Is technology killing the sport.

Cass

Ok the title may be an over exaggeration, but some of the kits/set ups i've seen over the last few weeks, even months, resemble something out of a sci-fi movie. Or this:



One set up in particular had the rifle, scope, attachment on the front of the scope (objective lense), a screen on the ocular lense, two lamps mounted on either side of the scope (i presume one was IR, the other standard), and a contro, system at the palm grip.

Essentially the shooter doesn't even need to eye up his target. Just look at the screen and when the crosshair is on the animal, pull the trigger.


now i'm not a quintessential hunter, but if i'm out lamping and a fox gets away then more power to him, and i'll catch up with him some other night. With these set ups the quarry doesn't even know it's being targeted.

I seen some lads carrying range finders, wind meters, ballistic calculators, etc.

I'm not opposed to advancements, but the joy of hunting for me is the chase, the stalk, and the fact if i don't do everything right the animal escapes. It's why i'm successful (depending on quarry) only every few hunts.


Does anyone think this level of technology is killing of the sport of fieldsports/hunting or is it an inevitable evolution? Also where do you stand on tech. Do you use as much as you can, a little, or none at all.

cookimonster

I bought two centre fire rifles in the last three years (?) both wooden stocked and both orginaly bought for specific hunting reasons but I have become very attached to the nostalgia of them.
They both sport fixed power scopes and only one is fitted for a mod and neither for a bipod as I now prefer to carry sticks with me or get into a steady prone postion.
My shooting partner and I availed of a range finder for a few seasons (still think they are a good aid) but no longer carry one as we have a good idea of the topography of our stalking ground and much prefer to close the distance on a animal.

I love tech stuff but have increasingly gone back to low tech set ups such as fixed power scopes with simple reticles and utilising the inherent balistics of my chosen calibres. I'm not into long range hunting, each to thier own, but I think there is far too much that can go wrong at range regardless of balistics calculators, turrets/ reticles and moblie weather ststions. It's within our nature as humans to push our limits and capabilities but as hunters we are not shooting paper targets nor are we battle field snipers who don't really care about clean kills.
I'm not against the technology as there is great deal of skill and knowledge required to use it but it must also be coupled with the basic skills of marksmenship and hunter ethics. Unfortunately there are those that think the one will make up for the lack of the other.

Grizzly 45

Big ethical dillemma on the Continent on these very points.And include in things like scent blocking and thermal blocking clothes ,silencers,and Nnght vision.
In a way over there I can see justification for using or wanting to use any sort of technological advantage.Game is becoming scarse,and you need every technological advantage to possibly make that one in a year shot on a trophy buck,that you have been watching and spending an inordante amount of money and time for the last 9months .There are just so manny clear moonlight nights in a month that you could go out to hunt wild boar from a stand.They are now becoming peat porportion in some parts of Europe,but to suggest using NV as a solution could be met with indignation,and being unethical or being used for a cull rather than a hunt.

Does this apply here?To a certain degree yes and no.The techonology like the gun is inanimate,its how it's used by an individual and their moral compass and the situation.NV is great to scope out an area you are moving into position before sunrise to see are you wasting your time or not.Not much so ,if you are just shooting to fill upth game dealers warehouse on someone elses let.

solarwinds

I like to keep it old school as much as possible. All guns timber stocked. Scopes on some rifles, open sights on others.
I have no problem with technology or those that use it, but i feel like all these things they can dilute skills. What happens if your batteries die. Or if your fancy scope does not dial in correctly because your wind speed meter lost connection with the app on your phone, technology can and does fail. It has its place but should not be relied upon.
How many people do you know who can use a map and compass ? Everyone uses sat nav now but what happens the day it sends you off a cliff because of your blind faith in it.

Cass

Well not to sound two faced, but i have and have used a range finder and Bins, but i'm talking a guy that walks out needing a Generator behind him before he can take a shot.

solarwinds wrote: »

How many people do you know who can use a map and compass ? Everyone uses sat nav now but what happens the day it sends you off a cliff because of your blind faith in it.

Funny side note. My last jeep had Sat Nav and i got so used to using it that when i sold it and bought the car with no satnav i found myself having to either check Google maps before setting off on a trip i used to do in my sleep or stick rigidly to road signs.

Took a few month but i got back into the old style of driving (just knowing your routes).

Same applies to shooting. The more tech i used the worse my skill became. I found this out from using low tech stuff. Rests with all my shooting, back bags, high powered scopes, wind meters, etc. When i stopped using them i found i couldn't do crap. It took a while, and shooting in a few comps where you had your rifle and nothing else, to remember the basic skills of shooting and i find i'm not inclined to return to the tech way of shooting.

solarwinds

Too much tech can also take the enjoyment and challenge out of shooting. If you have a computer that tells you exactly how to hit the bull every single shot and you do, that gets pretty boring pretty bloody quick. I like to have equipment i will never outshoot but then at least i know it is me that is the problem and push myself every shot to do better.
Let the guys use high tech stuff if they want i would rather put my money into ammo and keep practicing on the fundamentals to hit the bulls.

garv123

Lads (in Ireland) are using handheld thermal spotters these days for deer stalking.
They walk into the field before first light, check whats out with the spotter, pick their deer, and get set up and wait for light to just about come in and pull away.

Yet they're praised for it on social media.

As bad as using a lamp IMO..

Cass

garv123 wrote: »

Lads (in Ireland) are using handheld thermal spotters these days for deer stalking..

Was in a shop recently, and shows how things have changed to me at least, and the guy behind the counter was messing with this small (what i thought) rangefinder. He kept waving his hand in front of it and when i asked why he was doing that he said to make sure it works.

When he handed it to me and i tried it i realised it was a small, handheld, thermal imaginer and they go for small enough money. Unbelievable. From the point of view of how tech has progressed. This device less than 10 years ago would have been in the thousands. Now it costs less than a Hawke Sidewinder scope.

ninja7848

It all makes it too easy. Not really hunting as let’s have a look see what’s out there. Takes a lot of skill out of it. I’m not against all of it either it certainly has its uses. But for me particularly foxing i enjoy old school.

Birdnuts

ninja7848 wrote: »

It all makes it too easy. Not really hunting as let’s have a look see what’s out there. Takes a lot of skill out of it. I’m not against all of it either it certainly has its uses. But for me particularly foxing i enjoy old school.

I think tech is ok if your doing vermin control like foxing. Deer stalking, wildfowling etc. though I'd view as different

hedzball

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think tech is ok if your doing vermin control like foxing. Deer stalking, wildfowling etc. though I'd view as different

Long of the UK fox numbers have been decimated due to the use of IR/NV

I'm more in the mind of leave some for the next fella. I get they're vermin and all but they need to be kept in check not wiped out.



'hdz

feartuath

ninja7848 wrote: »

It all makes it too easy. Not really hunting as let’s have a look see what’s out there. Takes a lot of skill out of it. I’m not against all of it either it certainly has its uses. But for me particularly foxing i enjoy old school.

I also like get up close and personal to the foxes.
I shot many down the years with a .22 from less than 50yds stalking them down wind then on with the lamp and lights out

ninja7848

hedzball wrote: »

Long of the UK fox numbers have been decimated due to the use of IR/NV

I'm more in the mind of leave some for the next fella. I get they're vermin and all but they need to be kept in check not wiped out.



'hdz

My point exactly. Same thing will happen here. I can see the use for it where a Fox is well educated and a killing machine. Sitting out calling one after another is just extermination.

Cass

Without turning the thread into a debate on the ethics of deer stalking its the same with high powered scopes, ballistic calculators and then lads shooting deer at 500, 600, etc. yards. I thought the idea was to stalk, not snipe and tech is making even an average shooter more competent.

clivej

No Hi tect for me.

I use the same flintlock rifle my great gand-dad used for those 300y shots, have a native to carry the game back to my donkey 'n cart, and only wear a loincloth to keep me in contact with nature.

Let's get real here lads. Tect is tect and improving all the time.

It's not only our equipment that's changing. It's also the clothing that you wear. How many now have Camo jackets and trousers, all breathable and waterproof, footwear that now does keep out the water, weather apps on our phones, map apps that tell you distances............. etc.

Go with the flow If You Can Afford it.

cookimonster

Clivej, you have a very valid point. The modern hunter relies on many technological advancements to pursue the sport.

With out going back too far, sticking to more recent times, much of the developments are in leaps and bounds. The development of Paul Mausers classic bolt action laid the blue prints for most bolt actions we use today. The plagiarism of cartridge design and balistics led to the out flow of some of the most important ammunition developed for both military and civilian use that went on to be the genetics of most of our ammo today, inculding those so called revolutionary modern cartridges/bullet combos.

The use of optics coupled with the 'new' ammo (much actually developed in the first quarter of the 20th Century and spawning more development by the mid century) extended our hunting distances giving more reliable and accurate shot placement on animals.

War was again to play another role in the further development of the sports hunters box of tricks but this time not in anymore firearms, high tech optics or balistics aids but in quailty control and manufacturing. The last quarter of the 20th Century, with many conflicts raging or smouldering around the globe, ammunition manufactors were pushed to increase thier R&D in relation to ammo production. Now hunters are able to buy quailty ammo at reasonable prices, over the counter that had balistics qualities previously only found with hand loads.

While all this was trundleing along the gun trade was secumming to modern marketing practices and demands, developing firearms that could be affordable to joe public but still be very accurate as a hunting rifle. Love them or hate them, the fact is the modern mass produced (computor technology, repeatable time after time) rifles are capable of out shooting most of thier owners and are well up to specification and partical application as a hunting firearm.

The worlds of technology works in synergy with each other and the military, telecommunications, space exploration giants, to name a few, coupled with proper marketing delivered to our door steps all sorts of goodies from clothing, communications (and all its wonderful spin offs), optics, magic light weight compounds and materials that replaced tradtional components and commodities.

We should embrace it all, for as humans, our ability to advance ourselves is what makes us as we are. But there is a sinister part to all this and its not a monster lurking in the technology rather a Ghoul lurking over our shoulders egging us on, telling us that the latest thing out there is a must have and the previous item is not only obsolete but won't do the job atall. In reality some technology will become obsolete, steam gave way to internal combustion and when the time is right it too will fade away but most are just tweeks and up grades. The jackets of today are a far cry from the tweeds of the 19th /20th centry but there's not much difference between my Gortex jacket of the 1980's and the new 'xxtec' jacket of today except the colour scheme and the price tag. But while the availability of Gortex to the average hunter was a huge milestone today's advancements could be measured in feet rather than miles as to the overall benefit and practicality. Firearms are the same, MOA guaranteed rifles are relatively new and historicaly even the must revered gun makers didn't even go there, as the vital target area on most big game animals was well out side of a 5 inch diameter and shooting at realistic ranges with or without optics put the hunter safely and ethicaly on target time after time after time. The animals haven't changed, the balistics haven't really changed but the hunting practices have.

If we refer to balistics (first to admit my poor knowledge here) with the differences between ammunition of similar use, lets say 100% deer use (leave out the likes of duel purpose such as the .243) and pick the .30 cal rounds going from the 308 to 30-06 up to magnum 30 cals and if you then consider when they were developed and the technology of thier times. The differences between them in maximum hunting range (taking into consideration flat trajectory and energy on target) is measured comparably short distances. The lesser of the 3 examples is only superseded by the greater by no more than a useable 100 -150 yards or so. So if you consider that realisticly a .308 is good out to 250 yards then its bigger brother gets you out to maybe 400 yrds, a far cry from what seems to be a growing trend around the world. Technology, - optics, ballistics, gun smithing, software etc, are massive aids to shooting, but there are still to many external factors in play when using them to enhance the capabilities of either the hunter or the characteristics of a particular ammonition beyound its orginal use when hunting animals.

This argument will rage on, some bow hunters look with disdain on rifle hunters and vice a versa, each coming from different ends of the technology race declaring each other either unethical or unsporting depending on the mind set. I love to go a foot on the mountains in my Gortex boots and my breathable clothing carrying old technology (an advanced calibre, at the time, one the game changers) chambered in .270 Win, construted of wood and steal sporting a 40 year old fixed powered scope and know if I do my thing I'll knock a beasty over at 250ish yards (or if I'm lucky 50 yards and have less of a tramp) safe in the knowledge that if anthing should happen to me I have a way to communicate with emergency services or my other half has up to date info as to my postion.

Technology both past and present is great and fair play to the gunuine guys who can use it wisely, but me thinks there's a lot of go faster stripes out there that do little to improve the all ready proven tech or give a false sense of empowerment to those who nether have the ability or knowledge to use it probably.

useurowname

Cass wrote: »

Without turning the thread into a debate on the ethics of deer stalking its the same with high powered scopes, ballistic calculators and then lads shooting deer at 500, 600, etc. yards. I thought the idea was to stalk, not snipe and tech is making even an average shooter more competent.

Great point !

Vegeta

I prescribe to the "to each their own" philosophy. If you love the thrill of stalking into 100-200 yards more power to you. If you want to put in the necessary practice and take an animal at middling distances then by all means, go right ahead. I would never say one group is better or more competent than the other. I'd urge people to pursue what excites them personally and try to avoid judging people who choose a different approach (no one has done this in the thread by the way, just making the point). I suppose the only thing I'd say, is be careful of the mindset that because the distance is less that a shot is more certain, go to a HCAP shoot sometime to see how that holds up.

Personally when it comes to tech and its suitability, I think it all comes down to the individual, their experience and the type of ground being hunted. If I was woodland stalking would I need a lot, or use a lot of tech, probably not. If I was hunting open hill, for big red stags with heavy for calibre bullets (lots of drop), would I like some laser range finding binoculars with applied ballistics elite built in when the medal stag of my dreams appears at 300-400 yards? You bet your arse I would

Anything that gets people excited about their sport is ok in my book, be that a beautiful walnut stock on a traditional stalking rifle, crawling through a dew laden field to close the distance to their favourite quarry or trying out the latest tech gizmo. I'm ok with both approaches (tech versus traditional) and on certain days one or the other will appeal to me.

I have what would be considered quite a modern semi-auto shotgun but have been toying with the idea of trading it for an over and under just because I love the look of the Beretta 682 Gold E.

Cass

I'm not trying to start a class war here. I'm curious because recently i met a chap, not too young, and the thoughts of shooting without his BC, Range finding scope, handheld RF, bins, etc, etc. left him speechless. He just could not fathom it.

I take Clivej's point that we all use modern tech whether we actually realise it or not.

Vegeta wrote: »

I suppose the only thing I'd say, is be careful of the mindset that because the distance is less that a shot is more certain, go to a HCAP shoot sometime to see how that holds up.

I don't want to turn this into a debate on ethics, as it's prohibited, but if you miss by an inch at 100 yards that miss could be exponential at longer distances.

As you said each to their own, but the sport is Deer stalking, not Deer sniping. Won't be a popular opinion, and will draw criticism, but there ya go.

........just because I love the look of the Beretta 682 Gold E.

Had one for years. Absolutely fantastic gun which i'd take over the 686, 692, etc.

Funny thing has happened with them. They have gone up, and by quite a bit, in price in the last 4 to 5 years. They stopped making them about 8 or 9 years ago just before they introduced the 692. Second prices then were on average €1,500. I've seen two for sale recently with prices in the €1,800 mark.

BryanL

Using technological advantages for accuracy, reliability or comforts isn't the same as for gaining an advantage over the animal.For me at least.

Thermal spotter for me is close to lamping, I've often hunting rabbits that way. But deer stalking is a different sport.

Cass

Interesting article from Field & Stream about the same topic from yesterday.

Shooting game at longer distances simply because tech has advanced hence our ability to shoot game at longer ranges has also advanced. However no hesitation or thought as to if we should.

tikkamark

Vegeta wrote: »

I have what would be considered quite a modern semi-auto shotgun but have been toying with the idea of trading it for an over and under just because I love the look of the Beretta 682 Gold E.

I have my gold E about 7 years now it’s fired upwards of 20000 shells without 1 single malfunction and it’s helped me win 2 all Ireland medals and a lot of Leinster medals among countless local level flapper shoots......I also use it for pheasants crows ducks-everything really!
All in all an awesome gun I’d never trade it for a more modern 690 or 692

meathstevie

I suppose it’s a bit of both.

Most of us no doubt use self cocking cartridge shotguns and modern metallic cartridge rifles equipped with reliable optical sights.

So we’ve all to an extent availed of the blessings of relatively modern firearms technology pretty much in the same manner that we’re using cars with electric starters and synchronised gear boxes or automatic transmissions.

The older stuff is basically too cumbersome and inefficient for most of us.

Neither of the two other extremes hold much of an appeal to me.

I don’t see the attraction in hunting with a flintlock musket neither do I fancy going out hunting dragging a small Japanese or Korean electronic gadget shop behind me.

Keeping it relatively simple without being a pure Luddite works fine for me.

garv123

Im all for improvements in tech, and using them for vermin control, but whats the difference in Spotting deer with a thermal and shooting them when light starts to break and lamping them to spot them and fire when light starts to break?
Both as bad as each other.

Eddie B

Dont know if tecnology is killing the sport, but its certainly killing the art of a learned skill. Bit like that TV program, "Hands". I don't think such a program would be possible nowadays.

Grizzly 45

garv123 wrote: »

Im all for improvements in tech, and using them for vermin control, but whats the difference in Spotting deer with a thermal and shooting them when light starts to break and lamping them to spot them and fire when light starts to break?
Both as bad as each other.

Personal ETHICSand MORALITY as a hunter?