Heavy bullets seem to be challenged by those much lighter in effectiveness, dialing turrets, onX, GPS, rangefinders and sleek BC has influenced our thoughts and impressions.

What are the significant game changers (not the Sierra kind of Game Changer) that have encouraged a paradigm shift in your mind and challenged or changed what you’ve been thinking for years?

For me it was as simple as a CDS dial on a fellow hunters 270 Win shooting 150gr NP while shooting rocks across a very remote Newfoundland lake after a Moose hunt that showed me that my 300 Wby was both capable of so much more and over-powered for most game at the same time.

Anyhow, just love to hear about how those that have been chasing game (or punching paper) around the country (and beyond) for years have evolved with the new opportunities or gear that we are blessed (or cursed) with & what the gunwriters might have experienced that we should all look more closely at and seek to understand more thoroughly about our beloved pursuits.

Apologies for being long winded. I blame cabin fever.

Tim

I took a Savage 18" carbine in 375 Winchester out and shot it over 500 yards at a rock. Had a blast smacking that rock. "Close range brush gun"

A well written post is always welcome. Kudos!

Following Along.


Jerry

I like to think I learn something every time. Can't really think of an "aha" moment but it has all been a long slow progression.
Forums like this have contributed immensely to the general knowledge base although none of it is gospel so sometimes you have to wade through the BS.

The definition of "the usual signs of excessive pressure" sure seem to have changed....

Science = generally accepted truths.

Not in this context !



Jerry

The need to scrub the snot out of barrels after every range session. JB helped shed some light on that one.

I certainly have learned a lot, but most of it incrementally. From a basic accuracy standpoint things have progressed. My first center fire a Ruger tanger in 3006, I fnally got a couple of loads that were consistently sub MOA after a lot of work and was super pleased. The folks I hunted with thought that that rifle was a real hummer. Now I expect pretty much any rifle to do that and more with a lot less work. I think its from a number of factors, but I feel bullets are better and I know a lot about reloading that I didn't back in the day.

From my perspective the realization that it didn't take a 30 cal and 3000ft/lbs of energy to kill a deer. Growing up a lot of the folks in my dads generation all hunted with 30.06s mostly Rem pumps and autoloaders, with a few marlin 35 rems. There was often talk of how wimpy a 30-30 was. As a comment the group mostly hunted the Adirondacks so a buck every year was a sign of a good hunter and even someone who tagged out every other year was considered a no slouch, so despite hunting a lot, they shot few deer by modern standards.( we also hunted NY's southern Tier where we shot a lot more deer, but that was shotgun only growing up). So as young guy, being recoil tolerant and indoctrinated by the older generation I grew up thinking that a 30.06 was pretty much the starting point for deer hunting.

The understanding that a 243 or a 250 killed deer pretty much just a like a 30.06 or 300mag was a big one for me. It made shooting a much more enjoyable sport.

Tim I learned that my 300 ultra and 7mm ultra and other magnums were just ego trips the weatherby (257 and 270) are not necessary. A tuned and tested 35 Whelen 270 or 308 can do every thing I need. As an old man we referred to as GRUMPY told me years ago. DEAD IS DEAD lol. Age and maturity is a good thing

And a 35 remington a 444 or 45-70 and a 30-30 in a lever gun is still an excellent deer rifle

For me it was the widely available ballistic calculators, cheap LRF, cheap chronographs, somewhat accurate ballistic coefficient numbers, and bullets designed with relatively high BC that changed everything.

When I was young, 400 yards seemed like a ridiculously long distance to shoot at anything I wanted to hit consistently. The new tech paradigm allowed bullet drop and wind deflection to make sense to me. Before that, it was a cloudy, mystical thing. Now, quarter-mile shots at animals are a gimme, as long as the wind isn't a mystery. It still blows my mind when I think about it, how easy it is to ding 6" steel at the longest ranges I shoot now, because I didn't even know how far across-the-canyon was when I was younger. Cool stuff.

Back in the day of poorer bullet selection, I used heavier for the caliber bullets than I feel is needed now -- in most cartridges.

Like many men, I was not immune to the obvious advantages of affordable rangefinders, superbly accurate bullets, the revolution in fine optics at affordable prices...but they are primarily for amusement purposes...who doesn't enjoy an accurate rifle? But because of the terrain I live and hunt in, the little 6.5 Mannlicher Schoenauer carbine (2 moa) with an ancient 3X Lyman post reticle is the huckleberry. The 156 grain roundnose at 2300fps is a humane and effective bullet even when the old fart wobbles a little.

Agreed. Add to that list the availability and affordability of scopes that mechanically work correctly.

As a teenager and young adult I used to go out into the field several times a week after school and practice shooting milk jugs and balloons out to 650 yards (measured in increments) using a duplex reticle and Kentucky windage. I felt that 450-500 yards on game was a very long shot, even using flat shooters like the .243 or 7RM, considering we still had to estimate range visually and hold for the shot using the duplex aim points and/or Kentucky windage.

The availability of affordable ballistic calculators (Exbal on a Palm Pilot), decent and affordable scopes (first using BDC reticles like the BP or RZ-600, and then decent dialing scopes like the Burris FFII Tactical 3-9x40), chronographs (Shooting Chrony), LRFs (Bushnell Yardage Pro and later the Leica LRF 1200), on top of bullets with a decent BC (SMK), changed the game significantly. Before long, coyotes, gophers, and badgers were in serious danger out to 1000, and game was headed for the freezer if it was within about 600, as long as the wind wasn’t too crazy. Equipment and wind reading has only gotten exponentially better since then.

I’ll also second this. One of my big “ah-hah” moments was when I realized that I didn’t need to put up with the recoil, blast, or powder consumption of a 7 Mag or .300 Mag to cleanly kill BG. I think bullets like the Barnes X and NPT were a big part of that.

Learning that bullet run out and seating depth can make such a big difference in accuracy. I wonder how much powder and how many bullets and primers I wasted searching for the "right" load, when a simple concentricity check and seating depth adjustment could have quickly completed the search.

I recently switched to a 7.62x39. I’ll second the above.

I've been stuck in the 80's for the last 40 years because my woods hunting hasn't changed. I knew what I wanted back in those days, but if anything I'm a little pissed having spent thousands building light weight six pound rifles when now I could buy light weight factory rifles for a fraction of what I've spent. Actually while I still subscribe to the gun magazines, when I go gun shopping I'm looking for the good old stuff in the collector areas.

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

So, you like close quarter combat too. Good on ya!

I like trail cams, especially at bear baits. Before I had them, there was a lot of guessing, reading signs and hoping for a bear to show before it got too dark. I don't use them on Crown Land (Public Land), but with permission on private land, I saw how many bears were coming to the bait(s), when, sex and sizes. It was with amazement that I saw bears coming to the bait whenever they felt like it, not just on the edge of darkness! Many "trophy size" were coming early morning or even at high noon!

Trail cams transformed my thinking about the best hours for hunting bears over baits as well as their numbers, sizes and conditions. In one season I got educated while having previously hunted them every season for a number of years with blinders on!

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Stock up (hoard) on reloading supplies that you don't need at the time but bought anyways.. Powder/primers & bullets all apply here.

Kind of like RL-26, 150's and the 270 Win...[/quote]

Yep. After trying RL-26 in my Model 70 Featherweight, and running some other tests, I decided not to switch, for several reasons: With 150s at 3100 it kicked like a light 7mm Remington Magnum, and I haven't hunted with any of my 7mm RMs for years. Also found 26 more temperature sensitive than I prefer, noticeably more so than H4831 Extreme--and also realized my wife and I have been using 150s at 2900 fps or so for decades and everything we shot died quickly, including animals up to bull moose in size.

Though for the last animal I took with my .270--a mule deer buck--the load was another old standby, a 130-grain with enough H4831 to get just under 3100 fps. It worked very well, and is more accurate than any of the RL-26 loads tried.

Like almost everyone on this thread, I've been an active shooter during all of the years in question, including hunting, military service, working in the industry, and competition. In that time, I’ve seen a ton of major changes for all shooters. The biggest is the internet, which lets us exchange information directly instead of hearing only what various marketing departments want us to hear. That alone has changed the market far more than any other single factor.

The second is the Global War on Terror. Various governments have put a lot of R&D money into gear, learning, and skill development. We now have a couple of generations of people who REALLY know how to shoot when the chips are down, and who know what gear they need. Some of those folks are teaching the trade and classes cost a lot less than you'd think. Combine that expertise with the internet and a lot of old legends just don't stand up any more.

Beyond that, and as pertains to rifles:

1. Rifles and ammunition are more accurate. The road to 1 MOA was long and costly in 1981. Now you can get 0.5 MOA with cheap rifles and factory ammo. A lot of machinery will get worn out making guns and ammo in the next few months. Manufacturers will replace it with better machinery and accuracy will improve even more.

2. Bullets are more consistent, so groups are smaller. Bullet companies have also refined BC figures to make getting hits at long range more predictable. Wind permitting, a beginner can get hits at distances that were once limited to experts. Smart folks won't use this to extend their maximum range, but to increase the chance of success at mid-range.

3. Bullets perform better on target. You can choose light monomentals to reduce recoil and increase penetration or much heavier jacketed bullets for higher BCs and better long-range performance but you still can't get both.

4. Propellants are temperature-insensitive so they’re more consistent, which helps to shrink groups. We've also filled in some gaps in the burn-rate chart so there are now far more shades of gray between 4350 and 4831 than there were in 1981.

5. Optics are better. People shoot a LOT more than they did in 1981. They have better rifles and ammunition so they shoot at longer range. Many folks have stopped holding over and started dialing so optics must track—and many of them do. We'll soon have a generation of shooters who have only known dialing. I suspect that the non-dialing scope will eventually go the way of the fixed 4x.

6. Rifles are lighter. In 1981, the only way to get a rifle as light as a Kimber Montana was to spend $2-3,000 on a custom. Now the Montana is a mid-price item and their Mountain Ascent—even lighter than the Montana—costs about what the Montana did (adjusted for inflation) when it was introduced. Plenty of other rifles are almost as light as the Montana at half the price.

7. Everything is cheaper. Obviously not so much during the pandemic, but certainly just before and hopefully again soon.



All together, these things have redefined standards for distance, precision, and weight. But we still have problems:

1. High-BC bullets and scopes that track have made flat trajectory less relevant but people still focus on the wrong things. They used to focus on velocity instead of on bullet construction and shot placement. Now they focus on BC instead of on bullet construction and shot placement.

2. We need better ways to understand terminal performance, especially with monometal bullets. A medium-sized wound channel end-to-end plus an exit is all the penetration we can use. Does energy still matter with a wound channel like that? How do we quantify the role of frontal area? Does something like the 358 Winchester with a 180-grain TTSX at 2,600 fps become the new giant killer?

The biggest issue is that while we easily dial elevation, most of us still can’t read wind.


Okie John

1980- Most EVERYONE KNEW that a .223 was waaaaayyyyyyyyyy too small to use on deer and hogs.

2021- Lots of people routinely hunt with these and still manage to kill deer and hogs...

In the 80's, lead was not much of a concern because there were no practical alternatives. Now, I won't shoot any game with lead. I won't shoot lead styphnate primers. I won't even have bare lead bullets on my bench. While I recognize that most shooters would consider me "paranoid," what's changed is that I can be like that without missing anything.

Without a doubt, laser range finders and dialing has come on the scene and taken hold for a large portion of shooters and hunters. I started with a LRF bowhunting in the 90's, and now I have a scope with a custom BDC turrent. On the other hand, I've switched to traditional archery and instinctive shooting, and I hunt only with flat-shooting cartridges using MPBR because a close stalk is far more appealing to me than a long-range shot.

In terminal ballistics, "the truth" has changed the most for handguns, but even with rifles there is a growing popularity to "just enough" rather than "more than enough."

One truth, no matter who says it: bullets matter way more than headstamps.

I would append to that sentiment that it's all about what bullet, where it hits, and at what velocity (and too much velocity can be a hindrance). Velocity and bullet should be on friendly terms in order to get the desired results. Maybe this was understood widely in 1981, but I didn't start fiddling with centerfire rifles until about 1993.

In 1980 it was necessary to hand load to be able to use the better bullets made by custom bullet companies such as Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, Speer, etc..
Otherwise, it was a rare rifle that would hold tight groups at +200 yards with factory ammo.

Now, if you don't really enjoy reloading, factory ammo can be bought with bullets from the custom companies that can hold tight groups at distance with some experimentation.

The more recent evolution of scope BDC reticles or scopes with dependable dialing abilities has canceled the need for extremely fast and flat shooting rounds for long range bullet drop guessing.

In 1980 feral hogs were not very common. Now, silencers and night vision scopes are big aids for much needed feral hog control.

The only thing that’s been a game changer for me as far as hunting goes is Merino wool and boots.

Glass of course has improved quite a bit, but one of my favorite scopes is still a 1990 VXIIc

I'd say the following sure are nice to have:

Thermacell anti-insect device
Synthetic hunting clothing
Laser range finders
Stainless steel rifle barrels
BDC-style reticles
Illuminated reticles
Digital cameras (including cell phones and trail cams)

Wow fellas! The brain-trust on this thread is very impressive.

Personally, I admit, as these pursuits have evolved and life moves forward, I find that the basic skills I gained as a youngster with a Sheridan pellet rifle or a little .410 are what I find most precious and pretty much now instinctive. (Funny what a hunter can kill with ‘little’ guns - I guess we’re all being reminded of this fact these days) With these early skills, I’m sure all of us older-time hunters & shooters have been able to adapt the new technology to make us more comfortable or more efficient but really dollar for dollar not all that much more effective.

How many frigid days did we all spend in Wranglers, a heavy set of Porro Prisms, normal hiking boots, aluminum frame packs and those cursed fingerless rag wool gloves freezing numb while we gutted some bomber game and God forbid didn’t even take a pic when that old 35mm film roll froze and wouldn’t advance thru the Kodak. Most of my best memories and relationships included a fair amount of suffering & sweating to achieve a goal.

Not sayin’ I want to go back to those pre- Goretex, Kuiu, rangefinder, dials & great bullet etc. eras but certainly look very closely at new ‘developments’ with a dose of skepticism as to what will actually benefit the cause.

Thanks to each of you for what you’ve shared. It’s a joy to know that many of us have quite a history to reflect upon.

Tim

I'm confused.

Monometal....BC is ballpark .400....no recoil to speak of....why can't I have both?

That's....puh puh poison!!

As already mentioned Warn clothing is the most important advancement since 1980.
In the 80s I was hunting Miss & Al. and suffered a lot.

Before 1996 I had no/little open territory to hunt. From 96 On I’ve hunted cutovers &
regrowth c/os so the LRF has been a great asset to me. I range objects in the areas I hunt
before game is seen.

I always range from the deer back to where I was.
VERY few Xs I’ve had the opportunity to range a deer before shooting.
This past season was 1 exception. I had time to range a deer at 199 yds
before shooting. I was in strange territory and wasn’t sure of distance.

THEN & now I seldom could see deer much past 400 yds. So charts & dialing are no
advantage to me. However Fast, Flat, bullets allow me to shoot fairly quick (ly)
to 400 w/o ranging - read chart - dial - then aim.

I do understand BC and trajectory. I have so long a deer Season I don’t have to
hunt in Rain or Hi Wind. I’m glad.

All said, I get along nicely using my preferred C C billets with decent B C.

So warm clothing & LRFs are the best improvements to me.

Jerry

An Addendum :

I remember the 70s—80s when 1 “ groups were the
goal and rarely achieved W/O handloading.

Whether it’s better bullets, metallurgy, barrels or
bedding <maybe a combination> we have seen great strides.

Jerry

Have circled back to this... and quality heavy for caliber cup-N-core bullets.




GR

The biggest game changer for me was...well two things.....when I learned to use pressure testing equipment, and when we invented the bullettesttube.
Charlie

Jerry,

My experience is that better bullets have made the most difference--along with factory rifles being bedded better. Have gotten well under sub-inch accuracy with quite a few older rifles using today's bullets, though I sometimes had to "adjust" the bedding--which was often as easy as free-floating the barrel with a plastic bread-bag clip behind the recoil lug.

I would agree with the better clothing. My new first lite jacket is so much lighter and more comfortable then the heavy wool I wore for the 20 years prior. Truly a game changer for me.

Still pursuing the same vintage guns I pursued in 1980. Only thing different is I can afford them better now. I'll scrimp&save and scheme for a 1930-vintage rifle, and walk right past a rack full of shiny new guns without a second glance. I'm still as passionate, if not more so, about cast bullet shooting as I was in 1980, only a helluva lot more knowledgeable than I was then. Handguns: vintage Colt and Smith revolvers, and Colt 1911's still hold my attention, not so much modern tacticool stuff. I still wear mostly wool when hunting- if weather is so extreme that wool doesn't cut it, I'll not be out in it anyway. (Foot gear is another story- my quest continues for the bestest/lightest/warmest stuff to keep my long suffering toes warm.) Cars: I was knee-deep in the British sports car culture in 1980, still have a pristine 51 year old MG in the garage.

In short, my hardware hasn't changed one bit. My attitudes and knowledge has though. Stick in the mud? Maybe, but that's not to say I haven't kept up - I have kept up purely from an academic standpoint. I simply chose to spend those years perfecting my craft, so to speak, not chasing after every new thing that crossed my path.

I'm with you. A tupperware gun just doesn't do it for me. I have a couple Glocks because they work, but I never sit and admire them on a cold Winter night. They are about as exciting as a circular saw or a toaster. Both things work well and do a good job, but outside of that, they aren't nice to look at or fondle.

I disagree about the clothing. I started wearing the advanced alpine mountaineering clothing in the 1980's -- polypropylene base layers, the polyethylene fleece from Malden Mills, the nylon and polyester shells with Gore-tex vapor-permeable membranes, Spandex polyether-polyurea fabrics, 2 and 4-way stretch Schoeller soft-shells, the wicking "micro-fiber" polyesters, and siliconized nylon. While some of this stuff was invented earlier in the 20th century, it was the 1980's when this stuff really hit the outdoor clothing market.

There is none of it, and nothing invented since that I wouldn't trade for age-old natural materials like wool, canvas and down, especially for hunting where some bulk in the "luggage" is tolerable. There may be a few narrow applications where the advanced materials are a real benefit like ultralight trekking or bicycle touring, but for almost every other outdoor activity, what this stuff has done is allowed outdoor clothing makers to source highly consistent synthetic materials, produce garments with low-cost offshore labor, and sell them at massive margins through niche marketing to rich US markets for leisure and recreation.

I will remark that since the 80's there has been a distinct shift from low-cost (birch) and middle-priced (low-grade walnut) hardwood stocks to synthetic polymer stocks being standard on rifles and shotguns. There are also a lot of laminated (plywood) options that were not popular in the 80's. Back then, plastic and plywood would have been regarded as cheap and crappy. Today, people prefer them because they're stable and can easily be made to stay accurate. I think people came to realize that pursuing that goal with solid wood was a proposition that could double the cost of the rifle for most rifles under $1000 and people buying in that price range are not willing to pay that.

One of the biggest game changers that has contributed to paradigm shifts is the breadth and depth of information on the web. What I mean by this is the sharing of information and experiences beyond word of mouth. Back when I was a kid a lot of paradigms were fed by gun writers and folks that said you needed a 300 win Mag to kill a “big whitetail” or a 338 win Mag to kill an elk. Many of those folks are still around and are the same people year after year that say it will be the biggest mistake of your life if you try to shoot a deer with a 223, but haven’t themselves. Yet HUNDREDS of people on forums shoot deer with 223s, post pictures and results and are perfectly happy. I have a cousin who is absolutely convinced his first elk rifle (first centerfire rifle) needs to be a 300 win Mag for those “cross canyon shots”. When I asked how he came to that determination he said the old timers at the bar near his moms cabin said so and live and breathe elk hunting. Later I learned none of them have shot an elk since the 80s.

in this order EXcal crossbow termacell 4wheeler other than that I don't need any thing newer than 1880

It's a hackneyed expression- but it's all good. We chase our own dreams, select the gear that suits our needs/dispositions, and (hopefully) stand united against the forces that would deny us our pursuits.

Keep on keeping on.

No argument from me. I honestly defer to your expertise and testing much more than I have.

I just know it all works better.
Thnx

Jerry

Something for the turkey hunters out there to think on....he keeps walking me for a chance. He stops walking he got a chance.

100% ^^^

good post gnoahhh . we do need to stick together

I shot my first sub-moa 5-shot group in 1965. The bullets were Sierras. Fifty-five years later, the same bullet, newly manufactured, shoots about the same (different barrel, mind you. That one wore out years ago). I was an early proponent of synthetic stocking of hunting rifles and built my first in 1977. Proponent or not, I never built one for myself until ten years later, though most of my target guns were so equipped. Today, I have two glass stocked hunting rifles and neither is a real "go to". As far as other gear is concerned: I have a range finder and fool around with it but it's not something I have to have in my pack. I have never warmed up to the idea of proving my long range skills on game. Binoculars are better than I had fifty years ago. My boots are better but the feet in them are tired! Backpacks are a lot better than the old plywood GI packboards I used to use (I still have a couple). Socks. I have learned that a thirty dollar pair of socks may be money well spent. I still camp the same as I always have.
The bottom line is, I have not changed my opinions much over the last 55 years; as far as hunting is concerned. I enjoy my time in the field the same way I always have. I shoot similar rifles. Many years of long range competition shooting has made me less enamored of the practice of shooting long range at game rather than more. As a gunsmith, my methods have evolved over the years, driven by experience. Nonetheless, my bedding techniques are about the same as I practiced in the early '70's and the rifles still shoot OK. Barrel fitting is much the same and it still works too. Perhaps this just shows that I am resistant to change and I'm OK with that. GD

Excellent post.

Rangefinders are the single best improvement for my hunting. Still using same guns and calibers that I did 30yrs ago, but I have upgraded the optics on a couple to allow longer range target practice. Since their introduction I've used Leupold's B&C or LRD reticles and truly wish I'd have bought more when they were readily available. Those reticles, coupled with a good rangefinder have allowed me to shoot past my old comfort zone on many occasions, but still not even close to what some consider long range today. I still like horse power and will never adopt the Creedmore or similar cartridges for my hunting. The 270 and 30/06 are mild enough for me!

Not sure what “generally accepted truths” mean in this context, but a few things come to mind that have worked for me. Much improved Barnes bullets, laser rangefinders, better binoculars for my aging vision, truly waterproof boots and clothing have all improved my lot. Happy Trails

I guess I forget how long ago 1980 is, I had leather boots insulated with???, waterproofed with Sno Seal. Grandpa shot various "shells" from his "big rifle " a Remington 742 in 243 Win. He mostly managed to knock one down reasonably regularly. Oh yeah, Suoer X shot shells cause they hit harder.

Not exactly on the original topic but what about game populations. In the fall of 1980 you had to apply in August for an any deer permit, called a doe tag. They usually gave out 1000 of them for Unit 29 in MO. If you got drawn, as a kid ( I was 18), you felt like you'd won the lottery, heck you might get to shoot that year.

We'd show up Friday night and Grandpa would say 'Boys theys deer everywhere '. 4 of us would hunt the weekend and see 8-9 deer between us and that was deer everywhere. If you could scratch down a 6 inch spike you were the talk of school.

During Youth Season my nieces and nephews want to hear about the Good Old Days and I always start the story with 'Today we woke up...'

WAM - purposely vague but the intention was to refer to the prevailing wisdom of the day & how it’s changed. After typing this I realize that maybe I should have just said it that way.

Tim

+1, nothing has changed the game more than the affordable electronic rangefinder. Have both a 30-06 & 6.5 CM, both work just fine but the latter sure kicks a lot less than the former.

Completely agree. I shoot enough in the off-season that the only "guess" left is the wind. Rifles/loads are sorted out, sighted in, and charts well verified LONG before opening day. I do some practice from 600-900 yds not because I intend on shooting critters at that distance, but, because it makes those 300-400yd shots seem "easy". Much like practicing with a bow @ 40yds makes 20yds seem like a piece of cake.

"Cold" was never much of a problem as all of my hunting has been afoot. That said, it's easier to stay dry or get dry now than it was then.

in the '80's, my hunting moto was if it's brown it's down. we still cull does after rut but I'd pass anything less than a nice 10pt. In the '80's my main rig was a SAKO A111 30'06 in a Brown precision stock with a Leupold 2.5x8 scope. now my main rifle is an AO 7/08 custom with a Zeiss 2x10 scope. For a few thousand dollars, I picked up 1/2" group size. As an earlier poster said our seasons are much longer so no more hunting in the rain or really cold mornings. Since I hunt in the south the termocell has been a blessing. We hunt out of tower stands so the gadgets like range finders & CDS are of no value to me.

Hunting now is a social event where 40 years it was a competitive sport.

Factory ammo is good.. I've told this many times. Forty years ago, I needed a rifle, and bought a new Remington M700 BDL 30-06. I didn't know how to shoot so I bought boxes of factory, Imperial, Winchester and Remington, one box at a time. .I ended up with some empties. One of my fellow workers father reloaded, A Lee Loader I think. He offered to swap my empties for a box of reloads. The box was measured even. At the garbage dump / range , offhand at a 100 paces I was getting a 5" group with iron sights, an out of the box stock rifle. With the hand loads the group shrunk to half that . Hmmm, there might be something to that. Now you can get a box off the shelf and get a good group. Or at least with my son shooting.

I think most of the so-called improvements in hunting gear since 1980 are just like much of the fishing gear.....it is designed to catch sportsmen more than fish and game.

I do miss the simplicity of buying ammo that was in the coolest looking box. Amazing that animals actually died!

Two summers ago I found some old Eley Tenex in a moving box that hadn't been opened in a couple of moves. I know the stuff dated to the early 80's, and the lube on them had gotten kind of petrified. Lo and behold it shot as well as a current batch of Tenex I was testing in a Winchester 52, and a few groups were better. Progress?

Tenex was good for me in the 80s, in both a Martini International and an Anschutz 1407 . It was always dear though, so I'd practice and shoot club level comps with Eley Club, reserving Tenex for State and Nationals.

Since then the ISSF targets have smaller scoring rings. Something must have improved ;-)

Harsh to judge it on groups shot offhand with irons though.

FWIW I bought a Rem 700 BDL in about 1980 too, in 6mm. A 6x Weaver scope and a couple of boxes of Winchester ammunition with it, and I took it down the back paddock to try it out. The first couple of groups, shot from prone over an improvised rest (rolled blanket I think) went under an inch each for 5 rounds at 100 yards. I was really happy - after various sporterised military rifles this was an absolute revelation. I then shot away all of the remaining ammunition on rabbits and such, being increasingly impressed with my new purchase's ability to reach right on out there and completely dismantle these critters.

That rifle accounted for truckloads of game over the years.

Factory Ammo ? what's that? where they at ?

I'm glad I'm a handloader.


Jerry

I'm NOT disputing you but that doesn't match my experiences 70 thru 80s.

Jerry

I use to believe that fast bullets was the 'cats meow'. Get it as fast as you can with no pressure signs. I was young, full of piss and vinegar..... "Does it kick"..... "Not too bad"..... "Is it accurate"....... "Close enough to deer hunt with". That could've meant a 1" or 6" group at 100 yds.

Now, like others have said, less recoil, less noise, and accuracy are the ticket. So far, nothing has dodged one of my 30-30 bullets and they're traveling a blazing 2000'/sec. I've got other rifles that go faster, but none are being pushed for speed. Give me an accurate rifle, every time.

Added: Way back when..... .243's no good for hunting..... too fast..... bullets pencil thru..... too small a bullet to kill a deer....etc.
Bullet technology has come a long way!!!

Suppressors

I remember the days before trail cameras.
if you wanted to know that time a bear was coming in, you had to use the clock with string and a pull pin. Bear would use the trail going into the bait, walk over the string and pull the pin out of the clock, stopping it. That’s how you knew the time. We’ve come a long ways in not a lot of years.

I'll join in for what it's worth.

I started actually shooting and hunting a bit beyond 1980. I did not have all THAT much exposure to it prior to that. However, I think I can mention a few things.

Stanmmster is right on clothing. I started off turkey hunting in surplus jungle boots, and an M65 jacket. Mil surplus was considered good gear. I added a commando sweater for warmth. Cotton thermal underwear and cotton "thermal" socks. My first deer kit was similar.

Firearms: Back then, Ohio was a shotgun-only state. You used a 12 GA and slugs out of a smooth bore. There were a few guys using Hastings rifled barrels by the mid-80's. But I don't remember them when I started. In Kentucky, most guys used a 30-30 on deer. One shot/One Kill was somebody's wet dream. You emptied your magazine at 'em. I was rather surprised when my first deer went down on the first shot.

That's one of the biggest things I've noticed over the years-- the number of shots has gone down even though the number of deer taken has gone up.

Back when I started, the whole thing was about building the herds/flocks. Ohio had just 5 counties where you could hunt turkeys. It was a 3 hour drive to get there from Cincinnati. Deer were in abundance in the eastern half of the state. You could hunt deer over by Cincinnati, but there were not many taken. In Kentucky, they allowed 2 bucks. Overall harvest back then was about half of what it is now. When I started, you had to work to see your game. It was a win just to hear a turkey gobble. Now? I have both deer and turkey staring in the bedroom window.

I think the biggest changes in the hunting world follow the big tech changes in our lives. Some of this is good some not so much. Right up there with tech is the increase in hunting pressure, which is somewhat ironic as game departments report hunter numbers down overall.

On the tech side, the affordable and portable laser rangefinder is a revolutionary capability. Up until it’s invention, we all wanted to max out our high velocity rifles as a hedge against range uncertainty. Now, with accurate rifles and skinny streamlined bullets, a good rangefinder, and accurate trajectory dope we are technically able to hit at ranges unimaginable a few decades ago.

To scout these days, it’s tempting for some to park in their BarcaLounger drinking beer, watching Netflix, while a herd of trail cameras automatically sends scouting reports direct to the IPhone. Does it matter if we really walk and sneak in the hunting grounds to see for ourselves directly what’s going on? And should we sometimes forego the four-wheeler and use our hind legs?

I believe we are at or past an ethical fork in the road here, that is generated by these new capabilities. How far is too far? Is hunting slowly morphing into just game shooting? Do we owe our game the respect to be in the same arena with them, affording them the chance to detect us and escape?

Related to this question is the increase in hunting pressure that I have seen across the country, and especially in many of my old haunts in the West. Are we justified in taking extreme range shots because of the likelihood that we’ll miss out on a game killing chance that somebody else will get?

Finally, lots of other stuff has changed that has helped me, such as better clothing, boots and gear in general. Rifles are more accurate, scopes more precise.

The biggest issues that this discussion generates are the ethical ones, that go beyond the legal ones. Or so it seems to me.

I know the deer from 1980 were a lot closer and had thinner hides than the ones from 2021.

“To scout these days, it’s tempting for some to park in their BarcaLounger drinking beer, watching Netflix, while a herd of trail cameras automatically sends scouting reports direct to the IPhone. Does it matter if we really walk and sneak in the hunting grounds to see for ourselves directly what’s going on? And should we sometimes forego the four-wheeler and use our hind legs?”

GF1, This paragraph has me thinking. I enjoyed the philosophical perspective you wove through your entire post but again, this paragraph, seems to speak to the difference between this vs past eras.

A question I have pondered also. I kind of quit hunting with a bunch of guys east of here, who although I treasure their friendships have morphed into a bunch of techno-wizards who zip around the farms intent on racking up their body counts with little regard for "sporting spice". That's ok, more power to them, but my sensibilities preclude my joining in. I haul my butt to wilds of Pennsylvania and western Maryland where I can escape the "deer killing, not deer hunting" attitudes, and satisfy myself with their camaraderie over pints of beer in the off-season.

The whole trail camera thing has never sat well with me, pretty much up there with “scoring” bucks too.

But each to own and why I hunt solo with one exception.

Guys are still ass shooting and blowing legs off just as before just at longer distance now. Technology or not it remains about the same. Not trying to be an ass. I read on here where my daughter and grandkids in a nice warm blind shooting off a rest is not sporting. Maybe not but it gives us time together and better shots. I’ll keep doing what I’m doing and you can also. Edk

. . . and they were a lot easier to get in the truck.

Truck? What truck? 40 years ago I was stuffing them into MG's!

Hahaha

I went bigger over the years. Started with 6.5 x 55 and 7 mm Rem Mag. Once I got hooked on hunting Africa I went to 8mm Mag and then finally 9.3 x 62. Once I started pounding various game with the 9.3, I stopped tracking them very far. I use .450 #2 NE and 450/400 NE for really big stuff.

I became a Mauser lover early on, and that's not changed, though I am found of Savage 99s, and have a new interest in Springfield '03s. Ahh, the classics!