GUNS!!!!!!!!

[waxman]

bhahahahaha, i just looked it up, so some yahoo bubbaed it and now it's unobtainium and probably uncontrollable

[exsparky]

it's a 1,000 to 1500 dollar pistol.

WAY LOW.


There is a reason...

I wanted to buy one 10 years ago, an Argentinian version (I hear there were at least half a dozen of them) was 10% of what this guy wants for his English one. I had no idea an English one existed.

[mangle]

Kinda fun - https://taskandpurpose.com/military-...iron-man-suit/

[leroy jenkins]

Long distances and head/neck shots are for professional shooters, not any of us.

...less time at the range.

Hmm. I see a connection.

[Jacques Strap]

Hmm. I see a connection.

You clearly don't.

Go ahead and take that shot from an undetermined distance at a tiny, highly mobile, unpredictable target with a wide range of multi-planar movement. If you're lucky, you'll miss completely and he'll just run off scared. I'm you're unlucky, you'll hit the mark and delude yourself into thinking that's the point you should always aim for. And if you're really unlucky you'll blow his jaw to pieces and you'll get to see how well your expert marksmanship skill assuages the guilt of knowing that entirely because of your hubris or cockiness or lust for vainglorious bragging rights, that animal died a long, senseless, and excruciating death by starvation.

[Conundrum]

I think his point is how do you know no one here is a professional shooter? I'm not. But I work with a guy whose second job is training US and international Special Forces teams how to shoot better. He puts a lot of lead down range. If he wanted to take a head shot on an animal, I would not second guess him. He trains warriors how to take head shots on humans. He lurks here occasionally. Assuming you know a lot about people on an anonymous message board can be tricky.

Personally, I agree though. I would not take a head shot on an animal. I don't have the skill set to feel good about a head shot.

[TNKen]

I'm sure I've told this before on here. In my former life as a wildlife biologist, we collected white-tailed deer for parasite studies. Specimen had to be an adult doe, taken by a head-shot to preserve the abdominal contents. Shooting from a sandbag off the back of a truck using a spotlight didn't make it very challenging. My best run was 17 without a miss, 7 in one night. Used a Remington BDL in .25-06. Center on the eyes and let it fly. Again, longest shot I remember taking might have been 140 yards. Damned thing was like a laser. Great caliber.

Oh yeah, I was getting paid to do it, so technically I was a "professional" shooter, LOL.

[leroy jenkins]

I think his point is how do you know no one here is a professional shooter? I'm not. But I work with a guy whose second job is training US and international Special Forces teams how to shoot better. He puts a lot of lead down range. If he wanted to take a head shot on an animal, I would not second guess him. He trains warriors how to take head shots on humans. He lurks here occasionally. Assuming you know a lot about people on an anonymous message board can be tricky.

Personally, I agree though. I would not take a head shot on an animal. I don't have the skill set to feel good about a head shot.

my point was that if you actually practice shooting, and have a decent rifle, It's not that hard to shoot .5 moa. It really isn't.


Getting the right holdovers for wind on your first shot is a different thing, but I can routinely hit 2 inch targets at 180 yards with a 22, and I don't feel that is anything special. In gusting 10-15mph wind, when I am well practiced and have been shooting a lot, I can calculate the holdovers completely by feel, and pretty accurately.

Lots of hunters I see at the range really do not know how to shoot. Not really defending head shots, and I agree long range hunting shots are stupid, but its amazing how easy it is to actually be proficient with a firearm.



It's like people like that guy IskiBC, no not the multiple personality disorder, I mean the skiing ability, those guys that progress from climbing to mountaineering to ski mountaineering but still suck as a skier because they've never spent even a single season ripping around in bounds. Its amazing what you can become comfortable with if you actually spend the time to develop your skills.

[Conundrum]

I stand corrected.

[zion zig zag]

my point was that if you actually practice shooting, and have a decent rifle, It's not that hard to shoot .5 moa.

At a bench. Off of sandbags. Calm demeanor with low heart rate. Match ammo.
I'd venture a guess that consistent half MOA shooting is exceedingly rare in field conditions and with common hunting rests.

[mangle]

I'll add that .5 MOA isn't hard for a single group of three. There aren't many combinations of person/rifle/ammo/conditions that can do it for 30.

[highangle]

He said "Decent rifle", didn't he?

[waxman]

WAY LOW.


There is a reason...

I wanted to buy one 10 years ago, an Argentinian version (I hear there were at least half a dozen of them) was 10% of what this guy wants for his English one. I had no idea an English one existed.

as i said, unaltered it's a 1500 dollar pistol, I'm not sure it's worth 100,000+$ but good for him if he gets it
BTW it's Inglis not english

[exsparky]

Hard Times Armory made 5.
They were not known for the highest quality items.

[The Reverend Floater]

I stand corrected.

I laughed.

[The Reverend Floater]

You clearly don't.

Go ahead and take that shot from an undetermined distance at a tiny, highly mobile, unpredictable target with a wide range of multi-planar movement. If you're lucky, you'll miss completely and he'll just run off scared. I'm you're unlucky, you'll hit the mark and delude yourself into thinking that's the point you should always aim for. And if you're really unlucky you'll blow his jaw to pieces and you'll get to see how well your expert marksmanship skill assuages the guilt of knowing that entirely because of your hubris or cockiness or lust for vainglorious bragging rights, that animal died a long, senseless, and excruciating death by starvation.

I saw a dude shoot the jaw off a buck once. Fortunately he killed it on the second shot, but it was awful. He was 75, though, and had hiked 1200' in vertical and packed more than half out himself, despite my repeated offer to pack it out for him. So I still left pretty impressed.

But yeah, seeing a buck get its jaw blown off is horrible.

[MakersTeleMark]

I've seen it once with an elk, and it was pretty funny actually.

It was dead, and I am a little sick, but I did do some impressions with it in the field.

[highangle]

I've seen it once with an elk, and it was pretty funny actually.

It was dead, and I am a little sick, but I did do some impressions with it in the field.

I'm sure your kids thought that shit was a funny af too...

Long Range Hunting making the world a better place.

[The Reverend Floater]

I'm sure your kids thought that shit was a funny af too...

Long Range Hunting making the world a better place.

It doesn't have to be long range. The aforementioned old timer was an experienced hunter shooting a .300RUM at 120 yards. The dear was quartering to, with his head down.

[highangle]

[LeeC]

Gatekeeping the morality of what long range is vs ability.
Funz

[highangle]

"I cain't git no closer than a half mile!"
Internet dope.

[Jacques Strap]

Gatekeeping the morality of what long range is vs ability.
Funz

An ethical hunter is committed to achieving a clean kill without undue suffering to the animal.

It's not that hard to shoot .5 moa. It really isn't.

As zion zig zag said, sub-MOA with cartridges suitable for taking big game is exceedingly rare, bordering on functionally impossible. Let alone in hunting conditions.

If he wanted to take a head shot on an animal, I would not second guess him. He trains warriors how to take head shots on humans.

Recreational hunting isn't war.

My point really was that head and neck shots, or long distance shots (with the exception of certain quarry that require greater distance, like mountain goats and amntelope), on game are unethical, regardless of skill.

Kyle Busch could probably get me to work on time, regardless of how late I slept in. Even though he could probably do it, he definitely shouldn't do it.

Both situations involve uncontrollable variables, emotional influence, and taking an unknown risk of a deplorable outcome. It doesn't matter how slight this risk may be, because it is wholly avoidable and unnecessary.

Of course a hunter must be proficient with his rifle. But a hunter doesn't need to be a shooter. As I said in an earlier post: any shot on game demanding a high skill level is, by definition, a shot that shouldn't be taken. Once you've developed sufficient skill at the range (and in field positions, as others have stated), your time and effort would be better spent on other aspects of hunting: building a moderate level of physical fitness, practice judging distances, studying behavior of game, etc.

Hunting is no place for showing off or fucking around.

[The Reverend Floater]

As zion zig zag said, sub-MOA with cartridges suitable for taking big game is exceedingly rare, bordering on functionally impossible. Let alone in hunting .

This is wrong.

I only shoot hunting rounds because I like to practice with what I use. I have hunting rifles in three calibers, using three different rounds that are all closer to .5 MOA than 1 MOA. Modern hunting projectiles can be quite consistent.

[Jacques Strap]

I have hunting rifles in three calibers, using three different rounds that are all closer to .5 MOA than 1 MOA.

I believe you.

But I've never seen name-brand field rifles with heavy expanding bullets get that tight. Even indoors with a good lead sled.

That said, even if we're talking high-end hunting rifles with meticulously optimized hand loads posting 0.5 MOA regularly, I don't think that changes the argument much.