Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Question for NULA Owners...

Pretty amazing rants.

I don't think you can go wrong with any NULA although I saw one in 8mm Rem. Mag that only tempted me for about two minutes.

I don't think Mr. Forbes would build a bad rifle or not without trying to talk you out of it first. All of them will balance well as they are adjusted if they don't.

Still can't decide? Then get a 6.5x284 with a 23" #1.5 contour barrel and go shoot stuff. The 6.5, 140-155s have about the same BC as the 7mm 160-168s. Or split the difference between .260 and .284 and go 6.5x55 SM. Same thing with the 7x57 on the .08 vs .284 debate.

I think the original poster is showing good judgement and well thought out choices by ignoring everything after about post #5.

So you are saying that your post doesn't matter?

Kaleb,

Would love to know what deer-hunting experience brought you to the conclusion that a short bolt-action is the BEST for a deer rifle. I know what kind of deer and where Bob has hunted, but don't know about you.

I'm more curious on how action length trumps bullet/placement.

Does a GOOD bullet from a 270 through the shoulders kill a deer mo better than a bullet from a 7mm08 through the shoulders?

I'd love to hear how a long action is better and a short is such a terrible choice and why those who choose short actions are so foolish? See this chit goes both ways.

To answer your question I've deer and elk hunted with a good friend just outside huson Montana. I'll be their next week to pack in the bob for a week and fish. Oh didn't kill a elk did kill a little buck. That was a long action 280AI. Next year I went to Texas shot a larger buck and used a short action 22-250AI. So by expierence you must use a ackely chambering but short actions have produced larger deer for me. That's the only 2 deer I have ever shot....lol.

So back to my original statement. I feel like enough is plenty sometimes. I think a 280 is swell but how do you argue a 708 isn't? I think the 708 is a great round with a little less recoil. That could result in a more pleasant rifle to shoot? Might shoot the rifle a few more times? Might end up shooting it a little better? Might give more confidence? Might make better shots?

Why would a long action NULA be a wiser choice than a short? I mean while we're to opposites and putting words in each other's mouths and jump to conclusions about people and over react and get all upset about rifle advice on the Internet with strangers....lol

So if you shoot through the lungs you are a bad shot...

All jokes aside as soon as I first used and killed deer with the 708 and 120's I thought this is about just like a 270 with 130's. Less powder less recoil. I get 3000 with 708/120's and just shy of that with 270/130's.

Couldn't tell any difference in the deer killed.

This thread has become a poor showing of what I consider to be some wise, logical, and mild-mannered individuals. As a spectator, I see a guy getting gang-banged for saying he'd recommend a short-action rifle if given the choice. He made some offensive remarks, and apologized for it several times, but the recipients have responded with remarks at least as offensive, if not more-so. It's like a high school drama club in here, and Scott has capitalized on it.

We all have different preferences, and should be able to discuss and debate the different advantages/disadvantages like men, without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks over rifle preferences. Especially something as trivial as action length for a dedicated deer rifle that has no special application criteria like backpacking, extreme weather conditions, LR shooting, etc.

I've never carried or killed deer with a .243 (given an appropriate bullet) and felt like I wished I had a .280 instead. And visa versa, as well. Deer, even big deer like the ones we get up here, are just simply not that hard to kill, and don't require any special rifle to get the job done.

[/quote]

So you are saying that your post doesn't matter? [/quote]

1. Yes exactly.

2. Go with what Melvin recommends even though I value your opinion.

Kaleb,

So you've hunted deer mostly in Tennessee, killing a couple others elsewhere. Thanks for the information, that's what I wanted to know.

the only thing i could get out of the last few threads that pertain to this post are the words A WELL THOUGHT OUT RIFLE.....so with that in mind I dont think you can find a better well thought out rifle for what its intended purpose is ....a light weight rifle, so short action or long #1 or #2 taper 7mm-08 or 284 winchester buy what YOU want you cant go wrong with any of those combinations the rifle will shot sub MOA easily and will handle great no matter the barrel taper from my experience....

I'm beginning to think my short action 260 NULA and 243 RI is a dumb idea. LOL

Deer die differently in other places?...lol you know I'm correct and now it just bugs you.

Melvin himself recommends the 284 on a short action and told me the 708 and 260's are excellent choices too. Maybe you missed the part about he built his daughter in law a 260? You'd know better than he would though.

By the way you've still not said why long action are so much better deer rifles. All you've seemed to do is pick apart my statements and opinions not to mention jumping to conclusions and taking stuff the wrong way getting all butt hurt.

So to the great gun writer....please explain why those who hunt deer with short action rifles are so stupid and a long action is such a superior choice.

As long as it wasn't well thought out to use short actions all is well. I never thought recomending and saying a short action would be a well thought out deer rifle would cause such a stink. Glad I didn't speak to the #1 or #2 contour debate. I really like your light weight setups ct. Seems you have them figured out.

What I should have wished I had and really meant was while a person is going through the mental part of coming up with this "ideal" rifle...likely the one he we already have is fine...dreaming it up I can't see a reason to use a long action? Doesn't mean it's a bad choice I never entended for it to be took that way. Poor way for me to have written it(I'm not a professional). In my opinion if ordering a NULA for deer hunting I can't see a reason to opt for a long action. That's all I ever meant to imply.

Wow, enlightening thread.

Yeah - some true character came out on this one. Enlightening indeed...

Bizarre thread.

Need a short bus imodicom. Only problem is it would get used on most/all my post.

I can understand when the Brewsky's are controlling the key board but how do you keep that up for days?

Kaleb,

It's not so much that deer "die differently" in other places, as the hunting itself might require something other than your idea of an ideal Tennessee deer rifle.

However, deer do get considerably larger elsewhere. I've personally taken two mule deer bucks as big-bodied as a mature cow elk. That doesn't make them harder to kill, but between where they live and how much deer a bullet might need to penetrate, your notion of an ideal rifle might not be ideal.

Jump to conclusions? If you really want to discuss this further, you should go back and read my posts again, slowly and carefully. I NEVER said "long action are so much better deer rifles." In fact I never said anything one way or the other about long actions or short actions--except that Model 20 NULA's aren't as much lighter as Model 24's (or even Model 28's) as many people think. Please point out where I posted anything slightly resembling "those who hunt deer with short action rifles are so stupid and a long action is such a superior choice."

Once again, YOU were the one that brought the idea that short actions are the ONLY actions for "well thought out rifles." I might be wrong, but can't recall any of the rest of the posters saying long-action rifles were the only way to go, and KNOW I didn't.