Making 1000yrd shot is not what I call hunting. Your thoughts

Reading all these posts I figure I might as well add my 2 cents. First of all growing up in Iowa where we were limited to shotguns that at the time had a 100 yd range. If we were allowed to use rifles my walls would be full a giant bucks, but wait a minute, there wouldn't be any giant bucks because everyone would have rifles and the big old bucks sneaking away at 400 yds would be too easy of a target. I know this argument will never end and to each his own, but for me hunting is the challenge of out-witting an animal on his terms and getting as close as I possibly can. If the animal blows out of there before I get within 400 yds rifle or 50 yds bow then the animal wins and I will learn from my mistakes and move on.

Shooting a 1000 yards is an awesome feat. I am no where near the capability of shooting that far much less do I feel comfortable at shooting at anything beyond 250 yards. However I would like to be comfortable at shooting distances out to 600 yards but paper and steel only. That way I could be comfortable at shooting an animal to out to 400-450 yards. But keep in mind those shooters/hunters (what ever you want to call them) on BOTW get paid and have the equipment to shoot at those distances. Its their job to be able to shoot those distances. How many of us can afford the setups they own really? We all have our own ethics when it comes to hunting which is the reason for the mixed opinions. It would be interesting to see everyone's setups that have made a comment on this thread. By the way my largest elk and mule deer were shot within 125 yards. Well within my comfort zone. Sorry just wanted to put in my 2 cents (which is why I joined this forum). Good Luck on your draws this year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkoholic307

I'm currently using the Zeiss Victory PRF but I was using Swarovski and Leica in previous seasons. All three are great.

---

Which would you say is the best out of all 3?

The Swaro will probably give you the most consistent readings at 1k+ but the Zeiss is definitely quicker and gives solid readings under 1k and also has a scan mode. The Leica model I was using was the 1200; I imagine they made improvements to the 1600. The 1200 was still good, just falls short to the other two.

The Swaro is probably better but the Zeiss is more compact and extremely clear. And, like I said, gives reading very, very fast and also has the scan mode where you can hold down the button and it will continually give you several readings. That way, you can double check, triple check, etc. and not get a 'false' reading that will throw your shot's placement off.

I guess I really don't have a problem with how anyone hunts unless they are road hunting, on 4 wheelers chasing the game down to get a shot at it, or the people who blaze away at anything that moves and have no clue what ethics are. Most people who shoot long range have the equipment to do it. I understand that there are probably a lot of people who try those long shots and have no clue what they are doing. I respect the people who do know what they are doing. I don't have the equipment to shoot that far, 500 is my limit but have only shot that far once. I figured a rough estimate that most of my shots have been under 300 with probably 70% under 250. Of my biggest trophies, 8 were all under 300 except 1.


What about running shots? Where do you draw the line there?

Wow..I didn't expect this big of a response. After reading through all the posts I was initally frustrated in knowing how little chance an animal has when they are gett'n whacked from so far away. I guess what I really need to remember is that some are satisfied with that and there is really nothing I can do about it. What I can do is hold my head high knowing that I put the odds in the favor of every animal I hunt. The trophies I have harvested were earned by my ability to successfully hunt them and thats something to be cherished.

You are right Elkcrazedfrk, there is nothing you can do about it. I think maybe everyone might think about this a little more when they are making that shot at long range knowing there are a lot of people who do really have and issue with it. But it's not going to stop them.

Give it a rest, you guys are acting like it's a sin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkoholic307

That is a valid point, Mike, although I disagree. An elk's will to live is incredible, but that is when their adrenaline kicks in. A gunshot at that range does not really spook elk, or deer for that matter. More often than not, after a long distance shot, they will just stand there looking around. It seems that they're not sure if the sound is dangerous or not. Also, the shot echoes and a lot of times they don't know which way to run. So, #1. If I did make a bad shot, I would most likely have a follow up shot, or the elk would just lay down and eventually die because of no adrenaline to push it. #2. If the elk does run off, there's just as much a chance it runs toward you, than away from you. My hunting experiences have shown me these examples several times. It is pretty funny to watch animals when they aren't sure what to do.

---

Elkoholic307, how can you say Mike has a valid point but then disagree? To me you are saying you agree with Mike's comment but you just don't care because you would rather take the long shot and risk wounding an elk and not recovering it. (Not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just what I got out of your comment) Why not just get closer and take a shot that is more likely to put the elk down and where you could actually make a follow up shot if the animal bolts?
I am pretty sure any animal that gets hit with a bullet, whether or not it knows where the shot came from is going to take off and have its adrenalin up. I am sure they stand there looking around if you miss completely, but a wounded animal is not going to think about which way to run, they are just going to take off. If you are already a kilometer away, finding that blood trail could be pretty tough by the time you get over there.
By you saying that your experience has shown you these examples many times you are saying that you have not put an animal down on more than one occasion, and then you say that it's funny to watch them not know what to do?
I wasn't completely against long range shooting until I read this thread.

Yep, I said he has a valid point; meaning I understand where he's coming from but disagree with his point. If you haven't noticed, I've given up on this thread. It's like beating a dead horse. This thread is probably the most dramatic one on the forum and I'll take the blame for that. I knew full well what Eastmans' view on long range was when I signed up for this forum and decided not to bring the topic up or post yardages with my pictures. But, then I seen this thread and couldn't help myself. Now, I've decided it's a waste of my time defending it here because nobody else seems to have experience. I'd have to re-read the thread but I think Guy was the only one with a legitimate point why he doesn't take long shots. Most everyone else's posts against it were getting repetitive and based on emotion, not facts.

Before now, I had never heard of this 'invisible ethical line' that stops at 400. That just seems ridiculous to me. Yesterday I went out and shot a 6.5" 3 shot group at 1210 yards. A month ago my dad shot a 1.5" inch group at 757 yards. I think it's unethical for people to be satisfied with a 2" group at 100 yards and take that rifle hunting. How many of them are going to jump a buck and try 'leading' it because it's running off. Or, how many are going to try holding over the back because the buck is 'around' 300 yards?

But, once again, I am wasting my time. It has come down to you don't care what I have to say, and I don't care what you have to say. All I know is my personal limitations. I don't need a lecture on ethics. I know what my equipment is capable of and I know what I am capable of.