Make it Mandatory

[duceman]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

I don’t care how others shoot. I only worry about myself. Just a question though, why would you watch “Wild” tv?

one of the most sensible comments on here...................:sHa_sarc asticlol:

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I get a kick out of watching them playing with knobs on their scopes while the game walks away, imagine not taking the shot because you don't have your 'cheat sheet'. Sometimes the new tech does you no favours.

I have turrets on target rifles, and on my varmint rifles, but my big game scopes have BDC reticles.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Yup totally different conditions demanding different skill set

I too have taken a few guys out bush hunting and I hear situations that they had where they couldn’t get a shot because of xyz. Now put myself in that situation and I commonly take animals under those conditions. Put me in open country longer shots I will pass on opportunities that person will do without a second thought

I think a big issue is that lots of guys will follow the moving animal in their sights, hoping to react the instant they see an opening. For me this has never worked, generally giving the impression of having no holes big enough to shoot through because even with the animal moving fairly slowly you would have to react very quickly. I need to get ahead of the animal, find my opening, and then either make the shot or try to stop the animal when it reaches the opening. Learning to do this whilst trying to judge the head gear, often in a matter of split seconds, is not a weekend course.

Just my observation.

[heretohunt]

Unless I am very bad at guiding, I have seen a lot of guys who are good shots completely miss animals under 300 yards with a rifle off a rest.
Myself and another guide had clients from a very well-known archery hunting show on a mule deer hunt. There were several shots taken, but no animals harmed. They showed me at the beginning their skill level and they were definitely proficient. One of them was quite arrogant about it. I used to make a point of getting hunters to shoot before we went out so that I could see what their skill level is. I’m not sure it matters.
I certainly don’t blame them. I have missed and made bad shots too and I believe I am more competent than most, and certainly have practised a lot.

[waldedw]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

I don’t care how others shoot. I only worry about myself. Just a question though, why would you watch “Wild” tv?

This ^^^ sums it all up in one sentence

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by heretohunt

Unless I am very bad at guiding, I have seen a lot of guys who are good shots completely miss animals under 300 yards with a rifle off a rest.
Myself and another guide had clients from a very well-known archery hunting show on a mule deer hunt. There were several shots taken, but no animals harmed. They showed me at the beginning their skill level and they were definitely proficient. One of them was quite arrogant about it. I used to make a point of getting hunters to shoot before we went out so that I could see what their skill level is. I’m not sure it matters.
I certainly don’t blame them. I have missed and made bad shots too and I believe I am more competent than most, and certainly have practised a lot.

Lol, I am reminded of a co-worker who told me about totally missing a mule deer at 40 yards with his bow, then shooting a second time and killing it at 70 yards. When I expressed some surprise at the range his response was "Well, I'm good out to 90". He did not seem to see the irony in that statement.

[A207X2]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Yeah I bought a scope with a turret by accident not paying attention. I think it might go up for sale as I have no use for that feature

I have Leupold CDS scopes on 3 of my rifles, and they are amazing. Once you dial them in with your preferred ammo, simply measure the range to the target, (i.e. 450 yards) dial the turret to 4.5, but the dot on the target and pull the trigger. No dope sheets or any other holdover data needed.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by A207X2

I have Leupold CDS scopes on 3 of my rifles, and they are amazing. Once you dial them in with your preferred ammo, simply measure the range to the target, (i.e. 450 yards) dial the turret to 4.5, but the dot on the target and pull the trigger. No dope sheets or any other holdover data needed.

This definitely gets you close, it just doesn't allow for temperature effect on the load, or wind. Both can be a factor at longer distances.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have turrets on target rifles, and on my varmint rifles, but my big game scopes have BDC reticles.

Dials aren't for everyone but serve a purpose in some situations. Antelope and sheep come to mind.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by A207X2

I have Leupold CDS scopes on 3 of my rifles, and they are amazing. Once you dial them in with your preferred ammo, simply measure the range to the target, (i.e. 450 yards) dial the turret to 4.5, but the dot on the target and pull the trigger. No dope sheets or any other holdover data needed.

Yeah but you are talking to a guy who has no interest at longer ranges or screwing with turrets. I am more of the sneak up/ambush and stick it in their ear and pull the trigger kind of hunter lol

I respect some people enjoy the longer range shooting but I am just not that guy. For me I enjoy being close and the challenge of doing so

To each their own but turrets don’t fit into the style of hunting I enjoy

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Dials aren't for everyone but serve a purpose in some situations. Antelope and sheep come to mind.

That is a personal choice

One of the best stone sheep hunters I know has never shot one over 200 yards. One of my mentors growing up was a sheep guide and a highly accomplished mountain hunter. He has multiple sheep taken with a bow stone, dall, Rocky Mountain, and cali. These guys like the up close game and get it done doing so

There is also a ton of guys who shoot long range and well without turrets. My old hunting partner has rolled lots of game at 500 -700 yards and rarely misses but he is the cheat sheet laminated to the stock kind of guy

It’s all a matter of how someone wants to go about it and what they enjoy

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Dials aren't for everyone but serve a purpose in some situations. Antelope and sheep come to mind.

My BDC reticle is plenty accurate on big game to 500 yards. I killed my bighorn at 80 yards, and my farthest pronghorn of the four was 490 yards, with another at 300, and the other two around 170 yards.
I do like turrets for small targets like ground squirrels and crows at longer ranges.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

My BDC reticle is plenty accurate on big game to 500 yards. I killed my bighorn at 80 yards, and my farthest pronghorn of the four was 490 yards, with another at 300, and the other two around 170 yards.
I do like turrets for small targets like ground squirrels and crows at longer ranges.

As I said, they have their intended purpose. Couple years ago was beside my buddy when he killed a cali in Oregon and a desert in Nevada. Lot's of time to dial in. Both over 500 and weren't getting any closer to either one. Be tough wasting 2 once in a lifetime tags trying to get closer.
Marky Mark has killed a couple deserts in Mexico and some pretty crazy distances. Expensive hunts to go home empty handed because you couldn't get closer.
I don't have a scope with dials (just BRH), but if I was headed south on a sheep hunt...I'd have 'em.

[calgarychef]

I’ve always said that the firearms safety course should include actually shooting firearms. Some sort of proficiency course is a good idea before flinging lead at critters. It would help eliminate a lot of the “woopsies” that hunters seem to be famous for, much to our detriment as a group as a whole.

More professionalism=better public image, I don’t think anyone could intelligently argue that one. Getting trained by a “professional” would usually be better than getting trained by bubba.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I’ve always said that the firearms safety course should include actually shooting firearms. Some sort of proficiency course is a good idea before flinging lead at critters. It would help eliminate a lot of the “woopsies” that hunters seem to be famous for, much to our detriment as a group as a whole.

More professionalism=better public image, I don’t think anyone could intelligently argue that one. Getting trained by a “professional” would usually be better than getting trained by bubba.

Bubba might just be going at rolling 'yotes at 300 yards consistently. Most likely lots of practice and experience

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I’ve always said that the firearms safety course should include actually shooting firearms. Some sort of proficiency course is a good idea before flinging lead at critters. It would help eliminate a lot of the “woopsies” that hunters seem to be famous for, much to our detriment as a group as a whole.

More professionalism=better public image, I don’t think anyone could intelligently argue that one. Getting trained by a “professional” would usually be better than getting trained by bubba.

When this is implemented the ability for the common man to hunt will be long gone.

[Salavee]

[QUOTE=Pathfinder76;4711420]When this is implemented the ability for the common man to hunt will be long gone.[/QUOTE

That's right ... and that's the way it should be . If a persons interest in hunting
is greater than his interest in becoming proficient with his hunting tool, he shouldnt be allowed to hunt. I've been advocating that for decades.
I don't think we would be in the mess we are in today if this were a requirement made many years ago.

[Bushleague]

[QUOTE=Salavee;4711423]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

When this is implemented the ability for the common man to hunt will be long gone.[/QUOTE

That's right ... and that's the way it should be . If a persons interest in hunting
is greater than his interest in becoming proficient with his hunting tool, he shouldnt be allowed to hunt. I've been advocating that for decades.
I don't think we would be in the mess we are in today if this were a requirement made many years ago.

I personally would reverse that statement. All the hunters I most respect are not gun nuts, they maintain an acceptable level of competency, but they spend far more time in the bush than they do on the range. Maybe its just me but I find hunters who's primary enthusiasm is for their weapons pretty cringe.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

That's right ... and that's the way it should be . If a persons interest in hunting
is greater than his interest in becoming proficient with his hunting tool, he shouldnt be allowed to hunt. I've been advocating that for decades.
I don't think we would be in the mess we are in today if this were a requirement made many years ago.

If the mess you refer to is the liberal firearms legislation, competency with firearms is irrelevant, they want us all disarmed.

[Salavee]

[QUOTE=Bushleague;4711424]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I personally would reverse that statement. All the hunters I most respect are not gun nuts, they maintain an acceptable level of competency, but they spend far more time in the bush than they do on the range. Maybe its just me but I find hunters who's primary enthusiasm is for their weapons pretty cringe.

Thats the point . "a certain level of competency". You don't have to be a gun nut to obtain that level., whatever it is deemed to be.
Learning to hunt us a totally different subject. If a person is incompetent in that area, no harm done to any one or any thing.

[Smoky buck]

[QUOTE=Salavee;4711427]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

Thats the point . "a certain level of competency". You don't have to be a gun nut to obtain that level., whatever it is deemed to be.
Learning to hunt us a totally different subject. If a person is incompetent in that area, no harm done to any one or any thing.

Here is where that gets complicated

What weapons are the required to be competent with and what should the standard be?

Do we start making deferent course requirements for each legal weapon style?

Are we talking a yearly requirement?

Personally I think adding some hands on training in hunter ed along with more regarding shot selection or even tracking would be beneficial to help a new hunter. I don’t know if we need to go down the road of yearly testing

Like I mentioned earlier more times than not it not a lack of shooting ability but instead people who make bad choices on shot selection that is the problem

[The Elkster]

IMO There are shooters that hunt and hunters that shoot. I am a hunter that shoots. I’ve never taken a kill shot over 150yds. Shooting for vitals is not hard at that range. 500+yds is another thing. Suggested/required proficiency should consider that. I honestly don’t know what grouping I could make at 300yds cause I never plan to take that shot so don’t practice to that range. If I’m within 2” of Center on an 8” circle at 100-150yds I call it good. I Always aim for center of boiler room and No problem with injured or missed animals. Same shooting standards combined with regular attempts at +500yd shots would be terrible practice.

Far More bad shots are made due to bad choices than competency. How do you regulate for that?

[roper1]

Canadian & Alberta society already uses "mandatory" too often with no way to define or regulate it.

[Salavee]

[QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711430]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Here is where that gets complicated

What weapons are the required to be competent with and what should the standard be?

Do we start making deferent course requirements for each legal weapon style?

Are we talking a yearly requirement?

Personally I think adding some hands on training in hunter ed along with more regarding shot selection or even tracking would be beneficial to help a new hunter. I don’t know if we need to go down the road of yearly testing

Like I mentioned earlier more times than not it not a lack of shooting ability but instead people who make bad choices on shot selection that is the problem

No need to go down the long road to nowhere. This would be strictly a simple firearms proficiency test comprised of gun handling, loading/unloading and a few targets.

Legal BG firearm and caliber of choice with 10-15 shots required.Less than 1 hour duration,.
Once passed -valid for lifetime.

I'm sure there are enough hunter ed instructors that might be interested in adding a test such as this to their agenda to make it work. If not ?

[Pathfinder76]

Learning to use the quote function properly should be mandatory to post here.

[catnthehat]

[QUOTE=Bushleague;4711424]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I personally would reverse that statement. All the hunters I most respect are not gun nuts, they maintain an acceptable level of competency, but they spend far more time in the bush than they do on the range. Maybe its just me but I find hunters who's primary enthusiasm is for their weapons pretty cringe.

Conversely, very best hunters I know and also gun nutz, and burn an inordinate amount of powder on thd range compared to most others, but they do not nessacarily shoot animals at the same distances they shoot targets , and they certainly do not use the same rifles .
One is very different from the other ....
Cat

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

Learning to use the quote function properly should be mandatory to post here.

Soory Chuck .. someday I'll get it as I wanna be perfect..just like you .

[Smoky buck]

[QUOTE=Salavee;4711445][QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711430]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Here is where that gets complicated

What weapons are the required to be competent with and what should the standard be?

Do we start making deferent course requirements for each legal weapon style?

Are we talking a yearly requirement?

Personally I think adding some hands on training in hunter ed along with more regarding shot selection or even tracking would be beneficial to help a new hunter. I don’t know if we need to go down the road of yearly testing

Like I mentioned earlier more times than not it not a lack of shooting ability but instead people who make bad choices on shot selection that is the problem[/QUOTE

No need to go down the long road to nowhere. This would be strictly a simple firearms proficiency test comprised of gun handling, loading/unloading and a few targets.

Legal BG firearm and caliber of choice with 10-15 shots required.Less than 1 hour duration,.
Once passed -valid for lifetime.

I'm sure there are enough hunter ed instructors that might be interested in adding a test such as this to their agenda to make it work. If not ?

Adding some training/basic proficiency to hunter ED is not a horrible idea and mostly I believe it would be a good experience for new hunters. Where the issue lies is there is also a good number of hunters these days who don’t hunt with a firearm and never will.

Either way a one time deal/added training to hunter ED is not crazy but I don’t want to see it become a yearly thing

Unfortunately though this doesn’t solve the dumb people making dumb choices which in my opinion is the real problem.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Soory Chuck .. someday I'll get it as I wanna be perfect..just like you .

Well that’s what you’re asking of others right here on this thread. No?

[Smoky buck]

[QUOTE=catnthehat;4711449]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

Conversely, very best hunters I know and also gun nutz, and burn an inordinate amount of powder on thd range compared to most others, but they do not nessacarily shoot animals at the same distances they shoot targets , and they certainly do not use the same rifles .
One is very different from the other ....
Cat

I guess I must be a crappy hunter lol

I take time to practice but I wouldn’t call myself a gun nut.