Hunter kills moose with 1100 yard shot

[Loyalist Dave]

Unless they used a LASER range finder after the animal was down, I'd say probably not 1100 yards..., at half that range it'd be an excellent shot. If the fellow is highly skilled, and the cartridge and rifle is accurate at that range, it's not unethical..., those are, however, very big "if's".

LD

 

[AKElroy]

It's an Whoever posted that video pulled a long-range yardage number out of their posterior issue.

That's my suspician as well. I have no issue with the ethics of this; I have been on cull hunts on severly over-doed properties, and taking 400+ yrd shots was not unusual. Before we assail the ethics of this, not all of those does were taken cleanly. That said, we did not have to search long to find them, certainly not any different than a typical arrow shot. Secondly, is anyone concerned over whether baby girl will ever hear again?

 

[CoRoMo]

I also did not put much credence to the 1,100 yard number, mainly because my video camera could never get that type of image at that distance. Not because I don't believe people can make these types of shots; that is certainly unquestionably so. But the more I think about it and read dozens upon dozens of posts from all the internet forums that this has been posted on, I'm thinking that it might actually be a 5/8ths of a mile shot. Hard to believe, but not even close to impossible by any means. Unless this guy comes forward and give any explanation, we will simply never know all the little answers we need.

A lot of the internet comments, and it was repeated here, are that it LOOKS like the moose was hit farther back than what we'd call a good vital hit, but the pool of blood in the video is right under the moose head. Looks to me like the beast bled out the mouth like he was hit just right. Not definitive of course, just my figurin'.

Someone asked if I've ever taken shots like this. Not on game, no. The long range target shooting that I do is discouraging to say the least. I don't have the gear or skill to pull off these types of shots on static targets, much less game. But I know guys who could make this shot, and probably make it with a little wind. I don't think any of them would consider attempting it though.

It certainly is not hunting.
..
It's ... not hunting.
..
...1100 yards is too far for hunting...

I'm not sure what "isn't hunting" about this shot, so please help me understand. What specific yardage moves a kill shot on a game animal out of the hunting column?

I have taken "long shots", that I was quite sure to make, on unsuspecting big game. Is that hunting or not? Of course nowhere near this range, nevertheless, what is the precise range, the very line that divides hunting and 'not hunting'? 400 yards? 600 yards? 601? 602? Is there a number? Or is it dependent upon the shooter and his gear? Someone put it very well, on an entirely different forum about this video.

...one does not need to be a sniper to make hits at those ranges one must know there gear its abilities and practice...

Much of the posts around the internet put this shooter in remote Canada. It certainly appears so. Maybe the subsistence hunters who tend to do this from time to time, are ABLE to do this from time to time.

...is anyone concerned over whether baby girl will ever hear again?

She seems just fine. My little boy will not put earplugs in when I shoot, but he knows how to plug his ears when I do. Surely she's not too different.

 

[oneounceload]

It's called "hunting", not "killing"

Ethics is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

Taking an 1100 yard shot is irresponsible, regardless of the situation

 

[DM~]

It's called "hunting", not "killing"

Ethics is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

Taking an 1100 yard shot is irresponsible, regardless of the situation

I agree! I've HUNTED and shot something like 25 moose, and i've NOT had to take even 400 yard shots!

That was NOT hunting, it's "snipeing" at best, and should NOT be called "hunting" moose!

DM

 

[Cosmoline]

Absolute shenanigans! And nonsense. And I'm surprised folks are falling for it.

Unless the video camera was really NASA level exceptional, the image is way too clear with too little mirage to be that far out. A few hundred yards is much more likely. It's from one bank of a river to another! I'm kind of boggled why anyone is believing the figure. Do folks actually know what 1,100 yards looks like? It's way, way, way, way WAAAAY out there. Like a long hike from one county to another.

THIS is what that kind of shot actually looks like, through very good optics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssh8Vsbvn2A

Also, the time between the shot and the impact does not seem to jibe with that distance.

I suspect this is a routine hunting video with nonsense tacked on about the range.

 

[CoRoMo]

That's sort of what I thought. The camera's zoom looks much like my Sony. I've tried to video when I shoot bowling pins out to a quarter mile, and this video's zoom out has a very similar effect. You can't really make out anything other than a big hill, and I have to tell you where the bowling pins are sitting. But when I zoom out or in, the effect is like that hill is a mile away.

That was NOT hunting, it's "snipeing" at best, and should NOT be called "hunting" moose!

Okay, so we get it. But can anyone put a definitive answer to my questions? What exact yardage delineates the two?

If I assume that there is no 'line in the sand', I have no other option than to believe that "hunting" can in fact include/consist of these types of long shots, that are dependent upon the shooter and his gear, and that there is no real yardage boundary that can otherwise separate this notion of hunting and 'not hunting' , so long as the shooter and his gear can do it reliably.

But if someone can give us a yardage that we can lay across the spectrum of all shooters and hunters, we need to write that rule. Shooting an animal beyond _______ yards is not hunting, but shooting one within that is. The hunting world needs this info.

 

[KodiakBeer]

It isn't about the shooter or the gear or the rifle or the cartridge or the load. It's about the wind.

It's one thing to shoot at a target on the range. If the wind at the range is 3 miles an hour "out there" instead of 1 mile per hour, you just take that into account on your second shot. You can't do that on game because a gut-shot moose just runs away.

I don't believe for a minute that the shot is actually 1100 yards, but nobody should be taking long range shots on game.

 

[Grumulkin]

I think you guys talking about the "ethics" of what was obviously a prompt single shot kill should become vegetarians as it's not ethical to eat something killed concentration camp style.

Believe it or not, there are those that have good enough equipment and are skilled enough that bagging an animal the size of a moose at long range isn't much of a gamble.

 

[caribou]

The Moose and the man shooting both got lucky.
The man placed the shot, and the Moose died without running away with a 1,100 yard lead, to rot in some brush or a lake(Moose often run to water).

A sneeze, gust or blink could have changed all that, or the need for a second shot to finnish what got started.

 

[Hangingrock]

The range specified isn’t big deal 1100-Yds is nothing try approximately 12000-Yds. An FO/AO team from 12th Marines bagged an elephant with one shot from a 155mm howitzer. That’s all before smart weapon technology. Like I sad 1100-Yds is peanuts.

 

[CoRoMo]

...nobody should be taking long range shots on game.

I've seen my share of broad sweeping remarks, but whoa. I'm going to just give up after this one last try... Please, please define 'long range' so that we can write the rule not to ever shoot at an animal past _________ yards, but all game within that last yard are free for the taking.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I'd use 300 yards to fill in your blank. At anything past that I wouldn't brag about the distance.

 

[Ankeny]

The time of flight on the 7 mag that I use for long range steel slapping is 1.4 seconds to 1000 yards. As far as hitting a moose "somewhere" in the boiler room at 1100 yards, that wouldn't be difficult for me to pull off with the right field conditions (a near zero value wind, a good rest, little to no mirage, etc.) and an accommodating moose that didn't move. I wouldn't take the shot, but I won't condemn another for taking the shot if they have the skill. The anti-hunting crowd has enough fuel without me pouring gas on the fire.

This was posted while I was typing:

I'd use 300 yards to fill in your blank.

I shot two elk last season, as did my brother. Of the four animals, only one was under 300 yards. All were one shot kills...all shots were easy and ethical.

 

[bad_aim_billy]

First of all, in response to someone taking a 1000+ yard shot while hunting: ! Second, what is all this stuff about people "whooping and hollering" after the animal goes down?! Do people really do that? I have been hunting for a LONG time and honestly, I have never seen anyone do that. If I did see someone do that, I would immediately think they were an idiot.

"He didn't whoop and holler after the animal went down, therefore he must have been confident in his shot. Because he didn't freak out and he was confident, it means his attempt at an 1100 yard shot is not unethical. The man is a freakin' cold-blooded killer." SERIOUSLY??!!!

I have never seen anyone behave like this after they have killed an animal. Yes, they are excited and smiley, but they don't freak out. haha! What is this nonsense? 1100 yards is too far while hunting. I don't care who you are and what kind of gun you have. I don't care that you were some sniper. I have enough experience to tell you that 1100 yards is too far for hunting...but go ahead and tell me that it's ok because the guy didn't yell around after the shot. Oh and that it's ok because at a certain frame rate the trees don't move, and therefore there was no wind. And that he took into account the ripples on the water. And that. And that. And this.

A real hunter would be worried about how he is going to get that moose packed out of there. Does he have enough day light left to get the moose all out of there before dark? A REAL hunter would have gotten closer. I guarantee the next time he tries that, he is going to wound a moose. He isn't going to be able to find it, (for the same reasons you don't take game at 1100 yards) and he's going to loose it. But you know what? It won't matter to that guy, because he isn't a hunter...

I think this pretty much sums up what most ethical hunters feel about this video...

 

[Grumulkin]

Well, a 1,000 yard shot definitely isn't for the common hunter who is satisfied with "minute of deer" or the one who is happy if he can keep all shots on "an 8 inch pie plate at 100 yards." It will no doubt come as a great suprise to some that there are shooters and guns capable of doing the 8 inch pie plate thing at 1,000 yards.

As for the antihunting crowd some seem so concerned about, they'll never know the difference between shooting at 100 versus 1,000 yards unless they happen across someone trumpeting ethics.

 

[Frozen North]

I shot a white tail at 400-425 yards with a .270 about 5 years ago. It was a good shoot in my opinion. I knew the rifle and the hand loads I was feeding it well. The animal was at ease and it had it's ears and head down eating. Was this shot maybe just a little long? In many peoples opinion, yes it was. I sure didn't brag about the yardage to others. Taking a high risk shot at a big game animal isn't something you brag about.

 

[WardenWolf]

Either way, he clearly shot it across the lake, which was a very long ways away. What looks like hitting the spine is actually the bullet striking the berm behind it.

 

[AKElroy]

Like so many issues, life experience as well as advice here and elsewhere have changed my views on this. I used to preach against long shots, but my judgmentalism has moderated alot as I've gotten older. On a number of issues, including what to do with the quarry once taken. Signing onto a property overrun with pigs has me taking several a month; trust me, I am not eating all of them. The vast majority feed the coyotes and buzzards. Hunting ethics and real life may take turns in the road that people should not be judged for.

 

[AKElroy]

As for coromo's fill in the blank question, I do believe that every individual has a max effective range, and that they should know what that is with whatever equipment they are using at the time. 300 yards is about my limit; I might push that a bit with a recently acquired savage .308 that shoots really well.

 

[DAP90]

I've seen my share of broad sweeping remarks, but whoa. I'm going to just give up after this one last try... Please, please define 'long range' so that we can write the rule not to ever shoot at an animal past _________ yards, but all game within that last yard are free for the taking.

Obviously there’s no magic number, but I saw a quote on here once that went something like:

“If you can’t get within 300 yards of the animal the problem’s not with the gun.”

I don’t remember who said it or what the distance was but it has a certain truth to it. I personally wouldn’t draw the line at 300 for some hunters, some animals and some conditions; but I wouldn’t move it past 500-600 yards under any reasonable circumstances I can think of.

Please forgive the following broad sweeping remark but if you can’t get within 500-600 yards it’s probably because you don’t want too.

 

[tango2echo]

I've seen this video several times other the past two years with yardage claims from 350 to 1100. It is not 1100 yards.

It is closer to 250 yards.

If you turn your volume way up and run it through a video editor you can hear the shot just after :41 and the bullet slap .34 seconds after, and the echo of the shot 1.7 seconds after the shot was fired. TOF was around .26-.29 seconds. Assuming 2800fps at the muzzle the range would be about 275 yards.

I have hunted moose in two states and in three provinces, and guided in Ontario for bear and moose. That IS NOT a moose at 1100 yards. That is a moose at between 250-350 yards.

t2e

 

[leadcounsel]

I'll weigh in again to say that after reading these responses, I am compelled to once again say this shot was horribly unethical. He risks nothing if he misses, yet the animal could easily suffer a painful "not clean" death. He could have gut shot her, or neck shot her, or amputated a limb... and in the hour it took for him to reach her she could have laid there and bled out. Shameful.

It appears to have worked out, and it went down. But it also appears it was shot in the hind quaters from the way is sat down. So I don't think it was a clean kill afterall.

Nobody should take a 1100 yard shot on an animal - obviously that's 3300 feet, or nearly 3/4ths of a mile. In the 2 seconds that the round takes to get there, the animal could move, a gust of wind could rise, etc to throw the round off by 5 feet, which is a big difference between a clean lung/heart shot and a gut shot. Let's not also forget that each round behaves just a little differently and at 1100 feet that small difference, say .25 MOA difference, becomes several inches.

Absolutely shameful.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lots of repetitive commentary...