hunting rounds

I guess my dicks just bigger than yours.

File: muh dik.png (217KB, 534x548px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 534x548px

>>31909557

>>31909516
>all fire the same 7.62 mm bullet
But it's not the same.
7.62×51mm, 7.62×63mm and 7.62×67mm respectively.
The larger rounds offer a more reliable kill, especially at range and firing through shrubbery in a forest. There's a 1000 - 1500 joule difference between the muzzle energies of 300 Win mag and the smaller two.

>>31909516
You're clearly a no guns. Difference between a 308 and 30-06 are slim. However, any 300 magnum (win mag, rum, and others) do have an advantage for reloaders. Pick up a reloading book before you assume something and btw...wtf is this shit of taking a shot of an ethical hunter? Wtf does range and cartridge matter? People use 6.5 calibers for big game. I use a 300 blackout for deer under 100 yards. It does the job. It doesn't destroy much meat. I think you're a no guns.

I guess I should go hunting with 7.62 tok since it's all 30 cal anyways

>>31909599
Bullet as in projectile

File: Ammo.jpg (133KB, 907x573px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 907x573px

What size round would be
>Small enough to kill small game without complete BTFO the animal
>Large enough to take down small deer

>>31909516
300 WM is better for places like the Alaskan bush than the other two. Plenty of people carry 300 WM as a bear/moose/fishing gun, not so much with the other two

>>31909516
In 90% of the uses these cartridges see, none of them offer any real advantage over the other. The other 10% of the time, it might pay to have a .300 WM over a .308.

>>31909652
Yeah, but different weights and lengths for those bullets.

>>31909685
5.56x45.

>>31909599
The cartridge is different, but the bullet is the same.
>The larger rounds offer a more reliable kill
308 Winchester will kill anything that walks within 100 meters, even moose.
>There's a 1000 - 1500 joule difference between the muzzle energies of 300 Win mag and the smaller two
Kinetic energy doesn't mean anything. It was supposed to be a way to measure killing power, but it fails even at that. A football player running at full speed has more kinetic energy than a 357 magnum, but a 357 is obviously deadlier.
>>31909605
>any 300 magnum (win mag, rum, and others) do have an advantage for reloaders
What advantage?
>wtf is this shit of taking a shot of an ethical hunter?
If you shoot at an animal at a long range, you increase your chances of missing the vital zone. Risking a gut shot is unethical.
>I use a 300 blackout for deer under 100 yards. It does the job. It doesn't destroy much meat.
Which proves my point even further. My point was that a shoulder bruising magnum has no advantage over a short action hunting cartridge.
>>31909627
A 30 caliber pistol cartridge cannot move a rifle weight bullet fast enough to initiate expansion upon impact.
>>31909689
>300 WM is better for places like the Alaskan bush than the other two
Better how?
>Plenty of people carry 300 WM as a bear/moose/fishing gun, not so much with the other two
Bandwagon fallacy.
>The other 10% of the time, it might pay to have a .300 WM over a .308.
What time is that? Under what conceivable circumstances would that extra velocity make a difference? Have deer started wearing level III body armor?
>>31909716
The most common hunting bullet weights are 150-180 grains. 308 Winchester will fire all of those.

>>31909743
>The cartridge is different, but the bullet is the same.
Yet the ballistics of a 220 grain round are superior fired from a .300 win mag cartridge than from a .308. I mean sure, you can load them, but don't except any proper capabilities at any notable range.
>308 Winchester will kill anything that walks within 100 meters, even moose.
Yes, obviously. You might be hunting from a further distance though, or may not have a clear shot. Or maybe you simply want more stopping power, for example if you're hunting bear and want to ensure a deadly shot, even against a charging one. The immediate lethal area on a bear is the size of a tennis ball, after all. Might not be able to hit it reliably.
>Kinetic energy doesn't mean anything. It was supposed to be a way to measure killing power, but it fails even at that. A football player running at full speed has more kinetic energy than a 357 magnum, but a 357 is obviously deadlier.
Pressure is force divided by surface area, dingus. Put the entire force behind that footballer into a small round and you've got a deadly bullet.

>>31909743
>Better how?
Heavier rounds take more force to push off course. If you're shooting through bushes and branches, you want a round as heavy as possible so you strike your target accurately. It's a question of inertia.

>>31909731
Isn't it illegal to hunt deer below .24?

>>31909860
Depends on state and local hunting laws.

>>31909743

> There is no advantage to a 220gr bullet traveling at 3000fps (300 win mag) over a 180gr bullet traveling at 2600fps.

Your post seems to imply this is the core of your argument, but I don't think that's what you meant to say.

> Kinetic energy is worthless

Sure, as a direct measurement of lethality. But the more kinetic energy you have, the more energy available to penetrate while deforming the bullet.

> A .308 will kill anuthing within 100m
> If you risk a gut shot with a long range shot, it's unethical

What range would you consider unethical for a .300 win mag on a moose, assuming the hunter is capable of making a vital hit at that range?

> When would higher velocity and bullet mass ever pay off

Brown bear for one. Lots and lots of muscle and fat on those. Hunting at extended ranges that alpine and bean field hunting require, for another. Shoulder shield on a boar, for a third. Saw a .308 spire point blow up on the first shot on an older hog and fail to penetrate.

>>31909860
No idea what Burgerlaws say, but in Finland you can hunt small deer (Roe deer) with a 50 grain round. Any proper deer require 90 grains at minimum.

>>31909883

What do your standard deer weigh over in Finland?

South US, we're lucky if they see 120lbs. It leaves me scratching my head as to why so many guys here pay $3000+ dollars for 'guided' hunts to a feeder.

>>31909731
>>31909860
It depends on the state rules. Most don't give a fuck so long as you hunt during the season, some won't let you hunt with anything smaller than .30 cal, and others are just the right kind of assholes to only allow muzzle loaders.

>>31909816
>Yet the ballistics of a 220 grain round are superior fired from a .300 win mag cartridge than from a .308. I mean sure, you can load them, but don't except any proper capabilities at any notable range.
Those weights are not common for hunting purposes, nor are they needed. A 165 grain bullet from a 308 Win. meets and exceeds the legal requirements for hunting moose and bears in Scandinavia. If it works over there, it will work over here.
>You might be hunting from a further distance though, or may not have a clear shot.
If you are too far and don't have a clear shot, then don't shoot. I would rather come home with no game than risk a gut shot. No cartridge shoots flat enough to make up for bad marksmanship, and part of good marksmanship is knowing when NOT to shoot.
>you're hunting bear and want to ensure a deadly shot, even against a charging one.
If you want to stop a charging brown bear, why be half-ass? Why not use a 375?
>>31909827
>If you're shooting through bushes and branches
It's not a good idea to shoot unless you have a clear shot, but if you must, the deflection from a twig is insignificant. It has been tested with dowels.

http://www.gundigest.com/shooting-articles-advice/10-rifle-shooting-myths-exposed

>>31909875
> There is no advantage to a 220gr bullet traveling at 3000fps (300 win mag) over a 180gr bullet traveling at 2600fps.
But that's true though.
>Your post seems to imply this is the core of your argument, but I don't think that's what you meant to say.
Of course I mean to say that.
>Sure, as a direct measurement of lethality. But the more kinetic energy you have, the more energy available to penetrate while deforming the bullet.
Mathematical figures have little bearing on reality when it comes to terminal ballistics. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is tissue damage, which the 308 does plenty of.

I will continue in next post.

>>31909875
>What range would you consider unethical for a .300 win mag on a moose, assuming the hunter is capable of making a vital hit at that range?
That's a big assumption to make. A moose is a big target, but we are aiming for the vital zone, not the whole animal. Also, remember that what you can do from a benchrest is not the same as what you can do in the field. From a field position, I would not risk a shot on any animal, big or small, beyond 120 meters. When shooting from a stand with a rock-solid rest, 150 meters.

File: 35688eadeeea40c29b5c71b31f3712ea.jpg (48KB, 978x550px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 978x550px

>>31909934
Roe deer are small fucks. ~75 pounds. They're everywhere though and very plentiful.
We've only got a relatively small population of whitetail and a bunch of wild Reindeer in the North North-east.
A lot of moose though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOIGwPXtazc

>>31909941
>Those weights are not common for hunting purposes, nor are they needed. A 165 grain bullet from a 308 Win. meets and exceeds the legal requirements for hunting moose and bears in Scandinavia. If it works over there, it will work over here.
Yes, it is enough, but people might want more stopping power, either because of poor conditions or simply because. There's no requirement, or are there laws in Burgeria that require those more powerful rounds? Is it just hunting culture?
>If you want to stop a charging brown bear, why be half-ass? Why not use a 375?
Because you're not going to shovel all that money to buy a rifle and ammo for that specific situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ7wWtm6dGM

>>31909941

> sectional density, as it applies to either in-flight or terminal ballistics, does not exist

Bro, you seem to idolize the Scandanavians. Have you ever looked up why their 6.5x55 penetrated so well on game?

> Physics doesn't really work. Television just tricked us all.

Cool story, bro. Hunting ammo still has a low threshold for bullet expansion around 1800fps. What range does a 165gr SST .308 bullet drop below this threshold? What range does a 200gr ELD-X out of a .300 Win mag drop below that velocity?

Honestly, I think you're a mildly inebriated Aussie, bored before bed, who is posting things you don't really believe.

File: michael-fucking-bolton.jpg (118KB, 1280x673px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1280x673px

>>31909974

Every time I look at a moose's face, I just see this expression.

Possible dumb question but I'm posting it here 'cuz you guys would probably know.

Just bought a Savage Axis II with a wood stock in 30-06. I've got plenty of rifles but this is my first modern bolt gun. I noticed that, with light pressure on the barrel toward the end of the stock, there is some play - the barrel will push down further into the groove on the stock, and then spring back into place when pressure is removed.

Is this normal? Should I stop doing that?

>>31909938
What about .243 win?
Large enough for deer?
Not gonna explode my sweet sweet rabbit or boar jerky?

Can you hunt with .50 BMG though?

Would it work?

>>31910037
Sounds like your rifle action is bedded in the stock, which is a good thing.
Helps with accuracy because your action doesn't touch the stock, unless you're a dumbass and press on it like you just mentioned.

Literally just google "why are rifles glass bedded"

>>31909995

That you have to train this way is fucking terrifying.

> That old coot with the semi-auto that just calmly and quickly double-taps the bear in the head though.

>>31909743
I think you're a no guns.

>>31909827
>If you're shooting through bushes and branches, you want a round as heavy as possible so you strike your target accurately.

How does this bullshit idea stick around?

>>31910066
Yes. It's an overkill, but at least unless you hit the bowel, it's a clean clean.

>>31910058

> Large enough for deer

Hell yes. SST traveling at 2800fps on impact leaves nice exit wounds and great blood trails on nearly anything smaller than Elk.

I'd probably go for bonded or copper for hogs though, unless you're just a wicked shot.

>>31910066
Absolutely, but you would lose a lot of meat.
Especially if you're using expanding bullets.

>>31909995
>Yes, it is enough, but people might want more stopping power, either because of poor conditions or simply because. There's no requirement, or are there laws in Burgeria that require those more powerful rounds? Is it just hunting culture?
There are no laws in the United States requiring unusually powerful ammunition. The only reason people buy them is because they want to feel like a "tough guy" or "badass" and brag about how powerful their gun is.
>Because you're not going to shovel all that money to buy a rifle and ammo for that specific situation.
A good point, but 308 Win. is considered sufficient for bears in Finland, is it not?
>>31910013
Sectional density is important, but 165 grains of 308 offers ample penetration.
>What range does a 165gr SST .308 bullet drop below this threshold?
Beyond 400 meters depending upon ballistic coefficient. NOBODY should be hunting that far out.
>Honestly, I think you're a mildly inebriated Aussie, bored before bed, who is posting things you don't really believe.
American as apple pie.
>>31910037
Wood is slightly flexible. Also, it's possible that your action is not bedded securely. Check the tightness of the action screws.
>>31910058
Legal in most states. Would probably work with the right bullet.
>>31910066
Try carrying it through the woods and tell me.
>>31910077
Not an argument.
>>31910083
Fuddlore is self-replicating.

>>31910096
I'm serious. You're questionable. Do you even shoot?

>>31910058
You "can" kill a deer but it's not a reliable way to do it. I think 7mm magnum is a minimum.

>>31910106
>Do you even shoot?
Yes, of course.
>You're questionable
Name one thing I've said this whole thread that was factually incorrect.

>>31910112
Lol ok buddy.

>>31910037
That is a floating barrel. It allows the barrel to expand from heat without warping and other things I can't type on a phone. Don't mess with it, it's fine.

>>31909941
Kodiak brown bears and Alaskan moose are bigger than the ones in Scandinavia. Kodiak bears even range up to 1,320 pounds. I'm not going to trust a .308 to taking down that.

>>31910114
Well honestly, your dismissal over how a magnum case I've the other two is an advantage to reloading was a serious red flag. Hey, if I'm wrong about I'm wrong.

>>31910073
>That you have to train this way is fucking terrifying.
It's not necessary at all. It's just some hunting club that built the training system.

>>31910083
Here in Finland it sticks around because of the military. Talk about the 7.62x39 being a superior round for our forests than the 5.56 because of its greater weight.

>>31910096
>A good point, but 308 Win. is considered sufficient for bears in Finland, is it not?
Yes, it's just that moose and bears have a tendency of still being alive after being shot with .308. A lot of them running a good few dozen metres before collapsing. In the end it's just the shot that counts though.

>>31910143
>Here in Finland it sticks around because of the military. Talk about the 7.62x39 being a superior round for our forests than the 5.56 because of its greater weight.

It may very well be an important consideration for military applications, but ability to shoot through (literally) brush means fuck-all for hunting.

>>31910158
But what if you're hunting the greatest prey of them all?

File: tmp_12911-2016-10-28 17.02.27468821835.jpg (3MB, 1443x3462px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1443x3462px

All I know is, if you don't hunt with 7mm Rem Mag, it's only because your girly shoulders can't handle it.
>those .338lm ballistics with the recoil of .30-06

Also on a serious note, I was able to get a 3/4" group today at 100 yards with PPU 140gr PSPBT.

>>31910132
I don't understand what you mean by advantage for reloading? What advantage is there? 308 is very easily to reload and doesn't use as much powder, which can be expensive.
>>31910125
A fair point, but what percentage of American hunters go after half ton Kodiak bears? Most will never even SEE a brown bear outside the zoo.
>>31910112
7mm-08 would do it just fine.
>>31910143
>Yes, it's just that moose and bears have a tendency of still being alive after being shot with .308. A lot of them running a good few dozen metres before collapsing. In the end it's just the shot that counts though.
Almost any animal will run after being shot even if the shot is fatal.

>>31910125
>Kodiak brown bears
I live in Southeast Alaska and the ABC island Brown bears are a little smaller but when I hunt Sitka Blacktails, they are about the size of a Great Dane, I use a 30.06 with 180/220 grain Hornady's. Not for the dear but for the bears. I usually use 2 180 grains as the first shots then the rest are the 220's.

>>31910058
Ive hunted big mule deer and elk with my .243 win.
Ive taken 6 deer and ive never personally shot an elk with it yet.
.243 is great within 400 yards the longest shot ive acheived is around 300ish.
Most of my deer were shot at less than 100 yards with good reults.

>>31909941
>but that's true though
Troll poster

>>31910096
>no reason to use magnum calibers
This is b8 right?
I use smaller calibers when I hunt, but magnum caliber rifles do offer advantages over calibers under 3006.

>>31910114

> Name one thing in this whole thread that was factually incorrect

>> Kinetic energy doesn't mean anything

>> A shoulder bruising magnum has no advantage over a short action hunting cartridge. (Completely disregards case volume benefits, drop over distance, penetration on a quartering shot, or ability to punch through shoulder bones at range.)

>> There is no advantage to a 220gr bullet traveling at 3000fps over a 180gr bullet traveling at 2600fps. (By this reasoning, .308 is just for dick swinging cowboys. You only need a 123gr 6.8 at 2200 fps.

>> NOBODY should be hunting past 400m

I think you deal in absolutes too much.

File: Traps Illustrated.jpg (402KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1920x1080px

>>31910170
Hunting the most dangerous game with guns is for amateurs. The refined gentleman uses traps.

>>31910259
That explains why so many people get stuck on >>>/b/

>>31910195
True. I'm actually not a fan of magnums but for sending a heavy bullet faster or maybe you want a flatter shooting rifle. My argument wasn't taking cost into consideration but I personally don't care. You're loading up a 5 round magazine and making shots count so I don't really penny pinch. Depending on bullet selection, game being hunted, pushing a heavy bullet faster than 308 can, can have its place. The 300 win mag is a poor example. Its the shitty version of the argument. I would have used a rum, or wsm. Rum has a big advantage with case capacity. Again, I know how you feel about powder burners but saying a 308 loaded hot yet safely can compare to a hot safe load with a rum is not even in the same ballpark. I honestly just break it down to bullet selection is greater but no...if you're a penny pincher, cool. I'm not going to say a 308 won't get the job done...after all I admitted I hunt with 300blk. Lol

>>31910238
>Kinetic energy doesn't mean anything
It doesn't. There are plenty of other mathematical formulas made over the years in attempts to quantify stopping power. Some use momentum. Some use impact area. Some use sectional density. Some use various combinations of the above. None of them really mean anything. The only thing that matters is tissue damage.
>Completely disregards case volume benefits, drop over distance, penetration on a quartering shot, or ability to punch through shoulder bones at range.
None of that matters at realistic, ethical distances.
>> There is no advantage to a 220gr bullet traveling at 3000fps over a 180gr bullet traveling at 2600fps. (By this reasoning, .308 is just for dick swinging cowboys. You only need a 123gr 6.8 at 2200 fps.
There is an argument to be made that 308 is also overkill. For someone who hunts nothing bigger than deer, it may well be. The point that the big magnums are overkill still stands.
>NOBODY should be hunting past 400m
That's my opinion, so it can't be factually incorrect. That being said, there are very few people who can hit a six inch diameter circle beyond 400 meters with from a field position (no benchrest).
>but for sending a heavy bullet faster or maybe you want a flatter shooting rifle
It is undeniable that a big magnum will send a heavier bullet faster. The question is what practical benefit would a flatter shooting rifle have? I submit that for all practical purposes, there is none.

File: tmp_12911-iAdS6L0-1118202550.png (642KB, 610x455px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 610x455px

>>31910324
Every single thing you just said is incorrect, so basically you're admitting that you know absolutely nothing about precision shooting.

<----------
This is you

>>31910324
Well dude a flat shooter combined with high BC bullets equals very useful.

>>31910324

> Tissue damage

Look, I get your point that KE is not some magical ranking system for taking game. But the energy required to deform the bullet for your wide wound channel has to come from somewhere. KE is just a simple representation of how hard your cartridge worked to get that bullet moving, and barring loss from drag, it tells you exactly how hard the animal's tissue will have to work to stop the bullet.

Assuming similar bullet diameter, bullet construction, and tissue, more KE will translate to a deeper, wider wound channel, which means the animal will bleed out faster.

As for drop, a longer point blank range is always nice to have. A .308 has about 250y, but a Win Mag has over 300y, so 20% farther. You seem like a guy that's interested in extending your ethical shot range. That should be a plus in your book.

>>31910352
>>31910383
You say that I am wrong, but you cannot explain why. You cannot provide any evidence that magnum velocities make any difference to the practical hunter. Is your belief in using magnums a religion?

>>31910411
I laid it out. If you can't figure this out you're a troll or no guns.

>>31910410
>Assuming similar bullet diameter, bullet construction, and tissue, more KE will translate to a deeper, wider wound channel, which means the animal will bleed out faster.
It's not that simple. Every hunting bullet has a window of velocities at which it will provide ideal expansion and penetration. Too slow, and the bullet doesn't expand enough. Too fast, and it expands so violently that it loses mass or even comes apart entirely (unless, or course, you use monolithic copper bullets). For most bullets, the ideal impact velocity is 2300-2700 fps, which is exactly what you get with short actions like the 308, 7mm-08, and the various short action 6.5 mm rounds.
>As for drop, a longer point blank range is always nice to have. A .308 has about 250y, but a Win Mag has over 300y, so 20% farther. You seem like a guy that's interested in extending your ethical shot range. That should be a plus in your book.
Increasing the point blank range only helps if you can hold steady at that range. You can do that from a bench rest, but very few people can do it from a field rest. This is what Jeff Cooper called the "morning glory effect." How many people do you know who can hold steady at 250 yards without a bench rest?
>>31910452
Not an argument.

File: 1478028354663m.jpg (61KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1024x577px

Op.

>>31909685
6.5 Creedmoor or 7mm Rem

Mildly related, im hunting with a.54 cal traditional muzzleloader. I recently ran out of hollow point powerbelts, which seemed to group well but I cant find any more. So i tried barnes expander MZs but theyre nearly impossible to fit down the barrel. Then i tried a patch and roundball and cant hit shit. Can anyone recommend a.54 cal sabot that wont be as tight as the barnes or should i just switch to aerotip powerbelts?

OP sounds like he is butthurt because everyone around him shoots magnums and he needs validation of the insecurity he has about his weak shoulders, do you identify as a feminist OP?
Try lifting weights and doing lots of stretching and core work, also being fat is worse for recoil I've noticed, how fat are you?

>>31910474

Most guys hunting with magnums aren't using American Whitetail. If you've shelled out for the magnum action, you've also switched to accubonds, partitions, and monolithics, especially when you run a good risk of catching the shoulder bone?

It sounds like you don't often run into shots over 200yards, where it doesn't matter if the game runs 50y after you hit them. Most of the time, that's me too. That's not always the case hunting out in Rockies though.

> Can hold steady at 250 yards without a bench rest?

Nobody's shooting off hand (or at least I hope not). One of the guys at my local range uses shooting sticks, but he's kind of a dork. The rest of us either just use a bipod or their field pack.

>>31909516
OP, you literally made the point why most everyone with a brain has long switched to 6.5 Creedmoor.... .308 is fine, but it's not capable of firing the most accurate projectiles for the caliber (220gr)...

you get close enough to 300 win mag ballistics with less than 308 recoil... with superior accuracy than either....

>>31910474
Gee i wonder if a 300mag will slow down over distance and still have enough energy to penetrate and epand reliably?

I wonder if a flatter trajectory would facilitate an easy shot with little to no holdover within 400 yards?

Gee I wonder if a heavy fast bullet is more resistant to wind drift allowing for a more accurate shot at distance?

I wonder if an increased velocity would reduce the time the bullet is in flight, reducing the chance of a miss and making shots on moving targets easier?

Youre a fucking retard and your only defense is.

>HURR DURR LONG RANGE SHOOTING DOESNT EXIST, IMO ITS NOT ETHICAL THEREFORE IS DOESN'T EXIST AND THE ADVANTAGES OF LARGE HIGH VELOCITY CARTIDGES DISAPEAR.

You succeeded troll, now im mad.

>>31910324
>The question is what practical benefit would a flatter shooting rifle have? I submit that for all practical purposes, there is none.

Obvious Troll is obvious.

A flatter shooting rifle means you extend your range before you have to worry about bullet drop. That is a very practical benefit to have, that has been exploited by hunters for the past century.

Idiot.

>>31910604

Too bad Hornady had to use their custom .30TC tooling for brass, or it might have caught on more with hunters. Then again, no body is hunting with the 6.5CM's twin the .260 either.

>magnumfags getting salty as fuck

It's almost like they are compensating for something.

I'm pro-magnum and hate non-magnum folk, their views on cartridge choice sicken me and for some reason they are always ready to share their shitty opinions, insecurity maybe?

I love shooting my 300WM
>recoil doesn't bother me
>difference in cost is minimal
>second hand rifles are easy and cheap to pickup because alot of people get one when they shouldn't and sell it off cheap
>Weight difference is fuck all
>long bolt throw? More than two shots in the field rarely happens

Knowing that 0-300yd I can just aim and shoot without holdover adjustment is great for confidence and that's important, as is knowing that my barnes TTSX will blow up both shoulders on a 500lb stag from that same range without fail.

>>31910719
>barnes TTSX will blow up both shoulders on a 500lb stag at 300y

Got photo evidence? I'm not implying you're lying, but I'd love to have some evidence that the TTSX is worth the extra over a regular bonded bullet.

Inherited a 9,3 × 62 from my uncle. Had no animal from buck to 280 pound boar going more than 50 meters after the hit. The meat damage was always ok. Not more hematoma than on a buck shot by .223.

>>31910598
I shoot offhand more often than not especially when gully hopping, usually no time to get a rest and thats why I practice offhand. Enough practice it becomes second nature, shoulder aim shoot in one fluid motion, good to about 150yd.

>>31910782
Nice caliber, looking at getting one for a while.

>>31910708
>must be compensating for X

That's how feminazis and communists talk when they don't have a valid counter.

>>31910738
No photos but the cost is not much and worth it, how many rounds are you putting into animals every year?

>>31910833
spotted the guy with the tiny penis

I actually enjoy recoil, adrenaline is fun, get a rifle that fits your body and learn how to shoot, problem solved.

>>31910832

It's not cheap to shoot though. Match rounds are expensive and hard to find so I use RWS cineshot for training which is ok for moving target scenarios around 50 meter.

>>31910914
As the owner of a 7mmRM, I 100% agree.

Smaller non-magnum calibers are fine for hunting and target shooting, but there's just something extremely enjoyable about shooting magnums that you don't get from other cartridges.

>>31910992
As a kid I couldn't wait to shoot my dads 300 Weatherby magnum, that nervous and excited feeling as a 15 year old was priceless.
I love the booming echo of magnum.

I've seen video of me shooting a 338 and it was cool to see how my body rolled with the shot, firm but loose.

>>31911047
rolls of fat jiggling like jello....

have another twinkie, kid.

>>31910598
>If you've shelled out for the magnum action, you've also switched to accubonds, partitions, and monolithics
Those bullets are more tolerant of being overdriven, but it is still needless and problematic for the aforementioned reasons.
>>31910598
>Nobody's shooting off hand (or at least I hope not). One of the guys at my local range uses shooting sticks, but he's kind of a dork. The rest of us either just use a bipod or their field pack.
"If you can get closer, get closer. If you can get steadier, get steadier."--Jeff Cooper.
>>31910657
>>31910676
None of that matters when your group size is larger than the vital zone of the animal you're shooting, which it will be no matter how fast your bullet is because of your natural instability.
>>31910719
>Knowing that 0-300yd I can just aim and shoot
You can't just aim and shoot at that distance without a bench-rest.

>>31911238
This guy is confirmed no gunz troll.

>>31911238

You've never fired a gun in your life did you?

>>31909516
>Do they enjoy the extra recoil, action length and weight, muzzle blast, ammo cost, and noise?
yes we do

File: not an argument.jpg (28KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 567x565px

>>31911272
>>31911292

File: IMG_6089.jpg (141KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1600x1600px

>>31910171
This is a group from 100yds with my 30+ year old Model 700 BDL in 7mm Rem Mag.
Rock on bro

>>31909516
A flatter trajectory increases the likelihood of a hit, you cosmic retard.

File: neckbeard faggot.jpg (305KB, 1296x971px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1296x971px

>>31911238
>>Knowing that 0-300yd I can just aim and shoot
>You can't just aim and shoot at that distance without a bench-rest.
Aim and shoot, as in not having to account for bullet drop, you autistic mouth breathing assburger.

File: lazytown_serious.jpg (156KB, 1039x720px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1039x720px

>>31911414
>A flatter trajectory increases the likelihood of a hit

>>31909516
They should make a gun that fires any of them, Medusa style.

I'm running out of op memes.

File: tmp_16621-20161105_155105468821835.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>31911383
My SPS Stainless was made in 1998 judging by the serial number guide I found from google.
Serial prefix is S, so 1998 is the year it gives for that.

I bought it just last month second-hand from a pawn shop for $200 including the Bushnell scope that's mounted to it.

This is today's grouping btw

>>31911423
Are you NOT?

Compare a laser to a .45-70 at 300 yards.

Stupid fuck.

>>31911423
Sure am.

Faster round is more forgiving with range estimation errors, making the shot easier and extending the ethical range for hunting.

If you can hold steady to 600 yards a flat trajectory makes a hit to vitles much easier. Faster rounds also drift much less with wind.

File: will_this_work_for_steadier.jpg (206KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1000x1000px

>>31911238

> You can't just aim and shoot at that distance without a bench-rest

Eh, you can though.

>>31909516
>ethical hunting range meme

You can take an ethical shot out to 1200m my good man. You just need a big ass bullet.

>>31909516
presumably the flexibility the greater case capacity offers for more powder.

if they aren't interested in semi-auto .308 goodness they might as well be able to fit more powder into the case.

>>31911383
is that sort of like .270? A necked down .30-06?

I have a Rem 700 ADL in .243 Win (necked down .308), very similar to 6mm

>>31911569
Kind of I guess, it's a belted magnum, necked-down .375H&H magnum.

Small-ish bullet, lots of energy behind it.
Ballistics are close to .338LM

>>31909516
"Ethical Kill shots" really depend on the hunter, do they not?


If you can print 3 inch groups at 500 yards and feel like killing shit from there, then the 30-06 and so forth have an advantage for you.

But if you can't print a 4" pattern at 100 yards bench rest with bags, you might not wanna be shooting critters at 200 yards.


For most "hunting" ranges in the area I live in ( Kentucky) the average shot is less than 150M, which. For any competent marksmen, most center fired cartridges would do just fine.

As to the Why of your question?
Because that's how shits been done.
a side from the brush argument there really isn't much of an advantage to the magnums sub 300 yards IMO. But to each his own.

File: 1393663896830.jpg (44KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 604x453px

>>31911569
It's essentially a smaller .300 Win mag, shorter, skinnier cartridge and the bullet is also skinnier, but about the same length.

>>31910037
The reason for the flex is your stock is cheap, but works well enough. what you mentioned is a reason why lots of FR/T shooters don't use factory stocks.

If you wanna fix it, get a better stock.
More infomation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h407yVskVeM

>>31911586
>Ballistics are close to .338LM
7mm flbs: 3000ish
.338LM flbs: 5000ish
Anon thats not close. Also I know that flbs are not every thing but jesus are they far apart.

File: tmp_16621-789pdSrh366168258.jpg (240KB, 1024x690px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x690px

>>31911661
I meant .300WM, my bad

>>31909743
>shoulder bruising magnum

Listen to this whiny Kuntzman.

Also, 100m is nothing. Go out west in the US and average shots get far, far longer. Your idea of ethical hunting is bullshit.

>>31909971
>From a field position, I would not risk a shot on any animal, big or small, beyond 120 meters. When shooting from a stand with a rock-solid rest, 150 meters.

Then a 308 is perfect for you. Those of us that don't suck will feel free to shoot further.

>>31910324
>The question is what practical benefit would a flatter shooting rifle have? I submit that for all practical purposes, there is none.

Das some retarded shit there, bro. I hope you are able to buy your first rifle soon

>>31911608
OP's argument this whole thread has been that he can't/shouldn't/it hurts his whiny ass, therefore no one else ought to.

>>31911780
Don't try to apply logic to this backwoods troll.

I hunt with x54r.

Same performance of .308win, but cheaper.

>>31909875
>Saw a .308 spire point blow up on the first shot on an older hog and fail to penetrate.
Should have used a 30-30

>>31909971
I can assure you anything from 22-250 to .338 should be able to kill anything you shoot at first shot out to 400 yards standing with iron sights. If you cant do a pie plate at 400 offhand iron sights, you need more range time or a new hobby.

I use 30-30.

>>31909974
Finland has whitetail deer? How?

>>31909516
Just what the rifle uses in my case.

Agreed 100% my good sir! Stopping power is a meme anyway; you shouldn't need anything more than .22 short for carry and .22LR for hunting. I mean, come on, like, it's 2016. There's no more need to compensate for your genitals with stupid clown calibers - leave those to the military and be satisfied with what you're allowed.

File: not_a_doubt.jpg (25KB, 600x402px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x402px

>>31912237

> Offhand first shot on a 9" target @ 400y

And to think, I once said that Jerry Miculek would never bother with this place.