Ridiculousness I've seen/heard

[Mobuck]

I don't wish to point fingers at anyone but a trend I see is the (what I consider) total lack of hunting ethics displayed by some slightly misdirected shooters who consider hunting the same as target shooting. This follows the 'long range' shooting fad that's become so popular lately.
I'm guilty of claiming game shots of considerable distance BUT I didn't start throwing bullets at long range last week. Many shooters have the idea that since they can lob bullets into a paper target at XXX(?) yards, this enables striking a fatal blow on game animals at similar distance. Yes, there is technology that can help make that first shot hit but that technology doesn't take into account variable wind and/or the game moving unexpectedly.
The other unknown is a bullet's terminal performance at a distance where the velocity has dropped to near 22 rimfire speeds. 'Controlled expansion' bullets may actually give FMJ type performance which compounds the problems. Poor hit plus little to no expansion may mean loss of the animal. All the outfitters I've hunted with stand by the rule: once you draw blood, you're done hunting whether you retrieve the game or not.

 

[Busterswoodshop]

I would be willing to bet that most of these people that brag about taking these ridiculous long shots , end up wounding more animals than they kill.
Of course the animal will probably die , but whoever shot it , will never find it.

They will never tell you about the ones that were hit and ran off.

 

[GunnyGene]

Anything over 300yds generally requires a stable position, and sometimes a scope depending on the shooter. Stable positions are not often available when hunting, unless you're using a stand or other solid support - which I consider to be a prepared ambush. Careening thru the woods and taking offhand snap shots is almost guaranteed to be a bad shot.

 

[NH Rugerman]

I was told very early in my hunting career, you brag about how CLOSE you were, not how FAR AWAY you took the shot…i have lived by that mantra ever since….my shooting ability has nothing to do with that!

 

[Gator89]

I was told very early in my hunting career, you brag about how CLOSE you were, not how FAR AWAY you took the shot…i have lived by that mantra ever since….my shooting ability has nothing to do with that!

My biggest buck was shot at 18 steps.

 

[epags]

I have been less than impressed lately with blogs and shooting shows where the shooter is taking 3 and maybe 4 shots to hit and kill the amimal. I was going to mention a blog I recently watched but decided not to because I love their product and perhaps the 3 to 4 shot to kill is the new norm?

 

[Enigma]

Along the same lines, I have zero respect for hunters who use Match bullets to take game. Those bullets are intended to do one thing - poke a hole in a paper target, and they excel at that. I have seen 'hunters' using Match (Open Tip Match) bullets that either literally explode upon contact, or fail to expand at all and auger straight through the animal. I've seen them fail to expand completely at 10 yards on deer, and explode at 100+ yards, without any consistency whatsoever. One guy that I used to hunt with had found an ammo can of 7.62mm M852 Match ammo, loaded with the 168 Sierra MatchKing bullets somewhere. He used it to hunt with, and frequently had to shoot a deer 5-6 times to put it down. Some people insist on using these type bullets because of their accuracy, and disregard thier poor performance on animals.

 

[WendyZXZ]

I was told very early in my hunting career, you brag about how CLOSE you were, not how FAR AWAY you took the shot…i have lived by that mantra ever since….my shooting ability has nothing to do with that!

Sounds like me with my Cajun kin folks. Tracking and stalking requires more skill than shooting something at longer distances in a variety of and different ways.

 

[contender]

I was at the SHOT Show a few years back,, where a company was touting & trying to sell an expensive long range optic system. It did a LOT more than just magnify a target. It would allow you to laser range your target,, and then it'd calculate the necessary stuff,, including the wind & all other facts necessary for very, very long range shooting.
They had a simulator set up to try.

You should have seen the stuttering & stammering that happened when I mentioned actual performance of a bullet at the range of 1 mile (which is what they were advertising,) on a game animal. I calmly explained that most rifles, calibers & such NORMALLY used for hunting,, can't deliver a bullet into an elk, (the simulated target) AND be lethal with one shot at that range. I said; "You might hit it,, but it's going to wound the animal,, and that's not ethical."

I fully agree that we now enjoy technology that can allow shooters to hit a target at ranges well beyond what we can actually see with the naked eye. But when it comes to hunting,, any animal hunted, deserves the respect of a clean one shot kill if at all possible. I know that often circumstances prevent that,, but the first shot should be a lethal shot,, and cause a quick death of the animal. And a follow-up shot,, especially into any dangerous animal is often required by guides,, and recommended when hunting much of our serious big game.

As a Hunter Safety instructor,, AND a handgun hunter,, I teach & preach ethics, and the importance of a well placed shot,, with the right type of bullet or arrow.
Make the shot or pass on the shot is a mantra to follow. If you know you can make it,, take it,, but if you aren't sure,, pass on the shot.

 

[Threespears]

My biggest buck was shot at 18 steps.

Closest Elk was 6 paces.. GOOD TIMES

 

[Mobuck]

I was 'in the business' of shooting at targets of opportunity with a 'man portable' rifle from various ranges(and didn't have the laser rangefinders available today) in variable wind currents w/o the help of a bench or solid rest and the expectation of first shot hits.
When I practice these days, I use the tools I'll take afield--seat pad and crossed stick support. Sitting at a bench behind a 12+# rifle on sandbags has little similarity to most hunting scenarios. In addition, there's no 'spotter' to read the wind, call out hold off, and correct misses when hunting. And usually no opportunity to 'walk it in' on a distant animal as there is on a paper target.

 

[g5m]

I was 'in the business' of shooting at targets of opportunity with a 'man portable' rifle from various ranges(and didn't have the laser rangefinders available today) in variable wind currents w/o the help of a bench or solid rest and the expectation of first shot hits.

That is a fascinating definition of some word. The word escapes me. But it is summer and hot so maybe I'll be cut some slack on that...

Also with respect to the original thread title, it seems to me that there is a ridiculousness in general behavior these days in most areas of our culture.

 

[dstegjas]

I agree Mobuck. I just watched a show the other day that to be honest made me mad. They shot at an elk at 700 to 800 yards. The first shot hit the antler and just stunned him. The second shot hit in the left shoulder and clearly had broken his shoulder. As he limped over the top of the ridge not using his left front leg at all. You could hear them whining because now they have to track the elk. After supposedly trying to find this wounded animal for hours they gave up. What really ticked me off was them telling people the animal was not hurt badly and would survive. Their exact statement was the animal was hit in the brisket and it would survive. The truth is this animal had a much greater chance of being killed by predators or from the poor shot they took.

I was taught to take an animal as ethically as possible. That to me means very little suffering and one shot kills. What these people are teaching is the exact opposite and they should be ashamed of what they are doing.

 

[contender]

If enough of us ethical hunters would write in comments to the shows (producers, advertisers, sponsors,) that are about such poor behavior, expressing our displeasure, (politely) and pointing out the fact that these kinds of actions give the anti-hunting crowd proof of WHY they want to stop hunting,, it might make a difference.
We can sit here & complain about such stuff or actually try & make a difference.

Kinda like voting,, don't complain about politicians if you didn't vote. Don't complain about in-ethical hunting practices unless you at least try & express your displeasure.

I rarely watch many hunting shows anymore. But if I see one like what's described above,, I can promise I'll be writing a few letters.

 

[Garth69]

Along the same lines, I have zero respect for hunters who use Match bullets to take game. Those bullets are intended to do one thing - poke a hole in a paper target, and they excel at that. I have seen 'hunters' using Match (Open Tip Match) bullets that either literally explode upon contact, or fail to expand at all and auger straight through the animal. I've seen them fail to expand completely at 10 yards on deer, and explode at 100+ yards, without any consistency whatsoever. One guy that I used to hunt with had found an ammo can of 7.62mm M852 Match ammo, loaded with the 168 Sierra MatchKing bullets somewhere. He used it to hunt with, and frequently had to shoot a deer 5-6 times to put it down. Some people insist on using these type bullets because of their accuracy, and disregard thier poor performance on animals.

I stopped using sierra game kings for the same reason. no expansion, go right through a deer and keep going. I won't hunt if thats all I have to shoot.

 

[Dan in MI]

Being a lifelong bowhunter, almost all old school recurves too,I often think how easy firearm hunting is. While I know it's not truly easy, the ability to take a deer at a distance I'm still trying to decide if it is even worth picking up my bow makes it seem easy. My maximum shot was 27 yards, minimum 6 feet.

 

[Don Lovel]

2 deer with a bow
9 with a handgun
2 with a muzzleloader
4 with modern rifle

 

[jspick]

I live in eastern MT where the shots can be long. So I built a 280AI. So far in the 6 years I've hunted with it I have taken 1 animal over 200 yards. I work on getting close as possible. Although most bullet makers make bullets to perform at long range now. I still say it isn't ethical to shoot long range.

 

[6GUNSONLY]

We don't typically get very long shots here, unless hunting on bean fields (I dont) or power line ROWs. I prefer to be close. I may shoot one or two deer a year with a scoped rifle, but do most of my hunting with a longbow, handgun, or open-sighted rifle (.44 mag Marlin carbine or Model 71 Winchester .348). I typically shoot 4-6 deer a year. I shot two deer last year on a doe culling/herd reduction hunt with my scoped .308. One was about 175 yards, the other about 250. That's long range for me. Both one-shot kills, one dropped in its tracks, the longer shot made it about 50 yards off the green field. I think most shooters/would-be hunters underestimate the difficulty of making sure-thing, no-fail shots beyond 200 yards. There are many variables. All an animal has to do is take a half step just as you pull the trigger at that distance and bingo, you have a wounded animal rather than a sure kill. I'm not impressed with these long range hunters. Can it be done is not the same question as should it be done.

 

[volshooter]

I'm practice and am proficient from a bench to 300 yds. Hunting in east TN I limit my shots to 100 yds. 99% of my game has been taken under 50 yards. I prefer to do my homework and get close. Cain't speak of hunting in the west. TV shows I've seen are taken at ridiculously long ranges for me. I won't take a shot if I'm not positive that I can drop a animal in it's tracks.
I once took a shot at 425 yards with a 25-06 ,from a makeshift rest, with instant drop. I knew the rifle and ballistics very well. I don't have any desire to repeat that shot again, Off a bench I'm great, "a man's got to know his limitations."