Elk at 688 yards with a 243

[Inline6]

For ME with my standard scope, no turrets, probably 400yds with my .300WM. For many with more advanced scopes, 600+ yards. From sticks, no bench and the animals are moving for the most part because it’s a DIY hunt on public land and other hunters are pursuing them. When your target stops, you have a few seconds to take the shot. I’m really not that proficient at anything over 300yds given that reality. I don’t use sticks when elk hunting because where/how I hunt they’res no time. Different hunting environment than my one PG African hunt.

When I read your question, I took it as the type of field conditions like we watched in the video. The scenario you just laid out is very different. This is a "condition", one that will limit the distance you can shoot accurately. I do feel I could use my viper-flex-styx in that situation. I shot my Zebra just inside of 300 yards moving up the side of a hill with my 375h&h. Have a 1.7x10 scope on it, that was more than adequate. I would more apprehensive further than that with those sticks (500 with a 7mm is probably my limit unless I trained a lot), only because I have not used them much further than that. Especially when we are talking about a 9#375 vs a 20# 6mm. Have shot off of all different types of objects in comps much further. Different gun for a different game. When shooting off sticks, you still have to drive the rifle. The bigger the recoil the harder to drive.

If we are talking about the ability to go prone, well I have shot targets over a mile with 22X scopes. I do enjoy my magnification the older I get. Probably why I like my 4X40 on my 22lr.

 

[HankBuck]

I don't disagree with much of what you say. Higher power scopes are more popular. I don't think they're more popular because they're better for shooting large mammals at long range. They're more popular because they're better for putting tiny holes in pieces of paper that don't move from a bench at the shooting range. I think the great majority of people with "long range" hunting rifles set up their rifles with scopes that work the best at the shooting range and then use them to shoot animals. If they were to buy the scopes that work best for shooting animals--larger FOVs, ability to more easily spot shots, highest likelihood of quick follow up shots, quickest target acquisition at both close and long range--they would generally have scopes with less magnification.

I'd wager far more animals were lost from using too much magnification than not enough.

It isn't the same thing, but if you look at an organization that actually sets up their rifles to perform best at shooting large mammals at long range instead of shooting targets at the range (the military) you'll find a lot more fixed 10x scopes and lower power ones than you will great big 5-25 power scopes.

STK, here’s where we agree: more game wounded or lost because of “too powerful magnification scopes” vs. too low = AGREE and for two reasons, they “think” just because they can See it —-they can hit it, also, the narrow field of view and “shaking” cross hairs don’t allow for a relaxed accurate shot under the time limitations of a live hunting situation. I will add that often the big Magnum caliber they are shooting and “flinching” with adds to this False confidence. The very well read (but inexperienced) Hunter is able to “launch” a slug from a .338 RUM and manage to blow out some guts in an Elk 650 yrds distant - while putting a “5 stitch cut” thru their eyebrow in the process. The Elk is lost and the “story” later revolves around How Tough those damn Elk are!! My solution, read less, buy less, shoot more and hunt enough to gain some real experience.

 

[Ravensview]

To me it’s just too long of a distance with a marginal calibre, as A hunter I owe that animal a clean and efficient kill, there are so many variables involved at those distances, I have done long range target shooting, M1 garland open sights to 600yds and 500 yards with my Sharps 45/70, that being said most of my hunting is in the swamps where 100 yds is a far shot, I have friends who deer hunt (white tailed deer) with .243 they pick there shot carefully and have fantastic results, for me though I want to err on the side of more knockdown as an assurance. YMMV

 

[Rich s]

So the guy doing the instructions is John Burns. He was the host of the original Best of the west tv show. Before him and the Davidson brothers and John Porter went their own ways. He is a very accomplished marksman that burns a couple barrels a year out. He really promotes the high shoulder shots on game. As you can see it puts them right down.
A good friend of mine got to hunt in New Mexico with him several years ago. Watched him go 5 for 6 on chicken eggs at 600 yards. I wasn’t there that’s what my friend told me. He was always pretty reliable and damn hard to impress but John impressed him with his marksmanship skills and his ability to read wind. His go to rifle he shoots is a 7 mm rem mag with Berger 168 gr hunting vld’s. He doesn’t feel like you need the extra recoil of the 300’s and bigger.
Besides the animal taking a step or spooking from something at the moment the shot breaks. Wind conditions are the only real trick to this shot. I promise he’s already got the dope for this rifle and setup.
I’m not here to argue what you may think is ethical or not ethical. I’ve seen a lot of game that has been wounded a lot closer than that by people who shoot far less and are less knowledgeable than that man. Some of the same people that bash this might try pushing a bullet through brush just hoping it doesn’t deflect enough to just wound the animal. Or they are shooting a big thumper and flinch at the yank of the trigger.
As far as needing a bigger gun? Well it worked. Do I think it would be the ideal cartridge for an elk. Well not at that range.
How many guys buy a big bore like a 470 or a 500 or even a 600 nitro that honestly can’t handle the recoil. And have made bad shots because of the lack of being able to shoot them proficiently. When one of the most experienced men on this site says a 375 H&H will do just fine for anything on the planet. And has consistently posted pictures of him getting it done with it.
Do I think anyone should take that shot absolutely not. But if you’ll fallow John’s videos he’s the real deal when it comes to marksmanship.

 

[CoElkHunter]

When I read your question, I took it as the type of field conditions like we watched in the video. The scenario you just laid out is very different. This is a "condition", one that will limit the distance you can shoot accurately. I do feel I could use my viper-flex-styx in that situation. I shot my Zebra just inside of 300 yards moving up the side of a hill with my 375h&h. Have a 1.7x10 scope on it, that was more than adequate. I would more apprehensive further than that with those sticks (500 with a 7mm is probably my limit unless I trained a lot), only because I have not used them much further than that. Especially when we are talking about a 9#375 vs a 20# 6mm. Have shot off of all different types of objects in comps much further. Different gun for a different game. When shooting off sticks, you still have to drive the rifle. The bigger the recoil the harder to drive.

If we are talking about the ability to go prone, well I have shot targets over a mile with 22X scopes. I do enjoy my magnification the older I get. Probably why I like my 4X40 on my 22lr.

This is all very good conversation and a learning thread for me.

 

[Flipper Dude]

I agree that if you can make that shot a high percentage of the time, it’s good shooting. It’s just not hunting. Maybe it wasn’t supposed to be. That’s what I find sad.

 

[Forrest Halley]

If you can't shoot, no matter the distance or the weapon are you hunting?

Well technically yes, but practically no they are a low down wounding so and so. The worst of all things afield; lower than the anti. They have no regard for the suffering of the animal and are therefore unworthy of either camaraderie or assistance.

I don't disagree with much of what you say. Higher power scopes are more popular. I don't think they're more popular because they're better for shooting large mammals at long range. They're more popular because they're better for putting tiny holes in pieces of paper that don't move from a bench at the shooting range. I think the great majority of people with "long range" hunting rifles set up their rifles with scopes that work the best at the shooting range and then use them to shoot animals. If they were to buy the scopes that work best for shooting animals--larger FOVs, ability to more easily spot shots, highest likelihood of quick follow up shots, quickest target acquisition at both close and long range--they would generally have scopes with less magnification.

I'd wager far more animals were lost from using too much magnification than not enough.

It isn't the same thing, but if you look at an organization that actually sets up their rifles to perform best at shooting large mammals at long range instead of shooting targets at the range (the military) you'll find a lot more fixed 10x scopes and lower power ones than you will great big 5-25 power scopes.

People are generally ignorant when it comes to proper magnification use. If you are not able to see the animal entirely and ten to twenty yards on either side you are likely using enough magnification to preclude a follow up shot and you are unable to spot impacts. I learned this when hunting groundhogs of all things. I'd dial the scope up to maximum power and either kill or miss. There was no room for a follow up shot. I couldn't track the animal well enough. I started dialing up to maximum and then back down to situationally aware before taking the shot. When I missed or made a bad shot, I was able to make follow ups and finish the animal.

The military affection with low power scopes is field of view and situational awareness driven. It's necessary to spot impacts to correct fire.

 

[HankBuck]

I agree that if you can make that shot a high percentage of the time, it’s good shooting. It’s just not hunting. Maybe it wasn’t supposed to be. That’s what I find sad.

A Bow hunter could make the same point for any rifle shot - 75 yrds or farther, it’s not exactly the same but the comparison is very similar. If getting close to the game defines hunting - spears & bows are the only tools used by real hunters. I have the same bias as You - at some point its shooting not hunting but I don’t know where that line is? 500 yrds? 800 yrds? 1500 yrds?———its within that range somewhere!!! I would love to have the skill to consistently make 1000 yrd shots on game but i’m Certain it would Not give me the thrill I get from a 25 to 300 yrd shot.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Well technically yes, but practically no they are a low down wounding so and so. The worst of all things afield; lower than the anti. They have no regard for the suffering of the animal and are therefore unworthy of either camaraderie or assistance.

People are generally ignorant when it comes to proper magnification use. If you are not able to see the animal entirely and ten to twenty yards on either side you are likely using enough magnification to preclude a follow up shot and you are unable to spot impacts. I learned this when hunting groundhogs of all things. I'd dial the scope up to maximum power and either kill or miss. There was no room for a follow up shot. I couldn't track the animal well enough. I started dialing up to maximum and then back down to situationally aware before taking the shot. When I missed or made a bad shot, I was able to make follow ups and finish the animal.

The military affection with low power scopes is field of view and situational awareness driven. It's necessary to spot impacts to correct fire.

I’ve never seen a wild groundhog. We don’t have them here or probably anywhere here in the West? Bet Townsend @Bob Nelson 35Whelen has them in OZ and kills them with his .25 Samurai? LOL

 

[WAB]

I apologize if I’ve posted this pic previously. I’m on a steep LR learning curve and thought this might be helpful. The first shot was bottom right. Clearly I was a bit off on BC and wind. I adjusted and fired the next two shots. Bull is 1”, range is 600 yards, prone with bipod using my pack to support the butt, so truly a hunting rest, not a bench. 6.5 PRC shooting 142 gr AB LR’s at 2,900.

I share this to show what is possible with a little work, not to endorse the shot that was taken. I now have an 800 yard plate on my range and am looking for the right spot for 1,000.

I do have the advantage of walking out the door and shooting whenever I please. Rounds downrange really build confidence.

 

[MS 9x56]

Just ONE example I personally know of: My neighbor next door wanted to go deer hunting with another neighbor. I don’t believe he ever owned a rifle before. We suggested to him a .308, .270 or .30-06. He bought a .308. Well, a month later, his long distance shooting ex Navy buddy convinced him he needed a longer range cartridge. So, he bought a 6.5PRC. Nothings wrong with that cartridge, except he doesn’t practice with it. He went deer hunting once and didn’t get a shot. How many other hunters buy a rifle in a “long range” cartridge and take a longer shot at game than they’ve EVER practiced for? I’ll bet it’s a bunch.

And when they wound or miss you never hear about it

 

[CoElkHunter]

And when they wound or miss you never hear about it

Never!

 

[MS 9x56]

A Bow hunter could make the same point for any rifle shot - 75 yrds or farther, it’s not exactly the same but the comparison is very similar. If getting close to the game defines hunting - spears & bows are the only tools used by real hunters. I have the same bias as You - at some point its shooting not hunting but I don’t know where that line is? 500 yrds? 800 yrds? 1500 yrds?———its within that range somewhere!!! I would love to have the skill to consistently make 1000 yrd shots on game but i’m Certain it would Not give me the thrill I get from a 25 to 300 yrd shot.

And there’s the rub. Me I prefer to see how close I can get. That’s where the real challenge is. Any one can kill an animal just by practicing to shoot. I hunt for that adrenaline rush I get as the animal gets closer and closer.

 

[CoElkHunter]

And there’s the rub. Me I prefer to see how close I can get. That’s where the real challenge is. Any one can kill an animal just by practicing to shoot. I hunt for that adrenaline rush I get as the animal gets closer and closer.

On my one African PG hunt, we got to within about 40-50yds of several non shootable warthogs that didn’t know we were there. THAT’S what trips my trigger! Up close and personal when hunting!

 

[Inline6]

View attachment 564710

I apologize if I’ve posted this pic previously. I’m on a steep LR learning curve and thought this might be helpful. The first shot was bottom right. Clearly I was a bit off on BC and wind. I adjusted and fired the next two shots. Bull is 1”, range is 600 yards, prone with bipod using my pack to support the butt, so truly a hunting rest, not a bench. 6.5 PRC shooting 142 gr AB LR’s at 2,900.

I share this to show what is possible with a little work, not to endorse the shot that was taken. I now have an 800 yard plate on my range and am looking for the right spot for 1,000.

I do have the advantage of walking out the door and shooting whenever I please. Rounds downrange really build confidence.

24" or 36" target?

 

[JimP]

Getting as close as you can is fine if you can. But at times, the closer that you get the less you can see.

 

[Hogpatrol]

View attachment 564710

I apologize if I’ve posted this pic previously. I’m on a steep LR learning curve and thought this might be helpful. The first shot was bottom right. Clearly I was a bit off on BC and wind. I adjusted and fired the next two shots. Bull is 1”, range is 600 yards, prone with bipod using my pack to support the butt, so truly a hunting rest, not a bench. 6.5 PRC shooting 142 gr AB LR’s at 2,900.

I share this to show what is possible with a little work, not to endorse the shot that was taken. I now have an 800 yard plate on my range and am looking for the right spot for 1,000.

I do have the advantage of walking out the door and shooting whenever I please. Rounds downrange really build confidence.

Wind effect chart, RH twist barrel.

 

[WAB]

24" or 36" target?

24”

 

[CoElkHunter]

It is easier to "see" a deer with a 10x scope at 600 yards than it is to see one at 100 yards with your naked eye. Do you need magnification to aim at deer greater than 60 yards away? Would you be comfortable shooting at one with a red dot at that distant, or with iron sights? If so, 10x magnification would be plenty at 600 yards. A 10x scope at 600 yards gives you the same sight picture as an unmagnified scope at 60 yards.

That's not to say actually shooting at a deer at 600 yards with a 10x scope is as easy (or should be done as readily) as shooting at one with a red dot at 60 yards. Obviously they're very different things, and the long shot is exponentially harder for a number of reasons. All I'm pointing out is that the scope magnification is probably not the limiting factor at that range. 10x is plenty for a deer out to 600 yards.

I understand what you're saying. For me it's the "moving" crosshairs from anything other than a benchrest position to really ANY distance? The further away the target is and with more magnification, it takes less and less movement to have the crosshairs MOVE while aiming at the target? Now do the same on sticks?

 

[stk]

A Bow hunter could make the same point for any rifle shot - 75 yrds or farther, it’s not exactly the same but the comparison is very similar. If getting close to the game defines hunting - spears & bows are the only tools used by real hunters. I have the same bias as You - at some point its shooting not hunting but I don’t know where that line is? 500 yrds? 800 yrds? 1500 yrds?———its within that range somewhere!!! I would love to have the skill to consistently make 1000 yrd shots on game but i’m Certain it would Not give me the thrill I get from a 25 to 300 yrd shot.

Yep. And the compound bow hunters will complain about the crossbow hunters, and the recurve guys will complain about the compound bow guys. Somewhere out there there’s a “real hunter” that strangles all his game to death with his bare hands. Anyone who uses a rifle and shoots game at 200-300 yards but says shooting game at 600 yards isn’t “real hunting” is kidding himself.

I don’t get involved in judging the ethics of how other people hunt legally unless it’s obviously and egregiously wrong. It was a clean kill. Hard to argue with results. Anyone who bow hunts seriously knows the wound rate is high no matter how careful you try to be. I myself don’t particularly like to do it because of how slow at killing it can be even when making a relatively good shot. Do we talk about how “things like this give hunters a black eye” anytime someone posts a bow hunting video, though? No. Nor will I criticize anyone who does it legally. Just because it’s not my favorite kind of hunting doesn’t mean it isn’t hunting.

I probably wouldn’t take a 688 yard shot at an elk. I certainly never have. I’ve shot plenty of prairie dogs at those ranges, so I know it can be done. I definitely wouldn’t try taking a 200+ yard free hand shot at a big game animal, though, and many on here criticizing the lady who shot the elk don’t seem to have issues with that. To each his own. Hunt in the way you want. Just don’t pretend your way is the best, or the only ethical way, or the only way that takes “real skill.” Unless you’re the guy strangling everything to death with your bare hands. That guy can say whatever he wants.