If you look at the original criticism and the data immediately above things should become clear.

By using the same zero with different speeds you end up comparing apples and oranges. Look at the 100 yard position. The faster bullet is 3.1" high at 100 yards. The slower bullet is higher, needing to get up to 3.5" high at 100 yards in order to reach the 260 yard zero.

This means that the drop at 300 yards is not showing comparable drop differences but the drop that results from different angles of shooting. The slower bullet is fired on a higher trajectory. (If you want to see the zero effect with your calculator, set the zero to 100 yards and notice the different drops at 300 yards. I just ran it: -12.3" for 2825fps--225TTSX and -13.7" for 2705 fps. Again, -1.4" difference.)

As stated, my own calculations were done with a limited max height above the line-of-sight. I happen to use 2.1" as a max height of the arc. I find 2.1" a practical limit that helps with small animals as well as large animals. Sometimes a head shot presents itself and a person doesn't want an extra inch or two of unexpected height. 2.1" is manageable. 3.5" at 100 yards and 4" or 5" inches high at 150 yards can lead to misses and woundings.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
If you look at the original criticism and the data immediately above things should become clear.

By using the same zero with different speeds you end up comparing apples and oranges. Look at the 100 yard position. The faster bullet is 3.1" high at 100 yards. The slower bullet is higher, needing to get up to 3.5" high at 100 yards in order to reach the 260 yard zero.

This means that the drop at 300 yards is not showing comparable drop differences but the drop that results from different angles of shooting. The slower bullet is fired on a higher trajectory. (If you want to see the zero effect with your calculator, set the zero to 100 yards and notice the different drops at 300 yards. I just ran it: -12.3" for 2825fps--225TTSX and -13.7" for 2705 fps. Again, -1.4" difference.)

As stated, my own calculations were done with a limited max height above the line-of-sight. I happen to use 2.1" as a max height of the arc. I find 2.1" a practical limit that helps with small animals as well as large animals. Sometimes a head shot presents itself and a person doesn't want an extra inch or two of unexpected height. 2.1" is manageable. 3.5" at 100 yards and 4" or 5" inches high at 150 yards can lead to misses and woundings.

I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. You're talking trajectory out to 300 yards and I'm talking drop at 300 yards. AR Corey asked about the "difference in drop at 300 yards with a velocity difference of 120fps." Based on a 260 yard zero, using Hornady's ballistic calculator, the difference in drop at 300 yards is three tenths of an inch. I didn't interpret his comments as asking about the difference in trajectory at the muzzle or any other distance in between. In essence, I assumed he asked the question "Where will the bullet impact at 300 yards given the difference in velocity?"

Your point about the difference in trajectory from the muzzle to the target based on velocity is well taken and understood. Given the size of the kill zone on big game animals, arguing about a difference in trajectory of 1.4 inches from field positions out to 300 yards isn't relevant to me. As a hunter, I try to get as close as possible to the animal and 1.4 inches just isn't gonna matter on a broadside shot.

The only animal I would ever head or neck shoot would be a charging bear unless I was delivering a finishing shot at close range. (I have done that once on a moose) I grew up seeing one too many whitetailed does running with their lower jaws hanging off their head due to some hunter's attempted head or neck shot (I assume). It left a very bad taste in my mouth.

I shot a cape buffalo in the face a few years ago, so, yes, it's relevant.

And yes, we disagree.
For a simpler thought experiment, just set the line-of-sight zero to 300 yards for both and then there is ZERO difference in drop at 300 yards.

So the answer could be "zero."
But to say that there is zero difference in drop for the two speeds is obviously not correct or helpful, either.

If there were zero drop at 300, then the question would become 'what is the high arc midrange?' Answer: at 170 yards the slower bullet (2705fps--225TTSX) is 5.7" high, while the faster bullet (2825fps) is 5.1" high, totals (max height+drop) of 5.1 and 5.7" a difference of 0.6".

NB: As one moves the zero in from 300 yards towards the muzzle, the height at max arc will reduce and the drop at 300 will increase. The totals (max arc plus max drop) will slowly increase toward 14" and their differential increases from 0.6" to 1.5" at 90 yard zero. People set there point-blank ranges differently and they accept different max-arc points. If someone wants to compare drops, then they should keep the max-arc the same. If they want the lowest differential, then the solution is to set the zero at the maximum intended range. If a different max arc than 2.1" is desired, then a person can set that.

3" max height is sometimes used. That produces a 242 yard zero. Drops of -4.3 and -5.6 and totals of 7.3" and 8.6" and a differential of 1.3"

PS: I ran the data on a 260 yard zero and, yes, the slow-bullet drop was -3.3" and the fast-bullet drop was -3.0". BUT the mid-point height for the slow bullet was +4.0" and the mid-point plus for the fast bullet was 3.6", giving total spreads of 7.3" (slow) and 6.6" (fast), with a 0.7" differential. I no longer like playing with a 4" high arc at the most common shooting range, though I have done that for about 150-200 game animals. Yes, it can work very well by learning to compensate "low" when over 100 yards, but with faster bullets a person can reduce that mid-range arc, and I find that more useful overall. My son and I both use +2" as a max, mid-range arc.
Mid-range +2" provides easier and safer hunting when around dangerous game, including face shots.

Too many decimals! Let's chop this barrel off an inch at a time

quote:

Originally posted by sep:
I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. You're talking trajectory out to 300 yards and I'm talking drop at 300 yards. AR Corey asked about the "difference in drop at 300 yards with a velocity difference of 120fps.

Hey thanks guys for discussing something I've never come across in my 10 years on this forum!

I have always read stubborn comments like: "24" only for a magnum" or "26" will gain you another XX fps" blah blah blah!

It is such a breath of fresh air to finally read some truly meaningful "field data" !

I will say this though to my original question of 300 yard drop losing 120 fps. I asked that in reference to chopping a barrel from 24" down to 21"

Now that I have FINALLY settled on a 22.5" barrel as being the optimum for the 338 Winchester Magnum based on limited bullet drop results, little difference in muzzle blast and improved accuracy over 24"; I would like to have the drop tables calculated between 3162 fps and a loss of say 75 fps going to a 22.5" barrel : 3087?

Even could round off; 3150 vs 3075 fps at 300 yards?

quote:

Even could round off; 3150 vs 3075 fps at 300 yards?

Sure.
Again, I will use 2.1" as the mid-range high, for the reasons stated in the previous post.

Slow, 3075fps, 185 TTSX BC G7: .205, and 3884 ft.lbs muzzle energy.
* 100 yard: +1.9",
* zero 227 yards,
* 300 yard drop -4.7".
* 10mph wind drift: 6.1"
* 300 yard remaining energy: 2546.

Fast, 3150 fps, 185 TTSX BC G7: .205, and 4075 ft.lbs muzzle energy
* 100 yard: +1.9",
* zero: 233 yards,
* 300 yard drop: -4.1"
* 10mph wind drift: 6.3"
* 300 yard remaining energy: 2686.

So you lose a max of 75fps and an extra -0.6" inches at 300 yards.

Of course for Alaska, it would be recommended to do a chronograph test at the anticipated temperature (barrel + ammo), especially if temperatures will be around 32*F. Even temperature stable powders can shoot a bit slower.

Also, for the record, here are the statistics if the 225gn TTSX is limited to 3884 ft.lbs muzzle energy:
--, 2788fps, 225 TTSX BC G7: .253, and 3884 ft.lbs muzzle energy.
* 100 yard: +2.0",
* zero 210 yards,
* 300 yard drop -6.7".
* 10mph wind drift: 5.9"
* 300 yard remaining energy: 2721.

I would probably prefer the 225 TTSX for moose, and it is still great for everything to 300 yards
(--even 400 yards--with only a -20.3" drop, 10.8" wind drift, verses the 3075fps 185gn at 400 yards -16.0" and 11.7" wind drift.)
400 yards is a very long way and -20" is still "on hair" with a moose. Rest the crossbar on the top of the back. The 225TTSX will provide significantly better penetration on an angling shot. But the 185 will handle a moose and the 2" savings on drop might obviate the need for a range finder on caribou if pushing 250-350 yards: aim 1/2-1/4 down from top of back hump.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
I shot a cape buffalo in the face a few years ago, so, yes, it's relevant.

And yes, we disagree.
For a simpler thought experiment, just set the line-of-sight zero to 300 yards for both and then there is ZERO difference in drop at 300 yards.

So the answer could be "zero."
But to say that there is zero difference in drop for the two speeds is obviously not correct or helpful, either.

If there were zero drop at 300, then the question would become 'what is the high arc midrange?' Answer: at 170 yards the slower bullet (2705fps--225TTSX) is 5.7" high, while the faster bullet (2825fps) is 5.1" high, totals (max height+drop) of 5.1 and 5.7" a difference of 0.6".

NB: As one moves the zero in from 300 yards towards the muzzle, the height at max arc will reduce and the drop at 300 will increase. The totals (max arc plus max drop) will slowly increase toward 14" and their differential increases from 0.6" to 1.5" at 90 yard zero. People set there point-blank ranges differently and they accept different max-arc points. If someone wants to compare drops, then they should keep the max-arc the same. If they want the lowest differential, then the solution is to set the zero at the maximum intended range. If a different max arc than 2.1" is desired, then a person can set that.

3" max height is sometimes used. That produces a 242 yard zero. Drops of -4.3 and -5.6 and totals of 7.3" and 8.6" and a differential of 1.3"

PS: I ran the data on a 260 yard zero and, yes, the slow-bullet drop was -3.3" and the fast-bullet drop was -3.0". BUT the mid-point height for the slow bullet was +4.0" and the mid-point plus for the fast bullet was 3.6", giving total spreads of 7.3" (slow) and 6.6" (fast), with a 0.7" differential. I no longer like playing with a 4" high arc at the most common shooting range, though I have done that for about 150-200 game animals. Yes, it can work very well by learning to compensate "low" when over 100 yards, but with faster bullets a person can reduce that mid-range arc, and I find that more useful overall. My son and I both use +2" as a max, mid-range arc.
Mid-range +2" provides easier and safer hunting when around dangerous game, including face shots.

Accuratereloading is a very friendly forum as compared to some others. Hope you have a good hunting season.

416,

Thanks Bro.!

Basically 0.5" at 300 yards; very acceptable!

Of course with today's modern range finder's being so accurate, the knowledge of attempting a 300 yard shot is almost instantaneous!

Also my choice in scope's is the VX-2 LR reticle. Sight in the bottom dash at exactly 300 yards and the range finder takes care of the rest. It really is a simple matter of walk-up tuning to determine the critical 125-250 yard trajectory and where they print on paper above the line of sight. Range finder does everything!

Corey

You guys are hammering tongs that's fer sure. I'll toss in my 2 bits. ( inflation ya know )

I've had 338 Win mags with barrels from 20" that has been Mag Na Ported. Up to 24" .
The 20" gave 338/06 velocities. If the 338/06 had a 22+ " barrel. The 22" was my sweet spot barrel length and the 24" was fine. . As I be had and hunted 8 or 9 stainless Ruger 338 Wins. I have quite a bit of experience with them. I didn't experience much velocity loss worth talking about with the 22" my favorite load was the 275 gr KBC bullet going 2640- 2660 fps. Pushed by 4831 . . Had a Slimline KDF brake on that rifle and really enjoyed it.
I know this doesn't answer any questions or solve the problem. But , 22" or longer is my pick. For a 338 Win mag. But push came to shove, I would prefer 21.5" over 25" for where and how I hunt.

21.5" or 22.5" are good choices for velocity but 21.5" is entering the territory of increased muzzle blast therefore 22.5" is probably the superior choice for that reason alone; especially since Barnes published such new hot data for their TTSX's. And the fastest load(RL17) was also the most accurate!

If you had a muzzle brake on a 20" barrel you obviously weren't too concerned about muzzle blast so max load some TTSX's; chop it down to 21.5" and go feed your family!

Corman

How do you expect to get the "facts" if you do not know how the rifle is sighted in..Forget this BS and sight your rifle in properly. I see quotes wherein rifles are sighted in at 100 yards and drop is determined from that..That won't get you much on an elk mountain, albeit you could be a internet hero tossing out figures!

My .338 Win. with 225 gr. Accubonds at 2913 FPS is sighted in 3 inches high at 100 yards, strikes 4 inches high at 200 yards and dead on at 275, 6 to 7 inches low at 300 and 13 inches low at 350 and 25 to 30 inches low at 400 yards. and that's actual testing that I do with all my guns. With a good rest on a rock and my jacket under the gun, I can hit an elk everytime at 400 with just a tad of air between the cross hair and the back...Since I do that on the range it includes my wiggling on and off, and that's pretty close to printed specs that I presume are taken with better than my benchrest...

I can't foresee the need for delving into reloading books and the internet to figure out how my how my rifle shoots at various ranges and accept the writte word..

One needs to shoot the ranges and write the specs on a piece of tape stuck on this rifle stock IMO...Im speaking from a hunters standpoint. Long range shooting at a thousand yards is not my thing...

I use a 338WMG for my job. I had a 21.5 inch barrel (trendy length) heavy weight. After one season I sold the rifle a sako 85 Kodiak.

I bought a new Sako 85 with a 24.5 inch Barrel. it is a keeper ! same rifle but the 21.5 inch barrel is too short... you can argue what you want !!! a 338 WMG needs more

so my point of view the perfect length for a 338WMG would be 23 inch.

from 23 inch and up: you avoid blast, loud crack and you get top velocity, very confortable to shoot.

The barrel length that is best with a .338 is the one that suits the shooter. I like a 24 inch .338 for no particular reason other than I shoot the gun I own extremely well, and it kills elk at 350 to 400 yards extremely well with the 225 gr. Accubond or 210 Noslers. Ive also had great luck with the 250 gr. Sierra BTSP, and it shoots as flat as the 210 in my rifles.

Well, I personally do not focus on the velocity figures but rather on the balance and feel of the rifle. As I am a tall guy I simply feel better with 26 inch rifle barrel, therefore all my rifles have carried 25 – 26 inch barrels.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
If we do not view 150 fps as important and these agonizing to and fro's about this and that or the aspects in the minutia of all things shooting we may just as well give up and simply resign ourselves to shoot everything with a simple 30-06 !

What length of barrel should it have?


Okie John

338 Win ?

At least 26 inches !

It's simple ! cartridges are typically used and utilized to shoot at their maximum potential.
I have not seen a cartridge developed that is intentionally loaded to 50% or 75 % of its potential. Accuracy ( precision) typically is also at its best at near maximum density loads.

The 338 Win's potential comes to the fore not at 20 inches or 22 inches. The efficiency of this cartridge demands a 26 inch tube hence Winchester and Browning's propensity to offer it as such.

Now this does not mean one cant shoot it from a 20 inch tube or anything that one desires but if one were to use it below potential then there are better options.

a fully loaded 338-06 or similar is inherently more accurate ( precise) than a below potential 338 Win.

I pretty much agree with Alf, Ive found the 9.3x62 and the .338 Win to perform its best, especially with heavy bullets in a 26 inch tube, add to that that I shoot better off hand with a 26 inch tube, but I have to admit, a 24 inch barrel in a .338 Win is likewise suitable for me.

I would not have any other magnum belted case caliber in less than a 24 inch barrel, and prefer 26 in most cases such as the hot 284 and 30 calibers. To each his own on this subject but most of the short tube magnum guys I know, wish they had not circumsized their magnum.

I view it slightly different. After many years of trying to get the most velocity out of any given rifle . I've come to prefer rifles that are fun to have with me. And that pretty much means having a barrel that is not too long ! . Please let me state that if someone likes great big rifles , I'm not trying to change that. . I have found that short fat barrels hang and swing well. And with a short barrel a barrel band along stud is not necessary. For true long range shooting then the most velocity that can be gotten from a certain volume of powder and B.C. the better. As it reduces wind drift. But otherwise a more moderate velocity works fine. The inherent accuracy with short stiff barrels is well known but wind drift is also well known. So in a way it's a wash. When I decide to move up to true long range shooting I will use long barrels. But for hunting I pack the shortest barrel that gives me the velocity I need and the handling qualities I want. For a 338 Winchester a total barrel length of 24 " is not unreasonable and 22" of Burn gives plenty of velocity to kill anything the 338 would normally be used for.
I've Never been one for max point blank range. There is too much chance of too high an impact. I use a 200 yard zero and then use my reticle for longer range shots. But then I use reticle for that purpose. Where I hunt 400 yards is a good far poke and yet it's not too far. For beyond that if I need to, I dial turrets but hold for wind. And since Tac scopes are designed and built for abuse . Even with the 338 I've had some scopes go gunny bag . Even the much revered Leupold scopes. My favorite reticle is the one in the SWFA SS Classic 1-4x24 DMMQ. It has a built in range finder that is easy and intuitive for 2' 3' +6' tall and 18" wide out to 800 yards. That will cover Most all hunting from coyotes to moose.

quote:

Originally posted by hogfarmer:
23.5" for mine, because it's a handy length for me.
(I don't blame you for not choreographing, folks look silly when they dance with their rifles.)

That's funny right there

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The efficiency of this cartridge demands a 26 inch tube hence Winchester and Browning's propensity to offer it as such

Good grief, then by this logic I assume a 30-06 should wear a 26" barrel!

AGAIN, the Bore-Volume (BV), Case Capacity (CC) Ratio of the 338 WM is IDENTICAL to that of the 30-06. And therefore, they lose nearly IDENTICAL amounts of velocity for every inch cut off the barrel. I actually know this, not just because of the BV/CC Ratio, but because I've owned both with various barrel lengths, and cut both shorter. Theory proved by practice.

Your "logic" only proves yours is all theory and no experience when it comes to the 338 WM and various barrel lengths.

Brad:
With respect what do you know what my experience is of short barrelled 338's ?

SAKO Finnbear 338 fullstock with 20 inch barrel
This picture hails from 1974.
This is one of a trio of Sako's in this configuration that I have, a 375 H&H and a 7x57 all with 20 inch barrels.

Kinda looks like Ross Seyfried 1974 vintage in that picture.
My favorite gun guy still walking around.

I wouldn't go shorter than 22", but anywhere from 22" to 26" seems fine to me.

I agree 100% with .416 Tanzan on this...

Ray, sighting in so that you are 4 inches high at 200 means half your bullets are going to be higher than 4 inches. Granted, if you can shoot 1/2 MOA from the field, the highest will only be 5 inches, but if you can only shoot 6 inch groups, you will have some bullets hitting as high as 7 inches at 200. That is insane. Game at 200 is far enough you have to aim carefully, but often close enough you don't have all day to get into position. The last thing I want to worry about is holding a bit low at 200.

Sight in at 200 and use a holdover reticle if you need to shoot farther.

ALF, apparently you've never used a 22" 338. I HAVE. 4 of them to be precise. I've also had them 24 and 26", so unlike you I'm not guessing.

And, unlike you, I'd never go 20" on a 338 WM.

I'd still love to hear how you arrived at the magic number of 26" as "optimal"... and why isn't that "optimal" for the 30-06? Still waiting to hear on that one...

Brad:
"Every gun is built with a specific pressure time curve in mind"

I dont know who coined this but it holds true.
if we look at the internal ballistics cycle we see that there are two efficiencies at play.

The first is ballistic efficiency, better described as thermodynamic efficiency defined as the ratio of kinetic energy of the bullet to the total potential energy of the propellant.

For our ballistics system we are looking at about 33% ie only 33% of the total energy end up as kinetic energy.

The second efficiency is termed piezometric efficiency. This refers to the ratio of mean pressure over the whole ballistics cycle to the peak pressure of the gun. The term was coined by a ballistician named Serge Zaroodny of Aberdeen.

This parameter is central to the design of conventional guns and cannons. This parameter is set by the designer to achieve a certain goal.

It is a defining principle that determines gun behaviour

It lack of or rather poor application of, on the one side and use of on the other caused the demise of many Allied tankers in WW2!

It is also the principle that underlies the improvements made by modern loadings such as Hornady's super performance loads.


The modern version of the 30-06 in itself is a product of manipulation of the principle of piezometric efficiency. The great Elmer Kieth when working for the military worked on improving the piezometric efficiency of the 30-06 by changing the point of primer ignition in the case and then using duplex and triplex loads.

The caloric value of a load of propellant cannot really be changed, simply because there is a ceiling of how much nitrogen can be added to the mix. So the only way we can alter propellant performance effectively is to alter the web and or to add retardants and coatings which changes the burn rate of the propellant and thus the pressure time curve.

By doing this the pressure time curve is shifted to the right or the left increasing or decreasing the mean barrel pressure relative to the peak pressure. There is a peak pressure and mean barrel pressure ceiling determined by the gun design.

The purpose is to achieve the best results in terms of velocity, accuracy and longevity of the barrel and gun parts without breaking the gun.


This shift in the pressure profile pushes the position of burnt down the barrel increasing velocity, but as a unwanted side effect it increases muzzle blast and unfortunately increases inter shot variability. (Makes is less precise)

The muzzle blast is a problem. In the case of the 76mm Tank gun put on Sherman after the battle of the Bulge the dust cloud raised by firing the gun was so big the tankers could not see the enemy.

If we look at this curve in terms of projectile travel we see that the curve flattens off over distance so that velocity gain reaches a plateau.

Once the "sweet spot" in velocity gain is reached there is little value in making the barrel any longer. At this point doubling the barrel length only adds 10 % in velocity. So infinitely long barrels are also no good.

Very long barrels bring their own problems in that they are not portable, they handle with difficulty and manufacture is difficult because of warpage etc.

If we look at cartridge like the 30-06 vs the 338 we see that for the same barrel length using the same powder and same bullet weight ( say a load of 4064 behind a 200 gr bullet loaded to maximum allowable pressure the 338 has a 300 fps gain on the 3006. This because the 338 has a much larger chamber. ( much larger charge)

The pressure time curve for the two look very different.

The original 30-06 is essentially a medium velocity gun and the 338 a high velocity gun.
Modern 30-06 loads have actually changed the piezometric efficiency profile of the 30-06.

The muzzle pressure on the 338 is much higher.
In order to reduce the unwanted effects of a higher muzzle pressure we can lengthen the barrel. It will increase velocity but it would shift the position of burnt back from the muzzle thereby decreasing intershot variability.

The original 30-06 was actually designed for a 30 inch barrel and when Springfield submitted the rifles for testing they did so with 22 inch, 24 inch, 26 inch and 30 inch barrels.

The Military set a velocity requirement of 2300 fps and the 24 inch barrel attained this.
The 22 inch was declined because of muzzle blast
The 26 and 30 inch was to long and cumbersome for a infantry weapon.

There is this concept of a "optimal gun" and "optimal load"

It basically speaks to the fact that if you have a existing guns or guns and it does not meet a requirement you can by manipulation of the internal ballistics cycle alter a load to meet the requirement ( to an extent) we can manipulate the piezometric efficiency of the gun by playing with the load within the boundaries set by a pressure ceiling.

An example of this being that during WW2 the Allies were armed with tanks and tank guns that did not have the capability of taking on superior German armour and guns. So without actually redesigning a new gun system mathematicians worked out how to improve the ballistics capability of existing guns by manipulation of the ballistics cycle.

We basically do this when we reload.

You go out buy a gun or have a gun built and now you work up a optimal load to suit that particular gun.

We do by trial and error, working up loads so to speak. Most people wo reload recreationally do not know that this is actually what they are doing. By choosing different propellants from a burn rate range they are altering the ballistics cycle to achieve a desired result

On a larger scale this is done mathematically and then tested.

The "optimal gun" concept is done in a manner where the ballistic parameter of the shot is set based on requirement and then a gun gets designed to fire that load.

In a way buying pack of factory ammo and then building or designing a gun that will behave optimally with that factory ammo !

Our problem is when we buy a pack of factory ammo and a factory gun neither the gun or ammo can be manipulated to be "optimal"

Again on a larger scale this was done and is done when the defence force asks for a gun to meet a specific ballistic requirement and a gun system is built to meet that requirement.
The shot payload is pre determined and they then have to engineer a gun to work optimally with that load.

Example in 1914 a new threat emerged in the form of the use of aircraft and AA guns were required where the shell would explode at a set point on the shells trajectory ie at a certain elevation.

All of our early modern military guns evolved in this way. The defence forces set the requirement and manufacturers had to submit their guns and loads for trail.

It is interesting that the early infantry guns all had very long barrels. With the advent of the use of modern nitro powders the velocity race was unleashed. Even is the sporting gun world the likes of Brennecke, Mauser, Gerlich and Halbe and even Weatherby produced guns with relatively long barrels. 26 27, 28 and 29 inch barrels were the norm. Gerlich and Halbe set world records for velocity with a Ross case derivative fired from a 28 inch barrelled Mauser

I have a collection of British sporting guns and they almost all have longer than normal barrels. My early Rigby's 25 inches and WR 318's have long barrels. My original 500 Jeffery has a 26 inch barrel. The original 505 Gibbs had a 26 inch barrel.

This is the small arms Renaissance 1850 to 1900
With the oblong bullet and the use of nitro based propellants velocity went up, bore size decreased , and sectional density increased.
With this potential lethality went up exponentially and effective long range accuracy increased dramatically !

Azwriter,
Your post comes as a surprise, and your specs not correct and obviously you have never used that method..Jack O'Connor sighted in my rifle some many years ago at 3 inches high at 100 yards. and I have shot with that sight in with every rifle Ive ever owned,as did Jack. I guided him on hunts for Coues and Mule deer when I was a kid..He was instrumental in my love of the hunt.

I will clarify one more time for you and suggest you give it a try..

Sight in at 3 inches high at 100 yards, it will be 4 inches high at 200 and depending on caliber it will zero at its optimen range..For instance a small caliber like the 25-35 or 30-30 will zero at 3 inches high at 100 yards and dead on at 150 and about 5 inches low at 250 to 300...A 30-06 will be 3 high, 4 high, and spot on at 275, a 270 at 3 high, 4 high and on at 275

I sight in all my guns and then shoot them at 100, 200, 300 and 400, sometimes 500 if the location will allow..On occasion I might have to make a small adjustment for whatever reason. I can hold center mass up to 300 yards at make the hit with a field rest almost every time, and with a top hair line hold I can make a 400 plus yard hit almost every time..I say almost as when the range increases, there is more room for error..I make an minor adjustment between elk and deer btw, but it comes to naturally without having to think about it. holding high or low is part of marksmanship, holding into the wind is part of marksmanship, If I was shooting at 275 with my 30-06 I might make a inch or two hold off either horizontal or vertical, the same as you would with your 200 yard sight in that's really a disadvantage at 400 yards, your guessing with such and not getting the best from your gun IMO..

I suggest that you do some range testing, then tell me what you come up with..

It is surprising that you as a gunwriter don't know this, Its consider a standard practice my many folks that I know, and have read it in many magazines...

No argument with you, just my response to your post, as to how I sight in my rifles and its worked well for me..

Basically I agree with what Alf is saying, but its technical to the ultimate.

Ray:

O'Connor hunted before the advent of laser rangefinders. I used exactly this kind of zero myself before LRs - in fact, I sometimes used a 400 yard zero and just held at the bottom of the brisket for anything less than what I thought was 350.

I am not sure what "specs" I have that are incorrect - you assume your bullets are all flying in a straight line, but in fact, they are not. Half are above your theoretical trajectory, half are below. Half are to the right, and half are to the left (another thing to consider when looking at wind drift error, but that is another story). How much above your line of sight half those bullets might be is a function of your rifle's accuracy and your ability to hold.

As for holding "low" at 200, you are basically not holding center of mass anymore, so why not just zero at 200?

With laser rangefinders and holdover reticles, there really is no reason not to zero at 200 IMO. Like I said, I used to use the 300 yard zero for flat shooting rounds, but now every centerfire rifle I shoot is zeroed at 200. I don't think I have ever shot over an animal since then, which is something I can't say when I used a 300 yard zero.

quote:

With laser rangefinders and holdover reticles, there really is no reason not to zero at 200 IMO. Like I said, I used to use the 300 yard zero for flat shooting rounds, but now every centerfire rifle I shoot is zeroed at 200. I don't think I have ever shot over an animal since then, which is something I can't say when I used a 300 yard zero.

Technically, I zero at 100 yards whatever provides a max arc of +2.1". Often that is 2.0" at 100 yards, but with some of the faster loads at 3000-3400 fps I need to sight in at 1.8", etc.

Likewise, I sight in all of our rifles 2.5" high at 100 yards. Typically they're dead on at 25 yards, then at 250 yards for our 270 Wins, 200 yards for the 375 H&H and 175 yards for the 500 Jeffery. Holdover from there on out.

AZ,
I say I can hold center mass, not saying I do..What I do as a rule is hold low behing the shoulder to 200 yards and I will be 3 or 4 inches high with the shot, if Im 8 inches high I still get a hit..beyond 200 I hold center mass or a tad higher, and that allows for a lot of drop into my target..beyond that I allow a air space over the back, and drop one in..if I miss I misjudged the distance..Its been working for me for years..but your correct in that I don't use range finders or ranging optical scopes, they confuse old men, and I get ugly when I tell someone to shoot that one and he is messing with a range finder or his scope magnification or trying to figure which retical to aim with.

But I do understand what your saying and I realize I would have to involve that in my shooting should I ever own such a scope and a range finding device. BTW I do have one of each, but have not hunted with them, nor have have I found the need so far..If I do then I will use a 200 yard zero like the scope directions and you suggest and the rangefinder to determine how to hold, but opps my elk just ran off!!

I will admit however that my good friend rancher where I hunt has a rangefinder and it does help my hold when he says its 410 yards. but its the same hold I would have taken anyway.

I probably won't change as I have used my 3" method successfully for more than 65 years and to sot in my ways to change not to mention that I don't think I want to pack all this new paraphanalia (sp ?) as it tends to become shooting as opposed to hunting IMO and Im opposed to loading down myself with things that take the place of water, jerky, cookies and candy while I hunt, not to mention my hearing aids, ear plugs, ammo, and all manor of stuff.

Keep up the good work.

Mr. Atkinson, I've used a similar method for nearly 30 years. I use a 300 yrd. zero, which is approx. 4" high at 100 yrds. and approx. 10" low at 400 yrds. For big game, merely "hold on hair" to a little over 400 yrds. The only problem may be on a small targets at peak trajectory ( approx 6" at 175 yrds.), and I generally don't get too excited about coyote and such while big game huntging. While "I wiil" attempt to kill a coyote if given the opportunity,just gotta remember to aim low around 200 yrds. So...... unless it's a very long shot, there is no need for a rangefinder. No time used/wasted ranging...... rifle up - elk down! Seems to greatly simplify things. memtb

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
AZ,
I say I can hold center mass, not saying I do..What I do as a rule is hold low behing the shoulder to 200 yards and I will be 3 or 4 inches high with the shot, if Im 8 inches high I still get a hit..beyond 200 I hold center mass or a tad higher, and that allows for a lot of drop into my target..beyond that I allow a air space over the back, and drop one in..if I miss I misjudged the distance..Its been working for me for years..but your correct in that I don't use range finders or ranging optical scopes, they confuse old men, and I get ugly when I tell someone to shoot that one and he is messing with a range finder or his scope magnification or trying to figure which retical to aim with.

But I do understand what your saying and I realize I would have to involve that in my shooting should I ever own such a scope and a range finding device. BTW I do have one of each, but have not hunted with them, nor have have I found the need so far..If I do then I will use a 200 yard zero like the scope directions and you suggest and the rangefinder to determine how to hold, but opps my elk just ran off!!

I will admit however that my good friend rancher where I hunt has a rangefinder and it does help my hold when he says its 410 yards. but its the same hold I would have taken anyway.

I probably won't change as I have used my 3" method successfully for more than 65 years and to sot in my ways to change not to mention that I don't think I want to pack all this new paraphanalia (sp ?) as it tends to become shooting as opposed to hunting IMO and Im opposed to loading down myself with things that take the place of water, jerky, cookies and candy while I hunt, not to mention my hearing aids, ear plugs, ammo, and all manor of stuff.

Keep up the good work.

Well Ray, you have certainly killed more elk than me. But I will add of the nine bulls I have killed, 8 were less than 100 yards. The other did require a RF and was a long way off. So I will stick with my method.

quote:

Originally posted by memtb:
Mr. Atkinson, I've used a similar method for nearly 30 years. I use a 300 yrd. zero, which is approx. 4" high at 100 yrds. and approx. 10" low at 400 yrds. For big game, merely "hold on hair" to a little over 400 yrds. The only problem may be on a small targets at peak trajectory ( approx 6" at 175 yrds.), and I generally don't get too excited about coyote and such while big game huntging. While "I wiil" attempt to kill a coyote if given the opportunity,just gotta remember to aim low around 200 yrds. So...... unless it's a very long shot, there is no need for a rangefinder. No time used/wasted ranging...... rifle up - elk down! Seems to greatly simplify things. memtb

Just remember, at 175 yards, half the bullets you shoot are going to be higher than 6 inches - if you can hold a four inch group in the field at that range, you have some bullets striking 8 inches high. That is too high for me - even on an elk - or moose for that matter.

Like I said, most of my elk have been less than 100. If they look to be 200 and I have time, I range them; it takes less time to range them than it does to estimate the range IMO. I always ask guides to guess various trees, rocks, etc. while we are glassing. Often they nail it. But not a one has been perfect, even at 300 yards.

I shot a red stag in Scotland last year at 340. We spooked him coming down from a mountain and he took off running. My stalker stopped him with a roar and told me to shoot. Instead, I broke out the rangefinder and ranged him, then whacked him. Only took a few more seconds, but I knew if I just threw up the gun, I had a good chance of missing.

AnotherAzWriter, I mentioned that I'm 6" or so high at 175 yrds., and therefore I try to maintain composure during the shot, and remember to aim a little low! It's really not that difficult, if you've used the same rifle and sight in for almost 30 years! The only thing that can make things a little tough is, if in timber, trying to "thread it thru" horizontal limbs! Of course, the timber wouldn't be real thick to be able to shoot in excess of 100 yrds. memtb

AZ,
I know that Im 4 inches high at 175 or 200 yards, and I always use a low behind the shoulder aiming point, therefore if I am 6 inches or 10 inches high I will kill the elk or Moose, they are pretty deep in that portion of the body..I can't remember when I missed an elk that I shot at, I have missed deer at times but not sure why, and like you say my misses on deer are mostly high, but Im pretty sure its shooter error, cuz in my case it is as easy to wiggle off targer as it is to wiggle on!