BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[Don Fischer]

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. :oops:

[91xlt]

I did not take any offense, I just figure you STRONGLY do not agree with a shot of that distance. To each there own. :thumbsup1:

[Don Fischer]

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.

[KalahariHunter]

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.

[Don Fischer]

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?

[KalahariHunter]

Don Fischer wrote: 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.

[osagejake]

Getting close is what its all about. Also, just because your rifle and cartridge state that it can each out to a certain distance, doesn't mean that YOU can.

Especially on a larger bodied animal such as an elk, it is quite frankly unethical
to try 500 yard shots. Most shooters,(even a majority of those that claim they can shoot that far) cannot effectively hit a target at that range. Combined with the lost velocity, what you end up with is a much greater chance of only wounding a animal and never recovering it.

Also, it has been my experience that quite a few of the people who claim to have shot an animal at 350 yards or 400 yards, are misguaging the actual distance.
in the wild with uneven terrain or especially all flat terrain, a 200 yard shot might seem like twice that to the naked eye.

[Don Fischer]

osagejake welcome aborad. I don't know how many sites you watch but this is one sore subject and nobody wins. I happen to agree with you. Fortunatelly on this site some of the stuff that goes on reguarding this subject is not tolerated.

[Dahlo]

Another opinion: Hunting buffalo in Arnhem Land requires long distance shooting. When the buff are milling around in the middle of a flood plain and there is not so much as a shrub or tussock within kilometres, you better be able to hit a paper plate at 400 yds. The buff will be gone as fast as you can say: "Gee, would you look at that" if you try to stalk them any closer.

As it is you can spend four or five hours inching closer, fully ghillied up, sweating, bleeding and cursing (softly, of course) just to get that close. If the flood plain happens to be underwater (see below) then you have the hungry lizards to add to the equation.

My T3 300 win mag is zeroed to 300 metres specificaly for hunting under these conditions. Let it be said that I will not squeeze off a shot if I am not 95% certain of a kill. To that end, shoulder and chest shots are usually the order of the day but if the occassional headshot offers itself who am I to knock it back.

[CVC]

This month's American Hunter has a couple of articles on long range hunting. They highlight some schools that focus on teaching long range hunting skills.

[Don Fischer]

That looks like a water buffalo? One huge problem for me with that is being able to deliver sufficient energy and penetration at those ranges for the really tuff animals. And how do you set up shooting in a flood plain for 400 yds (less than 400 meters)? Surely you don't lay down in the lake? Maybe the 300 Ultra mag will deliver enough energy and I suppose that something on the order of a TSX would be needed in a bullet?

By the way Dehlo, welcome to the site. I cannot imagine hunting in those conditions. But then I'm getting old too!

[Dahlo]

Thanks Don.

Yep, water buff it is.

Don't get me wrong, there are other hunting environments around here.

Metres and yards pretty close. 400m = 437.4yds. Allowing an Australian's penchant for exaggeration, it's quite possible I suppose that a paper plate at 300 yds would be a fairer statement. Got kinda carried away there...

After jumping off the boat at a break in the mangroves, find a stock trail and follow it (hopefully) in the general direction of the plains. The thorny, catchy vine clutches at everything. Bare skin can actually help here as the thorns will actually slide-off better. Thongs (flip flops to the rest of you poor uneducated, not bloody g-strings) come in to their own here. I'm not advocating Genesis-naked Adamry here but sometimes less is more, y'know? It's not particularly dense, but annoying.

When you come to the edge of the plain there will be small islands of stunted trees. With care one can work along these untill a small herd of buffalo is seen. Water buff once teemed up here, but the BTEC disease eradication program eliminated 95% back in the 80's & 90's. O the rise again now though. Once spotted, I believe they have sixth sense. Many hunters of other species probably agree with me. Even downwind, when stared at, they seem skittish and prone to flight.

When as close as can be achieved geographically, you have to choose a tree fork as a steady for a sitting shot, or go prone (my fave). When flooded the ol' tree fork gets the nod every time. Hence the shorts again, which dry rapidly and don't impede walking when wet. Synthetic stocks are the go here because the benches really don't go light on the finish.

Experience tells me that zeroed at 300, what I consider to be a four hundred metre shot will incur gravity's wrath to the tune of a foot or so. When squeezing the shot I let about half of my air out and wait till the cross hairs align with my chosen point. This where I stop exhaling. When I am convinced I have the shot I take it, if not, back to basics (and breathing).

I use Remington's 180 gr Core-Lokt through my 300 win mag T3 (24" barrel), which supposedly produces 1751 ft/lbs of energy at 400 yds. It has never given me reason to doubt it or go in search of other ammo. The controlled expansion really helps penetration. And I'm really only happy with a one shot kill. If I have to chase a wounded animal I have lost, according to how I was taught at my father's knee.

Simple as that really. Just a bonus to a great camping/fishing/hunting weekend. :thumbsup1:

[Don Fischer]

Ok, one more question. What does that mean in your signature?

[Dahlo]

It's a quote mostly attributed to Lucius Accius, Roman tragic poet (170 BC). It was a favourite saying of third Roman Emperor, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known as Caligula.

"Let them hate, so long as they fear."

[ChesterGolf]

Dahlo wrote: It's a quote mostly attributed to Lucius Accius, Roman tragic poet (170 BC). It was a favourite saying of third Roman Emperor, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, better known as Caligula.

"Let them hate, so long as they fear."

I like the translation.... very cool signature.