As much as we're talking long range shooting at animal's here, I think better information than the rifle your using would be the cartridge, bullet and at what velocity you sighted in and the drop below line of sight at the distence you shoot. How do you adjust for the bullet drop? How do you determine range?

Using 65.1 grains of IMR-4831, they chronograph about 3200 to 3265 fps, depending on the BC of the bullet, these particular ones clocked about 3218.

Sighted 3 inches high at 100 yards, I was holding just over an inch low at 200, the rifle is zeroed to be dead-on at 300 yards, and the bullets hit about 8 inches low at 400.

Pretty quick to jump in and judge another's ethics at their self imposed maximum shoot/no shoot range there Don.
Given the same situations you mentioned above, would you take the shot out past your comfort zone?
91xlt clearly stated they would NOT shoot past 400 yards, we will have to accept their word that, no matter what the circumstance, their self imposed max range rule will not be violated until we are proven wrong. What the heck does 425 yards have to do with which calibre, make and model long range HUNTING rifle you shoot.

I agree with Weatherbyscott, getting close is the true challenge. For those who will take that long range shot, however far that may be for each individual, I hope they have the skill in shooting that they lack in hunting.
I certainly don't advocate shooting at an animal at those distances{400-425 yards} as that is a pretty darned good ways off.

You might be right but that wasn't my intention. Those excuses have been used over and over so much that I pretty much assume they are coming. What got me was the, "under no circumstance's". So 91xlt, I would apologize if I have jumped to a conclussion here. It is alway's people that talk of shooting at long range that come up with those excuses.

I did not take any offense, I just figure you STRONGLY do not agree with a shot of that distance. To each there own.

Yes I do strongly disagree with it. But I read Jtapia's post then re-read mine and think I might have come off a bit strong. I'm glad your not ofended and I didn't mean to do that.

There was a time in my life when I too would attempt those long shot's, and I could generally make them. But I have come into contact with so many people over the years that not only can't but try anyway, but they don't even make much effort to do it. And as I think back, there never was a shot out there that I had to make, the option was alway's there to walk away, and often I didn't.

The excuses that I put on you that Jtapia brough to light are excuses I have heard over and over. You didn't use one. Of course I'll probally fly off if someone does come up with one anyway. I think that long range shooter's and those that don't even make an effort to shoot well at normal ranges share one thing in common, not enough respect for the game they want to kill. That's not aimed at anyone in particular! Somewhere back in this site you'll find a thred I started about a guy that shot an elk at 2890 yds. Bad enough to do it but then he bragged about it on the internet. There are many long range shooter's, who are very good, that do intentionally look for those shot's. I've personally talked to two of them and they refuse shot's under 1000yds. I know another that just want's to kill an elk at 1000yds, then he say's he's going back to bow hunting. What's the point of seeing how far you can kill something? Yes I understand the range you were talking about was nowhere near that.

I suspect that percentage wise, more game is wounded and lost beyond even 250 yds than under. The reason is the ability to mark the spot where the animal was standing when shot at to begin tracking if in fact the blood can be found. And how many hit animal's show no sign of being hit so there is no follow up to check. It seem's that the good shot's at time's appear to have missed completely as the animal riun's off, dead on it's feet. I have many places here where I could put down an object the size of a deer and by the time you got there, you would have a great deal of trouble finding the spot. If it's only a few hundred yds across a canyon but you have to go down the canyon then find your way back up the chance's of finding the kill site go down dramatically.

Once again, I agree with JTapia and did come off a bt hard and I apologize. Believe me, if you did that to someone else, I would come down on you.

What an interesting thread. I enjoyed everyone's opinions on long range hunting very much. I'd like to share my 2 cents as well.

I grew up in the Kalahari Desert in South Africa and it wasn't until I was about 20 years old that I started hunting elsewhere in South Africa. Now, many South African hunters will say that hunting in the Kalahari is not hunting it's harvesting. Well, it's definitely different from the bush, that's for sure, but it has it's own challenges and adventures. Not to forget that it's the natural habitat for the Gemsbok.

Just a side note: If you come accross a Gemsbok anywhere else in RSA, it was because someone took it from it's natural habitat and started breeding with it elsewhere. To me, shooting a Gemsbok outside the Kalahari is like shooting an exotic. Back to topic.

The cold dry winter months in the Kalahari is hunting season. It's also the time of the year when all the grass that covers the red sand dunes are gone and your'e left with these gigantic open spaces of red sand dunes and white "streets". (The areas between the dunes). Most hunting farms in the Kalahari are in the region of 25 000 ha (60 000 acres) and some big ones in the region of 40 000 ha (almost 100 000 acres). Except for the dunes, its a very flat landscape and some of the worlds largest salt pans are found here. This makes hunting a totally different sport. Fisrt of all, walk and stalk is almost out of the question. With no natural cover the animals will see and hear you long before you will even know they are there. They say a Gemsbok can positively identify a human up to 500 meters away (550 yards). It makes use of it's keen eyesight as it's primary defense mecanism. This means that our only real option it to use a bakkie (pick-up) to slowly drive as close to the Gemsbok or springbok as possible. This takes very good skill in itself, navigating over sand dunes and driving very slowly, yet not so slow as to get stuck in the sand. On most occasions you can get as close as 250 yards to the gemsbok and springbok with the pick-up. From there you have the option to get down from the truck and belly-crawl another 50 yards or so, so that you have a shot that's under 200 yards. On other occasions when a considerable amount of hunting took place on a farm, you'll be lucky if you can get within 350 yards of them. I have probably shot over a hundred sprinbok and 40 odd Gemsbok in my lifetime. I'm 25 years old. Of those 150 animals or so. 30 percent was beyond the 350 yard mark up to 450 yards in some cases. Because their is no cover, not for the hunter and not for the animals, I do have the luxury of taking only head shots at those extreme distances. If I end up with a jaw-shot animal I can always get in the pick-up and chase the animal down, because there is no hiding place I know it cannot get away from me. But this option is for last resort only. I make use of 2 calibers for hunting long distances in the kalahari. a .270 with 130gr bullets for springbok, and a .300WM with 180gr bullets for Gemsbok. With this setup these two rifles have almost identical ballistic data. My rifles are also zeroed at 250 yards. For more than 10 years now, this is the way I've learned to hunt in the Kalahari. Some might not call it true hunting, but those that know the desert, knows better.

Welcome aboard.

That's an intresting post. I don't suppose you have some photo's of the desert do you? If it's all sand, what do the animals eat?

Luckily most of the year it's not just all sand.
I suggest using Google Images and Keyword: "Kalahari". You will get a better idea what the Kalahari looks like from more than just 1 or 2 pics that I'll be able to post. As far as vegetation goes. The Kalahari is for about 10 months of the year fairly covered in short dry shrubs and grass. There's also the odd Kameeldoring tree (Camel Thorn - Acacia erioloba) The average rainfall is 200 - 250 mm per year. Mostly these rains falls during December, January en February. Which is middle summer. It's also the hottest time of the year with average temperatures beyond the 40 degree celcius mark. It's only for June and July (Hunting season) when the Kalahari really becomes a dry arid place and most of the grass cover from the dunes are gone. There's still some vegetation for the animals. The Gemsbok and sprinkbok are perfectly adjusted to the dry landscape and they need little to survive the cold winter months where temperatures at night is below freezing point. The Kalahari also differs vastly from the Southern Kalahari in South Africa and Namibia to the Central and Northern Kalahari in Botswana. I'm speaking mostly about the Southern Kalahari in South Africa which has far less vegetation than Central and Nothern Kalahari which is more of a thirst land than a desert.