338 vs 300 win?

[MTM]

Bruh, you drunker than I am before 5:00?

You're right, talking about offhand shots, kneeling shots, and prone off a ruck have NO place in hunting. Ever. At all

Who said bench anything? Gotta actually read posts, my guy.

Just for the record, Barnet here in north Burnaby use to have a winter team shoot. Hunting rifles. Most brought their 243 or 08. I shot with my hunting guns, 280, 300 wby, but mostly 338. 3 position off hand. Not bragging but a few pieces of brass on the mantle. Just tired of hearing you can’t shoot bigger guns. Mental control, get it together.

 

[Joel]

Just for the record, Barnet here in north Burnaby use to have a winter team shoot. Hunting rifles. Most brought their 243 or 08. I shot with my hunting guns, 280, 300 wby, but mostly 338. 3 position off hand. Not bragging but a few pieces of brass on the mantle. Just tired of hearing you can’t shoot bigger guns. Mental control, get it together.

Which is great, sincerely. But doesn't address "would you have scored better with a smaller rifle" at all.

 

[Joel]

I've shot this rifle about 100 times now. It's easy to get 3" groups offhand with iron sights at 100m, that video was a function test when I first built it. But there is no pain and no flinch. Just aim and shoot.

You'd win nearly any shooting competition I've ever seen anywhere if its easy to get 3 inch groups offhand with irons. Not being sarcastic Evan.

That's entirely Joel's fault.

When ain't it?

 

[MTM]

Which is great, sincerely. But doesn't address "would you have scored better with a smaller rifle" at all.

I hear you and yes, possibly slightly better scores with a smaller gun. Just saying with practice you can use big guns more than well enough. By the way I use to do quite well at the shoot till my buddy RGV on here started shooting and kicked everyone’s ass.

 

[bearhunter]

Joel, no diss intended, most folks these days don't shoot iron sights on anything.

I can still hold my offhand groups, with iron sights I can see well, under 3 inches at 100yds, under most conditions.

I can do this because it's something I practice regularly, with 22rf and centerfire rifles chambered for the cartridges I hunt with, from 223rem to 338-06.

None of them are any more difficult to keep on target than anything else, IF the rifle fits and balances properly for the shooter.

Most people shoot firearms that don't fit properly, they're usually cramped up or reaching for the trigger or searching for the sight picture in their scopes or over the irons. It may not be much, but it magnifies the further out you shoot.

Back in the sixties and seventies, when many folks still regularly practiced shooting from different positions and rifles "almost" always wore both iron sights and maybe a scope, usually not bad quality, but full of parallax and if dropped, lost zero. Many of them lost zero from recoil.

Iron sights were a must, especially on extended hunts.

I remember reading articles in GUNS magazine, Guns and Ammo, and Rifle magazines about 100yd shooting with iron sights vs scopes.

They interviewed several Alaskan outfitters about this and later did a lot of comparisons with experienced shooters at ranges all over the US, Canada, and Europe.

Back then, offhand shooting matches were common on most North American ranges and even a requirement for licenses in some European nations. It was quite competitive, and the shooters took it very seriously.

The result of the testing, over several thousand shooters, accustomed to shooting both irons and scopes in the offhand position, was that up to 100yd, there really wasn't much difference between the groups shot with either sight system. It changed dramatically when shots were further out.

Today, I seldom see anyone practicing offhand shooting.

For some reason, shooters are now under the impression they can magically just sight in off the bench, and they will still be able to hold offhand well enough to shoot at game animals at any reasonable distance out past 300yds.

There are very few "one-offs" who can do that, but they've put in a lot of practice.

 

[Suther]

I hear you and yes, possibly slightly better scores with a smaller gun.

Is that not conceding the point? Lol

 

[Joel]

For that all-important first shot...can you explain why exactly a big gun should be less accurate than a small one? Recoil occurs almost exclusively after the bullet has left the barrel; so how can it affect accuracy? The only possible explanation exists entirely in the space between the shooter's ears.

Grip. Technique. Stance. Follow through. Trigger pull. Lots of little things that make that first shot less than ideal. Good enough? Sure. As well as you'd do with a much smaller rifle?

If you haven't honestly compared, you don't know.

Joel, no diss intended, most folks these days don't shoot iron sights on anything.

I can still hold my offhand groups, with iron sights I can see well, under 3 inches at 100yds, under most conditions.

I can do this because it's something I practice regularly, with 22rf and centerfire rifles chambered for the cartridges I hunt with, from 223rem to 338-06.

None of them are any more difficult to keep on target than anything else, IF the rifle fits and balances properly for the shooter.

Most people shoot firearms that don't fit properly, they're usually cramped up or reaching for the trigger or searching for the sight picture in their scopes or over the irons. It may not be much, but it magnifies the further out you shoot.

Back in the sixties and seventies, when many folks still regularly practiced shooting from different positions and rifles "almost" always wore both iron sights and maybe a scope, usually not bad quality, but full of parallax and if dropped, lost zero. Many of them lost zero from recoil.

Iron sights were a must, especially on extended hunts.

I remember reading articles in GUNS magazine, Gun and Ammo, and Rifle magazines about 100yd shooting with iron sights vs scopes.

They interviewed several Alaskan outfitters about this and later did a lot of comparisons with experienced shooters at ranges all over the US, Canada, and Europe.

Back then, offhand shooting matches were common on most North American ranges and even a requirement for licenses in some European nations. It was quite competitive, and the shooters took it very seriously.

The result of the testing, over several thousand shooters, accustomed to shooting both irons and scopes in the offhand position, was that up to 100yd, there really wasn't much difference between the groups shot with either sight system. It changed dramatically when shots were further out.

Today, I seldom see anyone practicing offhand shooting.

For some reason, shooters are now under the impression they can magically just sight in off the bench, and they will still be able to hold offhand well enough to shoot at game animals at any reasonable distance out past 300yds.

There are very few "one-offs" who can do that, but they've put in a lot of practice.

No diss taken!

But is "easily holding 3 inch groups offhand" good enough to win lots of official shooting competitions or not?

Those guys practice a bit, BTW.

I'd also attest that your offhand is not ideal and definitely not as good as you are capable of from the kneeling or pone. Significantly. So again, is "significantly better than 3" groups with irons" going to win plenty of official shooting competitions, or no?

If someone says its "easily achieved" they're top tier shooters.

Not doubting either of you. Just asking a factual yes/no

 

[bearhunter]

Grip. Technique. Stance. Follow through. Trigger pull. Lots of little things that make that first shot less than ideal. Good enough? Sure. As well as you'd do with a much smaller rifle?

If you haven't honestly compared, you don't know.




No diss taken!

But is "easily holding 3 inch groups offhand" good enough to win lots of official shooting competitions or not?

Those guys practice a bit, BTW.

I'd also attest that your offhand is not ideal and definitely not as good as you are capable of from the kneeling or pone. Significantly. So again, is "significantly better than 3" groups with irons" going to win plenty of official shooting competitions, or no?

If someone says its "easily achieved" they're top tier shooters.

Not doubting either of you. Just asking a factual yes/no

It is these days, from what I've seen.

My shooting offhand is quite casual, in comparison to what it was 50+ years ago.

I was very serious about it in the mid sixties to mid seventies, because there were times when my life depended on it.

Anyone using their firearms under stressful conditions can attest to this.

I haven't had to practice for such situations for 50 years now, but it's still there, scratching.

I don't know whether or not most people using their firearms for stressful conditions are still using their iron sights or depend on different sight systems? Likely depends on the situations they train for? Things have changed a lot over 50 years.

There was once a wide belief, "If you learn to shoot iron sights, you will shoot well using a scope"

I don't believe that time-worn and unproven adage. The reason I don't is because of "vision issues" most people have.

Very few people have perfect vision or know how to shoot with both eyes open. Some just can't do it. Some people can't close one eye or focus with one eye, or their glasses/contacts aren't perfect, or won't focus on the front sight and the target together.

Good scopes pretty much level the playing field.

I practice with iron sights, mostly out of habit. None of the rifles I hunt with, including 22rf, wear iron sights.

I recently rebuilt a Savage 99 take-down rifle, bought last spring in Chilliwack. I can't see the front sight, it's too fine, so I'm either going to sell it, or replace the front sight with a wider one.

Most shooters won't admit they can't see iron sights or align them properly. This is especially true of cross eye dominant shooters.

 

[remington jim]

I bet this thread would be a lot shorter if only people who had shot an elk or moose posted in it.


Not to mention with the chamberings...

30-06. Hand loaded Barnes 175 LRX . One shot DRT !

 

[Joel]

30-06. Hand loaded Barnes 175 LRX . One shot DRT !

That's awesome!

Only real difference I've seen on moose with any cartridge is I'll say the 9.3x62 with a big slow 286gr maybe caused less bloodshot meat and wasted less compared to the 30-06, 300 WM I'd shot them with too? Didn't get a chance to really examine the one that caught a 270 Win 130gr Blue Box but if the deer were anything to go by, yeah haha.

Thats a bruiser of a bull right there RJ well done

It is these days, from what I've seen.

My shooting offhand is quite casual, in comparison to what it was 50+ years ago.

I was very serious about it in the mid sixties to mid seventies, because there were times when my life depended on it.

I believe that! And good point about the vision issues etc.

But even back then, better than 3" at 100 yards is better than most service rifles with service ammo can do from a rest. Wouldn't being able to easily shoot less than 3" offhand and ergo 1.5" or so prone be enough to secure a Queen's Medal or any other recognized, major shooting competition in the 70s?

Seems to me even then, anyone who could consistently shoot in the 2.x inch range offhand with irons is world class, or at least highly exceptional. Lets say NHL level of shooting talent compared to a lot of good hockey players out there doing their thing

Wrong?

 

[bearhunter]

Maybe?

When the AR platforms were first introduced, a lot of things were changing, from the FN FAL/M14 days.

I include the H&K platforms, as well as a few others with the ARs.

Those rifles, as well as the ammunition they were being fed, were being manufactured with much better processes and quality controls.

I can remember my first AR shooting into less than two inches with its factory sights, using off the shelf commercial ammunition.

Same goes for the H&K91. None of the FN FALs or M14s, etc, could do that, unless they were one-offs or had been extensively fitted or modified for accuracy.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges, but you also have to understand, the rifles you're comparing, back at the time, were pretty much equal, with the ammunition that was available. Some of them performed much better with select/proprietary handloads, but until the Wenke gauge came along to measure jacket thicknesses, often winning matches boiled down to "luck of the draw."

Bullets nowadays are so good, it's no longer necessary to "roll your own"

We used to order boxes of J4 jackets, meticulously cut lengths of lead, then force them into the jackets and run them through swaging dies to make sure we had consistently accurate ammunition. Even then, that would vary with the batches of jackets.

Some folks are still rolling their own bullets, but that's just something they want to do, not really a necessity

 

[Denver Steve]

either or, with a brake and cushy recoil pad!! Oh, and your money for ammo!! Think RL 26 would work in the RUM's? moosin

Totally depends on the grain weight you are shooting. Reloder 26 works a fairly wide range of bullet weights in the RUM. But you can run powders as fast as H4350 class powders all the way to the end of the powder burn rate chart.

I use Hybrid 100v for 110 and 120 grain bullets in mine, and US869 for 220+ grain bullets.

 

[MTM]

Is that not conceding the

Is that not conceding the point? Lol

not conceding anything. Multiple shots at a target or group shooting will likely favor a smaller gun. First shot off hand I’m likely as good with any of my guns. Put recoil out of your mind and put it where it needs to go. Oh and this bigger guns don’t kill better…. Haha . A .416 kills way better than a 270. Try it some time.

 

[boxhitch]

30-06. Hand loaded Barnes 175 LRX . One shot DRT !

from the hip too I bet
nice rack

 

[boxhitch]

New to the group looking for a 300 or 338 for moose and elk what everyone prefer?

identical ballistics, so comes down to a question of perceived recoil
as well as terminal ballistics
do you 'need' 225 gr .338 when 180 gr .300 will do?
I say 'yes'

 

[Suther]

You literally said you'd likely score better with a smaller gun. In an argument about whether people shoot smaller guns better or not.

Adding first shot to the discussion is just moving the goal posts. Easy to not concede the point if you can move the goalposts after the fact... you should teach that move to the Canucks, with that strategy maybe they can make the playoffs this season...

 

[jjohnwm]

Grip. Technique. Stance. Follow through. Trigger pull. Lots of little things that make that first shot less than ideal. Good enough? Sure. As well as you'd do with a much smaller rifle?

Okay, this ^ sounds like a point that supports my side of this debate rather than yours!

Why on earth would any of those factors you just listed be easier to control and/or perfect with a smaller-bore gun as opposed to a larger-bore one?

Again...if we're talking about speed of repeat shots, then yes, the big gun is at a disadvantage because it is that much slower to regain the sweet spot for all these factors. But if the two guns are laying on the table in front of the shooter, then picking up either one and getting into position, aiming and firing a single shot...and hitting!...is equally easy or hard as the case may be.

And again...if you pick up the larger-bore gun, and as you shoulder it you're thinking about how much it's gonna hurt and how loud it is and gee I wish I were not doing this...then you can forget about shooting it well. So, shoot it enough to learn that it's not a horrible experience, and from then on it won't be.

I think I'm lucky that my father started me out on my centerfire shooting journey with a shotgun rather than a rifle. I was experienced and comfortable with my old Ithaca 37 12ga before I ever put a round downrange from a "high-powered rifle", which of course meant a .303 back then. So when I started with the Big Gun, my dad just said to hold it firmly...like the shotgun...and squeeze the trigger...like the .22lr Cooey. He also commented how much easier it would be to hit with the .303 than the 12ga, because the gun had sights and the target wasn't moving. He was right, too.

My best buddy learned from his dad, but he learned a completely different lesson. His old man went on and on about how much the gun would kick, how it would and could hurt you if you weren't doing everything right, how it would rattle your brains and scramble your vision and bruise your entire torso and knock you on your ass. By the time that Mike actually fired the thing, even I was scared of what was happening...and I was just watching!

To this very day...my friend Mike can't stand recoil...or at least he thinks he can't, which is the same thing.

Incidentally, both Mike and I were already 6 feet and pretty solid (for kids) back when we had these ideas ingrained in our heads. Another close friend was almost a foot shorter and probably less than 100 pounds at that time...and he could and would fearlessly shoot any gun he picked up, and shoot them well. His dad wasn't a shooter at all, so he learned from mine...who basically took him with us when we went out to the gravel pit and gave him several years of training and experience in a single afternoon. The little guy started with my .22Cooey and by the end of the day was shooting both the 12ga and the .303 alongside us. We all had a fantastic time, one of the most memorable days of my youth.

I am still grateful to my father (RIP) for thoughtfully forgetting to mention that shooting was supposed to hurt. Hell, if I'd known then what I have since learned here on CGN...i.e. that shooting is a terrifying, painful experience...I might have turned out to be something else, something horrible...a golfer, perhaps, or even a computer nerd.

 

[remington jim]

from the hip too I bet
nice rack

Nearly it was a long 60 yard shot

 

[jjohnwm]

You literally said you'd likely score better with a smaller gun. In an argument about whether people shoot smaller guns better or not.

Adding first shot to the discussion is just moving the goal posts. Easy to not concede the point if you can move the goalposts after the fact... you should teach that move to the Canucks, with that strategy maybe they can make the playoffs this season...

The additional goalpost of speed was added after the discussion started, by that troublemaker Joel. Up till that point we were talking about accuracy.

I even mentioned that speed only mattered if we were talking about multiple shots...and absolutely conceded that if multiple fast shots were required, the big gun loses out to the little one.

Here's the thing: my entire viewpoint is biased towards hunting. And as a hunter, I want to get off a quick first shot...which can be done with any gun, big or small. And I want that first shot to be an accurate hit, negating the need for an ultra-fast follow-up shot. If I take a hunting shot, and then immediately must have a lightning-quick follow-up, that means I've already screwed up. I'll continue to practice sending a second shot in a reasonable time, because things sometimes don't work out as planned...but I'll practice more to achieve that perfect first shot.

And please...it's a discussion, not an argument.

 

[conor_90]

Evanguy, way to edit your post to remove your fantastical statement about your world record offhand groups

While you're at it, you should remove the part about your metal butt plate 500 Jeffery abortion causing "no pain".


This thread should be renamed "don't write a novel challenge: impossible"


I feel like if I handed someone a 338 and told them it was a 223 their first shot would hit the same. It might just be that some people are scared of recoil...

Moose and Elk should not require 10 round groups to kill, maybe if you use a 223 though?