For 7 mm enthusiasts

[fmajor]

In Scandinavia you'll find many people using 7s like 7 x 57 (R), 7 x 64 (65R) and 7 RM on mooose at all occasions and never have any trouble killing moose, wild boar or deer fast enough and correctly.

I have no doubt the 7RM would kill a moose, but rather at 900yds I wouldn't engage something that large! All in good discussion form, not being critical or questioning the hunter's judgement.

That supports our opinion that hunters/ shooters first of all have to train a lot on the range and getting familiar with their guns. In Norway everyone who wants to hunt on larger game has to pass an annual shooting test! For every rifle he or she wants to hunt with. If not... no hunting. Easy as that.

I don't think too many folks from the States would like the additional regulation/requirement - though I agree it is an excellent idea!

 

[MontanaRifleman]

There's a member on here that killed a monster moose @ 900-something yards with a 7RM. I can't remember who, but it was huge!

It's possible but probably not something I would try. You would want a double lung shot for sure. At 900 yds, most of the higher BC 7mm bullets are getting close to 1800 fps out of a 7 RM. With the 180 VLD @ 3000 fps MV, the velocity is 1870 fps @ 900 yds @ sea level. It would probably get the job done with a good shot but a little risky with that size animal at that distance.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I don't think too many folks from the States would like the additional regulation/requirement - though I agree it is an excellent idea!

I agree... requiring a shooting test would be considered as over reaching and over governing. It's best left to the judgement of the individual.

 

[Varberger757]

I had no doubt the 7RM would kill a moose, but that at 900yds I wouldn't engage something that large! All in good discussion form, not being critical or the hunter's judgement.



I don't think too many folks from the States would like the additional regulation/requirement - though I agree it is an excellent idea!

I agree to your statement about distance! Due to European rules I wouldn't personally do more than 300m. Good trained hunters in the USA may of course do longer shots, because I'm respecting what other people like to do. We should never forget about that we are killing animals that feel as much pain as we do.

 

[MudRunner2005]

In Scandinavia you'll find many people using 7s like 7 x 57 (R), 7 x 64 (65R) and 7 RM on mooose at all occasions and never have any trouble killing moose, wild boar or deer fast enough and correctly. That supports our opinion that hunters/ shooters first of all have to train a lot on the range and getting familiar with their guns. In Norway everyone who wants to hunt on larger game has to pass an annual shooting test! For every rifle he or she wants to hunt with. If not... no hunting. Easy as that.

Shooting test, huh? I know a few hunters here in the states I'd like to give one of those to.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I agree to your statement about distance! Due to European rules I wouldn't personally do more than 300m. Good trained hunters in the USA may of course do longer shots, because I'm respecting what other people like to do. We should never forget about that we are killing animals that feel as much pain as we do.

Which is exactly why I always try to execute my shots to where they will be as quick and painless as possible for the animal. A good double-lung shot will usually kill a deer in a matter of a couple seconds. I've had them run as far as 50 yards with a solid double-lung from a rifle, but had them run 150 with a double-lung with a bow.

I like my shots to not only be as humane for the animal as possible, but as easy on me as possible, by-way of them not running very far...Unless I've got a 4-wheeler handy, I tend to be lazy and hate dragging them back to the truck. But, if you're gonna do the deed, you accept the responsibility. And in the end, what do we really have left, other than our integrity.

The rest the gov't owns and/or controls...

 

[Varberger757]

I agree... requiring a shooting test would be considered as over reaching and over governing. It's best left to the judgement of the individual.

I understand and agree with your point about undesired regulations and over governing. That's something we all suffer of!
Here in Norway this new rule was introduced, because many hunters have not been prepared at all for the hunting seasons and were shooting lousily with all the horrible side effects that can have. It's also about the acceptance of hunting in society ... Since then the results really improved, and most of the guys get at least their guns sighted in correctly. gun)

 

[MudRunner2005]

I'll never understand someone who only hunts (doesn't go to the range for recreation), and never checks their sights before walking into the woods.

I don't ever make a special trip to the range, I tend to go year-round. So, I know my sights are always on.

Not to mention that right now our Gov't wants to rule us like an evil king lords over his people, because they're the ones with an incompetentcy issue, so they try to take it out on the people, instead of fixing their own issue.

 

[Varberger757]

I'll never understand someone who only hunts (doesn't go to the range for recreation), and never checks their sights before walking into the woods.

I don't ever make a special trip to the range, I tend to go year-round. So, I know my sights are always on.

Not to mention that right now our Gov't wants to rule us like an evil king lords over his people, because they're the ones with an incompetentcy issue, so they try to take it out on the people, instead of fixing their own issue.

+!

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I understand and agree with your point about undesired regulations and over governing. That's something we all suffer of!
Here in Norway this new rule was introduced, because many hunters have not been prepared at all for the hunting seasons and were shooting lousily with all the horrible side effects that can have. It's also about the acceptance of hunting in society ... Since then the results really improved, and most of the guys get at least their guns sighted in correctly. gun)

Here in the states, our laws are usually determined by the individual states. Most states, maybe all, require a person take and pass a hunter's safety course which usually does not consist of a proficiency test. In the hunter's safety courses, shot placement and responsibility are emphasized. Beyond that, mentoring and peer pressure play a large role in hunting/shooting skills and responsibility.

There are a lot of American hunters who believe that long range hunting is not ethical. These hunters think this way because they were taught that and they do have a sense of responsibility. In almost all cases, they do not have the training or experience to understand long range shooting. A lot of this thinking is also based on regional influences. In the Western and more open states, long shots to maybe 500 yds have been practiced for a long time. In more recent times with new technology like range finders, ballistic calculators, better optics, more precision rifles and equipment, longer shots to well past 500 yards have become relatively easy.

I personally know someone who is a skilled long range shooter to distances well beyond 1K who will not shoot at game more than 600-700 yds. For myself, I will not take a shot that I don't have high confidence in making and I base that on actual shooting experience. I consider 600 yds a fairly easy and routine shot once I know the rifle and load. Beyond that, things get more complicated. Wind being the biggest factor. If there were no such thing as wind, 1 mile shots would be easy.

I can see where some regulation can be good if things are getting out of control. One of the problems with laws and regulations is once they are in place they are almost impossible to remove and society becomes more and more regulated and restricted as more laws and rules are made. Another problem is, who determines the requirements or proficiency standards? It's been my experience that this type of regulation usually does little to solve the problem. I think the best way to approach it is to encourage an attitude of responsibility in the individual.

 

[CB11WYO]

Here in the states, are laws are usually determined by the individual states. Most states, maybe all, require a person take and pass a hunter's safety course which usually does not consist of a proficiency test. In the hunter's safety courses, shot placement and responsibility are emphasized. Beyond that, mentoring and peer pressure play a large role in hunting/shooting skills.

There are a lot of American hunters who believe that long range hunting is not ethical. These hunters think this way because they were taught that and they do have a sense of responsibility. In almost all cases, they do not have the training or experience to understand long range shooting. A lot of this thinking is also based on regional influences. In the Western and more open states, long shots to maybe 500 yds have been practiced for a long time. In more recent times with new technology like range finders, ballistic calculators, better optics, more precision rifles and equipment, longer shots to well past 500 yards have become relatively easy.

I personally know someone who is a skilled long range shooter to distances well beyond 1K who will not shoot at game more than 600-700 yds. For myself, I will not take a shot that I don't have high confidence in making and I base that on actual shooting experience. I consider 600 yds a fairly easy and routine shot once I know the rifle and load. Beyond that, things get more complicated. Wind being the biggest factor. It there were no such thing as wind, 1 mile shots would be easy.

I can see where some regulation can be good if things are getting out of control. One of the problems with laws and regulations is once they are in place they are almost impossible to remove and society becomes more and more regulated and restricted as more laws and rules are made. Another problem is, who determines the requirements or proficiency standards? It's been my experience that this type of regulation usually does little to solve the problem. I think the best way to approach it is to encourage an attitude of responsibility in the individual.

Yup Yup

 

[Varberger757]

" It's been my experience that this type of regulation usually does little to solve the problem. I think the best way to approach it is to encourage an attitude of responsibility in the individual".

100% correct!lightbulbHopefully we are able to do something about that nowadays and in future.

 

[fmajor]

well spoken MR.

Unfortunately, in the US (and likely other countries as well) there is a large population of scum-bags who have no ethics and are comprised of an un-teachable attitude (you know that guy - the loud-mouth know-it-all). They're typically lazy, middle-aged males who would take questionable shots and/or participate in out-right game law violation with minimal to no affect on what little conscience they have remaining.

 

[MudRunner2005]

well spoken MR.

Unfortunately, in the US (and likely other countries as well) there is a large population of scum-bags who have no ethics and are comprised of an un-teachable attitude (you know that guy - the loud-mouth know-it-all). They're typically lazy, middle-aged males who would take questionable shots and/or participate in out-right game law violation with minimal to no affect on what little conscience they have remaining.

Here in the US, those are the morons running our country...

In other countries they do something about their crappy politicians. Here in America we elect crappy ones and then spend 4 years bitching about the bad job they're doing, then idiots re-elect them to finish off the job for another 4 years.

And I am more scared to see what's probably coming next go-round.....That hiddeous bat, Hillary...

Really makes you want to move to Switzerland. Their gun laws are about the same as here.