I hunt in the mountains in West Texas. I've taken 1-2 500yd shots a year at some big whitetail in there. If I can get in closer I do but not all situations are optimal.

I wouldn't shoot at a game animal like a deer at 500 yds unless I had no choice and it was an absolute buck of a lifetime.

I'll shoot at a hog at any distance even if I'm just throwing up a prayer. If I hit them great if not idk.

I get that on hogs. Do you think guys want to shoot at animals at long range because they want the sniper opportunity?

There's a difference in wanting to, and being prepared to do so, if no other choice is available.

Preparation.

And before the argument arises. I challenge anyone to close the distance on a coyote or a whitetail across a green, flat, winter wheat field. I challenge anyone to spend two to three hours to close the distance on a mule deer in desert, rocky, south west Texas canyons, expecting to still have their quarry waiting on them.

My 500+ yard shots have been in Montana, the place I hunt now provide 400 yards at most and usually much close, my last kills on that place have been within 70 yards. Last place I hunted though there were long range opportunities and I would shoot longer. I haven't included coyotes but if one gives me a chance I will take a long shot at it without hesitation if that shot is safe to take.

Several years before I joined this forum I shot a lot to 600 yards so I would be more prepared if needed on those Montana trips. Other than the Elk I described in another thread I have had one shot kills on all my shots over 500 on deer and elk sized game but attribute that to lots of shooting.

Long range shooting has become a rage these days with "hunting shows" promoting it with their products to support it. It is fun to hit small targets way out there but if I can I prefer a 5 or 50 yard shot to a 500 yard shot any time and try to keep the shooting closer than further.

Sometimes I think a lot of the talk is just that and internet banter, like a man that went to the range one day that had talked a lot about shooting ground hogs out to a little over 600 yards, when he got to the range and was almost to the 325 yard bench he said something like good God why would anyone ever shoot that far .

There's a difference in wanting to, and being prepared to do so, if no other choice is available.

Preparation.

And before the argument arises. I challenge anyone to close the distance on a coyote or a whitetail across a green, flat, winter wheat field. I challenge anyone to spend two to three hours to close the distance on a mule deer in desert, rocky, south west Texas canyons, expecting to still have their quarry waiting on them.

People absolutely have the desire to hunt at long range. I think some have gotten bored shooting animals at 100yds standing under a feeder. It's a way to make rifle hunting challenging and exciting again. As said above it's also being promoted heavily on TV. Whether it's ethical or not, there are a lot of people moving in that direction.

I think it's more challenging to attempt to stalk a deer to within <200 yards than it is to shoot 700 yards.

My longest shot on a live animal was 416 yards, most have been 100-150 yards without feeders. I don't hunt wheat fields or anything like that though, so it's really just what suits my specific needs. If you have other needs then I can see you wanting to do something else.

Remember, the answer is ALWAYS 6.5 creedmoor.

I am amazed at how many posts there are about harvesting animals out to 700 plus yards. Is there a new generation of hunters that want to shoot out to very long ranges to harvest animals?

I do not understand this type of big game hunting. Can someone explain the why it is appealing to them?

I am really very interested in your opinions, maybe I am missing out on providing this type of experience to my hunters. (Please note I am not asking about prairie dogs or mountain game but large flat land game like whitetail deer or hogs.)

For same reason people use compound vs rifle, each takes a different level of discipline in different areas.
Think of it in reverse if I said I only take 200 yards or under shots with a rifle due to ethics, the long range capable guys that's spent hours learning his trade and thousands of rounds down range probably thinks I'm lazy in the fact i would be useing ethical as an excuse for my inability or lack of effort to become more proficient with my weapon.

From what I've seen I am to lazy to get serious with it. I haven't become that proficient at longer ranges but I'll be the first to admit it as lazy & disinterested, I will own it and not use the ethical stance. Same stand point I know guys that will eat your arrow nocks under 50 yards. I know a few that make my 50 yard groups look bad compared to their 100 yard plus groups. One of them can stack arrows at 130 in an 18-1 pretty boringly consistently. So who is more confident and actually ethical in taking a 50 yard shot with a bow? He is, why because to be proficient at 150 yards take a lot more practice and time spending arrows down range, then what it took me to be consistent at 50.

Moral is there is a happy medium where most people can achieve consistent success and mastery in with minimal effort, you go either direction from that medium and new skills are presented and need to be mastered. Technology is great but it doesn't replace practice with any type of weapon.


The bashing of the long range guys is usually from a lack of understanding of what it truly takes to be proficient at those ranges.