“A shot cannot be ethical or unethical; neither can it be kind or brutish, clever or stupid, many experienced hunters argue. And most agree, a shot isn’t too long until it becomes unpredictable. Whether long pokes are sporting is another question. Predictable first-shot kills are humane. And it’s hard to fault someone for being humane — whatever the range.” – Wayne van Zwoll, TrackingPoint Optic Ignites Debate Over ‘Fair’ Chase [via grandviewoutdoors.com]

70 Responses to Quote of the Day: The Morality of TrackingPoint Edition

  1. It sort of self regulates, doesnt it? Once you tell your buddies your crazy long shot was made with a crutch it sort of takes all the wind out of the sails. Like using straps and braces in weightlifting. Your numbers might be nice but less poundage pushed raw will always be more impressive than more pounds pressed in a compression suit.

    When I see tools cruising around on their Can-Am Spyders all I can think of is handicapped bike. Tracking-point to me will always be handicapped rifle.

    • Your comment made me miss my deadlifting straps. I was pulling 375 for reps with them, but more like 315 without. Grips’ just not strong enough.

    • One of Can-Am’s primary customers are those physically unable to ride a normal bike, due to injury or other handicap, so…

        • A lot of reckless, no-skills jackasses and poseurs who shouldn’t be on the streets on a bike in the first place and who end up badly broken people, are perhaps some of the same people who later turn to a Can-Am to keep their born-to-be-wild fantasies afloat. So at least in some cases, it comes down to the age old question of which came first: the Tool or the Spyder? Maybe we should quit blaming the inanimate object…..ya think?

      • Call me special if you want, I still think I’ll own one some day.
        The only thing that would’ve made it better is if it were more configured like a Big Wheel, and less like….a jazzy?

      • My issue with the Can Ams is that they are the worst aspects of cars and bikes combined. You’re out in the weather, need to schlep all the gear, can’t carry much, you’re hard for other drivers to see, but you are also as almost as wide as a car, so you can’t lane split. I’m sure they are fun on an empty backroad (if they handle that is) but look terrible to ride on the freeway.

        • There’s a special place in Hell for speedster lane splitters and, as it turns out, often their own personal, improvised express lane to it. So I guess it all works out in the end.

        • Lane splitting is legal in California (and a necessity here on SoCal freeways). But the asshats who do it irresponsibly are annoying as hell to other riders as well.

    • As far as your Can-Am comment? Some of us ARE crippled and we cannot lift our leg over our bikes due to our arthritis. That’s also one of the reasons why the “Maxi-Scooter” has caught on. So if we are disabled why are you complaining? Hell Son- I just got back from the Veterans Hospital to get my eyes checked and I now have to wear 2 pair of glasses/2 sets of bifocals. Now do you want me to run around town and be a danger to other riders and drivers, or do you want your taxes to go up because someone has to pay for me to make it to doctors appointments? You can’t have it both ways Kid- one or the other.

      Now, as far as this rifle? 90% of all hunters won’t buy it. 1)It’s too zarking expensive- 12,000 for the least expensive one? Naw, not happening. 2)In this day and age where are you going to find a 1,000 yard hunting range- seriously? Maybe in a corn field that’s laid fallow between plantin’s ya might. Otherwise it’s not happening. Your typical hunter brags about a 400 yard shot- then you bring it up on Google Earth and it tracks out at 190. So relax, smile, nod, and realize they’re lying like rugs in whorehouses.

  2. As a hunter, I’m ok with the tracking point because I’m not a sport hunter…

    I’m a sustenance hunter, I don’t care about racks and horns, I want meat on my table. If it legally fills my tag, it’s going down. I don’t care if the animal is given fair chase anymore than I do the farm raised chicken or cow in my freezer.

    However, I would never actually buy one, I don’t hunt at distances far enough away to justify the cost.

    • I think you made a pretty interesting point: this whole “morality” of the shot stuff this video aimed at missed the mark for the type of people who will be influenced by it, mostly because these sorts of people will never need to take a 1000 yard shot. There are very few places where there is a need to take 500 yard+ shots to take down an animal for food. Hence, I dont think Tracking Point will see many sales beyond any military contracts they might receive.

      • 150 yards would be the furthest hunting distance I can ethically see myself taking a shot, too much woods and hills in my area.

        I don’t want to wound the animal, one, and two, I’m too lazy to drag it that far. Talk about a work out, man, drag a dead animal a few hundred yards, you’ll be smoked by the time your done.

    • I am sorry but this tracking point is B.S. It takes NO skill to push a button when the computer tells you to. I see in the future a bunch of out of shape guys (and gals) who without even break a sweat take down an animal that never even had a chance. To me and most of my hunting friends the tracking point reminds me of someone using drones to find game. There is nothing ethical about it and in my opinion unless you were in a wheel chair really crippled up, this whole system is for people who have ZERO respect for animals. God gave us dominion over the world not a tyranny.

  3. On the morality of hunting….Huh, doesn’t death result in factory farms too? REally, does it matter? I’m a 27 year vegetarian and I’d prefer people hunt than buy food from the super market. At least if you hunt and kill it yourself it had a chance to live free. It “knows” who killed it. You “know” what your eating.
    Super market meat? Good luck.

    • Greg, I like your philosophy. Most vegetarians I know just scream at me while jumping up and down with their eyes bulging and the veins standing out in their foreheads for being a meat eater. I prefer to hunt for my meat, and I used to back when I could trek in the woods and not need crutches or a helicopter to get back out. I have never hunted in an area where a shot was possible over 200 yards (northeast- mid Atlantic states) so I would not have a need for this newfangled technology

      • “I have never hunted in an area where a shot was possible over 200 yards (northeast- mid Atlantic states) so I would not have a need for this newfangled technology”

        If you lived in an area that allowed or required more distance for successful sustenance hunting you likely would have practiced shooting more at those ranges which would also negate the need for this technology. Sticks, braces, rests or bipods along with hard earned skill and caliber/ammo selection could fill your food requirements at longer ranges without the massive expense.

      • I love freedom Joe. I don’t have a suicide pact with my philosophy. I genuinely am a vegetarian for my own personal interaction with my God. It’s what he wants from me. If I inspire others, GREAT! If not I have to live with your choice. I firmly believe many vegetarians are doing it to be contrary to the world and instigate conflict. Most are very shocked to find out I have more guns than most small police departments.

  4. I guess it depends on your goal when hunting. Are you hunting or just killing? A good comparison is the difference between rifle and bow hunting. I don’t think that many would argue that bow hunting is more difficult. Same goes for the difference between open sights rifle hunting and scope hunting. This is just the next step for those with more money than ability/time.

    For the record, I don’t bow hunt. I prefer to stuff my freezer full of legally obtained deer every year and don’t have a lot of free time to do it. I have a ton of respect for those that do bow hunt.

  5. ill stick to irons and a scope that doesnt need batteries and ill keep stalking when i hunt instead of humping a scope that needs 5lbs worth of batteries and taking it easy at near a mile away

  6. I see it as a progression, and a natural one at that.

    I’m sure people with muskets used to decry those guys with their fancy rifled barrels. Then repeaters came along, and those guys were just cheating with their ability to do a follow up shot. Single-shot should be enough if you’re a real hunter!

    Then semi-autos, then semi-autos with box magazines. Shoot, I forgot about the evolution of optics as well. Ever seen a 19th Century telescopic sight that actually looks kinda like a telescope?

    Technology should be progressing us to the next level. In time, this technology will become cheaper, smaller, and more obtainable. What will be interesting to see is what’s next.

    • Technology progresses but the relative values remain the same. A bow is more difficult than a muzzle loader which is more difficult than a repeater and on and on.

      You can say it’s not ‘cheating’ to use better tools but are you using the tools better? One clean shot beats a 30 round dump any day.

      Context matters too of course. Let the military tool up with these scopes. They can ‘cheat’ all they want.

      Context matters and everything scales. Two shots from the same distance resulting in the same effect one from a smart gun and one from a dumb gun. The dumb gun shot will always have more perceived value.

      • Perceived value is not the same thing as results.

        I get what you are saying, but if this were a competition, it would be cheating. Fair enough? If it’s just you against the deer (or whatever) then it doesn’t matter. Yeah, you lose some bragging rights but if that’s not why you’re hunting then so what?

        For me, I can’t afford one of those scopes and I don’t really hunt so it’s a moot point. If someone wants to spend $20k to bag a deer, that’s their business. Early adopters are always needed for the technology to become cheap enough for the masses. In the meantime, others can certainly choose to hunt how they see fit. As a non-hunter I can’t say that I really care how you got that buck mounted on the wall.

      • Using tools is NOT cheating.
        That’s what made us the dominant species on the planet, the ability (and willingness) to use tools. I read about a dolphin using an Ipad to communicate with guests at an aquarium, but I don’t read about dolphins being willing to sink cargo ships to get them. Don’t decry tools becoming more advanced. I think its great. I think the thing no one has mentioned here is that if you have this crazy scope that has calculated exactly where that round will end up, maybe there will be less hunters accidentally shot. Don’t decry the evolution of tools. Decry people who feel they don’t need to understand what the tool is doing for them. Everyone else says this is like bows v rifle or irons v scopes.
        No. This is like calculators in math class. After all, that’s all this thing is, a very fast calculator connected to a camera and a laser mounted on a rifle. Just like calculators, even though many a math teacher has argued with me on this, there is noting wrong with using a calculator to make calculations faster and more error free. Thats all these shooters are doing in the video. Using a tool that makes faster calculations with less error then they can while sitting on a rock.
        The only problem that arrises is people who think they don’t NEED to know HOW to add and subtract because they have a calculator. There’s nothing wrong with a better calculator only with people who think that because of calculators there is no more need for mathematicians. The same is so here, there’s nothing wrong with a super advanced scope only with people who think that because of it there is no need for marksmen anymore.
        Using tools isn’t cheating. It’s human. How did the old commercial go? “Be human. Use tools.”

  7. Speaking generally, shots certainly can be stupid and unethical. I had a neighbor who casually, and somewhat jokingly, recalled shooting his first (and only elk) in the gut. It took a couple more neanderthalic shots to bring the poor cow down.

    No person who doesn’t have enough appreciation for the wildlife to take a good shot to begin with doesn’t deserve to be coddled by modern technology.

  8. I’m a HUGE gun rights advocate and believe everyone should have a right to shoot and eat their own game. But (yeah, here’s the but) why do we continue to hunt for sport? Just to mount the head of an animal? We as a race are doing enough to encroach on and displace the natural habitat of animals…resulting in their continued diminishing numbers. So why sport hunt? I understand having to control the population of animals like deer or moose, plus they taste great, but why hunt animals that are not encroaching on roads or subdivisions like lions, elephants or rino’s? As far as the video…I love what the scope can do and appreciate the ability for it to reach out and touch someone…so, how about we see a video with progressive liberals in the crosshairs? Now that would be impressive!

    • So you prefer to eat factory-raised beef then, OK. Go on a visit of a cattle yard or slaughter house. Seriously, go ahead.

      The venison and elk in my freezer is far more humanely killed, 100% organic and free range (got to get those buzzwords in there), compared to the beef you buy at the store.

      Not to mention, the enjoyment and satisfaction of having taken it on your own.

      Lions, etc. I can agree with you on. I wouldn’t hunt them myself.

      • This. ^

        Unless you don’t eat food, period. Killing animals is necessary.

        If you eat meat then it’s obvious why.
        If you do not, then it’s less obvious, but no less true.

        Wild animals (deer, pigs, bird, etc) eat vegetation and plants, if we don’t manage the animal population, then they will over populate, they will run out of natural resources and eat our crops. Which will drive up food prices and decrease the availability of food.

        Is not feasible for a farmer to have 24 hour watch over a 200 acre farm, waiting for only the times when animals show up to kill them. So, managed hunting, whether for sport or not, is how we do it.

        Killing animals is part of having a thriving civilization, like it or not.

    • Because, being an apex predator, it is in our DNA. You can choose to be uncomfortable with that fact. I am not. I embrace it. Try hunting once. Go perch yourself up a tree one afternoon and marvel at the awakening of all of the senses that we keep bottled up in our urban environment. In addition to being fun, hunting and proper conservation has done wonders for the wild game. By all accounts, deer population in this country had plummeted to about 500,000 by 1900. Today, it stands at 32 million. In 1900, there were less than 50 white rhinos left in the world. Today, there are more than 20,000. Sport hunters and conservationists do wonders for the wild game populations. Ever see anyone run out of beef or chicken? Didn’t think so.

    • I haven’t hunted in years, always ate what I killed and never hunted just for trophies. Well, three cheers for me. Just because trophy hunting is not to someone’s personal “taste” doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with it.

      If you don’t like trophy hunting, don’t do it. You’ll feel so morally superior to trophy hunters that you’ll get bursitis from patting yourself on the back.

  9. Morality isn’t the issue to me. The joy in shooting for me has always been the satisfaction of having made the shot. If a machine was effectively doing it for me it would take all the joy out of it. I’m sure there are practical reasons for some people to use it, but I wouldn’t own one even if it was cheap.

  10. Bow hunting? PSSSSSH! Spear hunting is harder still!! Reminds me of Obama saying that ATMs over banktellers reduces jobs. As Art Laffer said in response to government using shovels instead of bulldozers, “Why not use spoons?”

    It’s a tool plain and simple. Use it or don’t. But your opinion of it is irrelevant.

    • Its not a tool in the same way an ATM or a shovel is a tool. Using an ATM doesn’t kill the bank teller unless you really do some mental acrobatics saying because they lost their job the starved to death or killed themselves… give me a break. You are using the tool to kill an animal, and it required no skill or planning, you pushed some buttons and held still for a second and an animal died… maybe, tracking point cant force the bullet to expand just guarantees that you hit the animal more or less where the crosshairs were. Or maybe because you dont have to pay attention to how far you are shooting you completely overlooked that ravine between you and the animal preventing you from recovering the animal so now it gets to lie their dying waiting for the coyotes and vultures, yeah that’s really ethical.

      This isn’t hunting, its just a day at the range where the target dies when you shoot it.

      • “and it required no skill or planning, you pushed some buttons and held still for a second and an animal died”

        Wait a minute. At what point did it take no skill or planning? Some had to invent that thing, program that thing, package and sell it. Then you have to buy it. Install it. Set it up. There has to be some kind of programming process where you tell it what rifle it’s mounted on and what rounds its shooting. Then you have to plan to carry it and spare batteries and stuff in the field. Then you have to tell it the wind while in the field. And once again, with you and this caliber thing, the scope doesn’t tell you TOO shoot out to 1200 yards. Im sure based on ballistic data it lets you shoot out as far as you can with the round YOU tailored it to. Finally situational awareness of terrane is and always was the hunter’s job. Tracking point never said the scope goes and gets it for you.

      • So, feeding coyotes and vultures isn’t ethical? How long does is take you to walk 1000 yards anyway, Tex? Most hunters don’t carry their game out of the bush on their backs anyway. Many use pick-ups or ATVs, but I don’t see you decrying their use!

        Do you even spear hunt, BRO?!? As I said, your opinion is irrelevant.

        • “As I said, your opinion is irrelevant.” Nice one Joe… or should I say Shannon W.? With an attitude like that it hard to tell

  11. What an idiotic statement… lets ignore for a second the point at which hunting just becomes another trip to the range, and delve into the more serious issue of the fact that assuming you are hunting for the right reasons (ie. population control/range management, for food, or for the challenge presented by hunting stalking game that may be smarter or more dangerous than you are), you are taking the life of another living being. As a devout Christian and an avid hunter I do believe that God gave us the earth to be stewards of the resources available to us, but even if you don’t get all spiritual when you hunt, you have to still acknowledge you are taking another life. That act serves a greater purpose such as, it puts food on your table (or someone else’s if you participate in a program such as Hunters for the Hungry), or it alleviates overpopulation. That means as hunters we owe it to our quarry to provide a dignified and humane death.

    Strapping a supercomputer to a scope allowing anyone with the budget to reach out and hit a target at 500+ yds creates several problems to me. For one, a 308 or for that matter a 300Blackout (see Travis Haley BLK video) can hit 1000 yds with relative ease assuming you do your math and hold still etc. Would it be ethical to shoot a deer at that range with either of those calibers? Not NO but HELL NO, the 308 will barely have as much energy as a 9mm or 40S&W at that range and most people advocate against using either of those for any shot other than an up close and personal finishing shot on wounded game. Last time I checked the Hornady HITS calculator on their website drops below “Medium Game at around 500-600yds for a 308, and I would say that is pushing it, can you ensure that your bullet will expand enough to cause rapid blood loss, trauma and as painless a death as possible? No, not really.

    You can stretch that out a few hundred yards with bigger calibers, but then you get back to my original gripe with long range hunting with a Tracking Point rifle, turning hunting into just another day at the range is wrong on so many levels. Again getting a little religious, we owe the animal (one of God’s creatures created by him for us to steward) respect and dignity because it is giving its life for what we hope is a greater purpose. When you turn that animal into a dynamic silhouette on the range, you are stripping it of the respect owed to a living creature, “hunting” thus becomes “shooting” and the animal becomes just a target. They say there is a direct correlation between the dehumanization of the enemy in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to how far disconnected the soldiers were from the people they were killing, and the increase in PTSD, depression, and other negative social side effects observed in today’s soldiers. That is happening because modern warfare has stripped the enemy of the dignity owed to a human being no matter how evil they may be. So… call me old fashioned, but that is so wrong I cant even begin to describe it in some short response on a blog.

    So, Mr Van Zwoll could not be any further from the truth. That is truly disappointing.

    • To the rifle and the scope, the animal (or enemy combatant, or whatever it was pointed at) was always just a dynamic silhouette.
      The realm of the spiritual is in the mind not the tool. A scope cannot do something sacrilegious, it’s a scope. Are you saying that hunting is only “right” if the shooter sucks at it? So that the animal has a “fair” “chance” to get away? I don’t see anyway the SCOPE prevents a hunter from giving its quarry “a dignified and humane death”. If anything the scope helps ensure it. As long as they are using a rifle and a round for the ranges they are trying to shoot at…
      Which is why I don’t understand your rant about calibers. This is a scope. It goes on whatever rifle. Tracking point never said it makes ANY round shoot out to 1200 yards. The scope CAN shoot out to 1200 yards… Obviously if you mounted it on a 9mm AR that doesn’t make the round go that far. They are not using a .308 in the video. I have no Idea where you got that connection.
      My point is, no mortal man knows the will of God. And As God’s most beloved creation, how can one know that anything made by man not is not truly The Will of God personified? What you think about in your mind, when you squeeze the trigger is up to you. But what the rifle and the scope do is mechanical and indifferent and non-demoninational. You can’t boot up your computer, log into the internet, and go on a real time news blog about guns and rant about how technology killed God, or Religion or something. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

      • You missed my point then. Tracking Point is not “just a scope”. By taking all the uncertainty (their words not mine) out of the equation of long range shooting, it facilitates shots out to a distance beyond what is ethical to shoot a game animal regardless of if you hit where you are aiming. It turns hunting into shooting, and it was this de-humanization is part of what I was referring to when I said it is unethical. I can shoot my 308 out to 900 yds without a crutch like tracking point to make sure it gets where it is going. Is it ethical just because tracking point ensures the shot will hit more reliably? No because I am still way beyond the range where I know the bullet will expand and cause a rapidly mortal wound to the animal. Thats why I included the even more absurd example of a 300BLK at 1000 yards. People have proven it can be done, and if we are to believe this Tracking Point shill quoted above “anyone could do it too”. You quoted 9mm, Jerry Miculek can hit a gong at something like 200yds with a handgun in 9mm, assuming Tracking point can remove the uncertainty of that shot, so could you or I… are you going to argue a 9mm has enough retained energy to kill something reliably at that range? I hope not, so your caliber argument falls apart. The fact that the Tracking Point ensures that you hit the target at 1000yds still doesnt make that an ethical shot unless there is enough energy left that you know beyond a shaddow of a doubt that a hit to vitals at that range will result in a quick humane death. So the Tracking Point rep says its ethical because it takes the uncertainty out of hitting at whatever range and I countered with two points stating that he is wrong. Since you missed I will state it in simpler terms.

        First: it allows the shooter to reliably exceed the ethical range of a given caliber. Just because you can hit the target at a given range doesn’t mean it will be a clean kill, again that’s why I used the 308 example, it can reliably hit 1000yds especially with a crutch like TP, but the range at which it will reliably provide a humane kill on medium game is about half that distance.

        Second: it disconnects the shooter from the act of taking another living beings’ life, someone said it perfectly above, this isnt hunting, its a video game that ends with a dead animal. That is wrong and you will not convince me or any other serious hunter that it is right just because “you can”

        I agree with you that scopes make hunting more ethical, but the difference between long range hunting with a regular scoped rifle vs one equipped with tracking point is that it is hard… the shooter knows this, he knows that the cost of a mistake may mean wounding the animal or hitting it inappropriately to where it eventually dies but suffers needlessly. So he ensures that his dope and calculations are 100% right or he DOESN’T take the shot. The weight is on him to make sure he gets it right so he still has to respect the animal that he is hunting, not on some fancy computer and laser sighting system, and he will practice accordingly.

        I guess you can argue that these rifles are cool. sort of like Barry Bonds home run record is cool, but when it turns something as complicated as long range shooting into a point, click, bang repeat you completely disconnect the shooter from the act of taking another living beings’ life when used in a hunting scenario. That is not a good place to be, and teaches nothing about responsible hunting/harvesting.

  12. Bizzare analogy Shire-man. I’ve lifted some stupid heavy weights. Since 1967. I’ve been a champion weightlifter, bodybuilder, & powerlifter. I’ve worked out with world champions. One has benched 865 shirted up(& drug free). He did over 600 raw. If YOU had 865 sitting on your arms I doubt you would make that analogy. Anyway Tommy Harrison would think you’re nuts.

  13. . . . but then you get back to my original gripe with long range hunting with a Tracking Point rifle, turning hunting into just another day at the range is wrong on so many levels . . .

    There’s a difference between harvesting and hunting. My family’s traditions grew out of subsistence hunting but, collectively, there was always an expectation than the best hunting is done over iron sights and tends to degrade with the addition of higher tech. My nephews, who’ve carried on the tradition, now hunt with black powder Hawkens. Just sayin’.

  14. So, a group of men tramp around Africa killing helpless animals with a computer controlled gun. I am not impressed. If they want to really hunt they should sign up and do three or four tours with the marines in afghanistan. Of course the problem with that would be they would also be the hunted. Or maybe they should go hunting cape buffalo with a handgun. That would level the playing field.

    • Funny, I’d just been thinking that, that drones are the next step. Perhaps a drone sling-loading a captive-bolt gun. Very industrial.

  15. I shoot at the range that Tracking Point uses to test and calibrate their scopes. I know quite a few former employees well, and am acquainted with a few current employees.

    First, TP does not compensate for wind, which is the most important factor in long range shooting.

    Second, each one is calibrated for a specific round from a specific firearm. You can’t shoot reloads or modify your gun without an extensive recalibration process. (At this point, I believe it has to go back to the factory for that.) “Shooter”, a $10 app for a tablet or smartphone will do all the calculations that a TP scope will do, including wind and multiple loads.

    Third and most importantly, it’s just not that accurate. Their zeroing targets regularly show 4″ groups at 100 yards. If you watch the video, that zebra was already gut-shot. They’re acting like hitting something under 1k with a 338LM is a big deal. Save your money, and take a class on long range shooting.

    Finally, and I haven’t tracked down the evidence on this yet, so it’s hearsay. The owner and his wife are big donors to the Democratic party.

  16. I get the argument that this is just another stage in the engineering evolution of firearms. It’s no more an unfair advantage than a scope or free floating barrel or high quality, aerodynamically optimized ammunition. So the issue supposedly comes down just to where someone draws the line on technology vs. skill. One person’s arbitrary line or personal preference is just as good as anyone else’s, right? So who’s to say? I get it. I just don’t fully agree with it.

    The real issue comes down to what the hell you’re trying to accomplish. Hunting involves two major elements: the skill in taking down the game and the game itself as food for your family. Well.

    If you’re genuinely interested in and take pride in hunting skill, then a push button, fire-and-forget rifle is flat out ridiculous. You’ve scientifically outsourced all of the requisite skill and you can no longer claim any serious personal contribution to the shot’s success. You’re a fraud.

    On the other hand, there’s the food element. In that case, it’s much more economical simply to go down to the grocer or butcher and pick up as much commercially harvested meat as you want. It’s ridiculous to try to source that meat routinely yourself, from a purely consumption necessity standpoint, and in fact extremely few people do.

    Failing on these two major points, I’d say these rifles, used for game hunting purposes, go too far and propagate a fiction that you’re actually doing something real. It’s cosplay for carnivores. I’m not saying ban them. I’m saying roll your eyes at them.

  17. Wow – I can understand hunting for food, or defense (coyotes raiding the chicken coop), but this is downright disgusting. Not only are they killing things just to kill them, but simply killing by pushing a button that requires no skill. Why not just call in an airstrike or napalm the forest and then go scoop up what you want. Would be about the same thing.

  18. I am sure the same arguments were made when the first scopes came to the market. “Hunting with those scopes is not hunting. All you should use are iron sights”.

    Then again when the first variable power scopes were made.
    ” Why do you need magnification on your scope? Using anything more than 1x is not real hunting”

    Then again when the range finders were made.
    “Why do you need an electronic range finder? You should be able to estimate the distance without a gizmo. Using that is not real hunting”

    Etc, etc, etc.

    • Probably. Just like arguments were made against GPS when the Naval Academy in 1998 stopped teaching how to use a sextant. Same when they stopped teaching them how to sail back in the 19th century.

      No doubt the argument has always been made with each advance, as it does make the activity easier. The question isn’t just whether it makes it easier, but how much easier and how much skill is still required after the advance. This thing, and even scopes for that matter, make it way too easy. When the purpose of the activity is to master the underlying skill, then these things defeat that purpose by providing a cheat.

  19. “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
    Jeff Cooper

    I couldn’t have said it any better and neither could all you who are whining like limp wristed politicians.

  20. As he says so poignantly at 2:42 in the video, “that’s shooting my friend.” It’s shooting, not hunting.

    • I wonder if they congratulated the rifle afterwards….since they had absolutely no part in it.

      How do you congratulate a rifle? Is this how:
      “Awesome job, Rifle! Rifle, I couldn’t have made a better shot myself – you the man, Rifle!”

  21. So anyone who can’t bring down a wild boar with nothing more than his own hands and teeth is a pvssy?

    TrackingPoint isn’t for me because I just want as little help as possible to make the shot. There may come a day when I need a computer to shoot accurately, and if that day comes, maybe I’ll use one. Until then, give me irons or, at most, a scope. Because for me shooting is supposed to be hard. YMMV.

  22. I am a 25 year experienced sport shooter but only have 5 years under my belt for true long range(800+ meters) experience. I use globe sight on my .223 and 6.5 and US Optics on my rem 700 .308s and 7mm mags. While I suppose one can never truly master long range shooting I have reached my full potential in those 5 years with 1/4″ groupings at 100+ to 6″ groupings out to 1500 and body shot targets to 1 mile+. Under no circumstance would a trackingpoint system make me a better long range shooter or a true long range shooter at all, in fact I think it would take away my skills and cause me to become reliant on the system itself rather than to come up with a shooting solution using my brain, eyes and ability. I see zero use for the Trackingpoint system in civilian hands other than for a collection or bling. I know not a single person who owns one, and this includes many family and friends who either own, work or are connected in some way with military, gunsmithing or competition. I know of no competition league that would ever accept such a system not that the word competition could ever be used in the same sentence as Trackingpoint. Most public hunting lands will never allow this tech and we all know the gungrabbers will “target” pun intended this system eventually whether we stop them in their tracks with current legislation or not. A system that allows “remote” long range shooting will be in the crosshairs of the anti-gun powers, just as suppressors and full auto are. But stupid gun laws aside, this discussion is more about the morality of the system. I could give a crap about morality, I care about my ability to use irons or glass, mathematics and science, and being able to hit my intended target on the first, second and third shot. With this system that takes everything away from me, the process in the creation of a shooting solution is as important or more important to me than the shot itself. I just don’t understand how this tech could be embraced by hunters or competitive shooters being it takes away the majority of the game. It’s almost like nfl football with no quarterback or rusher, just endless extra point kicks. Trackingpoint systems IMO are not even that useful in combat situations as combat changes constantly in most cases and there is only a handful of situations in combat where this system could be useful. To me trackingpoint and any system like it is a invitation to more gun control and a exit from learning true marksmanship. It is not the future.

  23. What I am against is the taking of long-shots not realizing the ballistic performance of the projectile at impact. At extended distances a .308 can have the same ballistic energy as a .38 Special and that is not a reliably humane level of performance. Most hunting projectiles are designed to work within a range of velocities. Use a ballistics calculator to work out what is the maximum distance you can reliably make a humane kill.

    In my opinion, long range shots should be apologized for and not boasted about.

  24. Use the system if you want, as long as you realize that you didn’t make the shot, it is all the rifle.

    People who use this, have absolutely no bragging rights or claim to skill.

  25. This is a video game with a bullet, not sport hunting, certainly not fair chase.

    I’m not judging- if some rich guy wants to collect a trophy using this, thats fine by me.
    I don’t expect he’ll get much respect from 99% of other hunters.

    And in most parts of the country- lets face it, bag limits means what you can take legally is not going to be enough to make the difference feeding your family.

  26. I’m no hunter, but some of those shots look bad to me. Gut shots, one looks like it was hit in the ‘lower’ spine, etc. Can anyone clarify/educate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *