775yd moose

[RetiredUSNChief]

Is it un-ethical to take a shot at that distance if you know your skill is up to it?

I think the key to the answer here is the last part of your question: "...if you know your skill is up to it".

There are plenty of people out there whose skill isn't up to taking game close enough to wack with a stick, let along any appreciable distance.

If it's within one's skill set, then "ethics" doesn't come into it. It either is or it is not.


"But what if he only injured the animal?"

Good question. What if a person hunting deer in the brush less than 100 yards away only injure the deer? They track it, that's what. It's part of being a responsible hunter.

Same thing applies here. Track the animal. And it's quite clear the Moose was in country where tracking it would have been easily enough done, given both the size of the animal and the terrain.

I would not attempt to take any game at the extreme distance this guy did. If it's not within the range that I sight my firearm in at, and can at least consistently hit with decent groupings with, then I'm simply not taking the shot. It's that simple.

And with that in mind, anybody who would gainsay my taking of any shot is simply imposing their own biased beliefs on my hunting without regards to reality.


This brings me no concerns with respect to ethics.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It could be argued that killing anything that dosent want to be dead (edit: outside of a defensive situation...and even then folks still argue it) is unethical......
Guy made the choice to do what he did, everybody has a choice.....just my opinion.

Indeed...and a good point. I seriously doubt there are many animals out there that "want to be dead".

"Ethics" and "morals" are purely human concepts about which our cousins in the animal kingdom knows nothing about and isn't capable of understanding. It's quite evident that the killing of prey takes place all the time in the animal kingdom, even so. And some prey does manage to escape predators after taking sometimes serious injury.

So humans are not alone in this, either from the killing of prey or the injury and potential escaping of said prey. We, however, are different in that we have the capability to impose a moral and ethical code on our behavior with respect to the taking of prey.

This guy made a choice, as you said. And apparently it worked out, so there's that!

 

[Captcurt]

I cringe when I see things like this. Sure, there are people that can pull this off, but when you are talking about an animal that is nearly a half mile away, things can go wrong very quickly. A gust of wind or the animal taking a step can change the outcome. I like to shoot at longer distances, but what I can do off of a bench at 500 yards on paper isn't the same as a shot at that distance when shooting from a improvised rest at an animal that bleeds. I have more respect for the game than that.

 

[H&Hhunter]

With an accurate range finder and good dope on a windless day like in that situation, with 4 different rifles I’ve got worked up right now and the glass and dope I’ve got on them I can make that shot with extremely high probability all day long.

This is not about taking a pot shot at unknown range with an average hunting rifle. This is about precision long range shooting with the right equipment and proper training. It is a mistake to transpose your skill level, experience, and perceptions onto this hunter. There are a lot of hunters out there who can easily make this shot and there are a lot of rifles and scopes that make this a fairly simple task with the right shooter behind them.

BTW did any of you notice that he was able to estimate the spread of the horns using MOA? That man has done some precision long range work in his life, he speaks the lingo and his shooting backs it up. There was no luck involved.

I say if the hunter is competent and knows his business there is absolutely no issue with that shot.

 

[.38 Special]

My issue is that all the animal has to do is take a step, during that second or so when the bullet is in flight, and now your hit is a couple of feet from where you meant it - regardless of one's skill as a rifleman.

 

[Roverguy]

It would absolutely be unethical for me. I cannot shoot well enough to make the shot. Seems like the fellow in question could.

Like folks losing money on a stock, we rarely hear about the wounding shot at long distance.

 

[Ru4real]

Hunters kill things. He followed his gut, and made a clean kill. We can play what if's all day. If you have issue with the kill I’d offer you should examine your practices, not his.

I killed my 2022 elk, archery, on Saturday, two days ago. The first shot at 15 yards broke a front shoulder and failed to enter the chest because elk stepped as I released. Elk jumped at second shot at 88 yards and right Achilles was severed, arrow flight time about a second, the bow sound got there in about a quarter of a second. Two good legs left. Hot pursuit. The third shot was at 20 yards as elk was getting up, a good double lunger that ended it.

So whose kill, mine or his moose, was more “ethical” (not even a thing in hunting, was made up by anti’s and some hunters foolishly took the bait)

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Interesting question. Given I don't shoot nearly that far, I feel unqualified to comment on taking such a shot.

But I will say, whilst in the lower 48 there are places animals can easily be stalked inside of 100 yards, I'm not confident that's always true in Alaska.

Actually, that's a loooooong shot up here-especially for a moose which a typically found in muskeg marsh/heavy brush. Caribou, on open tundra, usually provide 200-500 yrd shots, but I've never heard of anyone taking a moose past 200.

 

[jmr40]

My issue is that all the animal has to do is take a step, during that second or so when the bullet is in flight,

That can happen on shots under 100 yards too. Bullets sometimes hit unseen brush between the hunter and game causing a bullet to deflect and miss or wound. In fact, I'd argue that those things happen more often under 50 yards than over 500. MOST of the guys who attempt those long shots are dedicated to what they do, have practiced a lot and won't take a questionable shot. The guys who never shoot over 50-100 yards often don't put in the time to be good. They assume they don't need to practice as much and are more likely to take a questionable shot.

that's sniping, not hunting.

Where do you draw the line? The average range of a police sniper's a shot is 40 yards. Longer shots present themselves in the military, but many of those shots are closer to 100 yards. An archer sitting in a blind or tree stand taking a shot at 25 yards is a sniper too. There are probably far more hunters skilled enough to make a 500 yard shot than are capable of stalking on the ground to within archery range of a big game animal. To me that is hunting.

I still say it comes down to the skill level and the tools of the individual. And FWIW, I wouldn't take that shot. I know I don't have the skills or tools to consistently hit much over 300 yards. And I'm not skilled enough to stalk within 20 yards of big game either. All of my deer/bear/turkey I've killed were sniped as they came to me while I waited in ambush. At ranges between 10 yards and 200+.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

My issue is that all the animal has to do is take a step, during that second or so when the bullet is in flight, and now your hit is a couple of feet from where you meant it - regardless of one's skill as a rifleman.

That's absolutely no different than an animal bolting just when you're about to take a shot under 100 yards. The unpredicability of animal movement can spoil any shot, regardless of range. Period.

It's already been pointed out that the bullet flight time is around one second at that range. And, given the speed of sound is less than the speed of the bullet itself, there wouldn't be any warning from the gunshot noise, either.

A hunter tracking his prey and observing its behavioral movements will take all this into account.

 

[FL-NC]

The shooter made it happen, It was a challenging shot and he was up to it. He didn't break the law doing it. It can also be argued that the last buck I dropped with 6.5 CM was "unethical" at about 50 yards, since "that deer didn't have a chance". I AM capable of getting good hits much further, BTW. Archery hunters obviously shoot much closer most of the time, and they still wound/lose animals, at higher rate than gun hunters. So do rifle hunters in many cases, for various reasons. Some of the groups I have seen hunters produce at 100 yards with decent rifle setups at the range from the bench are very disturbing. There are infinite "what-ifs" present in any shot. An individual's confusing his/her abilities with someone else's is fundamentally flawed. I have been known to hunt deer and hogs with 223/5.56, and I have been flamed for it. The fact that I have never lost one is lost on these "flamers". I have lost 2 wounded deer in my life- 1 at about 15 meters with a 308 SP, and one at the same distance with a 300+ FPS broadhead from a crossbow. Obviously, I "shouldn't have taken these shots, because they were unsuccessful", right? Failure is failure, and every shot is a gamble.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I’m sure some of you remember me speaking out against the new long range hunting fad. Let me clarify, I have no issue with the hunter who goes out and gets the right equipment AND trains with it and becomes proficient with that equipment. The hunter who spends lots of time at the range and lots of time in the field practicing and learning what their limitations are.

The fad long range hunter I have a problem with is the guy who goes to the Long Range store buys a rifle and a scope slaps a dial on it and thinks that gives them the capability to shoot game out to 1500 yards with no training or practice because the dial goes to 1500 yards right?

The guy in the video has my respect and IMO is far more ethical and of the right mind set than the hunter who has used the same box of bullets for the last 10 years. Who assumes their rifle is still zeroed (if it ever truly was) year after year, who’s too lazy or cheap to go to the range and practice. The hunter who buys a cheap and unreliable scope shoots a couple of times at a beer can at 50 yards and proclaims his rifle a “tack driver”. Or the hunter who thinks their rifle is zeroed because the guy at the gun store bore sighted it for them. When hunting season comes along they take that rifle out of the closet assuming it’s good to go with no verification, and goes hunting. And in the hard woods of the South or the Midwest it usually works out for them as the ranges are short. When they come out west where longer range shooting is required I’ve seen it go very bad on multiple occasions.

long range shooting is a discipline, it takes time, practice, money, skill and understanding of the math and variables involved. You don’t just pull a rifle out of the closet once a year a pop a round at a deer and call it good. It’s a full time endeavor and commitment to the skill set and it requires some high priced gear to be successful.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I suspect that is generally illegal and certainly unethical. I know that in Alaska you can't hunt on the same day as you fly.

Let me ask you this, how can you otherwise scout for hunting areas and game without the use of an airplane in the back country of AK? And he very clearly did not fly and hunt in the same day.

 

[Laphroaig]

Let me ask you this, how can you otherwise scout for hunting areas and game without the use of an airplane in the back country of AK? And he very clearly did not fly and hunt in the same day.

That was kind of a knee jerk reaction. He didn't do anything illegal so it's ethical in the eyes of the officials. If I owned an airplane, I'd probably do the same thing.

Other than I might have looked for a smaller bull if I was hoping to enjoy the meat. I bet that old bugger he shot was tough as nails. You'd probably have to cut the gravy with a knife.

 

[FL-NC]

the hunter who goes out and gets the right equipment AND trains with it and becomes proficient with that equipment.

The same can be said of any hunter in any environment, regardless of what equipment he/she is using. I have plenty of stories of hunters who have gut-shot deer at ranges less than 100 yards, leading to a messy recovery or no recovery at all. While shorter distances (less than 100 yards) offer more room for error, and in my opinion are almost always the case in most hunting scenarios, people still manage to blow it. I was hunting with several other Veterans last year at an event put on by the state. What is significant about the fact that everyone was a Veteran is that all were trained in at least the basics of marksmanship, and all rifles were test fired and zeroed on day 1. Many deer were missed, and several were lost. Way too many shots on recovered deer were poorly placed, and in some cases a dog was used to find the deer- a LONG way from where it was gut shot.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Soooo..."ethics" or "morals"?

They are very closely related and many use them interchangeably because of this.


Morals are the principles that an individual's judgements of right and wrong are based upon.

Ethics are the principles of right conduct held within a group.

Morals are more abstract than ethics. They are subjective and generally based on personal or religious beliefs.

Ethics are more practical. They are a shared set of principles which promote fairness in social and business settings.

When we talk about "ethics", therefore, we are generally talking about some form of objective standards of behavior held within some form of community.


Many people here are imposing standards of behavior to this scenario which, quite frankly, are non-existent and not applicable.

There is no accepted, or published, set of ethic standards in hunting which says "long range shots are unethical". There are a lot of informal (meaning "not codified") standards of hunting, such as only take what you can use, kills should be clean wherever possible, etc. What constitutes "ethical" in hunting? Some would say the use of firearms at all would be unethical. Some would say bow hunting is "more ethical". Others would say any ranged weapon would be unethical. We could come up with all kinds of definitions and examples of what is and is not ethical in hunting. "Ethics" is a concept centered around "fairness" within a group. What constitutes "fair" in a hunt?

Yes, I know there are some forms of a code of ethics for hunters. But they generally revolve around showing respect for others, showing respect for wildlife and the ecosystem, knowing and following the laws and regulations on hunting, etc. But these are very general and have little to do with the actual conduct of a hunt beyond "don't injure people, don't torture animals, and follow the laws".

What we have going on are a lot of invidual beliefs on the subject of how a hunt should and should not take place. And this falls more under the "moral" aspect with this particular example. And moral aspects are based on individual principles which guide the choices an individual makes.

A choice can be both an ethical and a moral one. Or it can be one and not the other. Additionally, it can be legal or illegal...which doesn't have to have any grounding at all in a "moral" or "ethical" basis.

This hunter made a very moral choice...a personal choice of right or wrong, based upon his capabilities. It was ethical in that he came away from it with a clean kill. Seems like pretty legit decision to me.

 

[.38 Special]

If the argument is that a skilled rifleman taking an 800 yard shot is more ethical than a slob hunter taking a 100 yard shot, I'm inclined to agree. The existence of slob hunters, though, does nothing to temper the fact that the 800 yard shot contains a very large element of pure luck.

 

[Aletheia]

And the more luck is involved in the success of a given shot, the less moral or ethical was the release of that shot. No one should send a bullet down range if you're counting on luck to keep an animal from suffering. Anyone who has shot lots of long range practice would know full well that luck is important. At a range, on an unmoving target, with wind flags, and lots of time to "dope" it all, luck is still essential to get the very best outcome possible. In a real hunting situation, the roll of luck gets way too high for anyone to say what the level of certainty really is.

 

[BreechFace]

does nothing to temper the fact that the 800 yard shot contains a very large element of pure luck.

With all due respect, I have to disagree. An 800 yard shot in a 10” kill zone on a large moose with a skilled marksman and good equipment doesn’t require luck to be involved.

Just because I don’t have the skills doesn’t mean others do not as well.

I guess Magic Johnson shooting 93% free throws in a season has a “large element of pure luck” as well?

 

[d2wing]

Very impressive. The way it was filmed makes me think it was some sort of stunt. I don't know.

 

[1KPerDay]

Hell of a shot. He and his rifle were up to the task. That’s a monster.

I personally don't have any more issues with this particular shot or situation than I do with people in the south/east hunting deer from stands or even using feeders. If it’s a clean kill and it’s legal, go for it. I have like 7 deer living in/ruining my yard and I wish our town would issue permits.

 

[.38 Special]

With all due respect, I have to disagree. An 800 yard shot in a 10” kill zone on a large moose with a skilled marksman and good equipment doesn’t require luck to be involved.

Just because I don’t have the skills doesn’t mean others do not as well.

I guess Magic Johnson shooting 93% free throws in a season has a “large element of pure luck” as well?

Time of flight...

 

[H&Hhunter]

Time of flight...

Time of flight at 775 with a .338 RUM at about 3100 FPS is about .750 seconds. I’m not seeing that as a huge risk. A calculated, practiced and premeditated 775 yard shot has nothing to do with luck. If this bothers you’ll lose your mind on the long range hunting stuff on the Gunwerks or Best of the West videos. 775 is a chip shot for those dudes.

Now if we want argue if he could have gotten closer, maybe, maybe not. I know I would have tried to get closer. But I won’t place my skills and limitations on another if they are good at what they do.

Regarding Laphoraigs post above, the guy is a selective trophy moose hunter. He’s looking for a huge trophy moose, and through discipline, good shooting, study, scouting, bush flying skills, ability to read and understand weather forecasts and having the discipline to hold off on shooting smaller bulls he was able to achieve his goal. I find guys who are successful solo trophy hunters to be a hard working, hard core group of hunters.

If a giant bull is what trips your trigger and you’ve got the skill and discipline to make it happen I say more power to you! Hunters need to be more supportive of each other.

 

[BreechFace]

@H&Hhunter exactly.

came here to say the same thing 338 RUM at 3,100 fps calculates to .75 second flight time. Inconsequential.

 

[.38 Special]

Looks to me that, accounting for deceleration over the course of 800 yards, we're close to a full second for TOF. That, in a chaotic universe, is not inconsequential, at least in my book.

I don't doubt the fellow's abilities, but all that skill and discipline is still helpless in the time between the trigger pull and the bullet impacting flesh.

At any rate, I'm just repeating myself at this point, so...