Why Not? and his RL17 loads....

1899 said:
The point, imo, is that most shots are made at under 300 yards. The difference between a 3/4" load and a 1 1/4" load at that distance won't make any practical difference while hunting. In fact, I'd be curious to take 10 random hunters, with two sets of loads. One a 3/4" load and the other a 1 1/4" load. Then have them shoot from field positions at 200 and 300 yards and compare the results. I'd bet it wouldn't matter which load they are using.
Click to expand...

This is very true. I really started to realize this when I bought my .270 WSM Kimber Montana. It shoots consistently 1"-1.5" groups, I can get a few under that, but if I were to bet on what size group I was just about to shoot, that's what it would be.

I used to think that it was unacceptable accuracy, until I actually quit talking and started shooting it at 300-500 yards. At 500 yards it will land 3 shots into 6" off a backpack. Not a person around here can say that gun wont do its job, so long as YOU do yours.

Mind you I live in Ontario and we only shoot game at 50 yards, so this whole post is moot :D
 
Gatehouse said:
That's not much of a challenge anymore. I'd show up with my rifle and LRF, range the paper plates, spin the turret and shoot. At 350 + yards I'm going to be shooting from a stable position (most likely prone over a backpack) so much of the human error can be reduced, too.

A few years ago it would have been much more challenging. :)
Click to expand...

The weak link in your plan here I think is being able to range a paper plate or balloon reliably at 350 to 550 yards! A decent sized rock or tree or deer sure, but unless your RF is a lot better than mine this would be a challenge.
 
Salty said:
The weak link in your plan here I think is being able to range a paper plate or balloon reliably at 350 to 550 yards! A decent sized rock or tree or deer sure, but unless your RF is a lot better than mine this would be a challenge.
Click to expand...

Leica LRF has no problem picking up steel plates that are about that size, at those ranges and more. It should be able to pick up a paper plate, too! :)
 
Why not? said:
Furthermore, I am convinced that at least 95% of hunters cannot reliably hit game in the vitals at ranges beyond 300 yd.
Click to expand...

I would put the figure at 150 yards based on what I have witnessed at the range and in the field over the last 40 years. Piss-poor shooting ability does not get better when "buck-fever" and "field-rests" are added to the mix.
 
Also .............

In the last dozen years I have gone hunting with 10-12 people I have "met" on this and other forums. To date there are only 2 guys - Sniper 58 and 1889 - who I would feel comfortable watching take a 300+ yard shot on a live animal. The remainder of the guys - with one notable exception - were great to hunt with and knew enough to keep all their shots within their comfort zone.
 
1899 said:
The point, imo, is that most shots are made at under 300 yards.
Click to expand...
I agree with that and what Ted says as well, which is exactly the point I tried to make in my earlier post.

If the vast majority of those shots are made under 300yds, why do we need the extra velocity?
 
I get all kersnickity when the clover leafs don't show up.
As one of the shooting buddies says, "those aren't bad groups, you know".
And when the groups aren't overly tight, but still make a decent group,
I just humble on those Sage words.
 
SuperCub said:
If the vast majority of those shots are made under 300yds, why do we need the extra velocity?
Click to expand...

Just because "most" shots are under 300 yards it doesn't mean all are.

In capable hands that extra velocity can come in handy at times as 1889 showed me with an absolutely beautiful shot he made on a mule deer a couple of years ago with his 7mm RM.
 
I've seen a champion clay shooter have a hard time hitting geese over decoys and a European biathlon champ wound a bear at 50 yards, though he could nearly cloverleaf 5 shots offhand at 100 with his 308. I put little value on target ability vs. hunting.
 
Why not? said:
You beat me to it. That's it exactly. Furthermore, I am convinced that at least 95% of hunters cannot reliably hit game in the vitals at ranges beyond 300 yd. More than likely the reliable range is 250.

For those who think this is nonsense, I have a standing offer for anyone who wants to try. You pay $5 per shot at balloons or paper plates set at random, unknown, distances between 350 and 550 yd, and I will pay you $20 for every one you hit from field positions. The money goes to buy ammo for kids learning to shoot.

Everybody wins, and I am still looking for someone to take me to the cleaners. :)

Ted
Click to expand...

Im game Ted. Unless you want to add more rules.
 
Why not? said:
For those who think this is nonsense, I have a standing offer for anyone who wants to try. You pay $5 per shot at balloons or paper plates set at random, unknown, distances between 350 and 550 yd, and I will pay you $20 for every one you hit from field positions. The money goes to buy ammo for kids learning to shoot.

Everybody wins, and I am still looking for someone to take me to the cleaners. :)

Ted
Click to expand...

I'd love to take that bet, but by the time I put gas in to drive to the Yukon there wouldn't be much profit left.

SuperCub said:
If the vast majority of those shots are made under 300yds, why do we need the extra velocity?
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was going to make, but you beat me to it... an extra 200 fps might mean 2-3" less drop @ 400 yards.
 
9.3mauser said:
Exactly the point I was going to make, but you beat me to it... an extra 200 fps might mean 2-3" less drop @ 400 yards.
Click to expand...

I don't think drop makes any difference. Folks who shoot their rifles at various ranges end up knowing what their rifles do. Wind is a bigger concern for me than range. But at some point the 200 fps will make a difference in either (a) the bullet opening up or (b) the bullet reaching the vitals. Do I know what that point is? In the case of (a) I can follow the manufacturer's recommendations and hope it is accurate. For (b)....well I don't know where that is for each and every situation either, but I'd rather have a little bit of extra "just in case".

Hey 'Boo - thanks for the vote of confidence. I do think that you may have jinxed me. Watch me muff a shot at a broadside moose at 80 yards now! :)
 
Why not? said:
You beat me to it. That's it exactly. Furthermore, I am convinced that at least 95% of hunters cannot reliably hit game in the vitals at ranges beyond 300 yd. More than likely the reliable range is 250.

For those who think this is nonsense, I have a standing offer for anyone who wants to try. You pay $5 per shot at balloons or paper plates set at random, unknown, distances between 350 and 550 yd, and I will pay you $20 for every one you hit from field positions. The money goes to buy ammo for kids learning to shoot.

Everybody wins, and I am still looking for someone to take me to the cleaners. :)

Ted
Click to expand...

Ted,
The way I read this is that you can't use a rangefinder?
 
1899 said:
But at some point the 200 fps will make a difference in either (a) the bullet opening up or (b) the bullet reaching the vitals. Do I know what that point is? In the case of (a) I can follow the manufacturer's recommendations and hope it is accurate. For (b)....well I don't know where that is for each and every situation either, but I'd rather have a little bit of extra "just in case".
Click to expand...

More velocity doesn't necessarily translate into more penetration... depending on the bullet it could actually mean less. If we're talking ranges inside 300 yds, there isn't much a 180 gr. bullet @ 2700 fps from a .30-06 can't reliably take care of.
 
Salty said:
The weak link in your plan here I think is being able to range a paper plate or balloon reliably at 350 to 550 yards! A decent sized rock or tree or deer sure, but unless your RF is a lot better than mine this would be a challenge.
Click to expand...

I use my Zeiss RF to hit rocks out to some pretty long distances. 550 yards and a paper plate would be no issue if I could hold it steady enough. Have ranged cows beyond 1300m, deer and trees over 1km. The Zeiss is a sweet piece of gear!
 
Why not? said:
You beat me to it. That's it exactly. Furthermore, I am convinced that at least 95% of hunters cannot reliably hit game in the vitals at ranges beyond 300 yd. More than likely the reliable range is 250.

For those who think this is nonsense, I have a standing offer for anyone who wants to try. You pay $5 per shot at balloons or paper plates set at random, unknown, distances between 350 and 550 yd, and I will pay you $20 for every one you hit from field positions. The money goes to buy ammo for kids learning to shoot.

Everybody wins, and I am still looking for someone to take me to the cleaners. :)

Ted
Click to expand...

Anybody who doesn't know that's a suckers bet, ain't a rifleman. Without a means of determining range, any hit beyond 300 is an accident. The last bet like that I took was a shot at a 2 gallon pail at 500 with a Brno 7X57 that wasn't mine. I still had to ask how to hold for the range, but I doped the wind right and scored a hit. After a shot like that you know its time to quit while you're ahead. But you know Ted, I'll be back there next summer, with a shiny new rifle (I hope) so I'm game if you let me use a rangefinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom