Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TXAoudadKlr, Aug 26, 2015.
I would have actually agreed with what the guy was saying if he had left the bashing about Long Range shooters/hunters out of it. To the average hunter, 1/2 MOA custom rifles are useless in hunting. The average hunter wont take a shot over 400 yards and 1-1.5 MOA rifles will kill just as good as a 1/2 MOA rifle at those ranges.
What he doesn't take into account is that in most circumstances, a Long Range hunter is trying to squeeze every bit of accuracy out of his rifle in order to make his long range hunting more successful. When you are shooting at 800-1000 yards at an animal, 1 MOA can miss the vitals of a deer.
And I will add that 1/2 MOA and 1 MOA are both meaningless unless you can read your wind right. ESPECIALLY at long range.
Another point that he is missing is that people who try to get to that 1/2 MOA accuracy usually are reloaders and we do it for the pure enjoyment of it. Some people buy those 1/2 MOA rifles simply because they can and they want to even though they only shoot to 400-500 yards. They enjoy it and that's what they want so why take away from their enjoyment.
A lot of times, these writers are not taking into account the Long Range hunters that do it right. The ones that spend countless hours doing precision reloading, countless hours at the range, countless hours honing their skills by shooting in wind to learn more about what their bullet is doing at different ranges in those winds. The writer is bunching the ones that do it right and the ones that just go out and pray they hit it and then brag about it the one time that they do. Which is not fair to the ones that do it right.
I'm in Korhil78's camp on this one. I'm acquainted with lots of shooters who shoot out to 1000 yards. On a perfectly calm day, from a good rest and with a little luck they can hit a target. Put them in the field under conditions that Ralph Smith describes in his article and they're very lucky to make a good clean kill at 500 yards. I practice at 1000 yards. And I do it often. But I do it to hone my shooting skills and have never (and have no plans to ever) try to take game at that distance. If I can be consistent at 1000 then I know I can be consistent at 700 because the rifle is tuned correctly. None of it works if I don't do my job properly.
A true 0.5" guarantee is very useful, much more descriptive than "tack driver" or "shoots lights out". It's the first step in objective communication between the builder, and the customer.
Knowing I have a rifle/load combo that makes the 0.5" club, eliminates excuses, and challenges me to get better. It sets up a situation where I can work on my weaknesses in a constructive fashion.
I'm challenged at the range to stay under 0.75" these days. Most groups go 0.6-0.9" even with the rifles I beat the 0.5" mark with on occasion. Putting in time to make that mark helps one regardless of the range.
I saw a number (Litz I think) that maintained using a 10" plate at 1000 yards, the difference between a rifle capable of 0.1" and one that shot 1" groups was only about 1%. Statistical analysis-numbers I don't understand, and likely neither does Petzal or he would use them rather than hyperbole, and defamation.
I usually only read Petzal in the Dr's office, and consider him much less useful than a 0.5" rifle.
Petzel. Could have guessed.
Couldn't read it. I can hear his droning voice in my head.
Probably shouldn't have said that a 1/2 MOA rifle is useless to the average Hunter because it will kill game for them. What I meant to say is that at those ranges a 1/2 MOA rifle is just as good as a 1-1.5 MOA rifle to the average Hunter at those ranges. They will both get the job done. If it is their preference to get a 1/2 MOA rifle then by all means they should have at it. A writer in a magazine shouldn't make that decision for them and he definitely shouldn't be bashing his fellow hunters by spewing out things that he has possibly no clue about (longrange hunting). But I don't know him or his hunting experiences.
And when I say the average Hunter, I am talking about the guy that breaks his gun out right before hunting season...shoots it 1 to 3 times and thinks he is good to go.
I still can't read it. Just can't stomach the attitude.
The "fair chase" and bad mouthing long range is a "movement" being perpetrated by old guys with failing eyes who fear their Boone and Crockett or what ever "scored" elk will get surpassed by a long range hunter. Before you go off on that, I'm 57+.
It's not about "ethics" that is a smoke screen tactic.
Want to see Petzels blood boil? Show him a "better" elk rack than his taken by a "long range" hunter.
Ok, I read it. It's not "that bad".
It is an "editorial opinion" piece after all.
Piled in on the anti-long range "movement", it is not what I'd like to see.
That is the insulting part.
controversy sells magazines. larger circulation sells advertising. he makes more money. he doesn't care WHAT he say's , just that he gets paid.
Well, To me I often compare my shooting to my archery shooting. I practice long, it makes the close shoots easier. I learn wind and the arc of an arrow so I have learned to anticipate the actual flight path of my arrow and truly visualize my shot. As a hunter, I feel this is an advancement or honing of my skills. I no longer just match the pin and peep on the target, I am looking at other factors and visualizing the shot. So, why am I getting into long range hunting with a rifle? For the exact same reason. I am wanting to advance my skills to become a much more capable and complete hunter and in order to do that I want to be as confident as possible with my weapon of choice. In fact, one really could argue that long range hunters are much much more ethical and practical. A lot of these 100 - 300 yard shooter are lucky to make it to the range once before the season starts. Same with archery, no denying that either. In the end, its all about what makes it enjoyable for the hunter. I really never put a lot into those articles anyway, just one persons opinion.
I absolutely do not agree with him but it's not surprising that the writer would comfortably take the position expressed in the article. Even looking at the poll on this site, of the longest distance of game shot, with a fairly good sampling of about 6000 participants that are at least interested in LR hunting, less than 20% have shot game at greater than 600 yards. If you extrapolated this to the total universe of rifle hunters it would likely amount to far less than 1%. He is quite safe with the vast majority of his readership. After spending over half of my life hunting at conventional distances with conventional equipment, the combination of the challenge, skill, and exclusivity of successfully taking game to 1000 yards is what keeps me as motivated to hunt at 65 as it did when I was 15. Those poor, pitiful naysayers don't know what they are missing
I don't Long range hunt specifically, I only started getting into to extend my effective distance. Because I don't want to wander back to camp and say I saw a HUGE (Insert game species) but it was too far, so I started learning about and practicing shots at longer ranges so I'd have another skill/tool at my disposal. I couldn't care if my shot is 5 yards or 500 yards makes no difference to me but I tend to be more proud of it if done at longer distance's.
I don't quite agree with another thing he said about not being able to get the same accuracy off a bench as in the field. I believe if you practice field position shots you can be just as accurate.
Another article I read of his, he stated for using reticle vs dials. if needing to do a quick shot use the reticle and if Now this is what pissed me off, "if you are so far away the animal you are after has no idea of your existence than you dials". Far away or not if you are a good hunter the animal shouldn't know you are there regardless of distance. I've had deer walk by my stands a just 3 yards away, hell my grand father killed a 150 class 10pt sitting on a 5 gallon bucket next to a tree by just remaining still and quiet several years ago.
I've read enough of your post, I think understood where you were coming from. I agree with what you said, both times! I was just responding to the article itself from a little different angle.
I'm in the under 600 group Greyfox speaks of. The only way I'm taking a 1000 yard shot at game is if my range finder totally misleads me.