Amen to this.
Best first hunting rifle?
- Thread starter stoop14
- Start date
Amen to this.
You are heading in the wrong direction. The cheapest ammo rarely gives the best terminal performance nor accuracy.
Now if you are comparing the same name brand ammo but different calibers, .30-06, 308 and 270 are usually less expensive and more readily available than 6.5 X 55, 35 Whelen, etc.
He would probably recommend a Marlin XL7 in 270 or 30/06 for a first rifle. The sell them at Hougens and will match the prices offered at Wholesale Sports.
I was with him this fall in Whitehorse and watch him do some impressive shooting with his Marlin in 270.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
He would probably recommend a Marlin XL7 in 270 or 30/06 for a first rifle. The sell them at Hougens and will match the prices offered at Wholesale Sports.
I was with him this fall in Whitehorse and watch him do some impressive shooting with his Marlin in 270.
He is quite a gentleman. I looked at the pictures of your trip with envy. Very nice and congrats on the success of what looks like a great outing
.I've purchased a pair of Husqvarnas from him, a 358 NM and a 270 Win. On one of his last trip to the island he dropped in for a quick visit and it was nice to meet him
. I look forward to the next visit, and the next rifle purchase.
Johnn
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
7mm-08 with Federal Vital-Shok ammo that uses the 140 grain TSX. Or a .308 loaded up with Vital-Shok with the 150 or 165 grain TSX is what I would choose but I am self admittedly, recoil shy.
cal & gun
I have a 270 browning and a 7mm rem mag ruger bolt. I'm convinced once the round is in the chamber the 270 is every bit as good as the 7mm with less recoil. The ruger does feed better and is also very good. I'm comparing both at 300 yds as that's the farthest range that I've harvested deer.
The 270 is 150g Federal Premium the 7mm is hand loaded with 160g nosler partition
I have a 270 browning and a 7mm rem mag ruger bolt. I'm convinced once the round is in the chamber the 270 is every bit as good as the 7mm with less recoil. The ruger does feed better and is also very good. I'm comparing both at 300 yds as that's the farthest range that I've harvested deer.
The 270 is 150g Federal Premium the 7mm is hand loaded with 160g nosler partition
"...told a 7 mm..." Yep, but not a 7mm Rem Mag. No magnum of any kind. Too much felt recoil and muzzle blast for fun shooting and practice. Magnums just aren't fun to shoot. Other shooters on a range won't like you either. No game in North America needs 'em either.
Got a budget in mind?
Trying a rifle/cartridge is a great idea, if you can. Hunting rifles are more about liking the rifle than the cartridge. There are all kinds of good cartridges that'll kill any game, but if you don't like the rifle, for whatever reason, you won't be able to shoot it well because you won't want to shoot it regularly.
Got a budget in mind?
Trying a rifle/cartridge is a great idea, if you can. Hunting rifles are more about liking the rifle than the cartridge. There are all kinds of good cartridges that'll kill any game, but if you don't like the rifle, for whatever reason, you won't be able to shoot it well because you won't want to shoot it regularly.
mike shickele
Regular
Are you going to handload? If not, I would stay away from any cartridge other than the 30-06, 308win, or the 270win. All three of these cartridges are available anywhere that you can buy ammo, and generally in a selection that's brod enough to cover any duty. Cartridges like the 6.5X55, 7mm08, and 280rem are all good, but they are not always available, and the 6.5X55 is generally loaded to very mild pressures by American manufacturers. In my oppinion, the 243win is just too light for game such as moose and elk, it can be done, but it's really pushing the cartridges capabilities.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
I prefer the accuracy and lesser recoil of a .308 for this caliber factory ammunition and reloading supplies are easy to find and reasonably priced.
Other excellent choices are 7mm-08, 270 and the 30-06.
Personally I would steer clear of any magnum as a first hunting rifle, you want a rifle that is easy to shoot that you will shoot often to become a good shot and gain confidence.
Other excellent choices are 7mm-08, 270 and the 30-06.
Personally I would steer clear of any magnum as a first hunting rifle, you want a rifle that is easy to shoot that you will shoot often to become a good shot and gain confidence.
- Location
- Dah Soo,ON
Or get 2 Marlin's, 1 in .30-06, the other in .243
. One for the range one for the field!I find this hard to believe. I have a Tikka M695 in .300 win mag that had less felt recoil than my PH 30-06. It was much heavier and could absorb the recoil better.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
A flyweight .30/06 can be a challenge to shoot with full powered loads. As for the 7 mag; it is shorter and has a smaller case capacity than a .300 and the recoil is more like an '06 in equal weight rifles. If it was me though, I would sooner have a .280 Remington if I just had to have a 7mm.
Perhaps some people agree with this, and in many hunting situations it is satisfactory. I personally don't agree with this at all. When I spend big cash on premium rifles, I want premium accuracy, not something that shoots "OK". The average thousand dollar rifle may have an acceptable minimum standard, but a rifle that costs five times as much should have a standard five times higher. Otherwise its a waste of money. Not everyone is into precision shooting, nor really understand it. Its not that I need to hit a 12 inch steel plate at 600 yards, The fact is that I can. There is a major difference of what one should expect from a general purpose hunting rifle as opposed to precision shooting equipment.
Hunting season is only two months. Shooting and loading season is twelve months. Purchases should be made with realistic desired results. My whole point is that there is a difference in what to expect from one rifle to another. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to be a precision shooter. I'm suggesting that one persons minimum standard has nothing to with the capabilities of one rifle to another.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
For the hunter who is a dedicated off season shooter, an accurate rifle is a source of pride and a huge confidence booster. But I believe its a mistake to trade off accuracy you cannot use for reliability that you can. For a while I suckered into this trap; only match accuracy was good enough, and I thought I had the talent to use it. But then I discovered that the trade off for tiny groups was often accompanied by an unacceptable loss of reliability in both rifle and ammo. Sure, I could hit a pop can sized target on demand at 500 yards, I have done so often (given a prone position and favorable shooting conditions with my target rifle) but the trigger was too light to feel while wearing gloves. The big scope was too delicate for extended field use and with so much magnification that close range targets couldn't be found. Neck sized brass made closing the bolt an effort, so back up shots were slow and the opportunities were lost. Sometimes bullets were seated so long that when a shot was passed up or an opportunity missed and the round was ejected, it would pull out of the case mouth dumping powder into the action and trigger and leave the bullet stuck in the lead. But even worse was the choice of match bullets for normal big game hunting over normal hunting ranges. A match bullet seldom performs the way a game bullet needs to; either it goes to pieces producing a messy shallow wound, or it pencils through and doesn't expand at all. If it doesn't swap ends part way through the target, the resulting wound is small in volume, with little blood to follow up. If all that isn't enough, then to top it off the accuracy junky chooses a small bore because they are easier to shoot well. While I've never been accused of using too little gun, today its the choice of bullet that is likely to determine the outcome of the shot rather than bore size.
Over the years I've come to realize that reliability trumps all other concerns in the field. The rifle doesn't need to be fly weight, but it must be a manageable size for the conditions in which it is used. While the trigger should be free of creep and over travel; it should have enough weight that you can manage it in the cold or in times of high excitement. The scope, if there is one, must be robust, optically bright, have a generous field of view and eye relief, with a reticle that can be seen under all conditions. Ammunition must feed without hanging up, both on chambering and unloading. The bullet must be constructed to expand and retain as much of its original weight as possible. This not only creates a large wound volume, but it also insures the deep penetration necessary for a quick humane kill. If it exits there will be enough blood on the ground that you don't have to be an Apache to follow it up.
Thus, I load my hunting and defense ammo geared more towards reliability rather than to match accuracy. All of my hunting ammo is full length resized, and every round that goes into the field has been run through the rifle to assure it will do so every time without a hiccup. I clean and uniform all primer pockets and uniform and de-burr all flash-holes as I do with my match ammo, but the purpose is for reliability; none of my primers will move under the impact of the firing pin, and no partial obstruction of the flash-hole will upset the proper ignition of the powder. I choose bullets with cannelures and crimp all of my hunting ammo. While there is an accuracy element to this as it uniforms the bullet pull; more importantly, a cartridge that is not allowed to cycle to the top of the magazine, but has additional rounds fired over for an extended period of time in a heavy kicker, it's bullet will not be pushed back into the neck of the cartridge, resulting in a failure to feed.
I've got roughly $5K into my .375 Ultra, if I include the original purchase price. Today it shoots about as accurately as a $200 Stevens, but the features I was after had less to do with accuracy and more to do with mechanical reliability, and the rifle's handling qualities. When the stock hits my shoulder and my cheek hits the stock, the sights are in full view on target with no squirming around to acquire the correct eye relief. In recoil I can reach the bolt handle to quickly cycle the action and the front swivel is positioned so as not to cut my support hand. Some years I carry this rifle in excess of 200 days and it has never let me down. Now that is a confidence builder. It is equally at home on any continent. It will take small game for the pot, dispatch pests in an impressive manner, or take an elephant, should that opportunity come my way, although another go at tough African buffalo is more likely. While it is not a stopping rifle in the African sense, it can be used in that capacity for big coastal bears at home, yet it is perfectly suitable in it's role as a general purpose big game rifle. When I got this rifle it was as accurate as a varmint rifle, today that is no longer true, yet it is no less useful. So how important is match accuracy provided you can hit what you shoot at with the first shot?
I can't think of a modern sporting rifle that is not suitably accurate for normal big game hunting. The long range shooting of big game falls into a different category and my comments are not directed towards that. While some will turn their noses up at 2 MOA, that level of accuracy means that your bullet will always impact within 1 MOA of your intended POI. If we accept that the target area of a big game animal is a minimum of a foot square; a 2 MOA rifle can stay on target well beyond 300 yards. The legendary US Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock used a M-70 Winchester in .30/06 which Bill Brophy later confirmed was a 2 MOA rifle. Yet Hathcock hit human targets at ranges that approached and exceeded 1000 yards, under combat conditions, nearly 100 times. The windage problem on a human target is far greater than it is on a game animal. This proves talent supersedes equipment.
The problem is not what the rifle can do, the problem is what the marksman can do with the rifle. Now and again I test myself to see how well I can shoot with the rifles I carry in the field. My test is straight forward enough; I use a normal bullseye target and fire two rounds from each position other than prone using the sling from the supported positions. The range for this test is 100 yards and the follow-up shot is made as quickly as I can work the action. Prone I can shoot about as well as I can from the bench, so I don't bother testing it, rather it is a test of the rifle or the ammunition I've loaded. Some days I do pretty well if I say so myself, but other days I can see that I need to improve. I also run drills for close range rapid fire on moving targets and on targets out to a quarter mile or so. With the exception of the moving targets which I just try to hit anywhere, I aspire to shoot 2 MAO, but that can be an elusive goal if you've properly challenged yourself.
If you get bored shooting from the bench at bullseye targets, put up a target that is about 5' long and 2' high, that has no aiming point, it is just a rectangular silhouette, and a neutral color is better than white, you might even cover it in burlap or an old grey blanket. Using your most accurate rifle, assume a sitting position, sling up if that is your preference, then from about 270 yards fire a 3 shot group rapid fire at that target. Remember that shots taken in the field are time critical as an animal even one that is unsuspecting, isn't going to stand around all day. Did you shoot a MOA group? Did you shoot a 2 MOA group? The important question is, how far is each shot from your intended POI. A 4 MOA groups isn't bad if no shot exceeds 2 MOA from your intended POI. Next have your helper set out a similar target in a wooded area in such a way that you have to search for it. Proceed though the area as you would if still hunting. When you see your target, throw up your rifle and fire two rounds as fast as you can work the action at your shoulder. Do the bullet holes measure MOA, or even 2 MOA apart? More importantly, are they within a couple of inches of you intended POI. This is what I mean when I say that you can't make use of match accuracy in the field, so your attention needs to be directed elsewhere. Its hard enough to shoot up to an inexpensive off the shelf sporting rifle, which today are very accurate.
