I talked to a guy once that claimed his brother (who was a sniper in the military) could drop game at around 1 mile. That is 1760 yards and my jaw dropped, never heard of people taking such shots and frankly didn't believe him. Guess that there are other people who do it too.

I once sighted in on elk (from a sitting postion) at or around 1000 yards with a 6x scope. Elk was standing broadside, looking around on the side of a hill. I pulled off, because it quickly became apparent (from the bobbing cross hairs) that I had no business even thinking about the shot.

There really isn't an imaginary line out there that one can say or tell somebody else "that's too far". Depends on their training, depends on their gun, depends on luck. But like you say 99% of us still shouldn't be taking those shots.

I dropped a mule deer at 500 yards once and that was as far as I ever want to go again. The biggest thrill, to me, of the hunt is the stalk, so I like to get closer. Has the added benefit of dramatically improving your odds of downing the game, lowering the odds of spending way too much time tracking, and the guilt of leaving one to bleed out holed up somewhere to be found by scavenger.

I think there should be two questions asked of anyone considering such an unethical practice.
1. What is the greatest distance at which you can hit the vitals of your target everytime, and still be certain of a vital hit if the animal moves before bullet impact.
2. What is the greatest distance at which you can invaribly, every single time, find the exact spot the animal was standing when shot, in the very likely event trailing a wounded animal is neccessary.

Good point, Darkhorse on the finding the exact spot and it is not just trailing, it is recovering downed game too. I have spent hours sometimes trying to locate game that was clearly down and dead. It is easy to confuse one patch of brush with another just 20 feet away that you were for certain was where it went down, even if you were just 200 yards away when you shot it.

In these cases it really helps to have a hunting partner to stay put and watch the down point, then flag you into it as you approach.

I'm sure the problem of locating down game is greatly amplified at the distance discussed here.

Ok, darkhorse has brought up some good points but here is the biggest question I have in my mind. Even if you can hit a coke can 8 out of 10 times you shoot at it do you have enough energy in the bullet to cleanly kill an animal? If the answer is no then it is WRONG to shoot at animals that far away. Even at 2000 yds you still have to be concerned about what they bullet is going to do on bone and muscle. Especially on an elk.

I don't have any tables that go out 2000 yds but my guess there isn't a whole lot of rifles that can throw a heavy, quality bullet out there with 1700 ft-lbs to kill a big bull elk.

[ This Message was edited by: rather_be_huntin on 2003-09-22 14:59 ]

Just to follow up, the sniper was going after caribou not elk. Never heard of such a thing on elk.

On one of the threads a guy mentions his rig (a modified 300 RUM) has 1123 ft*lb at 1500 yards with a 240 grain bullet (1451 fps)....

I can’t even see an Elk @ 2000 yards.
My longest shot – 650 yards on a standing bull in a meadow – No wind -- I used a log with my pack for cushion for a rest. He jerked at impact ran about four strides and fell over. He had stopped breathing when I arrived at his side.
The rifle was a 300 WIN Mag (26 inch barrel) -- 180 grain bullet.
I would take that shot every time!! ( I practice at least 3 times a month at my local range)

To Dark Horse

Ethical. Saying shooting at an elk at long range is unethical has no bearing on this...Is it ethical to shoot bears over a bait...Is it ethical to shoot animals, period. Especially in this day and age of 'meat packing' plants, No Way...I'm not PETA, but when you talk about being ethical about shooting at long range, that steams me!

Heck, most hunters can't even hit what they are shooting at under a 100 yards. Most of the time they are shooting at the south bound end of a northbound elk, leaving for parts unknown.

To be ethical, it would be better to stay home and knit socks!

My ethics on this issue: anything that makes it probable that a game animal will be wounded is unethical. For MOST people that includes long-range shots. On the other hand SOME people (especially snipers)can and routinely do make astronomical range shots. For someone like that - it's not an issue.

As for the bullet energy, I have no experience with elk, but I can name dozens of "old-timers" back home who succesfully hunt moose with 30/30's on a regular basis. So while energy is important, it's not everything either.

HOWEVER...

Anything that increases the chance of an edible game animal being unrecovered, or the meat left to rot is unethical to me. It's the reason that I don't hunt bear because I haven't been able to try bear meat and don't want to end up wasting the meat.

The point which makes this questionable ethics (unless the animal drops in it's tracks) if it runs can you find at such long range it even if it was a clean kill?

If you can't, (and under 99% of hunting conditions you probably won't) it's unethical in my opinion.

[ This Message was edited by: on 2003-09-26 10:29 ]

Quote:

On 2003-09-26 09:55, Beef Jerky wrote:

Ethical. Saying shooting at an elk at long range is unethical has no bearing on this...Is it ethical to shoot bears over a bait...Is it ethical to shoot animals, period.

Sorry but I think thats what these forums are all about is discussing these topics. And yes what is and is not ethical is very appropriate to discuss. True we will not all agree on what is ethical but the discussion itself is one worth having. The hows and whys of ethics is very worthwhile.

When I was young I was taught to limit my shots to certain ranges but it wasn't until I was older I learned why. It is apparent some people have not learned that lesson and sharing knowledge may help them and it may not. But at least they are informed and if they still choose to be "reckless" well thats thier choice.

Each one of the topics you listed above could be its own thread. If we all agree its ethical to shoot at an animal its not worth discussing but at what range is obviously debatable and hopefully some of us will take something useful out of the topic. I've learned a lot from these forums and I've gained some ethics I didn't have before.

Long range shooting.

Huuumm. I was just thinking about the other day at the range, when this young hunter was sighting in his rifle....At 100 yards, from a bench....he was lucky to hit a 2' X 3' target....

He said he sighted in his rifle 5 years ago and wanted to be sure it was still 'zeroed'.

My experience with most of my past hunting companions, is this is the rule, rather than the exception.

So personally, I don't think a long shot is unethical, if one reasonably practices under field conditions, gets as close as possible, and decides he has a good change at making the shot.

Of course, Mr. Murphy might show up, then you have to ask yourself, "Why did I do that?" (take the shot). On elk, that is when the heavy caliber magnums, with heavy bullets, work better than the little .270 Win. ever could think of.