There is no small African Hunting board so I'm putting this here.

I have a 2nd hand Remington 700 ADL .264 WM on its way with less than 100 rounds through it.

I bought this rifle to hunt Springbok (30-50kg)at 300 +++ metres. What scope and load would the local African hunters on here recommend ?

If you cannot see well, you cannot shoot well!

Different men regard different telescopes a bit like women: Some swear by blondes .... others have no time for anything but a brunette! I'll tell what works for me: After a long hunting careen I ended up with virtually every rifle that I own, with one exception, all fitted with one of a variety of Zeiss telescopes. Without exception all my telescopes have two things in common: All are of fixed magnification and all have the Zeiss No. 4 reticule. This works for me.

If I were to equip a "flat shooter" with a telescope now - here where springbok is the most commonly hunted animal and longer shots are required more often than not - I would get a Zeiss in fixed 6X42, but with a fine crosshair. Although the No. 4 works as the best all-round recticle, there are 'horses for courses'. I found that for longer shots on springbok the relatively thick crosshair of the No. 4 covers too much of the target. If you cannot see well, you cannot shoot well. If I could not afford a Zeiss, I’ll have to look for something else. Some possibly easily equally as good as a Zeiss. I would advise to steer clear of anything with a variable magnification, bullet drop compensator, parallax adjustment and anything ‘gadgety”! KISS!

Why not a variable? I know that some variable telescopes can actually shoot to the same point of impact with any magnification setting. But I have yet to see and personally use one! There are other reasons too.

Only once you actually have your own specific rifle – properly ‘worn in’ or ‘shot in’ [which subject requires a few postings or reading in other sections] – can you really say which bullet weight. How to decide on which bullet weight? Easy! The premium hunting bullet that is, at typical velocities from that calibre, the most accurate in your specific rifle! I’m not going to insult you or anyone on this forum by listing examples of premium hunting bullets and typical bullet weights in your chosen calibre! I will however motivate why “the most accurate”, without saying anything about the aerodynamics of the round. Only where absolute equal accuracy is found can bullet drop at 300 yards also be used as a selection criterion. Go work out for yourself what the ‘real difference’ is between two bullets; one with a 2 inches less bullet drop at 400 yards, but ¼” bigger group at 100 yards.

Just incidentally, I do not find any fault with your calibre choice for the specific type of hunting you ask about!

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

the best glass you can afford was some of the best advice I ever got. Different rifles shoot better with different loads you'll have to try a few to see what your rifle likes check the reloading forum some great reloads lurk around there

When you ask what is the best "load" for your .264, are you speaking of a handload you would load yourself or a factory load?

If a factory load, well, I'm afraid you're going to be somewhat disappointed. The WW and Remington (if still available) stuff is now only produced in 140 grain, and uses some "pistol" powder that fills about half of the case and generates around 2800 fps. Nosler is producing a load with its 130 grain Accubond, but I have no information on its actual performance. I'm unaware of any other factory ammunition for the .264.

If you intend to handload for your .264, locate the very slowest powder you can find. If that happens to be the ADI equivalent of H-4831, then it will work reasonably well if you stick to bullets of 120 grains or less. A springbok doesn't take much in the way of weight or power in a bullet. Anything that shoots well in your rifle will work. You could try the 100 grain Partition or 120 grain Ballistic Tip in the Nosler, or a 120 Speer or Sierra, etc. Look for around 3250-3300 fps with a 120, and perhaps 3400-3500 fps with a 100.

I've found Leupold "medium" powered variables to be absolutely dependable, fairly compact, and relatively light in weight. If it were mine, I'd mount a 3-9X or 3.5-10X with the LR or B&C reticle on it. I agree with Andrew about "keeping it simple", but these reticles don't clutter the view too much and once you learn to use them are the cat's whiskers for shooting game at extended ranges.

When culling with my friends Kruger Human and Anton Pitot, each would lay a 50ZAR note on the cubbyhole....nothing but head shots counted...we used my .22-250 with 6x24 Leupold and 55gr VMax Hornady's...used a Leupold range finder to ensure no shots were under 300 metres...the Rugby Fly shot a horn off at base but we had to chase and shoot again....he lost!

My wife and daughter have both taken nice springbok in both Namibia and RSA. They both have Leupold M8-4x scopes on their rifles.

My wife has also shot several Pronghorn with the same rifle with the same scope.