Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting lets see those long range rifles.

160 Accubond, 162 Interbond.

Can try that too! I don't like how they work either, but might be better than the match bullets! Great thought.

Here is an exit hole from a 168 Berger VLD out of the 7mm WSM at 315 yds. Not much damage. Deer fell right there.

Man, you're picky. Why on earth do you need an X bullet for deer? Is a couple ounces of rib meat that important?

In my experience, an X bullet through the shoulders (or even one) ruins a bunch more meat than a Ballistic tip, or a Matchking, etc, straight through the ribs. Shot placement will trump the bullet pick everytime.

When I'm filling a doe tag (not really hunting but more like "gathering meat") and plan picking a good shot through the ribs to minimize meat damage, I feel I'm doing her a favor using a bullet that actually does some damage and gives a quick kill. Saving her from that 150yd death sprint after having a hole poked through is well worth a larger hole through the ribs and a couple ounces of rib meat IMHO.

Sometimes you can't control your shot choice. At that point I don't like big holes.

One thing I've never seen is a BT ruin less meat than a TSX and I've run TSX at many angles through deer.

Doe or meat shooting sometimes won't allow a meat shot... and a meat shot isn't thorugh the lungs, its through the head for me. But that doesn't always happen. If I'm sure I'm meat only, then I use SMKs a lot.

The other part of me is the taxidermist, make a big hole and you've ruined the cape...

And the rest of it is simply my preference after seeing lots of waste. Guess its still ok to have my own feelings about things like this right? Same goes for TSX, its not needed for deer, but its the one that will allow any shot to be made. THey are accurate, they don't blow up, they always open up for me so far, out to my current max ranges, and I can eat up to the hole. And I don't usually see a 150 yard death sprint, usually 30-40 yards from any TSX even the slow ones.

YMMV.

Jeff

Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to mock your choice. Using what makes you happy is part of the fun.

I'm curious though, the TSX's you've angled through deer that didn't ruin much meat--what round did you use? Maybe part of it is that I was running X's fast from a 300 Win that probably did a lot more damage than a smaller round would have. I nearly threw away entire quarters after being hit.

Jon

The lengthwise ones have either been small caliber slow, IE 6mm 85 tsx around 2800 or large caliber but long range, 180-200s in 30 cal over 500 yards or 225 in 338 over 600 yards.

Even with TSX the lightest I buy into in say a 300 mag will be the 168, and watching it last year, it did what it should, but left little blood trail but a dead deer. Which I'm fine with, I love blood trailing anyway, its part of the process for me. Bang flops leave me dry, unless I'm head shooting and then I expect it...

I would think a mag with a light fast TSX, simply the velocity factor is going to tear up meat.

I've also rethought it a bit, I may well try a 168 JLK or Berger and just see....I"m so wishy washy... if I could just find a tipped tsx 160ish......

Yeah, that explains quite a bit. While I used 180's and 200s a some, much of it was 130's at insane speeds. In the days before LRF's having a flat trajectory helped. Man they would make a hole.

Yeah, the flat trajectories never meant much to me, we've had rangefinders for years now... wind is a much more important variable as you well know.

The in laws liked light, they could double shoulder shoot and not have to cut up shoulder meat. It all works the same in sausage to me. I was brought up not to waste and thats why I get weird ideas....

Jeff

Stop it. You're making me feel old. Back when I came up with that load the only the military or very, very rich had LRFs. I wouldn't have dreamed how good we would have it now.

I never had a LRF.. I'm talking the old 2 thingy deals where made them match.... I didn't have a LRF till maybe 5 years or so ago. I know I had an early one in 2003 and bought a decent Leica in 2007.... so you feel better.

Prior to that we marked all our stands with PVC pipe every 100 yards....

Yeah, I never viewed those as a legit answer. In handheld size, by the time you get out to ranges you actually need a rangefinder with a flat shooting rifle, their accuracy was horrible. I'd rather mil the deer than rely on one of those.

I remember when LRF's came out, it took a long time to get over the general belief that "rangefinders aren't accurate enough." Before that, they weren't (in cheap handheld sizes anyway).

I humbly submit a photo of the most accurate rifle at 1000 yds that has been shown on this thread.

Wow. Humbly indeed. With no spotter shots? No wind flags? No rings to aim at? 1st shot the only one that counts? I can't remember the last time I put a 10 shot string into the chest of something.

Benchrest ≠ hunting.

Just about every shot I took with that rifle at 1000 yds--from the very first clean bore shot sighter shot of each match to the last shot of each record group--would have cleanly taken anything from a deer on up. Of course, anyone who knows anything about long range shooting knows that a rifle capable of 3.5" groups at 1000 yds has few issues with keeping first round hits inside of 12-14" or so. And I didn't use windflags either.......

Oh and congratulations!!! You have officially earned to right to not have me respond to anything else you may post, which I am sure was your intent. Well done!!!!

Insult an entire thread full of people and their rifles, then run away when called on it. Well done!!!

You don't know these people, you've never seen their rifles at all, much less seen them shot. Thump your chest and declare your rifle better than everybody else's regardless. Nice. The only reason you thought you could was the "well, why don't you go win a match with it" card you thought you had.

Winning a match ≠ making a first shot kill. Most rifles here are built for an entirely different purpose. A giant cased 338 launching a 300 SMK at way over 3000 fps built with no weight limit or rules could ruin its barrel in a single day of BR competition. That's not what it's for. That doesn't mean any rifle that can make smaller groups in BR competition is better suited to landing a first round hit from one mountainside to another.

OK, one more thing:

"Of course, anyone who knows anything about long range shooting" knows the above is a ridiculously absurd statement without specifying the conditions under which it can be done. I don't care if it's a 50 BMG "capable of" one hole groups on the 1000 yd range, I've seen wind conditions all too often in which I'd bet against it.

Jon
I sucked at ranges.. I used the large handheld ones on a tripod and at that time I never shot past 500 yards and that was pushing it..

As to Blaines rifle, I didn't take anythign there arrogant at all.... I'd much rather have a 3.5 inch rifle at 1000 than worse, BR rifle or not. I'll take the accuracy and it being a 300 it ain't bad.

As to conditions....yep I think Blaine would agree there are times it won't happen at all. Just like Jeff O's photo of his practice range, I think most days there shooting 1000 with the way the woods, hills etc... come in, it'd be a goose chase shot to shot.

Well that's fine. One down, a whole thread full of people and rifles to go.

I can't read minds, I can only go by what he actually said.

I saw it as a bit arrogant, but if it makes him feel better to boast such things on the 'net, to people, and rifles that he knows nothing about, well, more [bleep] power to him.