunter will also be an excellent shot and be able to capitalize on any situation, those guys are rare. Most of us are here are probably a little of both. I shoot and reload but haven't been actively engaging in those activities for a couple years due to relocating. I know that I'm not up on my game right now, the last couple hunting seasons I've hunted with the intent to get close. In my youth I've taken some absurd shots getting too excited, some worked out, most didn't. A couple years ago I had a shot at a bull @ 300, I told my partner I couldn't do it go ahead and take it. I couldn't get to a rest, off-hand wasn't going to cut it and the animals were moving. His shot was a little longer but he was able to get a nice rest on a stump, we packed that one out. Most of my shots at game animals have been off-hand under 100 yds, I have a room full of racks that let me know that's the way that works best for me. If I were a clear-cut hunter or hunted east side I'd have to put in a little more time at the bench and keep my chops up. When I was shooting more my confidence allowed my to take shots I may not today. I'm not the kind of guy who will just take a shot to see if it works, I'll watch a nice animal walk before trying something I'm not comfortable with.

It's all pretty relative, a long shot for me wouldn't be long for someone who's got the discipline and has put in the time. I don't have a problem w/people shooting long if they know what they're doing but my guess is that at least 75% of the people who hunt aren't shooters. My dad wasn't into guns, reloading or target shooting but he was a hunter and did very well. He also knew his limits and got good at hunting close. I remember hunting with relatives as a kid, lots of missed shots across clear-cuts. I had 1 uncle who was 'the guy', he shot quite a bit at his home range, one year he dropped a nice buck at almost 700 yds. From then on he was 'the man' and regularly would shoot beyond what the others were comfortable with. His Winny 270 was legendary amongst the family members especially after he shot a bobcat off the back of one of his horses with it. Another uncle tanned the hide, that bobcat hide hung on his wall for years w/a big hole through the middle of it.

 

[osprey]

Maybe some differences of opinion but hunting to me is matching your skill to the quarry and stalk close enough to take as many variables out of what could go wrong with the shot. You will notice I have not defined long as it is variable. To each their own but to me, if you shoot at 750yds when there was a decent option to close in to 350yds to take the shot, then you are not doing all you can to make a humane kill. In 40 years of hunting, I have only had a handful of situations where a longer than 400yd shot was necessary and I have been hunting the Missouri river breaks for 35 of those 40 years.

 

[Koda]

Unfortunately the definition of "hunting" doesn't include any ethics of hunting.
As a general rule I don't encourage taking shots past any range the hunter has not practiced at and has a high level of confidence they can place that shot.

 

[SCLU]

If you practice at it why not.

Any other talk is just Elmer trying to make you conform to 30-30 distances.

 

[Val1884]

600 is my max on a nicer day. If its blowing sideways nope..Can stalk closer. Some canyons out here you cant see into unless your looking straight across. But I shoot out to 600 every few months and stay in practice. But after 18 years of hunting big game i havent made a shot past 311yds which was a bear. Next is 292 on a deer. Rest are sub 100yds.

 

[Pepe-lepew]

Long range! Who cares about long range. Most of their long range shots will miss and the deer will get away. It is short range where the problem is. Most hunters and shooters don't practice position shooting and can't hit a kill zone standing unsupported at 50-100 yards. The short range is where they will be blowing legs off and wounding/losing animals. If you hunted anytime at all, you have heard others tell the stories of their poor marksmanship and unethical hunting. Most those stories are short ranges.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Maybe some differences of opinion but hunting to me is matching your skill to the quarry and stalk close enough to take as many variables out of what could go wrong with the shot. You will notice I have not defined long as it is variable. To each their own but to me, if you shoot at 750yds when there was a decent option to close in to 350yds to take the shot, then you are not doing all you can to make a humane kill. In 40 years of hunting, I have only had a handful of situations where a longer than 400yd shot was necessary and I have been hunting the Missouri river breaks for 35 of those 40 years.

The longest shot I ever took at a big 3 point blacktailed deer was about 80 yards and I missed (buck fever). I'm a meat hunter cause I can't eat antlers.
I have taken over 15 bucks out to 25 yards, I was a good stalker. Hell I even stalked geese a time or two!!!

 

[bcp]

If long shots were necessary, no bow hunter would ever get anything.



Bruce