I know Kiwis like the 270 Win but also that tahr have a reputation for toughness. As one who's kit is going to be quite heavy enough and who is at least twice the ideal age for this lurk:

Would a light 270 Win have enough power and effective range for normal tahr hunting, or is something heavier needed?

Thanks in anticipation

- Paul

can be tough but not tougher than a light 270 or a heavy one either!

270 is used to kill hundreds of Tahr every year,but if you have something bigger that you shoot well bring it.

IMO .270 is adequate, but limits your range of shots. If you're comfortable taking longer shots, 300 yard plus, use something that is a flatter shooting. This will improve your chances of sucess. Bull Tahr are hard to kill if they are not hit correctly with the first shot. Also if they get wounded, they will often go places where they are hard to find.

Nothing wrong with the .270 on Tahr. Use the best quality bullets that set up well to anchor the Bull to the spot. I'm using 140 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claws now as i found the Fail Safes were too hard and behaved like solids. Practice and perfect your point of aim for distance shooting uphill (or down). Good luck.

.270,.280,30'06, 7m Rem Mag, 300 Win are all perfect. Use a good projectile of 130 gr, sight in 3 inch high at 100 yards, know where its shooting at 3 hundred. A good load should be about 3 inch low. And know where to hold at 400 yards and you will have every eventuality covered.
Its just my experiance, but Bulls die as quick as anything else when they havnt seen you, its when they have that can be the issue.
Safest shot is always a chest shot, though my favourite is the point of the shoulder/Base of the neck. A broken spine anchors them to the spot.
More important than calibre is having a rifle you are confident in, and know how to shoot.

I killed mine with a 270 Win with 130 grain bullets. Worked fine.

I was present for a second tahr shot with 270 and 150 grains. Again, it worked fine.

Mate Depends on how close you want to sneak. I have shot them out to 400m with a .300win mag and up close at 80m with a .223 all depends on how good a shot you are and what you are best at using

Thanks guys,
I might go as far as a 270WSM or 7x64 if I find the right one. Good point, Gryphon, I should have seen that one coming.

Here's another one:

Does anyone have any thoughts on either the 3-12 Nikon Monarch or Meopta scopes?

Cheers
- Paul

After looking long and hard at scopes recently and over some time,I looked at Meopta, Zeiss Conquest and Swarovski all in or around 4-12 x 50 config or so.

I bought the Swarovski scope after I researched the research and then some...never looked at the Nikon line but of the two the Meopta would be my pick.

Thanks John,
I did see a Meopta at a price I might manage, though the dude didn't think they had the model with the reticle in the 'first image plane' needed for range-finding/compensation set-ups. Furthermore, he told me that even that concept is now a form of image movement, a view supported by an American website I've found since.

What's the reticle situation in your new Swarosvski? Is it possible to crank the reticle out of centre if you take it far enough? (Not a fault but a point of merit, to my jaundiced eye at least.)

The Wikipedia entry on riflescopes looks like the blind leading the blind (the writer doesn't quite 'get' relative luminosity, for one thing) and doesn't deal with the fine points of this evolution. Not that it matters for tahr hunting but I suspect the Europeans have left the high ground quietly and joined the populist push.

Cheers
- Paul

Anyway, Guys, I finally bought the new rifle yesterday. It's not good-looking, expensive or even a brand or calibre I would have thought of six months ago. I'll take you through the process.

It seems new .280s and 7x64s are rare here, and the dude at our leading purveyors advised against ordering the latter because of the ammo situation.

They had a number of rifles in 270WSM, though. I liked the Winchester EW and its even-lighter, blind-mag cousin, the Kimber, but they cost $1700 and $1800, more than I wanted to spend on this project. My sentimental favorite was a stainless left-over from the old New Haven factory at $1250 but it weighed more than the Remington SPS I'd passed up at $1000 as too heavy for a NZ mountain-backpacking hunt.

So, after time-out to clear the mind, I opted for a 2.8kg Tikka stainless/synthetic for $1160, plus a $90 plastic magazine for when I lose the first one. Yes, I hate that mag sticking out the bottom but three in-line WSM cartridges have to go somewhere. Maybe barrels in that calibre won't last long but, as with F1 motors and hiking equipment, much needs to be sacrificed to get where you want to go.

I've also ordered a 3-12 scope. The Meopta turned out to be a whopper; a German Zeiss for about $1200 had the worst blending of fields of any brand, made anywhere, I've ever seen; $1150 seemed a lot for a Bushnell, even though the Elite's field blending and reticles impressed me the most; so I finally opted for a Nikon Monarch (talked down to $460) with range-compensating reticle. It may not be a Swarovski but I'm pretty sure it's better than the Redfield I'd contemplated - and it might win an argument at home.

Cheers
- Paul

Most of the cartridges suitable for deer will handle tahr fine. A couple of points to think about; a good bull tahr can weigh as heavy as a red stag and will have even heavier muscled and boned front shoulders (if you get to see a tahr jump vertically down a mountainside, 20 or so feet at a time, you will understand why).

TrackersNZ is on the button when he says it is important to make the first shot an anchoring shot as in many cases before you take a shot, you have to consider if you can retrieve the animal if it does drop on the spot. If you decide you can retrieve it, then the last thing you want is a fluffed shot and for the animal make it into a series of bluffs where you cannot go, or see it, to administer the coup de grace.

As for me, I used a 7x61 with 160gr Sierra boattails at 3000fps and nothing ever walked away from that.

As for scopes? I've never really got too carried away with expensive rigs (although I did use a 6x Kahles with fine crosshair only because I got it as a cheap priced ex Police demo scope) except to say you definitely want a waterproof one. The best pair of binoculars you can afford is a better investment. Once you've spotted the tahr and got into position, any reasonable scope will do the job.

Probably old school, but having the latest and fanciest equipment never makes up for placing that first shot properly to anchor the animal. I never saw the need for expensive fancy bullets on our game animals either, the plain Jane but very accurate and long reaching Sierra boattails always brought home the bacon for me. After all Jack O'Connor's (reknown American writer and hunter) wife killed all her African plains game with 160gr Sierras in her 7mm Mauser (19 animals on one Safari).

Best of luck with your hunting, I know you will enjoy the thrill and shear hard work getting a Tahr.

Hi Eagle,
you may recall I started out looking for a 7mm Rem mag to shoot 160s but then a couple of factors came up. One was a health 'excursion' regarding my foot, the other a discussion that evolved on another forum regarding case life in belted magnums.

So, realising Time's chariot is closer than I thought and admitting my 338's cases do tend to split necks, opted for a shorter, lighter setup that doesn't involve a belted case. My adviser doesn't like the 270s either, thinking they are all overbore and throat-eroding - but I probably won't care that long.

I'm thinking of getting some 140gr Barnes TXS - factory loaded by Norma, I think, as a compromise between bullet weight and trajectory.

Thanks for the good wishes
- Paul

270 is almost ideal but the 7mmmag or 300mag will give you a bit extra range for those big old buggers that find a crag that's near impossible to get to without being spotted.
The shock from these magnums seem to anchor game of this size a bit better too which is quite handy in terrain with big drop off's.
Would stick with bullets that are not too hard and will expend their energy within the body. Such as Nosler Accubond's, Solid Base's and Partition's.

I took both of mine with a 6MM Rem. Both bulls were shot at distances of over 300. One was a one shot kill, the other took two.

Thanks Oz and Scotty,
a nice balance of opinion, there. I would have gone for the 7mmWSM but it seems to be going for a Burton. And while I'd like to get a big ole .577 NfB some time, the jab of a 2.8kg .300WSM didn't appeal for some reason, so I might have to get that bit closer with the peashooter.

I'll have a look at what factory loads are available in those Noslers, Adam.

Cheers
- Paul

Looking at tables I see the 150-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip holds up almost into 7mm WSM territory at long range. Winchester loads a black version but no one seems to bring it into Aust.

Are these available in NZ, anyone?

One shop here has 270 WSM Remington 150gr Accutips and they seem even hotter. The company don't seem to list it in this calibre, any more, despite reasonable reviews, however. The bullet doesn't look as strong as the solid-base but fragile BT.

I'm inclined to use the easy-to-get 140gr Nosler Accubonds for normal ranges and maybe keep the heavier plastic-tip stuff in the mag for really long shots where there's less chance of the bullet breaking up. On paper they have similar trajectories.

Does this make sense?

Cheers
- Paul

Just get the one load that shoots best in your rifle and stick with that. The majoriety of your chances will be under 300 yards, In my 280ai, I use the 160gr accubond on everything. Just know where the load you settle on is shooting a 400 and you will have almost every eventuality covered.

Thanks Craig,
Your 160 Accubonds doubtless trump the 270WSM's 140s.

I guess I could get some of these Remington Accutips and see how they perform on close-in permit roos, to see if they hold together
(posthumous hip shots should tell something).

Here is the one that fell to my 270 Win with 130 grain bullets. One shot, straight on and into the chest, and he fell about 500 feet down to us (thank god).

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks Craig,
Your 160 Accubonds doubtless trump the 270WSM's 140s.

I guess I could get some of these Remington Accutips and see how they perform on close-in permit roos, to see if they hold together
(posthumous hip shots should tell something).

Thats a good idea, I do the same here with testing projectiles on big billy goats. A shot on a quartering angle through the back leg and out through the shoulder is the test I put my projectiles through. I'm only happy if the projectile has exited or is sitting under the skin of the shoulder. 130gr Corelokts would do it in my 270. The accubond is good in 7mm, never used them but I imagine the partition would be bang on and the old style Winchester failsafes had that and more.
In all my hunting I'm a big fan of a shoulder shot, but for Tahr I also like to know where the spine is especially the neck part. I'll try and put up a picture with some drawings on it for familiarity.

Pic one, theres no argument just shoot him down through the spine. I more put the pic in to give you an idea of what you will be looking at when you see a 12-13 inch Bull, Horn wize.

Pic Two,

The base of the neck, point of the shoulder will drop him where he stands. The shoulder shot is obvious, I like to break bone so aim towards the front a bit, and the kidney shot can be considered if for some reason the others arnt available but you need to break its spine and stop him where he is. Only done it once, it worked but Now with more animals under my belt, I think I would let him go. The lines shows the outline of him under the hair, there can be 5 inchs or more over the top and 10 or more underneath. its worth remembering when shooting at 400 or so. Hes not really puffed up fully.

Thanks Will and Craig.

Yes, game that comes literally to bag is always a hoot. Once I was out of luck while duckshooting and went to a farmhouse to ask if I could try a nearby lake.

'We don't own it,' the wife said 'but someone shot one there this morning and it flew up and died on our lawn. My son plucked and it's in the fridge. You can have that, if you like.'

I had a special need to go home with something, at least, and said: 'Thanks, very much!'

Hopefully, the duckplucker was not too annoyed.

Meanwhile in Tahrland, they'd better watch out.

I've reserved one packet of the Remington Accutip ammo before the price goes up any more ($87 yesterday, $95 today!) I might run the rifle in with 140gr Accubonds ($51) and then see where the others go.

Cheers
- Paul

Thanks Craig,
have just noticed the new pics of Mike's 'one that got away' if I remember correctly.

Am I right in thinking 12-13 inches is about as big as they get? Compared with red deer, say, picking a big one at a distance must be a problem.

Is there any rule of thumb for picking a good head?

Yes its hard to pick a 13 inch bull from an 11.5

There are a number of things to consider, Body size, How far along their body the mane extends are two of the first indicators of age. Horns that disapear back into the mane and make the ears look small. Horns that are curveing back inwards towards the tips, If side on you can make more than a square of the horn base up the length of the horn. Simple one is the body size and shaggyness, just shoot the biggest one.
I'll see if I can find a pic of a smaller bull.

A couple of my mate Rex's photos of an 10.5-11.5 inch bull. 3-4 years of age.
You can see the mane stops in line with the shoulder, and he just dosn't carry any bulk. From this veiw the horns themselves could be any size, look for growth rings as well, if you can make out more than 6 your on the right track

Thanks Craig,
What the hell did blokes do for hunting info before forums like this?

- Paul

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks Craig,
What the hell did blokes do for hunting info before forums like this?

- Paul

Here in NZ we just took our 303s, 308s, 7mms, 270s, 7mmRMs, etc with plain old cup and core Speers, Hornadys, Sierras, Normas or whatever you happen to have on hand, and slayed into em. Weren't concerned about whether they would get the job done or not, they just did.

Then again what would we do in our twilight years without these forums

I shot 4 or 5 nannies last year with my 7mm08. That rifle with Barnes 140 gr TSX is good enough out to 350 meters. My mate who took me on that trip is from Fairlie area & hunts then all the time & uses a 243 Ruger. I would guess that the 270 is the most commonly used rifle for tahr.

Good luck

Thanks Nakihunter,
sounds like the 270 WSM might make it then.

Yes Craig,
I've been laid up for three weeks but my fingers have done a lot of walking across the keyboard. Even tonight my thoughts have gone as far as Canada, East Africa and now NZ, for whatever they're worth.

Cheers
- Paul

i shot two thar just yesterday, the first was a Nanny standing broadside, @200 yards , put three shots in her before she dropped, she was feeding undisturbeded, the exit holes in her were 2 inches in diam, you could just about see through her with the size of the exit holes, that was a friendly reminder of how tough they can be
Consider useing heavey for cal bullets, the wind plays havoc with light proj, also do your home work on shooting @really steep uphill and down hill angles, better still if you can make use of a range finder that gives you the correected distance at shooting up hill/down hill will save you a lot of grief!!
Daniel

Good for you...I shall refrain from any more except..the Yanks remember the Alamo,I remember the hog deer,you`ll work it out.

Thanks M98,
yes, I'll use at least 140gr or pointed 150gr bullets. I'm thinking about rangefinders. I saw a review of some 10x42 binos that include a rangefinder, though not with the angle calculator - still, damned heavy to have around your neck all day. I wonder if anyone does smaller ones with rangefinders included?

BTW, I'm picking up the rifle Monday. Umble as it is, I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas.

S338
from my experience i would rather have two seperate units, Bino s and range finder, the combination Bino/Rangefinder are just to heavey
The current leica Rangefinders have the inbuilt range correction readout and are smaller than the LRF 1200 which i have
I used the Leica10x32 HD S this trip they were really great light, compact , and the optics are just unbelivable
i will be home sunday night, just drop me a line and i might be able to point you in the right direction as far as your range finder goes
Daniel

Just my veiw, and theres many an argument ver here about best size binos, but 8x30's or 40's is all you need. They are lighter than 10's and its feild of veiw you are really after to cover as large an area of hillside as possable. Also most people have a 9or10 power optical device on top of their rifle that can do the job if your wanting a bit more magnification.
Seperate rangefinder is the way I'd go as well.

Thanks M 98,
The Leicas are the ones I saw reviewed but I can't really afford that sort of stuff, anyway. I might get a humble rangefinder. It may not have the angle compensation technology but my son and I are working on a poorman's substitute for that. Will PM you in a while.

Craig,
In the old days 8x was often considered the highest power able to be hand-held without excess shaking. Maybe elastic harnesses tamp down movement but appear to add strain to the arms while glassing.

As you know I favour 8x25 binos for walking after sambar and am considering using those, with the scope on 12x for verification (as you suggest). I weighed some of my binos and found they doubled in mass with each objective increase: my 8x25 Nikons are about 8oz, the 8x30 Pentax Porro prisms 16oz and Bushnell 8x40s roofprisms about 32oz. I found, when Googling their specs, even standard models of premium brands seemed to follow the same pattern, and roofprisms seemed to have little weight advantage over the Porro prisms.

There were special light-weight models, of course, but they would probably be even further out of my reach.

What is the feeling about those bino harnesses, guys? I can tuck the little 8x25s in a pocket or down the shirt out of the weather but can't see harnessed glasses being quite that adaptable. Do they take much weight off your neck?

Cheers
- Paul