I recently picked up a pre 64 win mod. 70 featherweight in 308. Thinking that this is a neat old rifle, I thought a neat old scope would be the way to go. I had an old Weaver K-3 sitting around collecting dust, so I mounted it and went out back to dial it in. What a great feeling rifle, well balanced, great fit, and pretty darn lite. (7 lb ready to go). This rifle had been around the horn and down the road so she isn't the prettiest thing but it shoots pretty good, about an inch and a half at 100 yds. I shot a nice little buck antelope at 450 yds with it this season and then went elk hunting but never saw a thing.
I've made the loop with these rifles. First: starting with my dads old 30-06 then thinking I need more speed and going the magnum route and now coming back to the standard calibers. This little rifle has found a home for a long long time.

Mike, the loop always leads you back. When you dust off all the advertising crap on the "new" calibers, you're back to the 270, 308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 338.....

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
Mike, the loop always leads you back. When you dust off all the advertising crap on the "new" calibers, you're back to the 270, 308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 338.....

Yep. I own two 7 mags and they have been good rifles, but if I had it to do over again, it would be standard calibers for me.

I'm not bashing magnums, I own 2 of them and like the way they shoot at the range. I am learning to appriciate the fit and feel of a rifle as much or more than the pure bench accuracy of a rifle for hunting purposes.
I know I lucked out with this little rig dropping into my lap like it did. How much time and energy do you spend to get the feel and fit you are wanting in a rifle?

Sounds like a great set-up. I really like the old Weavers. I have a K1.5 with a post reticle on my 300HH and a K2.5 post on my Ruger M44.

Keeping it simple makes shooting more fun for me. 7x57, 30-06 (three of them) and my 300HH. I have rediscovered the joy of shooting by downsizing optics to low-power or no-power (peeps).

there are several of us that would call the 308/270 magnum class rounds.
especially when you look at thier pressures.

And there are a lot of us who do not onsider either the .270 or .308 magnum class rounds.

The expresion "magnum" as applied to firearm cartridges traditionally has litle to do with peak pressures. It was taken from the Champagne magnum...which is a larger than standard bottle of champagne, holding more of the tasty stuff.

Likewise, for cartridges "magnum" was originally (and still generally is) applied to cartridges which hold a significantly larger amount of powder than the "standard" cartridges of the same bore sizes and generate better ballistics by burning larer amounts of a suitable powder.

As "magnumitis" seized the American shooter, some new cartridges were labelled magnums which clearly weren't worthy of the title. That was done to enhance sales, not to accurartely describe the cartridges. The .256 Magnum pistol cartridge is a glowing example.

Anyway, compared to the traditional standard (.30-06) cartridge, the .308 Winchester clearly is NOT a magnum cartridge.

Nor is the .270 Winchester, which IS the standard traditional cartridge of the .277" genre. The .270 Weatherby is rightly titled a magnum because it does hold and use significantly more powder than the "standard (.270 Winchester) to create its better ballistics.

My first bolt rifle was a Winchester Pre 64 Westerner in 264 Win Mag.
I wish I still had that rifle.

The 308 is one of my most favorite cartridges, a Pre 64 Featherweight in 308 is a Jewell for sure.

A real Classic.

Today non magnum carts with lighter premium projectiles work quite well it seems.