308 and moose at 600m to 700m?
- Thread starter seamusm
- Start date
Both I would think, wouldn't it be?
As a side thought worth mentioning, 100 yard and less shots are for the most part taken off hand...600 yard plus shots are taken off a bi-pod with a rear support.
On a personal level I'd bet I could hit a 6" circle more consistently using the bipod at 600 yards
Last edited:
Ya hitting 6"with a bipod and rear bag.is very do able consistently.hey I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't take a 700 yard shot,like I said the food chain will scoop it up.and if I was totally on my last feed of kraft dinner and their was not a can of klik spork or spam to be found i try the shot myself as long as I have one of those hoskemow or something scopes,no even with a tirty tirty iron sites and my geometry set.Both I would think, wouldn't it be?
As a side thought worth mentioning, 100 yard and less shots are for the most part taken off hand...600 yard plus shots are taken off a bi-pod with a rear support.
On a personal level I'd bet I could hit a 6" circle more consistently using the bipod at 600 yards
Tok, I’m laughing. (Literally.)
This is why I don’t engage women in serious conversations over text either, as one party is always bound and determined to misinterpret what they think the other person said.
I didn’t say that I WOULD beat you, I just said that I would bet beers that I could. Rare to encounter a person who wouldn’t take that bet, unless maybe they figured they would get beaten with their own rifle.
If you didn’t pick up on the tongue in cheek aspects in all those posts today…. Well I guess you probably earned the right to wear that flat brimmed ballcap bro. Don’t take this stuff so seriously, it be the internet.
Agreed, what equipment a guy is using will set the standard...none of my rifles including my lever guns (other than my Model 94 30-30) are shot without optics of some type.
And lucky for me the vitals on a moose are 3 times the size of a 6" circle
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Others must have different game killing experience than me. A single cold barrel shot is a hard thing to pull off, if you want to kill that animal cleanly. Making contact at that range with a paper target or gong, is not necessarily hitting it with enough smack to kill it. Unbelievably easy to miss a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood at 600 meters, with your first cold barrel shot. Try it sometime. Reading F-class and other Long Range target rules, they always, it seems, have a number of "do-not-count-for-score" sighter shots, first. Not how I was raised and taught to hunt and kill game - the first shot needs to be the ONE... As mentioned in another post - an old "bush" saying - One shot = deer; two shots = maybe deer; three shots or more = no deer...
That is more likely a sight in error on your part… if your cold bore shot isn’t the one you are using for your site in with a hunting rifle you are doing yourself a disservice. Additional to that, your follow up shots shouldn’t be that far off.
If I am missing a 4x8’ sheet of plywood with the first round CBS then that rifle barrel is getting wrapped around a tree.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Not usually a sighting in error - I use a laser to know the range pretty accurately, and I do often test for cold barrel shot sight in. It is almost always the wind that gets me - making that windage call, I find very hard - is not about drop - is about how much to hold for the wind of the day - where I am and where the target is and in between. I am simply not too good at that. If I get lucky enough to see the bullet "splash" - to realize my wind call error, almost always, that game has started to move, so the follow up shots for me have had to almost always deal with a now moving target - situation just getting worse for me. Maybe far enough away, the game does not react to the shot or the bullet "splash" - can walk in a shot, if you can see the "splash"?
Last edited:
pete dobinson
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Courtenay BC.
A 308 win will not have enough energy left at 600 - 700 yards to reliably expand a bullet at that range.
ok so heres some info. at 500m a 165 grain bullet out of a 308 is going roughly 1750fps. the Hornady ELD-x says it will reliably expand from speeds of 1600-3000 fps. i would say that 500m is the absolute max for the 308 on moose if you want reliable expansion. can you reach the target at 700m, sure. but will the bullet do its job reliably? probably not. i guess its time for a 300 win mag. the 300WM can send a 180gr bullet 500m and still be traveling 2000fps. which gives you even more room to stretch it out to 700m if you so desire and still have reliable bullet performance.
Funny thing about the .308. People think they're a long range caliber because target shooters use them, but show up at an F Class match and everyone there knows that it has a firm but not total grip on being the worst cartridge there. There's a slight chance that some sucker for punishment will show up with a .223 and claim the worst cartridge title. Fact is, if there wasn't a protected class for the .308 there wouldn't be a single one there.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
"worst cartridge". I recently acquired a Parker Hale rifle that was apparently used in the 1969 PALMA Match at Connaught ranges. So, I have been trying to research / read up about how it was used. Seems as if those 800, 900 and 1,000 yard matches deliberately specified the 7.62 NATO, because that was about the extreme end of where it would still stay super-sonic. The barrels apparently were played with when made - tighter than normal bore, longer than normal - to try to squeeze a bit more velocity from the military standard ammo that everyone had to use, and to gain a bit more separation between the front and rear aperture sights (NO SCOPES). Since host nation provided the rifles - assigned to shooters by lottery - and everyone used same lot of standard military ammo - C21 ammo used in 1967 and 1969 at Connaught - DAQ64 - Lot 453 - used in 1969 - it became a game of who could read the wind the best - about the only difference on the line - not the rifles, not the ammo, but how well could wind be read. I find it quite fascinating to read that the very BEST SHOOTERS in the world, struggled to place their 10 or 15 rounds into a 20" or so maximum points ring - so, like 2 MOA - let alone the half size "V" bull...
Yet, many of the same shooters names show up on the 50 meter small bore competitions - so that target has a 10 ring about .4" diameter. Look up and see how many perfect scores were shot - and this was multi-position shooting - prone, kneeling, sitting and standing off hand - with those double aperture sights. So, tells me the shooters of the time were quite capable to deliver one MOA aim and shot (or less) with aperture sights - and from more than just prone unsupported positions - no bipods, no sandbags, no artificial rests beyond the shooter's sling.
Yet, many of the same shooters names show up on the 50 meter small bore competitions - so that target has a 10 ring about .4" diameter. Look up and see how many perfect scores were shot - and this was multi-position shooting - prone, kneeling, sitting and standing off hand - with those double aperture sights. So, tells me the shooters of the time were quite capable to deliver one MOA aim and shot (or less) with aperture sights - and from more than just prone unsupported positions - no bipods, no sandbags, no artificial rests beyond the shooter's sling.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Ha! Yes! I notice however, the interest in this CGN 1/2" at 50 yards challenge - scopes, sandbags, etc. - appears as if many do not know was being done 50 years ago or more, without artificial supports or optics. What "passes" as "good" today, versus what "good" really looked like... And, to be fair, using a Model 61 Schultz and Larsen rifle from those days, off of sandbags, I usually can not match the scores of the competitors from 1960's...
Growing up in the north i met a few great shooters(hunting type)they were amazing shooters to my eyes,their were no competition's you just knew who they were,and the fact that ammo wasn't plentiful they sure knew the little nuances of the gun and ammo all while standing.me I shook like a branch in high winds.a broadside of a barn was safe.i like the bench it suits me lol
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Yes, I am sure my 65 year old eyes with glasses are no match for those small bore shooters back in the day. And, to boot, I do not have the advantage of that rimfire match ammo that they were using 50 and 60 years ago, either. So, it kinda sucks to get old - although I have been assured that it beats the alternative...
Oh hells, I'd drive closer to it!
