Guns, Ammo and the Target down range

[357smallbore]

I can admit my rifle skills as a hunter are limited to no more then 300 maybe 325 yrds
My revolver, pistol skills are no further than 50 yrds accurately.
Now I love to attempt the long shot quite a bit for fun. But serious shooting I know my limits. I'll pull the ole 06 or 243 out and shoot at that 600 yard Deer, Elk target. If I had hit a real animal, I'd be an unethical hunter.
Or I'll pull out my 44 , 357 mag and blast a 100 yrd bad guy or deer target. Kinda the same as the rife. Unethical

 

[Swede]

We were out your way a couple years ago with the Sharps shooting into a dirt hill so so we could see where the bullet landed. It was a ways out there, I could count to 3 before the dust cloud were the bullet hit.
But I agree, shooting at an animal at even half that distance is not hunting or ethical.

 

[CDW4ME]

When I hunted, furthest shot I took on a deer was about 100 yards with scoped, rested rifle at stationary broadside deer.
I managed to kill a couple dozen with a bow inside 20 yards, much more of a challenge to get a deer inside 20 yards.

 

[Archie]

I can admit my rifle skills as a hunter are limited to no more then 300 maybe 325 yrds
My revolver, pistol skills are no further than 50 yrds accurately.
Now I love to attempt the long shot quite a bit for fun. But serious shooting I know my limits. I'll pull the ole 06 or 243 out and shoot at that 600 yard Deer, Elk target. If I had hit a real animal, I'd be an unethical hunter.
Or I'll pull out my 44 , 357 mag and blast a 100 yrd bad guy or deer target. Kinda the same as the rife. Unethical

Shooting a rifle under hunting conditions well at 300 to 350 yards is quite satisfactory. Same with shooting a handgun at 50 yards. If your skills are 'limited' to those ranges you have a longer limit than many.

I do not think I understand the rest. At 600 yards, are you just firing a shot just in the vicinity of a game animal or do you expect to hit it properly? The just lobbing shot strikes me as unethical, expecting results do not (unless you're kidding yourself). Why is it more unethical to miss at 600 yards than hit by blind dumb luck? I do not see why that should be so.

 

[jmr40]

Everyone has to know their limits. If you have the skills and gear to be confident in taking a shot at game it isn't unethical regardless of range. If you're taking shots farther than you have the skills or gear to do it, then it is unethical. Some guys shouldn't be shooting at 50 yards. Others can make a 500 yard shot look easy.

I'm fairly confident that there are far more game animals wounded and not recovered with shots closer to 50 yards than 500. Partly because there are more shots taken at 50. And partly because very few people will try the 500 yard shot unless they know they have the skills to make it. Almost no one would be honest enough to admit they don't have the skills to take a 50 yard shot.

As far as self defense is concerned; if you're truly in a SD situation and are able to hit the bad guy, he is able to hit you. Range is irrelevant.

 

[Old Hat]

I

Shooting a rifle under hunting conditions well at 300 to 350 yards is quite satisfactory. Same with shooting a handgun at 50 yards. If your skills are 'limited' to those ranges you have a longer limit than many.

I do not think I understand the rest. At 600 yards, are you just firing a shot just in the vicinity of a game animal or do you expect to hit it properly? The just lobbing shot strikes me as unethical, expecting results do not (unless you're kidding yourself). Why is it more unethical to miss at 600 yards than hit by blind dumb luck? I do not see why that should be so.

I think he may be insinuating that he could hit, but not a killing hit, or that killing hits would be inconsistent at best, resulting in wounding?

 

[Howland937]

I think he may be insinuating that he could hit, but not a killing hit, or that killing hits would be inconsistent at best, resulting in wounding?

I was under the impression he was talking about the deer/elk targets at 600 yards (at the range) since he specifies

If I had hit a real animal, I'd be an unethical hunter.

 

[Old Hat]

Yes that’s what it sounds like. That’s it.

I agree w/you, if you can shoot well to 350 you are ahead of most.

 

[Archie]

Shooting at anything one sees and hoping to connect is rather futile and less than 'ethical'. I'll go with that.

I have to agree, connecting reliably at 350 yards is indeed better than most. Connecting reliably at 350 yards will take care of most hunting tasks.