Now same as then, I'm sticking with the 300Bee. Even back then it was pretty amazing what you could do when you got Roy and Sierra together. Mount the ol Redfield up and start shooting from the hog yard out to the half mile line. The big rock pile was out there so we would take the biggest rocks and stager them every 50 yards from 300 yards (paces) all the way to the pile. I put almost 4000 rounds through my first 300Wby. With todays bullets and rifles it is better than ever.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Knowing what you know now, which cartridge?
- Thread starter DJ Fergus
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
358 WCF
Active Member
What are we hunting? Other than varmints, 300 H&H & 280 Rem. will take care of anything I want to walk to after shooting. Me good foot is on the bad leg. Actually, so will 358 Winchester or 35 Whelen.
Last edited:
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
.340 Weatherby
25WSM
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't feel bad with any of them. My personal favorite cartridge is 257 Roy. But every one on the list will get it done. If i could only have one of them forever and have no other rifles I would do the 7mag. Especially with today's bullets.
Shep
Shep
7mm Rem Mag first and then the 300 Win Mag
Kaptoe
Well-Known Member
257 wby for non elk and 300wm if I had to pick one for elk or everything
I know I am contrarian here but I just don't like the 7mag. For all that powder it sure is light on performance in my view. My 280ai is so close to it and once the powder charge starts with 70gr and up give me a 300 or 338 winmag
I know I am contrarian here but I just don't like the 7mag. For all that powder it sure is light on performance in my view. My 280ai is so close to it and once the powder charge starts with 70gr and up give me a 300 or 338 winmag
David Emerson
Well-Known Member
7 mag,300 win, 264
While I voted for the .270 the .25-06 is a fantastic cartridge as well.
I don't think that such a poll is corny whatsoever. I would hope that it would bring some realization to those who have drank the manufacturers Kool Aid about the fact that most of our cartridges are based upon those "pre-80s" rounds. When a manufactured decides that they need a new, super long range, anti tank, rhinoceros/dinosaur, 1000 yard rocket launcher they will come up with that "new" cartridge and then advertise that cartridge as though it were the only round on the market. We will read about that new rocket launcher in every hunting/shooting magazine in article written by some of the best/renown writers who are out there; and.....the motivation "$$$$$$$$$$". For example take the .280 Ackley Improved, a really great, ole, pre-80s round that one could not pick up any shooting/hunting magazine without reading about it. Today when is the last time you read an article about how good or a cartridge it is. Another round is the .270 Winchester Short magnum, one of the toughest and best hunting rounds out there. I'm not saying that the new cartidges are not any good, in my opinion those cartridges are not really that much better, if at all, than the "ole" pre-80s one, just a lot more expensive then the pre-80s. We used to be able to buy all of our components in lots of "100", not so much in today's world. Take the new, barrel-burner line of Noslers, that brass is selling in lots of "25" at $60 a box!!! I don't care what anyone says, It does not cost four times what it costs to manufacture that brass then it does the pre-80s brass. And.......for my last opinion if one were to make a comparison they would find that those new "rocket launcher" cartridges are really not that much better then the per-80s stuff out there. I was never a .270 Winchester fan until I bought a rifle as a donor rifle for a build and decided to shoot that rifle. I really liked the way the rifle shot, it was quite flat shooting and the recoil was relatively light. I'm not saying that the .270 Winchester is the catch-all round, I am just saying that I think it is a good, middle of the road cartridge to compare the post-80s rounds to. Most of the time there's not that much difference, to me, to cause me to make a change to the new rounds, especially when one considers the cost of ammunition and for reloading components. I have a .270 Ackley Improved, 30-06 Springfield, .358 Winchester, 35 Whelen, 45-70 and would not trade any of them for the type of hunting/shooting that I do. A 6.5-06 A.I. is presently in the wind. So.......are the "ole school" pre-80s cartridges in for me, YUP!
Last edited:
6mmazjeff
Active Member
300 H&H has served me well for 40 years for deer, elk, bear, antelope, mt goat, sheep and other critters of opportunity. With handloads it's right there with the WM and softer to shoot. For the big stuff there's the 375 H&H and for the smaller there's a variety from 218 Bee, 223, 22-250, 6mm. Now all I need is a long range collection which I'm learning an awful lot about from all of you.
I appreciate the willingness to share knowledge and experiences on this forum. So many choices, so little time!
I appreciate the willingness to share knowledge and experiences on this forum. So many choices, so little time!
mindcrime
Well-Known Member
I was going to say the same thing!!!
7mm Rem Mag is my first choice, then the 340 Wby!!!!!
Hard to imagine how & why the 280 rem & even the 280ai was overlooked so many times. Most common folks back then didn't know what's common knowledge among most of us now. I never paid much attention or cared about ballistic coefficient until I started shooting at greater distances in windy conditions. I come to a realization of why my hit percentage was lower with some of my rifles that would shoot sub half moa at 100yds. One particular rifle shot a very low .380 b.c. bullet but would really stack them Into one ragged hole at 100yds. Another rifle I had shot higher .550 b.c. bullets about 5/8" at 100yds. Of course the one ragged hole shooter would out perform the other in almost zero wind at long distance. But when the wind got up, the rifle shooting .550 bc would gain me more hits at distance. I wasn't then and I'm still not the greatest that ever was at reading the wind but I'm better now than before. Then I started to understand more about wind drift & ballistic coefficient which is becoming more common knowledge now but wasn't to me at that time.
