long range rifles

350 Mag said:
It does take ALOT of skill to make a well placed long shot.(400 yards+)

I think these hunters in USA taking 1000+ yard or more shots on ELK are missing out on the true meaning of hunting....?

To me shooting an Elk after you have called him into close range would give more of a "rush" and a "sense of accomplishment" ....?

To each their own I guess....
Click to expand...
That's true to a small extent. Sure, you may get more of a "rush", but it's a much easier shot. I personally think calculating everything out and then dropping an elk with a clean shot at over 600 meters away would give one a WAY greater sense of accomplishment.

-Rohann
 
Couldn't agree more, but the risk of seeing a wounded animal dart into the bush knowing that I wont be on site for at least 5 min is not worth any rush to me.
 
To each his own. I personally think both would be extremely rewarding and exhillerating. Say you get the deer either way. On the one hand, you made a ridiculously long, proffessional shot, calculated accurately and precisely and took the deer out cleanly. On the other hand, you showed good hunting skills by realistically calling in the deer closely and staying quiet and patient until it got as close as possible.

-Rohann
 
Doug King said:
I own a Weatherby Accumark in 300 Wby Magnum..

that would work..

another alternative would be this gun in 300-378 Wby Magnum.

I get 3200fps with a 180gr bullet with my 300. The 300-378 Mag is reputed to get 3400+ with the same bullet.
Click to expand...


Welcome to CGN, new guy!
Have a look at the Newbie FAQ Section that I wrote, link below in my signature line.

Anyway, this reminds me of something I read a while back. It seems that Weatherby rifles had started to get a bit of a bad reputation with hunting guides. Seems strange, that a well made rifle would have a bad rep.
What was happening was that rich, inexperienced, showy type guys where flying into camp with a brand new Wby, not quite sure how to shoot, but convinced that the power more than made up for the lack of skill.
It got to the point that if a guy showed up with a Wby, the guides immediately wondered about him. Meanwhile, the guy that came with an old Mauser K98 rechambered to 8x63 wildcat (original 8mm bore, reamed out to use the 30-06 case opened up) was trusted, as he obviously knew a bit about guns and shooting.

for the original thread starter, keep in mind:

1) Bullet placement
2) Bullet construction
3) Cartridge size

IN THAT ORDER!!!
 
Rohann said:
To each his own. I personally think both would be extremely rewarding and exhillerating. Say you get the deer either way. On the one hand, you made a ridiculously long, proffessional shot, calculated accurately and precisely and took the deer out cleanly. On the other hand, you showed good hunting skills by realistically calling in the deer closely and staying quiet and patient until it got as close as possible.

-Rohann
Click to expand...


IMHO,

Long range shooting(over 400 yards) of big game animals is NOT "my idea" of fair chase so therefore it is merely "shooting" and not "hunting".

Shooting at long range requires as much discipline and practice as "calling" or "stalking" game within close range but there is a clear line dividing the two.

When it comes to taking a game animal the TRUE SKILL of the hunter lies not only in his ability to make a quick clean kill but also in getting as close as possible to the animal and taking him with a primitive weapon.

There is little or no difference between shooting a domesticated farm cow and a WILD game animal at extreme range, the wild animal will not be alarmed and would pose no more difficult shot than a tame one....HOWEVER....

The same CANNOT be said of a domesticated cow and a WILD animal at 30 yards.
 
Last edited:
I agree to some extent. Some animals, however, can NOT be hunted at short range, like mountain goats and bighorn sheep for example (correct me if I'm wrong). A lot of mountainous terrain can also not be hunted at close range, so it depends on both hunting and shooting skill and the type or terrain you hunt in. For the terrain in my immediate surroundings, and for most of the island, it is thickly forested and the animals must be stalked, or called in and waited upon (more commonly the former). For some other parts of BC and Alberta, the terrain is much more open, requiring more environment-reading and shooting skill.

-Rohann
 
Well I agree that we all are entitled to our opinion, let there be no doubt.
It takes skill to stalk to within archery distance of big game.
It takes a different type of skill to shoot long range at big game.
It takes an open mind to respect another persons opinion regardless of your own.
It takes just one simple mind to try and impose an opinion or ethics on someone else.
IBTL
 
I just want to throw my 2 bits in yes the 280 may be up to the required tasks but just marginally .If you are bound and determined to shoot at those ranges I seriously recommend that you practice with a target that is the size of the animal you are hunting at,at those distances over a period of a year to familarize your self with the conditions that can occur at those distances .It appears that some hunters do now the difference between 250m and 500m visually, it looks closer thru your scope that it really is
 
30 yards? pish. Everyone knows that a real hunter climes into a tree, calls his animal in (deer, mountain goats, bears, what ever) and then drops on it with his 8" bowie knife, making a clean kill. :dancingbanana: Come on! or the opposite could be said to be true: with all the calling and scent tools out there, you are just taking advantage of a big dumb animal by calling it in so close!:p

Frankly, I don't care what you use or the range you use it, if you know how to read the ellements and the effect it will have on your shot, as well as the effect that the ellements and terain have on the game you are after, it is hunting.

However, if you already know where the animal is before you go hunting (ranched animals, or guides), then someone else has done the hunting for you. You are just shooting.
 
Rohann said:
I agree to some extent. Some animals, however, can NOT be hunted at short range, like mountain goats and bighorn sheep for example (correct me if I'm wrong). A lot of mountainous terrain can also not be hunted at close range, so it depends on both hunting and shooting skill and the type or terrain you hunt in. For the terrain in my immediate surroundings, and for most of the island, it is thickly forested and the animals must be stalked, or called in and waited upon (more commonly the former). For some other parts of BC and Alberta, the terrain is much more open, requiring more environment-reading and shooting skill.

-Rohann
Click to expand...

You may be right about sheep and goats in mountainous terrain but COUNTLESS archers take sheep and goats every year????

It takes more skill, discipline, effort and planning to make an close range archery kill than it does a long range rifle shot....simple fact.

Otherwise all hunters would start out hunting with bow and arrow and 30 yard shots and progress their goals to one day making a 1000+ yard shot on a big game animal to prove their ultimate hunting skills....???

1 kill at close range with a bow and arrow is worth 10 gun kills in my book. Not many hunters even bother to try getting close to their quarry they simply define their success by a full freezer.

Anyone can be trained in a couple of months to make a successful shot at long range with a precision rifle and optics.....the same cannot be true of someone trying to stalk or call game within 50 yards to make an archery(or rifle) shot, this takes years of practice, research, failures, learning experiences etc etc.

To each their own.

I am not demanding that everyone go out and hunt under this criteria.

Every hunter has to look within himself and decide if he is satisfied with his current skill level and success or that he wants to have more challenge so he starts shedding some of his technological advantages.
 
Jerry is right on. I have killed more than one moose at 700 yds with my old 270 Win, BSA Monarch, using Win 130 PP bullets that have less than 674 ft. lbs energy at that distance. Amazing what a well placed shot will do. That being said I think that 1200 ft. lbs. energy is more appropriate and adequate for moose.

The 162 A-Max at 2900 ft/sec is traveling about 1950 ft/sec and delivers 1366 ft lbs energy at 700 yds. Muzzle energy is 3024 ft lbs so recoil should be very managable in your rifle.

By comparison the 338 Lapua with a 210 gr Barnes TSX BT at 3120 ft/sec delivers a bone jarring 4538.7 ft lbs at the muzzle. Ironically it shoots exactly the same trajectory as the A Max but delivers only about 81 ft lbs more energy at 700 yds. I don't think the moose will notice the difference!

I plan to use the 162 A-Max for long range target and hunting in my Rem 700V, 24" barrel 7mm 08. I have to hand feed them as COL is 2.925" but get uncanny accuracy at 2750 ft/sec with 47 gr H 4350 Extreme and 2850 ft/sec with 49.5 gr of Norma MRP. I have only tested these loads over the chronograph and look foreward to getting serious when the weather warms up.
THERE IS NOTHING LIKE A WELL PLACED SHOT AND YOU CAN ONLY KILL THEM SO DEAD

Laverne
 
Last edited:
lclund1946 said:
700 yds with my old 270 Win, BSA Monarch, using Win 130 PP bullets that have less than 674 ft. lbs energy at that distance. Amazing what a well placed shot will do. That being said I think that 1200 ft. lbs. energy is more appropriate and adequate for moose.

The 162 A-Max at 2900 ft/sec is traveling about 1950 ft/sec and delivers 1366 ft lbs energy at 700 yds. Muzzle energy is 3024 ft lbs so recoil should be very managable in your rifle.

By comparison the 338 Lapua with a 210 gr Barnes TSX BT at 3120 ft/sec delivers a bone jarring 4538.7 ft lbs at the muzzle. Ironically it shoots exactly the same trajectory as the A Max but delivers only about 81 ft lbs more energy at 700 yds. I don't think the moose will notice the difference!

I plan to use the 162 A-Max for long range target and hunting in my Rem 700V, 24" barrel 7mm 08. I have to hand feed them as COL is 2.925" but get uncanny accuracy at 2750 ft/sec with 47 gr H 4350 Extreme and 2850 ft/sec with 49.5 gr of Norma MRP. I have only tested these loads over the chronograph and look foreward to getting serious when the weather warms up.
THERE IS NOTHING LIKE A WELL PLACED SHOT AND YOU CAN ONLY KILL THEM SO DEAD

Laverne
Click to expand...

700 yards is moderate range. If you are going to compare the 338 Lapua, I think the 250gr would be a better start and if you really want to compare use the 300gr at 1000 or 1500 yds.
 
### International said:
700 yards is moderate range. If you are going to compare the 338 Lapua, I think the 250gr would be a better start and if you really want to compare use the 300gr at 1000 or 1500 yds.
Click to expand...
I believe this thread was discussing hunting shots at 500 to 700 yds using hunting rifles. I used the 210 Barnes TSX BT in 338 Lapua only as a comparison to show that you don't need large magnums to get the job done. There are many hunters out there who would mistakenly think that this load is far superior to the 162 A-Max simply because it is a Magnum. The chronograph and the ballistics program show otherwise.

If I was going to go to 1000 or 1500 yds I would take your advise as I have already made the comparisons. Don't think my shoulder would stand up to the punishment on a hunting rifle.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO FIND OUT SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO KNOW BUY A CHRONOGRAPH AND A BALLISTICS PROGRAM.

Laverne
 
Already have 3 chronographs and two ballistics programs but it is good advice for those who do not own one at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom