LONG ago I thought the 270 was the stuff, and it IS a good round, and I owned a couple, and inherited one, but I'd really get more satisfaction using a 6.5x55 or 7x57, for nostalgia and perhaps a tad less recoil.

It was a lot of hype and many years ago Ed Matunas did an extensive comparison of factory 270 vs 30-06 to see how they fared/stacked up to factory mv claims. The 06 won hands down, many factory 270 loads were under spec, and many various guns, even with handloads would do no better than 2900 fps or so with 130gr. SO, that said, one's experience can vary depending I guess on barrel and chamber variations, as well as ammo used. 200 fps can be meaningful, a marginal difference in trajectory may be had...but the 270 Winchester itself is indeed a good round, likely with 150-160 gr or heavier (proper twist of course-factory 10 may not stabilize heavy custom bullets-no experience), but it may compare with high sd loaded 6.5x55 and 7x57, but it does not give any substantial improvement. I'd reckon a 7x57 AI would be a very top choice in 7mm in a long action, and moderate on recoil and easier on barrels than a magnum. A 7/08 AI does not seem to give a great return on investment, but I bet a 7x57 AI would do much more. Needed, no. Just good loads in either standard 7/08 or 7x57, or even 6.5x55 should run right on the 270 heels.

That 270 I inherited had never been properly broken in-blooded, so off to Colorado years ago loaded with 150gr pt and 52.5 of I 4350 I believe and it may have been doing around 2850. A good load in a 7x57 would likely do about that, and it went end to end on a mulie stopping inside the ham after going all thru it, beginning from the neck as he was facing me from around 250 yds. It worked, so would have many other fine rounds. I can say that all deer I have shot, the closer they were, the more exciting the hunt. They usually were less challenging to my shooting skills, but the hunt itself gave me more adrenaline rush. That is why I did some handgun hunting years ago and want to do it some more, for the challenge but knowing it has and may again in the future cost me some opportunities due to limitations and more difficulty.

Many rounds from a century ago have more capability than all the shooters who never come to AR. They can outrange the shooters ability often times.

The 7x57 is adequate for everything including charging elephant...provided a 175 grain bullet is used.

Using a 95 Mauser in 7 x 57 in orginal but used condition...

Firing 175-grain Nosler Partitions at 2,200 fps...

My brother tool all manners of African plains game. Never needed a second shot.

Guess the 7 x 57 will do.

My old Model 70 .270 (24" barrel) gets 3250 FPS with 130 grain bullets, and just under 3000 FPS with 150's. I had another Model 70 that went a even 3000 with the 150's. These velocities were checked at 70 degrees. I was surprised because in the Hornady book the load of 62 grains of H-4831 was listed at just over 3100 FPS. I use 54 grains of IMR 4350 for the 150 grain bullets.

Those are very good velocities, not sure on pressure? But, I believe many of Ed's test rifles were Remingtons to be honest, not that brand matters, tolerances will though as well as ammo. Some guns just do better as a friend built a 284 and was so disappointed in not doing better speed, he cut off the chamber end and redid into a 7/08. A tight chamber is good for accuracy, but a loose one might allow partial size cases to hold a tad more powder I'd reckon, and then there is bore....land/groove dimensions. I'd imagine the Win had the same 10 twist that most/all 270's have from factory.

Barrels may be slick as well. Are you using Moly? BTW, 52-52.5 was max in my Rem 700 mountain rifle so I never used more with a 150 and 150 shot better in my experience. The ballistic tip vs the 130 version.

quote:

And in my years as a hunter I knew darn few that could consistantly do it over 250 yds.

Well Roger, I bet that I am one of those few people that can do that....

and then after I show you that...

I'll impress you by missing a shot at 50 yds, that a blind man with a sling shot could have made...


cheers
seafire


the proof in the pudding is who brings home the venison and who brings home the tales...

I cannot help much in this topic as C. Boddington is someone who I REALLY admire, and I enjoy SO MUCH his books that the few of them that I managed to grab down here have been read once and again without never ever getting tired of doing it, I even took Safari Rifles to my Honey Moon

God bless Boddington and all those who makes us live african adventures through their stories.

This is specially important for the ones of us who maybe will never be able to afford such trips.

Allowing us to live his adventures through his writing is a way of democratize africa's dangerous game hunting.

L

I have always fancied Craig Boddington's writings. Though I have not always agreed 100%with his opinions, his articles are still some of my favorite.

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo:
I cannot help much in this topic as C. Boddington is someone who I REALLY admire, and I enjoy SO MUCH his books that the few of them that I managed to grab down here have been read once and again without never ever getting tired of doing it, I even took Safari Rifles to my Honey Moon

God bless Boddington and all those who makes us live african adventures through their stories.

This is specially important for the ones of us who maybe will never be able to afford such trips.

Allowing us to live his adventures through his writing is a way of democratize africa's dangerous game hunting.

L

Good post!!

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo:
I cannot help much in this topic as C. Boddington is someone who I REALLY admire,----
God bless Boddington and all those who makes us live african adventures through their stories.L

If Boddington can make some people feel like this, I'd say he is earning his keep. Even Jack London had his detracters. roger

I read the article, and disagree with your rant. Both cartridges are pretty much equal in stopping power, they're equals. I do agree with CB: the 270 Win is indeed a flatter shooting round and thus his conclusion a better plains rifle.

As a person who (in the last two seasons) has recently shot several animals over 250 yards with a 270 ( 307yds, 309yds, 257 yds-mule deer) the flatter shooting 270 Win was nice. On my recent trip to NZ I shot two animals at 296 yds and 307 yds (with a 300 Win though; however, 180gr 300 Win @3000 fps has the exact same tragectory as 130gr 270 Win @3000 fps). This combination (rifle/tragectory) is all one needs. Screw the 7 STW (got rid of mine) and all the RUMs (never had any) etc- those are for people who don't know how to shoot/hold over.

I consider both the the 7x57 and 270 Win cartridges medium size game cartridges at best- period. Both can be loaded heavy etc, but why? Get a 300 Win- better suited for the job (hell for that matter a 7mm Rem).

Both will kill equally, the 270 Win is just a flatter shooter, so CB was correct in his conclusion/opinion(in the article), nothing more nothing less.

Maybe I was harsh and too analytical. My thoughts were CB praised the 270 for plains game, yet seemed to indicate the 7x57 was inadequate in terms of trajectory in another article for the same purpose.

Whatever differences they have loaded at top levels with good bullets must be minute. Are you saying you agree that you cannot accomplish the same thing, with a 7x57 as you can a 270 with the same top loads and identical sight in? I differ in my opinion. CB was glad to have his STW for a 300 yd shot, heck, honestly I have KILLED at 400 with a 6mm BR. I think he is skewed with HOT big capacity rounds, and is not giving due credit to the real performance capabilities of rounds i.e. the 7x57. Honestly folks, at 300 yds, given a common 200 yd zero, how much does a 7x57, 270, or STW drop?

Let me guess, 5-6" STW, 7-8" 270, and perhaps one more inch with a 7x57. That is just a guess, no tables. I bet I am not far off.

Will you MISS with a 7x57 on a deer size animal because you incur 2-3" more drop? Come on folks!

I am not talking stopping power, nor a minute difference in trajectory, I am talking about PRACTICAL REAL WORLD hit or miss due to a VERY small difference in trajectory. So an STW will hit the vitals and a 7x57 would just fail to reach a 300 yd target? Is that it?
Perhaps if you are shooting mice! We are talking 300 not 500 yds.

That said, perhaps he deserves a break for the good he has written, but I take offense at inaccurate information published that is authored by an 'expert' that should know better. I think equal pressure in like 22" barrels, what CB was using in the Ruger 1A, the 270 may hit 3000 with a 140 gr, and a 7x57 would do around 2900. At 300 yds, the 100 fps difference will be less. Drop difference? Enough to say one round is great on plains game, and another needs to be replaced with an STW for a 300 yd shot.

I would like to hear CB reply. So a 7x57 is INADEQUATE on a 300 yd shot? Is that it CB?

That is what I read that you implied. That a 10-4?

I honestly was more disgruntled when Jim Carmichael took credit for the 260, that had been wildcated for decades, and he REALLY should have known it, before he wrote what he did a few years ago.

Trust me, no agenda against CB, but let's get real folks. A well loaded 7x57 is EASILY a 300 yd medium game rifle, just ask Jack O'connor's.......wife!

Interesting thread. When this is over, Craig Boddington's name will be remembered a bit better. Most of us will forget why but I bet we read what he writes next. Fact or fiction, a good writer gets people excited even emotional. Romanticizing anything from the safari to the caliber of a rifle. Those writers who do not do this.....well we don't even know their names.

6.5, according to your very first few words in this thread, "Folks, look at the newstands for his article PRAISING the 270 ", he has done his job well.


He has made the 270 the thing of praise for now. He is not, IMO doing anything wrong for starting a good debate. If we didn't have anything to make our "pet" load,caliber,rifle, etc... We most likely would loose interest in this adventure. Half the fun is learning something new, making something better than someone says it can be and getting excited about it.

Spock from the Star Trek series (treky here ), was an attempt, to help us see that what makes us human is that we don't always look at the facts in a logical way. We make mistakes and often learn more from doing so than if we only worked within the known world. Most great inventions started this way.....WOW....Rant rave.....what was the question again??? Ramblings of an "interesting mind" like, wow that was interesting??? ..

Take care all and have an exciting day.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
ya gotta understand, people who set out to be gunwriters do not live in the same world as the rest of us who have to figure out what we want a rifle for, and then scrape up the $$$ to buy it. Mostly factories give them the rifle to test and let them keep it gratis if the article reads positive; ie "Your life is incomplete unless you have one of these...". The two other pieces of the puzzle are equal parts ego and selling magazines.
If a gunwriter can get a controversy stirred up, even over something as inane as one Shooting Times (IIRC) series where writer A says the 270 is all the rifle you need for NA in the May issue. In the June issue writer B says, BS! the 30-06 is still king. In the July issue writer C says "in the hands of a reloader and skilled rifleman...the 280 Remington will outperform both...". The proletariat eats that sort of stuff, or used to. I wrote for a magazine as a staff writer, almost nine years for one publication. New & different & controversial sells magazines. Editors love responses, especially rabid agreement or disagreement...it means the article got people thinking, and talking about what was written. A tempest in a teapot if you will.

Rich
DRSS

Don't forget too that each month the writer has to find time to sit down at a keyboard and type out somehting his editor will not throw back into his face... and publishing deadlines are as unforgiving as any other kind of deadline.

AD

Allan, your point taken, and I imagine the author's at times have to struggle between what they know/believe and what the audience and editor will accept, so I digress to your point.

It is a shame there sometimes may be a conflict of interest between commercial interest and reality.

Have a great day, and you too Col. CB.

Just for info
in the Guns and Ammo magazine I just received, CB has an article on Plains Game cartridges.

He specifically says the 7x57 will work, its not a long range gun BUT he says it is one of his favorite cartridges......

also, it was another very well written and honest article by Boddington.

Authors write oversimplified articles because other people pay money to read those overgeneralized articles.

It seems that most people on AR shoot, xperiment, evaluate, and own more firearms than the ones who read the bullet magazines.

The late Don Zutz said ( to paraphrase) gun writing is basically a formula, you just change the numbers and bingo a new article.

quote:

Originally posted by hikerbum:
Just for info
in the Guns and Ammo magazine I just received, CB has an article on Plains Game cartridges.

He specifically says the 7x57 will work, its not a long range gun BUT he says it is one of his favorite cartridges......

also, it was another very well written and honest article by Boddington.

My beef was CB when referring to a 300 yd kill with a 7STW (praising having that ctg for that shot IIRC), INFERRED that any lesser ctg would not have done the job, and fallen short. And I take issue with that, as there are only a few mere inches of difference in drop with a 200 yd zero.

I guess "I" perceived something others did not.

Perhaps I was being too analytical or critical.

I'm not sure if this have already been mentioned, however, interestingly Mr. Boddington wrote an article way back in 2005 on the 'light' 7's (7-08, 7x57, .280 Rem). He was basically 'singing their praises' and stated that the 7x57 was his favourite. He mentioned 2 'knocks' against it, which were the relatively mild factory loads available due to manufacturer caution due to older Mausers out there. The second was the fact that the cartridge is a bit too long to fit in the 'standard' short action and the 'standard' '06' action is longer than really required. Neither of these are really knocks against the cartridge itself, but rather what current manufacturers are doing with respect to it.

quote:

Originally posted by sierra2:
I wrote off Mr. Boddington as a high end writer ages ago, largely because he is at the mercy of the publishers and those that fund his expense account.
On the other hand, my "trusty" .270 let me down badly in Africa earlier this month. I didn't loose any game, but I did have a couple of disgusting three shot kills on Springbok and the Black Wildebeest required a follow up to get him in the salt. Postmortem inspections showed that the 130 grain bullets went into the right spot, but they didn't expand sufficiently, ie, drove on thru like solids. A 7x57mm might have done better, so would a .30-06.
Wonder what Mr. Boddington has to say about a .30-06 in Africa?

LLS

The .270 may have done better as well, given better bullet performance. Any caliber is 'vulnerable' to the same issue of bullet performance on a given target and at a given velocity.

This thread is sure enjoying a long life. Somebody's shooting is suffering , I'm sure. Maybe mine. roger

Bartsche, where I live, heat index is 100 degrees plus, so that is hurting range time more than anything.....but to deadkenny's point, yes no caliber or combo is perfect or magical, and yes the 7x57 suffers from the same thing that afflicts the 6.5x55, lots of mil surp rifles that puts fear into liability for ammo mfg to load to pressures that modern rifles are proven safe, and considered such from a liability platform alone.

That said, if I were in Africa with a 270, shooting 130's would be like using 120 gr 6.5, not bad, but the 140-150, or even 160 would likely do better. I cannot imagine an Accubond or Partition not expanding well at decent impact velocity. There have been known I am sure bad production runs of bullets, whose jacket hardness may have not been 'in specs' but I cannot imagine it is common. I have heard, nothing to substantiate it, that some monolithic bullets have come out of production that were too hard perhaps? I don't know either way on that one.

Bullet performance is the key, once you land that slug where needed.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
.....but to deadkenny's point, yes no caliber or combo is perfect or magical, and yes the 7x57 suffers from the same thing that afflicts the 6.5x55, lots of mil surp rifles that puts fear into liability for ammo mfg to load to pressures that modern rifles are proven safe, and considered such from a liability platform alone....

What I would like to see is for the ammo manufacturers to adopt an approach similar to that used for .257 Roberts, where they made available "+P" only for use in 'modern' actions capable of handling it. Such 'higher pressure' loads for the 7x57 would really breath new life into it for the non-reloaders out there. The 7x57 is just too 'sweet' of a cartridge to allow it to fade away. I feel the same way about the .250 Savage as well, +P loads for that might tend to 'squeeze' out the .257 Roberts, since there wouldn't be a lot of 'room' between a hot .250 Savage and the .25-06

What a shame. Craig seems to pussyfoot so much in his writing, trying not to offend anyone, and yet he does anyway. If you´re a serious shooter, take what he writes with a pinch of salt. If not, well hey you might learn something. New shooters have to start somewhere, and boddington knows a thing or two even if he is trying too hard to please most people. Damm I dont want that job.

Great point sir-experience first hand is a great teacher..., and deadkenny - plus p loads would be appropriate in my mind, heck Rem even loaded some MINUS P loads for kids for '06 and 270.

I would love to see the 250 make a come back, it might with good loads surprise many, if I did not have my 6BR using High BC bullet in a fast twist gun, I would interchange for a very low recoil low report rifle for deer/varmint to moderate ranges. I think it's a great classic and many have said it kills equal if not better than the 24 bores.......I think it is plausible.

I have owned a 25/06 but the 250 intriques me the most of all quarter bores. Next the WSSM, but much less barrel life. Now if they had introduced what PO ACKLEY said was the most efficient, and 'gained the most' from AI, then the 250 AI is said to have that honor.

Wildcatting aside, in standard form but top safe loads, I'd take the same shots with a 250/3000 with good bullet, as I would with 243 Win.

Now can someone please tell Jim Carmichael that chopped and re-welded shortened mauser he showed in Outdoor Life in 250 awhile back, is no good and I need to properly 'dispose' of it!

I will be happy to provide a shipping address.

Oh Yes, CB and others, all have their work cut out, so I should have cut the man more slack.

How to best address this matter, how to best post a succinct reply? Well, let’s start by a few comparisons, not of the calibers but of the writer[s] and our perceptions of these writers. I would have to classify Boddington’s work as smooth and polished, very professional as a writer. Now, as a hunter, shooter, etc I would not rank him that highly, and please, before you fire, that is my opinion – I don’t know the man other than by what I have read that he wrote. You see, I classify all writers as A] Those that have ‘dun it and writ’ about it and B] Those that write articles on assignment, or worse – I’ll get back to that. IMHO, not too many writers fall into the “A†category and I would have to mention Finn Aagard and O’ Elmer Keith as paragons of this elite group. Boddington et al are in the latter group as I fear are most other of today’s writers. And as for the 270, I have no dog in the fight as I do not own one and have no desire for one. I do own and have owned several 7X57’s and again, IMHO, this is one of the ‘complete’ calibers – it ain’t perfect but it works and works very well.
I have always wondered why O’Connor, the ‘Father of the 270,’ always saddled up his beloved Eleanor with a 7x57 for EVERYTHING if the 270 Winc was so much better? Anyone else have any ideas about that?? And I have often wondered and mentioned many times before that the biggest elk I personally ever saw dead was shot by an old cowboy in Colorado with a 32 Winc Special under his leg. His comment: “It don’t make much difference what you shoot ‘em with long as you put it where it needs to go!†Nuff said?
As to the other writers I mentioned, some of them carry a dubious reputation of writing about what others have done and then told them about. I’m reluctant to post names as they are no longer around to defend themselves but Hemingway and Capstick were accused of this. Some people maintain that Russell Annabel’s best work grew out of stories he heard in the Sixth St. bars in downtown Anchorage – and I confess, I love to read all of their stories, I just don’t put a lot of faith in the practicality of them. Tell the truth, now, did the hair stand up on your neck when your read “Death in the Long Grass?†Not even a little bit??
And in closing, the little 7x57 is a balanced round, plenty of power, adequate ballistic range, mild recoil, etc. The Spaniards proved this beyond doubt at San Juan Hill more than a hundred years ago.
I believe this so strongly that I chose one, a Ruger Mod 77 Mk II, to be my grandson’s first center fire rifle. How about a Ruger 10/22, a Ruger Mod 77 Mk II in 7X57 and a Browning “Sweet Sixteen†as a battery for a guy just about to turn nine? Grandpa thinks he is good to go, just needs to grow a bit.
Oh, BTW, long live the 7X57!

Well said Trapper, by the way, my grandfather (dads father) owned 2 guns to my knowledge, a 22 Iver Johnson revolver, and a Sweet Sixteen and laid low many meals to be eaten, ducks and much more. It was a well made gun, and it served him well.

Now about that bit about O'connor having armed his wife with an 'inferior' caliber? Ha! So very true, I know she took a 30-06 to Africa and killed an elephant and I believe much more with it and the 7x57, as well as elk with the 7x57.

I guess it was his 'baby' and Winchesters that sold many 270 WCF in M70's. Had he used a properly loaded 6.5x55 or 7x57, I hate to tell you what you know but......he would have had a great record as well. I think he surgically threaded many a 130 partitions, and other ctg's would have been very capable as well, had he chosen them instead.

BTW, your grandson will be well armed in the field!

6.5BR,
Nobody that knows what they are doing is going to sight a 7mm STW in at 200 yards. Load a 140 gr to 3500 fps, sight in at 300 and hold center of a deer sized target to 400 yards. It will arrive there with the same smack as a 7x57 has at 100. That's what an STW is all about, no muss no fuss, no hold-over, no rangefinder. Try that trick with Mauser's creation.Plenty of us think 300-400 yard rodents are a good time.

The STW has it's place, and IS a fine LONG range round. My issue is whether or not a properly loaded 7x57 leaves anything to be desired at 300 yds, and with a 200 zero, it is flat enough with a backline hold to hit vitals, is it not?

No if I were my style of hunting, by choice or necessity involved a good deal of LONG range shooting, an STW or similar DOES minimize ranging errors, I agree to your point.

I killed my 400 yd deer with a 6mm BR, a lowly 2815fps with 105 amax. It was dead on at 200 yds, and IIRC, I used the 2nd mil dot in my 6x24 4200 elite, about the top third up on the chest, and dead center punched the lungs, AS I expected to do, and the deer went 20-30 yds. During the aim/squeeze, I KNEW where to hold, as I had practiced several times OUT to 415 yds which is the longest at my range so I knew where my gun was hitting, and it drops a good bit more than an STW I am sure, but I KNEW my gun/load/scope combo and made it work, FINE w/o any hitch.

Let's say my deer died as good as if hit with an STW, but I did it with more finesse, and with a mere 28.5 gr of Varget pushing the lead.

I was happy, the deer was not. I was 100% confident when I broke the trigger. Oh, yes, I DID know the range as the owner of the land had lasered the far end of the field where there deer was killed.

My point is, it does NOT take an STW to kill at 300 yds, and second, a 7x57 is PLENTY of gun to 300 yds, if not more by trajectory alone-if loaded and sighted accordingly.

Your point is noted, and respected. Thanks.

I remember owning a couple of hotrod 220 swifts, they shot like lasers, but at the end of the day, they were specialized instruments which had their drawbacks, one being short barrel lives, and sensitive to heat build up, which is couterproductive to MY kind of shooting, which includes having fun at the range learning my rifle, by shooting many rounds.

To your point, #1, how far would PBR be if a properly loaded 7x57 were sighted the same as those STW's sighted for long range?

#2) What is the TYPICAL average range, even long shots for MOST hunters?

I would be the STW can reach FAR greater than MOST average hunters can hold.

I am sure you can snipe long distance game with regularity if you practice for it, but many cannot. 400 is a long way and even half that is for many. I choose to hunt within that, well within that if/when given a choice, and hold fire if my game is further than 400.

Shooting off a solid bench is one thing, but as we all know, in the field, there are many more variables, and wobbles when w/o sandbags.

I never meant to flame STW owners or the cartridge, but illustrate the true potential of modest classic rounds that are not considered the hot shot magnum rounds used for long distance shots. I think the newer rounds have caused some to lose sight of what CAN be done with older rounds, and well within their respective performance window.

1)Depending on what you consider "properly loaded" a 7x57 with 140s sighted for 225 yards with have a midrange high of 3.3 inches and be 4 inches low somewhere around 275. Loaded to try to match the .270 will stretch that to 300. The STW sighted for 300 gives the same 3.3 midrange, 4 inches low at 375. I took an OK elk a couple years ago at 469 lasered after-the- fact yards. I was still holding on hair. Remember that the STW has as much energy left at 400 as the 7x57 has at 100. 33% more PBR, double the energy for 50% more powder. I can live with that.
2) Typical range varies. Where I live 200 is a short shot.In Africa last year 100 was a long shot, but I did get a gembuck at 300 and a zebra at 200. I shoot a lot of game at 300 and 400 every year. 4 isn't much harder than 3, if you don't have to consider trajectory.Bipods go a long way, and deer vitals are a lot bigger than gophers, crows and coyotes.
Yes, the STW can reach farther than most shooters can hold, or want to. That's the point.It's nice to basically ignore range out to certain limits.
In my opinion the typical hunter couldn't hit his ass with both hands and holding a road-map.That's their problem.
3) I don't like Boddington either.

I had not crunched the numbers but thanks, great ballistics.

Keep in mind I was not stating that the 7x57 was 'comparable' to an STW, but completely adequate loaded properly to reach 300 and then some and yes with holdover.

For a long range hunter it surely is a top choice, I believe Warren Page years ago used a 7mm Mashburn Magnum (about like the 7x61 Sharpe and Hart or Rem Mag) to kill an elk at 475 yds.

Funny thing as I believe he used a 175 gr partition, when nowadays people go lighter, of course we have bonded and monolithic bullets to choose from so......

You make a great point about the size of vitals, etc. A few years back, a buddy of mine would do some 'southern style' varmint hunting on his farmland. 223's and other rounds, used to shoot blackbirds at 200-300 yds. After you do that a few days, large game animals are a cinch, SAVE for the wind and drop, and range calculation comes to play as the farther you get out the easier it is to be off, w/o a LSR and we had none. To your point, when shooting really far, a hot flat round helps, and there is no doubt it can save the day.

I don't hunt where I need that capability, but don't knock someone that does. I have enjoyed many of CB's articles and sometimes scoffed at others. Nothing personal at him.

Out to 300-400 I would be very content with my 708, a 260, 6.5x55 or 7x57 on deer, and would shy away from a STW for at least one reason.

My first deer was with a 7 Rem Mag at 30 yds, 145 speer BT loaded at hilt......by mistake, the old speer manual was with a different rifle, and a newer volume proved the pressures were too high and backed down.....so when I thought I had loaded MY gun to 280 or so ballistics according to the book, I was not, it was about max.

The bullet DESTROYED the entired on shoulder. The gun was a tackdriver, but heavy and I replaced it with a lighter 243.

To me, the 7 mag was like firing up a corvette to go get the mail at the end of the driveway! I was hunting in timber where shots were 75 yds max, at the time, though was prepared for pipeline shots way out there.....which never came.

Now had CB had a shot at 450 or 500 and it was a pass or shoot proposition, yes, a STW would make it much easier to hit, w/far less guesswork, yet any shot at those distances I believe need to be as accurately ranged as possible and only shot if one has practiced at those distances as we all know all bullets rainbow hard beyond 350-400, some more or less than others.

Thanks for the posts. Oh, lastly it IS the shooters problem if they are not prepared to use the capabilities, but I hate to see too many guys trying to plink at game when they should not. Reminds me of watching guys trying to sky bust waterfowl.....70-90 yds up. Some don't know better, or can estimate range, others are simple bad sportsman, or none at all.

Those who are equipped and prepared to make such shots CONSISTENTLY, can do it ethically. I trust you are one of those. Good hunting.

quote:

Now had CB had a shot at 450 or 500 and it was a pass or shoot proposition, yes, a STW would make it much easier to hit, w/far less guesswork, yet any shot at those distances I believe need to be as accurately ranged as possible and only shot if one has practiced at those distances as we all know all bullets rainbow hard beyond 350-400, some more or less than others.

Thanks for the posts. Oh, lastly it IS the shooters problem if they are not prepared to use the capabilities, but I hate to see too many guys trying to plink at game when they should not. Reminds me of watching guys trying to sky bust waterfowl.....70-90 yds up. Some don't know better, or can estimate range, others are simple bad sportsman, or none at all.

Those who are equipped and prepared to make such shots CONSISTENTLY, can do it ethically. I trust you are one of those. Good hunting.

This post grows better and better. I have done a bit of long range shooting with different guns, mainly with the M14 and the Model 700 Remington. After seeing others shoot, troops that did not have the benefit of having grown up shooting as a lad or the training I had, I was amazed at just how poorly most of them shot. Most, not all.
Someone above remarked about shooting groundhogs or what ever at 400 yds - many of the folks I saw shoot couldn't hit a Greyhound bus at 400 yds, much less a deer, etc. And I would like to see some of those posting here sit down and estimate range, just see how close they could come without a rangefinder. And a miss is a miss, whether you are shooting a 22 rim fire, a 7STW or a 3"/50 firing AAC! Now factor in thee problem of accurate ranging, cold, emotions - old adrenalin really flowing - wind, out of breath, you may add a couple or just pick from these and tell me what you realistically expect to hit at a range of 400yds? I'm not questioning anyone's ability to shoot or touting my own - I have called some body shots at 800M but that was long ago and far away, and done with a 308 - or 7.62X51 to be exact. Go to the range, if you can find one, and measure off 800M, then tell me that it is not a 'fur piece' downrange to that target.
IF more folks spent more time practicing with whatever caliber, more time learning to estimate range or buying a range finder, then more time on the range with THEIR rifle[s] and learning to use it, not rushing off to buy something because "I read that ol' Joe uses one of these and he never misses anything inside a 1000 yds." we would all be better off.
Again, I am not slamming anyone for whom they choose for a wife, what kind of dog they hunt with or what caliber gun they shoot - I'm just telling you what I know. And we didn't even get to the subject of not being able to shoot because the weapon you are using kicks the bejabbers out of you and you flinch like hell every time you pull the trigger. That’s another story.
Next up, please?

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:

This post grows better and better. I have done a bit of long range shooting with different guns, mainly with the M14 and the Model 700 Remington. After seeing others shoot, troops that did not have the benefit of having grown up shooting as a lad or the training I had, I was amazed at just how poorly most of them shot. Most, not all.
Someone above remarked about shooting groundhogs or what ever at 400 yds - many of the folks I saw shoot couldn't hit a Greyhound bus at 400 yds, much less a deer, etc. And I would like to see some of those posting here sit down and estimate range, just see how close they could come without a rangefinder. And a miss is a miss, whether you are shooting a 22 rim fire, a 7STW or a 3"/50 firing AAC! Now factor in thee problem of accurate ranging, cold, emotions - old adrenalin really flowing - wind, out of breath, you may add a couple or just pick from these and tell me what you realistically expect to hit at a range of 400yds? I'm not questioning anyone's ability to shoot or touting my own - I have called some body shots at 800M but that was long ago and far away, and done with a 308 - or 7.62X51 to be exact. Go to the range, if you can find one, and measure off 800M, then tell me that it is not a 'fur piece' downrange to that target.
IF more folks spent more time practicing with whatever caliber, more time learning to estimate range or buying a range finder, then more time on the range with THEIR rifle[s] and learning to use it, not rushing off to buy something because "I read that ol' Joe uses one of these and he never misses anything inside a 1000 yds." we would all be better off.
Again, I am not slamming anyone for whom they choose for a wife, what kind of dog they hunt with or what caliber gun they shoot - I'm just telling you what I know. And we didn't even get to the subject of not being able to shoot because the weapon you are using kicks the bejabbers out of you and you flinch like hell every time you pull the trigger. That’s another story.
Next up, please?

Excellent points. I'm sure there are some serious long range shooters out there who truly 'know their stuff'. However, I honestly wonder about some of the stuff I read and hear. They make it sound like 100 yards is 'point blank range', 300 yards isn't a big deal and it's not really 'challenging' until you're over 500 yards at least. Well, my first time out to the range, I thought the 50 yard targets were the 100, and the 100 were at 200. Walking out to put up my targets at 100 yards, I can tell you that's a hell of a walk. People talk about 400+ yard shots, but compensating for bullet drop and wind drift the target may not even be in your scope 'picture' if the rifle is sighted for a more modest range and caliber! Even if it is, that elusive accurate range estimate is even more important, and it's no easy task aiming a point somewhere above and behind the animal. If you have the skill, experience and rifle to handle it, great. But I fear that the few (very few) who can do it and talk about it only encourages the many who clearly are NOT up to it, to blaze away at long range and shoot off legs, etc.

Great points in the last posts.

I can say during a 'varmint hunt' weather is often not cold, and one is not sitting still letting the cold numb the shooting hand/trigger finger, and stiffen the body, and all else that happens that was mentioned above to a deer hunter in a stand, or other types of large game hunting.

Time is usually much less, in terms of the 'opportunity for a shot', that window is finite versus say a prairie dog so yes those things play a role in shot time/success.

That said, I have made some very good shots in my life, most at smaller targets, ones that if I missed or wounded it was not as big a deal for me as say on a deer or elk.

That said, I killed a MAJORITY of my deer UNDER 100 yards, say 15-20% at best over 100, only 2 I believe over 200 yds. One at 250ish, perhaps 275 paces, and on that hunt, spotted some mulies in a shadow bedded by some brush on another slope/mountain and GUESSED (no LRF) the distance at 400-500. Brush in Colorado is MUCH lower/shorter than the trees here in the south, SO I could have well OVER estimated, EITHER way, the wind was HOWLING, needless to say, I wasted my shots TRYING with a 270 150 partition load at 2850fps or so MV.

That incident taught me I should have held fire. Once game is 350-400 and further and you DO NOT know that range, one is often wanting some luck on their side taking a shot.

I had ONE kill at 400, that field had been lasered and I had NO wind to deal with, and perfect rest 24x scope, set trigger, etc. etc. Conditions were about as ideal as can be. That is ALWAYS helpful on truly LONG RANGE shots/attempts.

I had 100% confidence in THAT shot/kill as I had practiced out to 415 yds at the range, my gun holding often 2-2.5" groups off sandbags of course, but the gun/load was UP to the task, and that day so was I.

That said, there would be MANY other opportunities past and I am sure coming in the future where game will present that far or further.

A total sum of the variables will be considered and a decision made IF I attempt another shot that far or further, but one thing is certain, if I am not VERY SURE of making a clean sure kill, due to GOOD conditions, KNOWN range to calculate drop, LOW to NO wind, etc. etc. and even IF there is NOT expected to be a chance to get closer or hunt that animal another day, then I will have to hold fire.

Two things will happen if I choose to fire and things don't work out as hoped for......

1) at best, a clean missed but a smarter wiser animal that may NOT return or be 'outsmarted' again

and 2) at worst a wounded animal that suffers and perhaps recovers OR worse a mortal wound that ends in an animal never recovered

Mind you I have no qualms hunting and killing but I do not like to see anything suffer needlessly. That said, if I wounded a say varmint/predator vs a deer or elk, it WOULD be harder to sleep knowing I lost a big game animal. Right or wrong, I just feel that I owe them the UTMOST respect in the field.

That said, I LOVE target shooting and making longish shots plinking, targets and even sometimes hunting. In today's time, technology has evolved to where IF the user practices often, learns trajectory/wind and has a range finder, the challenge is really not so great given good conditions, a proper rest, and time to make the shot. The number of hunters who perfect their skill is fewer than the majority, yet I continue to get MORE satisfaction taking game at closer ranges than far. The excitement factor for me just grows and that 400 yd shot for me on the deer, was more a formality, and I do say I was proud of the shot, but what I really want to do is more handgun hunting, also perhaps my peep sighted 357 lever, and perhaps some bow hunting in the future.

There is just something about getting within very close range of game that makes my heart pound and the adrenaline flow!

Enjoy the sport however you must to make the most fun out of it, and try doing it ethically, and legally of course! Thanks for all the feedback.

Interesting blogs here on this link about writers.... and the gun writing business.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:fY7AC1waLssJ:field...n&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
Interesting blogs here on this link about writers.... and the gun writing business.

Nice article! Read down farther in it and found glowing reports on Savage rifles. Am I the only one with a stinky Accutrigger?????? roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
Interesting blogs here on this link about writers.... and the gun writing business.

Nice article! Read down farther in it and found glowing reports on Savage rifles. Am I the only one with a stinky Accutrigger?????? roger

Roger

No you are not the only one who has discovered the Savage secret. We are quiet to keep the word from getting out so we can buy more of them. Besides that we all know the rules of supply and demand.

I like your Avatar. Much more respectable. It adds to your credence.

Best wishes, Bill

I have seen Boddington shoot more trees than any other gun rag writer,one day I hope to meet him and ask him how tree bark stew tastes.

"crotchety old Colonel Charlie Askins wrote a fool piece called "Let's Scrap Yesterday's Cartridges". Yeah, the ol' curmudgen would have a story on how revolvers were much better than autos this month and the reverse next month. He actually made some good arguments for each position too, but it was all in fun because both were good handguns.

Ditto the arguments for and against most reasonable cartridges, it's all written in fun, to make a few bucks and to get campfire arguments started. Few writters had (or have) the ethics, experience or values of the late greats such as Ol' Elmer, O'Connor, Page, Skelton, Sell, Nonte, Col. Cooper, Jordan, etc. Or Pat McManus, for that matter.

Col. Chas., C.B., etc., scribble for a living, they got to have something to scribble about so topics AND positions previously taken don't matter when it comes to the next story. So just take what any of them say in the spirit in which it is written and enjoy their blarney as you can. Or by-pass them, if you can't!

never let the facts get in the way of a good story.