2 mile prairie dogs.

a few years ago, I was with a guy who had a barrett. from section road to section road, we were hitting one gallon paint cans 4 out of 5 shots.
 
"...Sierras were impacting within a 10 ft. radius of the dog..."

Shooting at living animals at extended ranges is animal cruelty.

99.99% of shooters should restrict themselves to ranges of - at most - 250 yards - and preferably less.

I'm a shooter and a meat eater, and I maintain that it's a sportsman's responsibility to ensure that whatever you shoot, whether elk or rat, has a clean death.

This article condones something little better than sadism.

maximus otter
 
In general I agree with you but any prarie dog hit by a .338 magnum is going to be dead.
 
I agree with maximus otter. In fact, most of the people I watch shoot should keep their shots to less then 200 yards.

Back to the subject. Even if these rifles could hold their accuracy of .6 MOA, the impact area would be about 22" at 2 miles. A hit on a ground squirrel would be a matter of pure luck. Good for the shooter and bad for the squirrel.

Here's an interesting video of looooong range shooting.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b59f573156

Here's the specs as far as I can I can determine....

The range is 1182 yards.

The buffalo is 10 feet long nose to tail.

The black steel plate is 18 inches in diameter.

This was filmed by Believe It Or Not about 10 years ago
and the shooter is Dave Gullo.
 
kamkazmoto said:
...any prarie dog hit by a .338 magnum is going to be dead.
Click to expand...

No.

A .338 can rip off a jaw or smash a limb, just like any other calibre.

How many of your Civil War veterans were hit by 12lb cannon balls travelling at hundreds of feet per second, yet survived, minus limbs or faces?

Don't do it.

maximus otter
 
yeah well i have a lot more sympathy for civil war vets than a prarie dog lol, i couldnt care less myself about being mean to prarie dogs.

with all the bad things in this world that happen to people it amazes me that some worry about prarie dogs i would say get your priorities in order. people blown up, beheaded, tortured and killed in iraq (and other places) and PETA spends millions on animals rights, i love animals as much as anyone but i also worry lots more about peoples rights vs animal rights.

and ya know what?? i dont even really hunt anymore, oh if i saw a trophy buck i would take it but i just dont get into it anymore, of course i do provide several buds with around 1K acres to hunt on so i'm not anti hunting by any means.

when folks compare animals suffering to human suffering it riles me up. it aint the same thing & i just dont see how or why some folks think it is.
 
thatmguy said:
That can happen at 30 yeards too...:cool:
Click to expand...

Thats a good point, but I think Otter might be meaning that the likleyhood of wounding an animal outside of say 250 yrds vs 30 is many times greater. Then it also depends on the shooters abilities, if someone cant shoot well at all they might be just as likley to botch a shot at 50 yards as a moderatley skilled one at 2-300.
 
SIFU1A said:
yeah well i have a lot more sympathy for civil war vets than a prarie dog lol, i couldnt care less myself about being mean to prarie dogs.

with all the bad things in this world that happen to people it amazes me that some worry about prarie dogs i would say get your priorities in order. people blown up, beheaded, tortured and killed in iraq (and other places) and PETA spends millions on animals rights, i love animals as much as anyone but i also worry lots more about peoples rights vs animal rights.

and ya know what?? i dont even really hunt anymore, oh if i saw a trophy buck i would take it but i just dont get into it anymore, of course i do provide several buds with around 1K acres to hunt on so i'm not anti hunting by any means.

when folks compare animals suffering to human suffering it riles me up. it aint the same thing & i just dont see how or why some folks think it is.
Click to expand...

hmmmmm. . . .

well, i don't think the point would really be that animal suffering compared to human suffering is more/less/equally acceptable. i think the main point is there's no use in causing any living creature undue suffering if you don't have to. people have different limits to what they find acceptable. some folks only hunt if it's something they'll eat. others hunt to thin populations in the interest of wildlife management. some (i've seen it on my uncle's land especially) seem to just like to shoot moving targets -- one of his horses was shot while running in the woods on his land while there was no particular season going (there was no reason why anyone would have thought this was anything other than a horse/prohibited animal).

haha. . . i don't know. . . i'm not trying to moderate or lecture anyone. . . i guess i'm just chiming in because i also don't like the hardline peta types that equate everything with torture and despair. . . but i can see what the other old boy was saying about maiming an animal needlessly.
 
robo19x said:
hmmmmm. . . .

well, i don't think the point would really be that animal suffering compared to human suffering is more/less/equally acceptable. i think the main point is there's no use in causing any living creature undue suffering if you don't have to. people have different limits to what they find acceptable. some folks only hunt if it's something they'll eat. others hunt to thin populations in the interest of wildlife management. some (i've seen it on my uncle's land especially) seem to just like to shoot moving targets -- one of his horses was shot while running in the woods on his land while there was no particular season going (there was no reason why anyone would have thought this was anything other than a horse/prohibited animal).

haha. . . i don't know. . . i'm not trying to moderate or lecture anyone. . . i guess i'm just chiming in because i also don't like the hardline peta types that equate everything with torture and despair. . . but i can see what the other old boy was saying about maiming an animal needlessly.
Click to expand...


I don't really care about the varmint; but, shooting at anything two miles away borders on irresponsible. This is likely to be a very controlled shoot, with adequate organization and range controls; but, two miles still leave a very long bullet path, and with the high magnification/narrow field rifle scope, it would be hard for the shooter to see someone approaching the danger zone. There is no reason that it couldn't be done safely; but, it is not the kind of thing you want to do on a whim on public hunting ground.

n2s
 
Managed a 1mile baboon some years back. Preset range (middle of mealies) in first light's still air on a farm in Doma. A sniper's rig in 338 lapau Mag bipod placed on the veranda wall with bench for rest. It was a terrifically effective way to stop bright Baboons from butchering crops in specific fields by way of taking out their sentry from no where. Alternatively it was to walk and stalk the troope day after day with a .303 and no luck.

Currently I target them with an orange from a car at 40mph. Fun to watch a baboon trying to simultaneously dodge and catch an orange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top