[wasserdogg]

I'm curious as to what shooter's think when it comes to taking a long range shot on an animal. In this video on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL8crbvPrzQ

John Porter is shown shooting an Alaskan Moose at 890 yards using a Gunwerks LR-1000, with a huskemaw scope that features windage compensation technology, and for a load - berger 180 grain VLDs.

If a person has the technology to make a shot like this, should he take it?

Thanks,

Brandon

 

[wildhobbybobby]

This subject is a great one for starting a heated argument. My answer is that if you are attempting such shots on big game animals, you are accepting the fact that you are going to wound and lose a pretty high percentage of the animals you shoot at. Yes, these shots are possible, and yes, a person with the knowledge, training, equipment and experience can do this, MOST OF THE TIME. NOT ALL OF THE TIME.

Adjusting the scope to the proper elevation for the range is the easy part. If you have a laser rangefinder and have your trajectory doped, you will be very close for elevation. That's not the biggest problem.

There is absolutely no way under field conditions to determine EXACTLY what the wind is doing between you and that moose a half mile away. It could be blowing in 6 different directions at 6 different speeds between you and the moose. That can throw your shot off by several FEET at such ranges.

Also, that moose had time enough to take a step forward between the time the trigger was squeezed and the moment the bullet struck. That would put the bullet in his guts even if you did read the wind correctly.

Is a moose just a thing to shoot at, or is it a living, breathing, sentient being, with a strong instinct to live and a capacity for great suffering? And do we owe it any respect when the crosshair settles on its shoulder?

So the questions boils down to this, "are you willing to wound and maim, lose and waste, a certain percentage of the animals you attempt to take? Personally, I want my percentage of success to be 100, all of the time...but I'm not perfect. The farthest I would shoot at that moose would have been about 400 yards, IF everything looked perfect.

I would like to see the videos that show the bad shots...the ones where the moose runs off after the shot. Do our video heroes walk 890 yards and spend half a day looking for him, or do they head on to the next victim?

Am I in favor of outlawing such shots? No, every person should be free to make a moral choice. Do I think it is a wrong moral choice? Yup, that's why I wouldn't do it.

 

[wasserdogg]

Alaskan Moose Kill at 890 yards!

Has anyone seen this video footage seen on Outdoor Channel? John Porter smokes a moose at 890 yards with a huskemaw scope setup on his rifle! They use windage hold markers to help them compensate for wind, and therefore make ethical, accurate long range kills. Check this shot out!

 

[Rubberduck]

I prefer to make my shots a little closer than that BUT what I do what to put out there is I wish Nikon or Bushnell would look into the turrets that the Huskemaw scope uses. If they would offer this all you would have to do is chrono your gun and round then order the proper turret from the scope manufacturer and BOOM a BDC that is pretty darn accurate. Thats just my 2 cents on the matter though.

 

[Rocky Raab]

Ethical? Not in my book. Unless he left it to rot, he's going to walk that 890 yards anyway. Why not do the walking before the shooting?

This is stunt shooting and no better.

 

[Helix]

MMM don't think so. Look close. you can see the contrail of the round's path in the air above the moose and also the impact high and left several yards away near the base of the largest tree behind the moose. I would bet there was another shooter conceiled in the trees that actually made the kill shot unless this bullet did some JFK style juking as it went through the moose. I'm not making an argument as to whether or not it is ethical to take any 890 yard shot. Just saying this one looks contrived. Also the animals body is almost completely conceiled by a tree! I don't care if it is 890 yards or 10 yards that is not kosher. Way past the line of ethical on that grounds very likely to result in a wounded animal that runs away. There are lots of videos online of legit longrange hunting shots but I call BS on this one.

 

[hillestadj]

Agree with Rocky 1000%.

 

[cole k]

Ethical? Not in my book either. I wounder if they found it. I didn't see it go down. It look to me that it went behind the trees.

 

[hillestadj]

We've beaten this subject into the ground many times already.

I'll try to summarize my feelings in a couple sentences.
Is it ethical? NO
Is it possible if you put in the time at the range, time with you're ballistic charts, and multiple thousands of dollars? YES
Is it hunting? NO, its shooting and people are free to go ahead and do as they please but call it was it is.

Basically shots like this show an amazing amount of talent (or luck), but they also show an amazing lack of ethics or real hunting skill.

 

[AVIVIII]

It went down, I saw feet in the air.

I'm with Rocky, there is nothing ethical there at all.

 

[broom_jm]

This is my impressed look --->

Repeat after me: "Hunting and shooting are two different things."

 

[UnCruel]

you can see the contrail of the round's path in the air above the moose ...

The specific caliber and load wasn't mentioned, but an 890 yard shot probably involves more than 20 feet of drop. From the point of view of the shooter and camera, the bullet's trajectory will seem quite high.

I don't think I want to debate ethics either, but I also don't think it is right to assume that the decision to shoot is careless because it takes place at distances that most shooters can't fathom. There are hunters, my gunsmith among them, who specialize in long range hunting. This involves precision weapons and a great deal of time learning to shoot at those distances. There are many such hunters who can confidently take 890 shots.

Edit: Oh, I see this is spam. I'll just assume wasserdogg works for Huskemaw. I never heard of them before, but now I know not to buy from them.

 

[kdub]

As hillestad says, this subject has been beaten to death so often on this board that its a wonder it still gets brought up. Do an Archives search and see the thousands of comments on this subject previously posted.

 

[Helix]

Yes I understand that the trajectory would seem high at this range but the contrail apears to end at the point I indicated at the base of the tree behind and left of the animal. and it apeared that the bullet impact there was also visible as a small puff of dirt spray. if this same round had hit the animal it would have indicated a radical Z shaped trajectory not impossible but unlikely. my guess is either the impact seen was from a clean miss and the animal was shot by a second conceiled shooter or the impact seen may have been that of the kill shot taken by the second shooter and the impact of the round fired near the camera may have been into the ground some place near by.

if this was produced for a commercial purpose it would add to my suspision that this was contrived and therefore BOGUS. if you want to see real long range hunting shots search youtube for defensive Edge or night force optics. There are lots of vids that bear scrutiny. and no I don't work for either of those companies

 

[broom_jm]

Furthermore, Wasserdog, double-posting and promoting a specific product are both frowned on by the forum moderators. Please feel free to contribute, but refrain from pitching a particular scope, in doing so.

 

[MikeG]

I merged the threads. Please don't double post, and like Ken said, if you really think you have something new to add to the discussion (argument), please go back and read all of the 14,000 other heated exchanges on the subject, before repeating something.

 

[MikeG]

Decided, after cleaning up 4 different threads, that this was thinly veiled advertising. Original poster banned for 7 days.