Thread: Are hunters taking longer shots these days?

With the advances in optics, ballistics, bipods/tripods and overall rifle accuracy - is it true that hunters are taking shots at game at greater distances than before (say before year 2000.)
Or is game more wary, facilitating the need for longer shots?
If you can ethically take a 400m shot, is there any need to stalk closer in?

Just interested to hear your views.

Originally Posted by Daniel L

With the advances in optics, ballistics, bipods/tripods and overall rifle accuracy - is it true that hunters are taking shots at game at greater distances than before (say before year 2000.)
Or is game more wary, facilitating the need for longer shots?
If you can ethically take a 400m shot, is there any need to stalk closer in?

Just interested to hear your views.

I think more people are, but 'long range' shooting was done back in the black powder days.

Look up 'Whitworth Rifle'...

im constantly between 160-600M. i trust my rifle and loads except when my new supressor bush put me off. if i ont get a sidle shoulder at the longer range i wont take it.

With the advances in ballistics, rifle engineering, range finders and apps for ballistic data on the fly, long range shooting is 100% on the rise. Basically the only variable we can’t 100% account for or validate is the wind and/or animal movement. We can judge both of theses fairly accurately and with the correct ballistic coefficients in projectile choice almost negate certain winds. Ie having to aim outside the kill zone to account for wind. The technology is there and is more than adequate to provide accurate shooting solutions, 600yard shots become easy. 1000 yards requires a whole nother level of skill though. Purely an observation, but the only people I’ve come across who either disdain shooting over a hundred meters or call the shooter irresponsible for shooting at range are people who never had the technologies when they cut their teeth as hunters. There is a difference between killing an animal at long range and “having a crack” at a distant animal

Originally Posted by Jus

With the advances in ballistics, rifle engineering, range finders and apps for ballistic data on the fly, long range shooting is 100% on the rise. Basically the only variable we can’t 100% account for or validate is the wind and/or animal movement. We can judge both of theses fairly accurately and with the correct ballistic coefficients in projectile choice almost negate certain winds. Ie having to aim outside the kill zone to account for wind. The technology is there and is more than adequate to provide accurate shooting solutions, 600yard shots become easy. 1000 yards requires a whole nother level of skill though. Purely an observation, but the only people I’ve come across who either disdain shooting over a hundred meters or call the shooter irresponsible for shooting at range are people who never had the technologies when they cut their teeth as hunters. There is a difference between killing an animal at long range and “having a crack” at a distant animal

correct! Have to be an ethical shot.

Rangefinders are what have really made long range much easier.
It doesn’t matter how good you, your rifle, optics, projectile or the ballistic app are if that deer you think is at 500m is actually 387m away

The answer is yes!! I'm not even a gun guy but I believe that many of the trends you folks experience in NZ is being seen 50 fold in the US (or 67 fold if you go by population). Technology is better and rangefinders are the biggest development ever in shooting...BUT the biggest thing for people shooting farther is social media and talking to people that shoot longer distances and that gives people the impression that "anyone can do it" when the fact is that shooting far is hard, especially in a hunting situation. Good groups off a bipod at 200-500m is something that takes a lot of work and dedication and PRACTICE and most people don't want to put in the effort to actually get good at something, they'd rather just go buy a $3000 rifle that shoots 1/4 MOA and assume that means they can shoot at 700m no problem. Of course all my opinions are heavily (roughly 100%) slanted towards the US.
I'm not sure any of that makes any sense and for the record I'm a very shitty shot

Yep, I agree. Social media has a huge influence on hunting these days. The days of inch and a half high at a hundred to shoot anything out to 300yds are gone, and most of us had a lot of trouble estimating 300 yds anyway - is it 280 or 350??
A lot of hunters are just piss-poor shots, but You Tube tells them they can still take long range shots if they've got all the gears and did "alright" out at the range.
Long range shooting is one thing - killing an animal ethically at long range is a completely different matter

Just look at YouTube. Too many missed shots, “I’ll give it a crack”, and lost animals. Good gear doesn’t obviate the need to practice far more than most do (myself included, if I’m honest). The shortage of ammo and components doesn’t help as most of us want to preserve our stocks.

One key change not yet mentioned is the advances in projectile development to give high BC and relatively frangible options ideal for wind bucking and wide wounding at long range.

My policy is still to get within 200m or so if possible.

Yes. But like other advances in technology, it's still down to the person behind the trigger.
Analogy, the sensors and handling of modern cars. Or even decade old cars. Yet we're still wiping each other and ourselves out through stupid actions.

Yes people are shooting further these days.
Do they need to - probably not for most people.

Originally Posted by Mohawk .308

100 yards would be a long shot for me, probably average 30 yards.

Do you hunt with open sights then? if it's that close I would imagine open sights would be quicker. Like the ghost ring style would be quick, aimpoint sort of thing.

I'm like Mohawk, tend to shoot 30-60m. 100m is long range in the bush.

Most of the hunting on TV is long range because bush hunting isn't easy to film, people getting into a sport from TV / social are going to gravitate to what they've seen, at least initially.

No denying it, long range hunting is a hell of a discipline and skill when executed correctly. Hugely popular now with so many animals venturing into open country. Getting inside the comfort zone of a deer in the bush is a completely different sport. More often than not it’s the country you venture into that will determine what skill set you need to hone. I enjoy the latter more.

All good points - yes range finders coupled with knowing your dope have definitely made an impact. I have to give NZ bow hunters a lot of credit... if it's not 40m or in with a compound/crossbow, they won't take the shot. For trad recurve bows, it's probably 20m or less.

Nothing against long range ethical shots - most of us are not dependent on the meat, so the experience of a closer stalk is the thrill.