Very long shot .

[andrewluke]

9 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

Im not looking for a argument .

Im interested in the numbers idea 9/10  5/10 etc .What's ethical what isnt .?

Obviously  10/10 is ideal .but should we pass up a 5/10 shot .

Id say yes we should pass up a 3/10 odds .

6 /10 ? .

It would depend on our reasons for taking the shot in the first place .

And what  pressures are present on the shooter to make the shot .

What if i HAD  to get a rabbit to feed my kids today .

Well we could argue that id be justifiable in taking a 1/10 chance shot  (if it was the only option. )

There can be many different factors that come into play and they may be different each time. Leading to different odds different days .

But then who knows exactly what the odds are when considering a shot .we can only go on past experiences  .i now consider the odds of me making a second 150 yd shot are greater than they were before yesterday .

Are they ? Hard to say .

I feel more confident about another shot but am i kidding myself. 

Its such an emotive area and trying to TELL someone what should or shouldnt be done is loose ground imo.

cheers 

 

 

 

"What if i HAD  to get a rabbit to feed my kids today ." are you real?,did you have a shot at that 150yd rabbit because your kids were starving or was it for your enjoyment??

[Ultrastu]

Did you read my post ? 

Or are any words just coming out ? 

[oowee]

I doubt that most people shooting  pigeon with a shotgun average much if anything better than 2 for 1? I guess the difference is that with a shotgun on the first bird you still have a second shot. 

Every time we fire we expect to drop the target otherwise we would not shoot. Clearly we don't hit everything but we still take the shot.

[Ultrastu]

Ah just cos the bird didnt drop doesnt mean you completely missed it. Quite the opposite. Often its hit just not with enough pellets or too little energy or they didnt hit the vitals .

All leading to a wounded bird that flys on looking like it was missed. 

[zipdog]

6 hours ago, Mice! said:

I know he's not, he's using a .25 fac FX.

that's why i asked what your shooting with, I'm only shooting squirrels or rats at up to 30 metres max, more often less if i can help it.

if i was using a non FAC airgun 40 yards would be a good shot. If i was using a 22 lr 80 yards plus would be a good shot, if I was using a 223 250 yards plus would be a good shot. 

[Houseplant]

This is hunting. Things don’t always go to plan. At some point, despite the best of intentions, we will all maim an animal. If that’s unpalatable, then this isn’t the right sport for you. You can stack the odds in favour of an ethical shot by using the right equipment and practice. This is a judgement call made by the individual shooter. In this case, presumably the purpose was pest control. A pest was eliminated. Job well done, end of discussion.

[figgy]

Ability and how to use your tools are the key factors.

Plenty can take long shots with guns due to many years experience and being very good shots.

Not the same for others where a thirty yard shot is their limit.

Set your own and get on with it.

[Ultrastu]

On Thu Jul 11 2019 at 16:05, figgy said:

Just curious how you got chairgun to work at 9X mag. Can you select that on the spot.

Only used chairgun a couple of times for range cards at 10X mag with half mildots.

Find it a pain on the phone trying to change the parameters to suit. Did it in past to show the four colour screens for different ranges with what I set. Now though I get the same on all four screens.

Looked line and hawke say they no longer support chairgun and recommend strelok, which I find is for centrefire ranges and bullets.

Well-done on your shooting, I've took some long shots in the past and some hit some don't just the same as at short range. A .25 has some stopping power so even a body shot should put it down.

Hi figgy. Rembered you asked about the mag alteration  in cg. And went back and found your post. 

 

So i use a hawke 6-24 x  sr pro scope on my fx .it sits 3 inches high above the bore and gives me a 50 yd zero with my pellets. 

Its set up with the dots /hash marks to give exact  5 yard intervals out to 100 yds (last  hash mark at the top of the post ) on 24 x mag. 

Now if i want to shoot a target beyond 100 yds i need a lower hash mark on my ret. (Which i dont have ) so what i do instead is alter the magnification (downwards ) effectivley  making the last top post hash mark correlate to a different range. So for instance if i wanted  to hit a can at 110 yds i'd wind the mag down a bit to 19x mag 

Or 17x for 115 yds .

In the shot above i used 9x so the mark correlated with 150 ydrs. 

Obviously   the down side here is the further i want to shoot the lower the magnification needs to be unless i start to dial the turrets instead .

Which many people do but im not practiced enough  yet in doing that .so i stick to my method. 

Which to be fair works for every shot ive needed to take so far out to 150 yds .

Hope this clarifies

Stu 

[figgy]

Cheers see what your doing now. I thought you'd set your scope mildot range catd at 9x mag.

Do you use your phone to work this out in the field at the time. Say 150 yards and Chairgun gives you the final 9x mag ?

[Ultrastu]

Yes thats it exactly .

[wobbly bob 2]

On 11/07/2019 at 20:18, Ultrastu said:

If im being totally honest  id say i had a 50 /50 chance of making that shot.

Whatever we may think about the ethics of that, I would say such a cavalier attitude to animal welfare was playing straight into the hands of Packham and his posse.

[Houseplant]

Nothing short of stopping shooting animals altogether is going to placate the anti-hunting community. I'm not advocating unethical shots or causing suffering, but there is no middle ground. Packham is not going to pat you on the back for a nice clean kill.  

[Ultrastu]

15 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

Nothing short of stopping shooting animals altogether is going to placate the anti-hunting community. I'm not advocating unethical shots or causing suffering, but there is no middle ground. Packham is not going to pat you on the back for a nice clean kill.  

This .exactly .

And very well said .

27 minutes ago, wobbly bob 2 said:

Whatever we may think about the ethics of that, I would say such a cavalier attitude to animal welfare was playing straight into the hands of Packham and his posse.

My shot was NOT cavalier in the slightest .

You may judge it as so .but i do not .and there in lies the difference. 

 

[Ultrastu]

We live (for now ) in a world of rights 

The world of the individual to make his own desision and make his /her  own judgement on the morals of the actions we take .

Packham and his possey . (And many others in different fields ) would take this right away from you and impose their own view of whats right or wrong upon you .

This is a VERY slippery slope .as soon the banning of almost every thing is upon us and we are left surounded by a plastic,  restricted " cleansed"world .

" Be careful  how you judge others - for surely  that same judgement will come back to bite you and yours " 

[Walker570]

On 11/07/2019 at 21:26, oowee said:

I doubt that most people shooting  pigeon with a shotgun average much if anything better than 2 for 1? I guess the difference is that with a shotgun on the first bird you still have a second shot. 

Every time we fire we expect to drop the target otherwise we would not shoot. Clearly we don't hit everything but we still take the shot.

2-1 is a pretty good average for a good shotgun shot, shooting pigeons or game birds.  As said , if you don't miss one or hit one a bit skew occasionally then you have not shot much at all.

If your not happy with less than perfect, then you should take up tiddly winks.

 

[wobbly bob 2]

However much you say the intention of your post was not vainglorious, quite obviously it was.  And you were expecting others here not to share your casual attitude to animal suffering. You were being deliberately provocative.

Clearly, there are people here with different moral considerations than yours.

But I would ask you to consider that this forum is not your only audience, and you are handing out ammunition on a plate, with a bed of watercress and sprig of parsley on top. 

[la bala]

1 hour ago, wobbly bob 2 said:

However much you say the intention of your post was not vainglorious, quite obviously it was.  And you were expecting others here not to share your casual attitude to animal suffering. You were being deliberately provocative.

Clearly, there are people here with different moral considerations than yours.

But I would ask you to consider that this forum is not your only audience, and you are handing out ammunition on a plate, with a bed of watercress and sprig of parsley on top. 

Talking about other people looking in on this forum. If your avatar is looking down the barrels of two handguns, thats just what CP mob wants to see.

[Walker570]

8 hours ago, wobbly bob 2 said:

However much you say the intention of your post was not vainglorious, quite obviously it was.  And you were expecting others here not to share your casual attitude to animal suffering. You were being deliberately provocative.

Clearly, there are people here with different moral considerations than yours.

But I would ask you to consider that this forum is not your only audience, and you are handing out ammunition on a plate, with a bed of watercress and sprig of parsley on top. 

With that attitude we might just as well close down the forum then..... I note your comment is also vegan.

[andrewluke]

16 hours ago, wobbly bob 2 said:

However much you say the intention of your post was not vainglorious, quite obviously it was.  And you were expecting others here not to share your casual attitude to animal suffering. You were being deliberately provocative.

Clearly, there are people here with different moral considerations than yours.

But I would ask you to consider that this forum is not your only audience, and you are handing out ammunition on a plate, with a bed of watercress and sprig of parsley on top. 

[Rewulf]

17 hours ago, wobbly bob 2 said:

However much you say the intention of your post was not vainglorious, quite obviously it was.  And you were expecting others here not to share your casual attitude to animal suffering. You were being deliberately provocative.

Clearly, there are people here with different moral considerations than yours.

But I would ask you to consider that this forum is not your only audience, and you are handing out ammunition on a plate, with a bed of watercress and sprig of parsley on top. 

Have you ever heard the term, 'Let him without sin cast the first stone'? 

You understand the concept of hypocrisy? 

Do you shoot? 

Do you drive a car, motorbike?

Do you eat meat? 

Have you ever caused death or suffering, when you didn't mean to? 

You need to drop the holier than thou attitude and go and think about it. 

Packham doesn't need ammunition, he can create it from his own effluence, because, in general, he is a self centered, egotistical, people hater. 

Be smart, don't be like Chris. 

[wobbly bob 2]

The handguns in my avatar are just one of my grandson’s cap pistols in mirror image, meant to convey the idea of wobbly.  But yes, I daresay CP could get excited about it.

And yes, I drive a car, I eat meat, and I shoot live quarry.  And not always have those kills been as clean and humane as I intended. 

But I think shooting at a live target on a 50/50 basis is irresponsible and unethical anyway, and in the current climate certainly does us no favours.

That, of course, is my view and you don’t have to share it, but I see nothing hypocritical about it.

[Ultrastu]

43 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Do you eat meat? 

Do you eat vegatables ? 

Also There is more human exploitation in the picking of veg than there is in the harvesting of meat. (Especially  wild sourced) 

 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, wobbly bob 2 said:

 And not always have those kills been as clean and humane as I intended

Which is what it's all about really.

Did Ultrastu set out to maim the animal ? I very much doubt it, though I agree ,its pushing the boundaries of the rifles range.

You can take the shot at 30 yards with absolute confidence, and gun ,ammo, or you , can mess up.

Is he going to regularly take that shot ? No.

Let packham et al do what they do best, be anti gun, we dont need to help them.

[guzzicat]

If I killed with every shot I fired,there would be several guns & a lot of shells for sale, it would be like a fish every cast.Who would want that.?

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Ultrastu said:

Do you eat vegatables ? 

Also There is more human exploitation in the picking of veg than there is in the harvesting of meat. (Especially  wild sourced) 

 

People like packham aren't bothered about other humans.