extreme long range hunting shows?

[Buzzard Bait]

Has anyone noticed that on the extreme long range hunting shows on the tv the game animals they shoot always seem to just crumple up and drop dead in there tracks at the shot? I think some people call it DRT. When I shoot deer or wild hogs at much closer 50 to 200 yards max they almost always seem to run a little way. And you know they are hit much harder at say 75 yards than one of those 600+ shots across some large canyon. Something doesn't seem right about those shows?
bb

 

[jimbob86]

They don't show the screw-ups, like when they are shooting at an animal 700 yards away, and even though they know their trajectory stone cold and get the wind just right, midway through the .8 second flight time of the bullet, the animal takes a step forward, and the bullet strikes 18 inches further back than intended ....... gutshot animal. That would just be edited out, I think.

..... I recall seeing a youtube vid of a a girl shooting an elk at 600+ yards across a canyon.... with a .243. That's not a a whole lot of energy left at that range, I'm guessin' ......... nice shot though. Pretty iffy, but she pulled it off. I wonder how many animals were wounded in the blooper reel?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I think it's a bit more than unfair to invent scenarios from nowhere and then chastise people we don't even know for committing acts of our imagination.

Besides which, I know of no animal in North America which has a vital zone that would move 18 inches from "one step" and moving 18 inches in 0.8 seconds is a pretty good walking pace, hardly to be expected from a previously stationary animal in the time of bullet flight.

In any case, I suspect that the "DRTs" are a result of aiming for the high shoulder shot which has become popular. On a long range shot, it might be the safest aim too. High and you miss, low and you've got heart/lungs, forward and you've got neck and back you've still got plenty of lung/liver.

That elk shot, BTW, is here.

 

[markj]

I seen em drop right there, seen em run 200 yards same shot.

Every animal dies its own death so they cant all be the same.

 

[AllenJ]

I like watching the long range shows and do notice how many animals drop in their tracks. I'm like you though Buzzard, I've shot my fair share of big game animals and more have run 30, 50, and sometimes as far as 100 yards before giving up then have DRT'ed. The one thing I have notice about the shows is most are using Berger bullets and it has prompted me to try some this year. So far accuracy in my 243 Winchester is outstanding, now if I can only get the right buck to present itself come September, I'll have a report for you then

 

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

If the animal isn't as close as I would like it to be. It gets a "Go Free Pass." I limit myself to the shots I know I can make with accuracy with my 270 Rem bolt. Anything beyond 225 -250. I have no experience or expertize in doing regardless of animal size. Nope!! I won't even try.__As far as those fellows on TV. They are most certainly out of my league the way things appear on film. I've often wondered if those doing the shooting on film had military training to facilitate such long range shots? _

S/S

 

[jmr40]

A lot has changed in shooting in recent years. 25 years ago 300 yards was about the limit for average shooters to ethically shoot. With modern scopes, bullets, range finders, ballistics programs, etc. anyone who is willing to put in a little time and practice can be quite proficient to at least 400-500 yards. And with just basic equipment. Even farther is certainly possible, and ethical if someone wants to put in the time and money for practice and good equipment.

The show I'm thinking about, and featured in Brian's post, rely on Berger hunting bullets. I'm loading some for next fall, but haven't shot anything other than paper yet. The word is that DRT shots are the norm as long as you put one in the chest. They perform very well at extreme range better than most because they don't need a lot of impact velocity like normal bullets. They also work well at close range because unlike many bullets they don't expand at all for the 1st 2-3".

They are a poor choice if lots of penetration is needed. They tend to penetrate 2-3" then basically explode in the chest. For the guy willing to wait for perfect shots, much like a bowhuter, they are a good bullet. Not for the guy who jump shoots stuff and expects a shot in the butt to penetrate to the vitals.

 

[ligonierbill]

Lots of things have changed, especially the availability of cheap, accurate rangefinders. Now I have a Hornady "cheat sheet" taped to my stock (and no excuses). What has not changed is the average shooter, and if these shows have a harmful effect, it's convincing people who have no business shooting that far that they can. And of course, the TV folks are shooting in perfect conditions. Are they ethical? Well, more so than some hunters I know ("As long as there's lead in the air, there's hope.") And if you read some of Teddy Roosevelt's books, you'll see he had no problem slinging lead at distant targets, even though he described himself as a mediocre shot. An old fart like me, if I shoot too far the 'yotes will eat half of it before I get over there.

 

[phil mcwilliam]

So what you are saying is that everything you see on tv may not be 100% real. Who would of thought that??

 

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I'd guess that they must be hitting the shoulders... I have a cousin that shot a nice buck at less than 30 yards with a 12 ga slug, it blew out both lungs & blew a volleyball sized hole out the back side on the front of the rib cage... heart & lungs were literally completely gone... the point of impact was totally sprayed with blood... yet the buck ran 100 yards up a steep hill before it dropped...

my guess is they are only showing the DRT, to eliminate showing a hunting scene such as the scenario listed above, & have someone challenge the ethical nature of the show... I'd hope they recover all the game they shoot, as I'd suspect ( in today's information age ) that someone on their crew would likely have issues if they thought they were being unethical, or not chasing down all or "not too many" injured animals ( camera crew, editor, support team, etc... )

 

[Wild Bill Bucks]

For me, I would say anything beyond 250 yards would be un-ethical, because I have not practiced that distance. I have a custom .308 rifle that is plenty capable of long ranges, but my feeling is "The only bad shot, is the one not practiced". Since I have no real reason to shoot those kind of distances here in South-eastern Oklahoma, I don't see any real reason to practice them.

I would also think that the rifles your seeing on those TV shows are not what I would call "Out of the box rifles" I would bet that they are rifles that have had extensive work done on them to make them that accurate. If a factory rifle can't put 3 shots on a dime at 100 yards, then how far off is it going to be at 600 yards. Most factory rifles I have owned in the past will put a 1 1/2" group together at 100 yards, but most of them would scatter bullets all over that 1 1/2". That would manifest into quite a bigger difference the further out you would get.

I won't say that every long shot is un-ethical because I am sure that some of the guys here on the forum could take those shots pretty easily, as they have practiced for them, it's just not for me.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

If a factory rifle can't put 3 shots on a dime at 100 yards, then how far off is it going to be at 600 yards. Most factory rifles I have owned in the past will put a 1 1/2" group together at 100 yards, but most of them would scatter bullets all over that 1 1/2". That would manifest into quite a bigger difference the further out you would get.

Group size typically increases at least 10% in MOA per 100 yards, at a minimum. Still, you don't need to put 3 in a dime at 100 to kill an elk at 600. Even a 1" group at 100 (which most good rifles are quite easily capable of doing) is only going to be around 8 inches at 600. "3 in a dime", literally outer edges inside a dime, is about 1/3 MOA. That translates to 2 or 3 inches at 600.

Honestly, a well-practiced shooter with a good gun and careful planning should have no trouble killing an elk or even deer sized animal at 600. There are plenty of guys who routinely hit woodchucks and prairie dogs at that distance.

 

[jimbob86]

Still, you don't need to put 3 in a dime at 100 to kill an elk at 600.

True enough ....but you DO have to be able to read the wind, and make the necessary adjustments. And figure up/downhill ..... and know the exact range, and trajectory of your bullet ....... AND hope the animal does not move ...... and that last is just a crapshoot.

 

[allaroundhunter]

True enough ....but you DO have to be able to read the wind, and make the necessary adjustments. And figure up/downhill ..... and know the exact range, and trajectory of your bullet ....... AND hope the animal does not move ...... and that last is just a crapshoot.

The flight time of the bullet at 600 yards varies, but let's just say an average for your more common calibers will be in the .7 seconds range.... That does not give an animal that was previously still much time at all to move. It sure as heck doesn't give an animal enough time to move enough for a good shot to miss vitals.

I regularly shoot at 600 yards with my competition rifle (3 gun), and hitting a 14" plate with a 4 power scope is not difficult. If I step up to my .308, then hitting a 10"plate doesn't take much thought at all.

It takes a little practice to make a 600 yard shot, but once you do it a couple times, it really is not as daunting of a task as it seems.

Now, would I take a shot that range at a big game animal? Not likely, and for 2 reasons. Reason 1: I do not need to show off to television viewers by making a long range shot on a "trophy animal" to get a feeling of accomplishment. Reason 2: It is easy to get them to come in closer, and I only want to walk as far as is necessary to retrieve my animal.

Only situation that I could think of when I would take a 600+ yard shot on an animal would be if I desperately needed the animal for food and did not expect a closer shot to present itself.

 

[HiBC]

I saw a DVD of folks would hunt by cresting a hill and shooting across to the far slope at elk.

I suppose I'll have to give them being honest about showing what happened.

The results were not enjoyable to watch.

The variables of long range shooting combined with less skill than necessary resulted in these elk having to take three ,four,five hits.

Not clean,not quick.

They were proud and celebrating.

I'd have been ashamed.

I'm not condemning long range shooting,if you can deliver a quick,humane kill.

If you can hit leg,gut,another leg,hip,reload as the elk is flopping...etc,then whoop it up and say"Gee,I'm cool,lets do it again"

Well....not me.

 

[AllenJ]

HiBC I could not agree you more, there is no excuse for wounding an animal like that. And the fact that they got their elk means little to me, they made the animals suffer for no other reason than personal gain. Those type of people are neither ethical nor moral in my opinion.

 

[ChaperallCat]

just because the cartridge can go 500 yards and still have an estimated 1000 fpe, doesnt mean that the person working the rifle should take that shot. or has teh basic ability to take that shot.

the time it takes, the ammunition it takes, the dedication it takes, to get properly attuned with your rifle and a 500 yard shot on a target is far different then what it takes to do that shot on an animal. mechanics are the same, but there is no rush with a paper target.

and alot of those shoes if you watch closely, are using 15 pound single shot bolt action rifles designed for 1000 yard shooting competitions, not exactly what your average shooter is going to be able to afford.

 

[dahermit]

Even a 1" group at 100 (which most good rifles are quite easily capable of doing) is only going to be around 8 inches at 600. "3 in a dime", literally outer edges inside a dime, is about 1/3 MOA. That translates to 2 or 3 inches at 600.

Wow! I can shoot like that from a bench, but have serious doubts about doing that using hunting positions (even prone), when excited, out of breath from the thin air, just haven ridden a horse following the Elk guide up the mountain as if my life depended upon it. I am considered a "good" shot (several local competition awards), better than most, but I still would not attempt those long shots.
I anticipate the usual response of, "just because you cannot do it, does not mean that someone else cannot do it." The question should be, should they attempt it instead of getting closer? Would there be more, or would there be less bad hits and wasted game if more hunters actually passed up a long shot and attempted to get closer?

 

[Art Eatman]

Back in the early years of the 7mm RemMag, I'd hear gunstore-commando hunters yap about 600-yard shots across a valley on elk. This was before laser range-finders, and these guys were just slinging lead until they got a hit somewhere on the animal. Several more shots for a finishing.

Hard to keep quiet and not start a fight about "sorry".

However, if a guy has the gear and the proficiency for clean kills at a long distance, my only concern is the clean kill part of the deal. Just because I prefer walking hunting or sneaky-snaking doesn't mean that I'll turn my nose up at other folks styles.

 

[Jack O'Conner]

I work with a younger guy who "hunts" deer at long range from a portable benchrest. His rifle is a ported 300 Ultra Mag. He told me that he shot a doe last year at approx 900 yards. The animal was recovered after a search of more than one hour. Doesn't seem entirely ethical to my viewpoint.

Jack