first shot with the .17

[rubberlegs]

if it were me i would not have posted this on here as it aint the sort of shot you should take with a hmr against a live animal running boar target yes.

[magman]

if it were me i would not have posted this on here as it aint the sort of shot you should take with a hmr against a live animal running boar target yes.

 

What with a HMR

Agree with the above

Edited January 27, 2009 by magman

[charlie 1]

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.

 

FYI i have spent many years shooting clays and live game i am a very competant shot and yes everyone who shoots shotguns will wound every know and then, no one is denying that and the reason y you wound more with a shotgun then a rifle is because you SHOULDN'T SHOOT A RUNNING TARGET WITH A RIFLE especially if it is a new rifle that you havn't spent the time with practising. with a rifle you are trying to hit a 1 poss 2 inch kill zone with a single small projectile and when your taget moves it becomes even harder. if others where daft enough to shoot a running target with a new rifle then the figures would change and it would be more common to wound with a rifle then a shotgun!

 

and i am very sensible when i shoot if i think there is a high chance of me wounding then i don't shoot, and what i do wound is very rappidly picked up by one of my two rerievers which are there to find everything i shoot.

 

the fact you don't think you did anything wrong even in hindsight is very worrying!

[wannabefisher]

if it were me i would not have posted this on here as it aint the sort of shot you should take with a hmr against a live animal running boar target yes.

 

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

[wannabefisher]

FYI i have spent many years shooting clays and live game i am a very competant shot and yes everyone who shoots shotguns will wound every know and then, no one is denying that and the reason y you wound more with a shotgun then a rifle is because you SHOULDN'T SHOOT A RUNNING TARGET WITH A RIFLE especially if it is a new rifle that you havn't spent the time with practising. with a rifle you are trying to hit a 1 poss 2 inch kill zone with a single small projectile and when your taget moves it becomes even harder. if others where daft enough to shoot a running target with a new rifle then the figures would change and it would be more common to wound with a rifle then a shotgun!

 

and i am very sensible when i shoot if i think there is a high chance of me wounding then i don't shoot, and what i do wound is very rappidly picked up by one of my two rerievers which are there to find everything i shoot.

 

the fact you don't think you did anything wrong even in hindsight is very worrying!

 

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

[charlie 1]

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

 

no its not. granted i don't pick up 100% but i know damn well i pick up around 95% of what i shoot as i go straight for it. and with 2 dogs hunting there is a very small chance of a wounded animal getting away.

 

what would you have done if you wounded that hare and it decided to run. because any intelligent person will know that you aint gonna out run a hare that already has 100 yrds head start, and the chance of you hitting it again whilst it was running is also pretty slim

[al4x]

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

 

ok a 12 bore with 3's in a heavy load is the ideal for hares at approx 30 yards.

[Guinea Fowl]

the fact you don't think you did anything wrong even in hindsight is very worrying!

I have to agree here with charlie.

 

 

wannabefisher, Im not going to argue with you on this any more, the fact is that the shot you took was not "according to me" a very responsible shot.

 

You have made your mind up and anything me or others are trying to say will be wrong according to you. At least just have a good think about this, and try to see our side of the argument.

 

Regards.

[wannabefisher]

no its not. granted i don't pick up 100% but i know damn well i pick up around 95% of what i shoot as i go straight for it. and with 2 dogs hunting there is a very small chance of a wounded animal getting away.

 

what would you have done if you wounded that hare and it decided to run. because any intelligent person will know that you aint gonna out run a hare that already has 100 yrds head start, and the chance of you hitting it again whilst it was running is also pretty slim

 

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

[Bleeh]

No - no matter what anyone says, this was an idiot shot, done by an irresponsible shooter.

 

1.) The reason you don't do moving shots, is you can't double check your backstop, and what’s behind the target, a .17 is more than capable of passing though a hare.

 

2.) A wounded hare is more than capable of running off, you could of shattered a leg and he'd of still gotten a good sprint off, saying you'd of taken a second shot is just as bad as saying about your first, because if your willing to take the second shot on (what must be) a moving target, it means your more than willing to take a second, rushed shot on a moving target.

 

3.) Roughly zeroed? a ''rought zero'' is the difference between shooting something in the head, and taking it's jaw off.

 

4.) Even worse, if you’re in a frosty ploughed ground, there is some chance of a rebound, off either flints (and even possibly the hard ground- has been known to happen on really - really cold days) - further showing the lack of safety you seem to be so proud of.

 

5.) and before you say ''I could of hit it in the gut and killed it with a .17'', I remind you, you are shooting GAME, if you shoot game, you eat it, not just plug it full of holes for your own ammusement, Hares are no real pest, and should be treated with respect.

 

The reason shooting a moving target with a shotgun is acceptable (at range) is because of the sheer amount of lead your firing at the target, you've got a greater chance of a quick and humane kill. Further more, You'll find that .22 (let alone a .17) is capable of over a mile and a half of travel when fired at 45 degresses, and lead shot wouldn't get further than 800ft, let alone be able to cause damage as it falls.

 

To be honest, you're an irresponsible shooter, and I hope you mend your ways for the safety of those around you and the image of every other shooter in the country.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Bleeh

[al4x]

so you've started your firearm experience with a dodgy shot are you going to continue shooting at running game and vermin?

[viking]

and on a lighter note, what sort of rifle and mod is it mate,

 

cheers, Lee

[charlie 1]

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

 

i have seen birds go a long way back but if i know it has fallen and can be picked without it keep flying off i will do everything i can and if it means me travelling 5-600 yrds then i will. i owe that respect to my quarry.

 

when shooting there should not be a substitue for a good clean kill, you should not be thinking well at least if i hit it in its back legs it won't run off so then i can kill it when i get to it, becasue at 100 yrds thats a fair distance to walk to an animal that has been wounded, you should be thinking there is little chance of a good clean kill therefore i will stalk it untill i can get a sensible shot off.

[wannabefisher]

You have made your mind up and anything me or others are trying to say will be wrong according to you. At least just have a good think about this, and try to see our side of the argument.

 

oh, the irony!

[wannabefisher]

No - no matter what anyone says, this was an idiot shot, done by an irresponsible shooter.

 

1.) The reason you don't do moving shots, is you can't double check your backstop, and what�€™s behind the target, a .17 is more than capable of passing though a hare.

 

2.) A wounded hare is more than capable of running off, you could of shattered a leg and he'd of still gotten a good sprint off, saying you'd of taken a second shot is just as bad as saying about your first, because if your willing to take the second shot on (what must be) a moving target, it means your more than willing to take a second, rushed shot on a moving target.

 

3.) Roughly zeroed? a ''rought zero'' is the difference between shooting something in the head, and taking it's jaw off.

 

4.) Even worse, if you�€™re in a frosty ploughed ground, there is some chance of a rebound, off either flints (and even possibly the hard ground- has been known to happen on really - really cold days) - further showing the lack of safety you seem to be so proud of.

 

5.) and before you say ''I could of hit it in the gut and killed it with a .17'', I remind you, you are shooting GAME, if you shoot game, you eat it, not just plug it full of holes for your own ammusement, Hares are no real pest, and should be treated with respect.

 

The reason shooting a moving target with a shotgun is acceptable (at range) is because of the sheer amount of lead your firing at the target, you've got a greater chance of a quick and humane kill. Further more, You'll find that .22 (let alone a .17) is capable of over a mile and a half of travel when fired at 45 degresses, and lead shot wouldn't get further than 800ft, let alone be able to cause damage as it falls.

 

To be honest, you're an irresponsible shooter, and I hope you mend your ways for the safety of those around you and the image of every other shooter in the country.

 

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.

[wannabefisher]

i have seen birds go a long way back but if i know it has fallen and can be picked without it keep flying off i will do everything i can and if it means me travelling 5-600 yrds then i will. i owe that respect to my quarry.

 

when shooting there should not be a substitue for a good clean kill, you should not be thinking well at least if i hit it in its back legs it won't run off so then i can kill it when i get to it, becasue at 100 yrds thats a fair distance to walk to an animal that has been wounded, you should be thinking there is little chance of a good clean kill therefore i will stalk it untill i can get a sensible shot off.

 

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

[wannabefisher]

so you've started your firearm experience with a dodgy shot are you going to continue shooting at running game and vermin?

 

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.

Edited January 27, 2009 by wannabefisher

[wannabefisher]

and on a lighter note, what sort of rifle and mod is it mate,

 

cheers, Lee

 

Ruger 77/17 & SAK

[charlie 1]

what u need to understand is, is that this is a public forum so there for anyone and everyone can read your thread.

so if one of us thinks it was dangeorus shot by the infomation you wrote then so could everyone else on the internet who reads this. therefore it is our duty to make sure that either you know it was a dangeorus shot or to tell you that the way the thread was written made it sound dangeorus.

we have had alot of people on the forum in the past who have come on and told the events of a days shooting and have made some very serious mistake that they didnot realise untill they were told so on here. so get off your high horse were not trying to make you look bad we are simply replying our concerns to the thread you wrote.

next time make it clearer.

Edited January 27, 2009 by charlie 1

[al4x]

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.

 

 

it obviously doesn't if you have lots of rifle experience and yet think shooting running targets is normal practice, I just hope you don't start shooting foxes or deer in the same manner as that would be even more ridiculous.

[petrol_head29]

silly practice i think shooting at that hair on the move with a 17,

thats what shotguns are for, a rifle is a single bullet and a 17 is a lethal weppon, mine and im shure most people (exept you in this instance) wish to inshure that any animal is dispatched as best as possible, doing a running shot with that rifel was not sutch a thing, how much lead did you give it? enought so that when you shot it it could have smashed its hips to bits so it could run off and die in pain! you may have been very lucky killing it straight away with that shot! stick to sitting targets infuture as that is what a rifle was intended for, just think what fuel your post would give to an Anti arguing against hunting, and youd have no right to argue back because what you done was wrong.

 

rant over

Edited January 27, 2009 by petrol_head29

[Blackbart]

One thing i find very strange and nobody has mentioned it...I have spent a lot of time "in the field"so to speak and i cant recall ever seeing a hare in the middle of a freshly ploughed field ??

 

Anyway when you say running...what do you define as running ?

 

Foxes cant even run very well on plough !

 

I have shot "moving" foxes but wouldnt shoot at one that was running,unless i had a shotgun in my hand.

 

Your statement that you have a 50% kill zone on a hare isnt very clever though

[Dave-G]

Thinks - must tell John Wayne not to shoot the baddies on running horses from the back of running horses.

And what about the hunters in africa shooting fleeing big game off their wagons, or out of helicopters in Australia or New Zealand either. Strewth they bin doing all that bad stuff for ages - You tell em guys

 

 

We all know the only "sporting" way to shoot moving quarry is with a shottie right? yes: Yea

[CEREALTHRILLER]

After a few seconds watching it I decided for some reason to have a crack - I guess I just wanted to break the gun in.

[Dave-G]

And shottie users don't have a crack? There can be known safe areas where bullets will hit the ground just as there are safe areas for pellets to drop.

 

Come on guys lighten up a bit and climb off them high horses.