For my ethical standards, NO.

Well, that made me curious so I ran the numbers on Time of Flight for a 7mm 175 ELD-X leaving the muzzle at 2900 fps. At 1000 yards it takes 1.35 seconds to reach the target and it will be traveling at 1688 fps and have 1107 ft/lbs of energy. Applying that 1.35 second flight time as a benchmark could make a whole bunch of bow shots outside the ethical margins.

BTW - I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your statement. Just providing some numbers for people to consider.

Even though the 7/300 I have shot out to 1 mile, I would never say that would be an ethical shot. With that 7/300 rifle, 600 yards is an easy poke with a good shooting position and favorable conditions. I am 100% confident in making a hit on a 10"-12" target from about 700-800 yards and in. That's my point. What's ethical to me is having full confidence, the ability, and the right equipment in making a given shot. If a hunter shooting grandpa's 30-06 with a cheap scope on it, this shot would not be possible or likely for that shooter, and therefore would be an unethical shot. So, someone saying that hunting distances beyond XXX yards is unethical, could be an incorrect statement.

This is a topic that comes up on here all the time. We debate over it and some have their opinion that distances are really short, which may be their skill level. And others have a totally different ability.

To me ethical shot depends on what I'm shooting at.

Open sight rifle - about 80 - 100 yards. More depending on target.

Scoped rifle -
Vermin - pigs, raccoons, coyotes etc, if I can see it with the naked eye I'll give it a try. I've hit pigs & coyotes past 500 maybe more. I killed a goat at 300 ish yards that was humping a plastic barrel just for general principle.
Game animals - 300 yards or less, preferably 175 or less.
Longest Ive actually made on game 280 ish.

Bow - 6 - 12 feet, grizzly & black mountain lion. Was gonna use a knife but had the bow handy so I figured what the heck, I'm getting old & lazy.

I agree with you that ability is usually the limiting factor. However, I think there is a point that even though you are capable of making the shot, doing so isn't fair chase hunting.

Yes. So, where would that point be?

Who said anything about 'fair chase hunting'?

Title of the thread said ' longest ethical shot'.

Is sitting in a blind with a scoped rifle watching a corn feeder 125 yards away ' fair chase'.

I don't know. It is farther than I am capable of making a shot, for sure.

Maybe the point at which the animal's senses incapable of perceiving the hunter?

So it would be more ethical for the animal to sense it's about to die?

It would be more ethical to hunt the animal in a way that allows it an opportunity to escape. I think that is pretty much the definition of fair chase. If the animal has no chance at all, its just killing.

This is a sticky way to look at things, and your wording is flawed. "Opportunity to escape" exists weather an animal is 10 feet from you, or 1000 yards from you. For the hunter to go undetected is also subject to the hunter, and his effort to be undetected. I have no doubt there are plenty of members of this forum that know how to blend in so well, that even humans seeing in color would not see them. Some go through great measures to also mask scent. So what is the official yard mark where it is no longer hunting, and now it is killing?

I can tell you the cow elk I shot at 510 yards, across a canyon, was looking right at me when I squeezed the trigger.

I am in the camp where an "ethical shot" is determined by the equipment, the skills of the hunter, and the environmental conditions at the time. So it cannot be a hard line for EVERYONE to stay behind.

What I am trying to say is that I think it should come down to the ability of the hunter to conceal himself, rather than simply be so far away that the animal is incapable of detecting him. I take issue with shots from so far away that there is no need for the hunter to conceal himself, worry about wind, etc., simply because he is so far away.

If you had stood up and waved at that elk, it would most likely have run away. I am against shots from so far away that isn't the case.

Fair chase went out the window as soon as a weapon was involved. Nothing fair about killing and eating meat.

We shouldn’t discount the amount of training, range time and equipment time that went into someone being able to make what they feel is an ethical shot.

Generally most people just don’t understand the dynamics behind long range shooting, which is fine unless you are just totally opposed to learning that discipline. When that closed mind set occurs, the idea about fair chase or ethical (depending on how you define it)isn’t a real thing, it’s a pulpit badge.

I’m not a long range rifle hunter by definition. I’ve put a lot of rounds into steel and rocks at long range, I just don’t have the time nor discipline to be able to fill comfortable pulling the trigger on an animal over 500 yards, much less a 1000, but I fully wouldn’t take 300 yard shoot with out having put multiple rounds to 600.

It wouldn’t hurt us as hunters to have a more open or atleast to have a more seek to understand mindset towards different means and methods.

I have never been comfortable taking long shots with a bow or rifle. I prefer bow/crossbow shots 20 and under and rifles shots 150 or under. When stalk hunting I prefer to get inside 125 yards when shooting off of sticks. For me it is more about getting as close as I can that makes the hunt much more memorable. I will shoot out to 275 yards or so at WT or Mule Deer with a good rest if I have to.
Whitetail buck at 24 yards with a PSE bow and 100 grain NAP broadhead.
Whitetail buck at 25 yards with an Excalibur Crossbow and 125 grain Boltcutter broadhead.
Turkey at 26 yards with an Excalibur Crossbow and 125 grain Boltcutter broadhead.
Turkey at 95 yards in the neck with Remington 270 and 130 grain Corelokts.
Red Stag at 165 yards in NZ in the shoulder with Remington 270 and 130 grain Corelokts. Dropped in his tracks.
Coyote between the shoulder at 275 yards running away up a sendeora slightly uphill with Remington 270 and 130 grain Corelokts.
Whitetail buck at 265 yards thru the heart with Remington 6mm with 100 grain. Dropped in his tracks(40 yrs ago).
Whitetail buck at 275 yards low in the shoulders with Remington 270 and 130 grain Corelokts. Slid a few yards on his front end. from the low shot.
Mule Deer buck at 180 yards in Alberta in the shoulders with Remington 270 and 130 grain Corelokts. Dropped where he stood.
I shot 2 large hogs with one shot with a Ruger #1 270 and 130 grain Corelokts out of a topdrive truck. One was at 282 yards and the other was walking directly in line at 292 yards at the the shot. Back hog was in a lower spot in the drainage at the back end of a large stock tank. Hit the first hog in the neck/body line and the second hog in the head. Both dropped in their tracks.
Shooting factory rifle and factory ammo keeps my shots mainly at closer ranges and shoulder shots 95% of the time. I know my limitations with any weapon and stick to what I am comfortable shooting.

I don't shoot a bow but my maximum range at deer with my old Model 70 30-06 is 250 yards with a good solid rest. I did hit a hog recently at close to 500 yards with my AR-15 but it was pure luck and I probably couldn't do it again if my life depended on it.

Bow - 67 yards...antelope in Gillette, WY....Pearson Spoiler Plus (long time ago)....
Rifle - 450 yards...whitetail doe...Young county, TX...REM 700ADL 165gr ballistic tip

Anytime ethics gets involved I like to be in the mix of it....so here is a thought...

Who defines ethics when it comes to hunting? I think all of us would have to agree that the hunter defines what is ethical to themselves within the context of what is legal in the area they are hunting.

A hog gut shot at 500 yards will not be seen in the same "ethical" light as a trophy deer being gut shot at 500 yards. So when it comes to hunting, we do have relative ethics which, I think (and based on most of your responses would be confirmed by most on here), is determined by what we are hunting. Varmint hunting is seen as a more "throw a bullet at em and see if they hit" vs trophy/big game hunting is seen as a more "precision shot to make a quick easily tracked kill". However, is the thought of just "throwing a bullet" to hit a varmint an ethical shot or just a selfish shot to be able to say you made the shot? While I know there is more to just "throwing a bullet" toward varmints, the point is, most of us are much more willing to take that shot at a 'low-life' varmint without care of if it hits or where it hits....after all, its just a varmint.

I raise this question because part of me wants to say it is unethical to not care for a quick kill vs a wounding but eventually deadly shot (500 yard gut shot hog). Part of me wants to say unless I can guarantee that shot will kill quickly, I should not take it. This is the thought process with deer or other big game animals, esp meat animals. So why is it situational, or relative?

Should the ethics behind a hunting shot ever be relative? I am not trying to delve into the fair chase argument that was brought up in earlier posts at all, simply the concept of moral relativity and should we as hunters be better at our craft? I know plenty of us are very good shooters, but this OP is a very different question. This OP was about the longest shot you felt 100% (ok maybe not 100%, but 95-99%) confident you were going to make a good quick kill. Several have alluded to this already, but I have to assume many on here simply put up numbers of their longest kill which was shot with "hopes" it would hit the target and make a clean kill. But is shooting with the hope it will hit actually an ethical shot?

I think there are two different ethical considerations here when you consider hogs vs. deer. The first is a population level level of management. This includes the things bag limits, night hunting, baiting, seasons, etc. that determine the overall number of animals on the landscape. We, collectively, have decided that we want healthy deer populations but want to limit the number of hogs. That is why its okay to spotlight hogs but not deer. On the population level, I think ethics absolutely should consider the animal. It is like snow geese vs. canvasbacks, we have rules and ethics in place to try to keep one population in check which increasing the other.

The other ethical consideration, however, is at the individual animal level. In that regard, I believe we still have an ethical duty to each individual animal to make its death as quick and clean as possible. I do not believe that just because we want fewer hogs on the landscape, it is okay to gut shoot them and leave them to die a slow death. I do not think it is ethical to cause any individual animal to suffer needlessly, regardless of how you feel about the population as a whole. I realize many will disagree with this stance, but if deer were overpopulated and destroying crops, would you be okay with gut shooting one and letting it wonder off to die slowly?

Edit: Buckeye, I don't mean "you" as an individual, but "you" on a population level

Good for you.

It will not change my M.O. one bit. Any long shot I took had a story behind it, and all of them have lots of effort behind them. I shoot a rifle, 52 weeks a year, out to 800 yards, every week. There are heavy costs in dollars, time, and effort to do that. I whitetail hunt where I am asked nicely to please shoot as many does as I possibly can, they are over populated, and the usual hunters don't kill enough. I've elk hunted public land, as well as private low fenced giant property. I have not tracked an animal in a long time, I want clean kills just like everyone else does. But hogs and coyote? If you're near me, and I see one, count on a rifle being fired shortly after. If my laser reaches them, and the area is clear behind them, a bullet will be headed that way.

We have a guy in ban camp right now that likes to be judge, jury, and executioner toward everyone, every day. It doesn't go over well when he does it, or when anyone else does.

Furthest shot was 260 yards on a WT doe with a remington 30-06 model 770 resting across my buddys back

My furthest hunting shot with a rifle was a hog at about 225 yards with a 222. Longest on a deer about 160 or so with my 270. Longest shot with a bow is 32 yards on a hog.

To me ethical is limited by you and your equipment's ability to put the bullet where it needs to go reliably. For one person that might be 50 yards for another 500 and for some 1000. If they can do it good for them, I cant.

I can honestly say any place I have hunted in central/south texas you would have to put effort into finding a place to shoot more than 300-400 yards. Our senderos look wide and straight but when you corn one and back off down a ways you realize they aren't as straight as you thought.

So do you hunt with a knife or a club?

agree FiremanJG, there is a story behind every shot ... and snap judgement based on one's experience can be different every single time we shoulder a firearm.

He said a knife or a club and I almost spit my coffee out.