Being a newbie to this setup with my .243/SS 3-9MQ, when you get the wind dope correct it is very easy with this setup, even for me. Problem is just that...wind doping, which can be baffling to even the experts. Especially on that first shot.

For that kind of shot turrets will be benificial and to paraphrase Liam Neeson:

A particular set of skills. Skills acquired over a very long career of long range shooting in all conditions.

As has been discussed 400 yards and further the variables compound themselves add in a living moving target makes it that much harder. I am not saying it can't be done, only you can answer "can I make this shot" under the condition presented to you?

I agree with both of you.

This is not my quote, but I tell it to all my customers.

"Distance is science, wind is art".

And I don't claim to be an artist yet, that's why I spot, and shoot as much as I do.

It is truly a blessing that I get to spot for customers and call their wind. I'm making my best estimation of the wind down range, they are holding it, and I'm not using up my loading components.

I appreciate everyone who chimed in for a spirited debate. I will add a small nugget I have picked up along the way to becoming a better marksman. I am sure some of you already know this, and I am slow to the dance. But be sure to use the correct drag coefficient, the G1 model is based on a flat base short ogive bullet and not representative of a longer "higher BC" boat tail bullet. So if you are using a newer boat-tail bullet use a G7 model for better accuracy.

Yes.

G-1 is velocity dependant, and Sierra does a good job of listing the G-1 depending on velocity. In other words, the G-1 will decay as velocity decays. G-7 is usually a more accurate representation of the BC. But I have had great success using each one, depending on which ballistic calculator I am using. I will try to use the G-7 first, though, provided it is available.

Reading threads like this always makes me wonder how Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith were able to kill so many animals at 400 yards without the benefits of dialing and the reticles we have today. What about you Nogalus? Ever wonder the same thing?

You can easily holdover that far although there are certain particular details to it. A reticle has to either be ffp or on a set setting then a tree type reticle would be prefered. After that environmentals need to be accounted for. I used holdovers just a few days ago out to 800yds with no issues.

Isn't that the truth? I've killed over 250 big game animals since 1971 (lots of culling), and have found it necessary to dial exactly once. The vast majority of these animals have been in the open country of Texas. MPBR does work when you know your ballistics (verified shooting) and reticle, even with a duplex.

How did Carlos Hathcock set world records, without the equipment we have available today?

Talent
Practice

Today the list has gotten longer (even in this forum) of guys that don't even bat an eye at a thousand yard shot, much less a 400. Improvement in rifles, ammo, optics, and the sharing of learned experiences has allowed us to evolve in to much more capable shooters and hunters.

If you take a majority of people out with a good range finder you'll find that a lot are absolutely terrible at range estimation. I've heard countless stories of 400 plus shots with top of the back being mentioned. I'm not saying all are wrong but it's more common than not.

If I shot at 400 yards plus I know I'd dial. But I don't. My point is at the distances I shoot I don't need to dial. I shot the same rifle in .270 from 1972 until around seven years ago using 130 grain Corelokts. The are many things I can't do but I can hit what I'm aiming at when the distance is under 350 yards without dialing and just using a duplex reticle. With practice is that any harder than hitting targets at 1,000 yards with the tools you utilize?

Well, they were from an era where men took shots that were marginal by today's standards. That said, they were also from an era where boys grew up with a rifle in their hands and were expert shots with the equipment they had. But I can't recall reading of many (if any) 400 yard shots O'Connor took at a ram. He was an advocate of getting in as close as possible. The vast majority of shots were between 150-250.

300 and under can be mastered by anyone without dialing or marked reticles. 300-400 is a grey area where dialing/marked reticles can help, but are not absolutely necessary. Over 400 requires LR equipment and a thorough knowledge of how and WHEN to use it.

This thread is a little schizophrenic. In some posts LR is portrayed as easy - in some it's portrayed as hard (even by the same poster).

A sheep hunt costs about a minimum of 25K "all in" these days. A Stone or Bighorn sheep hunt is about 50K "all in". A desert sheep hunt starts at about 75K "all in" and goes up from there. Draw tags don't cost that much but have similar values. The AZ governor's tag went for 310K the year I drew mine. Wound the ram and the hunt is over. Miss a ram and it may be - depending on if you find another.

There is only one question to be answered: At what distance and under what conditions can you make a cold bore shot - each and every time? Not think you can make it, not hope you can make it - make it. Period.

Are you willing to bet 25K, 50K, 100K on your ability to dope that crosswind? Get rock steady? Calm your nerves? Can you get on the ram quickly enough, do your calculations, and make the shot? Or are you breathing too hard from sprinting up a slope with a 13 lb. rifle?

At the end of the day, experienced sheep hunters/outfitters/guides know what is involved. That's why they go in with a mindset of hunting a ram and not shooting a ram. To look to get as close as possible, and not just start shooting when a ram is "in range" as stated by a given hunter. If 600 yards is as close as one can get, that's too far for the vast majority of folks, all things considered. They would be much better to wait for a chance to get closer or even try for him or another ram tomorrow if it comes to that.

Those that would argue that simply haven't been there.

Speaking of cringing. Anyone who would take a 1000 yard shot at a mountain sheep is an irresponsible fool.

Hitting exactly what you want inside 5
400 yards, with just a duplex is certainly a solid set of skills.

Where did I ever say mountain sheep?

Fool.

You don't say (in case you get a response). You imply. This entire thread is about hunting sheep.

I'll go further. Anyone who shoots at a game animal at 1000 yards is a fool. (Hogs and coyotes - shoot away.)

Um, no it's not. YOU made it be about sheep.

OP posted asking because he missed 600 yard shot on a sheep. As he stated. At any rate, it's about hunting, not shooting. I am a good shot within my limitations. I am not a shooting expert. I yield that ground to you and have never argued the point.

The reason we talk past one another is because you steer every thread towards the shooting part because that's your expertise, minimizing the real-world variables that hunting introduces. Especially mountain hunting.

You carry a super heavy rifle. You don't use binoculars. You set up for 700 yard shots. (All from past threads - your words). In the real world, carrying an anchor of a rifle and not using binoculars handicaps you immensely.

In the field, any one of those things would make any outfitter/guide/experienced hunter do more than cringe. I can assure you. If bettering your odds at bring home game is the goal, you would be better off using binoculars and carrying an 8 lb. Savage Axis with a 6x Leupold on an elk/sheep hunt.

I have not really, actually posted anything I think you would disagree with on this thread. I only advocate knowing where one's bullet will hit before pulling the trigger on a game animal. For sure and absolutely. And all that entails in the field.

I have discussed that in the context of the real world of hunting - to which you have not responded. Why? I don't know. Probably because you want to stay where most of your own experience lies - in the shooting arena.

I'll be more specific. Just about every deer I've taken has been from a stand with a rest. I've taken a couple at very close range free hand. Coyotes have been with shooting sticks. I've never shot at an animal at a distance over 350 yards and only one over 300. Hogs have been well under 100 yards. The last five years I've used a German #4. I don't do neck or head shots on deer but have done some behind the ear shots on hogs. I also believe with practice those shots aren't anything special.

I never read about him taking 400 yard shots at sheep but thought I read about 400 yard shots at mule deer and Coues. From what I gather no shot was too long for Elmer.

So I never hunt, huh? Only every week, and most of the time it's hogs and coyotes. I took off across a half mile wide plowed field yesterday at 7 pm, because I saw five hogs and wanted to be able to shoot every single one of them instead of just one, had I shot from where I was.

I carried my lighter rifle, which is ten pounds, scoped, at 9000'-10,000'. I had a Swaro 8X range finder around my neck, which does a great job, because it's Swaro glass, and it's light. My biggest burden is carrying water. The binocs I want are $2800 so I don't have any yet.

Bottom line is, my eyes might be better than yours because I see my eye Doc once a year for a tune up, and I'm probably in better physical shape, so whatever my rifle weighs, and the weight of my pack is my burden, no one else's.

I've set up for 700 and less. Lees being hopefully what happens.

I'll do it the way I do it, you do it the way you do it.

That's my memory also. Jack was a nut about respecting sheep. It is clear he didn't respect the deer as much. Elmer was a shooter until game fell or got away. (So was Fred Bear by the way. So was Teddy Roosevelt.)

I'm not advocating that mindset. It was just a different era and many had that type of mindset. One factor that played into that was that they lived in a time of more game and having more chances because there weren't the "draw blood and you're done" restrictions that are the norm on outfitted trophy hunts today.

I never said you never hunt. Your approach to hunting speaks for itself from your posts. It is a decidedly "shooter's" approach. Not owning binoculars yet speaks for itself. You would almost certainly do fine on a sheep hunt, but IMO you would better your odds by at least adopting/recognizing more of the "hunting" variables in the equation.

As with everyone, the proof is in the pudding. How/if one puts oneself in the presence of the animal sought, decides on when to take the shot of a lifetime, and whether one executes that shot are questions each must answer for themselves. A lot goes into finding the answers.

Confident shooting is a big part of it. But it's only a part. Underconfidence can lead to poor results. But, so can overconfidence - in oneself or one's equipment if one has not mastered it but is instead looking for the equipment itself to provide the answer. Because it doesn't.

I believe you hunt and hunt a lot Jason. Even though we've never met, which I'd like to remedy, I believe in your knowledge, respect and admire it. If I ever shoot animals at the distances you do, I'll do it the way you do it and will ask you to teach me.