Long distance hunting shots over 125 yards. Ethical or not?

Civil discussion that is good, but to have a civil discussion with someone who does not agree with your way of life, hunting, shooting, fishing and the such is in possible. And an uncivilized race of people as the human race is does not help. I think if you can make the shot no matter the distance take it,there is always a follow-up shot. We are talking about pest.

I must agree on the distance. But we are dealing with vermin. With them eating 54.5 # of alfalfa a year, at least the ones I'm hunting. I have taken 1000, with my son a day. 54000# of alfalfa hay 27 tons at minimum now at $189 a ton. That's a pile of $$. I'm sure the farmers I hunt for don't care where the squirrels die, just be dead. My longest confirmed kill with a Crown .22, took me two shots, one for a windage adjustment, the second for the kill. I would much rather get under 60 yards where I all but know the varmint will be killed. And birds the same way.

OK, OK... I think this has been hashed out before, but I'm going to bring it up again due to the rash of shooting videos at distances in excess of 125 yards. I know its cool to watch some shooter hit or graze a bird or squirrel at over 125 yards. But what we don't see are all the misses (yep, I'm sure they aren't shown - well, except for Ted in his latest video), or the injuries where the target flies or runs off only to die some time later.

But in reality, how accurate at over 125 yards are even the best air rifles, and pellets or slugs? (I'm not going to get into the slugs versus pellets at this time.)

So, lets look at an example I've been considering. Lets say I want to shoot a ground squirrel at 125 yards. Yes, its not the heroic 260 yards, or even 175 yards, but for argument's sake, its at 125 yards. Have I hit at 125 yards? Yep. Have I missed at 125 yards? Yep. But I digress....

To get a humane kill at 125 yards, I need to shoot less than MOA!

From a less than ideal position...

In the wind...

With a distance that is shot with a laser rangefinder, but in the field, maybe or maybe not within a couple of yards...

And at a target that is about the size of the 9 ring on an Extreme Benchrest (EBR) Target...

Not from sitting at a bench with a solid rest on a cement table, but in the field, prone, or maybe bucket and sticks, or leaning against a tree, whatever...

Now consider that the BEST score at EBR 2018 was 215. The BEST score, not the average score. OK, lets go down the list and for argument's sake pick #10th place. Better than most, but not the winner. So 10th place shot 205. That's an average of 8.2 on the EBR target, or within 2 inches (the 8 ring is 2 inches).

So, shooting at GREATER than 100 yards, and consistently hitting a 1.25 inch target (EBR 9 ring) is pretty much a wing an a prayer. We all know how much easier it is to shoot 75 yards (top score 239), and can extrapolate just how much harder it would be than 100 yards if the EBR was at 125 yards. No one would average better than 3.5 inches, or the EBR 6 ring. And that's at "only" 125 yards, not 175 or 250 yards. Now throw in that less than ideal position, and variable wind with no wind flags...

So, we get back to ethical hunting, and maybe we can have a civil discussion regarding that topic, and extreme distances with air rifles?

EBR: Target Size Measures:

• X ring ……… 0.200
• 10 ring……… 0.475
• 9 ring………. 1.250
• 8 ring………. 2.000
• 7 ring……… 2.800
• 6 ring……… 3.580
• 5 ring……… 4.50
• 4 ring……….5.125

Click to expand...

You have raised some very valid point. 

I will not criticise thos who do shoot at long distances but I will not condone them either, it’s down to the individual to decide if it is ethical or not.

while I often target shoot at 100yards, I very rarely shoot animals past 65yards. My reason, mainly, I shoot to put food on the table, a head shot makes the most of the meat I harvest. The only exception is when I am asked to cull birds that roost high up in building, where it is sometimes not possible to get a clean shot do the structures obscuring the target.



bb

EBR can be very stressful. Some people travelled thousands of miles to get one chance just to enter into the finals. Everyone is under a time limit. Everyone is proving themselves against the best in the world, whereas shooting pest can be very relaxing and very fun. There is pressure to try to get the best humane shot on pest but you also know you are there to get rid of these pest.

For shooting pellets, IMO for hunting, I would try to keep my shots under a hundred under little wind but in perfect conditions (no wind, firm shooting position, and feeling very confident) I would stretch it out a little further. For cast bullets, I have no opinion because I know little about it.

I think it depends if the individual knows what they could do. Its a hard subject to discuss because we don't know the conditions of the gun, the shooter, weather, the pellets/bullets, and on and on and on. We just see the shots and wonder.

I keep it under 100 yards even with my 25 cal impact x. People who shoot like 150-200+ yard are thugs tryings to brag about how far they can kill an animal but don't think about what if they injured it and it later dies somewhere. It's more of a bragging rights imo. Sure anyone can take a shot at a animal 200 yards and more and keep shooting till they hit the animal. But is it good to do it. No.

In my world (larger property than avg and surrounded by even larger properties and farms and state forest) on true predators (to land or animals) dead is dead. That kinda ignores the ethical kill twist. I'll add this though, I'm no more a fan of poisons or trapping (when the intent is then to dispatch the animal after). Me, I wouldn't take a shot on an animal I wanted gone, from a less than a solid tripod or bench, at more than 75y, less from most of my guns. But then again, I won't go after a groundhog (as an example) until I see him roaming back to his spot a couple times and feel like I time him a little and set up within say 60y and wait. We don't have a huge problem with this stuff where I am. Deer are the biggest problem and we let other folks hunt our land in season. Still, I'm looking into deer appropriate hunting equip, it won't be an airgun! If I hit - I wanna know that I won.

Civil discussion that is good, but to have a civil discussion with someone who does not agree with your way of life, hunting, shooting, fishing and the such is in possible. And an uncivilized race of people as the human race is does not help. I think if you can make the shot no matter the distance take it,there is always a follow-up shot. We are talking about pest.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the animals/pests deserve an ethical, clean kill. Which we all know is sometimes difficult under ideal conditions. So throw in long distances and? Some talented shooters can make those shots, but long distance airgun hunting seems an anathema to me.

I would point out that at EBR there are a LOT of wind gauges/indicators of various flavors all over the field. So while EBR has some interesting wind conditions which have been discussed here before, I think it is often fair to say that out in the real world and shooting at targets often far off the ground (and occasionally on buildings which produce unusual turbulence) you will likely not have as good of a wind call as you would have at EBR. 



Your post I think also raises another great point, which is that a lot of newcomers pick up a beautiful expensive gun and then promptly complain that they got a lemon which just wouldn't shoot. A lot of that may have to do with "grouping bias" where we all tend to show off the groups we're most proud of. If you didn't realize they're exactly that, good anomalies, it'd be easy to believe that your rifle just can't shoot. In reality though it appears some of the best shooters in airgunning can't reliably do much better than 1.75MOA and most are around 2MOA. 

Apologies if I missed it, but in case I didn't here is a link to the full EBR rules if anyone wants a direct reference (although why you wouldn't trust Centercut is beyond me):
http://www.extremebenchrest.com/extreme-benchrest-rules/



Great post CCut. 

It sometimes (often) boils down to a matter of necessity versus challenge versus conscience, which can present quite a quandary for individuals that enjoy exploring their (and their equipments) boundaries, but also have a conscience (empathy for the quarry). I put myself in that category; much more-so in my old age than in my younger days. In my case it means that although I still possess and can't deny my strong hunting instincts, I don't hunt nearly as much as in the past simply because I've become much more selective in acceptable prey species, hunt scenarios, and shot presentations. Much of that selectivity results from hunting 'challenges' gone awry. I share the following example as a cautionary tale,

After having twice absorbed veterinary bills to reassemble two of our pet cats attacked by feral tom-cats, upon moving to a new forty-acre home-place I was 'motivated' to not exactly suffer stray cats 'gladly'. While patrolling the new acreage with a 22 foot-pound, laser-accurate PCP rifle and spotting a large BOB-cat, after a short debate with my conscience that logic won ("if that BOB-cat attacks Whiskers, there won't be enough left for a trip to the vet!), I decided to remove the threat... but only if I could get a good brain-shot presentation. Which is what happened when the wildcat responded to my mouth-squeaking after I'd taken a sitting, field-target position behind weedy cover. The 38 yard shot was complicated by gusty cross-winds, so my shot hit about 1" wide of intentions. As the bobcat stumbled I immediately chambered another round and took a second attempted brain-shot, ringing his bell again just long enough to chamber another round and get off a quick chest shot as he dove for cover. Thankfully he went less than ten feet, but I was remorseful that he didn't drop to my first attempted brain shot.

The whole scene replays as a reminder that even the most justifiable, well-intentioned, and selective hunting scenarios are something of a 'crap-shoot'. Again and for what(ever) it's worth, I share this regrettable example as a cautionary tale. I'm pointing to the first shot, that did not penetrate the skull due to hitting 1" wide of perfect placement.

Most "hunters" from what I can tell think they are better shots than the best competition shooters. So your not going to convince the ones who are the problem. It is the same way in traditional archery.

To expound on CM's point, I finally quit bowhunting (first with compounds, then a couple decades of traditional archery equipment) after too many perfect shots going exactly where intended... only to have the target duck or dodge the arrow (I always used bright fletchings for tracer-like replays of shot placements). And though I consider traditional bowhunting one of the most challenging, aesthetic, and esoteric challenges available to sportsmen, it's one thing when an animal completely dodges the arrow; another thing altogether when the dodge results in a bad hit.

 

Is it ethical to poison rats when the poison makes them bleed to death internally?

I say only take an ethical shot on game animals and kill vermin by any means.

Is it ethical to poison rats when the poison makes them bleed to death internally?

I say only take an ethical shot on game animals and kill vermin by any means.

Click to expand...

So tell us what's the difference between aniamls and vermin? They are all animals and every animal deserve a quick and clean kill. Just cause an animals is consider invasive by you doesn't mean you can kill them however you want as long as they as dead. Remember, human are the worst invasive species. Does that mean we should skin them alive as long as they bleed out and die?

My hate for starlings i will try at any distance for them only. Destroy at all cost. 

"OK, OK… I think this has been hashed out before, but I'm going to bring it up again due to the rash of shooting videos at distances in excess of 125 yards. I know its cool to watch some shooter hit or graze a bird or squirrel at over 125 yards. But what we don't see are all the misses (yep, I'm sure they aren't shown – well, except for Ted in his latest video), or the injuries where the target flies or runs off only to die some time later."

I'm only replying here after reading the original poster's first paragraph.From what I've read/seen here that does not seem to be a concern. I am not worried about building up bad karma, but when target shooting outdoors, and the frequent sparrow or bird lands within range I just don't see any reason to kill it. No offense to those that do.

Great topic that I can appreciate being discussed under non judgmental circumstances. Personally I feel as though ethics should be left up to the individual hunter, they have to decide what's right from wrong. I have been guilty of making poor decisions in the field and have had to adjust my approach and technique on many occasions. For me it entirely depends on the rifle I'm using, I have somewhat of a criteria I follow for taking shots beyond 100 yards as far as power.( It does go well beyond a number of things) Most of the Varmint hunting I do does involve shots beyond 100 yards due to the fact that I really can't get closer without them getting skittish. I'm more than sure that in some video's only the good shots are actually shown, nobody really wants to show a failure and that even a pro is no different than the average joe. Let's be honest here, those long shots get the ooohs and the awes and it makes you wonder where it will ever end. Modern PCP's are incredible hunting tools and with the slug fad coming into play I think it's really brought long range into the light. For me I think testing needs to be done on paper long before it's "tested" on an animal, just my own personal view. 

Click to expand...

So tell us what's the difference between aniamls and vermin? They are all animals and every animal deserve a quick and clean kill. Just cause an animals is consider invasive by you doesn't mean you can kill them however you want as long as they as dead. Remember, human are the worst invasive species. Does that mean we should skin them alive as long as they bleed out and die?

Click to expand...

Vermin/pests are damaging, like rats or roaches. Game animals don't pose any threat to your property. Do you try to kill fleas, ticks, mosquitoes and roaches humanly?

Pest/vermin fall under the rules of war to me. Stop the threat by any means.

I believe its human nature to kill things/animals etc just because we can. Look what happened to the buffalo. I agree its mostly ego taking extreme distance shots at animals without thought or concern for their victim.