Particularly bitter irony...

[Ben Long]

Now I like RMEF and Barne's ammunition, so please don't think I'm just ripping on them. But the irony in the May-June 2018 Bugle struck me as rich. But I'd like to hear what you think. On page 22, there is a comment from a reader complaining of how his hunt was ruined when a fellow hunter opened fire at a herd of elk 400 yards away, missing the elk and spooking the herd. On the back page there is an ad from Barnes touting ammunition "optimized for one-shot kills out to 700 yards and beyond." Headline "From now on, it's ALL effective range." I mean, 700 yards is nearly a half mile. Elk have sharp senses, but IMO cannot perceive danger from gunfire at that distance. How many hunters practice at 400 yards, let alone 700? How many rifle ranges even stretch that far? Am I an old fuddy-duddy, or does this trend strike you as bad for the future of hunting?

 

[Nameless Range]

Bad for the resource - increases the pump, not the well.
Bad for hunters - requires less physical effort, skill, and understanding of our quarry.
Bad for hunting - looks lame to non-hunters, whose pleasure we hunt at.

Ya might be a fuddy duddy though.

 

[Irrelevant]

it's the logical progression with the current a 6.5 creedmore craze. Everyone is an expert marksman with a 2k rifle, just ask them. Any yes, I see the hypocrisy.

 

[widnert]

Agreed. Frustrating too. To me, it all comes down to the "I have to kill something to prove I'm a hunter" mentality I see in sooooo many folks out there purchasing licenses. There's no joy in them for just being out there. It's kill something or you're not justified as a man kind of thing. SMH

Then, the next step is, "I killed mine at _______ yards." The next guy, "Oh yeah? Well I killed mine at ______ x2 yards." Stupid and don't know any way to change that thinking. I try to have a conversation with these guys but, just gets me nowhere.

 

[406LIFE]

I think Nameless Range said it well.

Also, I'm sure the editorials and marketing divisions of RMEF aren't cross checking with each other.

I myself practice out to 1000 yards. I feel confident at long ranges shooting. I also have military training that got me that skill. I had an opportunity last fall at elk at 800, chose to not exercise it. My first shot will be within 300. I'll make a followup at a wounded animal past that, but have never had to.

I agree that long range hunting is problematic for our image, but I also see it as a moving target. Can an elk perceive danger from me at 300 yards? I doubt it. But defining what is and is not long range is so very subjective to the person, his skills, shooting variables and the like, I think that we will not see much progress made in this conversation except what B&C has put out: "its not about the the distance, its about the intent."

 

[LuketheDog]

it's the logical progression with the current a 6.5 creedmore craze. Everyone is an expert marksman with a 2k rifle, just ask them. Any yes, I see the hypocrisy.

Yeah, it's the 6.5 Creedmoor that has started all this mass hysteria about long-range hunting...not the big magnum calibers

 

[Southern Elk]

I enjoy target practice at long distances, but I've never shot an animal at over 300 yds. I shot my Marlin .444 lever action the other day. I have dreams of shooting an elk this fall in the timber at less than 100yds, not from one mountainside to another.

 

[haiku_rodney]

If you shoot the animal at 700 yards and drop it, you still have to hike all the way over there to get it.

I hunt in a really hilly area. I had hiked downhill and about reached my limit. I saw a nice bike about 300 yds below me. I figured if God wanted me to get the buck, it would walk uphill another 200 yds. The buck didn't walk uphill and I went home empty handed.

 

[7mm08mo]

I practice at my local range out to 600 yards, that being said I would like to think I would never shoot over 400 or 450 yards at a game animal. I have never been presented a shot over 400 where I was out of options and had to make a decision to shoot or not. It seems like I have had chances where I have said I will get closer that is a longer shot that I do not want to take and have moved closer. I practice at those distances because to me it makes 300 yards seem a little or lot easier. With my bow I practice at 60 and it makes 20 seem like a chip shot. I would never shoot at an animal at 60 with my bow I just don't have the confidence, but it does make 20 yards a lot more confident.

 

[JLS]

Agreed. Frustrating too. To me, it all comes down to the "I have to kill something to prove I'm a hunter" mentality I see in sooooo many folks out there purchasing licenses. There's no joy in them for just being out there. It's kill something or you're not justified as a man kind of thing. SMH

Then, the next step is, "I killed mine at _______ yards." The next guy, "Oh yeah? Well I killed mine at ______ x2 yards." Stupid and don't know any way to change that thinking. I try to have a conversation with these guys but, just gets me nowhere.

I shot my biggest two bulls at 200 yards and 75 yards.

Maybe I need the work harder at making it harder? I think I will try to shoot my next elk at 50 yardz with my 6.5 Hipster. I may even have a Copenhagen in when I do so.

 

[JLS]

Ben,

Yes, I’m somewhat uncomfortable with this trend.

 

[Ben Long]

I get it that that is how advertising works: you gotta offer something more than the other company. One company says it's product can kill at 300, you gotta make "500 the old 300." And then, the next guy has to promise 700+. Or "it's all in range." It wouldn't bother me in the least if we were just ringing gongs and punching paper. But we're not... Plus, what about the guy who is trying to sneak within 200, when someone else opens up at 700? It just puts a hitch in my get-along is all.

 

[fmnjr]

I'll DQ myself ahead of any comment on the basis of I can't hit **it with the new rifle I just got, but I will state my feelings nevertheless. Don't most hunters pride themselves on the notion of fair chase? It is arguable that even a few hundred yards, in some's opinions, smacks of an unfair advantage. But over a distance of several hundred yards, there is just no way you could state the animal had a chance to avoid danger. Can't argue that it doesn't take quite a bit of skill and experience to shoot that far, but why? Isn't this a bit like shooting penned up animals on a "ranch"? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[Gr8bawana]

It is a disturbing trend in MY opinion. While there are some people who can consistently hit the target at such long ranges the proliferation of "long range" tv hunting shows make inexperienced yahoos think it is the norm. They think they can just pick up their hunting rifle and do the same thing without a clue. At what point does it go from hunting to merely shooting at an animal to see if you can hit it?
Yeah, I guess that makes me an old "fuddy duddy" as well.

 

[Firedude]

While I see where you are coming from and can agree partially I would like to point out that I had an old "fuddy duddy" comment on long range shooting being to much of an advantage. He saw my gun and felt the need to state his opinion telling me I just need to learn to hunt because we were doing things the "easy" way. He then got back on his horse and team packing a wall tent, stove, food, coolers, water, clothes, guns, ammo, firewood, and preceded to ride on a trail to a camp that I could never get too in a full day of hiking with my gear. He did hang up the Satellite Phone long enough to say "excuse me" to the guy I was with on the trail. His buddy was behind with 10 more horses with the whole family. I say this not to anger but to also put a little perspective in things. While I shoot long range occasionally I do work to get those 500 yard shots and make the shot when it counts. I do agree that the long range shows showing guys throwing lead from the bed of a pickup and gut shooting things is bad. I am tiring of watching things get hit badly and them whooping and holloring for minutes like it's a good thing to just "hit it".

 

[PA deer hunter]

At some point it seems like killing more than hunting. Count me in with the fuddy duddy crowd...

 

[elkduds]

If you shoot the animal at 700 yards and drop it, you still have to hike all the way over there to get it.

In my ethics, thanks Dad; if you shoot AT an animal, you hike over to follow up on the shot, no matter if 100 or 1000 yards. That part is always left out of "hunting" videos.

Carry on, time for Final Jeopardy and a cold Ensure.

 

[Brian in Montana]

Not a fan of this trend either. In my opinion there may be a few shooters that practice enough and have the skill and equipment for shots longer than about 3 or 400yds but they are very much in the minority; and you do need both the skill and equipment. Most people that do this sort of thing do it because they saw someone on YouTube, then they hit a steel plate a couple time at 600 and decided they can do this on a living animal. I'm not joining the fuddy duddy club, I'm just going to ascert my well founded opinion that most hunters that take shots like that are simply irresponsible.

 

[cowboy]

Oh boy - here we go again. If you can't do it then criticize the hell out of it and call it ethics. I've seen way too many guys (particularly in 40 years of late season hunts) that couldn't hit their azz with both hands at 100 yds let alone 1000. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to even buy a tag because they are sure not good for a true hunters reputation.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Ben, Good call. I got the Hunt of Lifetime Raffle the other day and one of the prizes is rifle noted as "1000 yard" gun. Been RMEF member since 89 and I hate the creep of long range and poor ethics. It's called stalking!

RMEF do the right thing and take stand.