How did we manage

Taff

Well-Known Member
Just sitting here thinking, how did we ever cull deer with calibres like 303 and 270 even 22, and rifles, that did not have fancy stocks and high powered scopes, perhaps deer were easier to shoot, and they have developed there senses to defeat us.
 
How did we ever manage to get to work on a horse and cart, or do with just candle light indoors..? Times change, make life easier.. Im sure if the cavemen could talk, they would be asking the same question about spears and arrows versus an old .303.

What i really think is that good gear covers a lack of skill. This is the man who has a pair of geovids, a PM2 and a custom rifle speaking.. Not saying that i dont have the skill, but its nice to use. same as driving a car or having electricity in your house.
 
Just like angling shops catch fishermen. Gun shops have got to make a profit so they tell you that you need the new super carbon fibre realtree print, uber expensive gun or thing a me bob, that you never new you needed!
 
I agree Taff. Hence why I've just bought a open sight single shot. It doesn't make me better same as all the gear don't make you worse, just going traditional makes it harder and I want the challenge :)
 
How did we ever manage to get to work on a horse and cart, or do with just candle light indoors..? Times change, make life easier.. Im sure if the cavemen could talk, they would be asking the same question about spears and arrows versus an old .303.

What i really think is that good gear covers a lack of skill. This is the man who has a pair of geovids, a PM2 and a custom rifle speaking.. Not saying that i dont have the skill, but its nice to use. same as driving a car or having electricity in your house.

What's a PM2??
 
Consumerism. Pure and simple. Most people get their jollies off looking at and fantasizing about hunting gear more than they actually like hunting.

Long range hunting is not hunting. Period. It is shooting at live targets.

Hunting is a developed skill that requires knowledge of your prey, their habitat, tracking and stalking (wind, noise, smell, sight, etc.)

For many people in our instant gratification society, they don't want to put in the effort. So they buy super duper expensive clothing, magnum rifles and high powered scopes with the false premise that it will make them more successful. Some will pay for someone else to do all the work for them. They simply show up and reap the rewards. These are not hunters.

Hunting is, above all, about respect and love for your quarry and putting them first. Extreme long range hunting is not about the animals, it is about the ego.

Here are a couple good articles on the topic:

Long Shots: When Does Hunting Become Target Shooting? | OutdoorHub

http://www.hollandandholland.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stalking-Calibres-Fieldsports.pdf

The only people who bang on about newer = better probably don't hunt.

And for those of us who do? We choose our tools accordingly.
 
Canadian - Who mentioned the meaning of hunting? Or the views on how far away something is when you pull the trigger?

You make a fair few generalisations and alienate anyone who has bought themselves a new jacket, or a scope more than whatever you deem to be excessive or anyone who has been on a paid stalk.. Im afraid ive done all three of the above, so i suppose that by your ruling, im far from being a hunter. I sort of take umbrage to that!

the fact that ive stalked and shot rabbits and lots of other critters since being knee high to a roe deer, using an iron sighted air rifle, or that ive stalked to within yards of deer before not shooting them, or learning about creatures so that you can snare them or trap them counts for little.

Clothes, rifles, kit in general are materials used (whether needed or not) to let people enjoy hunting/shooting/killing or whatever you choose to call it. Don't chastise people for wanting to spend some of their hard earned money on what they deem nice equipment. Don't chastise them for going out with guide to shoot deer. It may be because of lack of experience or wanting to learn about a new species not present on their land, or more probably because unlike canada, shooting in the UK is as rare as hens teeth to get where you have access to go unguided.

PS: your definition of hunting is incorrect. google it!
 
Canadian - Who mentioned the meaning of hunting? Or the views on how far away something is when you pull the trigger?

You make a fair few generalisations and alienate anyone who has bought themselves a new jacket, or a scope more than whatever you deem to be excessive or anyone who has been on a paid stalk.. Im afraid ive done all three of the above, so i suppose that by your ruling, im far from being a hunter. I sort of take umbrage to that!

the fact that ive stalked and shot rabbits and lots of other critters since being knee high to a roe deer, using an iron sighted air rifle, or that ive stalked to within yards of deer before not shooting them, or learning about creatures so that you can snare them or trap them counts for little.

Clothes, rifles, kit in general are materials used (whether needed or not) to let people enjoy hunting/shooting/killing or whatever you choose to call it. Don't chastise people for wanting to spend some of their hard earned money on what they deem nice equipment. Don't chastise them for going out with guide to shoot deer. It may be because of lack of experience or wanting to learn about a new species not present on their land, or more probably because unlike canada, shooting in the UK is as rare as hens teeth to get where you have access to go unguided.

PS: your definition of hunting is incorrect. google it!

Some reading comprehension is in order. Re-read my post. Your post is classic straw-man, mister. A response to a non-response. A seeing only what one wants to see.

To summarize. Shooting is not the same as hunting. Gear and equipment does not make up for hunting skill. Hard work and effort make a hunter, not his fancy rifle or scope. And yes, I have my opinions on hunting that are based in conservation ethics and respect for game.

Contrary to what you mis-read in my post, I am all for high quality, first rate hunting equipment. A bespoke rifle, to the experienced hunter, is a thing of beauty--practically and aesthetically. A good set of glass is equally charming and useful. Proper clothing is necessary to an enjoyable i.e. successful hunt. But none of that will make up for hunting skills, which you cannot buy.

The original poster, I'm assuming, was being satirical. My post was a commentary on why people feel the need for this equipment when it isn't necessary and can even be a hindrance. The fact that extreme long range hunting is actually promoted by the gun rags is part of the problem. All of a sudden 600+ yard shots are commonplace. I call BS.
 
PS: your definition of hunting is incorrect. google it!

I'll indulge: Full Definition of HUNTING. 1 : the act of one that hunts; specifically : the pursuit of game.

For a simpleton, this is a point blank definition.

Just as the definition of shooting is: an act of shooting a gun

Does that definition consider all aspects of shooting a firearm? internal, external and terminal ballistics? How about the human variable? psychology? technique?

The answer is, of course, no.

Now go look up an encyclopaedic entry on hunting.
 
Luckily we don't get that sort of stuff over here in the UK. As I reckon most hunters have a pretty healthy respect for their quarry. From what I see anyways.

I understand the OPs sentiment and get it completely. Nobody likes that guy he's eluding to..

Your post read to me like you were slating anyone with more than the minimum requirement to shoot with.. And frankly a bit of a rant. That's what the forum is for, and who wouldn't agree with your underlying theme about hunting/stalking.

What's the difference between long range and extreme long range then?! As I said earlier, ultra long hunting (sorry, can't resist the temptation to bait you..) seems to still live on the other side of the Atlantic.

With your obvious preference to getting up close and personal, do you do any archery?
 
Luckily we don't get that sort of stuff over here in the UK. As I reckon most hunters have a pretty healthy respect for their quarry. From what I see anyways.

I understand the OPs sentiment and get it completely. Nobody likes that guy he's eluding to..

Your post read to me like you were slating anyone with more than the minimum requirement to shoot with.. And frankly a bit of a rant. That's what the forum is for, and who wouldn't agree with your underlying theme about hunting/stalking.

What's the difference between long range and extreme long range then?! As I said earlier, ultra long hunting (sorry, can't resist the temptation to bait you..) seems to still live on the other side of the Atlantic.

With your obvious preference to getting up close and personal, do you do any archery?

The problem for me is the commercialization of hunting. The constant peddling of new calibers, rifles, gear, etc. I welcome real advancements. I am a huge fan of the new monolithic expanding bullets. I am a proponent of high end optics for your neck or your rifle. Yet, I also recognize that there are practical limitations with respect to how much magnification is desired/needed (as opposed to theoretically wanted). And I also see the value in open sights for certain types of hunting or if you're simply up for the challenge of getting closer to the animal--fantastic. That's what hunting is about!

There will be times when a long range shot is inevitable (following up wounded animal, for ex.), but on the whole taking shots beyond 400 yards purposefully without trying to engage the animal first, is foolish and unsportmanlike IMO.

Yes, I hunt and shoot trad. archery.

And YES, the long range, tacti-cool crowd is more common here in North America. I will be the first to say that, generally speaking, European hunters have a much healthier respect for their game animals and a better understanding of their relationship within the natural order.
 
+1 Canadian1 I agree whole hardheartedly with what you are saying...as well ....hunting forty years ago and beyond used only to attract true hunting characters who were willing to live on the edge with the wilderness and its animals relying on their hard won experience and ability to hunt and survive in those environs. We didn't have half the technology available today to short cut those hard yards. I guess it is the classic case [at least in my behavior] of an older generation who always seem to adopt the "eh you were lucky...in my day etc etc." I do feel though technology is giving hunters too much of an edge these days what with cell phones, repeatable scopes, plb's, gps,night vision, L.R. cabability,two way radios,mechanical deer callers,scent sprays etc etc. It is no wonder youngsters of today cannot bush hunt their way out of a paper bag. Thank god for Tahr and Chamois and open tops and clearings or there would be no animals harvested at all!
 
Just sitting here thinking, how did we ever cull deer with calibres like 303 and 270 even 22, and rifles, that did not have fancy stocks and high powered scopes, perhaps deer were easier to shoot, and they have developed there senses to defeat us.

Taff, maybe we didn't manage as well as we can today with the help of modern equipment. Maybe the percentage of wounding was much higher and I guess it was. As a kid I grew up in South Africa and witnessed how hunting with open sights on 303's etc was used in the seventies....it was not for the fainthearted. In Europe it might have been slightly better however I would not like to see statistics especially after seeing the strong tradition of dog tracking. A big part of hunting seems to be tracking...why would that be?

I think the big problem is that many think that modern equipment will automatically work, a guarantee for a good shot etc. This is of course not the case. Now and in the past one has to choose the equipment well and then this equipment must prove itself, be tested before going into the field. We do however have better gear than we ever had before. Christ a few years back we didn't even know how far away the deer was, now we can measure before the shot.

Another big problem is that there is no measuring of efficiency in the field, we have no reliable statistics of animals wounded in the field now and earlier years to know if there is an improvement. My gut feeling say's we are better than it used to be, partially due to the gear but mainly because the pressure from around us to kill cleanly is higher.

edi
 
Nice to see this is thought provoking, I don,t have anything against anyone with top of the range gear, long distance shooting etc.
I was just wondering after a half bottle of wine, how we managed when I started stalking, with my 303 sporting rifle and 4x40 scope, opinel knife, no 4x4 , to shoot drag/carry out deer in far larger numbers than I do today.
I suppose we were younger and Kenner in them days, shooting deer was a everyday accurance on the farm I was on.
 
"My gut feeling say's we are better than it used to be, partially due to the gear but mainly because the pressure from around us to kill cleanly is higher."

Not sure about that. In the older days people would not attempt 400m shots, unless they were absolutely confident in their rifle, their capabilities, and the shot. More performant gear, especially optics, simply means that the boundary has been extended, not that people do not try to cross it...

Big game hunters two centuries ago were already firmly impressing on their readers that the animal has to be dispatched cleanly and humanely, and that you ought to master your weapon and your quarry.

As for gadgetry replacing skills, I must admit that the best hunters I have had the pleasure to hunt with usually had one well-worn rifle that they thoroughly knew, and not much else besides a good pair of binoculars and boots.

Those arriving with the newest Mega-Zipper-Thorhammer-Magnumaximus, and an array of sensors and devices that would make NASA and NSA envious, on the other hand, often lacked the hunting savviness that would make for a real great hunting adventure. Way of compensating? Or simply different interests... I'd be inclined towards the latter. Some people are interested in the gear, be it for hunting, driving, diving, or taking photographs. Others are interested in the action. You can see this with photography: some people spend thousands on the newest camera and gadgets, perpetually searching for the best performances in various lab tests, while others pick a camera and go and take pictures. You can almost always recognize a pro photographer from his battered camera, and the small size of his accessories carry-on...
 
Muir, that is a downside. Then again when will the first one be in court for animal cruelty? Will society want professional hunters instead of those who use hunting as a personal kick instead doing a proper job. I condone the quest for ever closer stalking just as much as having to try an extra long shot.
Kano,
When I said that I think that it is better than it used to be, is I think society urges us slightly more to make a clean kill and therefore I believe we should have slightly less wounding or less lost animals than donkey years ago. At least I hope it is the case.

Not sure how it was in the olden days???something like this?

_57_zpsd2a57da2.jpg



edi
 
Muir, that is a downside. Then again when will the first one be in court for animal cruelty? Will society want professional hunters instead of those who use hunting as a personal kick instead doing a proper job. I condone the quest for ever closer stalking just as much as having to try an extra long shot.
Kano,
When I said that I think that it is better than it used to be, is I think society urges us slightly more to make a clean kill and therefore I believe we should have slightly less wounding or less lost animals than donkey years ago. At least I hope it is the case.

Not sure how it was in the olden days???something like this?

_57_zpsd2a57da2.jpg



edi
A nice example of a Ross..!
View attachment 47501View attachment 47502View attachment 47503
 
‎I often wonder just how popular shooting would be today if there was zero choice in calibre, rifle type and allied equipment. The proposition being this would strip away all but the desire to become a proficient rifleman hunter.

In posing such‎ a question I'm clearly convinced there is a good percentage within the so-called shooting community that for whom the hunting gene remains dormant as suppressed by a far stronger passion for product and the attendant image peddled by media and marketing.

The following can only come across as self righteous but here goes: I recently attended an archery open day as it remains my intention to one day hunt with a bow. I spent several hours with a longbow, recurve and compound. When asked which I might like to take up I didn't hesitate in stating "the one least like a rifle". A clumsy answer but I think the Coach understood what I meant.

K‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
 
Back
Top