I just wanted to add that shooting at 500 yds isn't really easy with a typical hunting rifle, especially out in the field where position and conditions are often less than perfect. One would think that hitting a target at 200 yards is twice as hard as hitting that target at 100. Not so. Say it's a 10" by 10" target. That's 100 square inches to hit. That 10 x 10 target looks like a 5" x 5" target at 200 yards. That's 25 square inches. So that could be considered four times harder to hit than the same target at 100 yds. At 400 yards, that 100 square inches is now looking like 6 and a quarter square inches. Hopefully this puts it in perspective if you're not familiar with shooting further out. On top of that, the bullet drops more and more, rapidly. And the wind has more and more effect with that distance too.
I've seen a lot of internet talk from people who are lucky to shoot a 3" group at 100 who then think they'll be just fine shooting at deer or elk up to 400 yards away. The difficulty increase with range is far from linear. It's very important to be precise at 100 if you're planning to shoot further than that. You need a scope that tracks well and is actually zeroed. You need to know how much your bullet drops and how much it's affected by the wind. There's some good free calculators online that will get you close. With my scope centerline being 1.5" above my bore centerline, to be zeroed at 200 yds, I need to be 1.9" high at 100. Two and a quarter inches high at 100 isn't good enough if I plan to shoot out beyond 350 yards or so. One of my friends from back in high school wanted me to check out his Remington 770 which didn't seem to shoot well. He lazer bore sighted it and figured that would be good enough to hunt with. He kept completely missing deer (thankfully, instead of wounding). It wouldn't hit a milk jug further than 40 yards away. Crazy that some people actually shoot at animals with something so poorly set up.