How does this get posted?
How do these guys know how to make the most perfect stock geometry in existence, and fail so visibly to responsibly educate shooters?
A lot of objectively bad pronghorn shots, under pretty ideal conditions, with very recent training. What's going wrong in the system? I know it's not the rifles.
14:45 a clean miss at 670 means there was exactly as much chance of hitting the animal in the gut as there was of hitting him in the vitals. Inexcusable. That rifle in someone else's hands could have been ethical at 670. Not in that gent's hands. Full stop, it's your responsibility as guides to not expose hunters to the likelihood of a wounded creature. Even mores when you're taking on the role of instructors. He's coming in saying "I wouldn't shoot a lope past 300" and he's coming out of the training saying "I feel comfortable shooting one at 670."
Clearly something is broken here, or there would not have been a clean miss at that yardage in cream puff conditions. And how do you then encourage him to send another at 600 yards a few hours later? What changed between morning and afternoon to give you sudden confidence that he wouldn't torture a living thing at functionally the same distance?
Stuff like this and the Fierce videos reinforce the fuddlore on shots over 300m being unethical. I'm sick of it.
Either:
You can start standing with your rifle in your hand, assume a shooting position, load fire and hit a 2MOA target at your distance 5 times in a row ... or ... you don't hunt that damn distance. Screw your bench rest training where you hit a plate 4 out of 5 times and give yourself a passing grade. A 20% chance of effing up a living being is more than high enough for me.
/endrant
-J
How do these guys know how to make the most perfect stock geometry in existence, and fail so visibly to responsibly educate shooters?
A lot of objectively bad pronghorn shots, under pretty ideal conditions, with very recent training. What's going wrong in the system? I know it's not the rifles.
14:45 a clean miss at 670 means there was exactly as much chance of hitting the animal in the gut as there was of hitting him in the vitals. Inexcusable. That rifle in someone else's hands could have been ethical at 670. Not in that gent's hands. Full stop, it's your responsibility as guides to not expose hunters to the likelihood of a wounded creature. Even mores when you're taking on the role of instructors. He's coming in saying "I wouldn't shoot a lope past 300" and he's coming out of the training saying "I feel comfortable shooting one at 670."
Clearly something is broken here, or there would not have been a clean miss at that yardage in cream puff conditions. And how do you then encourage him to send another at 600 yards a few hours later? What changed between morning and afternoon to give you sudden confidence that he wouldn't torture a living thing at functionally the same distance?
Stuff like this and the Fierce videos reinforce the fuddlore on shots over 300m being unethical. I'm sick of it.
Either:
You can start standing with your rifle in your hand, assume a shooting position, load fire and hit a 2MOA target at your distance 5 times in a row ... or ... you don't hunt that damn distance. Screw your bench rest training where you hit a plate 4 out of 5 times and give yourself a passing grade. A 20% chance of effing up a living being is more than high enough for me.
/endrant
-J
