Maximum Range for Stalking

[sikamalc]

Malcolm,

That's one big assumption

If you can see a RABBIT at 800m, then seeing a backstop really isn't going to be an issue, in fact, it may be far more apparent, than someone shooting in the woods, at 100m ! In this particular situation, the shooting took place in a valley in Derbyshire, shooting from one side to the other, open ground, no trees !

For a group of people, who want to be left alone to enjoy their legal sport, some of you are bloody intolerant of others wanting to do the same thing

No assumption. You might see a rabbit at 800 metres, through binoculars or a very good scope, seeing one with the naked eye, well they must eat a lot of carrots!

No doubt there are people out there who take such shots, whether its deer or other game. Personally I dont think its ethical. Shooting anywhere in a wood or open hill back stops are always to be considered and the perspective behind a target at 800m can be nothing as you imagine it to be.
None the less if its in a valley as you have said then that would be fine if you have a clear line of site, but you didnt mention that in your post.

I am a very tolerant person (despite what some or you may think) 40 years of guiding clients in all weathers and with many different abilities one needs to be. And believe me I have had moments when some people would certainly not be! No disrespect but I have been in this game for a great deal longer than you, and am not stopping anyone enjoying the sport that I have made a life from.

The point of taking long shots will forever be discussed. As stalkers we do our upmost to get as near as possible to complete a clean kill on the animal we are stalking. Deer or any other quarry are not targets, they are creatures that we as stalkers/hunters have the privilege of hunting and taking their lives. In my opinion we need to make sure we are not seen by the public and others to be treating or giving the impression that we are treating them as targets.

 

[8x57]

My personal philosophy based on my limited shooting abilities - get in as close as you can and clobber them with something big and heavy.

 

[hedge hunter]

Like some of you say he may have been trying too finish a wounded animal off or he has been watching too much you tube.one things for sure he isn't doing the lads on here that do it properly any favours at all.just keep wacking the nails in too that coffin lid pal

 

[foxdropper]

There has to be quite a few on here ,given the comprehensive membership it has ,that practice regularly at the likes of Bisley at ranges far exceeding this problematic shot that would definitely use that skill in the field .Move out of the darkness and into the light ,don’t be scared .

 

[Dalua]

I don't know whether the longer-range off-sticks shots mentioned are using quadsticks?
I've never used them myself, but I was astonished a couple of years ago to see a pal of mine put five bullets through the chest of a roebuck target using them, on the 300yd range. He's a good shot, but the difference between quads and ordinary one-point resting sticks in terms of steadiness seems remarkable.

 

[foxdropper]

I don't know whether the longer-range off-sticks shots mentioned are using quadsticks?
I've never used them myself, but I was astonished a couple of years ago to see a pal of mine put five bullets through the chest of a roebuck target using them, on the 300yd range. He's a good shot, but the difference between quads and ordinary one-point resting sticks in terms of steadiness seems remarkable.

Now we talking and slowly getting somewhere .

 

[howa243]

Ok mate ,well just stick to your own way of doing things and I do same with no loss of sleep. The advent of quad sticks changed my shooting beyond anything I could of imagined using just the doubles which I was pretty good off anyway .
Again don’t judge anyone by your own standard because it makes you look stupid ,been there done that and had my eyes opened to another level .

The point that I am hoping that you are deliberately missing, is not the ability to make that shot. I am sure that we all have that ability, the question is should we. My contention is no. The reasons for this are, that the animal moves its head quite a lot even if standing still, gauging where the spine is within the neck at that range is a bit of guesswork, a follow up shot if required could be a bit tricky and tracking the deer if its a runner could be problematic.

So for me, if stupidity is not taking the shot, but to you, it is standing there wondering where the animal is that you have just blown the lower jaw off, I will go for my version, rather than yours.

Have good one.

 

[Woodsmoke]

I don't know whether the longer-range off-sticks shots mentioned are using quadsticks?
I've never used them myself, but I was astonished a couple of years ago to see a pal of mine put five bullets through the chest of a roebuck target using them, on the 300yd range. He's a good shot, but the difference between quads and ordinary one-point resting sticks in terms of steadiness seems remarkable.

I use the Primos trigger sticks tripod, myself. As long as you have your breathing under control, and your technique is good, I find they're brilliant. I use them for standing shots mostly, but when the legs are splayed out they make a brilliant rest for sitting shots too. I don't think the single-leg sticks would be anywhere near as good, especially for longer shots.

 

[Island]

This is a topic that will always engender a rabid response, mainly due to the emotive and highly polarised nature of such a shot.

Whilst I freely admit that there are many, many people capable of a shot at that distance (and considerably more) my personal opinion is that one should not be taking such a shot on a live beast.

The usual contra-arguments have been rolled out:

Perhaps it was a wounded beast? - in that case why mess about lining up a neck shot? Get bullets into it and get it on the ground...

Perhaps it was couched? - possible, but why not wait for it to stand up?

Perhaps the shooter was eminently capable? - entirely likely, but the finest shot in the land cannot foresee what will happen on a target as mobile as a neck during the finite reaction time of the rifleman (from decision to shoot to physically pulling the trigger), the small (though finite) lock time of the firearm and the nigh on 0.5sec flight time (based on a 130gr projectile travel circa 3000fps from a .270). Even conservatively you are looking at the better part of 0.75 secs from start to finish...

I find interesting the debate comparing it to long-range rabbit and corvid. To my mind it is like comparing apples and oranges. Realistically any solid strike on a small target like a rabbit or crow from a centrefire rifle is likely to result in a kill, the same cannot be said for a deer.

Likely due to the industry that I am employed in I consider everything on the basis of risk (and the mitigation thereof). In my opinion the risks surrounding a 420 yard neck shot are not adequately mitigated against simply by being "a really good shot".

 

[foxdropper]

The point that I am hoping that you are deliberately missing, is not the ability to make that shot. I am sure that we all have that ability, the question is should we. My contention is no. The reasons for this are, that the animal moves its head quite a lot even if standing still, gauging where the spine is within the neck at that range is a bit of guesswork, a follow up shot if required could be a bit tricky and taking the deer if its a runner could be problematic.

So for me, if stupidity is not taking the shot, but to you, it is standing there wondering where the animal is that you have just blown the lower jaw off, I will go for my version, rather than yours.

Have good one.

Where do I mention neck shooting anything mate .Re read then get back ,The OP or whoever the post refers to might be very competent at range work but I’d confine mine to chest only .Hope that clears that up .
Im very well aware of head and neck shots going wrong and limit my own to much shorter range .

 

[sikamalc]

I think one other thing we should also bare in mind is that most shots in the highlands on Red deer are taken laying prone, not off sticks. Thus giving the shooter a more secure rest and time as a rule to compose ones self before taking the shot.

Also some stalkers/shooters may well be able to put consistent shots in a target at longer ranges. But this is a target, it does not move, its stationary. Its a bit different with live quarry, weather, walking up a hill side to get a shot with a stitch in your side and out of breath, plus the adrenaline makes a world of difference to laying comfortably on a range.
But this subject will forever be discussed.

 

[howa243]

Where do I mention neck shooting anything mate .Re read then get back ,The OP or whoever the post refers to might be very competent at range work but I’d confine mine to chest only .Hope that clears that up .
Im very well aware of head and neck shots going wrong and limit my own to much shorter range .

Okay, so to confirm, your responses have not been about the OP, simply a reference to being able to be accurate at that distance?

 

[foxdropper]

Yes mate .Well capable to put a shot in a 4” placement at 300 yards .Therefore I don’t see an issue with anyone who can shoot better or with better kit out further .

 

[Dunwaters]

Perhaps I've misunderstood the anatomy, but I've always considered a side-on neck shot on a stag as trying to hit a hosepipe hidden in a overcoat-sleeve wrapped in a hearthrug. That is to say, a kill-zone that is an awkward and narrow shape, and not straightforward to locate.
From directly behind or in front, there's at least a vertical kill-zone - but it doesn't allow much error for wind.

Even discounting the increased mobility of the neck vs. the chest, I don't think either of those neck-shots is anything like as 'forgiving' as one into the large heart-and-lung

No disrespect but the effective target zone on a red deers stags neck is about the size of a rugby ball, that long narrow sinuous curve you see in dsc documents is total male bovine by-product.
A solid hit to the neck muscle, missing the vertebrae, will still anchor it with a fast expanding bullet, a hit to the dorsal vertebrae will anchor it, a hit to the central vertebrae will anchor it and kill it.
I’ve no intention of re starting WW3 re neck shots/chest shots but there’s a great deal of misinformation accepted as gospel by stalkers who haven’t actually tried it.
No, neck shots aren’t perfect, the perfect shot only exists on the range, but it’s good enough often enough that it should be taught as a viable alternative to waiting for the perfect 90 degree profile.
Now that that’s settled, let’s get back to bad mouthing the.243, particularly Blaser .243’s

 

[User00035]

420 is a long way but as it ended up with a flattened deer - in this case there is no charge to answer to.

I’ve seen people miss at 50m and 100m - does that mean no one should shoot antithing more than 30m away.

Out of interest - how far does the OP reckon should be the maximum range you shoot deer at? An actual number not ‘as far as you are comfortable’

I saw a guest stalker miss a base of the neck shot (the body was obscured in grass) and shoot the snout off from 40 yards. I'd give up if I was that bad.
I'd told him to aim for the base of the neck as it was the easiest and safest shot. Whether he listened or thought he'd go for a head shot anyway I'll never know but it was a poor display either way.

 

[JockStalk]

I think we’ve all been in lockdown a bit too long.

 

[foxhunter]

My take on it is that it's not everyone's cup of tea. I appreciate the skill involved for long range shooting and have witnessed my old mate practising these skills many times. I personally don't shoot long range as dont have the right kit and limit myself to around 250 yds although I have shot beasts at 500 yds with my mates set up ........custom built rifle, top end scope , homeload ammo , rangefinder and wind meter. He would neck shoot a stag at 420yds without even thinking about it , I witnessed him neck shoot 2 yearling roebucks stood together at 485 yds. I am not advocating that this should be done but when somebody can do it dont judge by your own ability. He would practise constantly and shoot rabbits at 600 / 700 yds consistently. At the end of the day it is up to the individual squeezing the trigger to make the call if they are confident . There are those that can and those that can't

 

[howa243]

I saw a guest stalker miss a base of the neck shot (the body was obscured in grass) and shoot the snout off from 40 yards. I'd give up if I was that bad.
I'd told him to aim for the base of the neck as it was the easiest and safest shot. Whether he listened or thought he'd go for a head shot anyway I'll never know but it was a poor display either way.

Do you mind me asking if this was an overseas stalker or one based in the UK. If in the UK, did they own their own rifle?

 

[hedge hunter]

I think the main point is dont advertise it on social media. It doesn't take much too catch some non shooting groups attention .before you know it we are a bunch of cruel so and so animal murderers the last thing we need I think

 

[Lateral]

No assumption. You might see a rabbit at 800 metres, through binoculars or a very good scope, seeing one with the naked eye, well they must eat a lot of carrots!

No doubt there are people out there who take such shots, whether its deer or other game. Personally I dont think its ethical. Shooting anywhere in a wood or open hill back stops are always to be considered and the perspective behind a target at 800m can be nothing as you imagine it to be.
None the less if its in a valley as you have said then that would be fine if you have a clear line of site, but you didnt mention that in your post.

I am a very tolerant person (despite what some or you may think) 40 years of guiding clients in all weathers and with many different abilities one needs to be. And believe me I have had moments when some people would certainly not be! No disrespect but I have been in this game for a great deal longer than you, and am not stopping anyone enjoying the sport that I have made a life from.

The point of taking long shots will forever be discussed. As stalkers we do our upmost to get as near as possible to complete a clean kill on the animal we are stalking. Deer or any other quarry are not targets, they are creatures that we as stalkers/hunters have the privilege of hunting and taking their lives. In my opinion we need to make sure we are not seen by the public and others to be treating or giving the impression that we are treating them as targets.

It's becoming really common for even the hobby stalker to have bino's, and a thermal spotter, as well as rifle, and scope, when they go out stalking. No one would question this.

So why would you think, that someone who's hobby is long range vermin, would rely on using their eyes to spot ? I didn't mention several things in my post, such as calibre, rife, scope, spotting equipment, backstop, because they were irrelevant to my point.

When someone can achieve something we can't, it's very easy to try, and find fault in what they do. You can come up with numerous reasons why they shouldn't, why they're wrong, all based on personal ability, and, or personal beliefs. None of which change the fact, that some people do things, because they can !

Would I do it, no, I have the equipment, but not the ability. Others clearly do, and who are we to question what they do, any more than the anti's questioning what we do ?