wannabefisher

I've gone over what I meant by rough zero, I think it is what most people would call a proper zero. And who said I haven't had practice shooting moving targets - I definitely didn't. what a bizarre thing to say - how can you know that the teal would have been cleanly killed at 25-30 yards, are you saying you've never shot one at that distance that hasn't died instantly? If you are then either you haven't done very much shooting, or you're just trying to make your point at any cost. I'm not going to rise to the "unsafe" jibe again, so you can forget about that. Ditto the lying, if you want to think that then go ahead, I won't stop you.

and i thought i was a troll

right. So because you shot a hole in a teal, I am wrong to think that generalising all shotguns into one "ideal range" is wrong. That makes a lot of sense. Perhaps you should read the whole thread before posting. And perhaps if some weren't so keen to label me as giving the antis ammo, being unsafe etc then some more people might be inclined to join in the debate. As it is, I don't blame them for staying away. Witness to this is the first few replies to the thread.

yes he could - and I could be making it all up.

would you tell you FEO that you once left your shotgun out overnight? Or that there may be some .22 rounds left in your car? Or that you once forgot to unload a magazine when you drove from one field to the other? In answer to your question - probably not. But for the reason that there would be no point in starting a potentially contentious issue with him, regardless of whether I thought it was right or wrong. However I would have no problems telling him about the times I have shot driven boar near Berlin. It goes to show how odd peoples' ideas about shooting are.

Sorry but that is a very obvious fabrication. It is totally apparent that you could possibly make that statement for a specific gun with a specific choke firing a specific cartridge with specific shot size, but as a general sweeping statement it is - how should I put it - rather silly. I'd also disagree with that range - I'm sure that a pigeon in a pattern at 15m will stand a much greater chance of dying than one at 35m. But this is really impossible to prove, so I will accept that you believe what you say.

Maybe from an eating perspective, but certainly not from a probability of kill one. If I had to be shot with a shotgun I know which I would choose out of standing 35m away or 15m. The fact is, it is impossible to reconcile the viewpoint of giving animals a sporting chance with that of ensuring as clean a kill as possible.

That's ludicrous. You're trying to tell me it's better to increase the chances of injuring a bird than to have it hit harder? If you don't want to eat heavily shot birds that's your prerogative, but then think about who is being disrespectful to the animal. And I take it from your post that you do not eat rabbits either if it is OK to shoot them from close range?

In germany they practice wild boar shooting with rifles - whilst running In scandinavia they practice elk shooting with rifles - whilst running In fact I seem to remember that one of the scandinavian countries has a hunting test which involves shooting at a running target. All of these countries have a much larger heritage than the UK when it comes to hunting with rifles, yet they think it is OK to shoot moving targets. "But but but but....it's just not the way we do things" seems to be the thought of most of the posters here. Let's look at it another way; I apparently took a shot that was too far. Hands up amongst the people who think I was wrong who would hesitate to shoot at a pheasant that was "too close". And why would you not - because it isn't sporting. But hang on, surely getting a clean kill is the most important factor? You can't have it both ways.

Ruger 77/17 & SAK

nothing but Just goes to show that experience doesn't always count for a lot, given how much I have and how "irresponsible" I am.

fair enough, I accept your opinions. thank you for the reasonable nature of your posts.

1) Wrong. I was shooting into the side of a hill, and was fully aware of the fact that there were no people around. 2) Would you not be willing to take on a moving shot to kill a wounded animal then? 3) Wrong. You obviously haven't read my post about this earlier 4) Wrong. The frost was confined to the side of the field where I was on the track. This bit was in the shade, the rest of the field was in the sun, and was thawed 5) It has one hole in it, is hanging in my garage, and I am looking forward to eating it. You don't need to lecture me on the responsibilities of eating what you shoot, I can guarantee I eat a greater proportion of the animals I shoot than the majority of hunters. As you may have seen, I'm not afraid of a little debate, but it does **** me off when people come storming in here accusing me of taking a dangerous shot when they have ZERO reason for doing this other than trying to make me look bad. Grow up.

oh, the irony!

That's assuming you know you hit it, and you saw it come down. I've seen countless times birds that have been hit that go much further than you will send your dogs, and I'm sure you have too Of course I could have wounded the hare, but I could have wounded it with a static shot too. Yes the odds are greater - I did acknowledge in my original post that it was a very lucky shot. And I would also like to add that the kill zone on a hare with a 17 is much bigger than the 2" that was suggested earlier. I would go as far as to say that over 50% of its body area would do at least enough damage to enable someone to easily administer a follow up

the fact you think you pick up everything you hit is very hypocritical

OK 3 questions for you then given that you partake in shooting moving targets with a rifle, 1) Which calibre would be suitable for shooting a running hare 2) What is the maximum distance you would shoot at a running target 3) Why is it better to shoot at a running boar than a running hare, given that the non-lethal areas on a boar are vastly bigger than those on a hare

You're right it wasn't what I would consider 100% scoped in, it was 98%, and as much as I would wager almost anyone on here does. How many people here go to an indoor range to benchrest zero their guns? The fact is that a higher proportion of shots result in wounded animals with a shotgun than a rifle, and I don't see you bleating on about that. Try and tell me you've never shot at a bird at more than 30m. Did you hit it? If so then you shouldn't have taken the shot in the first place. Did you miss it? You could have very easily hit it and not killed it then and there - it is MUCH more difficult to know with a shotgun, and you can never be sure. Life is not black and white.

1) Tell me why not 2) Seriously?? You do not know anything about the other conditions and you are trying to tell me it was an unsafe shot? Do your self a favour and stick to the facts rather than attacking me for being dangerous when you don't have a clue; it just makes you look vindictive.

at least keep your original post there too

depends when you define started shooting - I shot my first clay 15 years ago, have had SGC for 10 years, FAC for 6

since I'm not very clever, explain to me how the principal is different with a shotgun? If by principal you mean that is is generally thought of as being more ethically responsible to injure animals with a shotgun than with a rifle then I would agree with you. But I doubt that is what you are thinking?

sorry I can't agree with that With a rifle you either hit or miss. If you hit, especially with a round such as the 17hmr, then the chances of putting down the animal are very good. I won't need to explain to you how this is certainly not the case with a shotgun, and the chances or injuring are much, much higher - especially at range. I'm not expecting to change your mind, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Do you really believe it is that simple? When you are roost shooting do you wait until the birds have landed to make sure you kill them? When game shooting do you shoot the pheasant flying 3m over your head because it is a sure kill? nothing's black and white!

no - supposedly the reason that you can eat woodcock guts is because their diet is bug and worms, not vegetation. whether this is true or not I don't know. When you do the innards aof a woodcock it's predominantly liver that comes through anyway