Range, it seems, is all the rage these days. Everyone, and everything in hunting seems to have acquired the "long range hunting" label over the past 2-3 years.
I see it on gear. I see it on TV and in magazines. And I see on websites and forums. Suddenly almost everyone (or so it can seem) has declared themselves to be a "long range hunter". What's the best barrel length for long range hunting? What's the best load/bullet for long range hunting? Best scope, best bipod, best rangefinder, best camo, best gun, the questions go on and on.
Weather it's a temporary fad that's being fueled by those who have invented a problem and are now selling gear to solve it, or weather it's a genuine trend, I can't say. What I can say is that I'm very uneasy with the willingness many seem to have to declare themselves "long range hunters". I'm also concerned about where this trend/fad could do to the image of the sport.
A few observations. I shoot a good deal more than the average hunter. I log between 1500 and 2000 rounds of centerfire rifle ammo per year. I also regularly practice with rimfire handguns and rifles to the tune of thousands of rounds per year.
My observation--admittedly anecdotal--is that this interest in so-called "long range hunting" has NOT been accompanied by the improvement in the average hunter's practice habits or marksmanship skills. At least from what I've seen in considerable time spent at various ranges.
I rarely, if ever, see other hunters practice from any position EXCEPT sandbagged bench shooting. So rare is it for someone to use any other position, that I've actually been told (wrongly) that it's "against club rules". I regularly shoot from standing, sitting, seated shooting sticks, and bipod-on-bench positions. The only reason I do not practice prone is that I currently do not hunt any game where a prone shot is viable. But if I did, I would certainly add prone to the mix.
So all this leaves me wondering if all these newly-minted "long range hunters" carry concrete benches and sandbags with them into the field? Obviously not, so how are they practicing to be able to reliably kill game at long ranges?
I can tell you that a large portion of the ability to hit a game animal at long ranges is knowing how to make a shot under field--read: real life--conditions. Off shooting sticks, while sitting on the hard ground, with a crosswind, with sweat dripping in your eyes, having to back down the scope because of heat shimmer, with a guide telling you to hurry, and so on. These are the realities of REAL long range shooting.
And on a related note, I see a LOT of hunters who are enamored with their ability to shoot small groups at 100 yards. But then I ask the question bomb, "So what kind of drop are you getting at 300 and 400?"
Blank stare.
I have NEVER had anyone come back with an answer that verified that they REALLY knew. By that I mean, someone answering with precision, "1.25 inches low at 300, 4 inches low at 400, and 5 and and a half inches low at 450." I've heard guesses, guestimates, and outright "I dunnos," but in asking this dozens of times, it seems that average hunter really has virtually no idea beyond 100 yards. And this doesn't even begin to address knowledge of crosswinds. And yet everyone's now a "long range hunter".
Of course, even finding places where it's possible to shoot at 200, 300, and even beyond 400 yards is difficult. Which just adds to my unease about all these hunters who are claiming to be interested at taking shots at game at these ranges. And beyond.
Now I freely admit there are hunters out there who ARE doing all the right things to be able to take game at long ranges. With that said, the rising tide of long range talk disturbs given the lack of activity I see that would indicate hunters are seriously engaged in doing what it takes beyond upping their credit card limits to buy the latest so-called "long range" gear.
I have shot enough prairie dogs at ranges of 400 to 500+ yards to know just how difficult it is to place a bullet within a reliable kill zone at these distance and under real-life conditions. That experience has taught me a lot about what my own limitations would be were the stakes a lot higher and the game a lot bigger.
My personal belief is that hunting is just that--hunting. Shooting is one part of the overall mix, it is NOT a substitute for hunting skill. And since the beginning of time part of hunting skill has been knowing the game and possessing the skills to get close enough to make a quick and reliable kill. This "long range" fad seems to me to run counter to our calling as hunters.
Is this long range hunting trend taking the sport in the wrong direction?
Grouse