Another Long Range TV Show Misses Coues Deer By 3 Feet!!!

[bnewt3]

I don't think that's the meaning of that statement, I think it's that there are way more shitty shooters out there taking shots at "acceptable" ranges and still messing them up, as there are more prepared shooters taking longer shots.

The volume of shooters taking less-than-long-range shots is certainly many times higher, and therefore the volume of "close-range" hunters taking shots they shouldnt is definitely higher"

But to say that a higher percentage of long-range hunters are more prepared to take long shots is a bit of a stretch. Maybe they think theyre prepared. But I would argue that high end equipment and "hitting steel" at long range gives far too many hunters unfounded confidence in their abilities.

 

[Harvey_NW]

The volume of shooters taking less-than-long-range shots is certainly many times higher.

But to say that long-range hunters are more prepared to take long-range shots is a bit of a stretch. Maybe they think theyre prepared. But I would argue that high end equipment and "hitting steel" at long range gives far too many hunters unfounded confidence in their abilities.

Agreed. I just meant more prepared as in newer precision rifles, higher end exposed turret optics, and actually go shoot and "bang steel", as opposed to the ol Core-Lokt pie plate "we're good" crew. But yes, 90% of them aren't as skilled as they think they are either, and are taking shots farther than they should.

 

[MCS]

I shot my deer at 626 yard this year. I have screwed up a lot more short range shots under 100 yards then long range shots. Most short range shots are rushed and when you rush a shot you make mistakes.

 

[hibernation]

I hear of more bulls every year getting crippled and lost than actually killed. Nobody thinks twice about the guy who says I was shooting at an elk at 40 yds and hit a branch and missed the bull by 3’. In all honesty what’s the difference between that and I was shooting at 800 yds and mis judged the wind. I’m personally not sure and not sure either is a good look for hunters. I think at the end of the day everyone should know their limits, which sadly very few people do.

I hear the same things during archery season, and it's ridiculous the shots people take. "Didn't have time to range it so I held for 50 yards and hit the dirt under his feet". It's the same to me as the guys who buy dialing scopes, get the custom turret printed, and then just spin to 600 yards and send it.... miss, send it again, then miss, then send it again...

I think we need to hold people to a higher standard. Especially people putting content out for everyone to see. It normalizes the practice of "just go for it" shots.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

A friend of mine pulled this out of the backstrap of a bull he killed a few days ago with a rifle.

Yikes, was it apparent in working on the animal? Folks always talk about watching out for old broadheads in animals, I haven't ran across one yet.

I think there’s a lot of bad shooting no matter what the range is. Personally the worst experience I had with an elk was at 20 yards in the timber with a rifle on an off hand shot.

Yep, this isn't a one is better than the other discussion but I'd wager there are a magnitude more missed/wounded off hand shot animals than long range ones.

 

[PathFinder]

Well if people quit consuming the content these imbeciles would have to get real jobs.
IF YOU'RE WATCHING IT, YOU'RE FUNDING IT !!

Amen to that. I'd also support heavy regulation in the form of fees to publish a hunt. But you're correct, consumption is right at the root of it.

Sent from my Pixel 10 using Tapatalk

 

[ThorM465]

I said nothing of a 4" miss. I mentioned a 4' miss at 1000 yards. Your asinine assessment that long shots are good because they had higher odds of missing not only vitals but the animal entirely is what i'm talking about. Like you think its either a perfect hit or a 4' miss? There's not the whole 4' radius of area around the POA that is in play?

Actually, a 1" miss would be 2 MOA shooting. And most people who are "Shooting MOA" would be lucky to be 2 MOA field shooters in reality.

I apologize, I read it as 4", not 4'.

You're correct on MOA, I confused radius with diameter in my haste to respond.

 

[ThorM465]

I hear the same things during archery season, and it's ridiculous the shots people take. "Didn't have time to range it so I held for 50 yards and hit the dirt under his feet". It's the same to me as the guys who buy dialing scopes, get the custom turret printed, and then just spin to 600 yards and send it.... miss, send it again, then miss, then send it again...

I think we need to hold people to a higher standard. Especially people putting content out for everyone to see. It normalizes the practice of "just go for it" shots.

I hate the printed turrets craze. Most people don't understand the impact elevation has on trajectory not to mention environmental factors, but they're minimal comparatively,

 

[hibernation]

I hate the printed turrets craze. Most people don't understand the impact elevation has on trajectory not to mention environmental factors, but they're minimal comparatively,

I thought it was a neat idea when I was starting to practice farther out. Problem is, by the time I practiced enough at those distances, I understood the turrets and didn't need the special ballistic-matched ones. It really seems like the target audience is people who want to shoot at deer far off, without ever having to practice at that distance.

That being said, I did print out some labels for 200, 300, and 400 yards on my own turret. It takes a pretty big environmental shift to move my 400 yard correction by 1 click. Quick and convenient, but I know the limitations.

 

[wapitibob]

I ask my kids "what's the upside" when they are thinking of doing something stupid. I ask the same thing when I see some of these gawd awful youtube videos.
What's the upside to showing that 3 foot miss? There is none. The often stated "show what really happened" is about the dumbest comment I see. Nobody needs to see the miss, nobody needs to see you hit the hind leg then shoot 3 more times to finally bring an animal down. All those things do is make hunters look like idiots. Of course things happen, there just isn't a compelling reason to show the bad with the good; leave it on the cutting room floor.

 

[Formidilosus]

Bring me a 100 "I shoot MOA" hunters with their hunting rifles. I'll bet 95+ of them dont put the first 10 shots from their hunting rifle into a 1 MOA dot.

But yes, 90% of them aren't as skilled as they think they are either, and are taking shots farther than they should.

(Just using these two as examples).



There is a lot of “90% this”, “95% that” going on. If you took 100 hunters that are “MOA all day long” and had them shoot 10 rounds at a 1” for at 100 yards- not one would hit it ten times.

Let’s use actual measured results: At the S2H classes, the students shoot exactly that. Not one person in over 100 has put ten rounds into the 1 MOA circle. Only 3-4 have done so in the 2 MOA circle (not surprisingly all the 2 MOA people are on the board and let’s say- “follow the program here” to an extent).

The reality is that the amount of people that will take their actual hunting rifle, lay prone and hit 10x 1” dots at 100 yards is laughably small. I would be surprised if it were more than 10 out of 1,000 that did so.

 

[wind gypsy]

I ask my kids "what's the upside" when they are thinking of doing something stupid. I ask the same thing when I see some of these gawd awful youtube videos.
What's the upside to showing that 3 foot miss? There is none. The often stated "show what really happened" is about the dumbest comment I see. Nobody needs to see the miss, nobody needs to see you hit the hind leg then shoot 3 more times to finally bring an animal down. All those things do is make hunters look like idiots. Of course things happen, there just isn't a compelling reason to show the bad with the good; leave it on the cutting room floor.

The upside of not editing out the embarrassing misses is less contribution to people who dont shoot enough thinking "if i buy accurate rifle/ammunition/rangefinder/ballistic turret, I can shoot long range easy like the guys on tv that always hit what they shoot at". The counter point to that would be the normalizing of taking low odds shots isn't great either.

 

[S-3 ranch]

It happens, I was shooting at a deer in a spinach field during a depredation hunt, put the range finder on it 1000 yards?, shot and hit 20 yards under it in the dirt and 10yards left
LRH is for the birds, wind and relying on a mechanical device = bad results
500 yards away + is just a general crapshoot even if you ring gongs regularly

 

[JGRaider]

I don't think that's the meaning of that statement, I think it's that there are way more shitty shooters out there taking shots at "acceptable" ranges and still messing them up, as there are more prepared shooters taking longer shots.

Maybe, but it's still a stretch. I guided for 16 years, and had mostly hunters who hunted all over the world and could go wherever they wanted. The ones that are prepared to shoot "longer shots" are in the vast minority. Lots of people don't shoot or hunt near as good as they proclaim.

 

[rclouse79]

nobody here is going to admit to being a LR hunter that missed or wounded. however, we all know it's common. lower your expectations. there is almost never a reason to take LR shots past 500 yards...you can almost always get closer. less "gamesmanship" and more sportsmanship is sorely needed.

I typed a post to this effect earlier this month on a long-range post and deleted it. I have a sneaking suspicion most people fishing for accolades from random strangers on the internet about their 1k yard kill don't open themselves up to be roasted for all their botched shots at that range.

 

[S-3 ranch]

Maybe, but it's still a stretch. I guided for 16 years, and had mostly hunters who hunted all over the world and could go wherever they wanted. The ones that are prepared to shoot "longer shots" are in the vast minority. Lots of people don't shoot or hunt near as good as they proclaim.

Man you better be good to a 1000 before you head to mid Asia for ibex and argali sheep , a 400 meter shot is a close shot, 600-800 very likely
Those Stan countries the guides are in a insane hurry to get you back down below 13-14K and want you to shoot

 

[Justin Crossley]

The day before yesterday, I watched a guy lie down and miss a buck by at least a foot from no more than 200 yards that was standing broadside. I don't know how close his first shot was because I couldn't see the dust on that one.

Today I saw another hunter completely miss a broadside buck at no more than 100 yards. Couldn't tell how far off that shot was because the buck was standing on the skyline from my perspective, and the bullet sailed into oblivion.

Distance to the target (animal) is not the problem. People making mistakes and poor choices are the problem.

Everyone knows that killing is never going to be 100% clean every single time.

We all owe it to ourselves and the animals to be prepared as we can be and to know our own personal limits, and that applies to muzzle loaders and bows as much or more than rifles.

 

[JGRaider]

The day before yesterday, I watched a guy lie down and miss a buck by at least a foot from no more than 200 yards that was standing broadside. I don't know how close his first shot was because I couldn't see the dust on that one.

Today I saw another hunter completely miss a broadside buck at no more than 100 yards. Couldn't tell how far off that shot was because the buck was standing on the skyline from my perspective, and the bullet sailed into oblivion.

Distance to the target (animal) is not the problem. People making mistakes and poor choices are the problem.

Everyone knows that killing is never going to be 100% clean every single time.

We all owe it to ourselves and the animals to be prepared as we can be and to know our own personal limits, and that applies to muzzle loaders and bows as much or more than rifles.

Well, in my 54th year of big game hunting, and I'd say without a doubt that distance to the target absolutely IS the problem. If you're a schitttty shot at 100, your a more schitttty shot at distance.

 

[hibernation]

I typed a post to this effect earlier this month on a long-range post and deleted it. I have a sneaking suspicion most people fishing for accolades from random strangers on the internet about their 1k yard kill don't open themselves up to be roasted for all their botched shots at that range.

People fish for accolades to random strangers in real life too! Ran into a guy the other day who said he got his last blacktail at 700 yards... on the third shot. I don't know if I was supposed to be impressed but man, that's not the kind of hit rate I'm looking for.

 

[wind gypsy]

Distance to the target (animal) is not the problem. People making mistakes and poor choices are the problem.

I generally agree. To me, shooting long distance for most hunters is similar to shooting at a running animal with zero experience doing it to know if one has more than a lucky chance at making a good shot. We focus on the longer range stuff more now because large #s of hunters shooting longer than MPBR and actually thinking there will be high odds outcomes is a new thing. While it falls under the "people making mistakes and poor choices" umbrella, it seems like distance being a large contributing variable to lousy shots is becoming a more frequent problem. Where as making shitty shots off hand, at a moving animal, forcing it through brush, or any other long list of reasons people make lousy shots at close range are probably static or less common than they have been in the past.