ATH
Well-Known Member
Hold the boat, folks! I was very careful wording my first post in order to avoid just this sort of outcome. I really DON'T want this to deteriorate further... I've taken a lot of info from this site, and witnessed what happens to others when members tear each other apart and leave.
I think everyone has had a bit of truth to add so far. GG says that there are no certainties; he's right. I've wounded deer myself, and unfortunately lost a few over the years. But percentage-wise it's a very, very small number. My original question was intended to derive exactly how often this sort of outcome resulted from this type of hunting. It's personal, but 80% was thrown out and that doesn't meet my personal requirements. That's wounding/missing 1 out of 5!! At that rate, I'd screw up twice a year. Not acceptable. I'm new to this too; I want to know what I can expect. If the most skilled in this field make 80% 1st-shot kills at 900 yards, you bet I won't bother trying to go beyond 700-800.
I agree with Gonhuntin that we are not coyotes/lions/subsistence hunters. That was the point of my second point...passing is ALWAYS an option for sport hunters. It doesn't matter how much you spent on the hunt...if you're unsure of your shot or abilities, you have the option to pass. He's also right that we need to use facts and honesty in replying to those who might criticize these methods. Smart people see through BS pretty fast, and it destroys the credibility of anyone who uses it.
As for bedded animals, it's not a matter of honor but angle. Look very carefully at a bedded animal...the angle changes and the vital zone shrinks dramatically. I almost always wait for them to stand or try to urge them into it, just because I had a couple bad experiences trying to hit bedded animals that would have been SIMPLE standing. To each their own, and it's just my opinion, but I do generally avoid it.
Ethics may vary from person to person, but anyone who should have a right to carry a gun should have them! So the fact that we might not agree on the particulars does not exclude them from discussion. Responsible hunters should share some: respect for the animal, intent to kill quickly and with minimal suffering, etc.
As for being the wrong place to be if you aren't comfortable with "testing your limits", I vehemently disagree. The range is the place to test your limits; the hunting field is the place to practice within the limits you defined for youself while punching paper. A deer/elk deserves more respect than to be used as an experiment to test your limits. Responsible hunters should agree with this, I would think. As an example, I put more than 200 rounds downrange between 300-400 yds with my muzzleloader before I started shooting at deer that far out. This experience taught me that while I could often make hits at 400, the number of errant "wounding" shots was unacceptable beyond 350.
I meant no disrespect to GG; I wasn't there, so I am not going to sit behind a keyboard and say exactly what he should have done. I've seen his posts before and he seems to know more than a little about LRH, so I was curious as to what he expects in terms of outcomes at this type of distance. That's it!
I think we all need to be conscious of how LR shooting is perceived. I've defended myself more than a few times for 300 yd+ muzzleloader shots. I always use the same logical argument: If you limit yourself to 100 yds because you're 95% confident you'll make a good shot, why shouldn't I be able to shoot 300 yds if it also results in 95% confidence of a good shot? One person's lack of skill, preparation, or equipment should not constrain someone posessing such extra assets. However, the crux of this argument is that the increased range does not result in a decreased certainty of making the shot. So to me, defending LRH relies upon being able to say I'm not comprimising my "good-shot odds" as a result of increased range. I wouldn't want to be part of it if this were not the case as my argument defending it would put me in the BS category and destroy my credibility. I like a challenge as much as the next guy, but when it results in increasing the number of poor shots I save it for the range.
I think everyone has had a bit of truth to add so far. GG says that there are no certainties; he's right. I've wounded deer myself, and unfortunately lost a few over the years. But percentage-wise it's a very, very small number. My original question was intended to derive exactly how often this sort of outcome resulted from this type of hunting. It's personal, but 80% was thrown out and that doesn't meet my personal requirements. That's wounding/missing 1 out of 5!! At that rate, I'd screw up twice a year. Not acceptable. I'm new to this too; I want to know what I can expect. If the most skilled in this field make 80% 1st-shot kills at 900 yards, you bet I won't bother trying to go beyond 700-800.
I agree with Gonhuntin that we are not coyotes/lions/subsistence hunters. That was the point of my second point...passing is ALWAYS an option for sport hunters. It doesn't matter how much you spent on the hunt...if you're unsure of your shot or abilities, you have the option to pass. He's also right that we need to use facts and honesty in replying to those who might criticize these methods. Smart people see through BS pretty fast, and it destroys the credibility of anyone who uses it.
As for bedded animals, it's not a matter of honor but angle. Look very carefully at a bedded animal...the angle changes and the vital zone shrinks dramatically. I almost always wait for them to stand or try to urge them into it, just because I had a couple bad experiences trying to hit bedded animals that would have been SIMPLE standing. To each their own, and it's just my opinion, but I do generally avoid it.
Ethics may vary from person to person, but anyone who should have a right to carry a gun should have them! So the fact that we might not agree on the particulars does not exclude them from discussion. Responsible hunters should share some: respect for the animal, intent to kill quickly and with minimal suffering, etc.
As for being the wrong place to be if you aren't comfortable with "testing your limits", I vehemently disagree. The range is the place to test your limits; the hunting field is the place to practice within the limits you defined for youself while punching paper. A deer/elk deserves more respect than to be used as an experiment to test your limits. Responsible hunters should agree with this, I would think. As an example, I put more than 200 rounds downrange between 300-400 yds with my muzzleloader before I started shooting at deer that far out. This experience taught me that while I could often make hits at 400, the number of errant "wounding" shots was unacceptable beyond 350.
I meant no disrespect to GG; I wasn't there, so I am not going to sit behind a keyboard and say exactly what he should have done. I've seen his posts before and he seems to know more than a little about LRH, so I was curious as to what he expects in terms of outcomes at this type of distance. That's it!
I think we all need to be conscious of how LR shooting is perceived. I've defended myself more than a few times for 300 yd+ muzzleloader shots. I always use the same logical argument: If you limit yourself to 100 yds because you're 95% confident you'll make a good shot, why shouldn't I be able to shoot 300 yds if it also results in 95% confidence of a good shot? One person's lack of skill, preparation, or equipment should not constrain someone posessing such extra assets. However, the crux of this argument is that the increased range does not result in a decreased certainty of making the shot. So to me, defending LRH relies upon being able to say I'm not comprimising my "good-shot odds" as a result of increased range. I wouldn't want to be part of it if this were not the case as my argument defending it would put me in the BS category and destroy my credibility. I like a challenge as much as the next guy, but when it results in increasing the number of poor shots I save it for the range.
