I am all about competency and taking high confidence shots, whether it is long range or 10 feet away.
There is a lot of push back against long range bombers, and rightly so. "Unethical behavior" is bad.
When engaging in discussions, maybe this will help pointing out there are some slippery slopes with right/wrong, ethics, and biases.
Does is matter if my odds for a clean kill with a long range shot are equal to or better than:
A shot in timber on running deer?
Kids first hunt when they have buck fever clean misses inside 100 yards?
How about an old timer's last hunt?
Kentucky windage, "hold over the back" with unknown distance?
If I can get 60% of my hits on a 6 inch plate at 600 yards is that enough to let me take the shot? 70% 75%?
What about 100% of my hits within a 14" plate at the same distance?
Is there a number that would satisfy you?
I am not against any of the above, and I would encourage young kids and old timers to get out there. I'd just do my best to help. And, I shot my buffalo on the run, so I am not against that either.
What has been interesting to me is to go shooting with an old timer or guy who is against long range bombers. They have their justified reasons.
But, after I show them how "easy" it is to bang steel with my rifle at 500 and 1000, it puts a smile on their face. Most of them are interested right there about getting a rifle and rangefinder so that they can stretch just a little further to kill the next buck at 450 or 500 yards that they just can't seem to kill in years past. I've helped a half dozen or so choose rifles, cartridges, gear, and taken them to the range until they are competent to go take that shot they are comfortable with.
Ethics is a personal decision. Let someone hold their opinion.
The best course of action is educate people so that everyone can make better informed decisions about their own skill and what is possible. Let's get the conversation away from generic and baseless claims about long range shooting just because the anti-long range shooter might not be capable.
There is a lot of push back against long range bombers, and rightly so. "Unethical behavior" is bad.
When engaging in discussions, maybe this will help pointing out there are some slippery slopes with right/wrong, ethics, and biases.
Does is matter if my odds for a clean kill with a long range shot are equal to or better than:
A shot in timber on running deer?
Kids first hunt when they have buck fever clean misses inside 100 yards?
How about an old timer's last hunt?
Kentucky windage, "hold over the back" with unknown distance?
If I can get 60% of my hits on a 6 inch plate at 600 yards is that enough to let me take the shot? 70% 75%?
What about 100% of my hits within a 14" plate at the same distance?
Is there a number that would satisfy you?
I am not against any of the above, and I would encourage young kids and old timers to get out there. I'd just do my best to help. And, I shot my buffalo on the run, so I am not against that either.
What has been interesting to me is to go shooting with an old timer or guy who is against long range bombers. They have their justified reasons.
But, after I show them how "easy" it is to bang steel with my rifle at 500 and 1000, it puts a smile on their face. Most of them are interested right there about getting a rifle and rangefinder so that they can stretch just a little further to kill the next buck at 450 or 500 yards that they just can't seem to kill in years past. I've helped a half dozen or so choose rifles, cartridges, gear, and taken them to the range until they are competent to go take that shot they are comfortable with.
Ethics is a personal decision. Let someone hold their opinion.
The best course of action is educate people so that everyone can make better informed decisions about their own skill and what is possible. Let's get the conversation away from generic and baseless claims about long range shooting just because the anti-long range shooter might not be capable.
