On Snipers and Sniping

[Nesrath]

But Snipe hunts are still ok right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt

[Rugger]

I've read through the first page so far, and yes, this is a touchy topic.

First, what makes this topic so touchy is the terminology. Change your terminology and it will generally change the direction of discussion AND perception.

Second, long range shooting is my golf. And it's not nearly as aggravating. I absolutely love going out and seeing how far out I can hit targets. In my mind, that's half of what shooting is all about. (speed of repeatable accuracy being the second half)

Third, it's a very practical skill for hunting. It partially removes the challenge of "how close can you get" and shifts it to "can you manage the added variables of longer shots." In some areas of the country, these long shots are a necessary skill.

[Greezybean]

With this post i guess we should only discuss golf from a chip and putt perpective? Driving over 100 yards is for the insane. Dont mean to come off like a jackwipe but Long range shooting is nothing more than taking your game to another level. Practicle use? I live in the farm lands of pa and it is often that the only chance you get at a deer could be a 500 yard shot. There is nothing but open lands so if you want to make meat for the year, you better be able to hit a 6" target out to that far. Its really challenging and fun and recommend everyone try their hand at shooting a sniper rifle at 600+. Besides, after you fire a rifle thats finely tuned for .25" moa, its hard to go back to your grand pas 30-30.

[Greezybean]

3-The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense or "elk hunting"hunting.
The 2nd is to ensure that the body of available citizenry is always capable of performing as a militia. It simply recognizes the inalienable right to own firearms in legal language.

Im down with that. But if i were ever called i will recite, this is my rifle, there are many like it but this one will be more effecient and strike more fear in the enemy then any other.

Otherwise, it is just a damn great, hunting and championship rifle.

Sucks your afraid of those who practice the craft. There is a lot to it and is great for the mind and spirit. mental math, total body control, almost meditative, field craft expertise, tracking, counter sniping, precision, individual achievement.....the list of rewards is long. But its not for everyone so i respect your opinion.

[0002S]

Long distance shooting is fun. The hardest part is finding a range with 600 and 1000 yd targets or land that you can shoot on at that distance.

You don't need expensive rifles or optics to hit 6" steel at 600 yds or 8" steel at 1000 yds. You really don't need anything other than a decent peep sight to shoot at 600 yds. All you need is the right round, an accurate rifle and a fairly decent quality 4x or 9x+ scope. If you plan on shooting past 600 yds having a 20 MOA is almost a must. I've shot 1000 yds using the the thicker part of the lower cross hair base on a MIL DOT reticle to zero in at 1000, but was an impromptu work around (video below's rifle w/10X Bushnell did not have enough MOA to zero center @ 1000 yds)

Shooting at distance does not mean 'you're sniping' or some other bullshit. Too many people watch too many movies.

Distance shooting is a skill, that one should learn, if they have the chance. Its fun to watch F Class matches.

It's one of the most challenging shooting disciplines I practice. Its never the same thing twice and always forces you to make real time decisions for every shot.

Here is a video with a very inexpensive Savage 110LA in 30.06 shooting @ 1000 yds @ 8" steel and an AR A1 shooting iron sights @ 600 yds. It doesn't have to cost much to shoot distance, you just need the distance and targets to practice.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

ya, know...Major Havoc...think of it this way...

You are in a paradigm. Or rather your thoughts are in a paradigm.

You don't realize this but you have been programmed to think "sniper=assassin=bad".
Dot Dot Dot [edited for shortness, post continues telling us how we're a product of our society and snipers=suppressors]
For a lot of people here on the forums, it's just a hobby. There are tons worst ways they could be spending their money on.

So, what about those of us who were/worked with/were attached to snipers? Who know that most snipers only user suppressers (not silencers) so they don't have to wear earplugs, because most sniper missions are overt rather than covert before the first round it fired? Howabout those of us who think that sniper is a title not applicable to the long-range marksman (for whom I have respect, for I can;t do it) but rather to the men who have learned the entire trade, from hi-tech scopes/rangefinders/wind-o-meters/suppressors to the simple spot and stalk with a rifle? Nothing about my "upbringing" says that suppressors are bad, since I used to use a suppressor to drop rats/squirrels/opossum around the house when I was a kid, so as not to wake the neighbors.

TL:DR Drop the superiority complex, it's not because everyone else is a product of the evil society.

With this post i guess we should only discuss golf from a chip and putt perpective? Driving over 100 yards is for the insane. Dont mean to come off like a jackwipe but Long range shooting is nothing more than taking your game to another level. Practicle use? I live in the farm lands of pa and it is often that the only chance you get at a deer could be a 500 yard shot. There is nothing but open lands so if you want to make meat for the year, you better be able to hit a 6" target out to that far. Its really challenging and fun and recommend everyone try their hand at shooting a sniper rifle at 600+. Besides, after you fire a rifle thats finely tuned for .25" moa, its hard to go back to your grand pas 30-30.

Golf doesn't kill people, unless you do it horribly wrong. No one uses a golf course as an analogy/practice for clubbing people to death.

Practical use: I spent a lot of time in the farmlands of PA, and if you can't take game at less than 200m, you are doing it wrong. I have a friend who runs a farm and swear he has never shot a deer past 100m, and he fills his tags every year.

The general consensus seems to be, learn how to hunt, and you can get within 50m of a deer easily (nobody ever bow/sling/spear hunted from 500m) and at 200m, you cannot reasonably identify a target further away than 200m in a non-military/LEO situation unless said target fires first.

Take away: for sport, by all means, do some long range shooting. For practical use, spend more time learning how to hunt, or how to fight defensively at carbine range. Or prepping food and water. I think this falls back into the

"A trained Marine who runs a minimum of 4 miles per day and can bench his own body weight any day of the week, and has trained for months to do nothing but sneak in, take his shot or shots in support of an infantry unit, and who knows he has a wing of Cobras or F-18s to help him get outof a jam is a sniper. You, who got a full night's sleep, have fresh batteries for all you gear, and are within a thirty minute drive of McDonald's or your house at all times, are not."

In short, there is hunting, there is combat marksmanship, and there is competition shooting. THere is no more crossover between "sniping," long distance rifle marksmanship on a closed range, and deer hunting (unless you pay for a resort hunt where deer are driven to you) than there is pistol hunting, competition psitol shooting, and combat pistol marksmanship.

And I challenge anyone who says that the average shot on a deer in their county is over 300m to show proof.

[RonnyRonin]

does anyone read the thread before they post?

no one is saying long range shooting is bad, un-fun, or un-useful.

no one is attacking it as a sport or skill. (that's as silly as telling people they shouldn't play basketball)

I know I personally bought into the survivalist mentality that shooting something really far away was much safer then having to engage it in your living room, I have since changed my views quite a bit.
but hey, I'm all about having options, a 500yd+ gun is defiantly the next one on my list

However, it seems to me that there are plenty of people who have the sniping mindset, either from FPS shooters or just the "cool factor" and so if TSHTF there are going to be snipers present.

....Even if it is a silly mall ninja concept for a civillian who has no place trying to be a sniper, that doesn't mean he will never have to deal with a sniper. It happened in the balkans and it can happen here too.

excellent points, this could probably use more attention then it gets. getting randomly shot walking down the street is towards the top of my list of ways to start a bad day.

[Greezybean]

ya,

TL:DR Drop the superiority complex, it's not because everyone else is a product of the evil

The general consensus seems to be, learn how to hunt, and you can get within 50m of a deer easily (nobody ever bow/sling/spear hunted from 500m) and at 200m, you cannot reasonably identify a target further away than 200m in a non-military/LEO situation unless

And I challenge anyone who says that the average shot on a deer in their county is over 300m to show proof.

I dont want to take this thread away from its original intent but i never said an average shot is 300m but if you think there isnt a 500m shot to be had in the area then you just havent been here. I agree any hunter should be able to shoot a deer 50m away or closer with skill. But i would not let 500 m separate me from feeding my family meat for the winter. And in the middle of a 2500 acre grazed farm how do you expect to get within 50 m without the use of field craft. Most snipers were hunters. In vietnam the winchester mod 70 was the preferred sniper rifle because of its known huntimg accuracy. Snipers do not prefer long shots, they prefer to be as close as possible, but do not shy away from long shots either. I'll choose to just disagree on how far away you can identify a target.

[majorhavoc]

does anyone read the thread before they post?

no one is saying long range shooting is bad, un-fun, or un-useful.

no one is attacking it as a sport or skill. (that's as silly as telling people they shouldn't play basketball)happened in the balkans and it can happen here too.

Thank you RR! As the OP I was reading a few of the last posts with increasing chagrin (Doc Torr's excellent response not included). I'm reminded of nothing so much as that grade school game of "Telephone". You know the one: teacher has the students all sit in a circle and gives one pupil a sentence to whisper in the ear of the kid sitting on his right. That second kid whispers what she heard to the next and by the time it makes its way around the circle, it's completely morphed into something else.

I just didn't want to have to be the one to say that's what's beginning to happen here. I never said I had any kind of issue with long distance shooting. I took pains to make very clear that it was the detailed discussion of sniper tactics and sniping, potentially in the context of disaster preparation, that I was seeking to better understand.

There have been some fantastic responses to my original post. Many have really helped me (and perhaps others who have remained silent) better understand where people are coming from.

I get it that for many, "sniping" is a direct analogue for "long distance precision shooting". Really, I do. But to reverse that analogue and take my original comments to mean I'm somehow frightened of, or bothered by, the prospect of shooting at targets or game animals (or people in LE or sanctioned combat situations, for that matter) at ranges in excess of 500 yards? That's just absurd.

It's unfortunate because it completely derails the purpose of this thread. It also allows some folks to blithely side step the issue I was trying to delicately raise. Which is that at least some people reading (and I dare say a few people posting to) threads dedicated exclusively to what it takes to be a sniper appear to most certainly be talking about shooting at targets other than metal plates. Which is fine by me, as long as I can understand the context. Hell, I'm not even sure I have a problem with these kinds of threads; I find them interesting for some of the same reasons I enjoy reading Stephen Ambrose, or Tom Clancy (detailed accounts of how people actually did/do this shit is just plain cool).

I'm not even necessarily suggesting that it's our responsibility to hold the hand of every mall ninja that blunders onto this site ("Now you know son, talking about this sort of thing doesn't mean its okay to actually do it, right?")

I just wanted to get the issue out there, front and center for at least a few days, to allow folks the opportunity to clarify things a little, inject a little balance in the discussion so that this flood of HCRs (History Channel Refugees) don't get the wrong idea of what ZS stands for. To see this morph into an incredulous discussion of why anyone could possibly have a problem with long distance target shooting, well that just makes me want to give myself a big old face palm [ why do I even bother.....]

[DarkAxel]

OP:

I get where you are coming from, but I think most of the confusion results from the fact that sniping (a highly specialized military skill in which long-range accuracy is only a small part) has become synonymous with long-distance marksmanship. The term "Sniper" has been bastardized so much from it's military meaning and applied to everyone from military-trained riflemen to an asshole in a tree shooting pop cans less than 50 yards away.

I don't think majorhavoc's questions is an issue of semantics, but an issue of public relations .

Of course, by-the-throat has pointed out an excellent reason why sniping is an acceptable topic for prep discussions. If there is a possibility of snipers popping up, you should at least think about planning for that possibility, and the best way to defeat a sniper is with another sniper, or barring that, learning how to think like one. Think of it this way, self-defense wise: If someone is shooting at you, shooting back is defensive in nature, no matter the range.

[by-the-throat]

I was going to ask about the thread referenced above that was about sniper defense, but it has popped back up on the active topics page recently.

Linked for posterity-http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=31865

I'm in the process of reading through it now and plotting trenches for my front yard

[Yaivenov]

While I hold no derision for those who would choose to express a level of tact by referring to the civilian training of "sniper" field craft (in the proper military sense) by other terms, I am going to choose to convey my (likely very) un-politically correct thoughts on the matter in far more direct means.


I have absolutely no qualms about civilians training in the full spectrum of military skill sets, to include the aforementioned sniper field craft in all it's respects: concealment, covert movement and observation, and of course being able to shoot a human at distances in excess of average conventional rifleman ability, along with the myriad other facets of the trade. My opinion on this matter is largely two pronged, with a few, what I consider lesser matters, that sway it in one direction or another. But for this I will concentrate on the two.

The first addresses the more philosophical aspect of the matter; that the desire and acquisition of these skills and tools does not a criminal make. Only a persons intents and demonstrated actions can make them so and through that a most unwelcome intrusion in civilized society.

The second applies to the practical. While there are only the most extreme and rare of circumstances where a civilian acting autonomously may employ such skills to kill another human being, however, the state of our nation is such that every able bodied person is a potential reserve for our military. In the, hopefully never materializing, event of a general call up (think WW2) the civilians-turned-soldiers standing to the left and right of the person who took the time prior to acquire these skills will be most grateful to them for doing so because at that point, those abilities become very germane to that persons survival and those who are with them.

With reference to the second point I would like to call attention to the fact (and without delving into politics) that the U.S. government has the historical stance of encouraging the civilian population to cultivate militarily applicable skills, most poignantly through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. To deem one level of skill with a rifle with the express purpose of being able to efficiently kill a human as socially acceptable, while another level of skill in the same matter is not, seems a trifling and asinine distinction.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter, as unpopular as they may be.

[RonnyRonin]

To deem one level of skill with a rifle with the express purpose of being able to efficiently kill a human as socially acceptable, while another level of skill in the same matter is not, seems a trifling and asinine distinction.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter, as unpopular as they may be.

read what people are saying again, no one is saying any level of skill with a rifle is socially unacceptable, but how that skill is applied calls for pause.

we are not worried at all by over-skilled snipers, only over-zealous ones.

[Yaivenov]

To deem one level of skill with a rifle with the express purpose of being able to efficiently kill a human as socially acceptable, while another level of skill in the same matter is not, seems a trifling and asinine distinction.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter, as unpopular as they may be.

read what people are saying again, no one is saying any level of skill with a rifle is socially unacceptable, but how that skill is applied calls for pause.

we are not worried at all by over-skilled snipers, only over-zealous ones.

Sorry for not being specific. That wasn't addressed at any of the thread replies so much as the impression I received from the OP that training and skills specifically to hunt humans is a taboo matter. See the following:

But when I see topics that discuss such variables as whether you’re operating alone or with a spotter, the use of a ghille suit or maximum ranges to hit a man sized target, what exactly are we contemplating? It sure doesn’t sound like elk hunting to me.

Yes, it is, or can be applied, to the purpose of hunting humans. No, that does not make it inherently wrong to cultivate. Only when that skill is used to criminally harm other people does it become wrong. That seems a very simple and distinct definition to me. Be as prepared for what ever exigencies you personally feel comfortable with, but do not violate the rule of law, and do not expect or compel others to bend to your sense of 'proper' or 'tastefulness' so long as they also do not violate the rule of law.

Now, as I may be making some others uncomfortable with my direct approach and address of this subject, and as I do generally prefer to limit that as much as possible, I shall exercise a bit of tact on my own and head back to my little corner of the forum. If anyone would like to continue a frank discussion with me, I would more than welcome it in PM's.

[0002S]

Since the OP wants a literal response to his questions else we are all children in a circle passing a growing story:

Yes it makes me uneasy when people talk about what equipment and or tactics that they would use in long range shooting of humans and or using the word sniper/sniping as it relates to shooting of humans. My feeling on this applies to both pre and or post apocalypse fantasies. It's not a topic that should be discussed in this manner in an open forum...IMHO.

I have issues with shooting humans discussions, at any distance, fantasies in an open forum.

I have no issues with discussing sniper field craft as long as it doesn't relate to shooting humans at any distance.

No, it doesn't make me uneasy when people talk about equipment and tactics that would be used in long range shooting of game animals. Because my versions of long range will usually differ from others. I take it with a grain of salt. I also know that most of these people are gear nuts looking for a $xxxx.xx long range rifle/scope combo and will never shoot at more than their local 100 yd range at paper.

Long range shooting discussions as it relates to competition, practical use and practice are fine with me.

[wamba]

I'll chime in with my two cents. I'm sure I've come across as a Mall ninja a time or two in my life but the art of the sniper or countersniper is a very interesting & practical one for anyone contemplating societal breakdown (at least in my book). As far as being offended by discussions of hitting man sized targets at long range I take it on a case by case basis. If it's some idiot that claims he doesn't need to stock supplies since he knows where to find people that do & he has two boxes of ammo for his scoped sub-MOA rifle, then I'm offended. If it's somebody that has worked hard & sacrificed so that their family can make it through bad times & is looking at adding one more skill for protecting said family & preps then why would I find that offensive?

Whenever this subject comes up there are always people that toss out bits of wisdom like, "If they're more than 300yrds away there's no reason not to disengage & slip away.", "How can you be sure someone is a threat at those distances?", or "Anything over a 100yrds is to far to be justified for defensive shooting." I've actually seen/heard these responses more than once. First off why should someone "disengage & slip away" (assuming every one in their party is physically able to) if they feel the risk of engaging is outweighed by the risk of becoming refugees? Second there's always a good chance that the threats could be involved in actions that leave no doubt as to their intentions or may even be home grown & recognizable (most of us have some of those around). There are certain individuals around my Dad's that I don't trust now while the lights are on. Third there's nothing that say's bad guys have to come within a certain distance before becoming a threat, if some asshole is taking potshots at me & mine from 200-800yrds out there's always a chance that he/she might hit something/someone. The quicker we can make them stop the better, & if we just drive em away what's to stop them from coming back later or finding a easier target?

Assuming that everyone who talks about putting together a good long range rifle, a ghillie suit, & range cards will be popping trespassers indiscriminately is right up there with the way of thinking behind such comments like, "I oppose CCW because if everyone is carrying guns then it'll be the wild west with people shooting each other whenever they get mad." Are there asshats, mall ninjas, thugs, & Walter Smitty's out there? Hell yes, but there are also people that enjoy the challenge, are level headed, just curious about their ability's, & want that extra tool to deal with what may be thrown at them. Like I said it's just my two cents & most likely worth what you paid for it.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

My issue comes in that, in the situation you proposed, you are returning fire. Are you going to have time to fill your sandbags, level your laser range-finder, and begin dialing in the dope on your scope? No. No you will not. Real, .mil snipers that have all that gear and a squad of riflemen to suppress the threat do not use all of that when rounds are incoming.

You want to learn counter-sniper techniques? Cool. I think that's generally a good idea. Get a mil-dot or similar scope with a BDC and wind-hold, learn to estimate range, and practice shooting from unstable/awkward positions. Learn to quickly dope, or to put a hold on your target. Learn to take solid shots cold-bore. Don't go to the 1km range, roll out a Gucci kit and tell yourself you are training for anything but a competition.

[wamba]

You want to learn counter-sniper techniques? Cool. I think that's generally a good idea. Get a mil-dot or similar scope with a BDC and wind-hold, learn to estimate range, and practice shooting from unstable/awkward positions. Learn to quickly dope, or to put a hold on your target. Learn to take solid shots cold-bore. Don't go to the 1km range, roll out a Gucci kit and tell yourself you are training for anything but a competition.

Very well said, that's the kind of skills I'd like to develop. I like the stability I get when shooting off bags & a solid bench, but they suck to carry around on my back.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

You want to learn counter-sniper techniques? Cool. I think that's generally a good idea. Get a mil-dot or similar scope with a BDC and wind-hold, learn to estimate range, and practice shooting from unstable/awkward positions. Learn to quickly dope, or to put a hold on your target. Learn to take solid shots cold-bore. Don't go to the 1km range, roll out a Gucci kit and tell yourself you are training for anything but a competition.

Very well said, that's the kind of skills I'd like to develop. I like the stability I get when shooting off bags & a solid bench, but they suck to carry around on my back.

That's the general idea behind preparedness. Have what you need ahead of time, and be realistic about what you're going to take with you. A pair of shooting sticks are a much debated piece of hunting equipment for the spot and stalk crowd, but again, when incoming lead comes into the equation, I'll stick with as close to the groudn as I can get.

[minengr]

I compete in Service Rifle, iron sights at 600 yards, so I know anyone spending all their time talking about the gun and not the wind, much less the shooter, doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

The general consensus seems to be, learn how to hunt, and you can get within 50m of a deer easily (nobody ever bow/sling/spear hunted from 500m) and at 200m, you cannot reasonably identify a target further away than 200m in a non-military/LEO situation unless said target fires first.

Do you deer hunt and where? I haven't done it that long, but I do have a bit of experience and I must say that hunting where I live in Illinois and hunting where I lived in NV are completely different. A 300 yard shot out there is a F'n chip shot. We had a range 5min out of town with targets set at 1,2,4,6, and 800 yards. On a clear day I could literally see 100 miles. Identifying something at 300 yards not that big of a deal. Anyone that can't identify a target past 200 yards either has shit equipment, has never experienced good equipment, doesn't know what the fuck they are taking about, or is some combination of the three. I can make out .3" holes with the scope on my "long range precision" 308. I'm quite confident I could identify the difference between a cow, deer, hog, or human at that distance. There are reasons why people spend stupid cash on quality scopes, binos, lrf's and spotting scopes. Read a bit about the guys that like (and can afford) sheep hunting.

I'll agree that that stalking game seems to be a dying art, but I'd argue the need. Yes reading wind is important, both for shooting and hunting. I know first hand how disappointing it is to be winded by a game animal. But equipment has advanced a bit since grandad hunted with his iron sighted 30-30 or 30-06. Optics, bullets, powder, stocks, rings, and off-the-shelf rifles have all improved in the last 50+ years. A bit like cars. I have one in my garage that out brakes, out accelerates, and out handles the same model from the 60's. Look again at Camp Perry. The first guys that showed up with AR were pretty much laughed at, now they rule the roost.

To the OP. I think you're heart was in the right place, and I understand your concern. It's key to remember, everyone is a fucking expert on the internet, it's up to you alone to determine who actually knows what the fuck they are talking about. There is good information here (and countless other sites) if you know how to wade through the BS, which takes time. Also, as much as I love this forum (and I've been here since nearly the beginning) it's not the first place I look for quality info on long range precision shooting.

My personal issue with the over use of the term sniper and even long range shooting, is that it seems to be the same discussion over and over. Usually it is "I want to shoot 1000 yards but only spend $500 on the entire rig, I don't reload and won't." That's usually followed by "you can get a stevens, xxxx, scope, and xxxxx factory ammo is pretty good. That's where I normally give up. That being said, I'll freely admit David Tubb would clean my clock on my best day, shooting my best rig and him with said $500 rig. It's Indian, not the bow or the arrow.

Am I a long range shooter, no. But not from lack of equipment, education, desire, and experience, which is very limited compared to many. It's mostly due to time/work constraints and range availability. I'm pretty confident in my ability, such that it is and I know if I can make an ethical shot be it 25 or 400 yards.

My take on long range shooting is that it isn't as difficult as some would lead you to believe, but it is more involved than many want to admit. Doing it well requires the right combination of equipment, practice, and skill of "the nut behind the butt". I've seen skill trump equipment. I've yet to witness the reverse at least on a consistent basis. You know, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

But, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Identifying a target is not just saying "yup, that's a guy with a gun" it's being able to tell that said guy with gun presents enough of a threat to take a shot. I maintain that short of incoming rounds or a banner that says "I'm going to kill everyone I meet," you do not have a basis to take the shot.

As for my hunting, I have hunted Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, everything from open farmland (though I will never claim to have been able to see 100mi, short of being atop Lookout mountain) to the Smokey Mountains. To anyone who claims a 200m[EDIT: this should say 400m]+ shot is necessary, I ask which bow or spear did the Native Americans in your area use for that shot? Lastly, arguing that stalking is "not necessary" anymore because of better gear on a preparedness website is like arguing that the basic buddy rush isn't necessary in modern combat due to the amount of support available. Basic skills far trump gear that you may not always have.

On a related note, just to keep things clear, I think there are three arguments running here.

1. Sniping=/=Hunting=/=Long Range Precision shooting, and only some of the skills are transferrable.
2. Sniping is not viable is a PAW disaster scenario, due to the practical, legal, and moral difficulties presented above.
3. Tree snipers are worse than mall ninjas.

Are we unanimous on the last one?

[minengr]

Identifying a target is not just saying "yup, that's a guy with a gun" it's being able to tell that said guy with gun presents enough of a threat to take a shot. I maintain that short of incoming rounds or a banner that says "I'm going to kill everyone I meet," you do not have a basis to take the shot.

I was discussing telling the difference between a buck, a doe, or a human at 200 yards, not determining someones intentions. I'd call that mind reading not "identifying a target". All BS asisde, in this theroretical PAW world, how people are going to act will largely depend on which direction their moral compass is pointing.

I train for shooting 400m+ because I could understand having to take a long shot on a deer, especially for those in more open regions

To anyone who claims a 200m+ shot is necessary

Both these posts are from this thread, so which is it? One agrees with me the other doesn't.

As for my hunting, I have hunted Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina

So, did you exclusivly spot and stalk, or sit in a tree stand/blind like 95% of other deer hunters. Either way, it's a little more "open" out west.

To anyone who claims a 200m+ shot is necessary, I ask which bow or spear did the Native Americans in your area use for that shot? Lastly, arguing that stalking is "not necessary" anymore because of better gear on a preparedness website is like arguing that the basic buddy rush isn't necessary in modern combat due to the amount of support available. Basic skills far trump gear that you may not always have.

I know what point you're trying to make, I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but you come across thinking you're 100% right and I disagree. The reason the indian had to sneak within 25 yards is (1.) that was probably max range for his bow and (2.) he was hunting in old growth forest and probably couldn't shoot much further if he wanted too. He made due with what he had. Now fast forward 200 years. (1.) Old growth forests are gone and (2.) there have been a few firearm advancements like rifling, smokeless powder, optical sights. You are no longer limited by inferior technology to 25 yards.

Maybe it's best to agree to disagree.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

My point about sniping was that it's murder to shoot a human if you do not have probable cause. I agree that mind-reading is the only way, short of incoming fire or a sign, to tell intent at 800m. That was my point. That's why I maintain that sniping, long distance shooting, and hunting are different skill-sets that share some basic skills. As far as how PAW people are going to act, there is only one answer for how members of this board will act, as per rule 1.

I failed to proofread the second time around. it should have said 400m+ shot being necessary for open regions. Fat fingers, mea culpa, I'll learn to type someday.

As far as how, I spot and stalk, though I have used a stand on days where I don't feel like moving due to a heinous cold in the middle of a hunt. Or the time I had diarrhea on day 2 of the hunt. Ugh.

Lastly, today's bow-hunters still do not (regularly) hunt from 100m or more away, much less 400m regardless of their area. I understand if you want to rely on bore and glass to do all the work. Without being particularly insulting, I think there is more sport in getting close, but I also think that if you plan on hunting to eat (for survival) as some have said here, you should spend less time worrying about trying to drop a deer at 600m and more time learning to trap small game and stalk larger game.

I'll rephrase something I wrote earlier. I have no problem with long rang shooting as a hobby. I have some problems with the guys who think a logn-range kill on a deer is more sporting, but that is neither here nor there, and I will not discuss that on this board. I have a problem with the tree sniper crowd, simply because they are annoying and on par with tacticool mall ninjas.

This thread has begun to enter the swirling ring of doom stage.

[Greezybean]

My point about sniping was that it's murder to shoot a human if you do not have probable cause.

Probable cause? Mixing your le terms. You shoot in self defense if you feel you or someone else are in harm of death or serious bodily injury regardless of what type of firearm you have in your hand. Probable cause is what you need to make an arrest or obtain a search warrant. Yes your threat is less imminent at greater distances, but being prepared for anything is what its about. If you are getting shot at by someone with an ar15 from 75m are you suggesting that a rifle that is capable of 800m is an unfair advantage and shouldnt be used to terminate the threat? This really happened, illegal hunter had gone rogue in pa and was shooting at anything with two legs. score one for the good guys with the precision rifle.

[quote=*Doc Torr"]but I also think that if you plan on hunting to eat (for survival) as some have said here, you should spend less time worrying about trying to drop a deer at 600m and more time learning to trap small game and stalk larger game. [/quote]

I am assumimg you are directing this to me........minor correction- i dont worry.

Also, since you bring up the indians consistenly, dont forget that there were 50 deer to every human in north america in the 1700's. As soon as thenwhite man introduced the rifle, they traded their wives and children to get their hands on them

[quote=*Doc Torr"]This thread has begun to enter the swirling ring of doom stage.[/quote] i agree i'm done