Hand Skills
Well-Known Member
There is no replacement for shot placement.
Great discussion.
- Thread starter Huntnful
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Bucklowery
Well-Known Member
This is one of, if not the best podcast on backcountry and hunting in general
Thanks
Buck
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
Happy to share. The "Part 2" I thought had even better more in depth info as well.
And the actual podcast channel is one of my favorites as well. They're totally unsponsored, so they aren't pedalling out ******** products or discount codes or anything. They have great guests, as well as tons of time in the field and share their hard earned knowledge in a thorough manner.
marksman1941
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,024
And I've seen an elk take 7 shots from a .340 weatherby before going down. ****poor shots aren't anything to rely on here.
Didnt say it was, but better off being over gunned then under when it happens
marksman1941
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,024
Did deer and elk suddenly become impervious in this generation? I understand that we live in an overkill mindset these days, bigger is always better and such, but it's like sitting around a campfire listening to guys tell ghost stories.
The primary cartridge for moose and elk in Northern Europe has been the 6.5x55 Swede for decades, even before modern bullet technology. Reliable, consistent kills on large animals with a lowly 6.5 bullet that so many folks are dumping on. But suddenly a 6.5 bullet can't kill an elk?
Keep your shots in a responsible range for the caliber you're shooting and your skill set and go for it. I'm sure the vaunted 77gr TMK will do wonders on a big animal (as has been documented) if kept inside a reasonable range for the given conditions. If you insist on shooting further, bring a gun that will carry the proper velocity to the distance you want to shoot at. Hell, the only difference in a .308/30-06/.300 win is your maximum range. Yet folks regularly look down on the .308 as an elk rifle but laud the .300 win. Same **** thing, just get closer to the elk and don't try to shoot it from the neighboring zip code.
Match your impact velocity to your bullet of choice, pick the caliber that gives you said impact velocity at the range you are capable and comfortable shooting from field positions, and use it. Its not as complicated as folks like to make it out to be.
The primary cartridge for moose and elk in Northern Europe has been the 6.5x55 Swede for decades, even before modern bullet technology. Reliable, consistent kills on large animals with a lowly 6.5 bullet that so many folks are dumping on. But suddenly a 6.5 bullet can't kill an elk?
Keep your shots in a responsible range for the caliber you're shooting and your skill set and go for it. I'm sure the vaunted 77gr TMK will do wonders on a big animal (as has been documented) if kept inside a reasonable range for the given conditions. If you insist on shooting further, bring a gun that will carry the proper velocity to the distance you want to shoot at. Hell, the only difference in a .308/30-06/.300 win is your maximum range. Yet folks regularly look down on the .308 as an elk rifle but laud the .300 win. Same **** thing, just get closer to the elk and don't try to shoot it from the neighboring zip code.
Match your impact velocity to your bullet of choice, pick the caliber that gives you said impact velocity at the range you are capable and comfortable shooting from field positions, and use it. Its not as complicated as folks like to make it out to be.
Alex Wheeler
Well-Known Member
We agree actualy.
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
I agree with this whole statement.
But I also think that because is this Long Range Hunting Forum, most of our minds immediately go an elk at 1000 yards and what's "most optimal" to kill it, at those kinds of distances, and also the very realistic outcome of a possible poor shot, at those distances.
I know my mind normally does that as well with some discussions.
I believe there was a poll on here a while back about people's longest kills on animals. And if I remember right, the vast majority was under 600 yards. And this is a long range forum. So the general public, is going to be much closer than that. At 3-400 yards, it is very easy to put a low recoiling, high muzzle velocity, small heavy for caliber bullet, within inches of the aim point under a vast array of field conditions. And it will kill.
marksman1941
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,024
I agree with this wholeheartedly. In the long range world, bigger is better because you need to carry that velocity out to a distance. At the standard hunting ranges, if we can extrapolate that from the poll you cited (which I would agree that we likely can) a big cannon often provides less effective because you're impacting above the velocity window for a given bullet. There are countless examples in this thread alone of people using a huge rifle up close on an elk only to need multiple shots.
Maybe I'm putting a spin on this topic that isn't Germaine to it. But the original topic of this post was shots 600 yards and in. If you were to remove the 600+ shots, the actual need for a 405 WunderMagnum would be reduced dramatically, and instead be relegated to primarily ego stroking and Big Stickitis (my stick is bigger therefore I'm more badass than you).
highfinblue
Well-Known Member
Unless you shoot the under more accurately
if you shoot smaller more accurately its most time lack of practice. Animal should have a quick kill. Bigger gun in the kill zone will out do a smaller one every time. So practice with the right tool. Dont be scared big guns dont hurt
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
I will say, I can really see no legitimate discernible differences in group sizes with my large magnums and small magnums, when given the same, stable, prone shooting positions. Lots of 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups in that 600 yard range, with all cartridges. The large magnums are 1.5-2 lbs heavier though.
But since I know not everyone listened to podcast, he also talks about improvised and compromised field shooting positions that you could encounter at any given time during a hunt. Under no circumstances are you shooting a heavier recoiling rifle as good or certainly not better in compromised positions.
BUT, as long range shooters I think we also know the importance of not compromising a field shooting position and always attempting to put ourselves in scenarios that benefit stability and control of the rifle for long range, or any range shots for that matter. So we also don't even take the whole compromised shooting position into account.
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
Based off of this recoil, most people would not guess this is a 7-300 NMI shooting a 180 ELDM at 3160FPS. But, I did not compromise the shooting position in anyway. I carry a rear bag and that heavy *** bipod everywhere haha.
What I never understand is why some think that just because there's a population of us who do not agree with the idea that small calibers are acceptable for larger game that we are somehow trying to compensate for something. It's never ending. Any time this is brought up there's like this cult like effort from the small caliber guys to equate large calibers to poor shots or poor shooting skills. It's not that simple. It makes me think about who's really self-conscious.
My real issue with this small caliber narrative is that I think it's just pushes the line thats already been pushed. There is so much garbage out there these days relating to "Long Range" hunting it's kinda grotesk. Just flip on the YouTube and watch the junk. Guys with very little knowledge/skill are pushing limits on LIVE ANIMALS with systems they just bought over a counter. There is a limit to smaller calibers. Simple as that. Those limits are different with respect to shooting systems, knowledge and abilities and shot placement etc... we all know that. But my problem lies with the idea that In today's age, "Long range hunting" is mainstream. No real understanding or effort offered, just spend the money and youre a long range hunter. We are slowly transitioning from unskilled long range hunters to unskilled small caliber long range hunters who don't even know how to put any bullet in the center. It's seemingly getting worse.
My real issue with this small caliber narrative is that I think it's just pushes the line thats already been pushed. There is so much garbage out there these days relating to "Long Range" hunting it's kinda grotesk. Just flip on the YouTube and watch the junk. Guys with very little knowledge/skill are pushing limits on LIVE ANIMALS with systems they just bought over a counter. There is a limit to smaller calibers. Simple as that. Those limits are different with respect to shooting systems, knowledge and abilities and shot placement etc... we all know that. But my problem lies with the idea that In today's age, "Long range hunting" is mainstream. No real understanding or effort offered, just spend the money and youre a long range hunter. We are slowly transitioning from unskilled long range hunters to unskilled small caliber long range hunters who don't even know how to put any bullet in the center. It's seemingly getting worse.
