Long range chuck blasting can be done but I don't think that I did it right in the past. When I had a spotter then I was sucessful but I could never see the bullets hit from any gun and friends have told me that they can.

So I had a .264 Win (1-12) for chucks and a 7mm Mag too but never really got into it. I did not have a range finder either. So it can be done but I did not do it right. So I reverted back to just getting closer.

Where I hunt chucks now in VT I am having a problem finding enough to hunt. A trip is planned soon.

When I used the 30/06 for chucks that was the only rifle I had besides the .222 Rem. I recall shooting at a chuck that was far away and guessing the range short. The 125 Sierra richoceted in front of the chucks den and nailed the hapless chuck. There is a lesson in that story.

Now I have a pet .300 H&H and it has a 3.5X10 on it. I may try that at long range. Right now it's sighted with 165 SBT's. I don't know if I will change the load for chucks. I don't think so.

I have shot g-hogs with 22=250 222, longest shot with a 22-250 was about 330 yds. a friend of mine uses a 270 exclusively 130gr bullet. last year were were using 44 mags. 210 sierra hp and he shot one at about 15 yard and the dam thing got up and ran in a hole. go figure. it has to be about shot placement range and caliber in that order.
Dave

On long range shooting of varmints with regular cartridges.

If you look at the ballistic coeficient of a .243 70 gr Nosler it's .310 and for example the Sierra .308 125 gr has a Ci of .330! They are both capable of 3600 fps with their respective bullets.

Thus a .300 mag will shoot as flat and drift as well or better than a premier "varmint" round.

Just a thought about long range varminting.

The experience mentioned with the 44 Magnum on the groundhog is not surprising. The 44 Mag's bullets, and the velocity at which they are launched, are most often best suited to larger game at 50 to 75 yard ranges.

This is exactly why the 125 grain .357 Magnum vastly outperforms *any* of the 44 Magnums on human adversaries. The 125 grain bullet opens up fast, and dumps all of its energy into the soft tissue of whatever mammal it hits. On a larger, tougher beast, this would be undesirable. On a hell bent felon threatening the life of a police officer or homeowner, it's the *best* medicine. The .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP is the number one handgun cartridge for one shot stops. A whopping 97% of the time, as recorded by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow.

The 44 Mag overpenetrated, and dropped very little of its massive payload of energy into the groundhog. Had that been a deer, with more mass to resist the bullet, you'd have had a dead deer on your hands, I feel sure.

Don, I agree that sticking with the standard hunting load when hunting varmints is a good thing. This will help build confidence in those longer shots on larger game, which your 300 H&H would seem tailor made for. I can *just* see the bullet strike from my .270 at extreme 6 o'clock in it's 9 power scope (3 to 9 Redfield). I can see a bullet strike a rock in the 3 to 9 scope on my .243 at 400 yards. Perhaps the extra magnification of the 10X is cutting the field of view just enough to hide the bullet strike from you. Dial down a tad, shoot at a rock, and see what happens... By the way, when I can't find a groundhog to shoot at, I set up some softball sized rocks at various ranges and practice on them. I don't shoot more than five or six times on each trip to the field, but I do like to hear my rifle go bang, so I always shoot at something when I go varmint hunting...

With a 300 yard zero, just about any bullet fired from any cartridge worth its salt at long range, will yield the following:

3 to 5 inches high at 100 yards. Pretty much point blank on a deer at that range.

4 to 6 inches high at 200 yards. Again, in the kill zone of a deer or elk at that range. Easily compensated for with *hold under* for more precision.

Zero at 300 yards. By the time we get to 300 yards, our ability to estimate hold over/under is diminishing rapidly. For this reason, the 300 yard zero is desirable in my opinion. Now our holdover amounts (past 300 yards) will be smaller numbers and therefore be a bit more accurate when we estimate them.

12 inches low, + or - an inch or so at 400 yards. On a distant varmint, just hold over his *center mass* (not his head!) 12 inches and you'll get him. On a deer or other such game, hold at the top of his back, just over the kill zone.

And at 500 yards, you'll be dropping 3 feet, + or - about 5 inches depending on the cartridge and bullet. Your estimate in hold over won't be precise enough to worry whether the actual amount of drop is 40 inches or 32. Hold the rifle as *level* as possible when holding over this much at long range. Canting the rifle right or left will result in a miss. The bullet will fall low, and left or right of the target.

It may sound incredible, but if you look at trajectory tables (the ones in the back of the Nosler manual are good) you'll note a couple of things.

One, there ain't no such thing as a "flat shooting rifle," and two, there is a whole lot less difference between the trajectories of major hunting rifle cartridges than many folks realize. I'm excluding the 30-30's and the 45-70's of course, but again, for most of the commonly used, large game cartridges, the above numbers are very close.

So I like a 300 yard zero. But that's just me!

Dan Newberry
green 788

[ 06-26-2002, 17:47: Message edited by: green 788 ]

For low velocity hits on woodchucks a vital area must be hit. But as I mentioned before it's not that easy to do at long range. Of course it's possible to try but that's not the way it works out. To retrace my steps the target is only a woodchuck which is a pest. So at long range the guts are hit quite often or at least it seems they are as they end up all over the place when hit with a powerful bullet. So to "bag" a chuck at long range you should spatter them.

I have not read enough of the Evans and Marshall studies to have an opinion on the effect when a bullet hits a "non vital" area. But this is of interest to me. Here in this forum most will not discuss this and revert to the mantra that it's bullet placement period and it does not matter what hits the animal in a "non-vital" area. I know this to be wrong from hunting chucks but I don't have enough evidence to carry this over to bigger game but I have some experiance but as I said I can't discuss it here.

But the bottom line is this. If you hit a chuck in the guts with a "30/06" you will get it. If you do it with a .22LR standard velocity you will not get him. This is a fact.

Good points, Don, all...

I notice that the groundhogs hit at 335 yards (that's a distance I often shoot them at since there is a rock fence that they come up on at that range) with my 130 grain .270 bullets are not as torn up as those hit at longer ranges. At the 335 yard line, there is always a lemon sized exit wound.

The ones hit at ranges closer to 400 yards show more damage, presumably because the bullet is upset more on impact due to its lower velocity at that range.

The groundhog I shot yesterday at 95 yards with my 30-06 (180 grain Sierra Gameking at about 2750 fps) was dead on impact of course, but the exit was about golf ball sized. That bullet had barely begun to work when it reached the other side of the groundhog. At 350 to 400 yards, I'd say the destruction would have been much greater...

Yes, the bullet placement gurus are omnipresent, as are those who say stalking the animal and getting as close as possible is the best way to ensure a clean kill. Both of these arguments are so obviously correct that they should go without saying. And by combining the two philosophies, one could argue that a .22 LR is adequate for just about any animal on the continent! It's true that many, many deer have fallen to the lowly .22 LR in my part of the world...

We choose high powered rifles because we know that we cannot always get within spitting distance of our quarry. And we certainly can't guarantee ourselves of a perfectly placed shot everytime.

Dan Newberry
green 788

Green788-you've hit upon one of my all time favorite pastimes. The shooting of chucks at range that is. My best summer so far is 457 of the buggers, all taken with either a 240 Page or a 7 Mashburn Super.

We pretty much leave the "chip shot" (300 or less) alone and go for the longer ranges. This for me is part of the reason why I use the bigger rounds for them. I like to see them fly apart and stop them now!

My favorite rounds now are the 6/06 with a 95 Noz Bt at 3500, a 270 with a 130 Noz Bt at 3200, a 7 Mashburn Super with a 150 Noz Bt and the 340 Wby with a 200 Noz Bt. These all do a fair job of stopping the chucks-grins. As Elmer would say the make a adequate chuck rifle!

To me if you are gonna shoot them at close ranges the 22's are fine, but boring. To me the real chuck rifles start with the 6's on up.

So go with your 06 Imrpoved (that's what I call the 270) and leave the lil guns for gophers and such.

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

FYI, Mark is the only guy you'll ever meet who uses a 22-250 on elk and a 340 Wby on chucks... he's a bit skewed when it comes to rifles and such, but not when it comes to women. He picked (persuaded!) a fine one that'll become his "Mrs. Dog" on July 4th... congrat's and way to go Mark!

BA

Green 788,

I can't account for the greater effect at ranges over 325 yards. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the ones hit at shorter range were hit higher in the ribs so to speak and maybe more of the ones hit a longer range struck a softer area of the animal. I don't think a bullet going slower will do more work in terms of a chuck.

Mark Dobrenski,

You have blasted a lot more chucks than I have. My best year was about 129 chucks. To do that I drove from central CT to New York state to hunt them there. In one day I did get about 22 of them along with a fox and a crow in VT on my best day. That drive to NY takes about 1 1/2 hours each way!

Right now the chuck population is very low on the farms I visit. I see more deer than chucks. We blame the coyotes.

I never stayed with long range chuck shooting for the reasons I gave above. I have/had the rifles but I reverted to getting closer as I said. But I have got a few way out there. I would have to see more chucks to bother to get a range finder.

Don -personally I think it would be great fun to take a "Guide" rifle and sneak those furry lil rodents!--grins!!!

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

by the way I have used my M29 with 250 Keith's to bother a few-it worked just fine

[ 06-27-2002, 05:36: Message edited by: Mark R Dobrenski ]