It is hereto an unexplored corner of the hunting envelope for me.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will be contacting Pac-Nor, finalizing a stainless R5 Bbl. w/ a Remington H1 light "varmint" contour, spun-on and trued to a M700 action.
The BDL stock is already bedded and padded, so only "free-floating" the new Bbl. should be necessary (unless the recoil lug changes).
And the magazine length will accommodate long-loaded 3.55" COAL cartridges.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely. GR
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will it work? Yes. Is it the ideal choice? No.
What else does it take? Well, a scope that enables reliable, precise, and repeatable alignment of POA and POI. That typically means a scope that tracks straight and uniform, RTZ, holds zero, and has a reticle that is graduated in the same units as the turrets for use as an angular ruler.
What else does it take? "Crutches." For killing game at 600 yards, you'll want to place shots within no more than about 1 MOA from your POA, and I would argue that 0.5 MOA is much better. Shooting from prone is rarely possible in field conditions due to vegetation and topography, so you'll need to be able to place your shots into 2 MOA or better. That often means using a pack, hiking poles, tripod, or natural rest to get above the ground and build a stable position.
A trained monkey can twist turrets, the skill comes in at doping wind. It ain't as simple as "8 mph at 90 degrees left". That skill is the result of a lot of practice under varying conditions.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely. GR
Why would it need a 1:8 twist for 150 ABLRS?
Not specifically, but have seen testing where they don't reach full BC potential from a 1:10 twist Bbl.
Originally Posted by MuskegMan
May as well jump up to the .277" / 165 gr ABLR if you're gonna special twist it
Also keeps the 165's on the table as well, although so far it looks like the added velocity at the expense of a few points of BC is a good trade for the 150's.
600 yards - would be 150 gr./2100 fps/1500 ft-lbs.
Put in the right place, that should be adequate.
As a custom Bbl. that doesn't cost extra for it, w/ an application dedicated to 140 gr. TSX on up... 1:8 seems right.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely. GR
Why would it need a 1:8 twist for 150 ABLRS?
Not specifically, but have seen testing where they don't reach full BC potential from a 1:10 twist Bbl.
You are probably looking at Bryan Litz's numbers, which basically work but also don't take into account plastic-tipped bullets. The guy who devised the present twist-rate formula, the late Don Miller, eventually discovered that plastic tips don't count very much in overall bullet length, because of their light weight. When using plastic-tips, a more accurate formula is JBM Ballistics', which includes an input for tip length. It indicates that stability is more than enough to maximize BC at typical mule deer/elk temps and altitudes.
I also wonder why you would consider the same 150 ABLR load adequate to a lesser range than elk than deer. Are you one of those who believes in a certain minimum amount of foot-pounds at impact for various animals?
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely. GR
Why would it need a 1:8 twist for 150 ABLRS?
Not specifically, but have seen testing where they don't reach full BC potential from a 1:10 twist Bbl.
You are probably looking at Bryan Litz's numbers, which basically work but also don't take into account plastic-tipped bullets. The guy who devised the present twist-rate formula, the late Don Miller, eventually discovered that plastic tips don't count very much in overall bullet length, because of their light weight. When using plastic-tips, a more accurate formula is JBM Ballistics', which includes an input for tip length. It indicates that stability is more than enough to maximize BC at typical mule deer/elk temps and altitudes.
I also wonder why you would consider the same 150 ABLR load adequate to a lesser range than elk than deer. Are you one of those who believes in a certain minimum amount of foot-pounds at impact for various animals?
Came across this a while back the first time I started lookin' at this project:
Never hunted elk.
But they are bigger than mule deer and Minnesota white tails.
So, w/ relative SD and bullet construction, will plug 1500 ft-lbs for elk and 1250 ft-lbs for big deer and hogs, along w/ associate impact velocities.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
It’s a 9 pounder, and the recoil gets your attention! I’m certainly not good for more than 20 to 30 (30 is pushing it) rounds at a sitting with full house loads. I’d prefer to keep the round count under 10…..as the shoulder is pretty sore the next day! It’s shot very little with full house loads…..that’s what light loads in it and small bore rifles are for! memtb
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is iralavant quote such shows ignorance
That has been my experience as well, due to both using and seeing a lot of big game taken on several continents with everything from broadhead arrows, .22-caliber rifles, and handguns on up to "big bore" rifles at various ranges. Impact energy has varied from around 50 foot-pounds to around 5000. The major factor I've noticed that matters is whether the projectile makes a big enough hole through the vital organs.
Would like to hear about GA's, "The formulas used to determine bullet selection and impact velocity, on game inside that range, have proven themselves over a lifetime of hunting."
I would suggest that you abandon your chosen Long Range Rifle build, and either put a scope on a rifle that you have already that’s decent or buy a rifle in a caliber and cartridge that is easy shooting and can fire a projectile with a high BC.
People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience.
Get a good load for a rifle that you have and a scope that dials consistently and start shooting developing the drop data that works for all the drops out to as far as the rifle can shoot or the scope can travel. Enter some fun shoots that are PRS style or practical rifle match style and learn how to get rest and build positions. Learn how to dope the wind under pressure and time constraints.
When you do all of this, you will learn what is possible. You can then pick a cartridge that will get it done for you. You don’t have to shoot heavy recoiling cartridges to kill game at Long Range, but if you want to do so that’s fine.
It’s a great journey. You’ll find out every day how much you don’t know, but shooting in all conditions, learning to load, and understanding wind and a multitude of other things will eventually sink into your skull. You’ll discover humility.
Does anyone have experience with 155 Scenar expansion between 1800-1950 FPS?
I’m going to try to test it out on ballistic gell but wanted to see if anyone has on game experience from 1800-1950 FPS
I shot a cow two seasons ago at 615 yards using my 20" Broadside shot. Entered the shoulder and was caught in the offside hide. Velocity was under 1900 according to my dope card. Worked perfectly fine as always.
This is a quote from 3 or 4 elk ago.
Using a rifle that does not weigh even 8 pounds and sure was not generating 1500-2000 FT-lbs at 615 yards. In fact according to my calcs, it was under 1200.
It’s a 9 pounder, and the recoil gets your attention! I’m certainly not good for more than 20 to 30 (30 is pushing it) rounds at a sitting with full house loads. I’d prefer to keep the round count under 10…..as the shoulder is pretty sore the next day! It’s shot very little with full house loads…..that’s what light loads in it and small bore rifles are for! memtb
That's not a great recipe for developing LR proficiency with the load you'll use for LR hunting.
Forget the arbitrary 2000 ft-lbs number, and use any 6mm+ cartridge/bullet that will retain enough velocity to expand when it hits flesh, and you're GTG. Most importantly, choose one that you can shoot to the best of your capability all afternoon without sub-consciously "bracing for impact" as you squeeze the trigger.
I would suggest that you abandon your chosen Long Range Rifle build, and either put a scope on a rifle that you have already that’s decent or buy a rifle in a caliber and cartridge that is easy shooting and can fire a projectile with a high BC.
People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience.
Get a good load for a rifle that you have and a scope that dials consistently and start shooting developing the drop data that works for all the drops out to as far as the rifle can shoot or the scope can travel. Enter some fun shoots that are PRS style or practical rifle match style and learn how to get rest and build positions. Learn how to dope the wind under pressure and time constraints.
When you do all of this, you will learn what is possible. You can then pick a cartridge that will get it done for you. You don’t have to shoot heavy recoiling cartridges to kill game at Long Range, but if you want to do so that’s fine.
It’s a great journey. You’ll find out every day how much you don’t know, but shooting in all conditions, learning to load, and understanding wind and a multitude of other things will eventually sink into your skull. You’ll discover humility.
Wait, I thought all that was needed were some rip stop BDU’s and a three day assault pack and I too could be a sniper on some poor critter at 600 yards. And remember, that’s where true sniping begins..
I would suggest that you abandon your chosen Long Range Rifle build, and either put a scope on a rifle that you have already that’s decent or buy a rifle in a caliber and cartridge that is easy shooting and can fire a projectile with a high BC.
People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience.
Get a good load for a rifle that you have and a scope that dials consistently and start shooting developing the drop data that works for all the drops out to as far as the rifle can shoot or the scope can travel. Enter some fun shoots that are PRS style or practical rifle match style and learn how to get rest and build positions. Learn how to dope the wind under pressure and time constraints.
When you do all of this, you will learn what is possible. You can then pick a cartridge that will get it done for you. You don’t have to shoot heavy recoiling cartridges to kill game at Long Range, but if you want to do so that’s fine.
It’s a great journey. You’ll find out every day how much you don’t know, but shooting in all conditions, learning to load, and understanding wind and a multitude of other things will eventually sink into your skull. You’ll discover humility.
I would suggest that you abandon your chosen Long Range Rifle build, and either put a scope on a rifle that you have already that’s decent or buy a rifle in a caliber and cartridge that is easy shooting and can fire a projectile with a high BC.
People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience.
Get a good load for a rifle that you have and a scope that dials consistently and start shooting developing the drop data that works for all the drops out to as far as the rifle can shoot or the scope can travel. Enter some fun shoots that are PRS style or practical rifle match style and learn how to get rest and build positions. Learn how to dope the wind under pressure and time constraints.
When you do all of this, you will learn what is possible. You can then pick a cartridge that will get it done for you. You don’t have to shoot heavy recoiling cartridges to kill game at Long Range, but if you want to do so that’s fine.
It’s a great journey. You’ll find out every day how much you don’t know, but shooting in all conditions, learning to load, and understanding wind and a multitude of other things will eventually sink into your skull. You’ll discover humility.
Best of luck to you
Good advice.
Yes it is. Doubt it will be followed.
He needs a really good scope because I don't think the 3-9x40 Leupold he mentioned is going to cut it.. ha ha..
Does a 140gr tsx max loaded out of a 270 even have enough velocity for reliable expansion at 600+ yds?.. mb
I wouldn't wanna gamble it myself..
A little practice shooting our 223’s and stuff during the summer out to 800 made the 675 yard shot pretty easy for my little brother. A decent scope like Jordan mentioned helps a bunch.
We did use our packs to shoot over though..
Mine was much closer at 390, but still a relatively easy poke for a decent bullet and scope.
Sorry, but the more you post, the more I'm certain your knowledge of big game hunting is more theoretical than real.
Ain’t that the truth. Still waiting on pics from the other thread.
I think he's a troll, volleying the General Big Game and the Ask the Gunwriters forums. It's Lee24 with a side of ElkSlayer91 and a sanctimonious dash of Savage_99.
[quote=rcamuglia]I would suggest that you abandon your chosen Long Range Rifle build, and either put a scope on a rifle that you have already that’s decent or buy a rifle in a caliber and cartridge that is easy shooting and can fire a projectile with a high BC.
People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience.
Get a good load for a rifle that you have and a scope that dials consistently and start shooting developing the drop data that works for all the drops out to as far as the rifle can shoot or the scope can travel. Enter some fun shoots that are PRS style or practical rifle match style and learn how to get rest and build positions. Learn how to dope the wind under pressure and time constraints.
When you do all of this, you will learn what is possible. You can then pick a cartridge that will get it done for you. You don’t have to shoot heavy recoiling cartridges to kill game at Long Range, but if you want to do so that’s fine.
It’s a great journey. You’ll find out every day how much you don’t know, but shooting in all conditions, learning to load, and understanding wind and a multitude of other things will eventually sink into your skull. You’ll discover humility.
Best of luck to you
Good advice.[/quotI
I agree with this also. This part (" Enter some fun shoots that are PRS style or practical rifle match style and learn how to get rest and build positions.")May not be necessary, but is still Good advise. You can accomplish this without having to enter a competition. Anyone can quickly learn to read a reticle or twist turrets. IMO the most important skill to learn is doping the wind. Find someone that is proficient at long range shooting. Maybe at a local gun club or shooting range that you can talk to. You can learn a lot from someone that has been in the long range game for a while. Learning how to read a mirage and wind conditions down range is more important than your rifle build at this point, JMO.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
...Would like to hear about GA's, "The formulas used to determine bullet selection and impact velocity, on game inside that range, have proven themselves over a lifetime of hunting."
What does a "know-it-all" need with applied physics?
It’s a 9 pounder, and the recoil gets your attention! I’m certainly not good for more than 20 to 30 (30 is pushing it) rounds at a sitting with full house loads. I’d prefer to keep the round count under 10…..as the shoulder is pretty sore the next day! It’s shot very little with full house loads…..that’s what light loads in it and small bore rifles are for! memtb
Found out long ago that, for me, precision field shooting drops off when recoil gets in the 20's.
The .270/150 gr./2800 fps. is an all day load for me in an 8.5 lb rifle.
The .30/180 gr./2700 fps. is not.
Can still shoot it pretty well, same as the 9.3mm/286 gr., but not with the precision necessary for < 1.5 MOA in the field.
So, was thinkin' to speed up a high BC .277" 150/165 gr. using the .270 Win. case, or find a suitable 6.5mm cartridge.
The 6.5x55mm can't match it to 600 yards.
The 6.5 PRC will, but the fat case is problematic in the candidate M700 rifle.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
I think he's a troll, volleying the General Big Game and the Ask the Gunwriters forums. It's Lee24 with a side of ElkSlayer91 and a sanctimonious dash of Savage_99.
Participation in local precision matches is probably the most important part of the equation. It will make you a better rifleman and a better Hunter.
Agreed, you are 100% correct. I stated that it is still Good advise. Shooting in matches will definitely make you a better rifleman and a better Hunter. I haven't shot in a shooting competition since 1980. It's been a while. I was just trying to convey the fact that one can begin to learn some long range skills before adding the pressure and time constraints of competition.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
... so your opinion is irrelevant.
GR
You're long on theory and devoid of experience
Any thing from a 243 and up will work just fine with proper [bleep] placement which brings us the the lone requirement which is accuracy Just watch a few videos of the 243 dropping elk in their tracks at 800+ yards
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
That's an impressive shot for sure, can't take anything away from that shooter and the results....still, nobody posts the videos of their F'ups and the ones that ran off crippled.
That's an impressive shot for sure, can't take anything away from that shooter and the results....still, nobody posts the videos of their F'ups and the ones that ran off crippled.
Accuracy keeps them from running off. The video also shows the fallacy of FPE. FPE doesn't kill but holes through vital organs does kill
The 3-9 scope I use on my .270 for up to 350 yards isn't enough for me at 600 yards. I like at least 12 power at that distance, but around 18 power is better (for me), a 16 oz trigger, a 27 inch barrel and an 11 pound plus rifle. I use Bergers at that distance on medium size game because of their superb accuracy in my rifle, decent bc, and their emphatic kills at that distance on medium size game.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
... so your opinion is irrelevant.
GR
You're long on theory and devoid of experience
Any thing from a 243 and up will work just fine with proper [bleep] placement which brings us the the lone requirement which is accuracy Just watch a few videos of the 243 dropping elk in their tracks at 800+ yards
That may be.
Why the thread.
But relying on perfect shot placement with marginal rounds on game animals... is not for me.
You are more than welcome to.
My floor is a heavy 6.5mm, and like a heavy .277" even better.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
... so your opinion is irrelevant.
GR
You're long on theory and devoid of experience
Any thing from a 243 and up will work just fine with proper [bleep] placement which brings us the the lone requirement which is accuracy Just watch a few videos of the 243 dropping elk in their tracks at 800+ yards
That may be.
Why the thread.
But relying on perfect shot placement with marginal rounds on game animals... is not for me.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Well... a bullet swap and "dialing" scope is really all I'm after anyway, based on the .270 Win..
The longer/heavier 1:8 twist Bbl. will stabilize the ABLR bullets. The 150 gr. better, and 165 gr. at all.
24" length will help increase MV w/ RL-26 or similar powder, w/o making the rifle into a truck axle.
Would also start w/ the old 3-9 scope, and see how that went, w/ an eye to a modern long range "dialing" rig of some kind.
Not a big fan of over-magnification, as a solid 8" hit is all that's necessary, and more than enough just magnifies problems.
So, nothin' really "crazy," except most of the responses.
I'd just load some 150 ABLR's in your current rig and see where you're at. The little bit of BC you're giving up with your 10 twist won't make a hill of beans difference for learning purposes.
There are a bunch of good 10X or less scopes that dial correctly and honestly, for what you're doing a plain old 6 or 10X SS MQ is one of the best teachers out there.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
... so your opinion is irrelevant.
GR
You're long on theory and devoid of experience
Any thing from a 243 and up will work just fine with proper [bleep] placement which brings us the the lone requirement which is accuracy Just watch a few videos of the 243 dropping elk in their tracks at 800+ yards
That may be.
Why the thread.
But relying on perfect shot placement with marginal rounds on game animals... is not for me.
GR
Are you an idiot, a troll or both?
No round works without proper shot placement
Find an Adult to help you w/ my responses.
... as "Shot Placement" is one of the four listed.
There are places in an 8" shot zone that a .243" at 600 yards won't handle very well.
Always interesting - ask a question/look for advice and then argue with everyone that gives it. Seems like you already know the answer so why the thread?
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
... so your opinion is irrelevant.
GR
You're long on theory and devoid of experience
Any thing from a 243 and up will work just fine with proper [bleep] placement which brings us the the lone requirement which is accuracy Just watch a few videos of the 243 dropping elk in their tracks at 800+ yards
That may be.
Why the thread.
But relying on perfect shot placement with marginal rounds on game animals... is not for me.
GR
Are you an idiot, a troll or both?
No round works without proper shot placement
Find an Adult to help you w/ my responses.
... as "Shot Placement" is one of the four listed.
There are places in an 8" shot zone that a .243" at 600 yards won't handle very well.
You go ahead and gamble.
GR
If it's in the vital it dam sure will handke it. How would you know their are spors in the vitals that a 243 will not handle?
I'd just load some 150 ABLR's in your current rig and see where you're at. The little bit of BC you're giving up with your 10 twist won't make a hill of beans difference for learning purposes.
There are a bunch of good 10X or less scopes that dial correctly and honestly, for what you're doing a plain old 6 or 10X SS MQ is one of the best teachers out there.
Have had several shooters tell me they couldn't get the ABLR to shoot well where we hunt.
Wind is the biggest factor at 600, if a laser is used for the range and you have the rifle dope.
Know next to nothing about modern dialing scopes for long range shooting.
Have a 2.5-8x36mm on my current rifle and that has been more than adequate to 400 yds.
As stated, an 8" target is the design spec.
With a 1 MOA rifle/load, that's a little better than 0.5 MOA for the shooter.
Dial in the load a little better, and that frees up the shooter a little.
Not shooting the M700 project candidate anymore, and this would be an interesting project, given the existing rifle (sub-MOA) and cartridge familiarity.
Always interesting - ask a question/look for advice and then argue with everyone that gives it. Seems like you already know the answer so why the thread?
For help w/ those things 4-600 yard hunting related that are unknown to me.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
Well, ever since Burns whimpered and slithered away from this site, camuglia has actually given some great information and insight on various subjects. You are obviously too dense to realize that he gave you some very sound advice in his response to you. You keep saying you're a very competent and accomplished shooter/hunter, but lip service don't count. Just sayin'.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
Well, ever since Burns whimpered and slithered away from this site, camuglia has actually given some great information and insight on various subjects. You are obviously too dense to realize that he gave you some very sound advice in his response to you. You keep saying you're a very competent and accomplished shooter/hunter, but lip service don't count. Just sayin'.
Anyone that blindly quotes ft-lbs of energy as a measuring stick for effectiveness I pretty much disregard. It doesn’t translate well to real world hunting. As others have said. Stick a bullet through the vitals with enough impact speed for the particular bullet to expand and its end of story.
People that come looking for answers and then turn into know it all experts when they don’t get the answer that they want are enjoying.
Anyone that blindly quotes ft-lbs of energy as a measuring stick for effectiveness I pretty much disregard. It doesn’t translate well to real world hunting. As others have said. Stick a bullet through the vitals with enough impact speed for the particular bullet to expand and its end of story.
People that come looking for answers and then turn into know it all experts when they don’t get the answer that they want are enjoying.
GR[/quote] People that come looking for answers and then turn into know it all experts when they don’t get the answer that they want are enjoying.[/quote]
The more GA posts, the more I believe he's a "victim" of the Dunning-Kruger Effect--which isn't uncommon on Internet forums.
That's an impressive shot for sure, can't take anything away from that shooter and the results....still, nobody posts the videos of their F'ups and the ones that ran off crippled.
That's an impressive shot for sure, can't take anything away from that shooter and the results....still, nobody posts the videos of their F'ups and the ones that ran off crippled.
Accuracy keeps them from running off. The video also shows the fallacy of FPE. FPE doesn't kill but holes through vital organs does kill
Very accurately said! However….. larger, faster bullets do it a bit better! 😉 memtb
That's an impressive shot for sure, can't take anything away from that shooter and the results....still, nobody posts the videos of their F'ups and the ones that ran off crippled.
^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^ memtb
You guys mean unlike all the videos that get posted wherein the distance was 200? 100? Pick your distance?
A couple observations and two inputs: 1) Garandimal is catching a lot of flak and is doing (for this forum) probably an above average job of trying to stay on target for the data he showed up seeking. He has hit back too, and that didn't help things any. 2) It's my assessment if he would abandon any fixation on minimum energy levels and just listen to what folks are advocating (that being the ~50% of respondents who seem to have helping as their objective) the rest of the outfit would have less of a beef. 3) We should all note that he's hardy advocating for excess firepower. He is, after all, setting up a .270 Win for his objective. 4) His comments on wanting to be sure of hitting an 8" vital zone at 600 yards do indicate an awareness of the importance of shot placement vs. a reliance on KE in the guts.
Inputs: Garandimal, 1) Don't recall if you already bought your barrel. If not yet, consider a 1:7.5 twist vs. a 1:8 twist. This is what Browning chose for their 6.8 Western in order to...wait for it... 2) shoot the 175 Sierra TGK. I have been struggling with the 165 ABLR in my 8" twist 270 WSM, and the 150 ABLR was hard to get shooting good too. That 175 TGK is shooting great, but some penetration test videos I watched (shot with 1:8 twist) indicated it might want a hair more twist to stay straight after impact. I figure Browning chose the 1:7.5 for a reason, and it's their branded 6.8 Western ammo that features the 175 TGK.
I don't think you have gotten any advice on this thread that isn't good, particularly that regarding the need for really good optics, and for not worrying too very much about minimum energy levels. Best of luck in your quest. What are you planning to hunt with this rig? Cheers, Rex
I don't understand why some dude who has the confidence to dismiss what Mule Deer has told him is even bothering to ask questions here. He knows that ft-lbs of energy is the secret to an effective hunting round and clearly should be writing for Wolfe. He'll set the hunting world on fire.
I have actually tested much heavier .270-caliber, high-BC bullets in more than one 1-10 twist .270 Winchester, starting with the Berger 170-grain EOL, handloaded to around 2750 fps. It shot quite accurately, which didn't surprise me much because I ran the numbers through the Berger twist-rate formula before trying it, and found it should stabilize (and come close to its maximum BC) in my local conditions.
These experiments include shooting at the local 1000-yard range at an elevation of 4500' above sea level, during summer conditions--and in typical elk-hunting conditions of around 35 degrees F. at 7000 feet. (It's kinda handy to live in a part of Montana where I can do both after a short drive.) Dunno where GA and his buddies hunt, but those were my results.
Have also found Nosler AccuBond Long Range bullets tend to shoot pretty well IF you experiment with seating depth. As an example, they'll put five shots in under 1/2" at 100 yards in my 8-pound 6.5 PRC, built by Charlie Sisk, but ONLY if I seat them a full .1 (1/10th of an inch) from the lands.
Have found the same thing with many other recent bullets, whether monolithics or high-BC lead-cores from other companies. But have also run into, and corresponded with, lot of handloaders who only seat bullets close to the lands--and if they don't get immediate results give up.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Great post Scotty. The OP should appreciate your honest opinion. It really does boil down to practice. Practice with what you have and practice so you have a good understanding of what your rifle and load is going to do under different conditions. Wind is the big one, but changes in temperature and even overcast skies or super bright conditions mess with poa/poi, as well as humidity. I like what rcamamuglia has added to this thread as well. You guys really hit the nail on the head. I like his approach to joining a club that has some long range events. Anything, where you can learn from others and even get educated by the environment and changing conditions, will help IMENSELY!!!. There's a lot to shooting long range and the more you do it, the more natural it becomes. You automatically adjust for conditions. You may be using your scope to spot mirage, watching splash and dust fly. You use everything you can to your advantage. This is where skill is challenged, learned and improved on. Also, developing skill requires a lot of trigger time. Trigger time and the ability to absorb everything that affects bullet flight is what makes the difference. I also suggest joining a club that offers long range events. Hopefully in those events you will be on the dial and under a time limit and that you will also have the ability to learn real quick. If not, this may not be for you. If you can't handle that kind of pressure, it is very likely you will not be able to handle the pressure it takes to cleanly take a game animal at 6-800 yards... (CTR2, not as accurate as CTR1 ,but it will work well this Saturday)
Doing a little testing today for Saturday's event^^^^ Loving my new bipod.. I totally agree with you guys on not needing a specialized rifle to learn to shoot @600. The last 6 rifles I've bought over the last 3 months would suffice. All of them are accurate enough to work and damn good enough to learn on. Hell, even the upper my buddy handed to me last Saturday at my clubs gunshow, and said, "take it with you, we'll settle up later", would easily work at 600 yards for practice... Again, trigger time and a scope that dials consistently. By consistently, I mean consistently not high dollar either. A fixed power SWFA SS will work very well for this application.. The Leupold the op mentioned. Hell no. It doesn't even have a ballistic type reticle and I damn sure would not trust it dialing spot on..
Anyone that blindly quotes ft-lbs of energy as a measuring stick for effectiveness I pretty much disregard. It doesn’t translate well to real world hunting. As others have said. Stick a bullet through the vitals with enough impact speed for the particular bullet to expand and its end of story.
People that come looking for answers and then turn into know it all experts when they don’t get the answer that they want are enjoying.
More hyperbole.
This animal is already 600 yards away.
.243" 90-100 gr. bullet w/ 700-900 ft-lbs of energy.
... and you hit solid bone.
100% sure it will get to the vitals at all, and with anything more than a poke?
How about an exit wound, much less one big enough to leave a blood trail?
Track a wounded animal through thickets or water, with a pencil wound and no blood trail.
Old hunter says: "If you cannot get within 200 yards of any big game animal, you should hire a real hunter to show you how."
Remember that Finnish sniper with the most kills of anyone ? Killed most with a subgun ----- had to be close.
Fred Bear killed everything with a RECURVE BOW. The defense rests.
That's the bulk of it.
This project is to explore the edges of the envelope.
GR
Hilarious! “The edge of the envelope” is 600 yards.
😂😂😂
My longest kill is about 1000 yards longer
You don’t even know what is possible. Take the rifle that you have and start shooting it at longer ranges. If you don’t have a scope that will dial consistently, get one that’s all you need to do now to learn
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Great post Scotty. The OP should appreciate your honest opinion. It really does boil down to practice. Practice with what you have and practice so you have a good understanding of what your rifle and load is going to do under different conditions. Wind is the big one, but changes in temperature and even overcast skies or super bright conditions mess with poa/poi, as well as humidity. I like what rcamamuglia has added to this thread as well. You guys really hit the nail on the head. I like his approach to joining a club that has some long range events. Anything, where you can learn from others and even get educated by the environment and changing conditions, will help IMENSELY!!!. There's a lot to shooting long range and the more you do it, the more natural it becomes. You automatically adjust for conditions. You may be using your scope to spot mirage, watching splash and dust fly. You use everything you can to your advantage. This is where skill is challenged, learned and improved on. Also, developing skill requires a lot of trigger time. Trigger time and the ability to absorb everything that affects bullet flight is what makes the difference. I also suggest joining a club that offers long range events. Hopefully in those events you will be on the dial and under a time limit and that you will also have the ability to learn real quick. If not, this may not be for you. If you can't handle that kind of pressure, it is very likely you will not be able to handle the pressure it takes to cleanly take a game animal at 6-800 yards... (CTR2, not as accurate as CTR1 ,but it will work well this Saturday)
Doing a little testing today for Saturday's event^^^^ Loving my new bipod.. I totally agree with you guys on not needing a specialized rifle to learn to shoot @600. The last 6 rifles I've bought over the last 3 months would suffice. All of them are accurate enough to work and damn good enough to learn on. Hell, even the upper my buddy handed to me last Saturday at my clubs gunshow, and said, "take it with you, we'll settle up later", would easily work at 600 yards for practice... Again, trigger time and a scope that dials consistently. By consistently, I mean consistently not high dollar either. A fixed power SWFA SS will work very well for this application.. The Leupold the op mentioned. Hell no. It doesn't even have a ballistic type reticle and I damn sure would not trust it dialing spot on..
You misunderstand.
Lookin' into building a rifle to Hunt at 600 yards.
Already know how to shoot.
Just don't have a scoped rifle that will meet my specs at that range.
So am exploring options and gathering information.
The .270 Win/150 gr., w/ a high BC bullet, will do it, - in a rifle light enough to hunt with, - in the recoil envelope for precision shooting.
The M700 already in the freezer would do nicely w/ a new light varmint contour 24" R5 Bbl..
Bullet/powder/load selection, scope, bases/rings, and gadgets.
The cartridge is not set in stone, but haven't found another one in spec with more advantage.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Great post Scotty. The OP should appreciate your honest opinion. It really does boil down to practice. Practice with what you have and practice so you have a good understanding of what your rifle and load is going to do under different conditions. Wind is the big one, but changes in temperature and even overcast skies or super bright conditions mess with poa/poi, as well as humidity. I like what rcamamuglia has added to this thread as well. You guys really hit the nail on the head. I like his approach to joining a club that has some long range events. Anything, where you can learn from others and even get educated by the environment and changing conditions, will help IMENSELY!!!. There's a lot to shooting long range and the more you do it, the more natural it becomes. You automatically adjust for conditions. You may be using your scope to spot mirage, watching splash and dust fly. You use everything you can to your advantage. This is where skill is challenged, learned and improved on. Also, developing skill requires a lot of trigger time. Trigger time and the ability to absorb everything that affects bullet flight is what makes the difference. I also suggest joining a club that offers long range events. Hopefully in those events you will be on the dial and under a time limit and that you will also have the ability to learn real quick. If not, this may not be for you. If you can't handle that kind of pressure, it is very likely you will not be able to handle the pressure it takes to cleanly take a game animal at 6-800 yards... (CTR2, not as accurate as CTR1 ,but it will work well this Saturday)
Doing a little testing today for Saturday's event^^^^ Loving my new bipod.. I totally agree with you guys on not needing a specialized rifle to learn to shoot @600. The last 6 rifles I've bought over the last 3 months would suffice. All of them are accurate enough to work and damn good enough to learn on. Hell, even the upper my buddy handed to me last Saturday at my clubs gunshow, and said, "take it with you, we'll settle up later", would easily work at 600 yards for practice... Again, trigger time and a scope that dials consistently. By consistently, I mean consistently not high dollar either. A fixed power SWFA SS will work very well for this application.. The Leupold the op mentioned. Hell no. It doesn't even have a ballistic type reticle and I damn sure would not trust it dialing spot on..
You misunderstand.
Lookin' into building a rifle to Hunt at 600 yards.
Already know how to shoot.
Just don't have a scoped rifle that will meet my specs at that range.
So am exploring options and gathering information.
The .270 Win/150 gr., w/ a high BC bullet, will do it, - in a rifle light enough to hunt with, - in the recoil envelope for precision shooting.
The M700 already in the freezer would do nicely w/ a new light varmint contour 24" R5 Bbl..
Bullet/powder/load selection, scope, bases/rings, and gadgets.
The cartridge is not set in stone, but haven't found another one in spec with more advantage.
GR
If you already "know how to shoot", then you probably don't need to ask us.. When a guy says, "I've shot the shidt out of irons at 600 yards, just switching to any schidty Leupold scope will work", doesn't give anyone any warm fuzzy feelings about your shooting ability. If you use that old 3-9x40 Leupold, you will not be making consistent hits on target because there is no reference points in the reticle and the scope is not going to track for fu ck. This leads me to believe you don't have as much experience as you say you do.
Old hunter says: "If you cannot get within 200 yards of any big game animal, you should hire a real hunter to show you how."
Remember that Finnish sniper with the most kills of anyone ? Killed most with a subgun ----- had to be close.
Fred Bear killed everything with a RECURVE BOW. The defense rests.
That's the bulk of it.
This project is to explore the edges of the envelope.
GR
Hilarious! “The edge of the envelope” is 600 yards.
😂😂😂
My longest kill is about 1000 yards longer
You don’t even know what is possible. Take the rifle that you have and start shooting it at longer ranges. If you don’t have a scope that will dial consistently, get one that’s all you need to do now to learn
Wind and movement, not drop, are the issues.
And 400 yards - is already a very long shot at game.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Great post Scotty. The OP should appreciate your honest opinion. It really does boil down to practice. Practice with what you have and practice so you have a good understanding of what your rifle and load is going to do under different conditions. Wind is the big one, but changes in temperature and even overcast skies or super bright conditions mess with poa/poi, as well as humidity. I like what rcamamuglia has added to this thread as well. You guys really hit the nail on the head. I like his approach to joining a club that has some long range events. Anything, where you can learn from others and even get educated by the environment and changing conditions, will help IMENSELY!!!. There's a lot to shooting long range and the more you do it, the more natural it becomes. You automatically adjust for conditions. You may be using your scope to spot mirage, watching splash and dust fly. You use everything you can to your advantage. This is where skill is challenged, learned and improved on. Also, developing skill requires a lot of trigger time. Trigger time and the ability to absorb everything that affects bullet flight is what makes the difference. I also suggest joining a club that offers long range events. Hopefully in those events you will be on the dial and under a time limit and that you will also have the ability to learn real quick. If not, this may not be for you. If you can't handle that kind of pressure, it is very likely you will not be able to handle the pressure it takes to cleanly take a game animal at 6-800 yards... (CTR2, not as accurate as CTR1 ,but it will work well this Saturday)
Doing a little testing today for Saturday's event^^^^ Loving my new bipod.. I totally agree with you guys on not needing a specialized rifle to learn to shoot @600. The last 6 rifles I've bought over the last 3 months would suffice. All of them are accurate enough to work and damn good enough to learn on. Hell, even the upper my buddy handed to me last Saturday at my clubs gunshow, and said, "take it with you, we'll settle up later", would easily work at 600 yards for practice... Again, trigger time and a scope that dials consistently. By consistently, I mean consistently not high dollar either. A fixed power SWFA SS will work very well for this application.. The Leupold the op mentioned. Hell no. It doesn't even have a ballistic type reticle and I damn sure would not trust it dialing spot on..
You misunderstand.
Lookin' into building a rifle to Hunt at 600 yards.
Already know how to shoot.
Just don't have a scoped rifle that will meet my specs at that range.
So am exploring options and gathering information.
The .270 Win/150 gr., w/ a high BC bullet, will do it, - in a rifle light enough to hunt with, - in the recoil envelope for precision shooting.
The M700 already in the freezer would do nicely w/ a new light varmint contour 24" R5 Bbl..
Bullet/powder/load selection, scope, bases/rings, and gadgets.
The cartridge is not set in stone, but haven't found another one in spec with more advantage.
GR
If you already "know how to shoot", then you probably don't need to ask us.. When a guy says, "I've shot the shidt out of irons at 600 yards, just switching to any schidty Leupold scope will work", doesn't give anyone any warm fuzzy feelings about your shooting ability. If you use that old 3-9x40 Leupold, you will not be making consistent hits on target because there is no reference points in the reticle and the scope is not going to track for fu ck. This leads me to believe you don't have as much experience as you say you do.
Feel better?
This thread is w/r/t those things necessary for 600 yd. hunting not skill related.
As mentioned, the original scope would be for testing - w/ an option for an upgrade.
And 600 yards on paper, w/ that rifle/scope, as is, was no problem at all.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Great post Scotty. The OP should appreciate your honest opinion. It really does boil down to practice. Practice with what you have and practice so you have a good understanding of what your rifle and load is going to do under different conditions. Wind is the big one, but changes in temperature and even overcast skies or super bright conditions mess with poa/poi, as well as humidity. I like what rcamamuglia has added to this thread as well. You guys really hit the nail on the head. I like his approach to joining a club that has some long range events. Anything, where you can learn from others and even get educated by the environment and changing conditions, will help IMENSELY!!!. There's a lot to shooting long range and the more you do it, the more natural it becomes. You automatically adjust for conditions. You may be using your scope to spot mirage, watching splash and dust fly. You use everything you can to your advantage. This is where skill is challenged, learned and improved on. Also, developing skill requires a lot of trigger time. Trigger time and the ability to absorb everything that affects bullet flight is what makes the difference. I also suggest joining a club that offers long range events. Hopefully in those events you will be on the dial and under a time limit and that you will also have the ability to learn real quick. If not, this may not be for you. If you can't handle that kind of pressure, it is very likely you will not be able to handle the pressure it takes to cleanly take a game animal at 6-800 yards... (CTR2, not as accurate as CTR1 ,but it will work well this Saturday)
Doing a little testing today for Saturday's event^^^^ Loving my new bipod.. I totally agree with you guys on not needing a specialized rifle to learn to shoot @600. The last 6 rifles I've bought over the last 3 months would suffice. All of them are accurate enough to work and damn good enough to learn on. Hell, even the upper my buddy handed to me last Saturday at my clubs gunshow, and said, "take it with you, we'll settle up later", would easily work at 600 yards for practice... Again, trigger time and a scope that dials consistently. By consistently, I mean consistently not high dollar either. A fixed power SWFA SS will work very well for this application.. The Leupold the op mentioned. Hell no. It doesn't even have a ballistic type reticle and I damn sure would not trust it dialing spot on..
You misunderstand.
Lookin' into building a rifle to Hunt at 600 yards.
Already know how to shoot.
Just don't have a scoped rifle that will meet my specs at that range.
So am exploring options and gathering information.
The .270 Win/150 gr., w/ a high BC bullet, will do it, - in a rifle light enough to hunt with, - in the recoil envelope for precision shooting.
The M700 already in the freezer would do nicely w/ a new light varmint contour 24" R5 Bbl..
Bullet/powder/load selection, scope, bases/rings, and gadgets.
The cartridge is not set in stone, but haven't found another one in spec with more advantage.
GR
Why are you wanting to start with a 270/6.8 cal? The bullet selection going down one caliber or up one or two would give you way more selection in long range bullets and you wouldn’t need a special twist. You’re starting at the worst possible caliber between 6.5mm and .308 for what you want to do as far as bullets and and needing a non factory barrel twist.
Why is 600 yards your goal?
You can buy any number of factory rifles with your stated heavy barrel preference (or lighter) that will do what you want to 600’ yards given that you already “know how to shoot.”
If you want to ring steel, practice, or snipe out of a box blind near your quad by all means buy a heavy barrel with repeatable turrets. If you plan on lugging it over open country choose something with a lighter contour. Pick an optic with repeatable dials or better yet for a hunting rifle out to your stated 600 yard goal I’d be inclined towards something with a multiplex and learning your holds.
...People have no business starting their long range shooting learning curve the way you are determined to do so. Starting out knowing nothing, thinking you know everything is a big problem, as you will finally figure it out with experience...
The point of this thread, professor, is to determine what is necessary for shooting from 4-600 yards at game... versus < 400 yards.
Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that.
Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards.
Started a thread RE: that.
Got mostly attitude and emotional outbursts so far.
Was maybe expecting some practical advise.
Thanks.
GR
You don't need to build a rifle for 600 yards, rookie. Any will do to learn on. You need to learn to shoot one that you have already.
Not happy w/ my std. hunting rifle/loads past 400.
So am looking into a 600 yd. capable rifle/load.
You might be of some use in that regard, if you ever grow up.
GR
I think maybe what he is saying is update your current scope to a capable optic of dialing past 400 yards. IF your load is truly good at 400, then it will work at 600 for accuracy and learning, your optics are the weak link. You don't need to get a crazy set up to get out to 600 yards really. If your loads aren't sufficient for 400 yard accuracy, a bullet swap will get you where you wanna be, but your current rifle is probably just fine and there are some decent bullets out there to train with.
Great post Scotty. The OP should appreciate your honest opinion. It really does boil down to practice. Practice with what you have and practice so you have a good understanding of what your rifle and load is going to do under different conditions. Wind is the big one, but changes in temperature and even overcast skies or super bright conditions mess with poa/poi, as well as humidity. I like what rcamamuglia has added to this thread as well. You guys really hit the nail on the head. I like his approach to joining a club that has some long range events. Anything, where you can learn from others and even get educated by the environment and changing conditions, will help IMENSELY!!!. There's a lot to shooting long range and the more you do it, the more natural it becomes. You automatically adjust for conditions. You may be using your scope to spot mirage, watching splash and dust fly. You use everything you can to your advantage. This is where skill is challenged, learned and improved on. Also, developing skill requires a lot of trigger time. Trigger time and the ability to absorb everything that affects bullet flight is what makes the difference. I also suggest joining a club that offers long range events. Hopefully in those events you will be on the dial and under a time limit and that you will also have the ability to learn real quick. If not, this may not be for you. If you can't handle that kind of pressure, it is very likely you will not be able to handle the pressure it takes to cleanly take a game animal at 6-800 yards... (CTR2, not as accurate as CTR1 ,but it will work well this Saturday)
Doing a little testing today for Saturday's event^^^^ Loving my new bipod.. I totally agree with you guys on not needing a specialized rifle to learn to shoot @600. The last 6 rifles I've bought over the last 3 months would suffice. All of them are accurate enough to work and damn good enough to learn on. Hell, even the upper my buddy handed to me last Saturday at my clubs gunshow, and said, "take it with you, we'll settle up later", would easily work at 600 yards for practice... Again, trigger time and a scope that dials consistently. By consistently, I mean consistently not high dollar either. A fixed power SWFA SS will work very well for this application.. The Leupold the op mentioned. Hell no. It doesn't even have a ballistic type reticle and I damn sure would not trust it dialing spot on..
You misunderstand.
Lookin' into building a rifle to Hunt at 600 yards.
Already know how to shoot.
Just don't have a scoped rifle that will meet my specs at that range.
So am exploring options and gathering information.
The .270 Win/150 gr., w/ a high BC bullet, will do it, - in a rifle light enough to hunt with, - in the recoil envelope for precision shooting.
The M700 already in the freezer would do nicely w/ a new light varmint contour 24" R5 Bbl..
Bullet/powder/load selection, scope, bases/rings, and gadgets.
The cartridge is not set in stone, but haven't found another one in spec with more advantage.
GR
Why are you wanting to start with a 270/6.8 cal? The bullet selection going down one caliber or up one or two would give you way more selection in long range bullets and you wouldn’t need a special twist. You’re starting at the worst possible caliber between 6.5mm and .308 for what you want to do as far as bullets and and needing a non factory barrel twist.
Why is 600 yards your goal?
You can buy any number of factory rifles with your stated heavy barrel preference (or lighter) that will do what you want to 600’ yards given that you already “know how to shoot.” Nothing that you post makes any sense.
Because you don't bother to read.
- Don't need a bunch of bullets... just one adequate one, heavy for caliber. - With the new Bbl., there is no "special twist." It's just the spec ordered. - Heavy for caliber .308, pushed to .270 Win. velocities, results in excessive recoil for precision shooting. - Heavy for caliber 6.5mm, pushed to .270 Win. velocities, shows no ballistic advantage out to 600 yds, and requires a new rifle. - Already shoot and load for the .270 Win. - A new Bbl. on an existing excess rifle will be far less expensive than a new rifle.
You’re making this Kindergarten because you obviously need schooled.
If you have a standard long action rifle that you’re looking to rebarrel you could go with any number of calibers. Better yet press the easy button and just buy something already twisted how you want. There’s lots of factory rifles and ammo/bullets between 6.5 and .308 to choose from without having to over complicate things.
There’s nothing wrong with 270/6.8 but it would be the last caliber that I would choose from between 6.5 and .308 out to your stated 600 yards. A 6.5 CM, 6.5 PRC or a plain jane .308 Winchester would be just fine. Pick from any number of factory store bought options. Tikka, Rem 700, Ruger American Rifle. To name a few. Put a good multiplex scope on it learn your holds and be done with it… Since you already know how to shoot. If you want a range rifle to practice and learn longer range shooting skills with you could narrow it down some more and lean towards turrets.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make a jackass drink.
Most of what GA has posted points to an extreme lack of knowledge and experience. Nothing wrong with that, we were all there at one time in our lives. The sad part is he won't listen to some very good advice offered up by those that have actually been there, done that and is incapable of accepting that many of his preconceived ideas are wrong. He's trying to hide his ignorance with his arrogance, thus proving both.
Well said MickeyD. He reminds me of guys who will look you in the face and tell you their accuracy capabilities are greater than the guns they use but are OK for normal schmucks...mb
Most of what GA has posted points to an extreme lack of knowledge and experience. Nothing wrong with that, we were all there at one time in our lives. The sad part is he won't listen to some very good advice offered up by those that have actually been there, done that and is incapable of accepting that many of his preconceived ideas are wrong. He's trying to hide his ignorance with his arrogance, thus proving both.
Originally Posted by Magnum_Bob
Well said MickeyD. He reminds me of guys who will look you in the face and tell you their accuracy capabilities are greater than the guns they use but are OK for normal schmucks...mb
Feel better?
These are the obtuse responses that ignore the OP, and have turned this thread into a useless Seven page cathartic whine-fest.
I was about to fire that one up.. The latest easy button is a 6.5 PRC...
Same/similar case capacity as the 270 Win, but compare the 147 ELD or even the 143 ELD or a handful of others against the 270 Win. I like the 270 alot and hunt it a bunch, but if you truly want the easy button the 6.5's tromp all over just about anything you can feed a 270 Win, and do it with easy to source bullets.
I'll use your digits for you to compare.
6.5 PRC (2900) with a 147 ELD BC .697 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 17.1
270 Win (2900) with a 145 ELD BC .536 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 24.1
If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy.
But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
I was about to fire that one up.. The latest easy button is a 6.5 PRC...
Same/similar case capacity as the 270 Win, but compare the 147 ELD or even the 143 ELD or a handful of others against the 270 Win. I like the 270 alot and hunt it a bunch, but if you truly want the easy button the 6.5's tromp all over just about anything you can feed a 270 Win, and do it with easy to source bullets.
I'll use your digits for you to compare.
6.5 PRC (2900) with a 147 ELD BC .697 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 17.1
270 Win (2900) with a 145 ELD BC .536 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 24.1
If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy.
But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
- 6.5 PRC case won't fit the bolt face of the candidate rifle. - .270 Win./150 gr. ABLR/3000 at 600 yds - 2122 fps/1500 ft-lbs/20" drift.
3" at 600 yards?
Not worth the trade-off requiring a new rifle/cartridge set-up.
...But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
600 is doable w/ my current 22" rig, just not optimum.
It's an 8.5 lb. M70 w/ a 2.5-8x36mm scope.
Shoots great.
Like it just the way it is for 99% of my hunting.
The pencil Bbl'ed M700 in the freezer just sits there.
What is the particular problem w/ the idea of spinning on a longer/heavier Bbl., and maybe some better glass and gadgets, for a dedicated longer range hunting rifle?
Most of what GA has posted points to an extreme lack of knowledge and experience. Nothing wrong with that, we were all there at one time in our lives. The sad part is he won't listen to some very good advice offered up by those that have actually been there, done that and is incapable of accepting that many of his preconceived ideas are wrong. He's trying to hide his ignorance with his arrogance, thus proving both.
Originally Posted by Magnum_Bob
Well said MickeyD. He reminds me of guys who will look you in the face and tell you their accuracy capabilities are greater than the guns they use but are OK for normal schmucks...mb
Feel better?
These are the obtuse responses that ignore the OP, and have turned this thread into a useless Seven page cathartic whine-fest.
...If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy...
Looked long at the 6.5-06.
Still, a lot of trouble for 3" at 600 yds.
Am already well entrenched in the .270 Win., and it meets the spec.
600 yds - 2122 fps/1500 ft-lbs/20" drift.
A .277/7PRC might get me to move a little... but that is a dark horse.
I was about to fire that one up.. The latest easy button is a 6.5 PRC...
Same/similar case capacity as the 270 Win, but compare the 147 ELD or even the 143 ELD or a handful of others against the 270 Win. I like the 270 alot and hunt it a bunch, but if you truly want the easy button the 6.5's tromp all over just about anything you can feed a 270 Win, and do it with easy to source bullets.
I'll use your digits for you to compare.
6.5 PRC (2900) with a 147 ELD BC .697 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 17.1
270 Win (2900) with a 145 ELD BC .536 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 24.1
If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy.
But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
- 6.5 PRC case won't fit the bolt face of the candidate rifle. - .270 Win./150 gr. ABLR/3000 at 600 yds - 2122 fps/1500 ft-lbs/20" drift.
3" at 600 yards?
Not worth the trade-off requiring a new rifle/cartridge set-up.
Maybe starting from scratch.
The 6.5mm - is fine in the Swede.
GR
But that wasn't your complaint or why you swung your purse. You're moving the goal posts.
You claimed the 6.5 wasn't better than the .270 to 600 yards at 270 velocity. Jordan said you were wrong. You snarked a "prove it" - it was proven. You're wrong - the 6.5 is better than the 270 to 600 yards at 270 velocity. The other parts about platform weren't the point of contention.
You're just not man enough to admit you're wrong. You still haven't admitted you're wrong. You're the kindergartner.
Originally Posted by Garandimal
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by Garandimal
- Heavy for caliber 6.5mm, pushed to .270 Win. velocities, shows no ballistic advantage out to 600 yds
I was about to fire that one up.. The latest easy button is a 6.5 PRC...
Same/similar case capacity as the 270 Win, but compare the 147 ELD or even the 143 ELD or a handful of others against the 270 Win. I like the 270 alot and hunt it a bunch, but if you truly want the easy button the 6.5's tromp all over just about anything you can feed a 270 Win, and do it with easy to source bullets.
I'll use your digits for you to compare.
6.5 PRC (2900) with a 147 ELD BC .697 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 17.1
270 Win (2900) with a 145 ELD BC .536 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 24.1
If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy.
But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
- 6.5 PRC case won't fit the bolt face of the candidate rifle. - .270 Win./150 gr. ABLR/3000 at 600 yds - 2122 fps/1500 ft-lbs/20" drift.
3" at 600 yards?
Not worth the trade-off requiring a new rifle/cartridge set-up.
Maybe starting from scratch.
The 6.5mm - is fine in the Swede.
GR
But that wasn't your complaint or why you swung your purse. You're moving the goal posts.
You claimed the 6.5 wasn't better than the .270 to 600 yards at 270 velocity. Jordan said you were wrong. You snarked a "prove it" - it was proven. You're wrong - the 6.5 is better than the 270 to 600 yards at 270 velocity. The other parts about platform weren't the point of contention.
You're just not man enough to admit you're wrong. You still haven't admitted you're wrong. You're the kindergartner.
Originally Posted by Garandimal
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
[quote=Garandimal] - Heavy for caliber 6.5mm, pushed to .270 Win. velocities, shows no ballistic advantage out to 600 yds
Use the 270 you are building. It will work, as a host of others. Use a GOOD SOLID scope and go shoot a bunch!
I use the 145 ELD-X in my 1:10 270 with a nightforce scope. Found it fairly easy to get out to 600 consistently with acceptable accuracy. I started having trouble at >700 yards. This was shooting at a friends range that goes out to a mile.
I have a 1:8 twist on order from Pac-Nor because I want to shoot some of the newer heavier 277 bullets. Even though the LR thing is not really for me and there better cartridge choices than a 270. But like you am well entrenched with the 270. I have zero interest in competing or actually shooting game at 600 plus yards. But I like to mess around banging steel every once in awhile. Sure makes normal hunting range shots a piece of cake.
There has been A LOT of good advice given here. Listen to it or don't. But one thing is certain, you need to go out and shoot! Actual range time will teach you a bunch.
I was about to fire that one up.. The latest easy button is a 6.5 PRC...
Same/similar case capacity as the 270 Win, but compare the 147 ELD or even the 143 ELD or a handful of others against the 270 Win. I like the 270 alot and hunt it a bunch, but if you truly want the easy button the 6.5's tromp all over just about anything you can feed a 270 Win, and do it with easy to source bullets.
I'll use your digits for you to compare.
6.5 PRC (2900) with a 147 ELD BC .697 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 17.1
270 Win (2900) with a 145 ELD BC .536 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 24.1
If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy.
But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
- 6.5 PRC case won't fit the bolt face of the candidate rifle. - .270 Win./150 gr. ABLR/3000 at 600 yds - 2122 fps/1500 ft-lbs/20" drift.
3" at 600 yards?
Not worth the trade-off requiring a new rifle/cartridge set-up.
Maybe starting from scratch.
The 6.5mm - is fine in the Swede.
GR
Yep. 100% troll.
But mad props to the fine folks here that exercised patience and even took the time to try to enlighten this phuuuktard. He's not interested in enlightenment, only in serving up vexations as cover for his own inadequacies as both hunter and human.
I was about to fire that one up.. The latest easy button is a 6.5 PRC...
Same/similar case capacity as the 270 Win, but compare the 147 ELD or even the 143 ELD or a handful of others against the 270 Win. I like the 270 alot and hunt it a bunch, but if you truly want the easy button the 6.5's tromp all over just about anything you can feed a 270 Win, and do it with easy to source bullets.
I'll use your digits for you to compare.
6.5 PRC (2900) with a 147 ELD BC .697 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 17.1
270 Win (2900) with a 145 ELD BC .536 ---- 600 yards 10 MPH Wind Drift 24.1
If you wanna stick with the 06 case, the 6.5-06 would be the next easiest since you already have cases. In either case, all the numbers that are important to you are going to be in favor of the 6.5, Impact Velocity and Energy.
But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
The points that the OP should really be arguing are that in the same case, e.g. 6.5-06 v .270 Win, the .270 will usually drive the same weight projectile (e.g. 140 grains) faster. This, together with a larger frontal area will give the .270 a slight advantage at most normal hunting distances, provided the sectional density is sufficient for complete penetration (which it usually is). Eventually the higher bc 6.5 projectile will catch up and be superior at the extreme distances. If 99% of shots my most hunters are taken at the shorter distances, then the .270 has some advantages over the 6.5. For the occasional shot at 600 yards, it doesn't really matter that there may be better options than a .270, a .270 will still be ok. Practicing at 600 yards with a .270 Win or .270 PRC is still a beneficial exercise, knowing full-well that 600 yard shots are in the minority and that the .270 really shines at the more-frequent closer hunting ranges.
The points that the OP should really be arguing are that in the same case, e.g. 6.5-06 v .270 Win, the .270 will usually drive the same weight projectile (e.g. 140 grains) faster. This, together with a larger frontal area will give the .270 a slight advantage at most normal hunting distances, provided the sectional density is sufficient for complete penetration (which it usually is). Eventually the higher bc 6.5 projectile will catch up and be superior at the extreme distances. If 99% of shots my most hunters are taken at the shorter distances, then the .270 has some advantages over the 6.5. For the occasional shot at 600 yards, it doesn't really matter that there may be better options than a .270, a .270 will still be ok. Practicing at 600 yards with a .270 Win or .270 PRC is still a beneficial exercise, knowing full-well that 600 yard shots are in the minority and that the .270 really shines at the more-frequent closer hunting ranges.
The major problem with your "theory" is that there's far less difference between how various "cartridges" (actually bullets) kill big game than many hunters believe. This is especially true of "frontal area," which is only minutely different between 6.5mm and .270 bullets--and doesn't matter nearly as much as EXPANDED bullet diameter, which can vary considerably with various bullet designs. Some bullets expand far more than others, in particular bonded bullets--but this also reduces penetration, because the major factor in penetration is NOT retained bullet weight, but frontal area.
I have considerable experience with the .270 Winchester on big game, partly through buying my first in 1974, and after a couple of decades having used it on more big game than any other cartridge. Plus, my wife got her first .270 in 1984, and killed a bunch of big game with it as well, at one point making 10 one-shot kills in a row on animals, from pronghorns at over 400 yards to bull elk and moose.
I have also killed quite a bit of big game in the same size-range with various 6.5mm cartridges, and seen hunting partners do the same, including the 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington and 6.5x55, which produce basically the same velocities with the same bullet weights. I have yet to be able to tell ANY consistent difference between the way any of those 6.5s (and several others) kill big game and how the .270 Winchester kills big game.
This is partly because there's actually far less difference in how various "cartridges" (again, actually bullets) kill big game as long the bullet penetrates and expand sufficiently while passing through the vitals.
If you prefer to believe in such minute theoretical differences as .013 in unexpanded bullet diameter in "killing power," that's your privilege. But I quite believing in such tiny stuff years ago.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will it work? Yes. Is it the ideal choice? No.
What else does it take? Well, a scope that enables reliable, precise, and repeatable alignment of POA and POI. That typically means a scope that tracks straight and uniform, RTZ, holds zero, and has a reticle that is graduated in the same units as the turrets for use as an angular ruler.
What else does it take? "Crutches." For killing game at 600 yards, you'll want to place shots within no more than about 1 MOA from your POA, and I would argue that 0.5 MOA is much better. Shooting from prone is rarely possible in field conditions due to vegetation and topography, so you'll need to be able to place your shots into 2 MOA or better. That often means using a pack, hiking poles, tripod, or natural rest to get above the ground and build a stable position.
What a bunch of gobble-de-gook!
Just throw that iron up to your shoulder, find the horizon above da fur, exhale, and squeeze.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will it work? Yes. Is it the ideal choice? No.
What else does it take? Well, a scope that enables reliable, precise, and repeatable alignment of POA and POI. That typically means a scope that tracks straight and uniform, RTZ, holds zero, and has a reticle that is graduated in the same units as the turrets for use as an angular ruler.
What else does it take? "Crutches." For killing game at 600 yards, you'll want to place shots within no more than about 1 MOA from your POA, and I would argue that 0.5 MOA is much better. Shooting from prone is rarely possible in field conditions due to vegetation and topography, so you'll need to be able to place your shots into 2 MOA or better. That often means using a pack, hiking poles, tripod, or natural rest to get above the ground and build a stable position.
What a bunch of gobble-de-gook!
Just throw that iron up to your shoulder, find the horizon above da fur, exhale, and squeeze.
Works every time.
Lol
🦫
Just hold a chest-and-a-half over its back and let fly!
I'm not the one complaining, nor am I offended-- that, sir, is in your court. All I was saying is that if you feel that some here have poured a little sand on your mangina perhaps you should leave this site or.....
You may try taking your own advise on that baby bottle.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will it work? Yes. Is it the ideal choice? No.
What else does it take? Well, a scope that enables reliable, precise, and repeatable alignment of POA and POI. That typically means a scope that tracks straight and uniform, RTZ, holds zero, and has a reticle that is graduated in the same units as the turrets for use as an angular ruler.
What else does it take? "Crutches." For killing game at 600 yards, you'll want to place shots within no more than about 1 MOA from your POA, and I would argue that 0.5 MOA is much better. Shooting from prone is rarely possible in field conditions due to vegetation and topography, so you'll need to be able to place your shots into 2 MOA or better. That often means using a pack, hiking poles, tripod, or natural rest to get above the ground and build a stable position.
What a bunch of gobble-de-gook!
Just throw that iron up to your shoulder, find the horizon above da fur, exhale, and squeeze.
Works every time.
Lol
🦫
Just hold a chest-and-a-half over it's back and let fly!
The points that the OP should really be arguing are that in the same case, e.g. 6.5-06 v .270 Win, the .270 will usually drive the same weight projectile (e.g. 140 grains) faster. This, together with a larger frontal area will give the .270 a slight advantage at most normal hunting distances, provided the sectional density is sufficient for complete penetration (which it usually is). Eventually the higher bc 6.5 projectile will catch up and be superior at the extreme distances. If 99% of shots my most hunters are taken at the shorter distances, then the .270 has some advantages over the 6.5. For the occasional shot at 600 yards, it doesn't really matter that there may be better options than a .270, a .270 will still be ok. Practicing at 600 yards with a .270 Win or .270 PRC is still a beneficial exercise, knowing full-well that 600 yard shots are in the minority and that the .270 really shines at the more-frequent closer hunting ranges.
The major problem with your "theory" is that there's far less difference between how various "cartridges" (actually bullets) kill big game than many hunters believe. This is especially true of "frontal area," which is only minutely different between 6.5mm and .270 bullets--and doesn't matter nearly as much as EXPANDED bullet diameter, which can vary considerably with various bullet designs. Some bullets expand far more than others, in particular bonded bullets--but this also reduces penetration, because the major factor in penetration is NOT retained bullet weight, but frontal area.
I have considerable experience with the .270 Winchester on big game, partly through buying my first in 1974, and after a couple of decades having used it on more big game than any other cartridge. Plus, my wife got her first .270 in 1984, and killed a bunch of big game with it as well, at one point making 10 one-shot kills in a row on animals, from pronghorns at over 400 yards to bull elk and moose.
I have also killed quite a bit of big game in the same size-range with various 6.5mm cartridges, and seen hunting partners do the same, including the 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington and 6.5x55, which produce basically the same velocities with the same bullet weights. I have yet to be able to tell ANY consistent difference between the way any of those 6.5s (and several others) kill big game and how the .270 Winchester kills big game.
This is partly because there's actually far less difference in how various "cartridges" (again, actually bullets) kill big game as long the bullet penetrates and expand sufficiently while passing through the vitals.
If you prefer to believe in such minute theoretical differences as .013 in unexpanded bullet diameter in "killing power," that's your privilege. But I quite believing in such tiny stuff years ago.
The problem with a theory that there is no difference between 6.5 and .270 bullet killing performance as opposed to what I advocated being a slight difference, is that the same argument becomes there is no difference between .270 and 7mm, and no difference between 7mm and .308 in killing performance. Similarly, there is no difference between .308 and .338, and no difference between .338 and .375. Therefore, there is no difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .375. Now obviously there is a difference between 6.5 and .375 killing power. A better theory is that the difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .270 is only slight - which is what I said. I agree, that it is usually not noticeable, but this is probably due to the fact that we are unable to duplicate in a controlled scientific way where all other things are kept constant as much as possible, the kills of a 6.5 v .270 in a large enough sample size. I don't really think we are arguing different things, I mentioned "slight advantage" which you didn't agree with, implying there is no difference. However, it seems that your argument is negligible difference versus my "slight difference". I also agree that expanded bullet diameter is far more important than unexpanded diameter, but I haven't seen data which clearly shows that 6.5 bullets expand greater than .270 bullets from the same type of bullet made by the same manufacturer. Even if a 6.5 bullet expands to the same diameter as a .270 bullet of the same weight, then if the .270 bullet is travelling faster, I would expect that it would penetrate deeper simply because of greater momentum brought about by a slightly higher velocity...which is another point I made when I said the .270 bullet has a slight advantage over the 6.5-06 at most normal hunting distances. But I did qualify what I said by using the word "slight".
To me the whole caliber thing for hunting comes down to if you wanna shoot 100-120gr high bc huntng bullets for your game use a 6mm, if you wanna use 130-145 use a 6.5, if you wanna use 150-170 use a 270, if you wanna use 160–180 use a 7mm and so on up the ladder. Velocity and wind drift end up similar at long ranges because BC is similar but the heavier bullets will have some more energy and recoil. Notice I said hunting bullets not match bullets. Match bullets have thinner jackets in most cases and hence have more weight for a given length (due to more lead and less jacket) and will have higher bc. Also jacket and shape can be more optimized for BC as you are not dealing with a jacket designed for some form of controlled expansion. This is why eldm have higher bc than eldx. The berger is one delta here but that is because it does not rely on exposed lead nor a hollow point and purely on a very thin jacket to expand - why they don’t recommend their target bullets for hunting which have a heavier jacket. The OP can easily get high bc 270 hunting bullers these days if using a 1-8 that run in the pack with the others. I should know as I own most of them and have no trouble getting them. Something I can’t say for my 6.5 where I can only find match bullets (luckily I have a good supply of 130 sciroccos:)) A higher bc match bullet may be available in other calibers than 270 but who cares for hunting. If you want to shoot game with match bullets that is fine with me and it will lilely work since you are slinging a hunk of metal a few thousand fps at simething vital. However, I nor the guys who design and sell the bullets think it is a good idea to select them for hunting as they are not designed for that
The points that the OP should really be arguing are that in the same case, e.g. 6.5-06 v .270 Win, the .270 will usually drive the same weight projectile (e.g. 140 grains) faster. This, together with a larger frontal area will give the .270 a slight advantage at most normal hunting distances, provided the sectional density is sufficient for complete penetration (which it usually is). Eventually the higher bc 6.5 projectile will catch up and be superior at the extreme distances. If 99% of shots my most hunters are taken at the shorter distances, then the .270 has some advantages over the 6.5. For the occasional shot at 600 yards, it doesn't really matter that there may be better options than a .270, a .270 will still be ok. Practicing at 600 yards with a .270 Win or .270 PRC is still a beneficial exercise, knowing full-well that 600 yard shots are in the minority and that the .270 really shines at the more-frequent closer hunting ranges.
The major problem with your "theory" is that there's far less difference between how various "cartridges" (actually bullets) kill big game than many hunters believe. This is especially true of "frontal area," which is only minutely different between 6.5mm and .270 bullets--and doesn't matter nearly as much as EXPANDED bullet diameter, which can vary considerably with various bullet designs. Some bullets expand far more than others, in particular bonded bullets--but this also reduces penetration, because the major factor in penetration is NOT retained bullet weight, but frontal area.
I have considerable experience with the .270 Winchester on big game, partly through buying my first in 1974, and after a couple of decades having used it on more big game than any other cartridge. Plus, my wife got her first .270 in 1984, and killed a bunch of big game with it as well, at one point making 10 one-shot kills in a row on animals, from pronghorns at over 400 yards to bull elk and moose.
I have also killed quite a bit of big game in the same size-range with various 6.5mm cartridges, and seen hunting partners do the same, including the 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington and 6.5x55, which produce basically the same velocities with the same bullet weights. I have yet to be able to tell ANY consistent difference between the way any of those 6.5s (and several others) kill big game and how the .270 Winchester kills big game.
This is partly because there's actually far less difference in how various "cartridges" (again, actually bullets) kill big game as long the bullet penetrates and expand sufficiently while passing through the vitals.
If you prefer to believe in such minute theoretical differences as .013 in unexpanded bullet diameter in "killing power," that's your privilege. But I quite believing in such tiny stuff years ago.
The problem with a theory that there is no difference between 6.5 and .270 bullet killing performance as opposed to what I advocated being a slight difference, is that the same argument becomes there is no difference between .270 and 7mm, and no difference between 7mm and .308 in killing performance. Similarly, there is no difference between .308 and .338, and no difference between .338 and .375. Therefore, there is no difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .375. Now obviously there is a difference between 6.5 and .375 killing power. A better theory is that the difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .270 is only slight - which is what I said. I agree, that it is usually not noticeable, but this is probably due to the fact that we are unable to duplicate in a controlled scientific way where all other things are kept constant as much as possible, the kills of a 6.5 v .270 in a large enough sample size. I don't really think we are arguing different things, I mentioned "slight advantage" which you didn't agree with, implying there is no difference. However, it seems that your argument is negligible difference versus my "slight difference". I also agree that expanded bullet diameter is far more important than unexpanded diameter, but I haven't seen data which clearly shows that 6.5 bullets expand greater than .270 bullets from the same type of bullet made by the same manufacturer. Even if a 6.5 bullet expands to the same diameter as a .270 bullet of the same weight, then if the .270 bullet is travelling faster, I would expect that it would penetrate deeper simply because of greater momentum brought about by a slightly higher velocity...which is another point I made when I said the .270 bullet has a slight advantage over the 6.5-06 at most normal hunting distances. But I did qualify what I said by using the word "slight".
Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with this.
I'm not commenting on "long range shooting", as I've only had less than a handful of opportunities where that could have been a possibility on a bull moose in the "Far North" of Ontario in some clear cuts. So I toted my .340 Wby for such a possible chance - but ended up shooting a bull at 165 yards. My comment has particular reference to any distinctions in calibers and their bullets in construction and profile.
From 2006 to 2015, I along with one and sometimes two partners were hunting bear on a private properety - an old farm that was no longer in use as such, but hunted for deer by the owner and family. He wanted "all the bears gone"! He was into heavy equipment. During that period we hunted parts of six fall seasons. Two of the bears I shot were in 2011 and 2013. They were shot from the same ladder stand in a line of trees that separated two pastures of uncut grass that was from 24" to 30" in height. The property bordered a Provincial wildlife sanctuary, so lots of game spilled onto this ancient farm. In 2011 my stand was facing NE and in 2013 it faced SE. The two bears were as near identical as twins could be, and both were shot under the chin as they faced me in the tall grass just a few yards from their baits. The range of the first was 70 yards ands the second was 68 yards. They both squared 6'.
Here's the point: The first (in 2011) was flattened on the spot so fast that I lost sight of him in the tall grass. He was shot with a 465gr FT, .458-cal hardcast leaving the muzzle of my NEF single-shot .45-70 at 1900 fps. Impact was about 1750 fps/3163 ft-lbs. The second (in 2013) was also shot as it faced me in tall grass at 68 yards off to the side of the bait barrel. It too dropped so quickly I lost sight of it. I fully expected it to be found where it was hit. I got down from my stand, walked to where I expected to find a dead bear... Instead, no bear was to be found. My partner (a CO) heard the shot from 3 kms away at another site, called me on his radio asking if that was my shot and did I need any help? I replied: I hadn't yet found the bear. That bear was found at the bottom of a nearby escarpment - and what a task for both of us in retrieving it up out of there!
As said, it was a near identical bear to the one in 2011, shot identically under the chin (as all I could see in both instances were their heads and part of their shoulders above the tall grass.
The bullet from the first bear was lost somewhere in the soil under the bear as it left a bullet-size entry in frontal chest and exit below the sternum. When I opened the chest the heart had exploded and the chest cavity was like a pond of blood. There were no fragments of lead, and no evidence that the 465gr hardcast had expanded.
The bullet that killed the second bear was retrieved in the right flank in skinning. It weighed 73% of its unfired weight. A 286gr Partition at +2600 fps and impact at ~2500 fps/3970 ft-lbs from my 9.3 x 62. Not much distinction in KE but a very significant difference in results, which confirms my view that momentum (bullet weight x velocity), bullet caliber, construction and profile can make huge differences in results at "normal" hunting ranges.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will it work? Yes. Is it the ideal choice? No.
What else does it take? Well, a scope that enables reliable, precise, and repeatable alignment of POA and POI. That typically means a scope that tracks straight and uniform, RTZ, holds zero, and has a reticle that is graduated in the same units as the turrets for use as an angular ruler.
What else does it take? "Crutches." For killing game at 600 yards, you'll want to place shots within no more than about 1 MOA from your POA, and I would argue that 0.5 MOA is much better. Shooting from prone is rarely possible in field conditions due to vegetation and topography, so you'll need to be able to place your shots into 2 MOA or better. That often means using a pack, hiking poles, tripod, or natural rest to get above the ground and build a stable position.
Understand all that already, but obviously disagree that a .277"/150 gr. ABLR at ~ 3,000 fps wouldn't be a solid 600 yd. round.
Why the thread was started.
What, exactly, are 600 yd. large game hunters using?
"The problem with a theory that there is no difference between 6.5 and .270 bullet killing performance as opposed to what I advocated being a slight difference, is that the same argument becomes there is no difference between .270 and 7mm, and no difference between 7mm and .308 in killing performance. Similarly, there is no difference between .308 and .338, and no difference between .338 and .375. Therefore, there is no difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .375. Now obviously there is a difference between 6.5 and .375 killing power. A better theory is that the difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .270 is only slight - which is what I said. I agree, that it is usually not noticeable, but this is probably due to the fact that we are unable to duplicate in a controlled scientific way where all other things are kept constant as much as possible, the kills of a 6.5 v .270 in a large enough sample size. I don't really think we are arguing different things, I mentioned "slight advantage" which you didn't agree with, implying there is no difference. However, it seems that your argument is negligible difference versus my "slight difference". I also agree that expanded bullet diameter is far more important than unexpanded diameter, but I haven't seen data which clearly shows that 6.5 bullets expand greater than .270 bullets from the same type of bullet made by the same manufacturer. Even if a 6.5 bullet expands to the same diameter as a .270 bullet of the same weight, then if the .270 bullet is travelling faster, I would expect that it would penetrate deeper simply because of greater momentum brought about by a slightly higher velocity...which is another point I made when I said the .270 bullet has a slight advantage over the 6.5-06 at most normal hunting distances. But I did qualify what I said by using the word "slight"."
I have heard and read many people make this argument, but that's beside the point, because as you noted there's a vast difference between a 6.5 and .375. Though I have killed and seen killed plenty of big game with both various 6.5s and .375s, and the difference in killing power isn't as vast as many assume it might be--including with many cartridges between those two extremes.
You also might want to test your theory that a .270 Winchester bullet will penetrate deeper than a similar 6.5 bullet due to increased velocity and hence momentum. I have run a bunch of tests in various kinds of "media," both softer and harder, and the biggest factor in penetration if expanding bullets hold together reasonably well is indeed frontal area. But many bullets will penetrate LESS if pushed faster, because they expand more--or even lose too much weight.
This is one reason many hunters have had such fine results on heavy game with various "mild" 6.5mm cartridges for more than a century: Their muzzle velocity isn't high enough to really stress bullets. This is probably why I've yet to see a cup-and-core spitzer come apart and fail to penetrate the vitals of even really big deer when fired from a mild 6.5mm--and I've seen some taken that weighed over 300 pounds. Yet I have seen several .270 bullets penetrate even less, after expanding wider due to their higher velocity. This didn't usually affect "killing power," unless the bullets failed to penetrate the vitals at all--but it is one factor among several.
Some of my conclusions about this stuff have some from such experiments, but perhaps even more have come from witnessing a lot of big game killed with rifles chambered for various cartridges, using different bullets. Among other things, around 15 years ago I started formally noting how far various animals went after typical broadside lung-shots with different calibers and styles of bullets--and on average bullets that expanded more and lost more weight killed them quicker.
Right now my data-base is approaching 1000 animals, ranging in size from around 100 pounds live weight to 1500. Due to this I wrote a long chapter titled "Opinions of Killing Power" for THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK II, published in 2018. I may post that here, because it contains some info that would surprise many hunters.
The other thing I quit believing in during all this is "examples of one," mostly due to concluding that almost anything can happen ONCE after we pull the trigger, even with the best of cartridges and bullets.
This is one reason many hunters have had such fine results on heavy game with various "mild" 6.5mm cartridges for more than a century: Their muzzle velocity isn't high enough to really stress bullets. This is probably why I've yet to see a cup-and-core spitzer come apart and fail to penetrate the vitals of even really big deer when fired from a mild 6.5mm--and I've seen some taken that weighed over 300 pounds. Yet I have seen several .270 bullets penetrate even less, after expanding wider due to their higher velocity. This didn't usually affect "killing power," unless the bullets failed to penetrate the vitals at all--but it is one factor among several.
That is one of most overlooked and underthought concepts of all, IMO. My takeaway after reading Gack II is that sometimes less is more when it comes to velocity, depending on the bullet. I would not use a conventional C-and-C bullet if there was a possibility of impact velocity of 3400 fps, nor would I use a mono if impact velocity might be much under 2000 fps, based on the concept. My own thoughts on killing power boil down simply to what bullet, hitting at what velocity, and where on the animal.
Not preaching here, by any stretch. I'm here to learn more than to advise. Just my thoughts.
"The problem with a theory that there is no difference between 6.5 and .270 bullet killing performance as opposed to what I advocated being a slight difference, is that the same argument becomes there is no difference between .270 and 7mm, and no difference between 7mm and .308 in killing performance. Similarly, there is no difference between .308 and .338, and no difference between .338 and .375. Therefore, there is no difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .375. Now obviously there is a difference between 6.5 and .375 killing power. A better theory is that the difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .270 is only slight - which is what I said. I agree, that it is usually not noticeable, but this is probably due to the fact that we are unable to duplicate in a controlled scientific way where all other things are kept constant as much as possible, the kills of a 6.5 v .270 in a large enough sample size. I don't really think we are arguing different things, I mentioned "slight advantage" which you didn't agree with, implying there is no difference. However, it seems that your argument is negligible difference versus my "slight difference". I also agree that expanded bullet diameter is far more important than unexpanded diameter, but I haven't seen data which clearly shows that 6.5 bullets expand greater than .270 bullets from the same type of bullet made by the same manufacturer. Even if a 6.5 bullet expands to the same diameter as a .270 bullet of the same weight, then if the .270 bullet is travelling faster, I would expect that it would penetrate deeper simply because of greater momentum brought about by a slightly higher velocity...which is another point I made when I said the .270 bullet has a slight advantage over the 6.5-06 at most normal hunting distances. But I did qualify what I said by using the word "slight"."
I have heard and read many people make this argument, but that's beside the point, because as you noted there's a vast difference between a 6.5 and .375. Though I have killed and seen killed plenty of big game with both various 6.5s and .375s, and the difference in killing power isn't as vast as many assume it might be--including with many cartridges between those two extremes.
You also might want to test your theory that a .270 Winchester bullet will penetrate deeper than a similar 6.5 bullet due to increased velocity and hence momentum. I have run a bunch of tests in various kinds of "media," both softer and harder, and the biggest factor in penetration if expanding bullets hold together reasonably well is indeed frontal area. But many bullets will penetrate LESS if pushed faster, because they expand more--or even lose too much weight.
This is one reason many hunters have had such fine results on heavy game with various "mild" 6.5mm cartridges for more than a century: Their muzzle velocity isn't high enough to really stress bullets. This is probably why I've yet to see a cup-and-core spitzer come apart and fail to penetrate the vitals of even really big deer when fired from a mild 6.5mm--and I've seen some taken that weighed over 300 pounds. Yet I have seen several .270 bullets penetrate even less, after expanding wider due to their higher velocity. This didn't usually affect "killing power," unless the bullets failed to penetrate the vitals at all--but it is one factor among several.
Some of my conclusions about this stuff have some from such experiments, but perhaps even more have come from witnessing a lot of big game killed with rifles chambered for various cartridges, using different bullets. Among other things, around 15 years ago I started formally noting how far various animals went after typical broadside lung-shots with different calibers and styles of bullets--and on average bullets that expanded more and lost more weight killed them quicker.
Right now my data-base is approaching 1000 animals, ranging in size from around 100 pounds live weight to 1500. Due to this I wrote a long chapter titled "Opinions of Killing Power" for THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK II, published in 2018. I may post that here, because it contains some info that would surprise many hunters.
The other thing I quit believing in during all this is "examples of one," mostly due to concluding that almost anything can happen ONCE after we pull the trigger, even with the best of cartridges and bullets.
Just trying to summarize what your argument is and draw some conclusions from this. 1. You don't seem to be saying that 6.5 bullet construction is inherently better than .277 bullet construction 2. You don't seem to be saying that 6.5 bullets expand more than .277 bullets 3. You are indicating that expanded bullet frontal area is very significant in killing performance 4. That the mild 6.5's kill really well because of the lower velocities than the .270, that is, the bullets maintain their integrity better. From this a few comments from me: If frontal area is significant then you shouldn't be referring to a difference in diameter, which is a linear measurement. The unexpanded difference in frontal area between a 6.5 and .277 bullet is 10% which is the percentage difference between the square of the radius of the bullet. This is a greater percentage difference than the difference in diameter. Secondly, if .270 bullets start out with a larger frontal area (10%) than 6.5 bullets, then for at least the initial part of the wound, there is a 10 % greater displacement of tissue, etc with the .270. Unless 6.5 bullets expand to the same degree or more than .277 bullets, then if impact velocity is the same, the .277 bullet should perform better than a 6.5 bullet, as frontal area would be greater. If as you imply that the culprit is the .270's greater velocity, then the solution is to slow down the .270 to 6.5 Creedmore velocities. Slowing down a .270 to perhaps 2800 fps muzzle velocity would give greater frontal area than a 6.5 bullet and maintain the bullet's integrity and give a slight increase in killing power (because of the greater expanded bullet frontal area which is of prime importance). Other consequences of your theory would include: a 6.5 Creedmore kills better than a 6.5 PRC because of the slower velocity, a .308 with 150's at 2800 fps kills better than a .30-06 with 150's at 2950 fps; a 7-08 with 140's at 2860 fps kills better than a .280 with 140's at 3000 fps; Ackley would have gotten better results when shooting burros with a .222 than the .220 Swift he was using; a .270 works better at 300-400 yards (because of the reduced velocity) than at around 150 yards.
If you flunk "hunting 101", you might need to shoot at 600 yards.
Well put. I think the success of our wartime snipers has spawned a whole new generation of coyote feeders. I really wish that folks would understand just what's at stake here. Please, shoot targets all you need at extended ranges and learn the game but don't try to apply it to game animals. Just my disgusted .02. Darrel Wick
If you have to ask you possibly shouldn’t be hunting to 600 yards. But I’ll bite. You definitely need to know your rifle’s performance at that range. I wonder if your a millennial or gen xer. They always crave the need to for the world to see them. Lol
If you flunk "hunting 101", you might need to shoot at 600 yards.
Well put. I think the success of our wartime snipers has spawned a whole new generation of coyote feeders. I really wish that folks would understand just what's at stake here. Please, shoot targets all you need at extended ranges and learn the game but don't try to apply it to game animals. Just my disgusted .02. Darrel Wick
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will it work? Yes. Is it the ideal choice? No.
What else does it take? Well, a scope that enables reliable, precise, and repeatable alignment of POA and POI. That typically means a scope that tracks straight and uniform, RTZ, holds zero, and has a reticle that is graduated in the same units as the turrets for use as an angular ruler.
What else does it take? "Crutches." For killing game at 600 yards, you'll want to place shots within no more than about 1 MOA from your POA, and I would argue that 0.5 MOA is much better. Shooting from prone is rarely possible in field conditions due to vegetation and topography, so you'll need to be able to place your shots into 2 MOA or better. That often means using a pack, hiking poles, tripod, or natural rest to get above the ground and build a stable position.
Understand all that already, but obviously disagree that a .277"/150 gr. ABLR at ~ 3,000 fps wouldn't be a solid 600 yd. round.
Why the thread was started.
What, exactly, are 600 yd. large game hunters using
GR
To directly answer your last question... Poor hunting skills and a lack of respect for the animal in question!
If you simply must shoot at or beyond 600 yards, then take up prairie dogging. Do it using the normal field rests/contditions you'd find when hunting deer and elk. Oh, and use your big game rifle with your big game loads.
What you learn may surprise you.
Or simply use 8" paper plates. Shoot from normal field positions using whatever types of rests you'd likely have when hunting...rolled up coat, day pack, etc. Dont shoot at game beyond where you can place ALL of you shots on the plate, at whatever distance.
Riflehunter, you really do want to put words in my posts that I didn't type. So I'll just post the chapter from GUN GACK II mentioned earlier:
OPINIONS OF KILLING POWER Humans have been hunting a long time, so have argued over “killing power” for a long time, whether their hunting tools were rocks, spears or rifles. It would seem obvious that a larger rock/spear/bullet would render big game into what’s legally called “possession” more effectively than a smaller rock/spear/bullet, but the limits of human physics also limit projectile size. Evidence indicates Neanderthals may have been the strongest early humans, but also indicates they didn’t use 100-pound spears.
People use various techniques when arguing about killing power. Sometimes we provide real-life examples, and sometimes we develop formulas supposedly reflecting such empirical evidence. Both techniques have been part of the scientific method for several centuries, but very few hunters are trained scientists. Consequently most evidence reflects personal biases rather than rigorous testing.
One of the best-known formulas reflecting long-term empirical evidence is John “Pondoro” Taylor’s Knock-out (KO) Formula, an example of the “heavier spear” theory. I’ve been part of gatherings of hunters, both around campfires and at international conventions, where cartridge effectiveness has been argued by citing Taylor’s figures.
Taylor’s books are well-written and based on vast experience, acquired when African wildlife was very abundant and African humans far less abundant, including game department officials. But Taylor’s formula was far less universal than many hunters believe. It originally appeared in his book BIG GAME AND BIG GAME RIFLES, not his more popular AFRICAN RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES. Both were published in 1948, but Taylor had been working on BIG GAME AND BIG GAME RIFLES since before World War Two, and a British firm finally agreed to publish it in 1946, taking two years to bring it out.
The much larger AFRICAN RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES was written in 1946-47 and published by an American company. There were far more hunters in the U.S. than Great Britain, and after World War II Americans were more affluent. Consequently AFRICAN RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES became popular, but many of today’s hunters don’t even know BIG GAME AND BIG GAME RIFLES exists.
In BIG GAME Taylor says what he calls “theoretical energy” (kinetic foot-pounds) doesn’t truly indicate the relative power of different cartridges, so included bullet diameter in the K.O. formula. He also plainly states K.O. numbers only apply to “bluff-nosed, solid bullets used against heavy, massive-boned animals,” and admits, “Theoretical energy probably gives a surer indication when expanding bullets on soft-skinned game are concerned.”
In AFRICAN RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES he repeats a few of the same statements, in particular a comparison of the .416 Rigby as opposed to a .465 (in Big Game) or a .470 (African Rifles). He claims an elephant head-shot with a .416 solid that misses the brain will quickly recover, but a .465 or .470 will knock the elephant out “for anything up to about five minutes. “ But he never mentions that his formula only applies to solids on really big game, or admits “theoretical energy” might be more applicable to expanding bullets on smaller animals. As a result many hunters think the Taylor formula applies to all cartridges and bullets.
Another difference in AFRICAN RIFLES is a long rant about high velocity, probably because it was becoming a hot topic, thanks in part to Roy Weatherby, whose rifles and theories of killing power were getting a lot of attention. Unlike Taylor, however, Weatherby didn’t have much big game experience. He’d grown up in Kansas in the 1920s and 30s, when almost no deer lived in the state.
Weatherby eventually migrated to California, becoming an insurance salesman in the Los Angeles area, and in 1942 took his first big game animal, a mule deer in Utah. He also bought a lathe and started gunsmithing in his garage, developing the first Weatherby magnums and his theory of high-velocity killing power.
This wasn’t all that long after the first factory big game cartridges reached 3000 fps, and most hunters used far slower cartridges. The much higher velocities of Weatherby’s wildcats became possible due to the appearance of IMR4350 in 1940, by far the slowest-burning powder then available to handloaders.
Some hunters, including Weatherby, theorized that ultra-velocity killed “like lightning” when bullets landed almost anywhere on a big game animal by compressing the blood in the circulatory system like fluid in a car’s brake lines, sending a “shock wave” to the animal’s heart and brain. Weatherby embellished this theory in several magazine articles, and his hot cartridges and “California style” rifles started getting national attention. By the end of the war he’d quit his insurance job and opened a sporting goods/gunsmithing shop.
Many hunters bought the ultra-velocity theory in part because, like Roy Weatherby, their hunting only involved a few deer. Weatherby was certain ultra-velocity would work on any kind of game, and after a successful 1947 hunt in British Columbia booked an African safari with some friends, to prove Weatherby cartridges worked on larger game as well. He kept a journal of the safari, reprinted in the book WEATHERBY, THE MAN, THE GUN, THE LEGEND by Grits and Tom Gresham. It’s very interesting reading, in part because of how it modified Weatherby’s theories. Early on a hyena fell to Roy’s .257 Magnum, and he crowed that “nothing can withstand the shock of high velocity bullets.” But as more and larger animals were taken this universal enthusiasm started changing: “I have used all my rifles now and so have the other men, but not under identical enough conditions for comparison. One thing is sure and that is—the bullet must be traveling at a certain velocity when it hits an animal in order to kill it. I must find out at what distance…the bullet must hit the animal so the shock kills instantly…. You must hit them right unless the bullet has sufficient velocity to disintegrate.” (Emphasis mine.) Eventually he discovered high velocity had definite limits, but didn’t admit it very often in public.
Today big game hunters tend to prefer bullets that don’t disintegrate, in part because of another book, Bob Hagel’s 1977 GAME LOADS AND PRACTICAL BALLISTICS FOR THE AMERICAN HUNTER. Hagel was a life-long hunter and Idaho guide who emphasized the use of “premium” bullets. The bullets both Taylor and Weatherby used were all so-called “cup and cores,” with a lead core inside a harder jacket of copper alloy. Expanding bullets had the core exposed at the front end, in a soft- or hollow-point, while “solid” bullets had the jacket wrapped over the front end, leaving the core exposed at the rear.
Cup-and-core expanding bullets (or “softs,” as the British called them) often separated or even disintegrated, the reason most hunters after really big game used solids. But in 1948—the same year Taylor’s books were published and Roy Weatherby went to Africa—a hunter in Oregon started selling what many consider the first premium expanding bullet, the Nosler Partition.
John Nosler had experienced cup-and-cores failing to penetrate British Columbia moose, so he developed a bullet essentially combining the solid and soft cup-and-cores, separated by a wall of jacket material. The soft front core was designed to disintegrate, as Roy Weatherby believed was necessary for quick kills on thin-skinned game, while the rear “solid” portion continued to penetrate, as John Taylor and many other well-known African hunters believed necessary on heavier animals.
Hagel was an admirer of the Nosler Partition, but also a newer bullet called the Bitterroot Bonded Core, made by another Idaho hunter named Bill Steigers, with a heavy jacket firmly connected to the lead core. Hagel’s book became very popular, and more hunters started using Nosler Partitions and Bitterroot Bonded Cores—though far more used Partitions because they were far more widely available.
Bitterroots typically retained a higher percentage of their original weight than Partitions, and eventually many hunters came to believe higher weight retention resulted in greater killing power. Over the next 40 years many more premium bullets appeared, including some “monometal” expanding bullets designed to retain all their weight.
As a result, today many killing-power arguments are over bullets rather than cartridges, though evidently some hunters will always argue over whether a .30-06 Springfield or .300 magnum kills deader, or the .416 Rigby or .470 Nitro-Express thumps pachyderms harder. The argument for 100% weight-retention makes sense, as they definitely penetrate deeper. But retaining more weight and penetrating deeper do not mean they kill quicker. If it did, solids would still be the solution for heavier game—and they’re not, mostly because they don’t kill quickly unless precisely placed in some part of the central nervous system. In fact, some modern African hunters are convinced Cape buffalo acquired such a reputation for being incredibly hard to kill because of the wide-spread use of solids back when “softs” didn’t penetrate consistently.
The reason solids don’t kill quickly is pretty simple: The wound channel’s very small. Shoot a big animal through the lungs with a solid and it takes a long time for the circulatory system to lose pressure, and the animal to lose consciousness. African hunting literature contains dozens of examples of buffalo shot with numerous solids living an hour or more, yet still being dangerously lively when found.
The theory that the permanent wound-channel’s size makes the most difference in killing power is held by many “forensic ballisticians,” scientists who study the effects of wound channels—though mostly on humans, for law enforcement and military purposes. However, forensic ballisticians don’t always agree, any more than all elk hunters or African PHs.
The owner of the first safari company I hunted with was John van der Meulen, who’d grown up in what was then Rhodesia. Before the country’s safari industry took off, van der Meulen (like many Rhodesian hunters) culled a bunch of wild animals to make room for domestic cattle, because in those days beef paid better. This was long before reliable “softs” were available, and van der Meulen’s choice for his .458 Winchester Magnum was a “solid” bullet Winchester used to manufacture, with a relatively thin gilding-metal jacket. Many other hunters disliked these bullets, including Jack O’Connor, because they often expanded--“riveted”--upon hitting bone. Van der Meulen, however, loved them because they expanded, creating a larger wound channel and killing buffalo quicker than stouter solids.
A somewhat similar conversation took place years later with now-retired PH Kevin Thomas, also a former culler born in Rhodesia. Kevin often used a .375 H&H when backing up buffalo hunters which, as he noted, meant he was often “seriously outgunned” by his clients. Yet Kevin still had to finish plenty of bulls, and favored expanding bullets. I asked what bullet he favored, and he said, “Whatever left-over ammo clients leave in camp. These days they’re all good!”
I’ve been keeping notes on all the big game my hunting companions and I have taken since the late 1970s. One of the details added while going on a lot of cull hunts myself, starting in 2002, was how far animals traveled after accurate chest shots with various expanding bullets. The quickest-killing bullets, it turned out, were Berger Hunting VLDs.
Most expanding bullets fully open by the time they penetrate their length, the reason most meat damage occurs around the entrance hole. Bergers, and some other “target” hollow-points, tend to penetrate a couple of inches before expanding, then lose considerable weight or even disintegrate (to use Roy Weatherby’s word), resulting in a massive wound channel. Consequently most meat damage is around the exit hole—if one exists—rather than the entrance. Animals shot with Bergers averaged slightly less than 20 yards before falling.
At the other extreme are expanding bullets that normally retain all their weight, where animals traveled an average of over 50 yards. But on a recent antelope hunt I used one of these “100%” bullets, because they tend to ruin less delicious pronghorn meat—and there’s only about 40 pounds on a mature buck. Plus, it doesn’t matter if an antelope travels a ways across the open plains before falling. But I’ve also used “disintegrating” bullets on animals weighing 500 pounds, because they drop big game quickly, before they can go far in thick cover or fall off a mountain.
Like John Taylor, many hunters believe larger diameter bullets kill big game quicker, often citing “physics” as the reason, because obviously a larger-caliber bullet puts a bigger hole in animals. In North America, the poster-child for this belief is usually the .338 Winchester Magnum, because it’s the most popular step up from the cartridges most of us use, both in powder room and bullet diameter.
That was certainly what I anticipated back in 1987, when I put together a custom .338. Before then, most of my big game had been taken with a pair of Remington 700s in .243 and .270 Winchester, plus a couple of .30-06s. There had also been a .30-30, .308 Winchester and, briefly, a .338-06, sold after a few months to make ends meet, thanks in part to what a friend calls a “practice wife,” whose spending habits not only made it hard for ends to meet, but to come within sight of each other through 10x binoculars.
The divorce resulted in the liquidation of the rest of my small collection of big game rifles, but the collection started again a few months later with a Ruger 77 .30-06. For several years the ‘06 worked fine on the standard array of Montana big game—antelope, deer, black bear and elk—but like all rifle loonies I remained convinced something better existed.
After thinking a while, the “logical” candidate was the .338 Winchester. Any .300 magnum would use the same .30 caliber bullets as the .30-06, and the editor of the magazine providing most of my income was convinced the .338 was magic.
I used the FN .338 a lot over the next dozen years, which coincided with a rapid rise in my fortunes, including a number of hunts across northern North America from Alaska to Quebec, plus a couple of African safaris. Of course, “everybody” knew the .338 was enough gun to handle big, tough animals like moose, musk ox, wildebeest and eland. It was, but eventually I had to admit to myself that the .338 wasn’t consistently more magic than the .30-06, or a couple of .300 magnums also used during that period.
The .338 did result in some spectacular kills, including a Quebec caribou taken with the then brand-new 200-grain Ballistic Tip, the first of the heavy-jacket models. The bull stood quartering away slightly at just about 200 yards, and the bullet landed behind the near shoulder, breaking the far shoulder on the way out. All four legs instantly folded up, the bull dropping on his belly and staying there, ready for the hero photo. He was the biggest-bodied of the dozen caribou I’ve taken, as large as an average 5-point elk.
The .338’s second caribou, however, was taken three years later in Alaska at 300 yards with a 210-grain Nosler Partition, and ran over 50 yards before falling, despite being shot right behind the shoulders. That could be blamed on the “tougher” bullet, but the interior damage from the 210 matched the 200-grain Ballistic Tip.
A couple days earlier I’d taken my first moose, a mature bull with antlers spreading 58 inches, using the then-new 230-grain Winchester Fail Safe. The bullet landed in the center of the chest as the bull stood almost directly facing me at 100 yards. I’d heard from several people that the .338 was an excellent choice because moose often head for water when shot, yet the bull made it into a nearby salmon river, dying with only one antler tine above the surface.
Luckily it was a relatively small river, and with a rope tied to the guide’s jetboat, we pulled the moose downstream to shallower water, then spent five hours butchering from the top down, while being punctured by abundant mosquitoes. The bullet had performed very well, tearing a big hole through the bull’s chest before stopping against the pelvis, retaining 96% of its weight.
In Namibia the rifle killed an eland pretty well, despite the first bullet hitting a tiny thorn-branch and entering sideways just behind the bull’s shoulder, cutting a perfect silhouette of a 250-grain Nosler Partition. The bullet still did enough damage to make the eland stop within 100 yards, where it stood, head lowered. I put another Partition point-on through the lungs, whereupon the bull dropped.
But a few days later another 250 Partition landed too high on a blue wildebeest, thanks to my professional hunter. He was one of those PHs who believe their shoulder’s as steady as a pair of shooting sticks. This worked on the eland but not the wildebeest, because the PH took a breath just as I squeezed the trigger.
The wildebeest dropped, but immediately jumped up and started running directly away, whereupon I put another Partition between its hams. This did not slow the wildebeest down until half a mile later, when some interesting tracking in the fading light found it standing in a small patch of thornbush. The bull dropped to my third shot, but again jumped right back up. Luckily it stayed down after yet another shot.
Since then I’ve seen plenty of other wildebeest taken, including several by me. Most fell with one well-placed shot from cartridges ranging from the 7x57 and 7mm-08 to the 9.3x62 Mauser and .375 Ruger. None of those required tracking, but I’ve also seen wildebeest shot around the edges, all requiring considerable tracking, occasionally without results, sometimes with cartridges more powerful than the .338 Winchester Magnum. From this I’ve concluded that moderate “deer” cartridges work on wildebeest, but even pretty powerful medium-bores won’t drop them with incorrectly placed shots, even if the bullet lands close to where it should have.
Eventually it occurred to me the diameter of .338 bullets is only 3/100th of an inch larger than .308 bullets, which ain’t much. After experimenting a little with a Starrett digital micrometer, I found that wrapping a .30 caliber bullet in a single layer of stiff business card resulted in a diameter of just about .338 inch.
It also occurred to me that an expanding bullet’s initial diameter isn’t what kills big game. Instead it’s the “mushroomed” diameter, which punches a much larger hole. So I opened the over-sized tackle box containing my collection of recovered bullets from half a century of big game hunting, and took out all the .30s and .33s.
The bullets included a pretty comprehensive list: Barnes TSX; Hornady Interlock and Interbond; Norma Oryx; Federal Deep Shok; Nosler AccuBond, Ballistic Tip, E-Tip and Partition; Speer Hot-Cor; Swift A-Frame, and Winchester Fail Safe. I measured the width of each bullet’s mushroom at its widest point, then measured the next-greatest width, averaging the two measurements.
Since there’s only .03 inch difference in unexpanded .30 and .33 bullets, I didn’t expect the average difference in expanded bullets to be much larger, and it wasn’t, turning out to be just about exactly .05 inch. But the .30s averaged larger, not the .33s!
This seemed odd, so I looked closer at the results and discovered the reason: Two kinds of .30 caliber bullets expanded very widely, Hornady Interbonds and Norma Oryxes, all averaging over .7 inch across their mushrooms, while none of the others measured over .668. None of the .33s were Interbonds or Oryxes, so I eliminated those two bullets from the .30 caliber results, then re-averaged the rest. However, this still came out slightly in favor of the .30s, .631 to .620. Obviously, results might be slightly different for other batches of recovered .30 and .33 caliber bullets, but my results indicate there’s no major difference in their expanded mushrooms.
Now, I’ve sometimes observed a difference in how larger-caliber bullets work on big game compared to .30s and .33s. In 2011 I went to Tanzania on an 18-day safari with several companions, as a “light” rifle using my CZ 9.3x62 with 286-grain Nosler Partitions, while my primary hunting companion used a .300 Winchester Magnum with 180-grain AccuBonds. We both shot the same variety of plains game, from impala and hartebeest to zebra and wildebeest. My companion was so impressed with how the 9.3x62 put game down that upon our return to the U.S. he bought a 9.3x62.
But was the difference due to bullet diameter, or bullet weight? Or even shot placement? I had plenty of confidence in the 286-grain Partition’s ability to penetrate bone, and the bullet broke at least one shoulder on the larger animals. My companion’s larger animals were shot through the lungs, without a shoulder being involved.
What I will say is that bullets wider and heavier than used in most .300 and .338 magnums do seem to hit harder and kill quicker—but only sometimes. I’ve witnessed plenty of occasions when they didn’t, the cartridges ranging from the 9.3x62 (and the 9.3 Barsness-Sisk wildcat, with similar ballistics) to various .375s including the Holland & Holland, Ruger and .378 Weatherby.
So I got out the recovered 9.3mm and .375 bullets. These weren’t as abundant as recovered .33 caliber bullets, though I’ve shot more big game with the 9.3x62 Mauser and .375 H&H combined than the .338. The lack of recovered bullets is probably due to the 9.3s and .375s weighing considerably more. The heaviest .338 bullets used have been 250s, with most weighing 200-230 grains. The lightest 9.3mm bullets weighed 250 grains, with many weighing 286 and one 300. The .375 bullets weighed 260, 270 and 300 grains.
The mushrooms of expanded 9.3mm bullets averaged just about exactly the same as expanded .338 bullets, .621 inch compared to .620 for the .338s. However, the sample of 9.3s was less than half the number of .338 bullets.
The mushrooms of .375 bullets did measure considerably larger than those of .338 and 9.3 bullets, averaging .669 inch. Still, that’s not a vast difference, and not much larger than the average of ALL .30 caliber bullets, .659 inch.
At this point I became curious about .270 and 7mm bullets. Did their expanded mushrooms also measure close to .33 caliber bullets? It turned out that 7mm mushrooms averaged .597 inch in diameter, not much smaller than the .620 of the .338s!
However, the .270s averaged .555 inch, considerably smaller. This seemed odd, since there’s only .007 inch difference in diameter between unexpanded .270 and 7mm bullets. But eliminating one extreme “outlier” from each caliber resulted in averages of .565 for the .270s and .585 for the 7mms. That’s pretty close, as we’d expect from such similar bullets, but apparently .270 and 7mm bullets do expand to less frontal area than .30s or .33s.
Bullets of at least .40 caliber also seem to hit harder than “medium bores” up to .375. I only have three recovered +.40 bullets in my collection, all .416s, a 300-grain Barnes X and a pair of 400-grain Partitions. Their mushrooms averaged .773 inch, so the unexpanded diameter did result in greater expansion, at least in this small sample.
After all this measuring, my educated guess is that with cartridges up to .375 caliber that most of us shoot at big game, bullet weight may have more to do with how “hard” a bullet impacts a big game animal than its diameter, either initial or expanded. Whether that extra weight kills them quicker is another question, though it should help them plow deeper on angling shots, resulting in a longer wound channel of slightly larger diameter.
Among the animals taken the first year with my .338 was an eating-size mule deer buck, shot with a 250-grain Nosler Partition at 50 yards as it walked angling away, about to disappear behind a small stand of quaking aspens. The bullet entered the rear of the ribs on the left side, exiting just inside the right shoulder, and from the state of the innards expanded nicely. Yet the buck never reacted to the shot, continuing to walk behind the aspens before emerging on the other side. I was about to shoot again when the buck stopped, gently laid down, and died. Which is just one of several examples of why I know—not guess—there isn’t any magic in .338 bullets.
Or indeed in bullets of most common calibers, whether “deer” cartridges or those usually used on 400-800 pound game. Instead the magic lies in where we place them, a sometimes neglected part of hunting physics. In fact placement is the primary reason big game animals fall quickly, especially when hit through bone, whether shoulders, spine or both.
Breaking heavy bone is a far more concrete example of physics than several hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, whether expanded or unexpanded. Yet true believers in caliber often don’t differentiate between bone shots and bullets that only hit ribs, preferring to believe caliber made the difference when an animal flinches, or falls quickly. Since this is America, everybody’s entitled to an opinion (and even entitled to tell the rest of the world on Facebook), but that still doesn’t turn selective examples of one into real evidence.
I take your question as academic asking what kind of equipment is appropriate and adequate for extremely long range hunting. I know and I don't have the knowledge, skills, the inclination, nor the considerable time it would take to learn them. However I do know someone who does.
I refer you to Nathan Foster at https://www.ballisticstudies.com/. Nathan considers 600 yards medium range. He regularly shoots game well past 1000 yards. More to the point, he has written 8 books on the subject matter based on real life, in the field, hands-on experience.
Regardless of what people think about the ethics of long range hunting, Nathan can tell you what to buy, how to prep it, cartridges, ammo, budgets, and especially, how to practice. As many have said, practice is key.
Yeah, it is kinda long--but as I mentioned it's a chapter from one of my books.
I could have also added quite a bit more too it, but can also post other articles/chapters on various aspects of the same sort of stuff--such as penetration tests with various bullets in different types of media. (Except plastic jugs filled with water. While a popular method, probably because it's cheap and spectacular, I've haven't found to resemble field results much.)
Mule Deer; Good evening, I hope that the day went acceptably and you and Eileen are well.
While I'd be hard pressed to say which chapter of which of your books I've reread the most, I'd guess that the one you posted and the one on stock fit likely are tied.
My personal experience is much more limited than yours and even when adding in animals which we've helped friends and family cut up, we're only at about 200 odd big game animals.
That all taken into account John, our experience with cartridges up to .338 diameter line up with your observations. A buddy picked up a 9.3x62 this spring so perhaps there will be some data points with .366" bullets later on this fall.
Anyways, again I appreciate your careful observations, the thorough way you approach collecting data and then the manner in which you convey your findings.
Thanks again and all the best to you and Eileen on your hunts this fall John.
Thanks for your comments! We are busy harvesting the garden, including the damn tomatoes and, especially, raspberries. Have had a bumper year of raspberries, and they just seem to keep coming! Are you are familiar with the tendency for some to plump-up and ripen shortly after you've picked the patch "thoroughly"? Harvested a quart this afternoon, then just went out to water the patch again and found enough to eat some more--and pick some more tomorrow!
Have seen both the 9.3x62 and .375 H&H fail to drop 'em quickly. One of the most memorable such "failures" took place during one of my African "cull hunts." My companion that day was using a .375 H&H with 260-grain Nosler AccuBonds started at around 2750 fps. Had already seen him kill elk-sized animals, including a blue wildebeest and a big kudu promptly with the same load, both dropping within a few yards. But the zebra took off, and we lost sight of it. It was sunset, and after searching for 10 minutes or so along the line of flight, found it lying thoroughly dead 200 yards away--and the bullet was perfectly placed, close behind the shoulder. But that's far from the average result from the same load, and have seen it drop Cape buffalo within 30-50 yards. You never know....
I don’t have the data to claim this as fact but it would seem like when someone claims a marginally broader diameter for a given caliber (6.5 Vs .270) that it could easily offset by bullet ogive, a Berger VLD Vs. Norma Oryx for example to make things less than clear cut.
Even if using the same bullet profile the longer heavier for caliber but slightly smaller initial diameter of a typical 140 or 130 grain 6.5mm bullet would more than offset its slightly smaller initial diameter with the higher sectional diameter and the ability to expand and mushroom a bit more compared to a 130 or 150 grain stubbier .270 bullet while still retaining more shank to drive the bullet.
Realistically none of it makes a lot of difference besides overthinking things but it seems like a very slightly smaller diameter bullet that more than offsets that disadvantage with a higher sectional density can expand to a greater diameter while still retaining the ability to drive more deeply.
Just measured some .270 130 TSX's and .338 225 grain TSX's that I recovered from animals I shot. The .270 130's measured .594" and .582" across the petals and the .338 225's .688" and .729" across the petals. I drive the 130's at just over 3000 fps and the 225's at 2950 fps. Contrary to what others seem to be finding, I do notice a difference in killing power of the .338 over the .270 , and the .270 over a 6mm.
Just measured some .270 130 TSX's and .338 225 grain TSX's that I recovered from animals I shot. The .270 130's measured .594" and .582" across the petals and the .338 225's .688" and .729" across the petals. I drive the 130's at just over 3000 fps and the 225's at 2950 fps. Contrary to what others seem to be finding, I do notice a difference in killing power of the .338 over the .270 , and the .270 over a 6mm.
So a 340 Weatherby Mag? With 225 grain bullets hits harder than a .270 Win 130 grain bullet. Good info.
You didn’t mention what you shot with each, or bones struck, tissue distance traveled through with each but I bet that if double lung shot all ran less than 50 yards and left an adequate blood trail.
Just measured some .270 130 TSX's and .338 225 grain TSX's that I recovered from animals I shot. The .270 130's measured .594" and .582" across the petals and the .338 225's .688" and .729" across the petals. I drive the 130's at just over 3000 fps and the 225's at 2950 fps. Contrary to what others seem to be finding, I do notice a difference in killing power of the .338 over the .270 , and the .270 over a 6mm.
There are so many variables in “killing power,” that, similar to JB, my experience has been that any correlation between caliber and killing power tends to get mostly drowned out in the noise.
Again, the caveat being adequate penetration to traverse vitals, and adequate velocity to cause bullet disruption and expansion.
Just measured some .270 130 TSX's and .338 225 grain TSX's that I recovered from animals I shot. The .270 130's measured .594" and .582" across the petals and the .338 225's .688" and .729" across the petals. I drive the 130's at just over 3000 fps and the 225's at 2950 fps. Contrary to what others seem to be finding, I do notice a difference in killing power of the .338 over the .270 , and the .270 over a 6mm.
So a 340 Weatherby Mag? With 225 grain bullets hits harder than a .270 Win 130 grain bullet. Good info.
You didn’t mention what you shot with each, or bones struck, tissue distance traveled through with each but I bet that if double lung shot all ran less than 50 yards and left an adequate blood trail.
No, .338 Win Mag. long throat and seated long, 25" barrel H4350 (Reloder 17 gives 25 fps more, just as accurate but not as temp. stable). All shoulder shots, but I am not so methodical that I've labelled what animal or distance etc...just dug them out of a box. Only do behind shoulder shots with the 6mm (except if no other viable alternative) as the 6mm is not as reliable on shoulder shots. Note: I'm not saying the .270 isn't good, in fact its been excellent on deer size game. Note 2: 225 grain TSX mono bullets , not 225 bonded bullets
So you’re saying shoulder shots on a hot loaded 338 Win Mag drops deer dead? How did you catch the bullets? This was about deer sized game. Anything between 223 Remington and 30-06 has left them dead within 50 yards in my experience. Some of the bigger calibers left bigger initial blood trails but the deer didn’t go further and the blood trails mostly evened out IMO.
The .338 gives a greater percentage of emphatic kills .i.e. quicker deaths. Sometimes there isn't any difference, but the more game that's shot, shows a greater DRT figure for the .338. The .338 bullets were recovered from larger game as they go through both shoulders on medium size game. The thread is titled medium/large not medium. The .338 isn't loaded "hot" it is loaded fast at normal pressure.
Since this post devolved into wound ballistics some and we have only talked about caliber, I will point out that caliber is one part of it. The wound potential is proportional to the energy. So more energy has potential for bigger wound. This is why we buffalo hunt with a 458 and not a 45acp. There are 2 main contributors to wounding. The crush cavity- which is what the bullet actually touches/destroys and is straight forward. The other is wounding caused by temporary cavity. Temporary cavity is formed from the tissue blasting away from the progression of the bullet and happens after the bullet passes. The maximum diameter of this cavity can be many (10+) times the diameter of the bullet but since tissue is elastic it snaps back and the final wound is still mutiple times larger than bullet diameter but much smaller than maximum size of the temporary cavity. This is how you get a “baseball size hole” from your .6” expanded .30 cal. The diameter of the temporary cavity is proportional to the velocity of the projectile at that point in time. For ex, faster a bullet is travelling through tissue the faster the tissue needs to get out of the way. The diameter and shape of projectile also impact temporary cavity diameter but still need high velocity to contribute to permanent wounding. This is why rifle wounds in general are more severe than say your favorite carry gun caliber. I will also point out at this point that the crush cavity from the expanded diameter of the bullet also ends up smaller than projectile diameter. This is from same reason as temp cavity - tiissue is elastic. Once a bullet goes below a certain threshold it stops punching a clean hole and pushes its way through. The tissue stretches with it and snaps back to a hole of smaller diameter. So bigger caliber does not always mean bigger hole
Now - add bullet fragmentation in. The fragments tear holes in the tissue and then the temporary stretch cavity happens and tissue that may just stretch without holes is ripped apart. The wounding can be much much more severe in this case and as MD mentioned - something like the berger that comes apart may drop animals more quickly if this happens in an important part of the anatomy
So for a given energy level a faster/lighter bullet will have a lwider/shallower wound while a heavier slower bullet will have a longer/narrower wound.
With bullet construction you are just affecting the shape of the wound. Anywhere from very wide and shallow for fully fragmenting to deep and narrow for solids. In general fragmenting bullets are cone shaped - start wide and go to narrow point. Expanding bullets are the classic football shape. Round/flat Solids are a straight tunnel. Flat/round/expanded bullets are shoulder stabilized which is why in general they stay front end forward. However, all pointed bullets will tumble in flesh. Being more stable in air will keep it point forward a little longer but a pointed bullet will yaw after a few inches. So - FMJ pointed bullets do a S shape wound - the S caused by the bullet swapping ends. Incidetally, there is a pretty good wound cavity due to the increased cross sectional area presented by the sideways bullet. I think TR used these in his 06 in his famous safari to good effect. Some fmj pointed (like the 223 m16 round) and possibly thin jacketed match bullets (ala berger) make a narrow channel several inches then come apart as they start to yaw instead of flipping ends. In any case a berger wound channel looks a whole lot like the classic 223 m-16 round wound channel
All of the above is well understood and repeated in a lot of scientific literature. I have read a bunch of wound ballistics literature and there is no answer or formula anywhere that quantifies killing power. Above is just some fodder for discussion. So as MD said just put the holes in the vitals
The .338 gives a greater percentage of emphatic kills .i.e. quicker deaths. Sometimes there isn't any difference, but the more game that's shot, shows a greater DRT figure for the .338. The .338 bullets were recovered from larger game as they go through both shoulders on medium size game. The thread is titled medium/large not medium. The .338 isn't loaded "hot" it is loaded fast at normal pressure.
What doesn’t put em’ DRT when shot through both shoulders?
LOL Move the goal post much? Where did you or anyone previously mentioned Buff (or any bullet) and a 6.5mm for buffalo or dangerous game Vs. a 338 Win mag?
This thread is supposedly about a 270 being the end all be all hands down best caliber out to 600 yards for deer and possibly elk.
What’s next pachyderm hunting to further muddy the waters with a 6.5mm Vs 577 Nitro Express?
A 270 Win is no better than any number of camberings out to 600 yards given bullet selection. What does that have to do with dangerous game? If anything your 338 Win Mag proves the point. That a relatively small for caliber for the game being hunted (compared to a 375 H&H or 458 Lott) works just fine.
Riflehunter, you really do want to put words in my posts that I didn't type. So I'll just post the chapter from GUN GACK II mentioned earlier:
OPINIONS OF KILLING POWER
Breaking heavy bone is a far more concrete example of physics than several hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, whether expanded or unexpanded. Yet true believers in caliber often don’t differentiate between bone shots and bullets that only hit ribs, preferring to believe caliber made the difference when an animal flinches, or falls quickly. Since this is America, everybody’s entitled to an opinion (and even entitled to tell the rest of the world on Facebook), but that still doesn’t turn selective examples of one into real evidence.
Thank you for the outstanding post. I wanted to add one more factor - luck. Every animal is different and reacts differently to being shot.
Last year, I got invited to a game management harvest at a West Texas ranch. Basically, the rancher wanted to reduce the number of does on the property and we got some meat out of the deal. The second day, I got set up in a blind 87 yards from where we put out some feed.
Shortly, after sunup, a nice sized doe came out of the thicket and I placed a 143g ELD-X from my 6.5CM right behind the shoulder. She dropped DRT. Since I didn't have to track her, I decided to stay in the blind while my friend continued his hunt in a different blind about 1/2 mile away.
About 45 minutes later, I was shocked to see another doe wander out and start eating the corn near where the first doe was laying down. I ended up taking the exact same shot with the same equipment. She ran about 30 yards before she passed. When we gutted them out, I swear the entry and exit wounds were within a 1/2 in of each other and no "big" bones were broken.
Why did one doe drop DRT and the other run off bleeding? Luck. On that first shot, the hydrostatic shot from the bullet must have impacted the central nervous system whereas it didn't on the second.
A decade ago, on one of the many pig culls I've been part of in Texas, several of us were hunting the King Ranch. It had been a very wet year, and natural feed was not only abundant, but the grass grew so high it was tough finding pigs unless they were right on the ranch roads.
On the last evening it was my turn to shoot, and I'd brought two rifles, an open-sighted .45-70 lever-action and a scoped bolt-action .257 Roberts. Just at sunset a fairly sizeable boar--somewhat larger than I generally pick for eating--was moseying along the edge of the road around 250 yards away, feeding with his snout just about touching the tall grass along the edge.
Soon he disappeared around a bend, giving me a chance to stalk closer. I would have preferred to use the .45-70, because it would leave a bigger blood trail if the pig got into the grass, but the light was not only growing dim but the boar was pretty much in line with the sunset, so I grabbed the .257 and made the sneak. As I came around the bend in the road, the pig was about 150 yards away, broadside, and instead of getting fancy I aimed at the rear edge of the shoulder, knowing any wobble would still hit something vital.
At the shot he dropped right there, and I thought the 115-grain Partition might have broken the shoulders--but nope, it had only gone through ribs and lungs! It was another one of those lucky instances: Have seen a bunch of other pigs hit in the same place, most with cartridges larger than the .257, and they'd run off 50 yards or more before expiring. One was a 60-pounder that went 60-65 yards after a 250-grain monolithic from a 9.3x62 made a big hole in both lungs!
My old friend Ron Spomer's wife Betsy had basically the same thing happen with the first Cape buffalo she ever shot. The placement was basically the same, just behind the shoulders through the lungs--and the bull dropped right there and never moved! The rifle was a .375 H&H....
This thread is supposedly about a 270 being the end all be all hands down best caliber out to 600 yards for deer and possibly elk...
Actually, this thread is RE: building a 600 yd capable hunting rifle around a 5R/1:8 twist long throated 24" Bbl. and .270 Win./150-165 gr high BC bullets at ~ 3000-2900 fps at the muzzle respectively.
Bradford; Top of the morning to you sir, I hope the day is behaving in your part of the planet and you're well.
Thanks for sharing the hunt story with us, I appreciate you taking the time to add the wound details.
As John said, "you never know"...
If I can tell this tale yet again, with apologies to all who've read it here previously and with the understanding that if I've changed any details from a past recounting of the hunt, please forgive me as I'm going off of memory and not looking at my reloading notes or hunting journal.
Way back in the day we used to have horses and hunted the mountain behind the house with them. For my usual horseback hunting rifle I used an '82 vintage Ruger No 1 in .300 Win Mag loaded with 165gr Hornady BT Spires to about 3100fps. Usually that load worked extremely well on the meat buck mulies I was hoping to bring home on the back of Carly the Appy.
On the morning in question, we - Carly the Appy and I - had been having a glorious and uneventful ride on the loop we hunted. It was a morning so relaxing that I'd just thought it would be a shame to spoil it by shooting something and having to get dirty and then take the long walk home afterward. Of course at that moment I spied a 2 point up on a ridge looking down at us trotting by. They usually didn't get too, too spooked by the horse and this was the case that day.
We rode a big circle so as to hopefully come up on the buck where we'd see it first this time and that's what we did. I tied Carly to a big Ponderosa, flopped my battered Bailey on a rock and took careful aim behind the shoulder of the feeding 2 pointer who was maybe 250-300 yards away and had no idea we were there.
At the hit, the buck gave a big high kick like a bronc coming out of the chute and then began tearing at top speed down the mountain to our right. I could honestly see the blood spraying onto the Antelope Brush and sage brush a couple of times and as it went downward out of sight, I said out loud to Carly, "Well this isn't good..."
Anyways Bradford, we found the buck since as mentioned it left a blood trail that Helen Keller could have followed, but so help me it was pretty much out of fluid at the end.
As a guess, it'd made it about 300 yards and while for sure it was down a fairly steep section of the mountain, to this day I can't wrap my head around how far it went with the tissue damage it had in the lungs - but it did.
Thanks for reading my tale of "what's the farthest a well hit animal has run for you".
All the best to you this upcoming hunting season.
Dwayne
Edit - added photo because, well, who doesn't like rifle photos?
This thread is supposedly about a 270 being the end all be all hands down best caliber out to 600 yards for deer and possibly elk...
Actually, this thread is RE: building a 600 yd capable hunting rifle around a 5R/1:8 twist long throated 24" Bbl. and .270 Win./150-165 gr high BC bullets at ~ 3000-2900 fps at the muzzle respectively.
That's it.
This place is a kindergarten.
GR
Well, you know what you want, so build the rifle, shoot a deer at 600+, and post the picture.
Barrel makers and bullet companies could give you some ideas on what to specify.
Just measured some .270 130 TSX's and .338 225 grain TSX's that I recovered from animals I shot. The .270 130's measured .594" and .582" across the petals and the .338 225's .688" and .729" across the petals. I drive the 130's at just over 3000 fps and the 225's at 2950 fps. Contrary to what others seem to be finding, I do notice a difference in killing power of the .338 over the .270 , and the .270 over a 6mm.
But at what range an impact velocity? That seems to be part of the equation people ignore.
There's sufficient information in this thread given by Harari and others to do what you want to do. Some of us disagree on certain aspects, so you work out what view is more creditable. I, for instance, believe that the ideal rifle for 600 yard shooting is different to the lightweight sporter that is great to carry and handy/compact with a lightweight relatively low magnification scope. You do not necessarily have to use such a rifle and the skills acquired to immediately (or ever) go out and shoot game at 600 yards. Those skills and the rifle can be used to just gradually extend the range at which you are competent to shoot game at consistently at this present point in time. So for example, if you struggle to consistently take game now at 300 yards, those skills you learn and the equipment might allow you to in the future consistently kill game at 300 yards.
When I'm selecting hardware for long-range hunting, I have a whole list of things that I consider:
1. I want a reliably tracking optic with high-resolution and light transmission. I want 20+ power so that I can read mirage to provide me an indication of wind speed and direction.
2. I want the rifle to be low to moderate recoil. I want to be able to spot trace and impacts. I want to be able to recover quickly in the instance that a second shot is needed.
3. I want the highest-BC bullet available with the lowest expansion velocity possible. At no point in bullet flight do I want to approach the maximum impact velocity of the bullet; this is especially true if using a cup and core bullet. I do not want to damage the integrity of the bullet.
4. I want the barrel to be adequately twisted to stabilize the bullet I choose at sea level on the coldest days I would be willing to hunt.
5. I want a trigger that is heavy enough that adrenalin won't cause unintentional discharge of the rifle, but I want the trigger to be light with a very short travel.
6. I want a chambering which I can use the best cartridge brass available; Lapua, ADG, Peterson...with a heavy preference for Lapua.
7. I want a chambering that a Hogdon Extreme series powder works in...as temperature-sensitive powder may change velocity enough that a temperature swing may change trajectory enough to change elevation impact 1/2 of the vital zone.
8. I want a chambering that will allow for flexibility of seating depths.
9. I want a stock made of material impervious to the elements.
I choose a 6.5 PRC for most of my long range hunting. In the past, I used 6.5-284. One of the requirements above I learned the hard way having shot an animal with a 140 gr. Nosler partition on a very cold day near sea level at a range of 670 yards across completely open country. I was never able to recover the animal. I tracked for hundreds of yards into the CRP where I lost the blood trail. I later realized I was below the minimum impact velocity at right at 1775 fps. Since, I have not failed to recover an animal having taken many whitetail and big game species anywhere from point blank to beyond 800 yards. While I prefer as close a shot as possible, I like success even more.
I decided to look at GA's early posts, as he's been a member since 2016--but only started posting several years later. This was his first on "Ask the Gunwriters", in response to the question "Best overall "budget" rifle?"
Hell of a Sub-MOA field rifle for ~ $400. GR[/quote]
I have nothing against the Mossberg Patriot, in fact own a very accurate synthetic-stocked model in .308, and used a loaner walnut-stocked .270 (also very accurate) to do an article on "New Powders and Bullets for Handloading the .270 Winchester" not all that long ago. They're good rifles.
But they aren't the only candidate for "Best overall "budget" rifle," just as his dream-build of a .270 isn't the only candidate for a 600-yard medium/large big game rifle.
My major point is that since he started posting, he's mostly wanted to show off his "vast" knowledge--not actually learn anything. Which is exactly why he started this thread.....
A decade ago, on one of the many pig culls I've been part of in Texas, several of us were hunting the King Ranch. It had been a very wet year, and natural feed was not only abundant, but the grass grew so high it was tough finding pigs unless they were right on the ranch roads.
On the last evening it was my turn to shoot, and I'd brought two rifles, an open-sighted .45-70 lever-action and a scoped bolt-action .257 Roberts. Just at sunset a fairly sizeable boar--somewhat larger than I generally pick for eating--was moseying along the edge of the road around 250 yards away, feeding with his snout just about touching the tall grass along the edge.
Soon he disappeared around a bend, giving me a chance to stalk closer. I would have preferred to use the .45-70, because it would leave a bigger blood trail if the pig got into the grass, but the light was not only growing dim but the boar was pretty much in line with the sunset, so I grabbed the .257 and made the sneak. As I came around the bend in the road, the pig was about 150 yards away, broadside, and instead of getting fancy I aimed at the rear edge of the shoulder, knowing any wobble would still hit something vital.
At the shot he dropped right there, and I thought the 115-grain Partition might have broken the shoulders--but nope, it had only gone through ribs and lungs! It was another one of those lucky instances: Have seen a bunch of other pigs hit in the same place, most with cartridges larger than the .257, and they'd run off 50 yards or more before expiring. One was a 60-pounder that went 60-65 yards after a 250-grain monolithic from a 9.3x62 made a big hole in both lungs!
My old friend Ron Spomer's wife Betsy had basically the same thing happen with the first Cape buffalo she ever shot. The placement was basically the same, just behind the shoulders through the lungs--and the bull dropped right there and never moved! The rifle was a .375 H&H....
As a generalization, I believe adrenalin has a lot to do with it as well. IMO if an animal is shot without seeing you it tends to drop a lot faster than an animal that is pumped full of adrenalin after scenting or seeing the hunter.
Riflehunter, you really do want to put words in my posts that I didn't type. So I'll just post the chapter from GUN GACK II mentioned earlier:
OPINIONS OF KILLING POWER
Breaking heavy bone is a far more concrete example of physics than several hundredths of an inch in bullet diameter, whether expanded or unexpanded. Yet true believers in caliber often don’t differentiate between bone shots and bullets that only hit ribs, preferring to believe caliber made the difference when an animal flinches, or falls quickly. Since this is America, everybody’s entitled to an opinion (and even entitled to tell the rest of the world on Facebook), but that still doesn’t turn selective examples of one into real evidence.
Thank you for the outstanding post. I wanted to add one more factor - luck. Every animal is different and reacts differently to being shot.
Last year, I got invited to a game management harvest at a West Texas ranch. Basically, the rancher wanted to reduce the number of does on the property and we got some meat out of the deal. The second day, I got set up in a blind 87 yards from where we put out some feed.
Shortly, after sunup, a nice sized doe came out of the thicket and I placed a 143g ELD-X from my 6.5CM right behind the shoulder. She dropped DRT. Since I didn't have to track her, I decided to stay in the blind while my friend continued his hunt in a different blind about 1/2 mile away.
About 45 minutes later, I was shocked to see another doe wander out and start eating the corn near where the first doe was laying down. I ended up taking the exact same shot with the same equipment. She ran about 30 yards before she passed. When we gutted them out, I swear the entry and exit wounds were within a 1/2 in of each other and no "big" bones were broken.
Why did one doe drop DRT and the other run off bleeding? Luck. On that first shot, the hydrostatic shot from the bullet must have impacted the central nervous system whereas it didn't on the second.
Bradford, That is a very interesting story and excellent food for thought. Since the conditions of the two shots were just about identical, I am wondering what factors (besides "s*#t happens", which indeed it does) might come into play. Since these were both behind-the-shoulder double lungs, I am thinking of two possible factors: 1) You didn't mention ribs hit or not. I wonder if smashing right through a rib on entry could transfer enough energy right up to the spine to invoke the DRT, when a hit 1/2" away that sipped between the ribs might not? 2) I wonder if where the animal is in its respiration cycle has anything to do with how much shock get transferred to the CNS when a double lung hit occurs. IOW, if the critter has just drawn a breath, and its lungs are full and chest cavity fully expanded, might the effects of an identical shot be different than if it had just completed its exhale, with the chest cavity in the opposite state? It kind of makes sense to me that it might, though I've never heard it discussed.
Not germane to the OP but your story was really thought provoking. All that said, animals are individuals, and s*#t does happen.
It is hereto an unexplored corner of the hunting envelope for me.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will be contacting Pac-Nor, finalizing a stainless R5 Bbl. w/ a Remington H1 light "varmint" contour, spun-on and trued to a M700 action.
The BDL stock is already bedded and padded, so only "free-floating" the new Bbl. should be necessary (unless the recoil lug changes).
And the magazine length will accommodate long-loaded 3.55" COAL cartridges.
So, what else?
TIA.
GR
Can you hit a 8" pie plate every single time at 600 yards? That would be the first thing it would take.
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
Energy/Impact Velocity/Bullet Construction/Shot Placement - are the only things a hunter has.
... so your opinion is irrelevant.
GR
You're forgetting the most important thing: ethics.
What's it take?? excellent marksmanship, know the wind, and a lot of rounds down range under all conditions, and good judgement, every thing else is BULLSCHITT. Rio7
We must determine our definition of “long distance”! Here are my personal requirements….. An accurate rifle, using a fairly high BC bullet upwards of .30 caliber, that will give adequate expansion at the pre-determined distance limit involved, lots of trigger time with said rifle, and carefully choosing good atmospheric conditions! When you’ve satisfied all those parameters……having, as in my case, over 2000 ft/pounds of remaining energy at my personal limit of 600 yards is desirable! memtb
Here's to ya.
2000 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, even for a heavy rifle, bumps me out of precision shooting.
1500 ft-lbs. at 600 yards, with a 9.5 lb rifle, is about it, and not all day long, either.
But the .270 Win. can do that, if one is careful.
GR
FPE is irealavant quote such shows ignorance
My question about Minimum FPE numbers has always been what are they based on? I mean, other than the fact that Craig Boddington and others tossed them out 40 years ago.
They're surely not based on any kind of systematic observations made on big game shot with differing levels of FPE. And even Boddington has backed away from the minimum numbers. Because they were based on a "gut feel," and maybe the need to generate ideas for another article. Articles on adequate elk cartridges have been filling that void for a long time now.
These days it seems the more relevant factor is keeping the bullets you're using within the designed velocity ranges. Depending on the bullet construction, size, and shot distance pushing a bullet to the velocity needed for 2000 FPE at the POI could put it outside that envelope for closer shots
This thread has got to have the longest individual posts made by individual members, eva!
If I catch Covid, I’m gonna read this entire thread, knowing by the time I finish it, I will be over Covid.
😂🦫
I was just thinking the same thing... Catching up a bit from the weekend.
I haven't looked for a few days either. What kind of trouble are you guys stirring up now? I was out having fun while you guys talk about having fun...
Get out and shoot!!!! Even if it's with a pistola at 40 yards. Seems like that is "longrange" for some guys here. Just like making shots easy at 600 with your rifle, 40 yards with your pistol is cake... Carry on with this thread though, I have some guns to clean and brass to prep..
Wow. I did not expect such feedback on a forum of reasonable people.
I too appreciate what Mule Deer shared based on decades of hunting. I do not have his experience on game. But I absolutely know about bullet performance from testing jillion of designs. (Read on)
As I said, 300 yards is a long shot for me even on prairie dogs. In big game pursuits I am usually closer because I like intimate hunting.
In one way or another many of us have said the same thing. To paraphrase. ‘It is the bullet which does the work. The correct bullet must be placed in the right place or immoral results happen.’ Correct performance is a combination of bullet design & placement
I used to manufacture bullets. All had bonded cores. I have tinkered with and tested thousands of different bullet designs and observed their behavior under differing conditions.
The best take away I got reading Nathan Foster’s writings was the concept of bullet performance “horizons.” Many common bullets are not designed to expand well below 1900-2000 FPS. Other [rifle] bullets are specifically designed to expand all the way down to 1400 FPS. For rifle bullets 1400fps is about the final horizon. (Yes, I know there are exceptions like the 300 BLK, etc. )
I agree wtih Mule_Deer. Whatever the bullet, it must take out vitals or break bone, or both, or it simply pokes a hole and game suffers a long demise.
Ergo the big, fat, soft bullets I use at brush ranges are useless at extended ranges and visa versa. Bullet design must be matched to the anticipated impact velocity-range.
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
I've read through this thread and there is good information, and one fellow seems to be full of it - Mr. Kindergarten man. I remember reading about Taylor's formula and I bought into it. I also remember when 1,000 ft-lb's was considered minimum energy for killing whitetail and 2,000 ft-lb's was considered minimum for elk. There were a lot of theories... I followed Elmer's writing, and I believed it then and I still think he was right regarding what his options were. All those things are in the past, things changed. MD's experience (other writers too) and writing has had a big influence on what I've come to believe. Though I've hunted up to 6 whitetails per year and 4 pronghorns plus now and then an elk. I believe that a 30-06 with a good 180 grain cup and core would have worked with every game animal I've taken. It's what I've used the most on deer. But in the last 20 years or so I want to try something new every time I go out. My main shooting at 500 meters (or yards in some cases) were with M1's, M14's and Springfield's all with aperture sights. But I've also shot at PD's at that range and further with big game rifles for practice. It proved to me that shooting at game animals at over 400 yards is not my cup of tea and I prefer 100 yards or so if possible.
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
That's a broad oversimplification. Would you agree that the more you limit yourself, the more you'll have to pass up opportunities and go home empty-handed? To paraphrase another poster, I like stalking close but I like meat in the freezer even more. I like to train and develop all skill sets that can lead to taking advantage of as many opportunities as possible (both related to stalking close and shooting long).
Originally Posted by Bugger
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Those are not unique to LR shooting, and can be issues regardless of shot distance.
Jordan, I haven't been on this site as long as a lot of fellas, but I have observed that you talk a lot of sense. Plenty of science, not much emotion or mental baggage, and a healthy dose of real-world experience thrown in. Kinda like that Barsness guy. Regards, Rex
...But, if your skills are already up to it, and your rifle is MOA at 400, then I still think you add a set of quality rings, bases and a SWFA, ARKEN, Trij, etc onto your gun and just shoot before you really get knee deep into a build. Wearing a throat some will definitely tell you if you need to change it up. 600 is pretty easy for a plain old 22-250 with normal bullets if you have the gun/optics to aim them, and you'll learn a helluva lot about wind with something like that as well.
600 is doable w/ my current 22" rig, just not optimum.
It's an 8.5 lb. M70 w/ a 2.5-8x36mm scope.
Shoots great.
Like it just the way it is for 99% of my hunting.
The pencil Bbl'ed M700 in the freezer just sits there.
What is the particular problem w/ the idea of spinning on a longer/heavier Bbl., and maybe some better glass and gadgets, for a dedicated longer range hunting rifle?
Unfathomable.
GR
Your plan as stated will work except for one thing. A reliable long range scope suited for dialing and good mounts needs to be your first priority, not your last. You could put that on your current rifle and do measurably better than a new fast twist barrel with your optic described above. If funds will allow, do both. If not, do the optic first, burn out your current barrel learning, then put a new barrel on after that. I understand already being set up for .270.
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
That's a broad oversimplification. Would you agree that the more you limit yourself, the more you'll have to pass up opportunities and go home empty-handed? To paraphrase another poster, I like stalking close but I like meat in the freezer even more. I like to train and develop all skill sets that can lead to taking advantage of as many opportunities as possible (both related to stalking close and shooting long).
Originally Posted by Bugger
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Those are not unique to LR shooting, and can be issues regardless of shot distance.
I whole-heartedly disagree, for a multiple of reasons!
This thread is supposedly about a 270 being the end all be all hands down best caliber out to 600 yards for deer and possibly elk...
Actually, this thread is RE: building a 600 yd capable hunting rifle around a 5R/1:8 twist long throated 24" Bbl. and .270 Win./150-165 gr high BC bullets at ~ 3000-2900 fps at the muzzle respectively.
That's it GR
"Already have a scoped rifle that handles < 400 yards just fine, and am a competent rifleman out to well beyond that. Thinking about building a hunting rifle good for 600 yards."
"Most of my 400+ shooting has been with service rifles w/ aperture sights."
From reading your post, You are not new to the shooting game. You state you are competent out to well beyond 400yds. And most of your 400+ yds have been with aperture sights.
I say build the rifle you want. It's your money. Put a good scope on it and Bang away. You will soon learn its capabilities and yours. Everyone had to start somewhere. With practice and tweaking your loads I'm sure you will be banging steel at 600yds in no time. Post up some Pic's of the build and let us know how it goes. Good Luck to You and enjoy your new rifle.
Jordan, I haven't been on this site as long as a lot of fellas, but I have observed that you talk a lot of sense. Plenty of science, not much emotion or mental baggage, and a healthy dose of real-world experience thrown in. Kinda like that Barsness guy. Regards, Rex
Thanks for the kind words, Rex! If I’m being lumped in with JB, then I’m in good company.
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
That's a broad oversimplification. Would you agree that the more you limit yourself, the more you'll have to pass up opportunities and go home empty-handed? To paraphrase another poster, I like stalking close but I like meat in the freezer even more. I like to train and develop all skill sets that can lead to taking advantage of as many opportunities as possible (both related to stalking close and shooting long).
Originally Posted by Bugger
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Those are not unique to LR shooting, and can be issues regardless of shot distance.
I whole-heartedly disagree, for a multiple of reasons!
Unless you can consistently clean the NRA MR target at 600yds from your field positions, you have no business shooting at an elk at 600.
One of our more famous long range shooters posted a photo on here of an elk he shot at a similar distance. I noted that if he hadn't luckily hit the spine, it would have been a gut-shot. His response? Crickets. I wonder how many he has failed to bring to bag?
Unless you can consistently clean the NRA MR target at 600yds from your field positions, you have no business shooting at an elk at 600.
One of our more famous long range shooters posted a photo on here of an elk he shot at a similar distance. I noted that if he hadn't luckily hit the spine, it would have been a gut-shot. His response? Crickets. I wonder how many he has failed to bring to bag?
I agree……mostly! For elk sized animals……I’d expand my target zone to 10”…..but, that’s just me! memtb
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
That's a broad oversimplification. Would you agree that the more you limit yourself, the more you'll have to pass up opportunities and go home empty-handed? To paraphrase another poster, I like stalking close but I like meat in the freezer even more. I like to train and develop all skill sets that can lead to taking advantage of as many opportunities as possible (both related to stalking close and shooting long).
Originally Posted by Bugger
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Those are not unique to LR shooting, and can be issues regardless of shot distance.
I whole-heartedly disagree, for a multiple of reasons!
Please elaborate! memtb
Bullet performance at - 200 yards vs. 600 yards Watching an animal after it's hit - 200 yards vs. 600 yards Ability to place bullets where they should go - 200 yards vs. 600 yards The chance of wounding a game animal -200 yards vs. 600 yards
The "whoopee" of I was able to kill an animal at 600 yards seems more to me like poor sportsmanship, low respect for the game. To me it's just a bragging thing not a hunting thing!
Unless you can consistently clean the NRA MR target at 600yds from your field positions in conditions in which you would take a shot at a game animal, you have no business shooting at an elk at 600.
While I agree with the principle of holding oneself to a specific standard of marksmanship for shooting at game animals, I would point out a couple of things:
For some reason, this notion typically only comes up when we are talking about shooting game animals at 500, 600, etc., yards. I have witnessed the shooting of many hunters who can’t keep all their shots within 12” at 100/200/300 yards from field positions, even in ideal conditions. I have observed hunters who have a far higher miss/wound rate at 200 yards or less than I do at any distance and set of conditions in which I would take a shot (including 600 yards in the right conditions). I find it interesting that we rarely comment here on the forums that people have no business hunting game animals at all until they have practiced and developed sufficient marksmanship to place all shots within 10-12” at a given distance at which they would shoot an animal.
My other point relates to the modification I made to the above quote. There are situations and conditions in which I would absolutely not take a shot at a game animal at 600 yards, and others where I certainly would (and have). This is no different than if the animal were at 300 yards.
It’s fine to be critical of hunters who miss or wound, but are we as critical of a guy who does it at 300 yards as we are of the guy who misses or wounds at 600 yards? A miss or wounding shot is possible for two types of reasons, regardless of distance: factors outside of our control, and factors within our control. I would argue that an ethical hunter should mitigate all factors within their control that might lead to a miss/wound, and only shoot in conditions where the factors outside their control are minimized as much as possible.
You’re far to kind Jordan. Your points make a bunch of sense but to varying places we all hunt, 300 yards is really far for some while 600 is just warming up for others. Trying to sort out emotional opinions on it will never get much further than everyone getting a little butthurt their opinion isn’t the most popular.
You guys can brag all you want about your ability to shoot game at 600 yards. To me you deserve zero respect for it. It just shows you do not know how to hunt.
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
That's a broad oversimplification. Would you agree that the more you limit yourself, the more you'll have to pass up opportunities and go home empty-handed? To paraphrase another poster, I like stalking close but I like meat in the freezer even more. I like to train and develop all skill sets that can lead to taking advantage of as many opportunities as possible (both related to stalking close and shooting long).
Originally Posted by Bugger
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Those are not unique to LR shooting, and can be issues regardless of shot distance.
I whole-heartedly disagree, for a multiple of reasons!
Please elaborate! memtb
Bullet performance at - 200 yards vs. 600 yards Watching an animal after it's hit - 200 yards vs. 600 yards Ability to place bullets where they should go - 200 yards vs. 600 yards The chance of wounding a game animal -200 yards vs. 600 yards
First, let me say that if shooting game at LR isn’t your thing, I completely respect that. I get that different people have different priorities when hunting, and if stalking close or going home empty-handed is what cranks another man’s gears, I’m all for it. Now to illustrate my point…
“Bullet performance at - 200 yards vs. 600 yards” - this requires some thought for both 200 and 600 yards. Think of a C&C bullet launched at 3500 fps and impacting at 200 yards at just under 3000 fps. Regardless of distance, selecting a bullet that impacts within the velocity range for which it is designed is important. “Watching an animal after it's hit - 200 yards vs. 600 yards” - consider shooting an elk at ~200 yards out of a herd that is mingling at the edge of the treeline of thick boreal forest. Now consider a lone elk on an open hillside at ~600 yards. I have personally been in each of these scenarios. “Ability to place bullets where they should go - 200 yards vs. 600 yards” - there are many who struggle to place a bullet correctly at 200 yards, and many who are very capable of doing it successfully at 600. “The chance of wounding a game animal -200 yards vs. 600 yards” - see above.
All of these issues can be a challenge, whether at 200 yards or 600.
Originally Posted by Bugger
The "whoopee" of I was able to kill an animal at 600 yards seems more to me like poor sportsmanship, low respect for the game. To me it's just a bragging thing not a hunting thing!
I think in some cases you are right. For some, it likely is a bragging thing, and for others it’s a pragmatic thing. I’ve been in many situations where, due to time constraints, terrain, etc., my options were to either shoot at 400, 500, 600, etc., yards, or not at all. In some of those cases, the conditions were not right and I didn’t shoot. In others, they were and I did. People hunt for different reasons. I spent many years as a student trying to provide for a young, growing, and hungry family. Meat in the freezer was truly important for us every year. If I could ethically put meat in the freezer, whether the shot was 200 yards or 600, I did.
So to simplify the myriad of reasons for which a person might shoot a game animal at 600 yards by saying that it’s for the bragging rights, again, is a broad oversimplification IMO.
Good rational post JS. These days if I don't have the time and opportunity to get a lazered range distance when the game is past 300 I don't shoot. In your estimation what is the best smart phone app for usable ballistic tables availible today...mb
Good rational post JS. These days if I don't have the time and opportunity to get a lazered range distance when the game is past 300 I don't shoot. In your estimation what is the best smart phone app for usable ballistic tables availible today...mb
Thanks, Bob. That seems like a reasonable approach, and I feel similarly. For me and the way I set up my rifles, out to ~ 250-300 meters is PBR, and beyond that I’m dialing or holding over based on a precise range reading.
I’ve used darn near every smartphone ballistic app out there, including Ballistic:FTE/AE since about its inception, and it remains my favourite. The only downside is that it’s only available for iOS. For other OS devices, AB, Shooter, and Hornady 4DOF are all pretty good.
Jordan; Top of the morning my friend, I hope that you and your fine family are as well as can be over on your side of the big hills.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Jordan, there's a lot of meat in there and yes I do use that euphemism intentionally.
If I can expand on a couple of thoughts you put forth, regarding bringing home meat, there's a commonly put forth argument that none of us "need" to hunt anymore as there's lots of food available from agricultural sources.
Since I'm me Jordan, I've given that a whole bunch of thought and believe that for some of us, especially men who I've talked to about this but definitely not male exclusive, there is a state of inner peace/wellness which we mentally require that is sometimes in part fulfilled with a full freezer.
Speaking personally, when we had horses, until we had the hay barn full, enough firewood stacked to make the next winter and a couple of animals in the freezer I had difficulty being at peace with myself. I can't articulate it differently than that at present.
For me it was/is a real thing and when I questioned other people about it, some were exactly on track with my thoughts - spooky almost really Jordan. Some of course looked at me like I had 3 heads and no doubt it gave them even more evidence to my mental deficiency.
Before leaving this part then, I'd say that some "serious gardeners" of which I was not one back then, but appear to be becoming one, had similar feelings which are close to, if not are low level anxiety if they don't have a good crop and by extension lots of preserves.
All that to say, I do not know what a full freezer means to you or anyone else - not really and truly I don't. Not on a deep level anyways and yah, I believe some of this goes way deep into our genes.
On shooting animals further than closer, one of the things I've noticed is that usually it's easier to judge their body language and level of alarm from greater distances. While it's not an absolute statement, I do think that usually animals that are not aware of us or at least alarmed by us tend to die more quickly with the same shot placement.
To be clear, I personally don't make a practice of shooting unwounded big game much beyond 300yds, but that's not always been the case and might not be again in the future. As with most things in life, my thoughts and beliefs change as I age and have more experiences in the activity, both positive and negative. Oh, aging has absolutely played a part in that too Jordan!
Anyways, I am cognizant all that has nothing to do with the mechanics of long range shooting, but I'd argue that we won't go down the path of any activity without first having the inclination to do so. I've attempted to address the inclination part.
Sincere kudos again for your reply, it made me think and at my age that's always a good practice!
All the best to you and your family and good luck on your hunts this fall.
You guys can brag all you want about your ability to shoot game at 600 yards. To me you deserve zero respect for it. It just shows you do not know how to hunt.
I suppose everyone has a right to their perspective.
I have shot elk past 600 yards, using a regular hunting rifle, as I have shown in this thread:
Popped some in the ear hole a few football field lengths away as well:
Snuck up on some close enough to use a handgun too:
Whether that means I "know how to hunt", I guess I won't worry too much about.
I tend to stay in practice in the off season by shooting magnum handguns on fast moving targets:
What I do know is my freezer is rarely below a hundred pounds of venison, and I quit hunting horns many years ago.
I simply hunt to put meat in the freezer these days and spend time with the family. I don't worry about living up to others criteria.
Another agree…..passing on shots under certain situations! For myself, for myself making a 600 yard shot in perfect, or near perfect conditions is doable……not desirable! A few years back, I passed on a bull in perfect shooting conditions ….yet, I still passed! I was hunting in an area with a dense grizzly concentration with the shot being near dark! Had I failed to quickly drop the animal, it may have been hours looking for a wounded elk in dense timber…..potential “quality time” I’d rather not share with a bear! 😉
Just because the shot is considered doable…..the hunter must make the decision as to the ethics and other potential issues at the time! memtb
I’d just like to know where you can find “jacks” to practice on! When I first moved here, in the mid ‘80’s, there were “jacks” everywhere! I can count on my fingers how many I’ve seen in the past 10 years! 🤬
They are great for practice……I used running “jacks” when fire-forming brass for my AI. It was a lot of fun, great practice, and got me the brass I needed! A win all the way around! memtb
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
I've read through this thread and there is good information, and one fellow seems to be full of it - Mr. Kindergarten man. I remember reading about Taylor's formula and I bought into it. I also remember when 1,000 ft-lb's was considered minimum energy for killing whitetail and 2,000 ft-lb's was considered minimum for elk. There were a lot of theories... I followed Elmer's writing, and I believed it then and I still think he was right regarding what his options were. All those things are in the past, things changed. MD's experience (other writers too) and writing has had a big influence on what I've come to believe. Though I've hunted up to 6 whitetails per year and 4 pronghorns plus now and then an elk. I believe that a 30-06 with a good 180 grain cup and core would have worked with every game animal I've taken. It's what I've used the most on deer. But in the last 20 years or so I want to try something new every time I go out. My main shooting at 500 meters (or yards in some cases) were with M1's, M14's and Springfield's all with aperture sights. But I've also shot at PD's at that range and further with big game rifles for practice. It proved to me that shooting at game animals at over 400 yards is not my cup of tea and I prefer 100 yards or so if possible.
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
I like your post bugger. All of those things should be considered for sure. Something every ethical hunter should be thinking about, but not worrying so much about that it affects the shot. You set a limit on yourself, as every ethical hunter should. Like I said earlier, know your abilities and stay within those parameters. Don't take pop shots, which I've seen idiot hunters do. Be sure of your equipment and your abilities and know how to read conditions. Don't take the shot if conditions are not right. What you fail to understand, though, is people have different skill sets. They may not match yours. To some, a 600 yard shot is a cake walk. Pretty simple really.
Jordan; Top of the morning my friend, I hope that you and your fine family are as well as can be over on your side of the big hills.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Jordan, there's a lot of meat in there and yes I do use that euphemism intentionally.
If I can expand on a couple of thoughts you put forth, regarding bringing home meat, there's a commonly put forth argument that none of us "need" to hunt anymore as there's lots of food available from agricultural sources.
Since I'm me Jordan, I've given that a whole bunch of thought and believe that for some of us, especially men who I've talked to about this but definitely not male exclusive, there is a state of inner peace/wellness which we mentally require that is sometimes in part fulfilled with a full freezer.
Speaking personally, when we had horses, until we had the hay barn full, enough firewood stacked to make the next winter and a couple of animals in the freezer I had difficulty being at peace with myself. I can't articulate it differently than that at present.
For me it was/is a real thing and when I questioned other people about it, some were exactly on track with my thoughts - spooky almost really Jordan. Some of course looked at me like I had 3 heads and no doubt it gave them even more evidence to my mental deficiency.
Before leaving this part then, I'd say that some "serious gardeners" of which I was not one back then, but appear to be becoming one, had similar feelings which are close to, if not are low level anxiety if they don't have a good crop and by extension lots of preserves.
All that to say, I do not know what a full freezer means to you or anyone else - not really and truly I don't. Not on a deep level anyways and yah, I believe some of this goes way deep into our genes.
On shooting animals further than closer, one of the things I've noticed is that usually it's easier to judge their body language and level of alarm from greater distances. While it's not an absolute statement, I do think that usually animals that are not aware of us or at least alarmed by us tend to die more quickly with the same shot placement.
To be clear, I personally don't make a practice of shooting unwounded big game much beyond 300yds, but that's not always been the case and might not be again in the future. As with most things in life, my thoughts and beliefs change as I age and have more experiences in the activity, both positive and negative. Oh, aging has absolutely played a part in that too Jordan!
Anyways, I am cognizant all that has nothing to do with the mechanics of long range shooting, but I'd argue that we won't go down the path of any activity without first having the inclination to do so. I've attempted to address the inclination part.
Sincere kudos again for your reply, it made me think and at my age that's always a good practice!
All the best to you and your family and good luck on your hunts this fall.
Dwayne
Well said Dwayne. I don't see many of us trying to back up when we get up on an elk at 30 yards in the timber to get a longer shot to brag about, but I am darn sure ready to take a longer shot as well. There is no shame in being a capable rifleman that can take home his freezer meat from XXX distance! I'd bet most of us have similar ethics, but some of us just feel a bit better taking longer shots. We could go down the exact same road with traditional archery, compound bows, handguns, muzzleloaders, etc..
And your adage about feeling a bunch more peaceful with a freezer of winter protein is spot on as well. Some hunters I know couldn't give a darn about the meat they harvest, and turn it into burger, sausage, etc. Others want everything they can get for edible portions to feed on. I don't "need" an elk, a couple deer, some turkeys to survive, but I darned sure feel much better eating that protein vs anything in the grocery store!
I’d just like to know where you can find “jacks” to practice on! When I first moved here, in the mid ‘80’s, there were “jacks” everywhere! I can count on my fingers how many I’ve seen in the past 10 years! 🤬
They are great for practice……I used running “jacks” when fire-forming brass for my AI. It was a lot of fun, great practice, and got me the brass I needed! A win all the way around! memtb
Unless you can consistently clean the NRA MR target at 600yds from your field positions, you have no business shooting at an elk at 600.
One of our more famous long range shooters posted a photo on here of an elk he shot at a similar distance. I noted that if he hadn't luckily hit the spine, it would have been a gut-shot. His response? Crickets. I wonder how many he has failed to bring to bag?
Like any sport that is done correctly, to get good at it requires practice. This is the internet. Our equipment has the potential to do the job, but i question how many shooters have practiced enough at 600 yards to consistently take animals in an ethical way. Based on what I see at rifle ranges etc I'd say if one percent of us did it that would be a lot. I'm just getting into long range shooting, and I have top of the line equipment, but it would take a lot of practice to hit animal sized targets at 600 yards consistently. Especially when one considers shooting position, weather, wind, elevation and whether or not you have just run up a hill and are winded. I just saw a long range hunting show on one of the outdoor channels and the guy hit his shots (6-800 Yards), but it took a committee. He had a guy with a range finder, another with the Kestrel thingy and a phone app to tell the shooter how to aim the shot. The shooting conditions were very good, no excessive wind, no snow or rain, and the shooter was able to get prone for a shot with no elevation. And the guy had obviously practiced a lot. So yeah, less than 1% of you regularly shoot ethically at 600+ yards.
Thanks…..that’s “mo better”! I don’t know how I determined that it was 6”! 🤔 memtb
Here's a 500 yard target to give you an idea. Actually it is an F class 1,000 yard repair center, but has the same dimensions as the NRA 500 yard target. 10" 10 ring and 5" x ring: At 500 yards, it's pretty easy to hit, even in the wind: Even with an AR10: Even in schidty conditions like this: Hit that ^^^^^^2" diameter steel plate at even 400 yards consistently and just about any shot becomes easy... I could barely make out the target through the smoke.
That target is pretty fn big. The 600 yard target is even bigger.
Jordan; Top of the morning my friend, I hope that you and your fine family are as well as can be over on your side of the big hills.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Jordan, there's a lot of meat in there and yes I do use that euphemism intentionally.
If I can expand on a couple of thoughts you put forth, regarding bringing home meat, there's a commonly put forth argument that none of us "need" to hunt anymore as there's lots of food available from agricultural sources.
Since I'm me Jordan, I've given that a whole bunch of thought and believe that for some of us, especially men who I've talked to about this but definitely not male exclusive, there is a state of inner peace/wellness which we mentally require that is sometimes in part fulfilled with a full freezer.
Speaking personally, when we had horses, until we had the hay barn full, enough firewood stacked to make the next winter and a couple of animals in the freezer I had difficulty being at peace with myself. I can't articulate it differently than that at present.
For me it was/is a real thing and when I questioned other people about it, some were exactly on track with my thoughts - spooky almost really Jordan. Some of course looked at me like I had 3 heads and no doubt it gave them even more evidence to my mental deficiency.
Before leaving this part then, I'd say that some "serious gardeners" of which I was not one back then, but appear to be becoming one, had similar feelings which are close to, if not are low level anxiety if they don't have a good crop and by extension lots of preserves.
All that to say, I do not know what a full freezer means to you or anyone else - not really and truly I don't. Not on a deep level anyways and yah, I believe some of this goes way deep into our genes.
On shooting animals further than closer, one of the things I've noticed is that usually it's easier to judge their body language and level of alarm from greater distances. While it's not an absolute statement, I do think that usually animals that are not aware of us or at least alarmed by us tend to die more quickly with the same shot placement.
To be clear, I personally don't make a practice of shooting unwounded big game much beyond 300yds, but that's not always been the case and might not be again in the future. As with most things in life, my thoughts and beliefs change as I age and have more experiences in the activity, both positive and negative. Oh, aging has absolutely played a part in that too Jordan!
Anyways, I am cognizant all that has nothing to do with the mechanics of long range shooting, but I'd argue that we won't go down the path of any activity without first having the inclination to do so. I've attempted to address the inclination part.
Sincere kudos again for your reply, it made me think and at my age that's always a good practice!
All the best to you and your family and good luck on your hunts this fall.
Dwayne
Well said Dwayne. I don't see many of us trying to back up when we get up on an elk at 30 yards in the timber to get a longer shot to brag about, but I am darn sure ready to take a longer shot as well. There is no shame in being a capable rifleman that can take home his freezer meat from XXX distance! I'd bet most of us have similar ethics, but some of us just feel a bit better taking longer shots. We could go down the exact same road with traditional archery, compound bows, handguns, muzzleloaders, etc..
And your adage about feeling a bunch more peaceful with a freezer of winter protein is spot on as well. Some hunters I know couldn't give a darn about the meat they harvest, and turn it into burger, sausage, etc. Others want everything they can get for edible portions to feed on. I don't "need" an elk, a couple deer, some turkeys to survive, but I darned sure feel much better eating that protein vs anything in the grocery store!
I've always relied on the meat to cut my grocery bill. You might say I've always been a subsistence hunter. I raised my kids and fed myself primarily on game meat my whole adult life. I typically have 6-8 deer tags to fill in a season and I need to fill them in order to have enough red meat to get through to the next season. I don't have the time or inclination to pass up legal bucks waiting for a shot at a trophy. That is for rich folks who don't need the meat. Sure I have taken some nice bucks over the years but only because they happened to be the first legal bucks I came across that year. No I probably wouldn't starve if I didn't fill my freezers with game meat every year but I'd have a lot less money to spend on other things my family and I want and need.
I'd say that's about the norm BH. I don't believe I am too terribly different.
That is definitely the "norm" where I hunt. Especially elk/bull hunting. 4% hunters success rate in the unit I hunt does not add confidence. So, if I see a spike I'll take him. Unless it's sucking off of mommas tit. That happened a couple years ago. The sob was so small I felt sorry for him and let him walk. Ended up eating tag soup that year. It's all about ethics guys. Either you have them or you don't.. But to say it's "unethical" to take a long shot, that is just total bullscheidt. Some guys can easily make long shots. One right after the other. Just how it is.
I'm not saying it's right, or ethical, and I wouldn't attempt it myself...but I've been "hunting" with guys who shoot game at around 1500 yards - large caliber .338 and .375. They're often successful because they can see the game from above and get a clear shot whereas at closer range, the trees block your view.
beretzs; Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my mental meanderings.
If I may continue a wee bit, I'd contend that perhaps you and folks like Blackheart might in a very real sense "need" to have a full freezer. Certainly there's an economic aspect to it as you and Blackheart stated, but my gut feel is that it goes way, way deeper than that for some - and not for others.
I'll offer as evidence my own experience where as the youngest, my siblings recall me being upset that I wasn't going along with my father and uncle on their annual moose hunts in the Saskatchewan bush when I was 3. A couple years later I began to draw pictures of men on horseback in the mountains hunting. Now please understand besides in photos, I'd not seen a mountain in my life so there's that. Before leaving this, when my wife and I didn't make a go of it farming, we drifted west to BC and eventually bought an acreage so we - mostly me - could have horses and hunt off of them.
The family all said they were surprised not one small bit when we did as I'd been aiming towards it since I could walk.
My elder brother who grew up with what might not be the very same inputs but similar ones has never, ever been inclined to shoot anything other than varmints around the farm. He did go moose hunting once with Dad, did shoot one whitetail doe too, but never derived any sense of well being whatsoever from the activity.
Any of us who've had kids likely have seen examples of behavior that comes naturally to some of them and does not exist in others and not for lack of trying. Be that art, music, mechanical aptitude or indeed the inclination to hunt. Again I'll add gardening into that because my goodness do I see parallels there.
In my case then, it was not a surprise that this kid.
Was inclined to become this kid.
Who ended up this guy.
So perhaps I'd gently differ with your statement and suggest you and Blackheart might need to do what you do in a very real and tangible way.
In the spirit of the thread, the rifle in the scabbard it a Ruger No. 1 .300 Win Mag, which made somewhere around a dozen one shot kills on local mulie bucks, some of them quite ways off on the other side of a fairly wide draw and were downright tiny in the 6X scope. They weren't 600 yards for sure, but me and that rifle got along extremely well and so help me I could just hit stuff with it.
Anyways, that's just more of my thoughts on what some of us might actually need is all.
Unless you can consistently clean the NRA MR target at 600yds from your field positions, you have no business shooting at an elk at 600.
One of our more famous long range shooters posted a photo on here of an elk he shot at a similar distance. I noted that if he hadn't luckily hit the spine, it would have been a gut-shot. His response? Crickets. I wonder how many he has failed to bring to bag?
Like any sport that is done correctly, to get good at it requires practice. This is the internet. Our equipment has the potential to do the job, but i question how many shooters have practiced enough at 600 yards to consistently take animals in an ethical way. Based on what I see at rifle ranges etc I'd say if one percent of us did it that would be a lot. I'm just getting into long range shooting, and I have top of the line equipment, but it would take a lot of practice to hit animal sized targets at 600 yards consistently. Especially when one considers shooting position, weather, wind, elevation and whether or not you have just run up a hill and are winded. I just saw a long range hunting show on one of the outdoor channels and the guy hit his shots (6-800 Yards), but it took a committee. He had a guy with a range finder, another with the Kestrel thingy and a phone app to tell the shooter how to aim the shot. The shooting conditions were very good, no excessive wind, no snow or rain, and the shooter was able to get prone for a shot with no elevation. And the guy had obviously practiced a lot. So yeah, less than 1% of you regularly shoot ethically at 600+ yards.
You make some good points, yet falter on an assumption that only 1% of people can make ethical shots here. That may be bs. However, I'll agree that out in the public, the broad range of people that can make long shots is slim. Awfully slim.. Someone mentioned joining a club that shoots long range events. That is an excellent idea that people should really consider. Getting back to your 1% idea: I'll give you an example of where I live. The population is around 10,000 people (small town). Out of those 10,000 people there is one from my town that drives to other clubs to shoot long range events. One of the towns that holds those events has a population of 20,000 people and 120 miles from my location. We have 22-25 "long range" shooters that regularly attend the events. Out of those 22-25 shooters, 1-3 come from Reno. Our first shoot is a "cold bore" shoot, where we shoot at a small target set at 800 yards. The target is different every time. It can be a steel milk jug, rabbit, diamond, crow, small (1/2 size) quartering away or odd angle coyote etc. etc.. At one event we had 7 shooters hit the target at 800 yards. That is a cold bore target generally around 3/4 to 1 moa in size. Keeping in mind that the vitals of an elk is 2 times that big. Have I seen too many actual "long range" shooters where I shoot locally? No. Most guys struggle at the 400 yard line, and 400 yards is a relatively short distance... However, I would not make the broad statement that, "less than 1% of YOU regularly shoot ethically at 600+ yards". That is a blanket statement, as I believe there are probably some good shooters here, where far more than "1%" would be able to make ethical hits on big critters at 600. Regular Joe blow out in public? Yeah, I agree with your statement.
Jordan; Top of the morning my friend, I hope that you and your fine family are as well as can be over on your side of the big hills.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Jordan, there's a lot of meat in there and yes I do use that euphemism intentionally.
If I can expand on a couple of thoughts you put forth, regarding bringing home meat, there's a commonly put forth argument that none of us "need" to hunt anymore as there's lots of food available from agricultural sources.
Since I'm me Jordan, I've given that a whole bunch of thought and believe that for some of us, especially men who I've talked to about this but definitely not male exclusive, there is a state of inner peace/wellness which we mentally require that is sometimes in part fulfilled with a full freezer.
Speaking personally, when we had horses, until we had the hay barn full, enough firewood stacked to make the next winter and a couple of animals in the freezer I had difficulty being at peace with myself. I can't articulate it differently than that at present.
For me it was/is a real thing and when I questioned other people about it, some were exactly on track with my thoughts - spooky almost really Jordan. Some of course looked at me like I had 3 heads and no doubt it gave them even more evidence to my mental deficiency.
Before leaving this part then, I'd say that some "serious gardeners" of which I was not one back then, but appear to be becoming one, had similar feelings which are close to, if not are low level anxiety if they don't have a good crop and by extension lots of preserves.
All that to say, I do not know what a full freezer means to you or anyone else - not really and truly I don't. Not on a deep level anyways and yah, I believe some of this goes way deep into our genes.
On shooting animals further than closer, one of the things I've noticed is that usually it's easier to judge their body language and level of alarm from greater distances. While it's not an absolute statement, I do think that usually animals that are not aware of us or at least alarmed by us tend to die more quickly with the same shot placement.
To be clear, I personally don't make a practice of shooting unwounded big game much beyond 300yds, but that's not always been the case and might not be again in the future. As with most things in life, my thoughts and beliefs change as I age and have more experiences in the activity, both positive and negative. Oh, aging has absolutely played a part in that too Jordan!
Anyways, I am cognizant all that has nothing to do with the mechanics of long range shooting, but I'd argue that we won't go down the path of any activity without first having the inclination to do so. I've attempted to address the inclination part.
Sincere kudos again for your reply, it made me think and at my age that's always a good practice!
All the best to you and your family and good luck on your hunts this fall.
Dwayne
Dwayne,
Thank you, sir! We are all well here, and I hope the same for you and yours.
Thanks for your great and thought-provoking comments. I've often had the same thought and objection to the notion that none of us needs to hunt in today's modern society. Well that may be true for some, and less true for others. The need to hunt, which is even broader than the need for the meat that comes from hunting, varies from person-to-person, and covers a broad spectrum. Speaking specifically about the meat, aside from the peace-of-mind that comes from having a full freezer (something I certainly identify with), for many years my young family relied on the meat I acquired during hunting season to feed us throughout the year. We never bought red meat from the store, and that was a huge benefit to our budget as we struggled to make ends meet. These days we are a bit more financially comfortable, but it is still engrained in us that our red meat comes almost entirely from the field rather than from the store. We freeze, can, and cure our game meat, and as you mentioned, having a good storage of food does add to our peace-of-mind in an increasingly unstable world.
Good luck this fall! It's always great to hear from you.
Thanks…..that’s “mo better”! I don’t know how I determined that it was 6”! 🤔 memtb
Here's a 500 yard target to give you an idea. Actually it is an F class 1,000 yard repair center, but has the same dimensions as the NRA 500 yard target. 10" 10 ring and 5" x ring: At 500 yards, it's pretty easy to hit, even in the wind: Even with an AR10: Even in schidty conditions like this: Hit that ^^^^^^2" diameter steel plate at even 400 yards consistently and just about any shot becomes easy... I could barely make out the target through the smoke.
That target is pretty fn big. The 600 yard target is even bigger.
Thanks…..that’s “mo better”! I don’t know how I determined that it was 6”! 🤔 memtb
Here's a 500 yard target to give you an idea. Actually it is an F class 1,000 yard repair center, but has the same dimensions as the NRA 500 yard target. 10" 10 ring and 5" x ring: At 500 yards, it's pretty easy to hit, even in the wind:
Even with an AR10: Even in schidty conditions like this: Hit that ^^^^^^2" diameter steel plate at even 400 yards consistently and just about any shot becomes easy... I could barely make out the target through the smoke.
That target is pretty fn big. The 600 yard target is even bigger.
That's good shooting from a bench.
Shot from the prone. You see a bench in that picture? You know what prone is don't you? It's where you get down in the dirt and get dirty or lay on a nice pad like this:
Not everyone can shoot at that range. Everyone who's practiced with a couple hundred rounds at that range knows whether they can or not.
It's really very simple and no need to over think or over complicate anything. You will want to start with a big target.
Anyone who says it's not ethical or it's not hunting is incorrect. If you can hit it consistently - it's ethical. If it's legal and you killed a wild game animal - it's hunting.
Here's a 500 yard target to give you an idea. Actually it is an F class 1,000 yard repair center, but has the same dimensions as the NRA 500 yard target. 10" 10 ring and 5" x ring:
Well, since no other wise guys have said this yet, I will.
That's great shooting but I find your choice of backstops to be highly unorthodox.
Here's a 500 yard target to give you an idea. Actually it is an F class 1,000 yard repair center, but has the same dimensions as the NRA 500 yard target. 10" 10 ring and 5" x ring:
Well, since no other wise guys have said this yet, I will.
That's great shooting but I find your choice of backstops to be highly unorthodox.
🤣 We were elk hunting in CO, standing on a ridge waiting while a couple of friends were driving up to us with a bull they loaded in the back of a toyoda. A ranch hand pulls up in a pickup, we gather around to see what he's been up to. I'm looking at the box of his truck, there's a line of bullet exit holes just below the top rail. I bust out laughing, every body else thinks I'm nuts (well... 😁). So the dude explains that he saw a coyote running, rests the handguard on his AR on the top rail of the box and rattles off a few rounds. The scope on his AR was mounted high on the rail. While the view in the scope was clear the muzzle was below the top rail on the opposite side. 🙄😁😅😅🤣🤣🤣
I have posted these pic's before, your not going to get good at long range unless you have a place to shoot L.R. and good optics, the rest is rifle looney B.S. Rio7
Here's a 500 yard target to give you an idea. Actually it is an F class 1,000 yard repair center, but has the same dimensions as the NRA 500 yard target. 10" 10 ring and 5" x ring:
Well, since no other wise guys have said this yet, I will.
That's great shooting but I find your choice of backstops to be highly unorthodox.
🤣 We were elk hunting in CO, standing on a ridge waiting while a couple of friends were driving up to us with a bull they loaded in the back of a toyoda. A ranch hand pulls up in a pickup, we gather around to see what he's been up to. I'm looking at the box of his truck, there's a line of bullet exit holes just below the top rail. I bust out laughing, every body else thinks I'm nuts (well... 😁). So the dude explains that he saw a coyote running, rests the handguard on his AR on the top rail of the box and rattles off a few rounds. The scope on his AR was mounted high on the rail. While the view in the scope was clear the muzzle was below the top rail on the opposite side. 🙄😁😅😅🤣🤣🤣
I've heard of people doing the same thing when they rest their rifle on top of the cab and shoot across the top. The roofs have an arch to them and the view through the scope is clear but the bore is aimed at the roof. I think there was a fatality from that not too long ago, a guy was sitting in the truck and the bullet angled down through the cab.
I never thought this thread would get so many responses. I maintain what I said earlier. Flunk Hunting 101 and you'll need to shoot 600 yards.
I've read through this thread and there is good information, and one fellow seems to be full of it - Mr. Kindergarten man. I remember reading about Taylor's formula and I bought into it. I also remember when 1,000 ft-lb's was considered minimum energy for killing whitetail and 2,000 ft-lb's was considered minimum for elk. There were a lot of theories... I followed Elmer's writing, and I believed it then and I still think he was right regarding what his options were. All those things are in the past, things changed. MD's experience (other writers too) and writing has had a big influence on what I've come to believe. Though I've hunted up to 6 whitetails per year and 4 pronghorns plus now and then an elk. I believe that a 30-06 with a good 180 grain cup and core would have worked with every game animal I've taken. It's what I've used the most on deer. But in the last 20 years or so I want to try something new every time I go out. My main shooting at 500 meters (or yards in some cases) were with M1's, M14's and Springfield's all with aperture sights. But I've also shot at PD's at that range and further with big game rifles for practice. It proved to me that shooting at game animals at over 400 yards is not my cup of tea and I prefer 100 yards or so if possible.
Some of the issues with long range shooting is something I don't see discussed much. Those are: Where did that animal go after it was shot? Will I be able to find the game? Will the bullet/load create enough of a blood trail at that distance? Will I find the game animal during daylight? Will the game animal run down a ravine, and will I have to carry the meat out?
Add this---will the local grizz beat me to it? Plenty of places & situations where it will.
Good thread with great information from guys that CAN get the job done at distance.
My simple contribution to this thread isn’t a contribution at all but rather another “Tip of the hat” to our favorite campfire brother…Dwayne. As usual Dwayne, your words and pictures hit home. You always add a friendly dimension, even when the topic is “controversial” and your thoughts and feelings are something that I seem to innately understand. Thanks for being YOU! I hope that someday I can buy you dinner or coffee and get the privilege of shaking your hand. If you ever have plans to slip south of the Medicine Line let me know and I’ll base out of our Chelan house since it’s a shorter run to the Okanogan. God bless you and yours Dwayne!
The ability to shoot 600+ yards ain't gonna do you a bit of good around here. you simply aren't going to find any place where you can put that skill to use. Hell most shooting ranges around here are only 100 yards so you aren't going to be able to practice long range anyway. There is one gun club in my County with a two hundred yard range and one in the next county that goes to 300 and that's the longest I know of anywhere near here. Doesn't really matter as far as hunting because it's mostly heavily wooded and rare to get a shot at a game animal farther than 100 yards. Being able to shoot quickly and accurately off hand out to 100 yards and hit a moving target will put a hell of a lot more venison on the meat pole than being able to place shots on target at long range.
The ability to shoot 600+ yards ain't gonna do you a bit of good around here.
True if you're talking about offhand shooting skills. If you're using a field rest the ability to hit the target at long ranges makes hitting at short ranges seem easy.
The ability to shoot 600+ yards ain't gonna do you a bit of good around here.
True if you're talking about offhand shooting skills. If you're using a field rest the ability to hit the target at long ranges makes hitting at short ranges seem easy.
I practice shooting off hand year round because that's how I shoot most of my deer. At the ranges I typically shoot them {rarely more than 80 yards} I have no need for a rest and hitting without one is easy. The one exception to that in many years was a 270 yard shot I took last season. I sat down and rested my rifle alongside a small tree for that one. That was the only deer I've shot that was farther than 100 yards away in many years {new hunting spot with a field} and also the only one that I used a rest for. I hit that deer just exactly where I intended to and that was surely a miracle because I was using a Leopold scope to aim with and everybody knows what a steaming POS they are. LOL Like any hillbilly worthy of the name I can hold SUB MOA off a rolled up jacket on the hood of a pickup and can do right well from an improvised rest when needed.
The ability to shoot 600+ yards ain't gonna do you a bit of good around here.
True if you're talking about offhand shooting skills. If you're using a field rest the ability to hit the target at long ranges makes hitting at short ranges seem easy.
I practice shooting off hand year round because that's how I shoot most of my deer. At the ranges I typically shoot them {rarely more than 80 yards} I have no need for a rest and hitting without one is easy. The one exception to that in many years was a 270 yard shot I took last season. I sat down and rested my rifle alongside a small tree for that one. That was the only deer I've shot that was farther than 100 yards away in many years {new hunting spot with a field} and also the only one that I used a rest for. I hit that deer just exactly where I intended to and that was surely a miracle because I was using a Leopold scope to aim with and everybody knows what a steaming POS they are. LOL Like any hillbilly worthy of the name I can hold SUB MOA off a rolled up jacket on the hood of a pickup and can do right well from an improvised rest when needed.
Amen. I definitely understand what you’re saying. I’m sure we travel similar ground.
Then on the flip side of hunting elk and deer in the west I see the value of the other way of doing it as well.
Being a decent person with a gun and being able to adapt is all part of the game.
I shoot a lot, both at ranges and at varmints--partly because even in "wide open" Montana opportunities on big game can occur at all ranges. Practice a lot from all positions from offhand to prone, using either no rests at all or various kinds. Even long before laser rangefinders, "dialing" scopes, small wind-gauges like the Kestrel, and ballistic programs on smart phones, I was regularly killing big game regularly out to 550 yards due to working out a ranging system with the relatively primitive reticles that existed back then, by comparing the reticle to the size of a big game animal's chest-depth.
This can work VERY well with some measuring of various dead big game animals. I first started using the system a LOT primarily due to guiding hunters for an outfitter in central Montana, and after that used it in various places around the world. In general, it works best out to around 500 yards, depending on the size of the animal--one reason I continue to "back up" the range-finding binoculars I used in more open country anymore with the same basic system and knowledge, just in case the LRF ain't working, for whatever reason.
I shoot a lot, both at ranges and at varmints--partly because even in "wide open" Montana opportunities on big game can occur at all ranges. Practice a lot from all positions from offhand to prone, using either no rests at all or various kinds. Even long before laser rangefinders, "dialing" scopes, small wind-gauges like the Kestrel, and ballistic programs on smart phones, I was regularly killing big game regularly out to 550 yards due to working out a ranging system with the relatively primitive reticles that existed back then, by comparing the reticle to the size of a big game animal's chest-depth.
This can work VERY well with some measuring of various dead big game animals. I first started using a LOT primarily due to guiding hunters for an outfitter in central Montana, and after that used in various places around the world. In general, it works best out to around 500 yards, depending on the size of the animal--one reason I continue to "back up" the range-finding binoculars I used in more open country anymore with the same basic system and knowledge, just in case the LRF ain't working, for whatever reason.
Even w/ the basic Leupold duplex reticle, ranges and corrections for hunting work pretty well.
For the 2.5-8x36mm which is on the M70, turned all the way down at 100 yds, or all the way up at 300 yds, the thin crosshairs subtend ~ 1", and the opening is ~ 15".
Interesting thread & responses. Laser rangefinders & ballistic software/ information along with better rifles & scopes makes longer range shooting a whole different ball game than when I started hunting in the 70’s.
Hunters on the other hand haven’t changed much at all except that TV & streaming shows expose more people to the sport. There are guys who kill game every year & guys who talk about killing game but don’t do it very often.
Shows selling high dollar rifles inject another element so many new guys think 400 yards is routine. I’ve never shot at a deer that far away although pre-rangefinder I thought I had. Once those essential tools came out I understood I was shooting over their backs cross canyon at 250.
Eastern hunters in general consider 200 yards to be extreme range. My grandson now 17 has been practicing out to 600 yards with solid results from field positions for 5 years now. We have a 225 yard range & a 500 yard elk vitals target but most of his practice is still 50 yards with a 22.
I’ve taught a number of young men & women to shoot over the years. One of my least natural marksman killed an elk at 400 yards last year. All it takes is a little instruction, decent equipment & lots of practice.
Spent the morning gathering dope on a new scope rifle combo, i'm golden to 800 Yrds, and i shoot L.R. for the hell of it, but i rarely shot a Deer or other big game over 200 yrds, way to much brush to shot much farther, prone is a no go can't see past the end of your barrel prone, kneeling with sticks or sitting with sticks is the way to go here if you have a shooting lane. Rio7
The OP post asks, "What Does It Take - to Hunt Medium/Large Game at 600 Yards?"
Assuming you have a steady rest, have the wind doped perfectly, a rifle and scope sighted in and capable to accurately deliver a bullet at 600 yards, a 600 yard shot at a target is no big deal. But shooting at a big game animal at extended range adds another variable- live animals have a tendency to MOVE. Between the time the trigger is tripped and the bullet reaches its target, if a standing deer, or elk, or whatever, takes even a step, the result could be a gut-shot or complete miss, or at least a wounded animal requiring a tracking job to hopefully end the ordeal. This morning, I went to my local shooting range to confirm the zero of my antelope rifle before season, and set up at the 425 yard range, shooting from the bench, but also from prone with a bipod and sitting with a tripod, for practice in these positions. The length of time it takes for the sound of a hit on steel to reach your ears, once the trigger is pulled, kind of makes you aware of the time lapse from shot to impact, and the potential for a bad shot if an animal moves at all. 600 yards is 1800 feet, and a bullet averaging, say, 2400 fps over that distance, takes approximately .75 seconds from muzzle to target.
The OP post asks, "What Does It Take - to Hunt Medium/Large Game at 600 Yards?"
Assuming you have a steady rest, have the wind doped perfectly, a rifle and scope sighted in and capable to accurately deliver a bullet at 600 yards, a 600 yard shot at a target is no big deal. But shooting at a big game animal at extended range adds another variable- live animals have a tendency to MOVE. Between the time the trigger is tripped and the bullet reaches its target, if a standing deer, or elk, or whatever, takes even a step, the result could be a gut-shot or complete miss, or at least a wounded animal requiring a tracking job to hopefully end the ordeal. This morning, I went to my local shooting range to confirm the zero of my antelope rifle before season, and set up at the 425 yard range, shooting from the bench, but also from prone with a bipod and sitting with a tripod, for practice in these positions. The length of time it takes for the sound of a hit on steel to reach your ears, once the trigger is pulled, kind of makes you aware of the time lapse from shot to impact, and the potential for a bad shot if an animal moves at all. 600 yards is 1800 feet, and a bullet averaging, say, 2400 fps over that distance, takes approximately .75 seconds from muzzle to target.
Just something to think about.....
I just want to point out that the sound travels a lot slower than the bullet in that scenario, so the sound of the impact isn't a great indicator of bullet flight-time. But I do get your point.
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
Define "hunt," and you'll quickly see that distance has nothing to do with it. Of course, there are different ways to hunt and perhaps you only subscribe to a subset of those ways, but that's doesn't mean that everything else is not hunting.
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
Define "hunt," and you'll quickly see that distance has nothing to do with it. Of course, there are different ways to hunt and perhaps you only subscribe to a subset of those ways, but that's doesn't mean that everything else is not hunting.
I disagree! When you shoot something that can see you - you are in plain sight of them, and they are not scared. You actually call that hunting?
My point was, the bullet travel time, plus the speed of sound of the impact, simply makes one aware of time lapse. Obviously, the bullet average travel speed is over 2X the speed of sound, but the bullet travel time is the only important factor.
The OP post asks, "What Does It Take - to Hunt Medium/Large Game at 600 Yards?"
Assuming you have a steady rest, have the wind doped perfectly, a rifle and scope sighted in and capable to accurately deliver a bullet at 600 yards, a 600 yard shot at a target is no big deal. But shooting at a big game animal at extended range adds another variable- live animals have a tendency to MOVE. Between the time the trigger is tripped and the bullet reaches its target, if a standing deer, or elk, or whatever, takes even a step, the result could be a gut-shot or complete miss, or at least a wounded animal requiring a tracking job to hopefully end the ordeal. This morning, I went to my local shooting range to confirm the zero of my antelope rifle before season, and set up at the 425 yard range, shooting from the bench, but also from prone with a bipod and sitting with a tripod, for practice in these positions. The length of time it takes for the sound of a hit on steel to reach your ears, once the trigger is pulled, kind of makes you aware of the time lapse from shot to impact, and the potential for a bad shot if an animal moves at all. 600 yards is 1800 feet, and a bullet averaging, say, 2400 fps over that distance, takes approximately .75 seconds from muzzle to target.
Just something to think about.....
I have mentioned this numerous times over on the Long Range. Hunting Forum……it falls on “deaf ears”! Though most over there consider 600 yards as a close range shot. It also angers some, because speaking of this borders upon speaking of hunter ethics……which is strictly forbidden on the site!
This somewhat coincides with my objection to “head-shooting” game. The center mass (behind the shoulder ) shot is much more forgiving if the animal suddenly moves. The head, can move many inches if something alerts or startles the animal …..quickly changing a sure death shot to a complete Miss or worse yet, an animal that may suffer days before dying! memtb
It is hereto an unexplored corner of the hunting envelope for me.
Have gone round-n-round looking at the new "long range" hunting cartridges... but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
Am already well entrenched in the cartridge.
Will be contacting Pac-Nor, finalizing a stainless R5 Bbl. w/ a Remington H1 light "varmint" contour, spun-on and trued to a M700 action.
The BDL stock is already bedded and padded, so only "free-floating" the new Bbl. should be necessary (unless the recoil lug changes).
And the magazine length will accommodate long-loaded 3.55" COAL cartridges.
So, what else?
TIA.
GR
Once you learn to hunt, there is very little that won't suffice. Too many people have killed animals in their thousands and are not sure whether twist and rifling is the same thing?
It's more practical to discuss methods of cooling beer in a hot camp.
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
Define "hunt," and you'll quickly see that distance has nothing to do with it. Of course, there are different ways to hunt and perhaps you only subscribe to a subset of those ways, but that's doesn't mean that everything else is not hunting.
I disagree! When you shoot something that can see you - you are in plain sight of them, and they are not scared. You actually call that hunting?
You've never shot anything that was in plain sight of you and not scared?
My point was, the bullet travel time, plus the speed of sound of the impact, simply makes one aware of time lapse. Obviously, the bullet average travel speed is over 2X the speed of sound, but the bullet travel time is the only important factor.
Yup, I got that. I was clarifying so nobody gets the wrong impression.
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
Define "hunt," and you'll quickly see that distance has nothing to do with it. Of course, there are different ways to hunt and perhaps you only subscribe to a subset of those ways, but that's doesn't mean that everything else is not hunting.
I disagree! When you shoot something that can see you - you are in plain sight of them, and they are not scared. You actually call that hunting?
You've never shot anything that was in plain sight of you and not scared?
As far as being in plain sight of them but at such a distance that they were not scared. I have, I was young. But I am ashamed to have done it. It was not hunting by any possible meaning of the word hunting. It was just plain shooting. Shooting and killing doesn't equal hunting, though shooting and killing is a part of hunting. Shooting in plain sight of an animal and they can plainly see you not being scared has absolutely nothing to do with hunting!
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
Define "hunt," and you'll quickly see that distance has nothing to do with it. Of course, there are different ways to hunt and perhaps you only subscribe to a subset of those ways, but that's doesn't mean that everything else is not hunting.
I disagree! When you shoot something that can see you - you are in plain sight of them, and they are not scared. You actually call that hunting?
You've never shot anything that was in plain sight of you and not scared?
As far as being in plain sight of them but at such a distance that they were not scared. I have, I was young. But I am ashamed to have done it. It was not hunting by any possible meaning of the word hunting. It was just plain shooting. Shooting and killing doesn't equal hunting, though shooting and killing is a part of hunting. Shooting in plain sight of an animal and they can plainly see you not being scared has absolutely nothing to do with hunting!
This exact scenario (being in plain sight of an animal that can clearly see you, and then killing it) has happened to me many times. At well under 300 yards. Does that mean that shooting animals at 0-300 yards isn't hunting if the animal sees you and isn't afraid? What about tree-stand hunters. Plenty of animals see a guy up in a tree and are not alarmed (BTDT). And how about the difference in animal fear in limited-entry zones versus open units? Does that mean that the shot distance we can classify as "hunting" depends on animal fear and therefore on the type of hunt (LEH versus open)? In one instance, I was hunting BH sheep on a general tag, when they eventually saw me at 600+ yards and became alarmed and ran off. If I had killed one, would it pass your litmus test for "hunting" because the animals were afraid of me once they saw me? The point I'm making is that you can't define hunting based on distance, as there are always exceptions to that definition. To a traditional bow hunter, killing an animal at 250 yards is just "shooting". Defining "hunting" in terms of shot distance is always subjective, so it's impossible for everyone to agree on a threshold distance where we go from "hunting" to "not hunting". This subjectivity is the problem with projecting your definition on everyone else.
Maybe your version of "hunting" has constraints on the distance, but the general definition does not. Merriam-Webster provides a couple of definitions:
"Definition of hunt (Entry 1 of 2) transitive verb
I don't understand the word "Hunt" and "600 yards" in the same sentence. Shooting at 600 yards is shooting. I don't think it has anything to do with hunting.
Define "hunt," and you'll quickly see that distance has nothing to do with it. Of course, there are different ways to hunt and perhaps you only subscribe to a subset of those ways, but that's doesn't mean that everything else is not hunting.
I disagree! When you shoot something that can see you - you are in plain sight of them, and they are not scared. You actually call that hunting?
You've never shot anything that was in plain sight of you and not scared?
As far as being in plain sight of them but at such a distance that they were not scared. I have, I was young. But I am ashamed to have done it. It was not hunting by any possible meaning of the word hunting. It was just plain shooting. Shooting and killing doesn't equal hunting, though shooting and killing is a part of hunting. Shooting in plain sight of an animal and they can plainly see you not being scared has absolutely nothing to do with hunting!
I tend to agree. For instance shooting prarie dogs from 600 yards away by the hundreds has nothing to do with hunting. It's just long range target shooting using live targets. I couldn't call it hunting by any stretch. I've posted this here before too. There is a field on the hillside across the valley from my home. I have ranged a large white pine at the woodline along the edge of that field at 880 yards from my front porch. Deer come out to feed in that field frequently, sometimes during deer season. I can go out in my yard in plain sight of those deer, start my car, drive down my driveway, stack wood, run my snow blower, you name it and they pay no attention. I have no doubt I could set up a bench rest in my yard and there are people here who could and would shoot those deer, brag about the shot and call that hunting. It's not to me.
Imo, when I leave the house to pursue wild game With a Bow, Rifle, Shotgun, or muzzleloader, I'm going Hunting. Distance has nothing to do with it. If I take an animal at 20 yds or 300yds. Its hunting to me. If I had the proper equipment, trained with that equipment, and felt confident that I could make an ethical kill shot at 600yds, That would still be hunting in my book. Where I hunt 300 yds would be the extreme max distance for a shot. However, I understand that due to terrain features and hunting pressure, A 600 yard may be necessary to take a trophy animal in some places people hunt. There could be a situation where that's as close as you can get. There are many hunters that have what it takes to make that shot. They have spent lots of time practicing shooting at that distance. and they have the proper equipment to get the job done. I say if you can not close the distance on the animal, and the conditions are right, and the shot presents itself. If your that guy that has trained for this, take your shot. Yes, it's a long range shot. Imo that just makes you a hunter with excellent marksmanship skills.
I’ve had a whitetail buck stare straight at me and not care and went back to fiddling with a doe out in in front of me. I suppose that I wasn’t hunting when I put an arrow through him because he saw me?
That's right. You're supposed to jump up and down to make sure he knows you're a threat.
Damn, I thought it was jump on his back and slice his throat?? I just can't get this hunting schidt straight!!!
Bare hands dude. Using a knife is not really hunting.
If you're shooting something from so far away that it has little or no chance of perceiving a threat, it becomes target shooting at a live target IMO. But that's just me and I'm sure that if at some point in the future weapons that allowed getting to high ground on a clear day, spotting an animal in the next county via satellite imagery and killing it with one of those nifty new lazer rifles, it will still be considered sportsmanlike and ethical to some "hunters". In some places it's still considered unsportsmanlike and/or unethical to jack light, bait or run deer with dogs. I don't see how using modern equipment to effectively kill them from distances where they don't/can't perceive a threat is much different. Where do you draw the line, 600 yards ? 1600 yards ? 10 miles ? Or do you not draw any lines and anything that results in a dead animal is still considered hunting ?
Decoys? Camo? Blinds? Scentlock? Lots of lines could be drawn if we really thought about it. I suppose some would consider my invisibility cloak unfair 🤭
That's right. You're supposed to jump up and down to make sure he knows you're a threat.
Damn, I thought it was jump on his back and slice his throat?? I just can't get this hunting schidt straight!!!
Bare hands dude. Using a knife is not really hunting.
If you're shooting something from so far away that it has little or no chance of perceiving a threat, it becomes target shooting at a live target IMO. But that's just me and I'm sure that if at some point in the future weapons that allowed getting to high ground on a clear day, spotting an animal in the next county via satellite imagery and killing it with one of those nifty new lazer rifles, it will still be considered sportsmanlike and ethical to some "hunters". In some places it's still considered unsportsmanlike and/or unethical to jack light, bait or run deer with dogs. I don't see how using modern equipment to effectively kill them from distances where they don't/can't perceive a threat is much different. Where do you draw the line, 600 yards ? 1600 yards ? 10 miles ? Or do you not draw any lines and anything that results in a dead animal is still considered hunting ?
I'd put the line between 100-200 yards. Orders of magnitude more difficult to get within bow range than 200 yards.
Nobody wants to hear that though. Because most people can make a 200 yard shot.
That's right. You're supposed to jump up and down to make sure he knows you're a threat.
Damn, I thought it was jump on his back and slice his throat?? I just can't get this hunting schidt straight!!!
Bare hands dude. Using a knife is not really hunting.
If you're shooting something from so far away that it has little or no chance of perceiving a threat, it becomes target shooting at a live target IMO. But that's just me and I'm sure that if at some point in the future weapons that allowed getting to high ground on a clear day, spotting an animal in the next county via satellite imagery and killing it with one of those nifty nIt would be simple to stop the vast majorityew lazer rifles, it will still be considered sportsmanlike and ethical to some "hunters". In some places it's still considered unsportsmanlike and/or unethical to jack light, bait or run deer with dogs. I don't see how using modern equipment to effectively kill them from distances where they don't/can't perceive a threat is much different. Where do you draw the line, 600 yards ? 1600 yards ? 10 miles ? Or do you not draw any lines and anything that results in a dead animal is still considered hunting ?
I'd put the line between 100-200 yards. Orders of magnitude more difficult to get within bow range than 200 yards.
Nobody wants to hear that though. Because most people can make a 200 yard shot.
It would be simple to keep the vast majority from taking/making 500+ yard shots by simply eliminating rangefinders from the list of legal shooting/hunting aids.
That would suit me fine as I've shot very few deer beyond 200 yards in my lifetime. The whole of NY State between the Catskills and the Adirondacks used to be shotgun country. Much of it is open farm land with fields hundreds of yards across yet somehow I managed to kill deer there year after year and that was before the advent of rifled bores and sabot loads. Sure you saw deer that were too far away to shoot with a slug gun but nobody ever said you're supposed to be able to kill every deer you can see.
That's right. You're supposed to jump up and down to make sure he knows you're a threat.
Damn, I thought it was jump on his back and slice his throat?? I just can't get this hunting schidt straight!!!
Bare hands dude. Using a knife is not really hunting.
If you're shooting something from so far away that it has little or no chance of perceiving a threat, it becomes target shooting at a live target IMO. But that's just me and I'm sure that if at some point in the future weapons that allowed getting to high ground on a clear day, spotting an animal in the next county via satellite imagery and killing it with one of those nifty nIt would be simple to stop the vast majorityew lazer rifles, it will still be considered sportsmanlike and ethical to some "hunters". In some places it's still considered unsportsmanlike and/or unethical to jack light, bait or run deer with dogs. I don't see how using modern equipment to effectively kill them from distances where they don't/can't perceive a threat is much different. Where do you draw the line, 600 yards ? 1600 yards ? 10 miles ? Or do you not draw any lines and anything that results in a dead animal is still considered hunting ?
I'd put the line between 100-200 yards. Orders of magnitude more difficult to get within bow range than 200 yards.
Nobody wants to hear that though. Because most people can make a 200 yard shot.
It would be simple to keep the vast majority from taking/making 500+ yard shots by simply eliminating rangefinders from the list of legal shooting/hunting aids.
Yeah, we should all go back to muzzle loaders. No rangefinders, not goretex, no scopes, no nice warm boots. Moccasins and loin cloths..
You do know that there are legitimate reasons people hunt that have nothing to do with the thrill of getting in close, right?
My freezer and family doesn't give a chidt how long the shot was, as long as the critter gets turned into steaks and hamburger.. As far as I am concerned, that blackheart idiot can STFU. He knows nothing about what we are talking about here. He tries to impose his beliefs on us, like it is gospel. Just because he can't shoot for fu ck, doesn't mean the rest of us are in the same boat as he is in.
Between using all of man´s killing technology to shoot an animal from a distance at which he will not feel the threat and having to catch up with him running naked and barefoot and cutting his troat with a silex knife there is a lot of room in between, so there is no need to push the argument into absurd extremes.
For me, answering to the OP, shooting game at long range takes a well trained shooter with the proper equipment, and a lack of interest or skills to get close to the animal.
You do know that there are legitimate reasons people hunt that have nothing to do with the thrill of getting in close, right?
My freezer and family doesn't give a chidt how long the shot was, as long as the critter gets turned into steaks and hamburger.. As far as I am concerned, that blackheart idiot can STFU. He knows nothing about what we are talking about here. He tries to impose his beliefs on us, like it is gospel. Just because he can't shoot for fu ck, doesn't mean the rest of us are in the same boat as he is in.
Just because you suck at hunting and are too lazy and stupid to learn doesn't mean we're all in the same boat. No doubt you'd have big game hunting hours extended through the night and include spot lights and thermals on the list of legal hunting implements if it was up to you. Maybe if you spent more time studying the animals you persue and brushing up on your stalking skills and a little less time taking endless pictures of targets at the range, you wouldn't need to take those long, desperate pokes so often. Since sportsmanship, hunting ethics and fair chase no longer matter, maybe we should just call it killing season rather than hunting season and make any and all technology that makes it easier and more convenient legally accessible to the modern "sportsman".
They call it “sport hunting” for a reason (compared to “market hunting” – meet in the freezer by any means), it’s not that we keep score as some non-hunters often think. We call it sport hunting because we have seasons, rules and regulations intended for sportsman’s probability of success and support of the practice and the long-term overall health, viability and population of the game we pursue. Ethical hunting practices are the foundation of conservation but it appears most of us have different ideas of exactly what defines ethical hunting and we’re not likely to agree on the subject based on the comments on this post.
I predict at some point, state game managers will pass laws making it illegal to shoot at game beyond certain distances, citing safety and hunting ethics as the primary reason. I don’t know what that distance may be, and it would certainly be hard to enforce, but it would keep people from posting on social media and the distance of their shot. There are a lot of new hunters who are led to believe that if they can hit a pie plate at 500 yards, steady rest, know distance, that shooting at live game in field conditions is no different. I follow a few hunting pages, the first question always is “how far was the shot” and invariably someone gets disappointed that the distance was not excessive and the OP has to explain why is was only so and so yards and was hoping for a longer shot. It wasn’t long ago a hunter would get called out of this forum if he boasted about a canyon to canyon shot.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger constitutes fair chase hunting practice. I tend to think it does not.
It's guys like this A**hole...Lippitt, he squeezed off a shot, sending a hand-loaded 205-grain Berger bullet through the animal from 849 yards. The .308 bullet broke the buck’s shoulder and dropped it on the spot. Lippitt says he downed a Nebraska 12-point buck earlier this year at 950 yards, and a few years ago he killed another Nebraska deer from 1,300 yards
I'd imagine if we all do what we feel is ethical and abide by game laws and such we'd get along just fine. Trying to put my ethics on another hunter is pretty tough unless they're breaking a law.
I'd imagine if we all do what we feel is ethical and abide by game laws and such we'd get along just fine. Trying to put my ethics on another hunter is pretty tough unless they're breaking a law.
Sportsmen have imposed the ethics of what constitutes fair chase on one another since market hunting was outlawed and sport hunting regulations first implemented.
I'd imagine if we all do what we feel is ethical and abide by game laws and such we'd get along just fine. Trying to put my ethics on another hunter is pretty tough unless they're breaking a law.
I mostly agree but if we don't have ethical standards, as upheld by local game wardens, then I suppose there would be no more elk, sheep, bears or deer. I think it was Teddy R that got the whole process started.
"This has to be one of Rick's most profitable threads, since it just keeps up the post-count and advertising rates."
Originally Posted by smokepole
Does that cut into your profits?
I don't get paid to post here, so no.
Rick paid me to do a monthly column on this forum, but I dropped it a couple years ago--along with writing for a couple of magazines, in an attempt at semi-retirement--which works better on some days than others!
"This has to be one of Rick's most profitable threads, since it just keeps up the post-count and advertising rates."
Originally Posted by smokepole
Does that cut into your profits?
I don't get paid to post here, so no.
Rick paid me to do a monthly column on this forum, but I dropped it a couple years ago--along with writing for a couple of magazines, in an attempt at semi-retirement--which works better on some days than others!
Pay no attention to my wise-ass comments, you don't need to explain to me. I just thought your original comment was funny coming from a guy who's posted many times on this thread.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger.......
And therein lies the problem, defining what constitutes "ranges beyond which they can detect danger."
It varies with the species, the habitat, and the time of the year. Early in pronghorn season they can be pretty nonchalant about people getting "withing range." Come back a month later and you can't get near 'em.
Not to mention like I said before, you could make a case that many of the technologies we use give hunters an unfair advantage. Like scopes that make 300 yard shots chip shots for many.
Are you going to be the one who gets to decide that a 300 yard shot is "not sporting?"
As far as state agencies limiting shot distances, it ain't gonna happen. Mainly because it's unenforceable.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger.......
And therein lies the problem, defining what constitutes "ranges beyond which they can detect danger."
It varies with the species, the habitat, and the time of the year. Early in pronghorn season they can be pretty nonchalant about people getting "withing range." Come back a month later and you can't get near 'em.
Not to mention like I said before, you could make a case that many of the technologies we use give hunters an unfair advantage. Like scopes that make 300 yard shots chip shots for many.
Are you going to be the one who gets to decide that a 300 yard shot is "not sporting?"
As far as state agencies limiting shot distances, it ain't gonna happen. Mainly because it's unenforceable.
Well, it would stop people from posting "distance" on social media pictures and videos.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger.......
And therein lies the problem, defining what constitutes "ranges beyond which they can detect danger."
It varies with the species, the habitat, and the time of the year. Early in pronghorn season they can be pretty nonchalant about people getting "withing range." Come back a month later and you can't get near 'em.
Not to mention like I said before, you could make a case that many of the technologies we use give hunters an unfair advantage. Like scopes that make 300 yard shots chip shots for many.
Are you going to be the one who gets to decide that a 300 yard shot is "not sporting?"
As far as state agencies limiting shot distances, it ain't gonna happen. Mainly because it's unenforceable.
Well, it would stop people from posting "distance" on social media pictures and videos.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger.......
And therein lies the problem, defining what constitutes "ranges beyond which they can detect danger."
It varies with the species, the habitat, and the time of the year. Early in pronghorn season they can be pretty nonchalant about people getting "withing range." Come back a month later and you can't get near 'em.
Not to mention like I said before, you could make a case that many of the technologies we use give hunters an unfair advantage. Like scopes that make 300 yard shots chip shots for many.
Are you going to be the one who gets to decide that a 300 yard shot is "not sporting?"
As far as state agencies limiting shot distances, it ain't gonna happen. Mainly because it's unenforceable.
As I've said before, it would be simple to outlaw the use of lazer range finders for big game hunting and that would take care of most of these 500+ yard pokes. I'm not and wouldn't advocate for that but it wouldn't be anything I'd be upset about either. On the other hand, don't expect me to be impressed by the "sportsmanship" or "fair chase" ethics of these 800+ yard killers because I'm not.
On the other hand, don't expect me to be impressed by the "sportsmanship" or "fair chase" ethics of these 800+ yard killers because I'm not.
You flatter yourself in thinking anyone cares whether you're impressed.
Obviously these long range "hunters" seek to and think they are impressing somebody, judging by all the videos and hero pics/stories they post on the web. It's almost as obvious as you seeking to impress with your incredible intellect.
"This has to be one of Rick's most profitable threads, since it just keeps up the post-count and advertising rates."
Originally Posted by smokepole
Does that cut into your profits?
I don't get paid to post here, so no.
Rick paid me to do a monthly column on this forum, but I dropped it a couple years ago--along with writing for a couple of magazines, in an attempt at semi-retirement--which works better on some days than others!
Pay no attention to my wise-ass comments, you don't need to explain to me. I just thought your original comment was funny coming from a guy who's posted many times on this thread.
:-) Yeah, I have posted a number of times on this thread! According to my count, a dozen times before this one.
Blackheart matched that 21 hours ago--and is now up to 17!
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger constitutes fair chase hunting practice. I tend to think it does not.
Another comment I'd like to make is on this broad comment by Blackheart--which implies that hunters in general have a broad consensus of what "fair chase" means.
They do not. I've been lucky enough to hunt in over half of the 50 United States, along with over a dozen other countries, some of them several times. The regulations concerning legal "weapons" vary considerably, including cartridges, bullet diameters and weights, as well as bows, muzzleloaders, etc. Legal shooting hours also vary considerably: While most American states (and Canadian provinces) pretty much stick to a half-hour before sunrise to a half-hour after sunset for "game" animals, some allow an hour before and after. Some states and countries also allow all-night shooting--some only for certain animals, and some not.
There are also widely varying laws about the use of artificial lights, baiting, etc. In fact in some parts of the world (including in the U.S) I have talked to hunters who are completely baffled by how somebody might hunt a wild big game animal by just going out and looking for them--rather than sitting near to a pile of potatoes, a "greenfield", an automatic corn-feeder--or sitting in a stand where trained dogs push animals near the hunter.
Some allow hunting any sort of big game with dogs, while others ban it completely. A few allow night- or dog-hunting for some species, but not others.
If I included the methods allowed for fishing this could go on forever--but my main point is that no, there is no consensus "on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes 'fair chase'."
It might seem so to somebody who's only hunted in a very limited part of the world, such as Blackheart in New York. But there is no world-wide, sport-hunting consensus on what constitutes "fair chase."
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger constitutes fair chase hunting practice. I tend to think it does not.
Another comment I'd like to make is on this broad comment by Blackheart--which implies that hunters in general have a broad consensus of what "fair chase" means.
They do not. I've been lucky enough to hunt in over half of the 50 United States, along with over a dozen other countries, some of them several times. The regulations concerning legal "weapons" vary considerably, including cartridges, bullet diameters and weights, as well as bows, muzzleloaders, etc. Legal shooting hours also vary considerably: While most American states (and Canadian provinces) pretty much stick to a half-hour before sunrise to a half-hour after sunset for "game" animals, some allow an hour before and after. Some states and countries also allow all-night shooting--some only for certain animals, and some not.
There are also widely varying laws about the use of artificial lights, baiting, etc. In fact in some parts of the world (including in the U.S) I have talked to hunters who are completely baffled by how somebody might hunt a wild big game animal by just going out and looking for them--rather than sitting near to a pile of potatoes, a "greenfield", an automatic corn-feeder--or sitting in a stand where trained dogs push animals near the hunter.
Some allow hunting any sort of big game with dogs, while others ban it completely. A few allow night- or dog-hunting for some species, but not others.
If I included the methods allowed for fishing this could go on forever--but my main point is that no, there is no consensus "on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes 'fair chase'."
It might seem so to somebody who's only hunted in a very limited part of the world, such as Blackheart in New York. But there is no world-wide, sport-hunting consensus on what constitutes "fair chase."
I'm aware of all of that and did not intend to imply broad consesus about what is sporting or fair chase across state lines. And here you are increasing your post count on this thread again.
It's almost as obvious as you seeking to impress with your incredible intellect.
I understand why you think it's amazing.
I don't and neither does anybody else except you and that's obvious to anybody who reads your posts. Kind of pathetic but then old hippies always are.
Not nearly as pathetic as old aššholes.
Old hippies are old ass holes.
Ever wonder why you're consistently at odds with other members?
If you run into one ahole, you ran into an ahole. If you run into aholes all day long, maybe you're the ahole...
If you don't run into ass holes every day you either don't go anywhere or aren't very aware of what goes on around you because there sure as hell ain't a shortage of them.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger constitutes fair chase hunting practice. I tend to think it does not.
Another comment I'd like to make is on this broad comment by Blackheart--which implies that hunters in general have a broad consensus of what "fair chase" means.
They do not. I've been lucky enough to hunt in over half of the 50 United States, along with over a dozen other countries, some of them several times. The regulations concerning legal "weapons" vary considerably, including cartridges, bullet diameters and weights, as well as bows, muzzleloaders, etc. Legal shooting hours also vary considerably: While most American states (and Canadian provinces) pretty much stick to a half-hour before sunrise to a half-hour after sunset for "game" animals, some allow an hour before and after. Some states and countries also allow all-night shooting--some only for certain animals, and some not.
There are also widely varying laws about the use of artificial lights, baiting, etc. In fact in some parts of the world (including in the U.S) I have talked to hunters who are completely baffled by how somebody might hunt a wild big game animal by just going out and looking for them--rather than sitting near to a pile of potatoes, a "greenfield", an automatic corn-feeder--or sitting in a stand where trained dogs push animals near the hunter.
Some allow hunting any sort of big game with dogs, while others ban it completely. A few allow night- or dog-hunting for some species, but not others.
If I included the methods allowed for fishing this could go on forever--but my main point is that no, there is no consensus "on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes 'fair chase'."
It might seem so to somebody who's only hunted in a very limited part of the world, such as Blackheart in New York. But there is no world-wide, sport-hunting consensus on what constitutes "fair chase."
I'm aware of all of that and did not intend to imply broad consesus about what is sporting or fair chase across state lines. And here you are increasing your post count on this thread again.
We do put limits on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes "fair chase". The question is whether or not the technology that allows the killing of game at ranges beyond which they can detect danger constitutes fair chase hunting practice. I tend to think it does not.
Another comment I'd like to make is on this broad comment by Blackheart--which implies that hunters in general have a broad consensus of what "fair chase" means.
They do not. I've been lucky enough to hunt in over half of the 50 United States, along with over a dozen other countries, some of them several times. The regulations concerning legal "weapons" vary considerably, including cartridges, bullet diameters and weights, as well as bows, muzzleloaders, etc. Legal shooting hours also vary considerably: While most American states (and Canadian provinces) pretty much stick to a half-hour before sunrise to a half-hour after sunset for "game" animals, some allow an hour before and after. Some states and countries also allow all-night shooting--some only for certain animals, and some not.
There are also widely varying laws about the use of artificial lights, baiting, etc. In fact in some parts of the world (including in the U.S) I have talked to hunters who are completely baffled by how somebody might hunt a wild big game animal by just going out and looking for them--rather than sitting near to a pile of potatoes, a "greenfield", an automatic corn-feeder--or sitting in a stand where trained dogs push animals near the hunter.
Some allow hunting any sort of big game with dogs, while others ban it completely. A few allow night- or dog-hunting for some species, but not others.
If I included the methods allowed for fishing this could go on forever--but my main point is that no, there is no consensus "on what technology can be employed with respect to sportsmanship, ethics and what constitutes 'fair chase'."
It might seem so to somebody who's only hunted in a very limited part of the world, such as Blackheart in New York. But there is no world-wide, sport-hunting consensus on what constitutes "fair chase."
I'm aware of all of that and did not intend to imply broad consesus about what is sporting or fair chase across state lines. And here you are increasing your post count on this thread again.
Could be you're an [bleep] Blacky.
Could be {whatever "bleep" is}. But I like me better than anybody else I've ever met. Could be you're one too. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.
I think lazer rangefinders help my archery hunting more so than rifle/slug/ muzzle loading.
I use mine mainly for pre ranging landmarks around my bow stands. Works better and is more convenient than the old tape measure. It stays home during rifle season.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
We’ll, yea, I mean,….there’s that. Anyway, you’ve got some nerve interjecting reason and sense into a 20 page dumpster fire. Talk about unethical! 🤭
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
Say what you will but before the advent of lazer range finders few hunters entertained the notion of taking 800 yard shots at game. I'm not saying there aren't people capable of making those shots today, there's videos of it all over the net, but that perhaps it falls short of fair chase or sporting to bomb game from distances at which they have little chance of detecting danger. Obviously there are plenty who have little interest in hunting, fair chase or being sporting but only in the killing.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
Say what you will but before the advent of lazer range finders few hunters entertained the notion of taking 800 yard shots at game. I'm not saying there aren't people capable of making those shots today, there's videos of it all over the net, but that perhaps it falls short of fair chase or sporting to bomb game from distances at which they have little chance of detecting danger. Obviously there are plenty who have little interest in hunting, fair chase or being sporting but only in the killing.
Folks been lobbing bullets and arrows past their sure kill range for eons. Tools are evolving but human nature? Not so much.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
We’ll, yea, I mean,….there’s that. Anyway, you’ve got some nerve interjecting reason and sense into a 20 page dumpster fire. Talk about unethical! 🤭
If you had any reason or sense you'd realize 90 yards is far from beyond the range that a big game animal is capable of detecting a threat.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
We’ll, yea, I mean,….there’s that. Anyway, you’ve got some nerve interjecting reason and sense into a 20 page dumpster fire. Talk about unethical! 🤭
If you had any reason or sense you'd realize 90 yards is far from beyond the range that a big game animal is capable of detecting a threat.
This shows you have a flawed sense of ethics. It isn't about game "detecting a threat" most will find unethical. It is taking a shot likely to wound and not provide a clean kill to the game that the average person worries about. Time of flight is the issue here...during that 90 yards of arrow flight, the game could take a step or two resulting in a gut shot or a flank shot, even if you've made a perfect shot. My bullets will reach game at 800 yards much faster than an arrow making a 90 yard trek.
That is the problem, not the hunter's ability to avoid detection.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
Say what you will but before the advent of lazer range finders few hunters entertained the notion of taking 800 yard shots at game. I'm not saying there aren't people capable of making those shots today, there's videos of it all over the net, but that perhaps it falls short of fair chase or sporting to bomb game from distances at which they have little chance of detecting danger. Obviously there are plenty who have little interest in hunting, fair chase or being sporting but only in the killing.
Your idea of fair chase is not shared. The problem is your dismissiveness that those not sharing your ethics are not hunting.
Boone & Crockett go into detail on the subject, not offering a specific other than the marksman's ability to ensure a clean kill. Just because you're unable to make a clean kill doesn't mean others' can't.
Originally Posted by Boone&Crockett
"Ethics, in general, are a set of principles that guide human behavior. Ethics can be private and social, subjective and objective, emotional and rational. The most basic of all ethical principles is to do no harm to other individuals, communities where you live, society in general, and the biotic community to which all humans belong. Ethics in hunting are rooted in an overall conservation ethic, which prescribes doing no harm to game populations or their habitats, or unnecessary or frivolous harm to the individual animals being hunted. Ethical hunting, therefore, requires both a sustainable and respectful approach to harvesting game and making every effort to ensure a quick, humane death without unnecessary suffering for the particular animal being pursued. Hunting ethics are not the same for every person. They are shaped by ethical teachings from mentors and peers, as well as an individual’s own experiences, culture, basic upbringing, and what motivates them to hunt. An individual’s hunting ethic is manifested by their actions before, during, and after a hunt. For example, honing skills in marksmanship and knowing one’s maximum effective range are ethical preparations before the hunt. Properly caring for the meat in the field and packing it out are examples of ethical approaches after the animal has been harvested (and also the law in most states and provinces). Following up and exhausting all possibilities to verify if an animal has been hit and possibly wounded is an ethical choice. Choosing to hunt fair chase is also a choice among a number of ethical decisions a hunter must make."
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
That is one argument. My take is, the guys/gals taking marginal shots will take them regardless of weapon type and technology.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by SLM
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
That is one argument. My take is, the guys/gals taking marginal shots will take them regardless of weapon type and technology.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by SLM
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
La. has a primitive weapon season that adds an additional 3 weeks of deer hunting. The requirements are a single shot rifle with an exposed hamer in 35 caliber or larger Mine is a 1885 Highwall in 35 Whelen with a 3X15X50 scope No handicap at all
If you don't run into ass holes every day you either don't go anywhere or aren't very aware of what goes on around you because there sure as hell ain't a shortage of them.
Wow. I've lived in several places around the country. None of them where I ran into ass holes every day.
If you run into ass holes every day either yetti was right and you're the ass hole or you live in a place full of ass holes.
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
I can tell you the rationale here. Scopes, sabots, and smokeless are all banned during the early muzzleloader season in the middle of September, but not in the rifle seasons. The common denominator being, they all make longer shots possible. So a guy with a scoped rifle shooting sabots can hunt with his rifle, just not in the early season. And the reason is, the early season falls during the elk rut and bulls are more vulnerable so they wanted to limit the effective range of the rifles to limit the number of bulls killed in the early seasons.
Makes sense here because with all the split seasons and numbers of hunters the bulls have a lot of pressure on their numbers. As opposed to other states where whitetails are the main big game animal, they're over-populated, and the state fish & game agencies want as many killed as possible.
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
I can tell you the rationale here. Scopes, sabots, and smokeless are all banned during the early muzzleloader season in the middle of September, but not in the rifle seasons. The common denominator being, they all make longer shots possible. So a guy with a scoped rifle shooting sabots can hunt with his rifle, just not in the early season. And the reason is, the early season falls during the elk rut and bulls are more vulnerable so they wanted to limit the effective range of the rifles to limit the number of bulls killed in the early seasons.
Makes sense here because with all the split seasons and numbers of hunters the bulls have a lot of pressure on their numbers. As opposed to other states where whitetails are the main big game animal, they're over-populated, and the state fish & game agencies want as many killed as possible.
My uncle liked blackpowder hunting! He used his Thompson blackpowder rifle (back in the ‘80’s) throughout the entire Louisiana deer hunting season. He hunted with open sights during the blackpowder season, the put his scope on ( he drilled and taped for the scope bases) for the regular season! He used a blackpowder muzzle loader shotgun back in the ‘50’s…..pretty unusual back in the day! memtb
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
I can tell you the rationale here. Scopes, sabots, and smokeless are all banned during the early muzzleloader season in the middle of September, but not in the rifle seasons. The common denominator being, they all make longer shots possible. So a guy with a scoped rifle shooting sabots can hunt with his rifle, just not in the early season. And the reason is, the early season falls during the elk rut and bulls are more vulnerable so they wanted to limit the effective range of the rifles to limit the number of bulls killed in the early seasons.
Makes sense here because with all the split seasons and numbers of hunters the bulls have a lot of pressure on their numbers. As opposed to other states where whitetails are the main big game animal, they're over-populated, and the state fish & game agencies want as many killed as possible.
My uncle liked blackpowder hunting! He used his Thompson blackpowder rifle (back in the ‘80’s) throughout the entire Louisiana deer hunting season. He hunted with open sights during the blackpowder season, the put his scope on ( he drilled and taped for the scope bases) for the regular season! He used a blackpowder muzzle loader shotgun back in the ‘50’s…..pretty unusual back in the day! memtb
Probably a Hawken. I like the old style rifles and I have a Hawken with both .50 caliber and .32 caliber barrels. Accurate and really fun to shoot, especially the .32. But heavy as a load of brick, not so good for toting around in the mtns. Especially the .32 squirrel gun, that's a small hole drilled in a big hunk of iron with a long walnut stock.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
We’ll, yea, I mean,….there’s that. Anyway, you’ve got some nerve interjecting reason and sense into a 20 page dumpster fire. Talk about unethical! 🤭
If you had any reason or sense you'd realize 90 yards is far from beyond the range that a big game animal is capable of detecting a threat.
This shows you have a flawed sense of ethics. It isn't about game "detecting a threat" most will find unethical. It is taking a shot likely to wound and not provide a clean kill to the game that the average person worries about. Time of flight is the issue here...during that 90 yards of arrow flight, the game could take a step or two resulting in a gut shot or a flank shot, even if you've made a perfect shot. My bullets will reach game at 800 yards much faster than an arrow making a 90 yard trek.
That is the problem, not the hunter's ability to avoid detection.
No doubt you and your kind have no reservations about ground sluicing game birds or shooting tame/captive animals behind a high fence and calling it ethical and sporting. As long as you can kill something it's all good. If you need the meat or you'll go hugry that's acceptable but somehow I think if you can afford those high dollar rifles and optics that isn't the case.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
We’ll, yea, I mean,….there’s that. Anyway, you’ve got some nerve interjecting reason and sense into a 20 page dumpster fire. Talk about unethical! 🤭
If you had any reason or sense you'd realize 90 yards is far from beyond the range that a big game animal is capable of detecting a threat.
This shows you have a flawed sense of ethics. It isn't about game "detecting a threat" most will find unethical. It is taking a shot likely to wound and not provide a clean kill to the game that the average person worries about. Time of flight is the issue here...during that 90 yards of arrow flight, the game could take a step or two resulting in a gut shot or a flank shot, even if you've made a perfect shot. My bullets will reach game at 800 yards much faster than an arrow making a 90 yard trek.
That is the problem, not the hunter's ability to avoid detection.
No doubt you and your kind have no reservations about ground sluicing game birds or shooting tame/captive animals behind a high fence and calling it ethical and sporting. As long as you can kill something it's all good. If you need the meat or you'll go hugry that's acceptable but somehow I think if you can afford those high dollar rifles and optics that isn't the case.
You are full of [bleep] and should probably refrain from making statements about things you don't know.
Its not my fault you can't shoot and you wound game at close range.
I’m not impressed by bow hunters who boast of long range shots. Too great of a chance to wound game. If lasers were outlawed, it might put an end to that 😏.
Haven't seen any bow hunters boasting of long range shots.
You’ve paid little attention. Extending the range of bows is becoming more and more common. Poundage ratings are increasing all the time with some custom rigs reaching 90-100s. People are doing custom sight tapes often out to 110 yards!
With my archery setup, I am comfortable to 40 yard shots on game. I’ve made target shots out to 90 yards. With rifles, I’ve made shots close to a mile target shooting but I will take big game shots out to 800 or so.
The notion that using a laser rangefinder should be outlawed is asinine as it is merely a tool to decrease the chance that an animal may be wounded. Ranging can be done in other ways including manual ranging with a reticle, maps, and even cell phone apps. Would it also be made illegal to have a cell phone while hunting? A mil-dot master? To what purpose? And most importantly, what business is it of yours how others’ hunt?
We’ll, yea, I mean,….there’s that. Anyway, you’ve got some nerve interjecting reason and sense into a 20 page dumpster fire. Talk about unethical! 🤭
If you had any reason or sense you'd realize 90 yards is far from beyond the range that a big game animal is capable of detecting a threat.
This shows you have a flawed sense of ethics. It isn't about game "detecting a threat" most will find unethical. It is taking a shot likely to wound and not provide a clean kill to the game that the average person worries about. Time of flight is the issue here...during that 90 yards of arrow flight, the game could take a step or two resulting in a gut shot or a flank shot, even if you've made a perfect shot. My bullets will reach game at 800 yards much faster than an arrow making a 90 yard trek.
That is the problem, not the hunter's ability to avoid detection.
No doubt you and your kind have no reservations about ground sluicing game birds or shooting tame/captive animals behind a high fence and calling it ethical and sporting. As long as you can kill something it's all good. If you need the meat or you'll go hugry that's acceptable but somehow I think if you can afford those high dollar rifles and optics that isn't the case.
You are full of [bleep] and should probably refrain from making statements about things you don't know.
Its not my fault you can't shoot and you wound game at close range.
Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't know since you've stated twice now that I can't shoot and wound game and that is far from the truth on both counts. It's too bad you never learned to hunt.
I know it was a 50 cal., I think that it was a Hawken….he shot MaxiBalls in it. I know that he was darn accurate with it, saw him shoot a 3 shot group off of the hood of my 77 Ford Van @ 100 that 2 of three touched with the 3rd nearly making a tight cloverleaf. Using my hood as a rest when shooting blackpowder was not smart on my part, blackpowder, Louisiana humidity, and automotive steel….the perfect trifecta for rust! 🤬 memtb
Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't know since you've stated twice now that I can't shoot and wound game and that is far from the truth on both counts. It's too bad you never learned to hunt.
Again, pulling it right out your arse. Keep digging. You can't shoot, can't hung, and you wound game...then you want to assume the worst in others whom you don't know.
Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't know since you've stated twice now that I can't shoot and wound game and that is far from the truth on both counts. It's too bad you never learned to hunt.
Again, pulling it right out your arse. Keep digging. You can't shoot, can't hung, and you wound game...then you want to assume the worst in others whom you don't know.
You've pulled plenty out of your ass there dick head. Most likely you've had plenty rammed up it too. It's impressive as hell that you can get within 800 yards of game before pulling the trigger. Were you wearing your scent lock suit in foggy mountain opti fade vanish camo to accomplish that feat ?
Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't know since you've stated twice now that I can't shoot and wound game and that is far from the truth on both counts. It's too bad you never learned to hunt.
Again, pulling it right out your arse. Keep digging. You can't shoot, can't hung, and you wound game...then you want to assume the worst in others whom you don't know.
You've pulled plenty out of your ass there dick head. Most likely you've had plenty rammed up it too. It's impressive as hell that you can get within 800 yards of game before pulling the trigger. Were you wearing your scent lock suit in foggy mountain opti fade vanish camo to accomplish that feat ?
You really are a jackwagon. The ironic part is that the majority of my hunting is done with a bow. Meanwhile, you can’t hit them with a rifle at 100. Nobody agrees with you here. Your projection of “ethics” is just horse [bleep].
You’re like a communist democrat trying to tell others what they should do. Meanwhile, the rest of us aren’t looking for your approval.
Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't know since you've stated twice now that I can't shoot and wound game and that is far from the truth on both counts. It's too bad you never learned to hunt.
Again, pulling it right out your arse. Keep digging. You can't shoot, can't hung, and you wound game...then you want to assume the worst in others whom you don't know.
You've pulled plenty out of your ass there dick head. Most likely you've had plenty rammed up it too. It's impressive as hell that you can get within 800 yards of game before pulling the trigger. Were you wearing your scent lock suit in foggy mountain opti fade vanish camo to accomplish that feat ?
You really are a jackwagon. The ironic part is that the majority of my hunting is done with a bow. Meanwhile, you can’t hit them with a rifle at 100. Nobody agrees with you here. Your projection of “ethics” is just horse [bleep].
You’re like a communist democrat trying to tell others what they should do. Meanwhile, the rest of us aren’t looking for your approval.
You're the ones acting like Democrats you blind ass douche bag. No room for dissenting opinions and go along to get along is their/your stock in trade. And you're such a great hunter you need to shoot 90 yards with a bow. LMAO
Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't know since you've stated twice now that I can't shoot and wound game and that is far from the truth on both counts. It's too bad you never learned to hunt.
Again, pulling it right out your arse. Keep digging. You can't shoot, can't hung, and you wound game...then you want to assume the worst in others whom you don't know.
You've pulled plenty out of your ass there dick head. Most likely you've had plenty rammed up it too. It's impressive as hell that you can get within 800 yards of game before pulling the trigger. Were you wearing your scent lock suit in foggy mountain opti fade vanish camo to accomplish that feat ?
You really are a jackwagon. The ironic part is that the majority of my hunting is done with a bow. Meanwhile, you can’t hit them with a rifle at 100. Nobody agrees with you here. Your projection of “ethics” is just horse [bleep].
You’re like a communist democrat trying to tell others what they should do. Meanwhile, the rest of us aren’t looking for your approval.
You're the ones acting like Democrats you blind ass douche bag. No room for dissenting opinions and go along to get along is their/your stock in trade. And you're such a great hunter you need to shoot 90 yards with a bow. LMAO
Your reading comprehension SUCKS. No wonder you're so confused here. Lord I hope your hunting is better than your ability to keep up with a conversation, both of which are very limited as evidence by your own expression. You're not even intelligent enough to have a rational conversation with. I won't lower myself to anymore conversation with you, you can be a ethical hero in your own mind with you limited scope of experience.
For a while now, whenever Blackheart posts I tend to imagine him in his part of upstate New York, telling the other residents that they're not only hunting wrong and using the wrong guns/calibers/sights etc.(if they're hunters) but wearing the wrong shoes/boots, eating the wrong hamburgers, and driving the wrong pickups.
That's just a guess, though it's based on encountering a few of his posts on other 24hour forums....
In an over the counter state/unit it makes sense. The other option is move the dates or limit lic.
It’s a slippery slope when you have two facets pushing for limiting technology on another.
It’s only going to get worse as Western states deal with the growing demand.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by SLM
Interesting read. There is no doubt technology has had an affect on take.
NM is in the middle of this conversation now. NMDGF is proposing (almost guaranteed to be enacted) eliminating scopes on ML’s. It’s comical listening to the arguments for and against in NM. I have to laugh when the archers that are utilizing laser range finders, sliders, mechanical broad heads, carbon arrows, etc try to make the argument that ML hunts were meant to be “primitive”.
Same with the rifle hunters utilizing the same laser range finder, turrets, ballistic apps etc.
The technology, ethics conversation is a slippery slope for all of us.
When make the weapons primitive and more difficult to shoot accurately aren't they increasing the amount of wounded game that is lost to waste
I can tell you the rationale here. Scopes, sabots, and smokeless are all banned during the early muzzleloader season in the middle of September, but not in the rifle seasons. The common denominator being, they all make longer shots possible. So a guy with a scoped rifle shooting sabots can hunt with his rifle, just not in the early season. And the reason is, the early season falls during the elk rut and bulls are more vulnerable so they wanted to limit the effective range of the rifles to limit the number of bulls killed in the early seasons.
Makes sense here because with all the split seasons and numbers of hunters the bulls have a lot of pressure on their numbers. As opposed to other states where whitetails are the main big game animal, they're over-populated, and the state fish & game agencies want as many killed as possible.
For a while now, whenever Blackheart posts I tend to imagine him in his part of upstate New York, telling the other residents that they're not only hunting wrong and using the wrong guns/calibers/sights etc.(if they're hunters) but wearing the wrong shoes/boots, eating the wrong hamburgers, and driving the wrong pickups.
That's just a guess, though it's based on encountering a few of his posts on other 24hour forums....
I could see that being how it goes down with this individual, all while making excuses for his failures.
What does it take to get the gold out of a 46 page thread if you didn’t start on page 1? Can you just begin at page 44 and start taking shots? Is that ethical?
but think that a 24"/1:8 twist long-throated .270 Win and 150 gr. ABLR's, at ~ 3,000 fps at the muzzle, should do nicely.
So, what else?
GR
This thread has been a hoot to read...............with some really good comments from Rick C., MD, & Jordan Smith in particular, & a lot of typical noise from many others.
To the OP................yes, if that combination shoots well for you, it will be more than fine at 600 yards. 600 yards, under good conditions, is really not long range, given today's tools.
"So what else"............as already pointed out by many others, a good, dependable scope that allows dialing to match range & trajectory is almost mandatory for consistent shooting at that range. Can it be done with a non-dialing scope & holdover, sure, I've done it.................but you'll have as many misses as hits.
And you'll be better off with more magnification than less,10-12x is just about optimum, in my opinion............I've done it with 8x, but I surely like more now.
And you will need a good, dependable & accurate range finder. Period.
W/o the rangefinder & the dialing scope, you are guessing on range & holdover on every single shot. Even with a 300 yard zero.
I've also worked with the NLRAB in 3-270's & in 2-280's & have not found it to equal to either the standard AB nor the BT in any of the guns, accuracy wise...............yours may be different.
However, at 600 yards, the BC of the NLRAB isn't a significant enough difference over the other 2 to make enough difference to make much difference especially if it lacks in accuracy.
While the 270 is fine & I love it, for a dedicated 600 yard rifle for medium game (deer & elk), I'd prefer either a 7-08 Rem or a 6.5 Creed, if for no other reason, ease of shooting & practice...............all will kill just fine at 600 yards.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/pXcs5Bvx/LRAB.png)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/C4wmqRU.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/eyqTMJy.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/DAC15E72_6256_499C_874C_07074028281B.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/95904E37_C381_4FA7_B05D_3E342858A312.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/B7005B12_D288_4133_B9F8_E77C7082A6B4.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/940DB2EF_4E3D_4097_94ED_9129602B2A4D.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/G2YzCcXG/9-DAC5-B2-D-0731-41-DC-9-B3-E-ED2-AEAED0879.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/r4xmCCn.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ew2HtTq.jpg)
![[Linked Image from my.evilmilk.com]](https://my.evilmilk.com//p/1zy-2kau7d_s.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/IuP.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/CMm3h3y9/143-AA29-A-D22-F-41-E4-B511-3-FA0-CE06546-F.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/161338.jpg)
![[Linked Image from mossberg.com]](https://www.mossberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/27934-catalog.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/1sbM3Em.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/bLnuxfs.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/TbXTSAk.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/bsbC8x7.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/FxL6Yhp.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/uWOXE2y.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ql8E2Sm.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/9C0Ysfu.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/zdwQ1Rr.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/lv5W0W9.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/VARR3cN.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/rxV4Wh2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/R8PGIC2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Fx5YN52.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/trgKqgz.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/nraTGS4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/F6nDo1j.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/blq7hkO.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/MHVzQLl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Y79ZF2X.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/160810.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/160811.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/145582.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/2GmopRl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/CZClt8x.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/LdpCpEn.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/NaWi3k5.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/KUaq2Yh.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Mwm9lWS.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/j57yLhp.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Vkr6mtvX/6leetj.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/9QKscshC/6lftae.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/WbzFB5Hf/200.gif)