Long Range is all the Rage. Is this taking hunting in the wrong direction?

[The Famous Grouse]

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 

[FPH]

I see  folks for the most part with no idea about stalking, wind, moon phases, sent and are under gunned.  They like to brag about their long range kills, they never talk about their long range  wounding and non tracking abilaties.  The poliferation of 4x4s and ATVs sure messed up hunting as far as I'm concerned.

[The Famous Grouse]

That is exactly my concern--that all this talk about so-called "long range hunting" is really about "long range shooting" and there are many pretenders out there who are labeling themselves "long range hunters" who are vastly overplaying their marksmanship skills.

I agree, equipment of any type-rifles, scopes, atvs, etc, is NOT a substitute for hunting skill.   

Hunting since the dawn of human existence has been about using a blend of skills. There were no points for making it harder than it had to be. The successful hunter was the hunter who know his quarry and who had the skills, stealth, and cunning to get as far inside of the effective range of his weapon as possible.  To me, the ethos of modern hunting is crafted around these ideas.

In general, from what I've seen, there are a large number of hunters out there who are only marginally capable of taking game within 100 yards under field conditions.  I find it very worrying that it is likely that a significant portion of these "long range" newbies are most probably members of this category. 

Grouse
 

[mechanic]

I too, have asked the bullet drop question when someone talks of "long range".  Most tell me "their" gun doesn't have any drop.

"I have a sooper doper major magnum, and it shoots flat to a thousand yards" I was told in one instance.

I try not to be in the same hunting locality with these idiots.

Ben

[FPH]

My last conversation with a new"long range hunter" was about how much damage the Berger bullet,he likes to use,  caused the deer to "blow apart".  I'm sure any brand of bullet can cause meat loss, but why revel in "blowing apart" the deer?  I thought the purpose was to harvest eatable meat.

[spruce]

Real hunting is fast becoming a lost art.  Few people nowadays put forth the time and effort to learn the skills necessary to truly hunt.  How often do you hear someone talk about, or read an article about, still-hunting, tracking, or how to scout and read the lay of the land to determine travel routes, etc.
 
What is called hunting, at least in this area, is now pretty much people going out in the morning and evening with a bucket of bait to freshen the bait pile and then sitting in a permanent heated blind staring at the pile.  In areas with more open terrain the "in" thing to do is set up where they can see 1000 yds and snipe away with their "tactical" gear.
 
I don't have a problem with people who utilize either method, I just have a problem with people who call it hunting. 

[Land_Owner]

FG - you put a lot of thought and consideration into your OP.  I like that. 

I used to know a guy, at the time in a club, who used a 50 BMG at 728 lazed yards from an elevated steady-rest that hit a doe in the neck and except for a piece of hide, blew it completely off the body.  The Club Pres. asked what caliber and promptly added that to the list of banned guns from that club.

There is a new sighting scope gadget, new technology, that allows a noobie to sight a far target, say 850 yards, and with little to no training, except in the scope and trigger themselves, not gun or range time, allows the noob to pull off that shot and make a hit.  Advertised for the "All In" hunters with far too little time to get close, personal, or their hands dirty learning the skills.

Never argue with an idiot for they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - George Carlin.  Don't pay too much attention to the others at the range.  Let these "so called 'Shooters'" allow themselves the delusion of grandeur and, as mechanic has posted, try not to be near them when hunting.

Perhaps one day, before older age takes me or my eyesight becomes too poor, I may go west for a P-dog hunt.  I think I would really like that.

[Ranger99]

i can understand the concern.
i've been asked a lot of times about
where do i think they should hold with
this bullet/load/rifle/scope/etc. .
i always ask where is it zeroed?
then i ask where does it hit at 300
400 etc. yards?
the answer is always " well. . . . i
haven't shot it at  **** yards"
to which i always say well. . .you need to.
all rifles and shooter abilities are different.
the other bad trend is using match-designed
bullets for game use, hence the crated
shoulders etc.
stalking is not practical where i hunt in
mostly thick high-pressured areas. if
you want a deer, you have to sit still
and be quiet, and pay attention to where
your shot will be, not dallying with your
i-phone. i understand about the atv's
also. there are those (able-bodied folks
i'm referring to) that won't walk 50
yards to the mailbox, let alone 100+
yards into the bush.
if someone can make an accurate and
humane long distance hunting shot, i
don't have a problem with that. i know
2 really good ones that i've hunted
with. they also practice regularly and
know the limitations of their equipment
and their abilities.
myself, i like mine the closer the better.
i've been that way since i started serious
bowhunting years ago.

[Bugflipper]

Nothing new in this trend. What about the buffalo shooters of the 1800s? By today's standards 120 or 140 gr of powder would have been the whiz bang magnums. They just didn't quite have the trajectory that modern centerfires do.

[Old Fart]

I think some of this is marketing driven with all the buzz about the new more accurate guns and ammo. Toss on top of that advances in reloading and software availability give folks a false sense of thier shooting abilities. But one thing still holds true. Time on range.
 
 
Me? I've gotten to where I want to shoot shorter and shorter shots. First I don't want to have travel that far to shoot long range, secondly I don't want to drag it very far. My ideal shot would be the critter jumping over my truck and being shot so it would drop in the bed.    Just kidding of course. 

[SHOOTALL]

I feel some confuse the issue. Hunting is finding and getting into the best position to take the shot. Be it walking up a covey of quail or an across the canyon shot at a deer. The question is the ability of the shooter , can they do the shot under field conditions ? but more important can they recognize a shot in the first place ? 
 It seems in every type hunting we see those who should not take long shots do so. Even water fowl hunting and dove hunting have their share of sky busters.
 What has happened IMHO is many put themselves under pressure to kill a critter or many critters and will take long bad shot or even short bad shots to achieve this goal.
 Like any marketing the shooting has embraced long range shooting because there is a market for it. Shooters can benefit from this if they restrain themselves to their ability.

[Land_Owner]

Like any marketing the shooting has embraced long range shooting because there is a market for it. Shooters can benefit from this if they restrain themselves to their ability.

Self restraint?  As in J.G. Wentworth's "I want my money and I want it now!" so too go a portion of the shooters at long range.  Annually we read of the duck hunter, silently awaiting his opportunity, only to see an air boat dump out deeks and late "hunters" and them being spurred by their "Guide" (when the birds are, in the writer's opinion, "too far away") to "Shoot!"  Shoot!"  Now that is hearsay, and painting with a broad brush, but due to persistence goes to the heart of the issue. 

Upland game and "long range" for me has been 200 yards due to the maximum available sight picture.  For those with 1,000's of yards of visibility I can only imagine.  Tempting as it might be, "reaching out to touch" something without proper preparation reeks of missing or hitting badly.  Some are going to try just as some go to the woods to shoot without the first minute of range time to even sight in their scopes.

[Bugflipper]

Shootall you have to look at it from this prospective. It's not hunting unless you hunt the same way I do. This argument is very old and can apply to virtually anything. Lets look at it from a bow hunting prospective;
When compounds first came out the traditional fellows said that's not hunting. Then when compounds became popular the traditionals were not hunters. Then to the compound shooter crossbow fellas weren't hunters. Now to the crossbow shooter the compound fella isn't a hunter.

 In every regard the one they used was hunting and the other method wasn't hunting. The same applies to the deer rifle, single shot, lever gun, military surplus, bolt action, precision rifle, magnum, evil black rifle all can look down on the other ones. Most folks move up a peg to the one they dislike eventually but there's always that taboo one a step up or back to look down upon. Same with ranges. Folks feel a need to vilify what they do and condemn what they don't, bait no bait, camo, no camo and so on. All the while the antis hate us all and really appreciate the infighting.

[D Fischer]

I though answering this question would certainly cause me grief. Absolutely taking hunting inn the wrong direction. I think that there should be a law that you are only allowed to fire one shot per game animal you have a tag for. I think then that all those people that consider themselves models of surpurb marksmanship might find they aren't so good anymore. And those that are good enough, and there is a lot of them, put them in a situation where they have only one live round of ammo and getting the game will make the difference between living and dieing! Perhaps what all this really say's to me is that more and more people have less and less respect for the animals they kill. To bad!

[SHOOTALL]

That is an interesting concept , guess you don't account for a defective shell or bullet. Nor respect the critter that receives either as it would be impossible to have a finishing shot.

[mechanic]

I have no problem with long range shooters. I have a problem with shooter of little ability shooting long range. I know my limitations and respect the animal too much to take unlikely shots.

[SHOOTALL]

I have no problem with long range shooters. I have a problem with shooter of little ability shooting long range. I know my limitations and respect the animal too much to take unlikely shots.

Yes !

[SHOOTALL]

Its not if you can hit the critter it is do you have any idea where you are going to hit the critter . If not maybe you should not shoot.

[The Famous Grouse]

I have no problem with long range shooters. I have a problem with shooter of little ability shooting long range. I know my limitations and respect the animal too much to take unlikely shots.

I think at the heart of my concern about where this "long range hunter" fad is taking us is that IMO the hunters that has an accurate understanding of his own ability and limitations is about the rarest bird in the forest. 

Far more common is the hunter who buys all the latest gear, fires a few dozen (if that) rounds a year, from a benchrest, at 100 yards, yet THINKS he knows his abilities and limitations.  And because he fancies this new "long range hunter" label, his own abilities in his mind expand even further. 

As with everything in human nature, the average person considers himself to be waaaaay above average.  And as psychology experiments have proven for decades, the lower a person's actual ability, the more likely they are to overestimate their abilities.

Grouse

[SHOOTALL]

TFG, around here that would be a Wal-Mart hunter. They go to Wal-Mart get everything including lic. and public land permit and just "GO HUNTING" . They do sit thru a hunter safety class to be fair but that does not make them a hunter. I know plenty of women who have sat thru. the class with their children and passed the test that have never hunted nor will that know more than some of the slobs who do enter the woods .

[briarpatch]

Progress goes in all directions, always has. The real question is. who is taking it in that direction, hunters or manufacturing?
 

[The Famous Grouse]

Progress goes in all directions, always has. The real question is. who is taking it in that direction, hunters or manufacturing?

Unfortunately, this long range fad is fueled almost entirely by the gear makers.   To me, it's just another twist on the old "invent the problem, then sell the solution" gimmick.

From experience, I know that really there have been only a few gear innovations in the past 20 years that have substantially improved the average hunter's ability to shoot game at longer distances. I would point to two areas:

- Optics - There are more premium quality scopes and other optics on the market now than there have every been and obviously this is a key advantage for the hunter.

- Rangefinders - The ability to know the range in absolute terms AND to be able to factor in the key variable of slope using a laser rangefinder, is probably the single biggest gear innovation in the last 20 years. 

Obviously, both of these pieces of gear only help those who have already helped themselves with good old hard work and practice.  Knowing the range to the target only helps you if you know your bullet drop, how to play the wind, how to place the shot, and then you still need to actually be able to make that one shot count. 

I will go so far as to say that nothing on the gear front that has been invented or improved in the last 20 years moves anything forward in terms of allowing the unskilled to do something that they couldn't do before. 

Grouse

[Ranger99]

i'd read earlier today on another site
some comments about rifle scopes.
nonverbatim this one fella says that
he had problems with his scope, and
how could anyone expect to make a
200 yard + shot with a teeny 3X9
50MM scope anyway?
i know i'm getting on up there, and
not quite a geezer yet, but i still
remember when a fixed four or six power
was considered a big scope. a lot
of folks used those old post reticle
two powers if i'm remembering right,
and a lot of folks in this area didn't
use scopes at all.


still, regardless of equipment, imho
there's no substitute for regular
practice to gain proficiency and
familiarity of one's chosen firearm.

[barabbas]

I hunt on my place at mainly woods distances.  My shots are usually around 50 yds or less, and mostly around 25.  As yet, I don't need a scope at those distances because my eyes are still able to pick up the front site in low light.  Personally, I don't think I trust scopes anyway, but thats just me.  I know of those who hunt over beanfields and shoot great distances.  I guess I am biased but I've considered just when hunting becomes sniping.  I suppose each one has to make that call, based on experience, abilities, and yes, fairness to the animal, if there is such a thing.  I am in no way espousing what one should or should not do. These are just some things I wonder about sometimes sitting in the woods.

[SHOOTALL]

 The flip side is youth being exposed to long range shooting in the correct way. Will it aid the military by having experienced shooters joining when needed ?

[guzzijohn]

As I became older I became more of a "Softie". I just hate the thought of losing a wounded animal. When I was young I didn't care or think about it. Now, the only thing I will take questionable long range shots on are prairie dogs as I figure I will either clean miss it or any kind of hit will kill it with a .243 or the .219DW. I have passed on quite a few coyotes that I could have shot from my back door because I just happened to spot them but was not dressed to go out to follow up on a shot if needed.
GuzziJohn

[IOWA DON]

I think this is a real interesting topic of discussion and especially agree with Bugflipper that many hunters think “It's not hunting unless you hunt the same way I do”. I think it is easy to think this way. Where I grew up in Nebraska there was not much game and if I missed an animal it was generally a long time before I got another opportunity so marksmanship to me was THE major part of hunting. I did not get involved in long range shooting in just the last 3 years. By the time I was 20 years old, 45 years ago, I got my first deer. I had shot a few coyotes including two at around 400 yards with my 7MM Weatherby. That first deer was shot really close. I thought it a real disappointment after working up an accurate maximum load that would hit a deer with plenty of thump at 400 yards. However, others might have been really excited about tracking down a deer in the snow for a few hours and killing it. During the next 20 years I shot quite a few coyotes and antelope out 400 yards or so and considered them long shots. About 25 years ago I started using a 7 MM STW. With a 300 yard zero bullets were only about 7 inches low at 400 yards so shots at that distance on coyotes and antelope were very certain and “long range” got increased a little. Ten years ago I had a heavy barrel put on my .338-.378 Weatherby, put a 3.5-14X scope on it modified with extra dots for points of impact at longer ranges, and bought a Lieca 1200-yard laser rangefinder. Then Iowa, considering deer to be too numerous, opened up a January antler-less deer season during which rifles could be used. I found that 400 yards was no longer a long shot on a deer sized animal with that rifle and a laser rangefinder, and that deer could be taken with certainty well past 600 yards if the wind was calm. Anyway, I got to shoot lots of antlerless deer which other hunters did not want to shoot. I guess to a lot of them it wasn't hunting unless they were shooting bucks and it wasn't hunting unless it involved several hunters making a drive and shooting at running deer. I think one’s hunting methods should be left to the individual as long as it does not cause game to be wounded.

[RPRNY]

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.


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.

Is this long range hunting trend taking the sport in the wrong direction?

Grouse

Quite a good observation and one with which I agree.

The problem is that raising the subject on a hunting/gun forum is that the responses will be skewed. By nature of the forum, you will have substantially more people like yourself who "shoot a good deal more than the average hunter" or those whose internet personna claims to.

The fact is that the majority of "hunters" (defined in my mind as anyone who has purchased/secured a hunting license more than two years in a row - an arbitrary definition but one used in NSSF data collection, for example) are unable to shoot reliably beyond 100 yards and that, even then, they would struggle without an inanimate rest of some kind. So, for the vast majority of hunters (as defined above), long range hunting is beyond their ability and ethical responsibility.

BUT, I suspect that the economic demographics of that group are such that a majority of them are not buying new and expensive rifles but, if buying new, are very happy with the Ruger, Marlin, Savage, Remington sub $500 deer rifles that will serve their needs perfectly well.

SO, if I am the business development or sales team at Gunmaker X, I am looking to the minority of hunters who are accomplished marksmen, hunt 20 days or more a year (arbitrary) or hunt specific terrain (mountains, prairie) where rifles, ammo, gear marketed as long range will have real appeal. While there may not be volume, there will be margin. If Joe 100yard buys some rifles, ammo, gear in this category and thinks it makes him a long range hunter, well, it's a free country (for the moment) and freedom includes the right of other people to do stupid stuff.

THEREFORE, I agree with the sentiment that there is some danger in this marketing but my concern is offset by a few things: Joe 100yard isn't going to wound anything at 300 yards - he'll just miss; most of the people that buy long range stuff will probably have either the proficiency to use it or the common sense to not and lie well about it, and; while I am annoyed by it, in the bigger picture, there are so many other things to get pissed off about that my annoyance will pass like a moral qualm does a politician. 

[SHOOTALL]

I shot IHMSA for several years often over 300 rounds or more a week. When I was shooting that much I was very accurate out to 200 meters and even 500 meters with an XP-100 in several calibers. Same for a couple other guns. We also shot different size targets like snuff cans ( one guy made metal ones ) out to 200 meters. But now 15 years later and no practice with the XP I would not take a long shot.
 Long range is a skill that can go away very fast. Also field shooting vs. range shooting can be very different . Only those willing to practice under field conditions and know their equipment as a second nature should shoot game at long range.

[flintlock]

Not everyone is obsessed with long range shooting...