Is 300 yards and beyond sporting?

I think an awful lot depends. I am at that happy stage where I just enjoy stalking and shooting something is an utter bonus. stalking is a hobby for me, I am fortunate that I have no pressure to achieve certain cull levels etc. I like to get close if at all possible as it just makes the shot simple. I have shot red deer at close to 300 yards - not difficult with the correct rifle / cartridge on open ground where they definite cull animals. I could have shot a nice buck earlier in the week at 200 odd yards - no wind and had the cross hair absolutely steady on him - did I squeeze - nope he was too good to take, and besides I can catch up with him sometime.

But if I had travelled a long way had hunted hard and that was the only opportunity I was presented with then yes I would squeeze the trigger if I was confident of taking him. Would I shoot at 300 plus with my current rifles - no - 243 is accurate enough, but at 300 it is running out of energy and the 7x65r is not a ing range rifle.
 
is accurate enough, but at 300 it is running out of energy

I wonder how many people know what their calibre/cartidge/bullet looks like in terms of energy at these ranges?
More relevant is the bullet choice they have made is usually done to work well within a given energy range, outside of this the bullet performance is less ideal

SST's are designed to allow predictable expansion at exactly these ranges (more accurately "velocity")
inside these ranges that can mean they expand too much or are violent

Bullets designed to expand predictably at 100-200 when shot at 400+ may not have the terminal velocity that allows them to work as designed
 
I wonder how many people know what their calibre/cartidge/bullet looks like in terms of energy at these ranges?
More relevant is the bullet choice they have made is usually done to work well within a given energy range, outside of this the bullet performance is less ideal

SST's are designed to allow predictable expansion at exactly these ranges (more accurately "velocity")
inside these ranges that can mean they expand too much or are violent

Bullets designed to expand predictably at 100-200 when shot at 400+ may not have the terminal velocity that allows them to work as designed

It's not range dependant though Ed... I could use the same projectile in a .308win and a 300wm and they would have vastly different effective ranges... If that is we are talking about the most effective range for full expansion without distruction (too fast and the bullet may not work either)
 
So which members are shooting red deer at 1000 yards in the UK or is it a US thing? Just curious.
 
If,your,capable,fair enough but,how many folks are honest enough with themselves to,say no?

What about chamois hunting and other mountain European style ? Never done it but read and heard that 300yds is not unusual ? I'm unsure of size of their beasts say to ours roe & red ?

On another point ... The word "sport". Just finished listening to a pod cast from Byron pace and brother on their Facebook page and they discuss this also.... Interesting points...

Paul
 
I think it is very much a USA/Canada thing...

With the rise of the 'long range shooter' in the UK there is a trend developing where recent devotees think that extended ranges are acceptable as a norm rather than as a reasoned exception. They seem to mentally substitute steel targets with live quarry with a whole Chris Kyle thing going on. We seldom have the right EMPTY spaces to shoot at range safely in this country and there is an awful lot that can go wrong between pulling the trigger and the end result. Then introduce aspects of the humane kill, finding the spot, following up an animal that has hoofed it into cover, our obligations under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1995 etc. etc. I think they are storing up some seriously bad PR for shooting.
To avoid misunderstanding I'm fine about shooting paper or steel at range, I'm also fine about distance as a necessity (as previously discussed). Perhaps the question one has to ask is 'am I doing this because I have to, or because I want to?'
 
Totally down to the individual, knowing their own capabilities and not 'stretching' them, the equipment, ones confidence in using it at varying ranges, and the environment they find themselves in.
Before i went to Montana i was comfortable taking shots on deer out to 250 yards, but when i found myself out in Eastern Montana (Muir must appreciate this) stalking Mule deer in such an open environment you have to consider taking longer shots, and i had practiced the shots for months before i left the UK with my 165 grain 30-06, no fancy optics, just a 8x56, not saying how far i shot one but the bullet was in the right place, even with a strong wind it worked out well.
Sporting? I think so, we stalked in for 3 miles after spotting them and they 'knew' something wasn't right and kept moving into the coulees.
Which set me up quite well for my Elk which was 236 yards.
Conversely, i have stalked to within just a few yards of roe deer, is that no less sporting, shooting them at 20 yards?
Perhaps with a archery setup?!

I do like what a lot of Americans have done, they use permanent marker (i know ruins the stock) on plastic stock with ballistics of the round they are using.
I must get around to doing the same, but perhaps use a bit of paper and laminate it!

Cheers

Richard
 
In these days of the burris eliminator 3 where you don't need sophisticated tables but you do need to check then making sure the elevation is not the issue its the windage. I don't shoot past 300m that's 330 yards for deer because I normally don't get the opportunity and I'm only using a 30-06 and even with my TDS reticle I won't have a good enough hold as I can't shoot off the ground because the ferns are too high so its either shooting sticks or offhand.


Also what needs to be taken into account is how will you find this beast if you don't bang flop it. Its it thick forest and you've just shot in a clearing on the other side of a hill. If it runs 400 yards but you lose sight of it through the spotting scope after it runs 25 yards what are the chances of recovery? If you are shooting some highland moor where the nearest tree is 1000m away much less of a problem. If you are shooting a mountain side for Thar and the there is nothing but talus and scree for kilometres then there is a good chance you can watch it drop down onto a ledge that you won't be able to recover it from.

Horse for courses, but the first point is what the OP was talking about and in this respect I have to agree somewhat.
 
I think it's down to the capabilities and conscience of the shooter.

The problem as I see it is that some people wildly overestimate their capability and some people have little or no conscience.
 
It's not range dependant though Ed... I could use the same projectile in a .308win and a 300wm and they would have vastly different effective ranges... If that is we are talking about the most effective range for full expansion without distruction (too fast and the bullet may not work either)

why I clarified that to "Velocity"

.....at exactly these ranges (more accurately "velocity")
....may not have the terminal velocity that allows them to work as designed....
 
Had an interesting conversation the other day, should we actually drop the term "sport", it is often interpreted wrongly by non shooters......

Most people, would describe football, rugby, tennis etc, as sport - something one gets enjoyment from. They then look at the media and it [wrongly] portrays us as taking pleasure from killing. Without getting too philosophical about things, is this the right message. Some argue, that we do what we do and to hell with public opinion, I would say that we need to get smart with how we market what we do, whether its for recreation or profession [general public, don't differentiate] .

As far as distance, it's up to the individual. is it better to stalk in to 20metres on a restock and then shoot with no stable rest at an animal that is aware of you or take a well placed 300m shot from a solid shooting position. Forget the "sporting" crap, this is about clean kills [all the enjoyment, atmosphere, zen stuff is irrelevant!].

Beside all that, I still take pride in wearing a tweed suit, following "traditional etiquette", etc but we do have to change with the times. keep what works but kick out what doesn't [I won't go into that, its Friday!]

Ironic coming from the user with the name "bambislayer" lol. I think we do enjoy the killing as otherwise we'd just buy our venison and gout with a camera as Mungo suggests. The killing is a tiny part of the whole package for me, I feel a bit melancholic after the shot but if I didn't like it I would just buy free range venison.
 
With the rise of the 'long range shooter' in the UK there is a trend developing where recent devotees think that extended ranges are acceptable as a norm rather than as a reasoned exception. They seem to mentally substitute steel targets with live quarry with a whole Chris Kyle thing going on. We seldom have the right EMPTY spaces to shoot at range safely in this country and there is an awful lot that can go wrong between pulling the trigger and the end result. Then introduce aspects of the humane kill, finding the spot, following up an animal that has hoofed it into cover, our obligations under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1995 etc. etc. I think they are storing up some seriously bad PR for shooting.
To avoid misunderstanding I'm fine about shooting paper or steel at range, I'm also fine about distance as a necessity (as previously discussed). Perhaps the question one has to ask is 'am I doing this because I have to, or because I want to?'

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion of such a trend? These discussions come up on here year after year and the long range bunny and crow shooters appear on Youtube year after year... I have not seen anything that would suggest deer stalkers are taking longer shots as the norm... The topography of the UK pretty much dictates range in deer territory and, with a few exceptions, the only real place where extended range is commonly possible is on the hill in Scotland .
 
ha
in looking at stuff on youtube I found this:

not only at least 200 yds but a decent side stag with a 100gr .243!
down like a sack of spuds
skip to 6:22mins

 
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion of such a trend? These discussions come up on here year after year and the long range bunny and crow shooters appear on Youtube year after year... I have not seen anything that would suggest deer stalkers are taking longer shots as the norm... The topography of the UK pretty much dictates range in deer territory and, with a few exceptions, the only real place where extended range is commonly possible is on the hill in Scotland .

If you haven't experienced them first hand then as a start have a look on social media - and there are plenty of aspirant 'stalkers' being influenced by them too............ I'm sure that a few of us from here (and other forums) could then give you some directions to your nearest Walt Platoon RV for some up close observation.
 
Last edited:
So what going to happen when you can't use lead. Having read quite a few reviews and tests of mono bullets it seems thay work best sub 200mtrs.
 
As has already been said, there seems to be two main points (objectively) at play here; Longer range shooting requires a shot to have sufficient ballistics knowledge of his load/rifle (hopefully gained through actual practice and not just downloaded from some freebee software database!) and confidence in his equipment to know that he/the rifle/scope are capable of consistently and accurately dialling in to accurately shoot at the extra range and that it is safe to do so; Secondly, there is the issue of improper placement (easier to cock up a shot the longer the range) and the difficulties that a follow up shot might produce at 300yds with an animal perhaps down and thrashing about or getting up and legging it making the follow up a more protracted business than perhaps is humanely justifiable.

Therein lies the question of ethics. If one can stalk closer, then surely, under MOST circumstances, this has to be the preferable scenario, as there may be the option of leaving the shot for another time. Add gusting wind into the equation (not unheard of on our island nation) and things become even more unpredictable, the difference between 200 and 300m being quite marked. Even a 20mph crosswind at 200m only results in drift of 5 inches or so for most deer legal calibres but stretch that out to 300m and drift more than doubles. Point is, with increased distance comes increased uncertainty, so I would argue that unless conditions are perfect for the shot, that you are confident in your rifle and your abilities, and that getting closer would be to miss the opportunity, then why would you want to risk such a shot?

I'm not against longer range shooting, but think that it should only be attempted when reasonable certainty of a clean kill can be assured. There are those who might argue that stalking close to an animal is less sporting as the certainty of a kill is greater, because the animal, if it had a say, might argue that it's hardy fair to sneak up on it with a powerful rifle and shoot it from 50 yds! It's a strange one. When rough shooting, it's often frowned upon to take a close shot where certainty of a kill is greater, and where the high bird at greater distance is a shot applauded for the greater skill, yet this does not translate to rifle shooting. That's where the term "sporting" is a bit of a nonsense, because all that ought to matter is that a clean and humane kill is made, however achieved.
 
ha
in looking at stuff on youtube I found this:

not only at least 200 yds but a decent side stag with a 100gr .243!
down like a sack of spuds
skip to 6:22mins

/QUOTE]

Interesting. The thing that stood out for me was not the range but the deer directly behind. I'm absolutely gobsmacked anyone would shoot that.
 
Back
Top