Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters recoil and spotting your shots..

Just returned from a very successful prarie dog hunt with Triple three outfitters in Buffalo Wyoming. Next trip i want to spot my shots Sooo I have a Remington 700 in 223. a sporter wt gun... I want to have a heavier barrel put on it.. My question is how heavy of a gun do i need to tame recoil.. in this caliber (223) to be able to spot my shots...I use 50 gr bullets.. at about 3300-3400fps..

A remington varmint contour barrel with a stock that recoils straight back would likely let you spot your own shots if the scope power isn't too high. The higher power your scope the more likely it is to blank out at the shot.

I have muzzle brakes on my two PD rifles, a 22-250 and a 6mm BR. The brakes are there so I can spot my own shots, they work wonderfully for that. They might be annoying to others if you shoot in groups so take that into consideration, and an outfitter might not allow them. They do work and work well though.

Drop to a 40 grain V-max and watch you velocity increase 300-400 fps and see your hits better than you will with the 50 grain bullets...

Another option if you would like to keep a sporter weight barrel, since you have decided to re-barrel anyway, would be to go with the 221 Fireball.

Easy to spot your hits with a sporter weight rifle. A sweet, economical cartridge, and every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't have one.

Dial your scope back and run what ya brung.

grayfox,

There are several ways to get what you're looking for, and a heavy-barreled .223 with lighter bullets is one, though in my experience not as effective as dropping down in cartridge, or using a muzzle brake or suppressor.

I don't even the .223 much on PD's anymore, mostly shooting the .17 Hornet and .204 Ruger, because I can see the bullet hit through the scope. There is some controversy over whether the .204 makes much difference, and there have been long threads on the Campfire on the subject, but many people find it helps. Another good round is the .17 Fireball, which shoots much flatter than the .221 Fireball.

Gray. Per Mule Deer I went to a Hornet for that reason as well as reduced muzzle blast and some economic benefit. It does give up some range however. I really like my Swift but there is no way to see hits, other than falling parts from the sky!-Muddy

Drop to 40's and use less magnification.

Or rebarrel to a .17 Remington like all the smart people have done.



Travis

muddy,

The .204 is very much like a lighter-recoiling Swift. In fact the highest "lift" I've ever seen on a PD didn't come from a Swift, but a 40-grain V-Max from a .204....

Probably simpler to get a new HB gun in .204 or .223, rather than giving up a sporter weight .223 which is probably excellent for walk-around shooting, and the new HB will be your truck/bench gun.

to just change barrels will require some stock mods, and most likely some trigger tuning or replacement. Possibly a new scope to suit ...

You'll like the .204

Is the 17 hornet better at a limited distance or can the 204 be used in all distances and still spot shots?

17 Fireball = Instant Visual Gratification! I have been shooting a 17 Mach IV (same ballistic as the 17 FB) and you see the hits as well as the misses. I frequently hunt alone and the ability to see the bullet strike allows me to hold or dial corrections for a second shot. I am also shooting a 20 BR and it too allows me to see the strike.

Good luck and good shooting!

This is the answer. Doing this will save you the cost of a rebarrel, there are no downsides to shooting PD's using the 40's in a 223. My walking varminter is a Cooper Classic which weighs right at 7 lbs scoped and I can see my hits with it using 40's. However with any rifle, heavy or light, good follow through is required. I have noticed over the years that very few folks who have not shot competition have any idea of how important follow through of your shot is. It will not only allow you to see your shots but your hit ratio will increase dramatically in most cases.

drover

No problem seeing impacts with the Ruger American Predator 223, with a 10X scope. Bullets in the 40-53 gr range. The barrel is not that heavy, 22" and about .66" diameter at the muzzle.

Which brings up another point: A pound of bipod on the forend can help too, rather than shooting over a rest.

From his shooting results I've seen here over time I believe Shane has really good form and follow through as well.

I can tell I'm off my game when I can't call my shots pretty close.

True.

No caliber can hang with the .17's when it comes to spotting your own shots.

And there's no reason to not go .17 Remington other than powder conservation.




Travis

Or a muzzle brake.

Brakes/suppressors change everything.




Travis

A lot of good work can be done by getting straight behind your rifle and loading the bipod before the shot. I run a standard weight Tikka in .270 and call most of my own shots in the field. To much magnification or being to close will clearly alter results.

I would also agree a brake would offer more of a difference than going to a heavier barrel.

There is a big difference between calling your shots and actually seeing the bullet impact. Or is that what you mean?

The 204 definitely rides well enough to watch the bullet fly and hit. Or at least the Ruger M77-2TGT does that.
The Fireball with 40s in 221 makes it possible to self-spot as well. I can only imagine what a 17M4 or 17FB would do -- or maybe the 20 version of the Fireball?

Lots of options here, and it really is more fun to see the shock wave and watch the hit.

MD,
Fair question. When I say I am calling my shots it is probably better referred to as seeing the impact. For me it means I can see the game react to the hit or an impact on a steel target. I might not be able to see where I hit a prairie dog but enough to see parts fly.

I make no insinuations I can see an impact from a position other than prone and need a decent field of view to do so. I ran a .243 as a match rifle for a while and it had a brake on it so I could call impacts for corrections. The brake allowed me to be sloppy in my form when trying to get hits fast and still see impacts not only prone but when kneeling, sliding off a barricade or other unconventional positions.

The other thing that is helping me now is I shot a max of 9x in the field and most of my work is done with even less magnification.

Thanks for the clarification.

With the lighter-recoil cartridges mentioned, such as the .17 Fireball, I can see the bullet hit a particular place on a prairie dog, even with a medium-high magnification scope of around 15X.

Some rifles allow you to see PD pieces coming down, particularly a little further out where the rifle has a chance to come down out of recoil before the bullet hits. But what I'm talking about is clearly seeing the actual impact of the bullet, at any range.

JB, I had a short light MK II in 204 for a truck coyote rifle in 204. It shot GREAT, but it was hell to quickly chamber a round and I sold it. The straight sided sharp shoulder'd case and the short magazine wanted to push them up and left every time when smartly operating the thing. This did not really help when after Wiley. I'm with you as to the recoil and seeing hits though and that little light rifle was not bad in that respect. I kept several hundred cases, 3-4 boxes of 32 Hornady's and the dies for future reference though. The first load I shot was a max charge of H-4895 and the 32's (this was before cases were available and I used 222 mag cases reformed) went over the chrony a touch over 4,000 and all day into 3/4". I never shot anything else out of it. It was gopher killing machine as far as you could see em w/a 4x12 VX3, it's too bad it wouldn't feed very well, unless you fingered them in one at a time, hard to do when the dog is running looking over his shoulder. It was fully as fast as my old 77V Swift but didn't have the horsepower. I have loved the look on GS's faces when the bullet hits since I shot my first over 55 years ago and the 204 ctg. is one of the best.-Muddy

I had a standard Ruger Mark II sporter in .204 for a while, and it was also very accurate. It didn’t have the feeding problems of yours, but “controlled round feed” with the little cartridge didn’t happen. Instead it essentially worked as a push-feed. The .204 I have right now is a “parts gun” on a Remington 700 action, and it feeds perfectly.

Thanks to all of you for your comments, will try 40 gr bullets first,, then go from there. Have second thoughts about rebarreling,, for the cost better to just get anothergun. keep this one as a walkabout sporter, , So many decisions,,,, would like to know Shrapnels true idenity any hints anyone.... I lived in Bozeman around 1977;; just wonder??