wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 That's because you are giving the anti's ammo, and you are unsafe. and i thought i was a troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberlegs Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 i see no problem with shooting a moving target with a rifle i.e driven boar what i have a problem with is the distance that you shot the hare at with a hmr mate,i have one and know that it must have been more luck than jugdement,with a rough zero and little practice at moving targets it is a little short sighted to put this thread on here and not expect a little backlash but the hare was killed cleanly so job done, i do not want to attack you personally but may be think a little before posting any thing like this again as you will spend a lot of time defending yourself against others who rightly or wrongly think of the animal they are fortunately allowed to hunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 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. Exactly my point, You say that close range is an ideal range and more effective for making a clean kill and I say that it isn't giving you a factual reason why it isn't. If the teal had been 25-30 yards away it would have been killed cleanly. You are unsafe and to be honest I don't even think you made the running shot. You just thought it would sound better and more impressive if you said it was over 100 yards and the hare was running. If you have ever shot a hare running you would know how difficult it is with a shotgun let alone a .17 bullet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 i see no problem with shooting a moving target with a rifle i.e driven boar what i have a problem with is the distance that you shot the hare at with a hmr mate,i have one and know that it must have been more luck than jugdement,with a rough zero and little practice at moving targets it is a little short sighted to put this thread on here and not expect a little backlash but the hare was killed cleanly so job done, i do not want to attack you personally but may be think a little before posting any thing like this again as you will spend a lot of time defending yourself against others who rightly or wrongly think of the animal they are fortunately allowed to hunt 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. Exactly my point, You say that close range is an ideal range and more effective for making a clean kill and I say that it isn't giving you a factual reason why it isn't. If the teal had been 25-30 yards away it would have been killed cleanly. You are unsafe and to be honest I don't even think you made the running shot. You just thought it would sound better and more impressive if you said it was over 100 yards and the hare was running. If you have ever shot a hare running you would know how difficult it is with a shotgun let alone a .17 bullet. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberlegs Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 christ mate there is no helping you im getting bored now so good luck with it all ohh i think the local circus wants a trick shooter,so you can put your vast talent to good use there mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kip270 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok lets get things into perspective. Safety= must be paramount, no if's or but's, once you squeeze the trigger that bullet will not be coming back. Driven Boar= people who undertake this sort of shooting practice, and ensure they are properly zeroed plus use appropriate scopes for such shooting Zeroed rifle= unless you are shooting sub 1" at 100 yards you are not zeroed, (regardless of what calibre) and if cannot acheive this spend more time on the range. Ethics= total respect for the quarry you are hunting, and if your not 100% confident you simply do not take the shot. You say that the .17hmr, regardless of where the quarry is hit will be fatal?:o Well this is the real world, and no it isn't, vital zones will be more lethal and result in a quick death, shots futher back will end in wounded quarry. On the same point do you think that if you shot a deer too far back it would drop on the spot with any deer legal calibre?:o No it wouldn't Get back to basics, get zeroed and have more responsibility for holding a FAC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 christ mate there is no helping you im getting bored now so good luck with it all ohh i think the local circus wants a trick shooter,so you can put your vast talent to good use there mate finally a sensible reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok lets get things into perspective. Safety= must be paramount, no if's or but's, once you squeeze the trigger that bullet will not be coming back. Driven Boar= people who undertake this sort of shooting practice, and ensure they are properly zeroed plus use appropriate scopes for such shooting Zeroed rifle= unless you are shooting sub 1" at 100 yards you are not zeroed, (regardless of what calibre) and if cannot acheive this spend more time on the range. Ethics= total respect for the quarry you are hunting, and if your not 100% confident you simply do not take the shot. You say that the .17hmr, regardless of where the quarry is hit will be fatal?:o Well this is the real world, and no it isn't, vital zones will be more lethal and result in a quick death, shots futher back will end in wounded quarry. On the same point do you think that if you shot a deer too far back it would drop on the spot with any deer legal calibre?:o No it wouldn't Get back to basics, get zeroed and have more responsibility for holding a FAC. Safety - agreed Driven Boar - agreed (just to be clear, I have done this and am familiar with the equipment used) Zeroed Rifle - Zeroing has nothing to do with shooting MOA, that is accuracy. And yes, the gun is zeroed so that it shoots to within an inch of where I point it at 100 yards Ethics - nice theory, but you can NEVER be 100% sure. If you need to be, then go and shoot a cow with a bolt gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 There's a poll about in the General shooting matters! Go vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotshotshooter Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 depends when you define started shooting - I shot my first clay 15 years ago, have had SGC for 10 years, FAC for 6 you guys arguing on a public forum for all to see is so not cool and to think most of you have guns ! you are acting like children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kip270 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Safety - agreed Driven Boar - agreed (just to be clear, I have done this and am familiar with the equipment used) Zeroed Rifle - Zeroing has nothing to do with shooting MOA, that is accuracy. And yes, the gun is zeroed so that it shoots to within an inch of where I point it at 100 yards Ethics - nice theory, but you can NEVER be 100% sure. If you need to be, then go and shoot a cow with a bolt gun. :o :o Zeroing has nothing to do with accuracy?:o? So you have shot at driven boar with your .17hmr, totally different, plus you stated that you have only had it for 6 months And yes Ethics, if i'm not 100% confident i simply do not take the shot, it's easy really :o :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shot shot Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Safety - agreed Driven Boar - agreed (just to be clear, I have done this and am familiar with the equipment used) Zeroed Rifle - Zeroing has nothing to do with shooting MOA, that is accuracy. And yes, the gun is zeroed so that it shoots to within an inch of where I point it at 100 yards Ethics - nice theory, but you can NEVER be 100% sure. If you need to be, then go and shoot a cow with a bolt gun. (a bolt gun is used in an abatuer (or however its spelt) to slaughter cattle, goats, sheep, etc. btw, sometimes it doesnt kill the animals, just knocks them unconscious) just letting those that don't know, know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberlegs Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 it is these sorts of posts that i miss ackley lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 :o :o Zeroing has nothing to do with accuracy?:o? So you have shot at driven boar with your .17hmr, totally different, plus you stated that you have only had it for 6 months And yes Ethics, if i'm not 100% confident i simply do not take the shot, it's easy really :o :o O/T, but of course it is possible to have a very accurate gun that is not zeroed, I trust I needn't explain that to you. So no, they are not the same thing (but I did not say they weren't related) By your logic no one should ever start shooting wild boar as they will not have done it with that specific gun before. Ditto any other type of shooting I assume? I'm happy for you that you only ever take shots that you have 100% confidence in - you are the only hunter in the history of the world to have never missed a target - congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeinVA Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 you guys arguing on a public forum for all to see is so not cool and to think most of you have guns ! you are acting like children No, these boys are not children.. shooting to these gents isnt just a way of life it is a passion for them.. Many are old school and are set in their ways, plus, if a shooter starts going around shooting critters for the sake of killing than y'all may lose even more of your rights.. You may know what shots you are capable of but by the response of this forum it only takes one "NON" hunter to lable the actions of one and that **** will spread like a plight.. I think i remember in the late 80's where a bloke shot an arrow into one of the queens Swans, and now bow hunting is Verboten!! Correct me if i am wrong.. Obviously our ideals differ from each other as i am across the pond, but i like this forum as you guys say whats on your mind.. I have taken many Deer, Boar and Bear on the run, and i shoot in the mountains and there may be one hunter per mile.. I am safe and i know my rifles as well as i do my wife.. Cheers gents y'all are good people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kip270 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) O/T, but of course it is possible to have a very accurate gun that is not zeroed, I trust I needn't explain that to you. So no, they are not the same thing (but I did not say they weren't related) All rifles are accurate, it's the person using them that isn't. So your thoughts on Zeroed and accurate are in two different books??? By your logic no one should ever start shooting wild boar as they will not have done it with that specific gun before. Ditto any other type of shooting I assume? Shooting say a .270 or .308 is totally different to shooting a .17hmr I'm happy for you that you only ever take shots that you have 100% confidence in - you are the only hunter in the history of the world to have never missed a target - congratulations. Never said i have never missed, but then i don't just have a crack at it to christen my rifle Good luck in keeping your FAC........... Edited January 27, 2009 by kip270 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 All rifles are accurate, it's the person using them that isn't. So your thoughts on Zeroed and accurate are in two different books??? Shooting say a .270 or .308 is totally different to shooting a .17hmr Never said i have never missed, but then i don't just have a crack at it to christen my rifle I don't know where to start on that first point. Let's summarise by saying that ANYONE else on this forum knows that is simply not true. Ha - look at all those stupid people wasting money on AIs when they could be using a WWII .303 for their 1000yd competitions You are right, a .17 is very different to a .308. Not sure how that is relevant. Everyone has to take a first shot at something at some point. If you do miss, how can you be 100% confident in your shots? I was assuming you meant you were confident in getting the kill, perhaps you meant you were confident the gun was going to go off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Is this some kind of witch hunt or what?-only this man (wannabefisher) was present when the shot was taken and as a fellow sportsman shouldnt we accept that he has enough experience to know if the shot was viable.I ,for one, will admit to twice shooting a rabbit that was moving as on both occasions the quarry were moving slowly and directly away from me.I would like to say well done- good shot-the situation MAY have been far from ideal but is there anyone who can say ,hand on heart, that they have never taken a shot that, with hindsight, they regreted ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kip270 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 wannabefisher Joined: 10-April 08 From: london/cambs Member No.: 11665 22rf - body shot normally, or head if it's close. We have trillions of the things so much more concerned with killing them than collecting them. I find you can hit them almost anywhere in the front half and they are down for good. Back half may require another shot! mmmmmm Now that's total repect for your quarry..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Is this some kind of witch hunt or what?-only this man (wannabefisher) was present when the shot was taken and as a fellow sportsman shouldnt we accept that he has enough experience to know if the shot was viable.I ,for one, will admit to twice shooting a rabbit that was moving as on both occasions the quarry were moving slowly and directly away from me.I would like to say well done- good shot-the situation MAY have been far from ideal but is there anyone who can say ,hand on heart, that they have never taken a shot that, with hindsight, they regreted ? i find this post highly offensive. I might be a woman for all you know Edited January 27, 2009 by wannabefisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kip270 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 I don't know where to start on that first point. Let's summarise by saying that ANYONE else on this forum knows that is simply not true. Ha - look at all those stupid people wasting money on AIs when they could be using a WWII .303 for their 1000yd competitions Each to their own, take a look here: http://www.freewebs.com/uktactical/springf...903a1sniper.htm You are right, a .17 is very different to a .308. Not sure how that is relevant. Everyone has to take a first shot at something at some point. Not too difficult really, and if you need that pointing out, it's all about ballistics. If you do miss, how can you be 100% confident in your shots? I was assuming you meant you were confident in getting the kill, perhaps you meant you were confident the gun was going to go off? Easy, spend enough time on the range, and by meaning being 100% confident means just that and not as you have stated in your first post: i've had my "new" gun for probably 6 months now, and last week finally managed to get it zeroed in roughly. Decided to go for a stroll around a few fields at lunch time, but it was frosty and there was no sign of shootable wildlife. Until out in the middle of the ploughed field a hard got up and started to run - from what I don't know. 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. Anyway, imagine my shock when it cartwheeled a split second after I pulled the trigger And to think you have a .243 as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannabefisher Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) stuff Yes you have a point. Next time I will write "due to my 100% confidence I knew exactly what was going to happen each time I pulled the trigger", and then wait for you to rip into me for saying something so ludicrous. PS interesting site with the old rifle - thanks for the link Edited January 27, 2009 by wannabefisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 For those that haven't seen this video, Good shot? Irresponsible shot? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=chsJezH9gMc&...feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Good/lucky (i say lucky because he couldnt hit it in the right place when it was standing still) Totaly different scenario,as the shot you are reffering to is the second shot at a deer that is running away after being shot in the gut by a bloke who couldnt hit a cows **** with a banjo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I don't know where to start on that first point. Let's summarise by saying that ANYONE else on this forum knows that is simply not true. Ha - look at all those stupid people wasting money on AIs when they could be using a WWII .303 for their 1000yd competitions You are right, a .17 is very different to a .308. Not sure how that is relevant. Everyone has to take a first shot at something at some point. If you do miss, how can you be 100% confident in your shots? I was assuming you meant you were confident in getting the kill, perhaps you meant you were confident the gun was going to go off? The first correct thing you have said in a while, A Lee enfield is a superb long range rifle. and in the right hands perfactly capable of taking on the AI's of the world. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rfle it is the person behind it that makes the shot count. Everybody misses, that is not the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.