What a mess...

[dla]

I don't see how this follows. Have you ever misplaced a shot within your normal range? I think most long-time hunters probably have. That doesn't mean that shot distance is unsuited to you, it just means you screwed up. Those are two separate things.

The consequences of a slight error are far greater at 470yds than at 200yds.
That and using primer popping reloads.

 

[JohnJohnson]

The consequences of a slight error are far greater at 470yds than at 200yds.
That and using primer popping reloads.

I at least agree with you on the reloads. People love to hotrod their 338 Remchesterby shit kicking magnums. Probably unwise on a hunt.

 

[gelton]

I at least agree with you on the reloads. People love to hotrod their 338 Remchesterby shit kicking magnums. Probably unwise on a hunt.

I have never blown primers on reloads but did have it happen on a box of factory Swift Sciroccos, it was nuts.

 

[204guy]

Whole Lotta armchair quarterbacking going on here. The MORE experience I get the less inclined I am to to harshly criticize these situations. Killing is a pretty clean process until it isn't, then it can be very very messy. Even with the best of decisions sometimes it just goes awry.

I'd guess givin the range he was shooting from a supported prone position. Also sounds like he is a pretty accomplished shooter. I'd also venture that all the critics would have no problem if the situation was the same except he was offhand leaning on a tree @ 80 yds. Problem with their pontificating is a well setup 500yd shot is quite a bit easier for most people to make than an offhand 80 yarder trying to use a 2" alder as support.

It doesn't happen often but bullets can and do fail, sometimes a singularity sometimes the whole lot is bad.

For the primer probably over pressured over used brass. Or just really bad luck with a bad piece of brass, sometimes shit happens.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I'd guess givin the range he was shooting from a supported prone position. Also sounds like he is a pretty accomplished shooter. I'd also venture that all the critics would have no problem if the situation was the same except he was offhand leaning on a tree @ 80 yds. Problem with their pontificating is a well setup 500yd shot is quite a bit easier for most people to make than an offhand 80 yarder trying to use a 2" alder as support.

This is worth emphasizing. Getting into the holier than thou crap that people online spew is dangerous. The chain of purity testing and projecting in the hunting community is toxic and not helpful.

 

[silasbowhunter]

I listened to the podcast they were on with the Hunt Domain Podcast. Seemed like just a bad situation. I think they said something about the cold weather causing the primer situation.

The bear being above them and mostly going downhill didn’t help them at all either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattB]

I feel like "long-range spotting and shooting" is amore apropos term than "long-range hunting."

Long range hunting is an oxymoron.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Long range hunting is an oxymoron.

Lol can’t argue that really

 

[156821]

The only thing I can’t understand is why they wouldn’t each have a rifle. After all, you are hunting dangerous game. Sounds like it almost cost them. Scary deal.

 

[silasbowhunter]

The only thing I can’t understand is why they wouldn’t each have a rifle. After all, you are hunting dangerous game. Sounds like it almost cost them. Scary deal.

I don’t remember exactly, but Trevor had the tag and she was already tagged out.. so I think he had the bow and his rifle and she helped carry one. So legally I don’t think she could? Maybe someone more familiar with Alaskan laws can help here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AKBorn]

...Problem with their pontificating is a well setup 500yd shot is quite a bit easier for most people to make than an offhand 80 yarder trying to use a 2" alder as support.....

I think this statement is totally incorrect. "Most people" (including me) could execute the 80 yard shot using a 2 inch alder MUCH easier than a 500 yard prone shot. Why? "Most people" (including me) are mot aware of our bullet drop at 500 yards, because we have no intention of ever taking a shot at that distance.

Not arguing with other parts of your post, but that statement is flat out incorrect.

 

[Htm84]

I don’t remember exactly, but Trevor had the tag and she was already tagged out.. so I think he had the bow and his rifle and she helped carry one. So legally I don’t think she could? Maybe someone more familiar with Alaskan laws can help here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as Alaska is concerned they could each have 100 rifles. Alaska’s the most gun friendly state in the country. Alaska let’s felons have guns or at least they don’t prohibit them from having them.

 

[204guy]

I think this statement is totally incorrect. "Most people" (including me) could execute the 80 yard shot using a 2 inch alder MUCH easier than a 500 yard prone shot. Why? "Most people" (including me) are mot aware of our bullet drop at 500 yards, because we have no intention of ever taking a shot at that distance.

Not arguing with other parts of your post, but that statement is flat out incorrect.

I'm not here to defend the guy, don't necessarily agree with his decisions. I just get tired flawed opion stated as absolute fact.
You prove the point. Haven't done it. Not knowledgeable about it, gloss over carefully choosen words like "well setup", yet have strongly formed opion stated as indisputable fact.

 

[wind gypsy]

I really don't understand the criticism on this issue. Seems like it's from people who haven't spent any time shooting at longer distances. 470 yards isn't that far. In moderate winds hitting a pie plate with a 223 at that distance is easy money. I assume all of you are against archery hunting brown bears in any circumstance? Against hunting brown bears with a 30/06? Bullets of all types occasionally fail to have the desired terminal effect. Barnes, accubonds, bergers, you name it - you can find examples of poor performance.

I listened to the podcast and it seems like they aren't sure what jammed the gun up and a primer was just the only thing they could think of. It could have been ice. I have a hard time picturing how a primer would get stuck in the front action screw hole. From the story it sounds like if they would have been closer the bear just would have gotten to them sooner..

One thing the chart doesn’t take into account is the “knock down” that is lost at long ranges. Certainly the hunters were skilled enough to make an accurate shot at 470 yards, but I think there’s more to the equation than foot pounds of energy.

There were several things that went wrong on this hunt, some of them controllable, some of them not. But fundamentally, I think the 470 yard shot on a 10’ brown bear was the big mistake.

What is "knock down"? Are you referring to hydrostatic shock?

I wonder if a 338-06 inside 100 yards would be adequate for the people critiquing? Because the 225 accubond from a 338-06 inside 100 yards is running about the same velocity as it would be from a RUM at 470 yards.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I wonder if a 338-06 inside 100 yards be adequate for the people critiquing? Because the 225 accubond from a 338-06 inside 100 yards is running about the same velocity as it would be from a RUM at 470 yards.

My main issues with some of the criticisms stem from this. What is the maximum distance cutoff where you're still ethical? And does it change based on cartridge/rifle/position/bullet? All of these purity tests seem completely arbitrary and don't take into account any of the nuance of these situations.

How well trained is the person shooting from that position at that distance? From all available evidence, very well trained. I've shot out to 1200 yards (I've taken a long range shooting course) but I probably wouldn't take a ~500 yard shot on a huge bear. Having said that, I'm also not going to project my own skill limitations and ethics onto someone who is hunting in a completely legal manner that they're obviously experienced with. I'd trust the bear hunter in question to make that shot at 470 yards more than I'd trust most of the people armchair quarterbacking here to make a 200 yard shot.

 

[wind gypsy]

Listening to the podcast reinforced my belief that kids today are ignorant of what can go wrong when taking long shots.
That bear absorbed 3, maybe 4 hits, from a cartridge that chart readers say had plenty of zing at 470yds. Guess the bear didn't read the same material.
I wonder if the millennial & GenZ exer-hunters learned anything from this near-disaster? Suppose a legit guide would've allowed this?

Let me be clear: I am against 400+yd shots in general-especially on bitey-scratchy game. Learn to hunt.

What is the max distance you would find acceptable and how do you know that would have resulted in a better outcome?

I'm not that familiar with what a coastal brown bear guide will/wont allow but I know the interior grizzly guides I've talked with wouldn't have an issue with this shot if their customer demonstrated the appropriate abilities.

From the ADFG website:

If you are going to hunt brown bear on the Alaska Peninsula or Kodiak Island, a .30-06 loaded with 200- or 220-grain Nosler® or similar premium bullet will do the job with good shot placement. Only consider using a .300, .338 or larger magnum if you can shoot it as well as you can the .30-06.

 

[Wigeon kryptonite]

I really don't understand the criticism on this issue. Seems like it's from people who haven't spent any time shooting at longer distances. 470 yards isn't that far. In moderate winds hitting a pie plate with a 223 at that distance is easy money. I assume all of you are against archery hunting brown bears in any circumstance? Against hunting brown bears with a 30/06? Bullets of all types occasionally fail to have the desired terminal effect. Barnes, accubonds, bergers, you name it - you can find examples of poor performance.

I listened to the podcast and it seems like they aren't sure what jammed the gun up and a primer was just the only thing they could think of. It could have been ice. I have a hard time picturing how a primer would get stuck in the front action screw hole. From the story it sounds like if they would have been closer the bear just would have gotten to them sooner..



What is "knock down"? Are you referring to hydrostatic shock?

I wonder if a 338-06 inside 100 yards would be adequate for the people critiquing? Because the 225 accubond from a 338-06 inside 100 yards is running about the same velocity as it would be from a RUM at 470 yards.

I don’t really understand the support for the long range shot. Seems like it’s from people who haven’t actually hunted and killed giant brown bears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

I don’t really understand the support for the long range shot. Seems like it’s from people who haven’t actually hunted and killed giant brown bears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not that everyone is supporting shooting that distance, its they aren't criticizing them for shooting that distance.

A 338RUM is perfectly capable at the distances they shot. Shit happens. They stayed well within the means of their rifle and abilities. Just because the bear didn't fall over dead the moment it got hit doesn't mean they did anything wrong. I watched a buddy smash an elk at 705 yard with a 300RUM. She stood there for 5 seconds and fell over dead. A month earlier he shot a bull 3 times with the same gun at 300 yards and it took 150 yards and about 3 minutes for the elk to die. Same gun, same bullet, same load. Two completely different outcomes. The only thing that changed was the distance. Which one was too far of a shot?

 

[wind gypsy]

I don’t really understand the support for the long range shot.

I'm more trying to understand logic for criticism than I am trying to support it. They even concluded on their podcast that they'd probably avoid shooting that far again. I'm trying to understand but I haven't seen an explanation yet for:
a. IF or WHY a 225 accubond at 2500 FPS impact velocity is insufficient
b. an explanation of why a prone shot at 470 yards is unethical by anyone with significant experience or knowledge when it comes to longer range shooting. I'm pretty sure he hit lungs on the first shot? Is it better to be closer to a bear that wants to kill you after you shoot it in the lungs?

If the video shows impact or if there are terminal performance pics it would help paint the picture IMO.

Seems like it’s from people who haven’t actually hunted and killed giant brown bears.

Fair criticism, in my case at least.

 

[Wigeon kryptonite]

You can shoot a brown bears heart and completely destroy it, and it will still have enough adrenaline to stay upright for 30 seconds. I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight with anybody here, but until you’ve seen the raw power these bears have, it’s hard to understand that the equation to kill these big bears includes much more than bullet weight and velocity.

I’ve watched a sow soak 8 rounds from a 45-70 and a 300 win mag at 100 yards and watched her tumble around and be pissed off for over 40 seconds (actually got it on video).

It’s very dependent on terrain, backup shooter, bears proximity to cover or water, rest, etc., but I know my hunting partners and I put every effort to stalk within 100-150 yards when we’re getting ready to shoot a brownie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk