Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    For the most part I agree. But the following statement sorta conflicts?
    
    >> I have a gun that can shoot 400 yds easily but due to
    >>personal limitations (lack of time at the range),  I have never shot
    >>over what I consider my personal limitation - 300 yds.  Shots that 
    >>wound and mame should be avoided at all costs - which can mean getting 
    >>skunked.
    
    Shots 200+ yards are more apt to mame and wound regardless of your
    shooting skills. Wouldn't you agree?

    
    
>    Shots 200+ yards are more apt to mame and wound regardless of your
>    shooting skills. Wouldn't you agree?
    
    	You saying a .220swift can't reach out and touch someone at over
    200yds? Better tell that to them varmint hunters in the midwest...
    
    	If you have the right set up (and the correct skills), you can make
    one shot kills at over 500yds on various game...you just need to know
    your limitations as well as your weapons....
    
    		
    				just my 2�
    
    				  jim s.

re: .1

Depends on the shooter, gun, optics, bullet, fps, etc.

I shoot a 270 cal., 150 gr. SBPT which is a fairly flat shooting bullet.

Probably the most important considerations are accuracy and fps.  I harvested 5
animals in the past 7 years.  From approx. 150, 225, 240, 245, and 275 yds.  
I've shot 6 times while hunting in the past seven years.  2 of them have died
within 10 yds of where they were shot.  These were almost instant kills -
animals spun around and slid down hill.   2 more were dead by the time I walked
over to them. 1 dropped where I shot it and required a bullet to the head.  It
would have died in minutes on its own but I didn't want it to suffer anymore. 

Sure, I could probably hit an animal @ 400 yds but, I couldn't assure myself
that I could put it down on the first shot.

I have set 300 as my personal limit, this is due to multiple trips to range.  I 
know what I'm capable of.  My gun is capable of much more but I just don't 
feel that I'm steady enough.  

I think that it is important to note that the year before I harvested a bull
that would probably go 850 lbs. on the hoof.  It was the furthest shot I've
take (275 yds.).  He died before he slid down the embankment, sideways, 
and piled into a deadfall.  The reason I know this is his muzzle was buried 
under 4 inches of undisturbed snow. 

Accuracy + foot pounds + common sense = clean kill. (?)

Mark
    

    Mark,
    
      I agree with your general premise that everyone should strive 
    for a clean kill.  I am curious though as to why you are "disapointed"
    with some of the participants in this file. From what I can read the
    vast majority of participants agree with you.  There is only one person
    who can dictate what anyones maximum range is.  Thats the individual.
    There are too many factors involved.  Gun, load, game, cover, physical 
    shape of the hunter, is the game moving or still, weather (snowing or 
    raining?), skill of the hunter, etc.......  As long as we hunt, there is 
    always the possibility of error (wounding game), our job is to minimize the 
    risk.
    
    Jeff
                                                        

    Probably being one of the guys you were talking about when you said:
    "5 shots to put a deer down"... I just wanted to say that every deer
    I've tagged myself has been a one shot kill... However, being 
    involved in a few other successful hunts, a couple of deer have taken 
    their share of lead before they expired.
    
    One deer in particular, which was mentioned in the 270 note (circa
    1992) did indeed take 5 shots to put it away... Upon first reading the
    note, you could easily get the wrong impression.
    
    The deer was jumped on a 3 man "push" through thick pines... the first
    shot was at a full-out running deer, and while I will not say either
    way whether or not I would have taken the shot, the bottom line was
    that the deer was wounded and was now in overdrive. This
    being the case, myself and the other driver felt it was our duty to 
    finish it off. (who wouldn't??)
    
    For details of what types of shots were necessary read note 270.217
    
    While personally, I feel that the deer would have died without the need
    for additional shots, under the circumstances they were necessary,
    thereby making it sound like pretty poor shooting... It was heading for
    a road which was posted on the other side, and was loaded with approx.
    15 guys...  there is no doubt in my mind that the deer would have died
    very shortly after the chest shot, however someone else would have
    certainly tagged it once it crossed the road. Hence the need for 2
    additional shots...  Every situation is different, unspooked deer will
    almost certainly give you edge... Terrain plays an important factor...
    as does hunter density and pressure...
    
    Everyone hopes and dreams of one shot kills, myself included, but I
    know that this not always the case.  Once the shot is taken, and a deer
    starts to run, do you watch it head for the hills, or put in an
    additional shot to put it down for good???  me i'll take the extra 
    shots...  I know some people who have hit deer 2 and 3 times... 
    were they really necessary??? probably not, but they wanted to anchor 
    the deer, not have to take a chance of losing it just to make claim
    that it was a one shot kill.  Heart shot deer can run a pretty good 
    distance, do you watch it run or try and anchor it with follow up 
    shots????
    
    Deer running on adreneline can do some amazing things...  My ego isn't
    going to be shattered if I have to make claim to a deer which took more
    than one shot to put it down... 
    
    Try hunting in some more densly populated areas, where hunters either
    put in additional shots or face the possibility of losing a mortally
    wounded deer to someone elses tag... it's happened (PA, MA, NH)... Ask
    Barry Perla if he'd put in a few additional rounds next time he knocks
    a deer down.
    
    Everyone aspires to a one shot kill, unfortunatly thats not always the
    way things turn out.  Is the hunter any less ethical?
    
    Fra

	I'll have to agree with Fra. One shot ethics come into the 
	picture when you choose your first shot (and I'm not pretending 
	to have a monopoly on what the right ethics are), after that
	you may have to face grim reality. *If* you are faced with
	a wounded animal, another sort of ethics take over - putting
	your animal down as fast and as safely as possible. If that
	means waging a war, so be it. 

	Nobody in here is going to disagree on the idea of one-shot
	ethics, but hunting ethics is much more than just picking
	your shots. As one example look at the NRA "hunting code of
	ethics". I think it is important that we discuss and improve
	our understanding of good ethics, in that light this note
	is valuable one. Ethics, however, vary depending on the
	situation at hand, so don't shoot at anybody without knowing
	what the circumstances at hand were.

	I have personally been in the unfortunate situation of wounding
	an animal, even after I took every precaution such as stalking
	to within 60 yds, shooting from a rest, picking my shot at a
	stationary animal etc. All of this after I had been shooting well
	(in much more difficult situations) for a prolonged period of
	time. We are all under the obligation to train, train and train,
	to pick our shots with care... and yet sometimes things do go
	wrong. It is a sh*t feeling, but it is as much a part of hunting
	as the feeling of success after those shots we all hope and train
	for.

							- Mike

         The base noter just discovered this conference and he's been
         reading a lot of the old notes. So he's finding the few
         discouraging notes, notes that regular readers have forgotten
         about, that suggest unreasonable shots. In note 16.180, for
         example, the author tells of popping away at the rear end of
         a fleeing deer--250 yards away.

         Doug

re: 4

I reread my note and I cannot find the word disappointed.  If you are 
referring to word "saddened," my explanation follows.  No one ever considers 
themself a sloppy hunter.  The fact of the matter is, many are.  The execution
of kill and perceived focus of the hunt is what saddens me.  

Living in Colorado I have seen some of the worst and the best examples of 
hunters.  I don't know, call it a bit elitist, but the most enjoyable hunts
I've been on are with the true sportsman.  These are people who have a deep
respect and admiration for the animals they are hunting.  They also know their
rifle, personal limitations, are humble and feel a genuine compassion for
the animals they hunt.

I don't know how many people consider hunting a right, personally I consider it
privilege.  When I say privilege I don't mean controlled by the government.
It goes deeper than that.  Some people know what I'm talking about, others
don't have a clue.  And really, I couldn't do it justice in this note.  It 
isn't something you learn in hunting safety course or an Outdoor Life 
magazine.  It's based in your own mentality, outlook on the world ...  Whether 
you choose to live in harmony with .... or you choose to make it battle.  

That is why I wrote that first note.  I feel that some consider an elk/deer hunt
as a conquest.  It isn't successful unless something is killed.  In some notes
it appears that more bullets expended, the more enjoyable the hunt.  When in 
reality, the kill really isn't what makes the hunt/hunter.

One day, I'm sure that I will encounter that unclean kill.  But until then I 
will continue to do everything in my power to prevent it.  It may mean passing
up shots, and believe me I have done it.

	ie.  While walking back to camp one evening along a creek in heavily
	treed canyon, a monster mulie buck (at least a 32 inch spread) ran 
	right in front of me and up into the timber - less than 35 yds. away.  
	He was alone and I could see his antlers and back haunch.  I could 
	have downed him with a shot to hips but instead I decide to try and 
	get a clean shot at his vitals.  I knew that if I ran at him I 
	wouldn't stand a chance.  So, I moved away from him and scaled the 
	other side of the canyon.  Looking across the canyon I could see him 
	moving through the trees.  I never took a shot because the right 
	opportunity never presented itself.  No regrets.



re: .5 

To tell you the truth, I hadn't read your note when I entered the original 
note.  You're the one who lives with your kill.  If you say .... then that's
the way it is.  Personally, a clean kill out weighs all other factors. 
Admittedly, I'm pretty entrenched in my personal opinions.  I may have made the
decision to pulled the trigger if I was you, but then again, maybe not; really
cannot say.  

I'm not trying to make any enemies with this note.  I'm not trying to knock 
people who are taking wise shots.  It's the people who aren't thinking when
they are afield that this note is about.  Putting a bullet in animal, hoping it
will knock it down so another shot can be taken, is unethical in my book.  I
know of a person that shot an animal in the chest, multiple times (2), versus
the head, after it was down just so a head mount will be perfect.  That is wrong
in my book.  Let's just say that the animal didn't die right away.  There are a
few notes that reference a finishing off shot to the chest. 

I've selected the way I hunt.  I have a few good hunting buddies that think the
same way.  I feel good a night, sitting in camp after hard day's hunt, talking
about the animals we saw (hasn't happened much recently as much as I would like
it to) and the shots passed up. 

Then again there are people who I'll never hunt with again.  Each person has 
his/her own standards and determines what is acceptable them.  Thank god we can
select our hunting partners.

re: 7

Yes.  Most of notes I'm talking about are from the official deer/elk hunting
notes.

Closing thought:

I'm not trying to give deer and elk human characteristics.  But they do suffer
and feel pain:  I have the utmost respect and compassion for them.

Just my personal opinion,

Mark
    

    If you could have actually passed up on a shot at a deer which had no
    back legs and was humping it for posted land, then you have less ethics
    than the person who took the original shot...  It is your duty to
    dispatch an animal ASAP, if it takes a second follow up shot then that
    is what you do...  having a mortally wounded animal within rifle 
    range but not putting in a in a second "kill" shot is just as
    irresponsible as the person who takes more than one shot...
    
    Elitist is not the word, narrowminded is!!
    
    Fra

    To the base noter... I'd really like you to re-read reply .5 and answer
    some of the questions i've asked...  maybe after reading some of your
    answers I can get a better handle on just what kind of hunter you
    really are...
    
    Fra

    re .8
    
    Certain types of hunting have certain types of "kill zones: that are
    acceptable. If you hunt with a firearm of any type, the heart/lung
    shot is ideal, followed by the spine shot, then the head/neck shot.
    A couple of years ago I wrote about taking running shots at deer at
    over the 200 yard mark. I think that that is irresponsible. I also
    think that it is irresponsible to "intentionally" take a "break them
    down" type shot while using a firearm, the type of shot that will
    invaribly require a followup shot to dispatch the quarrey.
    
    In bow hunting though, there is a shot that is VERY deadly and
    considered to be a "sporting" shot, and that's the "ham shot". None
    other than Chuck Adams endorses this shot. It's an "archery
    only" shot to say the least. The rear legs of a deer are loaded
    with arteries and blood,  Since the broadhead kills NOT by shock,
    but by blood loss, it's an extraordinary deer that'll go more than
    100 yards after being hit there. I personally saw three deer hit
    in the rear leg/ham area last year while bow hunting, and all were
    quick kills. I just wanted to point that out to clear up any con-
    fusion between the two hunting methods :-)
    
    I'm also in agreeance with Fra. I believe that the vast amjority of us
    do everything in our power to ensure a quick, if not instant kill.
    All one has to do is have a wounded deer look you in the eye when
    you put the finishing shot in them. It's gut wretching to have to do
    it, and it makes the hunter doubly aware that they MUST make every
    possible effort to ensure the quick humane kill. But, the world isn't
    always perfect. There's always going to be that darn branch, the
    misjudgement of distance, that jerky trigger pull, that last step by
    the deer just as the trigger was pulled, etc... 
    
    All that can or should be expected is that the shot was taken with
    the *extreme* possibility that it was an accepted fatal/killing shot,
    and nothing more...
    
      
    Joe

    
re: 10

First off, apology.  I hadn't read note 270.217 until recently and was under 
a mistaken impression.

Yes.  To put down a wounded animal is of the utmost importance.  Kudos to your
skill with a rifle.  The situation you described would dictate an identical
response from me.

I still question the original 2 shots; before the deer got to your stand.

How do you feel about the leg and jaw shot?  What was your response to the
person when he claimed his/her deer?

Thanks,

Mark
    

	Mark, one thing that I very much like about your note is the
	way you stress that in hunting there are so many other things
	that count than the kill: the nature experience, the friends,
	the planning etc etc. Sometimes we perhaps tend to forget that
	*this* is why we go hunting, and maybe - if Lady Luck smiles
	on us - we might get a chance for a quarry. If we focus too
	much on the killing (as opposed to the experience in general)
	we run the risk of loosing the purpose, and only become killers -
	how large a trophy, how long a shot, his was bigger than mine...
	In that situation with all its' pressure it is easy to forget
	the ethics that we settled on back home, maybe even take a shot
	which we would not have taken if not under (self) pressure.

	In that light, I don't think we can have too much of this
	discussion. 

							- Mike

    Mark,
    
    no apologies necessary...  I understand exactly where your coming from,
    just wanted you to realize it's not always peaches and cream out there.
    
    regarding the 1st two shots (legs, jaw) after a poorly placed 1st shot
    (legs), all other shots were taken through thick pines by myself and
    the other driver... at a deer which was severly quartering away from
    the other driver and running broadside to myself...  my partner hit it
    in the jaw (which in itself wasn't a bad shot considering the
    circumstances and the terrain) and missed 2 other times.  At this point
    the deer was heading my way...  One other very important thing to
    realize is that we were all pretty close together (75-100 yds), and all 
    had the presence of mind to safely pick our shots so as not to
    possibly kill one another.  What this did was make it that much harder
    to take a quick clean shot and put the deer down for fear of the others
    safety.  We all knew where each other was, and even during the shooting
    had the smarts to communicate our positions and react accordingly.
    
    As an aside, only one person was sitting, the other two were driving.
    
    we were happy... and the original shooter was elated but knew he made a
    bad shot...
    
    no problems, it was was a cooperative hunt.
    
    Fra 

    I remember the first time i harvested a deer.  I pulled my shot, and
    instead of shooting in the vitals, I hit the animal in the spine,
    wasting about 6 inches of tenderloin.  when I got to the deer, he was
    still kicking.  Talk about a grown man cry, nothing hurt more than to
    look into the deer's eyes and do the mercy kill.  Since that time, I
    have passed up plenty of deer, only because I didn't have a good shot.
    A good shot to me is in the vitals, a kill shot.  I will not let the
    animal suffer.  When doe day came, I saw no doe's until just before
    dark.  No shot taken.  This year, I saw no bucks.  I have yet to
    harvest a deer by bow, and hopefully will have the opportunity next
    year.  What are your thoughts on bow kills?
    
    Also, I think alot of people practice at the range, which is not at
    all like the real hunting grounds.  For bow season, I practice at
    different distances, in a tree stand, out of a stand, different
    positions on the ground, etc.   You can practice all you want, but it
    does not eliminate ALL the risk of a bad shot, just most of it.  I have
    100% confidence in me, but not my surroundings, or the deer's actions.
    So when you have a good shot, take it.  Don't wait for a better one.
    
    Bob
    

Not to change the topic too much, but an observation I have made, is that
most successful hunters often wait, they don't fire on the first deer
they see. When questionable shots are taken I wonder how far we are into
the season? e.g. Last day of season, hunter(s) maybe more apt to pull
the trigger when normally they wouldn't.

Another thought along the same lines is Colorado's new deer season. You
may only hunt Bucks the first three days of the season. I believe we'll
see hunters taking questionable shots along day three of the season
as well as the last day of the deer season.

    o Do hunter ethics drop with each passing day of the season??
    
    o If this is true then as a result hunters may inadvertently shoot when 
      they shouldn't. 
 

re: .1
> Shots 200+ yards are more apt to mame and wound regardless of your
> shooting skills. Wouldn't you agree?

I most certainly would not agree since the majority of my deer have been
taken at ranges over 200 yards, and all with one-shot kills.  If you have
developed the necessary skills, even running shots at distances over 200
yards should not be a problem.

re: .3
>Probably the most important considerations are accuracy and fps.

>Accuracy + foot pounds + common sense = clean kill. (?)

I don't buy this at all.  I agree that accuracy is an extremely important
factor, but the other two definitely are open for discussion in my book.

If you mean understanding your abilities and the limitations of the firearm
that you are using, and your proficiency with that firearm as "common sense",
then I'll buy common sense part too.

The foot-pounds part is where I really have the problem.  If you are capable
of projecting a needle at mach 10, then you will undoubtly have a lot of
foot-pounds of energy at the target within normal hunting ranges.  However,
I doubt very much that the deer will go down regardless of where you hit it.

If you would replace "foot-pounds" with "proper cartridge for the job and
distance", and would replace "common sense" with "understanding and staying
within the parameters of one's know limitations" then I would almost agree
with the resulting formula.

However, there is just one more remaining problem with the formula,
and that is the "= clean kill" part.  Nothing "assures" a clean kill.  There
are simply too many things that can go wrong.  Bullet failure, the target
moving unexpectedly, bullet deflection, and such are just a few possibilities
that can cause an otherwise killing shot to go sour.

re: .11
> Certain types of hunting have certain types of "kill zones: that are
> acceptable. If you hunt with a firearm of any type, the heart/lung
> shot is ideal, followed by the spine shot, then the head/neck shot.
> A couple of years ago I wrote about taking running shots at deer at
> over the 200 yard mark. I think that that is irresponsible. I also
> think that it is irresponsible to "intentionally" take a "break them
> down" type shot while using a firearm, the type of shot that will
> invaribly require a followup shot to dispatch the quarrey.

I don't have any problem with what you've defined as "kill zones" but
would like to point out that a rifleman would typically prefer a heart/lung
shot from behind the should, where a handgunner would probably prefer a
heart/lung shot "through the shoulder".  The reason for this is that the
rifleman typically chooses an expanding bullet for deer hunting where
the typical handgunner (or at least me and Ross Seyfried) would pick a
hardcast, non-expanding, bullet.  The reason I would pick this type of
bullet for handgun deer hunting is that in order to get a bullet to
reliably expand in deer at handgun velocities typically requires a light
bullet.  The light handgun bullets lack penetration ability therefore having
more of a chance at wounding the animal.  A heavy hardcast handgun bullet
driven through the shoulder will send bone into the vitals, therefore
assisting the bullet in dispatching the animal.  If a full power 44 magnum,
or greater cartridge, hardcast heavy bullet load is used, complete penetration
will occur in deer sized game.

Again, I think your statement that running shots over 200 yards being
irresponsible is nonsense.  At one time I used to practice shooting
targets in tires rolled down the valley on our farm in Pennsylvania.
At that point in time I was very confident in my ability to take running
shot beyond the 300 yard range, and used this confidence and "developed"
skill to take a couple deer at over 300 yards with one-shot, in
the bread-basket, clean kills.

I do agree with you 100% on the "break them down" type shots.

Roy...

    Roy... well said!
    
    There is a time and place for everything, and there are situations
    which will arise that will determine which type of shot is necessary as
    well as cartridge selection to put the animal in the freezer... either a 
    "quick" kill shot or a "break them down" shot... 
    
    Unfortunately if you do decide to go for the latter of the two, you will 
    invariably need a follow up shot (1 or possibly more) and be labeled a 
    slob for taking more than 1 shot to dispatch your deer...
    
    The way I see it, it's a no win situation... I guess there really are
    people out there who would rather sit and watch a deer die, then put a
    second round into it and ruin their reputation as a "one shot man".
    
    shame...
    
    Fra                                 

    re.18 Even a pure 'kill' shot may require a follow-up. A heart/lung
    shot is a sure kill, but often the deer will walk or run away. 
    (Freaked me right out when it happened to me!) If you go for a 
    'kill' shot, you're still better off being ready to follow up.
    This becomes even more important if the woods are full of other
    hunters. 
    
    A few years back 'Deer and Deer Hunting' ran an article on shooting.
    The author advised shooting for the shoulder blade,(with a rifle)
    rather than the heart-lung area preferred by archers. This would
    both knock the deer down quickly, and insure a fairly quick death.
    
    In any case, I think it best to use a finisher if you reach the
    deer and it is still breathing/struggling/whatever. A shot in the
    neck, right behind the skull, kills instantly with no meat damage.
    (Or shoot lower if preserving the cape is a consideration.) There
    is no reason to let a fine creature suffer for longer than necessary.
    (Reputation be damned.)
    
    Dana

    Dana,
    
    exactly my point... in the area's that most of us hunt there is more a
    need for a follow-up shot just because of hunter density.  Take a
    heart/lung shot and watch the deer run, and your more than likely gonna
    lose it to another hunter...  thats fact...  If there is time for
    follow up shots, it's better to take em and anchor it... if a killing
    shot is required, then take it.
    
    Fortunately, all of the deer I've tagged have been one shot kills, but
    I'll be more than happy to take add'l shots whenever necessary, if that
    means upwards of 4-5 shots, then so be it.
    
    Theres no room in the woods for a big ego.
    
    Fra

    re: last couple replies
    
    I, also, couldn't be more in agreement.  I've been pretty lucky in that
    all mine have hit the dirt on the first shot and stayed there. 
    However, I make it a point to prepare to shoot as quickly as possible
    after each shot, and it the animal is still on it's feet, or even
    quivering enough that I can see the movement, another bullet will be
    soon to follow, followed by another, and another, until I run out of
    ammo or can't see it anymore.
    
    Roy...
    

    Roy:
    
      We had quite a row a few years back about running shots, didn't we?
    :-)  Well, I still feel the same, and you still feel the same, and I'm
    getting too old to argue the point anymore :-) ... My feelings on
    shooting at a running deer at 200 yards or beyond is, IF you need to
    try taking that deer, then try, but do as you have done beforehand
    and practice, practice, practice to up the odds of hitting the right
    spot. If you haven't practiced this "type" of shot, then please, wait
    for a better shot with better "kill odds" for your own abilities.
    For the vast majority of hunters out there though, it's a shot that
    should be held... But, as Roy points out, there's exceptions to every
    rule....
    
      And, I quite agree with your handgun loads. Hardcast is the ONLY way
    to go with the large caliber magnum handgun rounds. Why would anyone
    need expansion when it's already .429" going in! And, properly hardcast
    bullets will hold together better than a typicl jacketed bullet. This
    again assumes that you're using the right alloy. BTW, I cast a half-&-
    half mixture of linotype/wheel weights for my .44 bullets (Lyman 250
    grain SWC with gas check #429446). This ensures NO leading at .44mag
    velocities, and no bullet shattering which can happen when there's an
    over abundance of linotype in the mixture/bordering on pure linotype...
    BTW, I've cast bullets for the 7.62X39 (out of the realm of this dis-
    cussion, yet kinda interesting for us bullet casters :-) that I can
    push at velocities approaching 2000 fps. All you have to do is use
    pure linotype along with a gas check. No leading at all, but those
    bullets shall never see the broad side of a deer either! :-)
    
      
    Joe

Fra,

No problem here with a follow-up shot to dispatch an animal.  In fact, I even
mentioned one in a previous note.  

"1 dropped where I shot it and required a bullet to the head.  It
would have died in minutes on its own but I didn't want it to suffer anymore."

The only thing I have a problem with intent of the first, second, third, fourth
.... shots of some hunters.  Specifically, a shot that is taken by a person
who is exceeding his/her own personal skills/rifle limits.  Is the kill, 
admiration of friends, bragging rights, record books, not going home skunked
the most important factor? The intent of someone who hunts like this isn't a
clean kill.  Ethics, morality, empathy and compassion are words better used on
brick wall. 



Roy,

Yes.  I agree wholly with your addition of projectile characteristics as a 
factor.

Sounds like you're quite a shot.  I would have to pass on some of those shots
you would make.

*****


You know, if by some chance we should become the hunted, I hope we are matched
with beings of equal mentality, morality, and compassion of that which we 
exhibit while afield.

I've enjoyed this discussion.

Mark
    

    re: .23
    
    Used to be a good running shot.  Don't know if I could pull it off
    right now since I haven't practicedfor about three years.  At this
    point in time, I'll have to settle for standing or walking shots since
    I would not trust that my one-time abilities are still there.  I can
    still see the sight pictures (actually scope pictures) required but
    don't know if I could actually pull it off, therefore I wouldn't try
    until my skill was once again proven and fine-tuned.  Kinda of hard to
    find a place to practice here in New England.  But when I go down to
    visit my parents this summer, you bet I'll be throwing some lead at
    those bouncing tire targets (this time not only with a rifle).
    
    Roy...