Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Generally accepted truths about hunting, ballistics, gear etc. 1980 vs 2021

Disappointed that when I bought my first rangefinder ,that all those 800 yard shots I made ,were closer to 300 yards.

Yes rangefinders and chronographs sure deflated many blowhards with magnum rounds and longshots

For me it wasn`t so much about the electronic gadgets, scopes, bullets etc, I`m talking well before the 80`s, but what made my rifles so inconsistent in shooting decent groups, so I could count on hitting what I aimed at. Targets like woodchucks and crows, with my 250-3000. Bedding of the action/barrel was one key. Learned by my mistakes, what worked and what didn`t. Learned a flier or poor groups weren`t always caused by my handloads, but a poor bedding platform in the rifle I was using. Learned about glass bedding, free floating barrels, then to free floated stress free glass/pillar bedding. All my wood stocked rifles were "fixed", and shot well, and I fixed a lot of friends rifles along the way.
I only have a couple of rifles now in wood...every thing else is composite, with the "Bedding Block". Soooooo much simpler to get to shoot. And I don`t worry about mucking up my nice Walnut should I get rained or snowed on.

Yea, I do use the other gadgets too.

The biggest enhancement for me is in weatherproof / waterproof clothing and boots - rather than shooting gear. Goretex boots was an absolute game changer vs bread bags. Allowed me to hunt longer and in more places.

My 1953 M70 FWT 270 still shoots as good or better than any modern rifle.

Yes, that's my view too. Back in 1980 cold weather gear was usually wool, which despite what we believed really didn't stay warm when wet, and got heavy and uncomfortable too. Wet weather gear was either oiled japara, which kept you dry but was rather bulky and noisy, nylon, which didn't really keep the rain out, or PVC, which kept all the sweat in, so you'd end up just as wet.

Lightweight, breathable, truly comfortable and silent hunting clothes have been an absolute game changer.

Another gamechanger for me is the GPS, and more recently those GPS-based apps which allow me to open a map which not only shows my location but also shows boundaries, no-go zones, places I've seen sign etc. Back in 1980 it was either hunting on familiar land or using a 1:25,000 paper map and a compass.

As for rangefinders and scopes that track and so on, I've used them, but they don't really make a difference to me. I like the challenge of getting in close. More often than not I'm hunting with a rifle, sights and bullet which I could have been using in 1980. In some cases with a rifle, sights and bullet that my grandfather could have used in 1930.

What Stammster and Dan say about clothing!

However, one of the old-time "truths" that I've found most persistent is the quest for the fastest possible muzzle velocity, to the point where many handloaders still push the envelope to get another 100 fps. This was understandable during the early evolution of smokeless powder, because velocity--and the accompanying flatter trajectory-- was it's big advantage over black powder, especially into the early years of general scope use, which started in the 1950's.

But higher-BC bullets don't require nearly as fast muzzle velocities to perform the same way even at "normal" ranges, say out to 300-400 yards. Yet handloaders keep trying to push for another 100 fps--or even 50--because of a long-time belief that it adds a vast advantage to trajectory/killing power/etc.

+1 This essentially sums up everything I was going to write. I might also add that really good custom barrels are alot more common now, as are really accurate, relatively inexpensive factory rifles.

I grew up in Montana and any big game "long shot" bragged about was generally around 700 yards--and the shooters often claimed they "held on hair"--especially after the magical 7mm Remington Magnum appeared in 1962.

I dunno really. Maybe the day I dusted a NVA 12.7 crew that was plinking at my buddies at a bit over 1,000 meters. Without a sight. Tracer streams are an excellent tool for adjusting fire.

Or was it when I found out the .30-30 is as useful today as it was back in 1895?

Maybe when I discovered that CB Shorts are excellent hog whackers. My desire for FPE faded a bit after that. Still, it didn't keep me from buying a .416 Rigby.

And then it came to be I realized that lead has a fairly significant splat factor.

That's enough for now. I can't see 700 yards down here.

I like ol Elmer Keith.........

Big and slow.......Eat right to the hole!

If you think you have gotten close........hell...........get closer!

Elmer was among the first gun writers to shoot big game relatively scientifically at long range, using multi-point scope reticles to both estimate range and place shots. In fact I used his basic techniques with considerable success before laser rangefinders appeared.

WOW!

I have enjoyed employing ballistic reticles since I started reading about them. You talked quite a bit about them when I first joined the campfire.

That's great to know! The gunshop Northwestmagnum in Salmon has a cool picture of Elmer and Roy Weatherby sitting on a car bumper smoking their pipes.

Is 12’ (feet) close enuff ?

Sometimes it’s impossible to get closer. Come hunt with me and I’ll show you.


Jerry

^ ^ ^ ^ this
I wasted too much of my irreplaceable time
when I was younger and first started loading and
trying to chase velocity. Thankfully, I had a good
reloading mentor to keep me straight

My thought is the introduction of the 6.5 Creedmoor showed many of us aging deer hunters we could have fun again at the range without menacing recoil and still kill deer close or afar.

RANGE FINDERS, and turrets. I am still using Nosler Partitions, in one of my rifles.

Kind of like RL-26, 150's and the 270 Win...

RANGE FINDERS, and turrets. I am still using Nosler Partitions, in one of my rifles.

Jerry, you ever shoot anything close enough that you got blood splatter on your knickers?

Yes, IF I wore knickers.

Jerry