The “It’s just a hunting rifle” Saying Bugs Me

[35 Whelen]

First, let me preface this by saying that I have shot deer with open sight 30-30s and guns I am talking about now as not optimal. Now. I respect that you can fill your tags with them, but let me ask you a question. If you were to wound an animal with your open sight 30-30 don't you wish you would have grabbed your scoped bolt action whatever that your much more precise with?

I guess something has changed in me to where I feel now that I owe it to the animal to use my absolute best setup.

Weather it be a 30-30 or what ever if you can't shot open sights don't shot them. Any shooter needs to know how to shoot what they are using and what their limitations are with it.

 

[tuscan]

Agree with your sentiment. My main hunting rifles today cost more than my match rifle, and are just as accurate. They don't have nearly as heavy profile barrel and weigh considerably less, so I couldn't effectively use them in a match with for example ten stages of ten shots in 90 seconds. Also, being lighter and generally larger/heavier caliber (7mm rem mag vs 6mm creedmoor), follow up shots are not as fast (time spent getting back on target) and spotting my misses and hits is considerably more challenging, esp. from some of the match required positions. From the perspective of a PRS match, they are "just hunting rifles" and not well suited for the competition. From the perspective of hunting, my match rifle is "just a match rifle" and not well suited (at 19 lbs) for hunting. All are capable of sub .5 moa.

Still, most of my shots on game have been much shorter range because I love the stalk. On a recent hunt, I took a sheep at 179 yards at a 45* angle below me after a long stalk, and it felt good to place the bullet precisely where it was aimed, with terminal results. That precise bullet placement would not have been possible with my old model 94 30/30 and iron sites (definitely not a sub moa rifle), though a kill zone hit would have been. Both are "just hunting rifles" with very different effective ranges. The 30/30 doesn't go hunting anymore, sadly, because I may want to take a 600 yard shot.

 

[Wolf76]

100% on board with "good enough to kill ______" garbage. I understand "why" people say that- lazy and or cheap. I've said to people at the range "group size doesn't get smaller when you're out hunting". People get less accurate when the animal isn't perfectly still, hearts beating faster, trigger gets jerked, rest isn't solid, etc... It all leads to bad outcomes.

Those same yahoos that shoot terrible groups from the same box of ammo that's 5 years old, are the same ones that take shots 2-3x further than their maximum range.
Example: younger guy with a 450 BM tells me how he killed a deer at 228 yards last year with it. I watch him take 7 shots at a 10" gong @200 meters from a lead sled with virtually no wind. He missed every shot. I asked him if he still thought it was wise to be shooting that far.

This is the main reason why I handload for my guns. I get: accuracy not found in factory loads, more time behind the gun, save money, and have confidence because of the consistency of sub moa groups.
Can't think of a single problem with a gun that's too accurate, can you?

 

[Indyal]

I am new to long(er) range hunting as I finally found a range to practice longer shots. My current rifle shoots sub 0.5 moa off the bench. What I discovered was my accuracy was good out to about 540 yards but I could not judge the wind enough at 720 yds to keep it under 1 moa(too much horizontal spread).

I have taken 7 elk with a rifle. All were in situations where I only had a few seconds to make the shot; 5 were taken standing.

The hunting shows that feature long range appear to have the luxury of time to set up their shot, check the wind, and consult their spotter. I also think they do a disservice as they seem to emphasize the equipment and not the skill.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I agree. Shoot a bad group or score in a match, just a little humble pie. Making a poor shot on game has a horrible consequence. I have met guys that do not seem to mind wounding game, once you experience that type of pain yourself, you certainly wont want to inflict it on anything that doesnt deserve it. For some reason its not even looked down on much anymore, growing up that was about the worst thing a guy could do. There is no excuse for a bad shot.

 

[Len Backus]

My main two hunting rifles will never win any beauty contests, one looks like it has been beat to h-e-l-l and is almost embarrassing to look at. It gets run HARD and shows it, been rebarrelled multiple times and spray painted many more. It is a hunting rifle. Careful about making fun though, I wouldn't want to be on the other end of that thing...for a long ways out!

Bravo

Language warning

 

[idcwby]

This is the main reason why I handload for my guns. I get: accuracy not found in factory loads, more time behind the gun, save money, and have confidence because of the consistency of sub moa groups.
Can't think of a single problem with a gun that's too accurate, can you?

Ya, cause when you miss you know it's you.
That's not a bad thing though cause than you learn more about what you need to do to get better.

idcwby

 

[eastbank]

i,m not a long range hunter, tho I have a rem 7 rum that would qualfy for long range hunting with 162 gr amax at close to 3300 fps and 175 gr at close to 3100 fps. but in my hunting world a 200 yard shot will be long range and I don,t shoot if things are not right. this group is at 200 yards with a 35 whelen with a 225 gr bullet at 2600 fps as I shoot double lung broadside standing shots its more than accurt enough.

 

[Bravo 4]

Bravo

Language warning

Fixed it, changed the l-l to c-k.

 

[milo-2]

I honestly want some feedback from you ladies and gents to see if I'm the only one that feels this way.

It really bugs me to hear/read the saying "It's only for hunting" or something similar. I see this a lot when people are talking about optics, rifles, and accuracy. It seems to me that because something is used for hunting, there is a lower standard for degree of precision than say a PRS style match or shooting steel long range. Now, let me be clear I understand that someone shooting deer out to 200 yards does not require a 0.25 MOA rifle, in fact a consistent 2 MOA is probably fine (although I wouldn't go any bigger). However, this forum is called long range hunting and that is what a lot of us like to do here.

I am sorry to go an a rant. I would love to hear your opinions. No offense will be taken if you feel I am wrong.

John

I checked your profile page, do you understand this phrase has been around long before your Father may have been born?
A Winchester Model 52 was not an accurate rifle w/o a bull barrel. Not many put faith in the fact that a thin barrel Rem 700 was going to shoot as well as his Rem 700 varmint, train of thought thing.
Then consider all the manufacturers pumping out hunting rifles in the 70's, 80's, 90's and beyond. A lot of these rifles really were not that accurate. So you get the "it is not a prairie dog rifle, but good enough for deer, because now the target size has increased exponentially.
You mention prs shooting, if you were to poll most on accuracy from a heavy barrel compared to thin, the answer becomes obvious, more from a sustained rate of fire than an accuracy one, so if some of these guys say this phrase, are they wrong?

I am relatively sure these words have came from my mouth, but then again, I was never going to attempt even a 300 yard shot, and probably because back then I would have never known the range of the target.
If you are running into people who plan on LR hunting making this statement, it becomes your job or our job to do some serious educating right in the moment.

I really do not hunt today, but still do my part, I run into a lot of guys at the range I frequent who plop a factory rifle down(could be a custom too) with factory ammo and say a deer or elk at this distance is my goal. I will usually ask them to shoot a 10" plate at their specified goal and I will spot, there is probably a 10% chance this is going to end well.
Like I said, education, helpful hints, guidance in general is our friend here. Or maybe getting to the core of the statement, it may not be as drastic as one perceives.
Either way, wounding game animals should never be an option, and I am with you 100% on that.

 

[JohnWess]

I checked your profile page, do you understand this phrase has been around long before your Father may have been born?
A Winchester Model 52 was not an accurate rifle w/o a bull barrel. Not many put faith in the fact that a thin barrel Rem 700 was going to shoot as well as his Rem 700 varmint, train of thought thing.
Then consider all the manufacturers pumping out hunting rifles in the 70's, 80's, 90's and beyond. A lot of these rifles really were not that accurate. So you get the "it is not a prairie dog rifle, but good enough for deer, because now the target size has increased exponentially.
You mention prs shooting, if you were to poll most on accuracy from a heavy barrel compared to thin, the answer becomes obvious, more from a sustained rate of fire than an accuracy one, so if some of these guys say this phrase, are they wrong?

I am relatively sure these words have came from my mouth, but then again, I was never going to attempt even a 300 yard shot, and probably because back then I would have never known the range of the target.
If you are running into people who plan on LR hunting making this statement, it becomes your job or our job to do some serious educating right in the moment.

I really do not hunt today, but still do my part, I run into a lot of guys at the range I frequent who plop a factory rifle down(could be a custom too) with factory ammo and say a deer or elk at this distance is my goal. I will usually ask them to shoot a 10" plate at their specified goal and I will spot, there is probably a 10% chance this is going to end well.
Like I said, education, helpful hints, guidance in general is our friend here. Or maybe getting to the core of the statement, it may not be as drastic as one perceives.
Either way, wounding game animals should never be an option, and I am with you 100% on that.

Your right it has been around since before my father was born. I am only 24. But, I think that's a mute point due to the fact that the saying well outlives all of us. My main hunting rifle is a 30-06 Stainless Rem 700 BDL and it has a thin barrel. It also shoots .5 MOA consistently. I don't think we need the most expensive things and I hear what your saying as far as equipment and tech.

I guess I am mainly referencing the saying when it comes in a nature that disrespects the animals we hunt.

Again, not saying that a bad shot can't happen. But if we have a setup that is capable of great precision and we practice with it to know it inside and out, then a "miss from out .5-.75 MOA" can still be a kill shot. Kind of like the old saying "aim small miss small".

 

[Tuffcountry]

The wolves don't seem to be wasting as much anymore, but that's a whole other can of worms. I always figured if you gave it everything you could to try to recover the animal, than that's all you can do and something will utilize it. It's no different than that elk getting away from the wolves only to die later because of the bites becoming infected.

idcwby

Let's open that can

 

[idcwby]

Let's open that can

Start a new thread if you want to open that can.

idcwby

 

[Bdubose]

I think that's the beauty of this group - it PUSHES you to improve.

3 years ago my average shot on deer was inside 100 yards and I had strained to a shoot 300 yard paper target only once in my life! I've always considered myself an ethical hunter yet I took a 400 yard shot on an elk years ago and got lucky though it was clearly beyond my capabilities.

Today a 600 yard shot with the same rifle is a chip shot! I think most guys on this forum who put in the time developing a consistent load for their weapon tend to the more be more ethical in their shot choices than the one box per year guys because we have a greater understanding of both the limits and capabilities of the weapon/bullet combination.

That is not to say I was an unethical hunter for 50+ years - just uneducated.