SKS For hunting

Unfortunately 154 gr or 124 gr it don't matter , if it hits a twig or branch, there is no telling where that bullet is going. IMO that is one of the biggest misconceptions in the hunting world. Clear line of sight is needed no matter what grain you are using, and contact with ANY obstruction will result in God only knows what bullet behavior.Heck, I've seen bullets do funny things without the help of a branch.

On the other hand I think if you are throwing a bowling ball at them , it may take out some smaller twigs on the way.:p





sksshooter said:
I have seen online that wolf makes a 154 grain soft point which I would rather use for hunting deer. It is not open country where I hunt deer and would like something a little heavier than 124 grain for the bush. It is not thick bush but there are some branches. I usually use the 30-30 with 150 grain but I want to try the sks this coming fall and want to sight in the rifle with the 154 grain after I finish of the militairy surplus. Any of you out there find a dealer that carries wolf or any other make of 154 grain soft point bullet.
Click to expand...
 
just trying to find out if anybody knows of any dealers that carry wolf 154 grain bullets. Any information would be much appreciated.
 
Hi Sksshooter, I thought the 154 gr. Wolf ammo would be an improvement over the 123-125 grain soft points I've got, so I sent them an email asking if they have a dealer in Greater Vancouver, Kelowna, Kamloops, or Vernon, all of which I'm in now and then. I'll post the answer I receive, but if you don't live in B.C. then you can email them yourself at: info@wolfammo.com. I'm thinking a bit heavier bullet will be better on a big mulie, but just so you know, I'm familiar with a .416 Rigby bullet hitting a 1/2" branch on it's way to a grizzly 75 yards away, and being deflected enough to completely miss!
Branches will deflect any bullet, and "bush-busting bullets" are a myth and fallacy, as Kelly also pointed out...
 
I've used my SKS for deer hunting, from what I understand the 7.62x39 has similar ballistics to the 30-30. Everybody knows that the 30-30 is plenty adequate for deer. That being said I honestly don't think my first choice for moose hunting would be an SKS. For moose, personally I use my trusty SVT-40 and I love it!! It's one of my favorite guns.
 
Laidir, that's the general concensus, the 7.62X39 is fine for deer at closer ranges, but not really suitable for moose.
Sksshooter, I thought you might like to know that Wolf Ammunition doesn't have ANY dealers outside of the USA, and the Yanks have made buying ammo across the line and bringing it back a major no-no, for no good reason.
 
If I go to Michigan I will order in advance and pick them up at a parcel place I used to get stuff shipped to when I lived in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. In the meantime if anyone finds any wolf 154 grain ammo let me know. Thanks for the information guys.
 
Teapot said:
Spears, arrows, musket-balls; none of these things worked. Cavemen, luckily, were kitted out with latest offerings from rifle and cartridge manufacturers. Political correctness has run amok since the 1980"s. Fear to be singled out creates this "PC" behaviour. I thought that would have ended in individuals shortly after adolescence. I like the M-43 and the 30WCF. They will kill any game in this land. The ability to put lead on target at will is the only requirement when using any cartridge.
Click to expand...

Quoting such weapons in such a context means you know nothing about the hunting techniques at the time.
That's when this thread went awry!
 
Teapot said:
Snipers overseas take shots at double that distance with 338 Lapua and roughly the same distance with 7.62x51.
Click to expand...

Military snipers use FMJ to wound. In the military there's no intent to kill. A wounded enemy is more "expensive" than a dead one.
NEVER compare a mil sniper to a hunter. EVER!
 
Kelly and so many others here. I simply can't agree with Ironsighter. There is NO SHAME in a 200yd headshot. Hell, EVEN my wife can and HAS made those on deer. Deer!! And she just started hunting 2 years ago. And moose are a bigger head target.
Click to expand...

Yes there is shame.
Headshots are covered in any decent CORE course. Because of their small brain, there's a high probability to blow the jaw of the animal and have it die a slow death.
NOT ETHICAL! Stop bragging about it!

edit: I actually think your wife is a lousy shot and hit the head by chance.
I bet you can't hit a deer brain at 200m 9 times out of 10. I'm not talking about a range target but about a deer brain in the bush.
 
legi0n said:
Military snipers use FMJ to wound. In the military there's no intent to kill. A wounded enemy is more "expensive" than a dead one.
NEVER compare a mil sniper to a hunter. EVER!
Click to expand...


Really? Hmm...I guess I must have had bad instructors in the Canadian Forces!

Canadian military snipers are part of the infantry. The Role of the Infantry: To close with and destroy the enemy. Destroy includes kill. Wouldn't be much of an infantryman if we couldn't do that. Nor would our snipers (I wasn't that skilled) be worth much if all they were supposed to do was wound.

I'm not going to elaborate further, but whoever told you the military sniper is all about wounding the enemy, was just plain wrong. You are however very correct that snipers and hunters are not the same, and really shouldn't be compared.
 
Expanding bullets are a no-no on the battlefield. FMJs play more roles than just wounding. Tumbling and fragmentation cause devastating wounds. And I know several hunters who have been making headshots on all their animals longer than Ive been alive. If you ask them, the heart is the best part of the animal! And please dont call the guy's wife down, I bet she shoots better than you do with that attitude. Just cause you cant do it doesnt mean somebody else cant.
 
legi0n said:
Yes there is shame.
Headshots are covered in any decent CORE course. Because of their small brain, there's a high probability to blow the jaw of the animal and have it die a slow death.
NOT ETHICAL! Stop bragging about it!

edit: I actually think your wife is a lousy shot and hit the head by chance.
I bet you can't hit a deer brain at 200m 9 times out of 10. I'm not talking about a range target but about a deer brain in the bush.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you caught me in a lie. But, you may be right. She really isn't much of a shot and she did get lucky with the headshot. All three times last year at ranges from 95-170yds. She fired 4 shots in the field last year.
How many rounds do you shoot a year. She fired over 1000 last year. She also got lucky when she used that same .243 on about 50 gophers last season.
Also, apparently, if you check with a "decent" hunting course, you will find that it is supposedly "unethical" to hunt with any firearms that is not capable of delivering 2100ft-lbs of energy, or, in other words, nothing less than a .300WM
That is the best thing about luck, it never hangs around, and there is no way to beat the odds. Unless of course, you actually practice.
And, my wife? Since she is such a poor shot, perhaps you would like to hold a target for her. Maybe a clay at 200yds?
There is an old saying that I will modify for your benefit, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, call names".
Thanks so much for playing. Stay with kiddies, the grown-ups table is too tough for you.
 
Last edited:
RickR1100 said:
Really? Hmm...I guess I must have had bad instructors in the Canadian Forces!

Canadian military snipers are part of the infantry. The Role of the Infantry: To close with and destroy the enemy. Destroy includes kill. Wouldn't be much of an infantryman if we couldn't do that. Nor would our snipers (I wasn't that skilled) be worth much if all they were supposed to do was wound.

I'm not going to elaborate further, but whoever told you the military sniper is all about wounding the enemy, was just plain wrong. You are however very correct that snipers and hunters are not the same, and really shouldn't be compared.
Click to expand...

Actually, he was right. The reason the army uses FMJ bullets is a ethical reason. The idea is to do harm sufficient for the person to stop fighting but no more. If this wasn't the idea, everybody would be using exploding bullets. The intent to only wound is also strategic because a wounded soldier would need the assistance of at least one other person. You do alot more harm if they have to care for a wounded soldier that if you just kill him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom