Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
You must have missed the parts about Sierra, Speer, Hornady, etc hunting and varmint bullets, and most of those rifles I listed were"off the shelf" hunting and varmint rifles. Remingtons, Winchesters, Savages, FN's, Weatherbys, Rugers, etc. Sure back in the stone age, just like today, we handloaded to squeeze the most out of our rifles, but we saw many rifles perform very well with several factory loads. (The old Federal Premium line comes to mind along with a couple of others.)
I think you should qualify that with "some factory rifles" and generally the exception and not the rule. I distinctly remember the first time, many years ago, a group of guys bragging on their handloads with their 700s watched me shoot 1/2" groups out of no less than three different Swiss military rifles when none of their 700s would do it. I understand I am talking to a group of experienced handloading competitive shooters and not your average hunters. Average hunters aren't on the long range forum. Average hunters 40 to 50 years ago were lucky to achieve 2" inch groups. Most my fathers age, passed Feb. at 90 yrs, were more than happy to hit the proverbial pie plate at 100 yards and went hunting. The truth is and has always been consistent MOA groups from factory rifles is difficult to chase and was much harder 40 to 50 years ago when technology just wasn't as good. I am baffled that is seems the lot that are responding to me seem to say that every factory rifle 40 to 50 years ago shot MOA groups all the time. It's just not true now and especially then. Check out this article. You guys can argue with me but you're making claims that experts don't agree with. https://www.americanhunter.org/content/how-accurate-are-today-s-rifles/
OK, you made some "assumptions" about comments that after reading multiple times, I do not see anyone made. NO ONE stated every factory rifle was an MOA shooter, and that is no different than today. HOWEVER, many rifles from decades ago were capable of far better performance than MOST shooters were capable of shooting. No different than today.
I'm not meaning to offend. I'm sorry you seem to take it that way. But, the question was when did the particular bullets quit being effective. I think he meant, when were they superseded by superior technology and the answer remains, at least 25 years ago. As you mention, much has changed and driven improvements. Me and many others thank you and others for driving that change. Guns and ammo are worlds better, as the article I linked to above agrees, than they were just 23 years ago. They continue to improve at a rapid pace. I'm astonished that you can buy a $299.99 Palmetto State Armory ar-15 kit, put it together on a $40 lower receiver, and probably shoot 1.5" or less groups with Russian Wolf ammo. I've seen it numerous times and I hate PSA. You just couldn't do that in the 90's with an off the shelf AR and cheap ammo. You can "fix" a Ruger American trigger to a decent 2 pound pull with a bic pen spring. Just crazy. 20 years ago you spent over a $100 for a good trigger and simply hoped it was good and wasted boxes of ammo getting it right. I love my M1A but it hardly compares to my SCAR H or Tavor 7. It's boat anchor compared to either one. It's heavier, slower, less accurate, less ergonomic, less reliable, and nearly impossible to customize. The point is that technology has improved shooting massively since those bullets were the norm. You can use them but they certainly aren't the best to use.
Yes they make both
I fear that you might be correct.You'll likely finding hunting ammo tougher to find..…
than hunting for deer!memtb
Quote: not that difficult with handloads and hunting bullets in many rifles! memtb
I relent and agree. The experts I quoted don't know what they are talking about and guns and bullets were better 40 and 50 years ago. I had Subway for lunch and it was good. Tomorrow I think I'll have McDonald's.
No "club" 94's allowed in our group. Everyone to a man had a Savage 99!!!
