Hunting’s Newest Controversy: Snipers

[rookhawk]

Any system that fires when the barrel is aligned to the digitally painted target presents problems.

1. It takes little skill

2. It automates lethal force

3. It disadvantages other legal methods of take

4. It encourages shots to be taken at ranges beneath the force/velocity minimums for a clean kill.

5. We get more militant jackasses playing Rambo in our hunting ranks

6. Every hunt is recorded and ready for upload to the Net, virtually guaranteeing negative public impressions of hunting. And people that buy these things are exactly the types that post everything to the internet, just like the thermal image toting AR holding "hunters" of pigs after dark...self aggrandizing GI joes putting things they shouldn't online. No shame, no consideration of consequences.

 

[Phil Valliant]

I always thought you could make shots like that as long as you were skilled, knew your rifle and could do calculations. I can see positives on both sides. I would rather do it the old fashionedvway.

I know where I live it would be hard to find an area with 100 yards of open space never mind 1800

 

[Phil Valliant]

Nowadays everybody is looking to take the easy way out

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I'll give my opinion (and that's all it is) re: long range hunting. FWIW, I've seen this in the shotgunning world over the past 30 years with waterfowl hunting. With the reintroduction of the 12 gauge 3 1/2" shell, new shot types such as "hevishot", etc., the manufacturers claims of "long range kills" spilled over into the advertising. Of course, if the guy in the next blind can do it, so can you......

Well, probably not! I've seen duck after duck hit with " long range" shooting (and that's all it is......shooting), only to sail into the refuge, or someone else's hunting zone, to be unrecovered. Even if you can get to the area, it's going to take you a while, and even with a good dog, the odds go down of recovering that bird. To me, this is a waste of wildlife. I'm curious to see what the wounded/loss ratio is compared to those who take "normal" shots.....I would bet the the numbers are significantly higher.

Also seen it with the in line muzzleloader crowd.......in-lines, scopes, pellets, smokeless powder, plastic sabot bullets....all are advertised to "shoot farther". Found a lot of dead deer in Jan/Feb back in the swamps that weren't recovered. Also seeing a lot more deer with large, gaping wounds that appear to be made by pistol bullets at high velocity. Claims of 300 yard "hits" by in-line muzzleloaders make me wonder what the bullet energy is at that range, and is it enough for a clean kill.

Lastly, two articles in this months "Fur-Fish-Game" have me wondering where hunting is going.........both advocate killing at extreme ranges. What the hell happened to hunting?! You know, the ability to use woodsmanship and your wits to get close to the animal without it's knowing you are there?

I agree with rookhawk....there are more and more jackasses with "tactical" gear and big, new matte finished rifles with big, huge scopes that look like they should be used for viewing planets rather than targets..........everybody fancies themselves a "sniper"; nobody fancies themselves as a "woodsman".......................what a shame!

 

[gizmo]

I do want to make it clear that I am in no way advocating any type of computerized control system. Either I missed something or the fire system thing just got lumped in together with distance shooting.
I'm all for distance hunting when done properly and ethically but am in no way supportive of any type of computerized aiming devices.
Rifle
Scope
Range finder
Wind meter
Note pad and paper
Ballistic charts
Practice practice practice
That is all that is needed for long range shooting. Any type of computerized aiming device that aims a rifle for you I am 100% opposed to.

 

[spike.t]

I do want to make it clear that I am in no way advocating any type of computerized control system. Either I missed something or the fire system thing just got lumped in together with distance shooting.
I'm all for distance hunting when done properly and ethically but am in no way supportive of any type of computerized aiming devices.
Rifle
Scope
Range finder
Wind meter
Note pad and paper
Ballistic charts
Practice practice practice
That is all that is needed for long range shooting. Any type of computerized aiming device that aims a rifle for you I am 100% opposed to.

Mmmm been watching this thread and gizmo i kinda thought thats what it was about after the original post....was going to stay out of it as dont want to get embroiled into the "divisive issue thing", but to me using something like this computerised "scope" that calculates all the things it does for the shooter ...well its not hunting its a crock of shit.....and thats me out of this !


"But four years ago, Phillips invested in a rifle and sighting system that does all that calculating for him. On a hunt in New Mexico this fall, Phillips downed an elk with one shot from 683 yards. His longest kill with this new gear came at 1,180 yards, four times beyond any conventional range.

“From that distance, the animal isn’t frightened. It’s not jittery. And you’re not jittery either,” says Phillips, a home builder in Columbus, Ind.

In this ancient American sport, the newest thing is a long-range-shooting system that measures distance, determines wind effect and fires high-powered ammunition. These systems turn hunters into snipers by taking the guesswork out of calculating the effects of gravity and wind on a bullet traveling as far as a mile. Applying technical expertise to firearm sighting systems, new players such as Gunwerks and TrackingPoint are winning shares of a market long dominated by venerable brands like Remington and Winchester. “A TrackingPoint Precision-Guided Firearm ensures never-before-seen precision at extreme distances,” says the website of TrackingPoint, based in Pflugerville, Texas."

 

[Shootist43]

I do not consider those using the "system" Rookhawk mentioned to be hunters as we at AH define the term. At the same time, I do not put all long range hunters into "one category." There are those that practice their craft "the old fashioned way." With scopes sporting turrets capable of being adjusted for "long ranges" using rifles and ammo that yield sub half minute of angle, that know how to dope the wind and put in a lot of practice. Even these guys have their limitations and shoot within them.

Again, I suggest to those interested in this subject to read all the books in the "Long Range Hunting Series" written by Nathan Foster published by Terminal Ballistics Research. You can also check out his website at http://www.ballisticstudies.com/

 

[LivingTheDream]

I think that is a key point, there is a difference then long range shooting, and a computerized scope.

To an early post about duck and goose hunting, this is the biggest issue people have is they don't let the ducks get right. I after shoot one after it pitched into the decoys then sky blast.

When I was kid, like 14 or 15, I was horrible as rowing, like I spun around in circles horrible. So would put my dozen decoys out, make my pocket about 20 yards from my make shift blind. The ducks would have to be touching the water before I shot, I knew there was no way I could row down a cripple. Some would say this is unethical, but I had a lot of one shot, one kill and I don't think I ever lost a duck. Now granted I didn't kill that many, I think my best day was 3. But the point being, I knew my limitations and adjusted my hunting style accordingly.

 

[gizmo]

Mmmm been watching this thread and gizmo i kinda thought thats what it was about after the original post....was going to stay out of it as dont want to get embroiled into the "divisive issue thing", but to me using something like this computerised "scope" that calculates all the things it does for the shooter ...well its not hunting its a crock of shit.....and thats me out of this !


"But four years ago, Phillips invested in a rifle and sighting system that does all that calculating for him. On a hunt in New Mexico this fall, Phillips downed an elk with one shot from 683 yards. His longest kill with this new gear came at 1,180 yards, four times beyond any conventional range.

“From that distance, the animal isn’t frightened. It’s not jittery. And you’re not jittery either,” says Phillips, a home builder in Columbus, Ind.

In this ancient American sport, the newest thing is a long-range-shooting system that measures distance, determines wind effect and fires high-powered ammunition. These systems turn hunters into snipers by taking the guesswork out of calculating the effects of gravity and wind on a bullet traveling as far as a mile. Applying technical expertise to firearm sighting systems, new players such as Gunwerks and TrackingPoint are winning shares of a market long dominated by venerable brands like Remington and Winchester. “A TrackingPoint Precision-Guided Firearm ensures never-before-seen precision at extreme distances,” says the website of TrackingPoint, based in Pflugerville, Texas."

Spike valid point and I apologize if I have given anyone the wrong impression. I thought we were solely talking about distance shooting and hunting. I agree whole heartedly that computerized aide outside the use of a hand held range finder or possibly a hand held calculator (which you don't really need if you have charts set up properly but always handy to have if your terrible at math like I am) has no place in hunting. Obviously I missed the whole computerized aiming system stuff and the calling in an air strike bit.

 

[Wheels]

. Obviously I missed the whole computerized aiming system stuff and the calling in an air strike bit.

Erik,

So if I understand you correct, you will not set up a computerized rifle system on some hogs in west Texas and let me shoot them from my computer while I lie in bed in Oklahoma?

Some outfitters are just anti-technology and have poor customer service.

 

[gizmo]

Erik,

So if I understand you correct, you will not set up a computerized rifle system on some hogs in west Texas and let me shoot them from my computer while I lie in bed in Oklahoma?

Some outfitters are just anti-technology and have poor customer service.

Lmfao

 

[spike.t]

Erik,

So if I understand you correct, you will not set up a computerized rifle system on some hogs in west Texas and let me shoot them from my computer while I lie in bed in Oklahoma?

Some outfitters are just anti-technology and have poor customer service.

here you go all sorted..........

http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/mike-schoby/2007/09/remote-control-hunting

 

[BRICKBURN]

.............. Obviously I missed the whole computerized aiming system stuff and the calling in an air strike bit.

Dude you have to wake up and read my abuse. I'm hurt you missed it.

 

[gizmo]

here you go all sorted..........

http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/mike-schoby/2007/09/remote-control-hunting

Thats horrible

 

[Wheels]

here you go all sorted..........

http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/mike-schoby/2007/09/remote-control-hunting

What's the world coming to.

I like Royal's caveman with a club better than that.

 

[Dragan N.]

First of all I think its worth stating if long range shooting were outlawed- how could it be effectively enforced or even regulated? Obviously if somebody recorded it and posted it online it could be caught but I would imagine many people don't record or post their fails/misses/ horrible woundings online.

I'm sorry, but I find this unethical use of our scarce game resources to be repugnant. Our tolerating it only invites further behavior, which though technically legal (for the moment), ultimately can truly damage our sport - say getting all optical sights banned by an uninformed public voting or their ban through some bureaucratic ruling. Shooting game at these ranges has nothing to do with hunting but everything to do with using the sport of hunting to turn game animals into animated targets for "killing". How many hunters, however great the killing technology, have hit a game animal at an honest 400 yards and then tried to find the exact spot where it was hit so as to start working out a blood trail? Then imagine doing the same at 800 or a 1000. In the military, we use spotters because first round hits fall off dramatically beyond 500 yards. And should the target be only wounded, the military is just as happy because human and material resources are needed to care for him. The poor elk merely gets to nurse the bullet in its guts until it finally dies from infection. So no - on this issue - I don't believe in "to each his own" or "so long as its legal ....." This sort of abusive use of a natural resource can only hurt us collectively the longer it continues.

I think this fact is especially important to this discussion :

"In the military, we use spotters because first round hits fall off dramatically beyond 500 yards."

Given that snipers in the US military undergo extensive training at long range shooting and are skilled marksman and that despite this fact first round hits still fall off dramatically at ranges in excess of 500 yards- it indicates that even if you are a highly skilled and trained shooter you can not consistently or even regularly get hits or even clean kills at these distances. And I would imagine the average hunter does not have the same level of marksmanship as a sniper.

But I am just wondering, since the military probably has better, more reliable, and unbiased data on this than various companies or t.v. shows trying to drum up support for long range shooting- (to get views, sell their product etc...), do you know the exact % of first round hits at 500+ say 600 yards vs. that at say 200 yards? I think some hard numbers would really illustrate or hit home why long range shoots are not the best or most ethical thing to do.

 

[edward]

What's the world coming to.

I like Royal's caveman with a club better than that.

now thats old fashion hunting,eye ball to eye ball.

 

[Jfet]

Back in the early days of Texas. In fact so early that math had not even immigrated yet, Pecos Bill spotted from the front door of his cabin a family of prairie dogs had moved into the north part of his ranch. Bill's cabin at that time was on the north side of the Brazos River about where Waco is today. The prairie dogs were digging in on the Elm Creek just east of where Throckmorton is today. Bill didn't want no prairie dogs setting up shop on his ranch. So he got out 'ole Jill his muzzle loader. Ole Jill was kin to Davy Crocket's rifle ole' Betsy. Well Bill loaded her up careful like and settled her across the hitching post for a rest. He squeezed off the trigger and the .50 Caliber bullet started its trek to make the head prairie dog a good prairie dog. About the time the bullet got to what is today Stephenville, TX a blue northerner came in. Bill realized that the north wind had spoiled his calculations. In those days bullets were so expensive misses could not be tolerated. So Bill jumped on his horse, Widowmaker, out ran the bullet, roped the prairie dog, and dragged him over a half a mile. Ten minutes later the bullet struck the prairie dog right between the eyes. The rest of the prairie dogs packed up and moved out. That was long distance shooting back in the day.

 

[Wayne t]

Just been reading this one and I confess I've shot deer here in the uk passed 400 way back in the day when I only had the one gun used it every week and was younger and more eager just for the kill and the meat and I suposse bragging rights with mates on the long distance kill shots I had taken
Now I'm older know better don't just use the one gun or calibers I'm more inclined to get as close as possible to the beast in question to ensure as clean a kill as possible for the animal so it does not know what happened I've had a couple of runners over my hunting life and thankfully both close shots under a hundred yards so easy to follow up and find quickly and thankfully both dead when found within minutes
I'm more than happy plinking the steel roe deer target we have at my local range off the bench with my 6.5-47 at 4/500 all day and further still with the bdc scope but wouldn't do it on a real one
With this new tracking point thing they did some testing up my local range at 1000 on a steel ram we have against a military shooter with his 338 same Ammo it was on nat geo a programme with Stephen Hawkins in it the shooter with the standard 338 out scored the tracking point
I guess I'm saying all this technology is all well and good on targets but it just don't do it for me on live game animals as we all know animals do move take that step just when you least expect it to and if your starting 1000 yards behind it it's not gonna be easy to follow up and dispatch quickly
Just my ten bobs worth for what it's worth

 

[James Cook]

ok with it, if it is legal and ethical. but in the words of clint eastwood "a man's gotta know his limitations"