Dazzle me with brilliance or baffle me with [bleep]

[Magnumdood]

Why, oh why, is an 80 yard shot at a turkey inherently more dangerous than a 40 yard shot?

I await, nay, hope, to be dazzled by brilliance; however, I suspect that most of what I will get is people attempting to baffle me, and others, with [bleep].

[JPH]

Dood, I think we are often united because we find ourselves at odds with some of our more "traditional" posters, but I do not think you are doing a lot to make things better right now.

Don't misunderstand me, the opening question in your post is a good one and I do not think we should run from topics like this. But your follow-up is like a challenge. It starts insulting people before they have even had the chance to answer you.

This forum has yet to climb out of the gutter and I can barely bring myself to post here anymore. I have no problem with you, but as long as threads start this way, we are never going to change the tone.

For what it's worth, I do not see a safety issue with any shot taken into a known backdrop. When killing a turkey at 10 yards, the hunter must still account for the 100 yards (or more) on the other side.

[CB on the run]

I can't say I would consider it inherently more dangerous.  Obviously your pattern is far more open than at 40 yards so some pellets will strike objects at a greater angle off center than at a closer yards, but if you know your background there shouldn't be a problem unless someone is stalking in on the bird.  At that distance gravity is already taking a major toll on energy and due to a standard velocity of turkey rounds averaging between 1050 and 1185 fps your pellets are headed to ground, therefore, off target unless your using some Kentucky windage.  So unless your shooting #2's or bigger, your not going to have what is needed for a clean harvest.  I watched my father shoot at a fox on snow at 80-90 yards in a field while it was standing still.  He shot about 5-6 feet over its' back.  Several pellets did strike the fox and because there was snow we tracked it for about an hour before it was killed in front of another hunter.  He was shooting a 12ga 2 3/4" lead #2 and it did not pack what was needed to do the job.  So my question is "why would anyone consider a known 80 yard shot?"  Especially with all the anti's watching our every move.  I have friend who took a 50 yard shot in the woods with a Federal 3" #4 copper plated turkey load.  He hit the bird and it eventually died but not before it managed to get to a brush pile almost 150 yards away and it took us over an hour to find it and it was extreme luck that we did.
I, for one, am not that compelled to kill a turkey to try an 80 yard shot and I'm certainly not going to teach anyone that it's okay because it's way to uncertain for a clean kill.
 
Charlie Belle

[Magnumdood]

Joe, I guess you're telling me, among other things, that, if not for a common bond in our stance against forced traditionalism, you wouldn't agree with me on many issues.

With regard to my post - while the title may be a bit confrontational, I believe as you - it's a question that needs answering.  With that said, you wrote that my followup was a challenge, and insulting.  Why must a challenge be insulting?

Anyway, it wasn't meant to be insulting or challenging.  It was a statement of what I believed to be fact.

I would love to discuss this issue outside of the traditional vs. modern pardigm, but it appears that this discussion isn't going to take place.  So, I won't put any more effort into this post than I already have.

[JPH]

ORIGINAL: Magnumdood

Joe, I guess you're telling me, among other things, that, if not for a common bond in our stance against forced traditionalism, you wouldn't agree with me on many issues.

No that's not what I mean at all. My guess is that most of us have far more in common than this forum would imply. I really do not see anything that would divide you and I. I prefer to wait for "close range" shots, but I have no beef with what you think or do.

Look, I cannot even reach out to the traditionalist camp. They don't want any part of it and I am all but done with the whole mess. I spoke up with you because I think we still have a rapport. Even if I leave, I'd like this forum to become a good place. I think you can be a part of that.

[Magnumdood]

Joe,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought I had unintentionally alienated someone whom I consider a like-minded hunter.

I've seen this same drama played out on the archery boards almost a decade ago. The drama is useless, time-consuming and divisive.

[Steve_In]

I will throw my 2 cents in the pot.  It is not the load in the barrel, whether it be from a rifle, shotgun, pistol, bow or crossbow.  It don't matter if the shot was fired from the open, out of a blind or from behind a tree.  It doesn't even matter if it was over decoys, stuffed gobblers or an electronic wobbling decoy.  The ultimate responsibility is with the nut behind the butt.  With few exceptions I do not see why these incidents while hunting are even called accidents.

[Magnumdood]

Steve,

Absolutely!

That's why I don't think a 40 yard shot is inherently more dangerous than an 80 yard shot.  When hunting, we don't always have a berm right behind the turkey.  In fact, any pellets that miss the bird carry down range until they hit something; the pellets that missed the bird will either plow into the ground or hit something perpendicular to the ground.  I simply fail to see the difference between the position of the target and the final destination of any pellets that miss the bird.

[trkyklr]

...

[Fan Club]

This is closely related to the 70 yards? 80 yards? thread in a lot of ways. I don't see as much of a saftey issue with such shots as I do a responsibilty to the game we hunt.
 
Here is a quote from Gobblerman from that thread which I agree with-
 
> the chances of an animal being wounded and then escaping, without a doubt, increase as the distance between the hunter and the animal increases.  This holds true pretty much regardless of the type of game being hunted. <
 
As for the shot itself, "more dangerous" must be first intepreted that it applies to humans instead of game. A shooter is responsible for positively identifying his target and being sure of his backdrop at any range, be it 40 yards or 80 yards, so there is nothing to argue there.
 
Where the argument usually does insue, is that this is all relative to where you hunt or take such a shot. In an area where you are reasonably sure you are the only one there, or the only one that should be there, an 80 yard shot is not inherantly more dangerous to humans. I say "the only one" because this applies to all humans, not just hunters... mushroom seekers, hikers and bird watchers can all be part of the equation. In a public area with much greater opportunity for human contact of all sorts, a longer shot is always going to be "more dangerous," it's more difficult to be sure of your backdrop and the shot angle is going to be higher.
 
To recap this messay (mini-essay), there is too much relativity involved to provide a definite conclusion. "More dangerous" is a relative generalization, and it is directly relative and subjective to the area or region where the principle is being applied.
 
I'm not sure why any of this would be baffling to anyone, it's all physics...but as with anything else, logic must be employed during the application.