Soliciting opinions on a new firearm

Ron AKA said:
The 6.5 caliber is not a problem for elk. I have not hunted elk with my .264 WM, but I sure would not have any hesitation. Every moose I have pulled the trigger on, has come down with one 140 grain Nosler Partition. The 53 grain case capacity on a .260 Remington would have me a bit worried though for elk. My preference would be for a little more punch than that. I think the 6.5x55 Swede at 57 grains is kind of the minimum I would consider. 66 grains in the 6.5x284 is quite comfortable for elk and moose with a good bullet in my opinion.

And I see no problem at all in having one good hunting rifle.
Click to expand...

It's a IMOP thing......... I have never seen an animal as tough as an elk by pound......

It's ok to question my opinion, don't get me wrong....... I don't declare myself an expert on all things big game by any means...... but man those elk were tough....... and I certainly have a hard time putting an elk and a coyote in one package......
 
Bartledan said:
Or use the loopy 3.5-10x40 VX3. Exact same magnification as the swaro, lighter, better eye relief, longer body tube and superb warranty service center in canada. Oh, and just about exactly half the price. Plus it'll fit in talley low rings.

How much does the leupold 3.5-10x40 weigh? I like leupolds as well, they got the best warranty imho. My Z3 weighs 12.7 oz. Its also a brighter scope than my leupolds.
Click to expand...
 
Sumthing I bin considering is loosing the scope on the 308 and running Iron sights on 14" bull barrel on the encore with a standard Leopold 3x9 it is 7lbs with out the scope it's 5.6 lbs
I'm running standard buckhorn on the 223 barrel with the 14" barrel and no scope it's a pleasure to pack and hunt with

Mite be sum thing to consider and save about 1.4 lbs or more overall with out the scope
 
Last edited:
pete dobinson said:
Bartledan said:
Or use the loopy 3.5-10x40 VX3. Exact same magnification as the swaro, lighter, better eye relief, longer body tube and superb warranty service center in canada. Oh, and just about exactly half the price. Plus it'll fit in talley low rings.

How much does the leupold 3.5-10x40 weigh? I like leupolds as well, they got the best warranty imho. My Z3 weighs 12.7 oz. Its also a brighter scope than my leupolds.
Click to expand...

The leupold website says 12.6 ounces for the 3.5-10.

The Leupold has much longer eye relief at low magnification, and about the same at high magnificiation, whereas the Swaro has constant eye relief, so point to swaro.

The body tube is about 3/8" longer on the loopy which is great if you need it, and no biggie is you don't.

When I bought my kimber, I wanted to put a swarovski on it *so bad*... but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
Click to expand...
 
owlowl said:
For 1-6x I would rather get Razor HD Gen II 1-6x24. Warranty is better, some features like turrets are way better, more common and more desirable - easier to get, easier to sell if anything. I think price is better on vortex too.

For the Sako 85. Well, they have a tendency to throw brass into the scope. If you care about fast bolt cycles you may not like that. Especially if you put 1-6 scope as low as it could be. However if you go with shorter cartridge like 260 rem it should be less of a problem. Other than that Sako is a fine rifle, no argument.
Click to expand...

Did you just say that a Vortex was more desirable than a Swarovski? Wow, just, wow.
 
Superbrad said:
It's a IMOP thing.........
Click to expand...

Agree there! As a ballpark number I would suggest 1800 ft-lbs at point of impact for elk is a comfortable load, and 2000 ft-lbs for moose. That makes the .260 Remington about a 100 yard moose gun, and perhaps 175 yards for elk. The 6.5x284 is probably a 200 yard moose gun, and 275 for elk, based on those energy requirements. Just ballpark numbers of course...
 
Ron AKA said:
Agree there! As a ballpark number I would suggest 1800 ft-lbs at point of impact for elk is a comfortable load, and 2000 ft-lbs for moose. That makes the .260 Remington about a 100 yard moose gun, and perhaps 175 yards for elk. The 6.5x284 is probably a 200 yard moose gun, and 275 for elk, based on those energy requirements. Just ballpark numbers of course...
Click to expand...

A 260 Rem is a 175 yard elk gun? A 100 yard moose gun?

You should go back to the Reloading Forum and give out more of your expert opinions! :jerkit:
 
Ron AKA said:
Agree there! As a ballpark number I would suggest 1800 ft-lbs at point of impact for elk is a comfortable load, and 2000 ft-lbs for moose. That makes the .260 Remington about a 100 yard moose gun, and perhaps 175 yards for elk. The 6.5x284 is probably a 200 yard moose gun, and 275 for elk, based on those energy requirements. Just ballpark numbers of course...
Click to expand...

In my experience moose are way easier to drop than elk........ but a moose and it doesn't drop it heads for the nearest patch of thick crap to die in........ Hit an elk and it doesn't drop and it instantly turns into Forrest Gump and just keeps running.......
 
BigUglyMan said:
Did you just say that a Vortex was more desirable than a Swarovski? Wow, just, wow.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can repeat that - razor has better turrets. HD has a very good glass. At 1-6 magnification you can't see a difference with swaro anyway. Razor 1-6 is good to go on a hunting rifle and "tacticool". Razor has MOA, MRAD and BDC reticles. Swaro has only cross and post. Warranty on Razor is better.

Razor HD Gen 2 is $2K.
Swarovski Z6i 1-6x24 4-I is $3.1k

I don't care who makes fancier jewelry for poodles. But as 1-6 scopes go, Razor HD gen2 is way better than Swaro. Except 10 oz in weight, swaro is worse in evertyhing.
 
Superbrad said:
In my experience moose are way easier to drop than elk........ but a moose and it doesn't drop it heads for the nearest patch of thick crap to die in........ Hit an elk and it doesn't drop and it instantly turns into Forrest Gump and just keeps running.......
Click to expand...

Superbrad i have no experience at all hunting elk , and i do believe you when you say Elk is much harder to die than a Moose but not all animals die on the spot and not all of them run when they are wounded , just my experience with various game that i have hunted , repeat no Elk experience.
Victor
 
freire said:
Superbrad i have no experience at all hunting elk , and i do believe you when you say Elk is much harder to die than a Moose but not all animals die on the spot and not all of them run when they are wounded , just my experience with various game that i have hunted , repeat no Elk experience.
Victor
Click to expand...

there is no excuse for a bad shoot if thay run your doing sumthing wrong
 
Superbrad said:
The last elk I got was a double lung with exit using a .280 at 200 yards......... it ran almost 300 yards according to the GPS leaking blood and gasping for air the whole way........ what did I do wrong?.... lol
Click to expand...

so you just shrug your shoulders and say sh@t happens
I have had game run but I don't like it and do everything I can to prevent it
 
I'm not a huge .270 fan, but given your requirements, I can't see how you would consider anything else. I believe the .270 is still legal in SW Ontario (the .275-caliber requirements refers to nominal measurement, so you're okay), and I don't think anyone would dream of denying that the .270 (Win or WSM or Wby) will be a superior 300-yard elk gun than a .260. Sure, you can kill elk with .257Bob's or .260's or whatever; but when you are investing time and money, and travelling across the continent to hunt an elk, looking for a trophy in a limited time frame, doesn't it make sense to go with something a bit more effective than just barely adequate? The "shot placement is everything" boys are correct...but they don't go quite far enough; a marginal cartridge places limitations on you. Lots of cartridges are adequate...but some are more adequate than others.

The only reason I even vote for the .270 is because you insist on one gun only; otherwise, an Ontario gun in a .243 or .257 caliber chambering for deer and yotes, and a .300-cal elk/moose gun would be a much wiser alternative. Coyotes are usually under 40 lbs; Elk might go 750, Moose could be in the 4-digits. Go ahead and tell us that your one rifle isn't going to be a huge compromise at both ends of the range.

In scopes, I don't see the need for magnification higher than a max of 8 or so, or lower than 2.5x or 3x. It doesn't take a huge amount of practice to learn to shoot with both eyes open at those mags (I never close my off eye, regardless of scope magnification) allowing you to maintain a good awareness of your entire field of fire.

However, as others have stated, your mind seems made up...so why ask?
 
jjohnwm said:
Coyotes are usually under 40 lbs; Elk might go 750, Moose could be in the 4-digits. Go ahead and tell us that your one rifle isn't going to be a huge compromise at both ends of the range.
Click to expand...

I don't consider my flat shooting .264 WM a compromise at either end of that range when you use the right bullets. I've taken coyotes with 100 grain HP Sierras, deer with 140 grain Sierra GameKings, and moose with 140 grain Nosler Partitions. The only compromise is barrel life. That is why I suggested a 6.5x284. With a decent barrel length it can be loaded almost as fast as the WM, and is a little easier on the barrel.
 
I guess your budget brings some nice different options in. If I had your criteria on my budget, I'd be looking for a nice old Husqvarna or Carl Gustaf in 6.5x55 (or .270), and put a leupold 1-4x20 on with some sort of return-to-zero mount. Irons for the close-woods deer stuff, and a nice light scope that won't throw off the balance of the rifle for the rest. This rifle would do as well as anything else.
 
jjohnwm said:
I'm not a huge .270 fan, but given your requirements, I can't see how you would consider anything else. I believe the .270 is still legal in SW Ontario (the .275-caliber requirements refers to nominal measurement, so you're okay), and I don't think anyone would dream of denying that the .270 (Win or WSM or Wby) will be a superior 300-yard elk gun than a .260.
Click to expand...
Correct. The .270 legal in those Southern Ontario townships and counties where there is a calibre limit. The wording of the regulation specifies "bore" meaning land to land which is under .275.

If elk/moose hunting is in the OP's plans the .270 Win is a better cartridge particularly if he doesn't reload.

The Sako 85 Finnlite is also an excellent choice but I'd also consider a Kimber. I'm not sure a Sako 75 with a McMillan stock would make the weight limit. I have one in .270 and getting it under 7lbs. would be challenging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom