Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 04:17:42 PM
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
Post by: Special T on December 24, 2015, 04:25:39 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 24, 2015, 04:31:16 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 24, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Post by: kentrek on December 24, 2015, 05:27:21 PM
If shooter and weapon can shoot 1/2 moa or better at that distance .
1/2 moa @ 4-5 hundred ?? Thatd be tough in some hunting scenarios...but it'd get the job done ! No doubt the rifle could do it
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 24, 2015, 05:38:52 PM
Factory loads for a 6.5 put a 123gr bullet at 2600fps and 1800ft/lbs while a factory 308 puts a 150gr at 2900fps and 2900ft/lbs.
That is not even close. Keep drinking the Kool aid. The 6.5 Grendel is a nice little round but it sure doesn't compare to a 308 or any other 308 based cartridge. As to the OP no I don't personally feel you can get enough energy out of a ar-15 based cartridge to reliably kill big game out past 200yards. But that is not to say it hasn't been done cause I am sure it has, but it leaves alot of room for lost game.
Post by: 257wbymagkiller on December 24, 2015, 05:41:59 PM
Post by: Special T on December 24, 2015, 05:42:26 PM
Post by: zike on December 24, 2015, 05:53:27 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 06:58:05 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 08:02:09 PM
The right caliber and bullet choice along with good bullet placement it could be done.
Of course it "could be done" if by that you mean could you kill an elk at north of 400 yards with it. What I am asking is: is it ethical to attempt to do so?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 08:06:05 PM
The right caliber and bullet choice along with good bullet placement it could be done.
Of course it "could be done" if by that you mean could you kill an elk at north of 400 yards with it. What I am asking is: is it ethical to attempt to do so?
Ethics is something I won't apply to others.
If you feel comfortable doing it and have the skills...Go for it!
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 08:10:18 PM
Where do you get a 6.5 grendel has 308 ballistics? Everything I see has it way below in energy and/or velocity.
Factory loads for a 6.5 put a 123gr bullet at 2600fps and 1800ft/lbs while a factory 308 puts a 150gr at 2900fps and 2900ft/lbs.
That is not even close. Keep drinking the Kool aid. The 6.5 Grendel is a nice little round but it sure doesn't compare to a 308 or any other 308 based cartridge. As to the OP no I don't personally feel you can get enough energy out of a ar-15 based cartridge to reliably kill big game out past 200yards. But that is not to say it hasn't been done cause I am sure it has, but it leaves alot of room for lost game.
Those pretty well are the same thoughts I have on the subject. When I read a thread where a guy is claiming a large mule deer at 496 yards and a spike elk at 411 yards I was wondering how many head of big game this guy has wounded and lost to the coyotes over the years.
To be honest, it impressed me that Elmer Keith was probably not anyone I would want to associate with when I read his stories about banging away at trophy class big game animals with a six-gun at ranges that a guy with a thirty-thirty with open sights would have a huge problem accurately placing a shot at.
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 08:12:59 PM
In a word NO. It might get to 400+ yards, but its not going to have much when it gets there. I ran it thru Thornily's table and its half as much gun as needed for an elk.
That is pretty much what my calculations put it at. I was wondering if I missed something.
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 08:19:59 PM
The right caliber and bullet choice along with good bullet placement it could be done.
Of course it "could be done" if by that you mean could you kill an elk at north of 400 yards with it. What I am asking is: is it ethical to attempt to do so?
Ethics is something I won't apply to others.
If you feel comfortable doing it and have the skills...Go for it!
I won't return to Montana with a guy who was banging away at prairie dogs with a 10/22 at 200+ yards. I have no problem with anyone shooting prairie dogs, or rock chucks or elk with a cartridge and firearm combination that will reliably and humainly kill them at the distance being shot, but I cannot stomach being in the presence of an individual who is shooting at animals at distances with a firearm/cartridge that make a large number of wounded and lost animals an almost certainty.
I guess you and I are just wired a bit different in that regard.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 08:23:51 PM
Ethics is ones own deal, I don't push mine on anyone. I can personally care less about others.
I and others I hunt with have taken big game animals at over 400 yards with AR15 based chamberings.
One shot stop, 596 yards with a 6.5 Grendel.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2FIMG_0304_3_zps53c40754.jpg&hash=79193d7ffe54e0b30e17bf98cfe73616a5b916dc) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/IMG_0304_3_zps53c40754.jpg.html)
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 08:28:49 PM
Where do you get a 6.5 grendel has 308 ballistics? Everything I see has it way below in energy and/or velocity.
Factory loads for a 6.5 put a 123gr bullet at 2600fps and 1800ft/lbs while a factory 308 puts a 150gr at 2900fps and 2900ft/lbs.
That is not even close. Keep drinking the Kool aid. The 6.5 Grendel is a nice little round but it sure doesn't compare to a 308 or any other 308 based cartridge. As to the OP no I don't personally feel you can get enough energy out of a ar-15 based cartridge to reliably kill big game out past 200yards. But that is not to say it hasn't been done cause I am sure it has, but it leaves alot of room for lost game.
Those pretty well are the same thoughts I have on the subject. When I read a thread where a guy is claiming a large mule deer at 496 yards and a spike elk at 411 yards I was wondering how many head of big game this guy has wounded and lost to the coyotes over the years.
To be honest, it impressed me that Elmer Keith was probably not anyone I would want to associate with when I read his stories about banging away at trophy class big game animals with a six-gun at ranges that a guy with a thirty-thirty with open sights would have a huge problem accurately placing a shot at.
Nice.
So you choose to apply your version of ethics to someone else ( who you don't know)and imply that the person has lost game and isn't an ethical hunter? I have been killing mammals with AR based rifles for uhhh.. Yikes.. 30 years? and have never seen anything survive a well placed shot.
I refuse to share hunting stories and pictures on this board because of people like you.
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 08:30:44 PM
If shooter and weapon can shoot 1/2 moa or better at that distance .
I suppose that if I ever came across a shooter with a weapon that they could shoot 1/2 MOA, under big game hunting field conditions, not off a bench and not at 100 yard increments that I might be OK with it, but I have never seen anyone who could even come close to that shooting rockchucks off a super stable shooting bench, sandbagged in and using a front rest with windage and elevation. I have seen it done frequently at the range, heck I manage to do it myself fairly often, but never even seen anyone even come close in the field.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 08:32:37 PM
The right caliber and bullet choice along with good bullet placement it could be done.
Of course it "could be done" if by that you mean could you kill an elk at north of 400 yards with it. What I am asking is: is it ethical to attempt to do so?
Ethics is something I won't apply to others.
If you feel comfortable doing it and have the skills...Go for it!
I guess you and I are just wired a bit different in that regard.
That's for sure
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 08:45:28 PM
Where do you get a 6.5 grendel has 308 ballistics? Everything I see has it way below in energy and/or velocity.
Factory loads for a 6.5 put a 123gr bullet at 2600fps and 1800ft/lbs while a factory 308 puts a 150gr at 2900fps and 2900ft/lbs.
That is not even close. Keep drinking the Kool aid. The 6.5 Grendel is a nice little round but it sure doesn't compare to a 308 or any other 308 based cartridge. As to the OP no I don't personally feel you can get enough energy out of a ar-15 based cartridge to reliably kill big game out past 200yards. But that is not to say it hasn't been done cause I am sure it has, but it leaves alot of room for lost game.
Those pretty well are the same thoughts I have on the subject. When I read a thread where a guy is claiming a large mule deer at 496 yards and a spike elk at 411 yards I was wondering how many head of big game this guy has wounded and lost to the coyotes over the years.
To be honest, it impressed me that Elmer Keith was probably not anyone I would want to associate with when I read his stories about banging away at trophy class big game animals with a six-gun at ranges that a guy with a thirty-thirty with open sights would have a huge problem accurately placing a shot at.
Nice.
So you choose to apply your version of ethics to someone else ( who you don't know)and imply that the person has lost game and isn't an ethical hunter? I have been killing mammals with AR based rifles for uhhh.. Yikes.. 30 years? and have never seen anything survive a well placed shot.
I refuse to share hunting stories and pictures on this board because of people like you.
In the context of what I said: Yes I choose to disassociate myself from others because my version and there's diverges.
If you want to set up a straw men, why not set up a whole field of them and then run around like a pyromaniac in a filed of straw men burning them down. Nobody is stopping you, but it is not going to buttress your argument to set up the straw man that I imply that any person who has lost game isn't an ethical hunter, because I never implied that. Period. Full stop.
I will say that it is unethical to shoot at game animals with a firearm/cartridge that lacks energy to make humainly killing them fairly certain as opposed to it being a matter of luck. In the case of Elmer Keith and stories I have read it impresses me that he probably maimed and injured at least as many, and likely far more, than he ever killed when banging away with a six gun at north of two-hundred yards.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 09:02:00 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 09:07:05 PM
The drama! :chuckle:
Oh.... Spare me. :rolleyes: :chuckle:
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 09:07:57 PM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/164444_.html&page=2
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 09:32:27 PM
Conspicuous, in my mind, in it's absence is any discussion of how many mule deer Keith wounded for every one he bagged when banging away at them with a six gun at extreme range. In bagging one of these deer that Keith is photographed with his six gun next to, IIRC he hit it with two or three non lethal hits before finally bringing that particular deer to bag.
I doubt that anyone would make a claim that it is not possible to kill an elk or deer with an AR15 based rifle at extreme range, what I am asking is do others think that it is ethical to shoot at big game like elk at north of four hundred yards and mule deer at ranges approaching 600 yards? Posting photos that "prove" that a person can kill deer and elk with an AR15 based rifle really do nothing to make the case that it is ethical to shoot at deer and elk at these ranges. Given the fact that Elmer Keith wrote about banging away at dozens X dozens of head of big game with six guns at ranges well over two-hundred fifty yards and there are maybe a half dozen or a dozen pictures showing him with a deer he killed with a six gun at those ranges, that begs the question: just how many head of big game did Elmer Keith wound and maim that died a lingering and painful death and were never recovered.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 09:38:00 PM
Again "Ethics" is a very personal thing and I can careless about others ethics or their opinion of others ethics.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 09:38:35 PM
Elmer Keith has photos of mule deer he killed with a six gun at very long range. I don't doubt that it is posible to kill a deer with a six gun at the ranges he claimed to have killed them at. I don't even doubt that the photos and captions below them are accurate descriptions of what went down.
Conspicuous, in my mind, in it's absence is any discussion of how many mule deer Keith wounded for every one he bagged when banging away at them with a six gun at extreme range. In bagging one of these deer that Keith is photographed with his six gun next to, IIRC he hit it with two or three non lethal hits before finally bringing that particular deer to bag.
I doubt that anyone would make a claim that it is not possible to kill an elk or deer with an AR15 based rifle at extreme range, what I am asking is do others think that it is ethical to shoot at big game like elk at north of four hundred yards and mule deer at ranges approaching 600 yards? Posting photos that "prove" that a person can kill deer and elk with an AR15 based rifle really do nothing to make the case that it is ethical to shoot at deer and elk at these ranges. Given the fact that Elmer Keith wrote about banging away at dozens X dozens of head of big game with six guns at ranges well over two-hundred fifty yards and there are maybe a half dozen or a dozen pictures showing hom with a deer he killed with a six gun at those ranges, that begs the question: just how many head of big game did Elmer Keith wound and maim that died a lingering and painful death.
I don't care what Elmer Keith did with a revolver and why does it have anything to do with hunting with an AR15 based rifle?
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 09:45:22 PM
We were at 500 yards concerning deer when you started this, now I see your at 600 yards as of your last post.
No, it is not I who upped the range to 600 for deer. If you care to look up this thread.... I do believe that it is you who posted a photo of a mule deer and the caption says 596 yards.
To be sure, I thought it absolutely outrageous that someone would take 500 yard potshots at a mule deer with an AR15. But what this photo/caption implies to me is that there are people out there who think nothing of shooting at big game animals that are essentially 3/8s of a mile away with AR15s.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 09:48:20 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 09:49:03 PM
We were at 500 yards concerning deer when you started this, now I see your at 600 yards as of your last post.
No, it is not I who upped the range to 600 for deer. If you care to look up this thread.... I do believe that it is you who posted a photo of a mule deer and the caption says 596 yards.
To be sure, I thought it absolutely outrageous that someone would take 500 yard potshots at a mule deer with an AR15. But what this photo/caption implies to me is that there are people out there who think nothing of shooting at big game animals that are essentially 3/8s of a mile away with AR15s.
What's a "potshot"?
Heck, I want to know what "lights out" is?
Bug holes
Clover leafs
Etc
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 09:50:17 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 24, 2015, 09:54:00 PM
Potshot? The rifles are dialed, have been shot plenty at those distances in field conditions . The guy pulling the trigger can shoot. Get over it!
Yah, but can it shoot a bugs hole?
Post by: actionshooter on December 24, 2015, 09:54:20 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 09:58:01 PM
I simply asked a question and responded to some of those who replied with what my thoughts are on the subject.
You impress me as being awfully defensive regarding this topic.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 09:58:15 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 24, 2015, 10:14:38 PM
Side note, I don't take much stock in the "numbers" in which it takes to "ethically" take down game. Lots of variables come into play. Good example, a 140gr berger VLD takes FAR less velocity and energy to reliably expand than say a Barnes Ttsx of the same weight. So a shot with one bullet may not be wise, where a shot with another bullet may be far more effective.
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 10:26:37 PM
What got me on this topic is that I was following a forum thread in which someone with absolutely no experience hunting big game animals was being advised that an AR15 in 6.5 Grendel was a good option for deer hunting and in giving advice TO A NOVICE HUNTER it was implied that this combination was a good choice for a four-hundred yard plus deer rifle for a novice hunter.
Personally, I have reservations regarding it being an ethical choice period at those ranges, but wanted to see what a cross section of members on this board think on the subject.
Post by: Dan-o on December 24, 2015, 10:31:49 PM
I have an opinion and reserve my right to defend my positions.
What got me on this topic is that I was following a forum thread in which someone with absolutely no experience hunting big game animals was being advised that an AR15 in 6.5 Grendel was a good option for deer hunting and in giving advice TO A NOVICE HUNTER it was implied that this combination was a good choice for a four-hundred yard plus deer rifle for a novice hunter.
Personally, I have reservations regarding it being an ethical choice period at those ranges, but wanted to see what a cross section of members on this board think on the subject.
I think I'd rather most people shoot at deer with AR's when they are 500 yards away rather than 50 yards...... None of those deer will suffer any damage.
NOTE: This does not apply to guys who shoot clover leafs, tack drivers or even bug holes.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 10:31:55 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 24, 2015, 10:48:19 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 24, 2015, 10:51:48 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 24, 2015, 11:02:11 PM
Bullets matter far more than head stamps and placement trumps charts.pretty much sums it up right there.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 24, 2015, 11:03:33 PM
People like you are the exact reason a lot of people on here won't share pics or hunting stories... I used to share all of my hunting stories and pics... Now I just post sometimes because of crap like this... You don't like what a dude does... Deal with it... Let him live his own life like he lets you live yours. :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 11:04:29 PM
I have an opinion and reserve my right to defend my positions.
What got me on this topic is that I was following a forum thread in which someone with absolutely no experience hunting big game animals was being advised that an AR15 in 6.5 Grendel was a good option for deer hunting and in giving advice TO A NOVICE HUNTER it was implied that this combination was a good choice for a four-hundred yard plus deer rifle for a novice hunter.
Personally, I have reservations regarding it being an ethical choice period at those ranges, but wanted to see what a cross section of members on this board think on the subject.
I think I'd rather most people shoot at deer with AR's when they are 500 yards away rather than 50 yards...... None of those deer will suffer any damage.
NOTE: This does not apply to guys who shoot clover leafs, tack drivers or even bug holes.
I was shooting chucks one Saturday and a bunch of guys showed a mile away who were shooting ARs. The next day I checked with the rancher to see if it was ok to set up and shoot that talus slope. He said it was fine with him, but the guys in there yesterday said they shot 27 chucks.
I heard about 40 shots and almost all came in two, three or five shot bursts. So let's say they shot AT 15 chucks.
So of the six single shots I heard lets say they got four chucks. Out of the five or so two shot bursts I figured they got two more if they were lucky and I didn't figure they got a single one they took three or more shots at and so I said: let's give it a try anyway.
We had a heck of a shoot that Sunday and got about nineteen out of twenty five shots taken.
There are guys who can shoot who show up with ARs, but for the most part I agree with you that most any deer at 500 yards is perfectly safe from the agerage guy who is in the field with an AR. I have three ARs and they are, all three, very accurate and it would be rather easy for me to hit a deer with one. Heck I hit prairie dogs with them at 400 yards all the time. But I do know what you mean.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 24, 2015, 11:04:56 PM
Any and every day of the week these words are true.Bullets matter far more than head stamps and placement trumps charts.pretty much sums it up right there.
I have seen it typed and also believe it "a dead deer is a dead deer".
Post by: jdb on December 24, 2015, 11:06:22 PM
Post by: kenzmad on December 24, 2015, 11:18:57 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 07:17:44 AM
As a muzzy hunter, I would ask, why shoot at 400-500 yards. Guess I would call into question the abilities of the hunter to only be able to get that "close". 400 yards to me means I am 300 yards to far away. :dunno: :twocents:As an archery hunter I wonder why shoot at 100 yards? Guess I would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close". 100 yards means to me I am still 60 yards too far away
Post by: superdown on December 25, 2015, 07:59:12 AM
Well as a ball peen hammer hunter Guess i would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close" 40 yards still means i am still 39 yards too far away :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:As a muzzy hunter, I would ask, why shoot at 400-500 yards. Guess I would call into question the abilities of the hunter to only be able to get that "close". 400 yards to me means I am 300 yards to far away. :dunno: :twocents:As an archery hunter I wonder why shoot at 100 yards? Guess I would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close". 100 yards means to me I am still 60 yards too far away
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 08:02:20 AM
:kneel:Well as a ball peen hammer hunter Guess i would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close" 40 yards still means i am still 39 yards too far away :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:As a muzzy hunter, I would ask, why shoot at 400-500 yards. Guess I would call into question the abilities of the hunter to only be able to get that "close". 400 yards to me means I am 300 yards to far away. :dunno: :twocents:As an archery hunter I wonder why shoot at 100 yards? Guess I would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close". 100 yards means to me I am still 60 yards too far away
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 25, 2015, 08:05:48 AM
:bdid: I can't believe anyone would hunt animals a yard away with a ball peen hammer. It's completely unethical.:kneel:Well as a ball peen hammer hunter Guess i would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close" 40 yards still means i am still 39 yards too far away :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:As a muzzy hunter, I would ask, why shoot at 400-500 yards. Guess I would call into question the abilities of the hunter to only be able to get that "close". 400 yards to me means I am 300 yards to far away. :dunno: :twocents:As an archery hunter I wonder why shoot at 100 yards? Guess I would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close". 100 yards means to me I am still 60 yards too far away
Now I'm gonna go start a thread asking if it is to see if anyone agrees with me!
:dunno:
:chuckle:
Post by: runamuk on December 25, 2015, 08:06:08 AM
:kneel:Well as a ball peen hammer hunter Guess i would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close" 40 yards still means i am still 39 yards too far away :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:As a muzzy hunter, I would ask, why shoot at 400-500 yards. Guess I would call into question the abilities of the hunter to only be able to get that "close". 400 yards to me means I am 300 yards to far away. :dunno: :twocents:As an archery hunter I wonder why shoot at 100 yards? Guess I would call into question your ability as a hunter to be able to only get that "close". 100 yards means to me I am still 60 yards too far away
This exchange wins the day :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: best measuring contest ever.
Post by: yorketransport on December 25, 2015, 08:24:13 AM
It sounds like you're imposing your personal limitations and short comings on other people. That's fine, but understand that the world is full of things that you simply aren't capable of doing. That doesn't make those things wrong, impossible, unethical, offensive, or anything else. It just means that they're out of your skill level.
If I want to take my lights out, tack driving specialty pistol and shoot bughole cloverleafs at 500 yards on a deer that's up to me. :chuckle: I know that my equipment is up to the task because I've spent the time practicing.
You seem to really be hung up on hunting with ARs in any caliber at any range. Would you have the same concerns about people hunting at 4-500 yards with a 257 Roberts from a more traditional weapon?
And in defense of Elmer Kieth, comparing handgun hunting to rifle hunting is not entirely fair. Traditional handgun rounds like a 44 don't kill by energy transfer. The idea is simply to put two holes in the target. Air goes in, blood comes out. Loss of blood pressure is what kills not Taylor knockout values, kinetic energy, OGW formulas, ballistic charts, armchair experts or the advice of some guy on Sipers hide. Bullets kill stuff by poking holes and causing bleeding. Poking holes in deer just isn't that tough and elk aren't that much tougher.
Having said all of that, ARs have some of the most anniemic calibers available in any platform. As soon as I figure out how to cram my 375 BME into an AR I'll show you some truly "unethical" shooting. Anything on 4 legs inside of 1400 yards is in trouble! :tup:
Andrew
Post by: jackelope on December 25, 2015, 09:40:37 AM
These types of threads are the evil of this forum. You clearly already have it set in your mind how you feel on this topic. Also clearly, nobody is going to change your mind on it. So why bother starting a thread on ethics that will obviously stir the pot and cause more drama??We were at 500 yards concerning deer when you started this, now I see your at 600 yards as of your last post.
No, it is not I who upped the range to 600 for deer. If you care to look up this thread.... I do believe that it is you who posted a photo of a mule deer and the caption says 596 yards.
To be sure, I thought it absolutely outrageous that someone would take 500 yard potshots at a mule deer with an AR15. But what this photo/caption implies to me is that there are people out there who think nothing of shooting at big game animals that are essentially 3/8s of a mile away with AR15s.
I'll never understand.
Post by: jackelope on December 25, 2015, 09:57:39 AM
We were at 500 yards concerning deer when you started this, now I see your at 600 yards as of your last post.
No, it is not I who upped the range to 600 for deer. If you care to look up this thread.... I do believe that it is you who posted a photo of a mule deer and the caption says 596 yards.
To be sure, I thought it absolutely outrageous that someone would take 500 yard potshots at a mule deer with an AR15. But what this photo/caption implies to me is that there are people out there who think nothing of shooting at big game animals that are essentially 3/8s of a mile away with AR15s.
Pretty sure none of the folks commenting on this thread roll with "potshots" on anything.
Post by: grundy53 on December 25, 2015, 10:03:11 AM
I agree. This thread is purely self aggrandizing.These types of threads are the evil of this forum. You clearly already have it set in your mind how you feel on this topic. Also clearly, nobody is going to change your mind on it. So why bother starting a thread on ethics that will obviously stir the pot and cause more drama??We were at 500 yards concerning deer when you started this, now I see your at 600 yards as of your last post.
No, it is not I who upped the range to 600 for deer. If you care to look up this thread.... I do believe that it is you who posted a photo of a mule deer and the caption says 596 yards.
To be sure, I thought it absolutely outrageous that someone would take 500 yard potshots at a mule deer with an AR15. But what this photo/caption implies to me is that there are people out there who think nothing of shooting at big game animals that are essentially 3/8s of a mile away with AR15s.
I'll never understand.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: NW-GSP on December 25, 2015, 11:14:02 AM
I have a 300 win mag that I would not try to take an animal past 300 yards only due to the fact that I have never shot farther then 300 yards with it. There are plenty of guys that could make consistently make hits at 1000 yards with it.
My whole point is that it really depends on the shooter and the ammunition.
Post by: bobcat on December 25, 2015, 11:26:15 AM
Post by: mountainman on December 25, 2015, 01:35:19 PM
Its all in ability..
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 25, 2015, 01:45:44 PM
A bag full of trash is a bag full of trash no matter where it shows up.
Post by: JDHasty on December 25, 2015, 01:54:04 PM
We were at 500 yards concerning deer when you started this, now I see your at 600 yards as of your last post.
No, it is not I who upped the range to 600 for deer. If you care to look up this thread.... I do believe that it is you who posted a photo of a mule deer and the caption says 596 yards.
To be sure, I thought it absolutely outrageous that someone would take 500 yard potshots at a mule deer with an AR15. But what this photo/caption implies to me is that there are people out there who think nothing of shooting at big game animals that are essentially 3/8s of a mile away with AR15s.
Pretty sure none of the folks commenting on this thread roll with "potshots" on anything.
Well there are some posting here who were posting about the value of "dumping a full magazine" in another thread. That, in my estimation, qualifies as taking potshots.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 02:07:18 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 25, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
I shot a large mule deer with a .243 @ 503 yards in montana this year. Was that unethical of me? It was a bolt action though, so I'm thinking that it was ok.....
Noooo! Say it isn't so! ;)
Post by: cbond3318 on December 25, 2015, 02:33:42 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 02:37:37 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 02:39:10 PM
Didn't bother reading any of this but would like to ad , I am a BIG proponent of the "potshot". :twocents: started carry 2 quivers this year and upgraded my pack system for 3200 cu in to 5000 cu in to fit more .243 rounds... It's all about quantity.accuracy by volume, it's a real thing :chuckle:
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 25, 2015, 03:13:01 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 25, 2015, 03:18:27 PM
Didn't bother reading any of this but would like to ad , I am a BIG proponent of the "potshot". :twocents: started carry 2 quivers this year and upgraded my pack system for 3200 cu in to 5000 cu in to fit more .243 rounds... It's all about quantity.accuracy by volume, it's a real thing :chuckle:
I'm thinking cone of dispersion.
I just hope that I have to do a mag change someday.
Post by: Landowner on December 25, 2015, 04:11:05 PM
But for me, nothing is more unimpressive than killing big game from several hundred yards.
Might show shooting skills. Not so much on "hunting" skills.
Post by: cbond3318 on December 25, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Dang! I was afraid of that!!! :bash: It was a total pot shot too! I barely had time to figure out my dope and wildly dial for MOA before I aggressively squeezed the trigger!
:chuckle:
Post by: cbond3318 on December 25, 2015, 04:18:28 PM
Ethics is up to the shooter. Each to their own
But for me, nothing is more unimpressive than killing big game from several hundred yards.
Might show shooting skills. Not so much on "hunting" skills.
What if you hunted for 6 miles to get within 500 yds? Still unimpressed?
Post by: Landowner on December 25, 2015, 04:23:11 PM
Ethics is up to the shooter. Each to their own
But for me, nothing is more unimpressive than killing big game from several hundred yards.
Might show shooting skills. Not so much on "hunting" skills.
What if you hunted for 6 miles to get within 500 yds? Still unimpressed?
Yes. 6 miles or 60 yards hike. All the same in my book. Good shooting and good rifle. Not impressive hunting. But that's just me.
Get your popcorn out.
Post by: 2labs on December 25, 2015, 04:23:36 PM
Didn't bother reading any of this but would like to ad , I am a BIG proponent of the "potshot". :twocents: started carry 2 quivers this year and upgraded my pack system for 3200 cu in to 5000 cu in to fit more .243 rounds... It's all about quantity.
This guy makes me smile!!....don't ban me Bobs..
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 04:24:55 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 04:34:28 PM
Post by: Landowner on December 25, 2015, 04:40:18 PM
So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards. Man all this time I thought I was hunting. :bash:
It's up to you what you want to call it. Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting. But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book. But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 04:54:22 PM
You do realize that a 30-30 and a .243 are both high powered rifles right? So it's hunting if the projectile is smaller or the velocity is slower? At what point is it not hunting? .257? .270? Also, what if the muzzleloader has a scope? Is that still hunting? So many variables that I never took into consideration before. I'm so confused.....So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards. Man all this time I thought I was hunting. :bash:
It's up to you what you want to call it. Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting. But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book. But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you.
Post by: yorketransport on December 25, 2015, 04:56:47 PM
So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards. Man all this time I thought I was hunting. :bash:
From what I've learned in this thread, I think you're alright as long as you don't use an AR 15. :chuckle:
So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards. Man all this time I thought I was hunting. :bash:
It's up to you what you want to call it. Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting. But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book. But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you.
So if I do it with a 30-30 or 243 it's OK? So does that mean that if I hike in 50 miles I can use a 338 Lapua at 1000 yards since it has the same energy at 1000 yards (using a 250gr bullet) as a 30-30 does at 50 yards (with a 170gr bullet)? Then am I a real hunter? I think I'm starting to understand it now!
Post by: Landowner on December 25, 2015, 04:59:54 PM
So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards. Man all this time I thought I was hunting. :bash:
From what I've learned in this thread, I think you're alright as long as you don't use an AR 15. :chuckle:So note to self, a guy who hikes 6 miles into a wilderness, lives off of what he can carry on his back, has the knowledge and skills to find a mature buck who has survived multiple hunting seasons, then kills that buck breaks him down, then packs him out that 6 miles is not a hunter because he shot the buck from several hundred yards. Man all this time I thought I was hunting. :bash:
It's up to you what you want to call it. Sounds more like fine equipment to me than hunting. But take a 30.30 or a .243 or a muzzy or bow and pull it off, now that is "hunting" in my book. But, if you hike 50 miles and kill a buck at 1,000 yards and it turns your crank, more power to you.
So if I do it with a 30-30 or 243 it's OK? So does that mean that if I hike in 50 miles I can use a 338 Lapua at 1000 yards since it has the same energy at 1000 yards (using a 250gr bullet) as a 30-30 does at 50 yards (with a 170gr bullet)? Then am I a real hunter? I think I'm starting to understand it now!
Take one of those weapons I mentioned and you will eventually figure it out. :chuckle:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 05:12:33 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 05:13:48 PM
Post by: yorketransport on December 25, 2015, 05:18:08 PM
So what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow? Am I a hunter then?
No, you're a show off. >:( :chuckle:
Ya York! Those fancy calibers you shoot from A PISTOL is just cheating :chuckle:Especially when I use them at long range while road hunting! When the 338 Big Baer pistol is done I can be an unethical hunter even farther away! Fortunately I only get an animal once every 6 years or so which makes me an infrequent unethical hunter. :chuckle:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 05:20:01 PM
OMG!!!! You're the worst of the worstSo what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow? Am I a hunter then?
No, you're a show off. >:( :chuckle:Ya York! Those fancy calibers you shoot from A PISTOL is just cheating :chuckle:Especially when I use them at long range while road hunting! When the 338 Big Baer pistol is done I can be an unethical hunter even farther away! Fortunately I only get an animal once every 6 years or so which makes me an infrequent unethical hunter. :chuckle:
:chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 25, 2015, 05:20:26 PM
:rolleyes:
:chuckle:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 05:31:30 PM
I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.This just blew my mind :yike: So you're telling me that deer I shot with my bow, on your private property wasn't hunting!?!!!!
:rolleyes:
:chuckle:
So even with archery equipment, I'm still not a hunter :bash: :'( >:( :yeah: :bdid: :sry: :twocents:
:chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 25, 2015, 05:34:09 PM
You got it. And above all else it was over a bait pile. I mean really... Does it get any easier?I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.This just blew my mind :yike: So you're telling me that deer I shot with my bow, on your private property wasn't hunting!?!!!!
:rolleyes:
:chuckle:
So even with archery equipment, I'm still not a hunter :bash: :'( >:( :yeah: :bdid: :sry: :twocents:
:chuckle:
:dunno:
Post by: yorketransport on December 25, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
You got it. And above all else it was over a bait pile. I mean really... Does it get any easier?I'll say that I don't think anyone that kills animals on private land is a hunter. I mean seriously how hard is it to go out and shoot a deer that nobody else can even chase. Without the general public out there chasing it the deer doesn't even know to be scared of people. Talk about shooting livestock in a field.This just blew my mind :yike: So you're telling me that deer I shot with my bow, on your private property wasn't hunting!?!!!!
:rolleyes:
:chuckle:
So even with archery equipment, I'm still not a hunter :bash: :'( >:( :yeah: :bdid: :sry: :twocents:
:chuckle:
:dunno:
Yes. When you do it at 500 yards with an AR off the hood of your truck. :chuckle:
Post by: splitshot on December 25, 2015, 06:00:53 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 25, 2015, 08:06:47 PM
But to really stir the pot I don't really agree with bow hunting either because I feel to many people fling arrows when they should have waited for a better shot. But thats what is great about our country is that I am free to have my ownOpinions.
Post by: JDHasty on December 25, 2015, 08:51:21 PM
Windage is something else all together and you can measure wind at the point of departure, but that tells you almost nothing about what it is doing between yourself and four hundred yards or further away.
I spend a lot of time in central Washington shooting chucks and in Montana shooting prairie dogs. I have been behind a gun, lined up in a 40-60 power spotting scope and have watched the shockwave from bullets travel 400-600 yards and can assure you that they ride the wind quite a bit horizontally, back and forth in many instances, and a bullet can be moved over a foot in a direction that is 180 degrees opposite from the direction the wind was at at the point of departure.
On an elk, with a hold behind the shoulder that can easily mean a solid shoulder hit and anyone who has ever witnessed an elk so hit can attest to the fact that elk hit solidly in the shoulder can absorb a lot of punishment and stay on their feet and be gone a long way in a short time. On a deer that same amount of drift could take a bullet right into the liver and a hole punched through the liver of a deer will mean that you have one sick deer, but one that will travel quite a distance unless you have MASSIVE shock as well.
People want to equate the energy delivered by a 30-30 at 30-30 ranges with the energy of a 6.5 Grendel at 400 yards and they say the 30-30 is proven effective on elk... therefore. But what is left out of the equation is that wind drift is not a factor in the former, because shots are seldom made over a hundred yards. Whereas it is the most difficult thing to deal with at serious yardage and that is just a stone cold natural fact that complicates getting a killing shot in with the latter at 400 yards plus. I have seen enough animals shot in my lifetime to have a profound respect for how it is simply not possible to deal with wind to the degree that some here claim to be able to do so, under hunting conditions, reliably by dialing in windage.
I will go so far as to say that I have personally watched a guy miss a rockchuck by twenty inches in the direction of the wind at the firing point when the gunner was holding a foot into the wind or had dialed a foot of windage in to account for what he had measured at the bench and observed between the bench and the target. I'm talking about a chuck sitting on a rock pile that we have fired hundreds and hundreds of shots at over three or four decades of shooting and so you could say that we are intimately familiar with making that shot. Of course once the bullet splash was called the gunner held away from the wind he was feeling on his face a foot on the next shot, or dialed it over, and the chuck went to the big rockpile in the sky.
BUT, in the case if an elk or deer hit in the shoulder or liver on that first shot the next shot is going to be at a moving animal and that further complicates things.
A relatively small bullet that is going to perform spectacularly on a heart/lung shot simply cannot also be a first class performer on heavy bone and muscle. It simply lacks enough mass to carry it through with sufficient remaining velocity to bust the offside shoulder as well and break an elk down. It is simply the laws of momentum at work that demand this.
Energy = 1/2 m v^2
Momentum = m v
What is the difference between conservation of momentum and conservation of energy?
• Energy conservation is only true for non-relativistic scales, and provided that nuclear reactions do not occur. Momentum, either linear or angular, is conserved even in relativistic conditions.
• Energy conservation is a scalar conservation; therefore, the total energy amount must be considered when doing calculations. Momentum is a vector. Therefore, momentum conservation is taken as a directional conservation. Only the momenta on the considered direction have an impact on the conservation.
What I am getting at is that the energy is there enough for a clean kill on a heart/lung hit to get the job done efficiently with a 6.5 Grendel at 400-500 yards and I will never argue that point. My point is that when hunting it is not a given that your bullet will strike where you figured it would, if you think that you are special and are endowed with special powers in the ability to judge wind under field conditions or even worse think that you are shooting a bullet that will not be affected by wind drift at the ranges I am discussing then any discussion on this topic will fall on deaf ears. Those light 6.5 bullets just simply do not have the momentum left at those ranges to perform well on heavy bone and muscle out there. Particularly when a light bullet meets heavy bone and muscle that absorbs a such a large percentage of what energy remains in a light bullet once it contacts and then plows through solid muscle tissue and bone.
With even a 30-06 or a 270 we have more velocity and far greater bullet weight, with proper bullet selection, and the simple laws that govern conservation of momentum are what give us the additional penetration and tissue destruction by virtue of these properties to question whether shooting at big game at these ranges with a firearm/cartridge that allows so little margin for windage error is ethical.
An elk hit in the shoulder with a 270 or a 30-06 is still not in the bag. BUT, it will be hit with a bullet with much greater momentum remaining and the chances of getting sufficient penetration are far greater than with a light 6.5 bullet.
To be clear, I don't have these issues when we are talking about limiting range to ~250 yards. But that is not what I brought to the table for discussion.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 25, 2015, 08:59:58 PM
Now it's all about the wind!
Post by: jackelope on December 25, 2015, 09:06:28 PM
So what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow? Am I a hunter then?Only an elk hunter.
Post by: JDHasty on December 25, 2015, 09:17:03 PM
well at least you have regrouped and are firing away from a different angle. The "Ethics" deal was a miserable failure.
Now it's all about the wind!
Not at all. I am saying that I do not see how anyone can say that they can be in the field, shooting at elk at 400 yards and not take into account that wind is not a variable that can be reliably accounted for.
That being the case it shoud, in my mind, be considered that there should be some margin of safety to account for the fact that less than perfect first shot placement at these ranges is frequently enough less than what would be desired that using a firearm/cartridge that allows no room for error is questionable from an ethical standpoint.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 25, 2015, 09:20:43 PM
Next it will be bullet flight time and the animal could bolt into the next GMU before the bullet arrives. Several clowns have attempted that one in the past.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 09:35:11 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 25, 2015, 09:36:13 PM
:chuckle: gotcha! So now I need to work on being a deer hunter. :chuckle:So what if I kill a buck with a rifle and then the next week I kill an elk with my bow? Am I a hunter then?Only an elk hunter.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 25, 2015, 09:46:20 PM
My opinion was I don't feel that a Ar-15 platform rifle has enough juice to reliably make sure kills on elk out to 400yards. With perfect shot sure it is a dead elk everytime but stuff happens and shots sometimes miss their mark. Now step up to a Ar-10 platform rifle and you can get a lot more powerful calibers that can help compensate for a shot that might be a little off its mark. I do believe that the OP has something against AR platforms as a whole. I own over nine AR's and would personally never use them for hunting simply because I like my bolt rifles better.AR-15 with the .358 WSSM is kind of mid point between the .358 Win and the .35 Whelen. That's well within elk capability at 400.
But to really stir the pot I don't really agree with bow hunting either because I feel to many people fling arrows when they should have waited for a better shot. But thats what is great about our country is that I am free to have my ownOpinions.
Post by: bobcat on December 25, 2015, 09:48:36 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 25, 2015, 09:53:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 25, 2015, 09:58:02 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:51:22 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 08:03:46 AM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 08:21:17 AM
It seems that some are reading a lot more into what JD is saying. In general I agree with his posts. How can you not? It also depends to some extent to what actual distance are we talking about here? 400 yards is a long ways, and most guys have no business shooting elk that far. But the title of this thread says "past 400 yards." So if we're talking 500, 600, and further, well that's something else entirely and would require a little more rifle than what we're taking about here.
I have shot at enough rockchucks and seen enough rockchucks shot at by people who don't just claim to be good, they have won the hardware to back up that claim shooting high power, silhouette, bench rest and other disciplines wherein doping the wind comes into play to have an opinion on that subject that is based on decades of practical experience.
The fact that one individual here claims: It's 400 yards dude not 1400 yards. Honestly, any shooter who knows his rig can bang that shot all day every day. In the wind, in the rain, in the heat, or in the cold. It's just not that difficult. Strongly suggests to me that this individual does not have much practical experience shooting in windy conditions. The reason I say that is because the only people I have ever heard make such an outlandish claim have not had a lot of practical experience shooting under windy conditions when someone else was keeping score. Kinda like the guy who claims to never miss on flushing pheasant in the field, but haas trouble breaking sixteen targets in a round of trap. There was no one keeping score in the former.
What also comes into play in the field is that big game hunting is not bench shooting and being able to shoot prone or even sitting using a bipod is not something that anyone can count on. Shooting resting off a fence post, resting on a limb and especially off hand makes shooting a first shot into one or two MOA of where a shooter wants it to land quite unlikely.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 08:26:41 AM
It seems that some are reading a lot more into what JD is saying. In general I agree with his posts. How can you not? It also depends to some extent to what actual distance are we talking about here? 400 yards is a long ways, and most guys have no business shooting elk that far. But the title of this thread says "past 400 yards." So if we're talking 500, 600, and further, well that's something else entirely and would require a little more rifle than what we're taking about here.
I have shot at enough rockchucks and seen enough rockchucks shot at by people who don't just claim to be good, they have won the hardware to back up that claim shooting high power, silhouette, bench rest and other disciplines wherein doping the wind comes into play to have an opinion on that subject that is based on decades of practical experience.
The fact that one individual here claims: It's 400 yards dude not 1400 yards. Honestly, any shooter who knows his rig can bang that shot all day every day. In the wind, in the rain, in the heat, or in the cold. It's just not that difficult. Strongly suggests to me that this individual does not have much practical experience shooting in windy conditions. The reason I say that is because the only people I have ever heard make such an outlandish claim have not had a lot of practical experience shooting under windy conditions when someone else was keeping score. Kinda like the guy who claims to never miss on flushing pheasant in the field, but haas trouble breaking sixteen targets in a round of trap. There was no one keeping score in the former.
What also comes into play in the field is that big game hunting is not bench shooting and being able to shoot prone or even sitting using a bipod is not something that anyone can count on. Shooting resting off a fence post, resting on a limb and especially off hand makes shooting a first shot into one or two MOA of where a shooter wants it to land quite unlikely.
I see you are still judging others based on your skill sets.
How was Christmas?
Post by: grundy53 on December 26, 2015, 08:33:35 AM
I'm glad you are here to let us all know what is ethical and right.It seems that some are reading a lot more into what JD is saying. In general I agree with his posts. How can you not? It also depends to some extent to what actual distance are we talking about here? 400 yards is a long ways, and most guys have no business shooting elk that far. But the title of this thread says "past 400 yards." So if we're talking 500, 600, and further, well that's something else entirely and would require a little more rifle than what we're taking about here.
I have shot at enough rockchucks and seen enough rockchucks shot at by people who don't just claim to be good, they have won the hardware to back up that claim shooting high power, silhouette, bench rest and other disciplines wherein doping the wind comes into play to have an opinion on that subject that is based on decades of practical experience.
The fact that one individual here claims: It's 400 yards dude not 1400 yards. Honestly, any shooter who knows his rig can bang that shot all day every day. In the wind, in the rain, in the heat, or in the cold. It's just not that difficult. Strongly suggests to me that this individual does not have much practical experience shooting in windy conditions. The reason I say that is because the only people I have ever heard make such an outlandish claim have not had a lot of practical experience shooting under windy conditions when someone else was keeping score. Kinda like the guy who claims to never miss on flushing pheasant in the field, but haas trouble breaking sixteen targets in a round of trap. There was no one keeping score in the former.
What also comes into play in the field is that big game hunting is not bench shooting and being able to shoot prone or even sitting using a bipod is not something that anyone can count on. Shooting resting off a fence post, resting on a limb and especially off hand makes shooting a first shot into one or two MOA of where a shooter wants it to land quite unlikely.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 08:36:25 AM
So JD your saying the guys you hunt rock chuck with just arnt that good ? ..... to put into perspective the first five shots behind my 6.5 where at 405 yards with a 10-12mph cross wind the first shot was clean bore and was about two inches of the mark the next four where in the bull and could have been covered with a paper cup . that's a bolt gun I never shot ... blrm shoot it a 545 and believe he shot a one inch stick off a stump .....that's a quality bolt gun with little to no practice other than a couple dry fires . If I had a 6.5 grendal in a good ar platform that was say 1/2 moa with a lrab or a vld bullet id not hesitate to punch a elk through the lungs at 500 . ten iches behind the shoulder is a huge target . a 30/30 at 150 yards with a weaver 4x is far more difficult . by the way have you seen how far a elk can carry a arrow ?
You may have done that once or a few times or even quite a few times, anyone who shoots chucks or prairie dogs at long range has. People who have a lot of experience shooting a lot of prairie dogs and especially chucks at ranges past 400 yards know exactly what I am talking about. PDs live on flat open ground and the wind dealing with them is normally a little bit less problematic than it is in the coulees and canyons that chucks favor.
Let's just say: I am rather skeptical of many of the claims being made regarding the ability to judge wind and get off a first shot that Palma shooters would be proud of AND Palma shooters get to shoot sighters.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 08:37:55 AM
Second, wind is a variable I am probably more familiar shooting in than you. At least in a hunting situation. If it's that crazy of a wind, and I'm shooting a light bullet, I'd probably get closer if the distance was far enough.
Now you are trying to use the rest as an excuse? I don't know a single person I hunt with or shoot with that is gonna attempt a long shot without being able to get prone. You just don't go down town in poor conditions without taking the time to get solid.
You're grasping at straws with a bunch of guys who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about. And ya, 400 is a chip shot. All day, every day. I know this because I have shot AND killed at that distance. In the wind, in the rain, in the heat, and in the cold. Steep uphill shots, steep downhill shots, sitting, prone, even in a prone sitting squatting thing once on a scree slide in Colorado.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 08:38:03 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 08:42:54 AM
So how far can an elk be killed with an AR-15? If it's been said already I missed it. And why would someone want to use an AR-15 for shooting elk at extremely long range? I guess I don't get why some seem to be upset at what JD is saying.It's the fact that HE has determined that it is unethical so he is trying to press it on everyone else. He has apparently shot some rodents or something so therefore is an expert on shooting elk and deer past 400 yards. Also he feels none of us have much field experience killing animals. He even just called out Coach for not having field experience even though as most of us know, Coach has killed more large game than I would say 97% of folks on this forum. I'm gonna catch him though :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on December 26, 2015, 08:43:45 AM
First off, if you're gonna call me out for a comment I made, be a man and use my name.But were you shooting chucks? None of this means anything unless they were chucks... :-)
Second, wind is a variable I am probably more familiar shooting in than you. At least in a hunting situation. If it's that crazy of a wind, and I'm shooting a light bullet, I'd probably get closer if the distance was far enough.
Now you are trying to use the rest as an excuse? I don't know a single person I hunt with or shoot with that is gonna attempt a long shot without being able to get prone. You just don't go down town in poor conditions without taking the time to get solid.
You're grasping at straws with a bunch of guys who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about. And ya, 400 is a chip shot. All day, every day. I know this because I have shot AND killed at that distance. In the wind, in the rain, in the heat, and in the cold. Steep uphill shots, steep downhill shots, sitting, prone, even in a prone sitting squatting thing once on a scree slide in Colorado.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 08:45:45 AM
Post by: grundy53 on December 26, 2015, 08:47:13 AM
So how far can an elk be killed with an AR-15? If it's been said already I missed it. And why would someone want to use an AR-15 for shooting elk at extremely long range? I guess I don't get why some seem to be upset at what JD is saying. And I really a seriously asking, because I don't know. I already said I know very little about AR-15's. To me an AR is a 223 and obviously with that cartridge it wouldn't even be legal for elk.You would need to read his posts for context. An AR15 isn't a .223. It is a platform. One with many cartridge options.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on December 26, 2015, 08:48:52 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?It depends on the caliber/round. How far would you take an elk with a Remington 700?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 08:53:17 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?
550 and I'm shooting 264LBC/6.5G
This is MY limit based on MY rig, dope and bullet being used.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 08:54:03 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?It depends on the caliber/round. How far would you take an elk with a Remington 700?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Well I didn't want theoretical. I was wondering how far would anyone on here shoot at an elk with an AR that they actually own, whatever the cartridge may be. Just curious, don't want to argue.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 08:57:42 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?
Best of luck getting a straight answer.
Bobcat, whet set me in motion on this exercise is that one of these guys responded to a NOVICE big game hunter's question regarding the suitability of using an AR15/300 Blackout for deer hunting by posting a photo of a large mule deer with a caption stating it was taken with a 6.5 G at 496 yards. To me this gave the impression that the 6.5 G is a round that a NOVICE should consider as ethical for long range deer hunting.
I have a SERIOUS problem with that. A NOVICE hunter coming here looking for advice deserves better. The deer that NOVICE hunters with a valid are standing 400+ yards from in the field deserve better and more qualified responses than this.
Post by: Stein on December 26, 2015, 08:58:40 AM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 08:58:48 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2Fphoto_zpsc1e1304a.jpg&hash=6883b56f1fa60f4da609e00399440686f607ed31) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/Mobile%20Uploads/photo_zpsc1e1304a.jpg.html)
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 09:01:20 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?
550 and I'm shooting 264LBC/6.5G
This is MY limit based on MY rig, dope and bullet being used.
That would be limit with a 270 or 30/06.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 09:03:42 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?
550 and I'm shooting 264LBC/6.5G
This is MY limit based on MY rig, dope and bullet being used.
That would be limit with a 270 or 30/06.
Yours not mine
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 09:06:22 AM
The moderator had the good sense to clean up that thread and suggest that the discussion was better suited for a separate thread. So here it is.
Post by: grundy53 on December 26, 2015, 09:08:18 AM
I don't know how you expect to not get a theoretical answer when you ask such a broad undefined question. Maybe you should be more specific.Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?It depends on the caliber/round. How far would you take an elk with a Remington 700?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Well I didn't want theoretical. I was wondering how far would anyone on here shoot at an elk with an AR that they actually own, whatever the cartridge may be. Just curious, don't want to argue.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 09:11:37 AM
I don't know how you expect to not get a theoretical answer when you ask such a broad undefined question. Maybe you should be more specific.Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?It depends on the caliber/round. How far would you take an elk with a Remington 700?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Well I didn't want theoretical. I was wondering how far would anyone on here shoot at an elk with an AR that they actually own, whatever the cartridge may be. Just curious, don't want to argue.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It was a simple question- basically just what the title of this thread is.
I did get an answer, 550 yards. Which to me is max range for any bolt action rifle that I own.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 09:20:05 AM
I don't know how you expect to not get a theoretical answer when you ask such a broad undefined question. Maybe you should be more specific.Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?It depends on the caliber/round. How far would you take an elk with a Remington 700?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Well I didn't want theoretical. I was wondering how far would anyone on here shoot at an elk with an AR that they actually own, whatever the cartridge may be. Just curious, don't want to argue.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It was a simple question- basically just what the title of this thread is.
I did get an answer, 550 yards. Which to me is max range for any bolt action rifle that I own.
I concur and I own a lot of bolt action big game rifles, but the one I always grab is a McMillan stocked Model 70 in 300 Wby. I just would not trust that a 200 grain Nosler Partition would perform on a shoulder hit out past that range. Unlike some here, I have a lot of respect for an elk or mule deer's toughness and tenacity for life and their ability to escape with a solid shoulder hit when not broken down.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 09:25:41 AM
It seems that some are reading a lot more into what JD is saying. In general I agree with his posts. How can you not? It also depends to some extent to what actual distance are we talking about here? 400 yards is a long ways, and most guys have no business shooting elk that far. But the title of this thread says "past 400 yards." So if we're talking 500, 600, and further, well that's something else entirely and would require a little more rifle than what we're taking about here.
I have shot at enough rockchucks and seen enough rockchucks shot at by people who don't just claim to be good, they have won the hardware to back up that claim shooting high power, silhouette, bench rest and other disciplines wherein doping the wind comes into play to have an opinion on that subject that is based on decades of practical experience.
The fact that one individual here claims: It's 400 yards dude not 1400 yards. Honestly, any shooter who knows his rig can bang that shot all day every day. In the wind, in the rain, in the heat, or in the cold. It's just not that difficult. Strongly suggests to me that this individual does not have much practical experience shooting in windy conditions. The reason I say that is because the only people I have ever heard make such an outlandish claim have not had a lot of practical experience shooting under windy conditions when someone else was keeping score. Kinda like the guy who claims to never miss on flushing pheasant in the field, but haas trouble breaking sixteen targets in a round of trap. There was no one keeping score in the former.
What also comes into play in the field is that big game hunting is not bench shooting and being able to shoot prone or even sitting using a bipod is not something that anyone can count on. Shooting resting off a fence post, resting on a limb and especially off hand makes shooting a first shot into one or two MOA of where a shooter wants it to land quite unlikely.
I see you are still judging others based on your skill sets.
How was Christmas?
No, what I am questioning is the JUDGEMENT of joining a thread posted by a NOVICE hunter who was seeking advice and posting information that could easily be interpreted by that NOVICE hunter as suggesting that if he were to go with a 6.5G that he is good to go at far longer range than they have any business shooting at big game with with an AR based platform.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 09:28:30 AM
You basically summed it up bobcat. Know YOUR personal limitations with the equipment YOU have. Even a novice that has half a brain can figure that out.I don't know how you expect to not get a theoretical answer when you ask such a broad undefined question. Maybe you should be more specific.Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?It depends on the caliber/round. How far would you take an elk with a Remington 700?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Well I didn't want theoretical. I was wondering how far would anyone on here shoot at an elk with an AR that they actually own, whatever the cartridge may be. Just curious, don't want to argue.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It was a simple question- basically just what the title of this thread is.
I did get an answer, 550 yards. Which to me is max range for any bolt action rifle that I own.
And to answer your previous question, i think there are many reasons to hunting with an AR platform. Modularity, fast follow ups, familiarity, etc. I have a friend who switched over completely to AR'S for all his guns because they were all the same. Same trigger, same stock, same accessories. Didn't matter what gun he grabbbed, he was comfortable with it.
I started using an AR for predator hunting because of the follow up factor. My success went WAY up on doubles when I could be right back on a second dog without having to come off target to cycle the bolt. Farthest dog with the .223 was 471 yards by the way. Super unethical pot shot of course.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 09:31:25 AM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 09:33:18 AM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 09:41:29 AM
I've never owned an AR and probably never will, but they do seem like the perfect predator hunting rifle. If I ever get one it will be for that purpose.
I have three. I shot high power with a Competition HBar and a Match HBar and own a Remington R15 that I use for predator hunting and all three are sub MOA accurate and they work well for that purpose out to quite a long way off and a coyote is one tough customer. The only thing done to them is to swap out the triggers for Guiseley triggers and I like the platform.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 09:46:42 AM
Novice hunter, come on! My friends 12 year old son has shot bear at 680 yards. Bang Flop, done deal. People who haven't spent their lives in the distance shooting world have a hard time comprehending it.
Yes, that kind of distance IS hard to comprehend. I've been hunting for 35 years and my furthest shot on a big game animal is 320 yards. Now that I'm going to Wyoming every year there's a good possibility I may get the chance to extend that by just a bit. But even out there I would never try 680 yards.
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 09:50:45 AM
Post by: rtspring on December 26, 2015, 09:53:32 AM
1. Most hunters cant shoot 400 yards period! No matter the shooting position or weapon!
2. Most weapons are far more accurate than the shooter!
3. I took a bull on the wetside in 2008 at 562 yards, with a basic setup .300 RUM. The bull was facing away and I shot him in the neck, 3 people seen me do it. DEAD ELK
4. Id rock an elk at 400 with an AR platform if I had shot it before and knew how to shoot it well...
5. Karl, Coach can shoot!!! You had best believe they can! I would put that 6.5 up against any rifle out there!
6. The kill area on a bull elk is huge! But yet many people hit them in the leg, guts, ass, and so on! Its not the rifle 90 percent of the time its the shooter!
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 09:56:48 AM
Here are some facts
1. Most hunters cant shoot 400 yards period! No matter the shooting position or weapon!
2. Most weapons are far more accurate than the shooter!
3. I took a bull on the wetside in 2008 at 562 yards, with a basic setup .300 RUM. The bull was facing away and I shot him in the neck, 3 people seen me do it. DEAD ELK
4. Id rock an elk at 400 with an AR platform if I had shot it before and knew how to shoot it well...
5. Karl, Coach can shoot!!! You had best believe they can! I would put that 6.5 up against any rifle out there!
6. The kill area on a bull elk is huge! But yet many people hit them in the leg, guts, ass, and so on! Its not the rifle 90 percent of the time its the shooter!
AMEN !!!!
Post by: DaveMonti on December 26, 2015, 09:59:03 AM
The truth is that it's all a shade of grey (yes, I just did impose the "shade of grey" argument!). Personally, I do have ethics which I will impose on others. Anyone who says "My ethics are mine and I don't care what you do, your ethics are yours" is just not recognizing what goes on in everyone's life every day.
If you were hunting with someone unexperienced, and they wanted to shoot at a mule deer at 500+ yards with "marginal" caliber and that hunter said "I'm just going to hold over a few feet, see if I hit him!", would you sit there and say "Hey, your ethics, not mine, fire away." I doubt it. You can all sit there and speak to every individual situation between bullets, calibers, experience, wind, etc., but when it comes down to it, my guess that everyone has said at some point, "Uh buddy, that's not a real good idea" and "imposed" their ethics on someone else, in a myriad of situations, based on their own experience and judgment.
I do feel a responsibility to bring my ethics into play when it appears something unethical might occur. I don't go around looking to boss everyone around, but everyone imposes their ethics on others. If you raised a child, how did you not? If you've given advice, how did you not impose some sort of ethics into the conversation? Some people, like myself, are paid to have ethics and review the work of others to make sure what they are proposing is in fact "ethical". If not, someone could lose their life. Not that someone WILL lose their life, but someone could. It's not as simple as one OR the other, it's all probability, or shades of whatever color you want to go with. Same with shooting at long ranges with any caliber, the results aren't guaranteed before you pull the trigger, the final results are a shade of probability based on hundreds of factors.
JDHasty has his ethics. It works for him, and I don't recall him saying "YOU will not shoot at an animal over xxx yards with an AR, and if you do, you're a -insert personal insult-" It is also obvious that JDHasty feels it unethical to shoot at any animal at a long distance by rapid firing and hoping to hit something. This is right for JD. For you, you might say "I hate coyotes" and be fine with emptying a magazine from a .223 at 500 yards in an attempt to kill a coyote running across an clearing. Would you do the same with a deer, elk, bear, moose, lion, turkey? Would you allow someone else to, someone on your hunt with you, someone who might lack judgement? I doubt anyone would. Everyone has their own ethics and will impose them onto others at times.
As with anything, this is just a discussion, but it also has taken an turn towards getting personal, snarky, and a bit "he said THIS, and I take OFFENSE". Lighten up, it's a discussion. Nobody is going to come to your hunting spot and physically restrain you from shooting at something they feel is unethical.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 09:59:39 AM
Novice hunter, come on! My friends 12 year old son has shot bear at 680 yards. Bang Flop, done deal. People who haven't spent their lives in the distance shooting world have a hard time comprehending it.
The man posting stated that he wanted to build a pair of rifles for his wife and he to hunt with and specifically stated that his wife is a novice hunter.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 10:03:25 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:05:09 AM
I love how this thread is all just a big black and white argument. Nobody will win this one.
The truth is that it's all a shade of grey (yes, I just did impose the "shade of grey" argument!). Personally, I do have ethics which I will impose on others. Anyone who says "My ethics are mine and I don't care what you do, your ethics are yours" is just not recognizing what goes on in everyone's life every day.
If you were hunting with someone unexperienced, and they wanted to shoot at a mule deer at 500+ yards with "marginal" caliber and that hunter said "I'm just going to hold over a few feet, see if I hit him!", would you sit there and say "Hey, your ethics, not mine, fire away." I doubt it. You can all sit there and speak to every individual situation between bullets, calibers, experience, wind, etc., but when it comes down to it, my guess that everyone has said at some point, "Uh buddy, that's not a real good idea" and "imposed" their ethics on someone else, in a myriad of situations, based on their own experience and judgment.
I do feel a responsibility to bring my ethics into play when it appears something unethical might occur. I don't go around looking to boss everyone around, but everyone imposes their ethics on others. If you raised a child, how did you not? If you've given advice, how did you not impose some sort of ethics into the conversation? Some people, like myself, are paid to have ethics and review the work of others to make sure what they are proposing is in fact "ethical". If not, someone could lose their life. Not that someone WILL lose their life, but someone could. It's not as simple as one OR the other, it's all probability, or shades of whatever color you want to go with. Same with shooting at long ranges with any caliber, the results aren't guaranteed before you pull the trigger, the final results are a shade of probability based on hundreds of factors.
JDHasty has his ethics. It works for him, and I don't recall him saying "YOU will not shoot at an animal over xxx yards with an AR, and if you do, you're a -insert personal insult-" It is also obvious that JDHasty feels it unethical to shoot at any animal at a long distance by rapid firing and hoping to hit something. This is right for JD. For you, you might say "I hate coyotes" and be fine with emptying a magazine from a .223 at 500 yards in an attempt to kill a coyote running across an clearing. Would you do the same with a deer, elk, bear, moose, lion, turkey? Would you allow someone else to, someone on your hunt with you, someone who might lack judgement? I doubt anyone would. Everyone has their own ethics and will impose them onto others at times.
As with anything, this is just a discussion, but it also has taken an turn towards getting personal, snarky, and a bit "he said THIS, and I take OFFENSE". Lighten up, it's a discussion. Nobody is going to come to your hunting spot and physically restrain you from shooting at something they feel is unethical.
Very well said.
Post by: Possum197 on December 26, 2015, 10:08:34 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 10:23:19 AM
I love how this thread is all just a big black and white argument. Nobody will win this one.I agree and disagree. I think everyone should hold themselves to a higher standard but I think comparing imposing ethics upon someone in the field who is about to make a poor desicion based on personal knowledge of that individuals abilities and equipment vs. imposing ethics upon an internet forum and a bunch of individuals who you have zero knowledge of ability and equipment is apples to oranges.
The truth is that it's all a shade of grey (yes, I just did impose the "shade of grey" argument!). Personally, I do have ethics which I will impose on others. Anyone who says "My ethics are mine and I don't care what you do, your ethics are yours" is just not recognizing what goes on in everyone's life every day.
If you were hunting with someone unexperienced, and they wanted to shoot at a mule deer at 500+ yards with "marginal" caliber and that hunter said "I'm just going to hold over a few feet, see if I hit him!", would you sit there and say "Hey, your ethics, not mine, fire away." I doubt it. You can all sit there and speak to every individual situation between bullets, calibers, experience, wind, etc., but when it comes down to it, my guess that everyone has said at some point, "Uh buddy, that's not a real good idea" and "imposed" their ethics on someone else, in a myriad of situations, based on their own experience and judgment.
I do feel a responsibility to bring my ethics into play when it appears something unethical might occur. I don't go around looking to boss everyone around, but everyone imposes their ethics on others. If you raised a child, how did you not? If you've given advice, how did you not impose some sort of ethics into the conversation? Some people, like myself, are paid to have ethics and review the work of others to make sure what they are proposing is in fact "ethical". If not, someone could lose their life. Not that someone WILL lose their life, but someone could. It's not as simple as one OR the other, it's all probability, or shades of whatever color you want to go with. Same with shooting at long ranges with any caliber, the results aren't guaranteed before you pull the trigger, the final results are a shade of probability based on hundreds of factors.
JDHasty has his ethics. It works for him, and I don't recall him saying "YOU will not shoot at an animal over xxx yards with an AR, and if you do, you're a -insert personal insult-" It is also obvious that JDHasty feels it unethical to shoot at any animal at a long distance by rapid firing and hoping to hit something. This is right for JD. For you, you might say "I hate coyotes" and be fine with emptying a magazine from a .223 at 500 yards in an attempt to kill a coyote running across an clearing. Would you do the same with a deer, elk, bear, moose, lion, turkey? Would you allow someone else to, someone on your hunt with you, someone who might lack judgement? I doubt anyone would. Everyone has their own ethics and will impose them onto others at times.
As with anything, this is just a discussion, but it also has taken an turn towards getting personal, snarky, and a bit "he said THIS, and I take OFFENSE". Lighten up, it's a discussion. Nobody is going to come to your hunting spot and physically restrain you from shooting at something they feel is unethical.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:24:30 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:25:52 AM
400 yards is a bit far for 90% of all rifled and hunters. It's little more than a Hail Mary unless you've had lots of practice. :twocents:
That is consistent with my four+ decades of observation. And I would add that means lots of experience shooting away from a bench at the range. Getting in position to make a shot is not as intuitive as it appears to a someone who has not practiced doing it.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 10:35:58 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 10:36:42 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
:chuckle:How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
Your who original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made. This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 10:40:17 AM
Hence the total reason for this thread.
Post by: DaveMonti on December 26, 2015, 10:42:12 AM
Personally, I did not feel that JDHasty is imposing anything upon me. His communication style may be more direct, but I didn't get the feeling that he was trying to get me to comply with something that he believes in. BUT, I don't see things in black and white, and to people that do, anything that is in disagreement from what they believe IS a black and white issue.
JDHasty has given me reason to think. I don't shoot any of the newer tactical stuff (forgive me if "tactical" is the wrong term, technically or emotionally). I have no desire to shoot them. While I can't see why I would ever want one, (I prefer to shoot long distances with solid bolt actions), I don't think that NOBODY should want one.
I do think everyone has a responsibility to be ethical AND to influence others to be ethical as well. I do not think anyone should be the "ethical police", but yes, we are all responsible for taking game cleanly, not target shooting in a high line behind someone's house, and stopping that guy who had a bit too much from getting into his car and hitting the road, even if you think he deserves what he has coming to him, because everyone's actions have at least SOME repercussions on others.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:42:59 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.
And in the 1960's O'Brein killed brown bear with a 17 caliber rifle, as well as moose, elk and IIRC African plains game. Does that make it reasonable to suggest that it is reasonable to suggest that a 17 is a good choice for an average sportsman to hunt brown bear with?
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 10:46:22 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
P
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.
And in the 1960's O'Brein killed brown bear with a 17 caliber rifle, as well as moose, elk and IIRC African plains game. Does that make it reasonable to suggest that it is reasonable to suggest that a 17 is a good choice for an average sportsman to hunt brown bear with?
Maybe he should have asked you before he took that shot! ;)
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:48:16 AM
Most didn't see his tantrum that was deleted out of the the .300 Blackout thread concerning his attack on the ethics of the two DEAD animals mentioned above.
Hence the total reason for this thread.
The point I made is that you should be careful that you are not giving a false sense of what the capabilities a novice armed with any AR15 based cartridge are when in the field. For that I was called names and responded to with snark. If you consider that to be a tantrum....
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 10:50:47 AM
Most didn't see his tantrum that was deleted out of the the .300 Blackout thread concerning his attack on the ethics of the two DEAD animals mentioned above.
Hence the total reason for this thread.
The point I made is that you should be careful that you are not giving a false sense of what the capabilities a novice armed with any AR15 based cartridge are when in the field. For that I was called names and responded to with snark. If you consider that to be a tantrum....
It was a tantrum. Maybe you should start a "Novice hunter" thread.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:54:24 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
P
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
Your complete original post is directed at shots "I"/ "We" have already made.This whole thread is based on a dead deer at 496 yards and a dead elk at 411 yards with the 6.5 Grendel based AR. It not only can be done it has been done.
And in the 1960's O'Brein killed brown bear with a 17 caliber rifle, as well as moose, elk and IIRC African plains game. Does that make it reasonable to suggest that it is reasonable to suggest that a 17 is a good choice for an average sportsman to hunt brown bear with?
Maybe he should have asked you before he took that shot! ;)
He and his fellow 17 caliber enthusiasts, Ackley, Atkinson of A&M Rifles fame among them wrote many articles and answered many letters in magazines back then and they were very diligent in making certain to qualify what they were advocating on behalf of. They made it clear that the average sportsman had no business trying to emulate them, unless and until, they had developed the skills that they have.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on December 26, 2015, 10:56:53 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
Absolutely YES!!! And that's not opinion it indeed is FACT!!! Now move along.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 11:00:49 AM
Here's your post JD.
"Anyone who is shooting at big game at 496 yards with a 6.6 Grendel has no business being in the field hunting big game animals period. "
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
Absolutely YES!!! And that's not opinion it indeed is FACT!!! Now move along.
Black and white, unqualified and IMHO an opinion that is not based on anything other than possibly having limited experience being in the field with hunters of all skill and experience levels. And don't tell anyone who is interested in exploring this topic in depth when to move along. You are not the arbitor who gets to decide when others have read every point of view they wish to consider.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:07:18 AM
Here's your exact quote. When it came to my post about killing a Mulie with one shot from a 6.5 Grendel at 496 yards. I don't feel as if you are directing that at just "Novice Hunter's"
Here's your post JD.
"Anyone who is shooting at big game at 496 yards with a 6.6 Grendel has no business being in the field hunting big game animals period. "
You are justified in taking umbrage at that statement. It was unqualified and far to all encompassing and I should have been more judicious in my choice of words before making that blanket statement.
Can you appreciate my position that few people have any business, given their current experience and skill level have any business considering the 6.5G a long range deer and elk cartridge and consider the fact that I don't think you are doing your cause or the person looking for advice any favors when posting things that make it look like the 6.5G is a good option for a novice and if they go that route they are justified at taking shots at an elk that is closing on a quarter mile and deer out past that range.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 11:19:44 AM
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on December 26, 2015, 11:26:44 AM
Actually the 6.5 is a better choice for long range if your inexperienced since its such a stable bullet...if they miss due to drop then the animal just walks off.
Yep and almost no recoil. Excellent choice for new or young hunters.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:28:47 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on December 26, 2015, 11:36:06 AM
What's the velocity with that 6.5?
I get 2490 with factory 123 sst and an 18" barrel. 1860 fps and just over 940 lbs energy at 400 yards.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 11:41:35 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:42:25 AM
What's the velocity with that 6.5?
I get 2490 with factory 123 sst and an 18" barrel. Just over 940 lbs energy at 400 yards.
Thanks.
Knowing that, I can't see that being a 400 yard elk rifle. Would be marginal on deer at that range.
300 yards would be a good max range for that cartridge, in my opinion. Again that's my opinion only, don't want to argue.
Not saying it couldn't kill an elk at 500 yards. It probably could, just like an elk could be killed at 100 yards with a 22 long rifle.
Post by: zike on December 26, 2015, 11:44:36 AM
Okay, so forgive me if this has already been said, but what's the furthest shot any of you would take on an elk with your AR-15?
I don't consider my 6.8 Rem an elk gun. I belong to the bigger is better for elk. My 340 or 300 win mag were my go to rifles for elk. I have been carrying my AR10 in .308 for a couple of years now but I haven't used it on an elk yet. I just like a biggerhammer for big game.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:48:51 AM
Actually the 6.5 is a better choice for long range if your inexperienced since its such a stable bullet...if they miss due to drop then the animal just walks off.
Yep and almost no recoil. Excellent choice for new or young hunters.
That is something I do not agree with. IMHO if you are shooting at big game at long range with a cartridge with trajectory like the 6.5G you have absolutely no business without a laser range finder and a scope with target knobs. If you miss due to undershooting in that situation then it follows that it is you who botched the shot and that to me implies that the bullet could be right or left or high as well. If right or left means a shoulder shot then all of my observations are valid. What is more, if you dialed in a minute of angle of windage after taking a wind reading where you are shooting from and the wind is blowing the opposite direction most of the way to the animal that means your inexperienced hunter's perfect shot lands about nine inches laterally - either in the shoulder or in the liver. In the case of a shoulder hit, the 6.5G with the light 6.5 bullets used in it lack the sectional density and mass to have sufficient momentum to break down a large deer or elk hit in the shoulder.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:52:21 AM
To put that in perspective, my .243 pushing a 105gr VLD @ 2820fps. Range was 500. Bullet made jelly of his insides and I did get an exit. That's numbers AND real world results. That's a smaller projectile hitting with less energy than dontgetcrabs 6.5.What's the velocity with that 6.5?
I get 2490 with factory 123 sst and an 18" barrel. 1860 fps and just over 940 lbs energy at 400 yards.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:55:15 AM
I don't care what gun or how big the caliber is, as soon as you are having to hold "off hair" it's time to start dialing. Everyone you are arguing with here uses proper optics for the job.Actually the 6.5 is a better choice for long range if your inexperienced since its such a stable bullet...if they miss due to drop then the animal just walks off.
Yep and almost no recoil. Excellent choice for new or young hunters.
That is something I do not agree with. IMHO if you are shooting at big game at long range with a cartridge with trajectory like the 6.5G you have absolutely no business without a laser range finder and a scope with target knobs. If you miss due to undershooting in that situation then it follows that it is you who botched the shot and that to me implies that the bullet could be right or left or high as well. If right or left means a shoulder shot then all of my observations are valid. What is more, if you dialed in a minute of angle of windage after taking a wind reading where you are shooting from and the wind is blowing the opposite direction most of the way to the animal that means your inexperienced hunter's perfect shot lands about nine inches laterally - either in the shoulder or in the liver. In the case of a shoulder hit, the 6.5G with the light 6.6 bullets used in it lack the sectional density and mass to have sufficient momentum to break down a large deer or elk hit in the shoulder.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:59:57 AM
What's the velocity with that 6.5?
I get 2490 with factory 123 sst and an 18" barrel. Just over 940 lbs energy at 400 yards.
Thanks.
Knowing that, I can't see that being a 400 yard elk rifle. Would be marginal on deer at that range.
300 yards would be a good max range for that cartridge, in my opinion. Again that's my opinion only, don't want to argue.
Not saying it couldn't kill an elk at 500 yards. It probably could, just like an elk could be killed at 100 yards with a 22 long rifle.
In the hands of an expert, who is intimately familiar with the cartridge I suppose I see it as marginal at best and I would not personally use it. Others disagree and are confident in their ability to place shots, so who am I to say. Where I cannot go is to suggest it is a reasonable choice for long range shooting at deer and especially elk by those who are average or even above average shots and don't have a lot of experience with it.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 12:06:44 PM
I don't care what gun or how big the caliber is, as soon as you are having to hold "off hair" it's time to start dialing. Everyone you are arguing with here uses proper optics for the job.Actually the 6.5 is a better choice for long range if your inexperienced since its such a stable bullet...if they miss due to drop then the animal just walks off.
Yep and almost no recoil. Excellent choice for new or young hunters.
That is something I do not agree with. IMHO if you are shooting at big game at long range with a cartridge with trajectory like the 6.5G you have absolutely no business without a laser range finder and a scope with target knobs. If you miss due to undershooting in that situation then it follows that it is you who botched the shot and that to me implies that the bullet could be right or left or high as well. If right or left means a shoulder shot then all of my observations are valid. What is more, if you dialed in a minute of angle of windage after taking a wind reading where you are shooting from and the wind is blowing the opposite direction most of the way to the animal that means your inexperienced hunter's perfect shot lands about nine inches laterally - either in the shoulder or in the liver. In the case of a shoulder hit, the 6.5G with the light 6.6 bullets used in it lack the sectional density and mass to have sufficient momentum to break down a large deer or elk hit in the shoulder.
What does that have to do with what was said regarding novice hunters shooting long range?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 12:07:49 PM
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?Thought we were talking about the capabilites of the firearm not the shooter :dunno:
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
um because you said it. 6.5, .223, or 338 win, if you are guessing hold, you're doing it wrong.I don't care what gun or how big the caliber is, as soon as you are having to hold "off hair" it's time to start dialing. Everyone you are arguing with here uses proper optics for the job.Actually the 6.5 is a better choice for long range if your inexperienced since its such a stable bullet...if they miss due to drop then the animal just walks off.
Yep and almost no recoil. Excellent choice for new or young hunters.
That is something I do not agree with. IMHO if you are shooting at big game at long range with a cartridge with trajectory like the 6.5G you have absolutely no business without a laser range finder and a scope with target knobs. If you miss due to undershooting in that situation then it follows that it is you who botched the shot and that to me implies that the bullet could be right or left or high as well. If right or left means a shoulder shot then all of my observations are valid. What is more, if you dialed in a minute of angle of windage after taking a wind reading where you are shooting from and the wind is blowing the opposite direction most of the way to the animal that means your inexperienced hunter's perfect shot lands about nine inches laterally - either in the shoulder or in the liver. In the case of a shoulder hit, the 6.5G with the light 6.6 bullets used in it lack the sectional density and mass to have sufficient momentum to break down a large deer or elk hit in the shoulder.
What does that have to do with what was said regarding novice hunters shooting long range?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 12:19:19 PM
Energy is important sure but I focus on speed and how the bullet performs on impact. Hitting large bone is out at the distance I quoted BTW.
I haate dialing and Use a HORUS Reticle.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 12:31:21 PM
264/6.5G 18" barrel and I was going a little bit faster than don't get crabs.
Energy is important sure but I focus on speed and how the bullet performs on impact. Hitting large bone is out at the distance I quoted BTW.
I haate dialing and Use a HORUS Reticle.
Well that's a amature set up if I've ever seen one! :chuckle: ;) :tup
High speed, low drag stuff there.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
Funny how guys that have no clue how to shoot distance constantly dote over numbers. Deads, dead.. Bang Flop! What's there to discuss. Go do your thing a we will do ours.
Funny how structural engineers, who couldn't begin to operate a crane, dote on numbers too. Equally funny how oilers and crane operators kill a lot of innocent people and destroy millions of dollars in property every week around the world because they don't have any appreciation for the calculations that were used to set load ratings on cranes. It's a real belly laugh and in 99% of those accidents it is "operator error" on the part of people who have extrapolated their limited field experience and applied that to situations that they lack appreciation of.
In fact the number of cases of design deficiencies in the lifting apparatus are so rare that they shrink to insignificance when compared to the cases of people who think they can disregard the numbers.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 12:36:24 PM
264/6.5G 18" barrel and I was going a little bit faster than don't get crabs.
Energy is important sure but I focus on speed and how the bullet performs on impact. Hitting large bone is out at the distance I quoted BTW.
I haate dialing and Use a HORUS Reticle.
Well that's a amature set up if I've ever seen one! :chuckle: ;) :tup
High speed, low drag stuff there.
Just a bunch of junk I swept up on the shop floor one day. :chuckle:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 12:38:26 PM
Funny how guys that have no clue how to shoot distance constantly dote over numbers. Deads, dead.. Bang Flop! What's there to discuss. Go do your thing a we will do ours.
Funny how structural engineers, who couldn't begin to operate a crane, dote on numbers too. Equally funny how oilers and crane operators kill a lot of innocent people and destroy millions of dollars in property every week around the world because they don't have any appreciation for the calculations that were used to set load ratings on cranes. It's a real belly laugh and in 99% of those accidents it is "operator error" on the part of people who have extrapolated their limited field experience and applied that to situations that they lack appreciation of.
Funny how some people can make the easiest stuff in the world sound hard.
This stuff isn't that tough folks.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 12:47:55 PM
Funny how guys that have no clue how to shoot distance constantly dote over numbers. Deads, dead.. Bang Flop! What's there to discuss. Go do your thing a we will do ours.
Funny how structural engineers, who couldn't begin to operate a crane, dote on numbers too. Equally funny how oilers and crane operators kill a lot of innocent people and destroy millions of dollars in property every week around the world because they don't have any appreciation for the calculations that were used to set load ratings on cranes. It's a real belly laugh and in 99% of those accidents it is "operator error" on the part of people who have extrapolated their limited field experience and applied that to situations that they lack appreciation of.
Funny how some people can make the easiest stuff in the world sound hard.
This stuff isn't that tough folks.
Ain't that the truth. It isn't that hard to apreciate that a bullet that lacks momentum to break down an animal hit in the shoulder at ranges that make bullet placement tricky is generally considered "marginal."
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 12:52:20 PM
I avoid the shoulder as I don't want to waste the meat.
Post by: jackelope on December 26, 2015, 12:55:38 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 12:57:17 PM
oooh. A potential new thread diversion here. Shot placement...
BINGO!!!
There's been several prime opportunities for a "Out" but some just won't let stuff go.
My eight year old daughter even sings it.
"Let it go, let it go, let it go!"
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 01:07:43 PM
:chuckle:
It's very hard to argue with the ignorant and closed minded people. An exercise in futility of you show real world examples and still can't get them to open their mind.
I'll take a guy like hammers real world experience over Hastys numbers any day of the week.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 01:25:37 PM
I'm just still wondering why he keeps bringing up the skills of a novice shooter when the thread was started for the purpose of discussing the capabilities of the firearm :dunno:It's easy to grasp at anything possible when you are obviously proven wrong with facts and real world experience.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 01:31:27 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 01:38:21 PM
Okay, I don't see where anyone was "proven wrong." As someone else already said, this is not a black and white kind of topic. Let's try not to take it too personal.AR will kill an elk past 400 yards, very effectively I might add (topic of this thread). This is fact. Bringing the personal skills of the shooter into the subject has no bearing on the lethality of the firearm itself. A poor shooter is gonna make poor shots regardless of caliber at those distances. Compensating for lack of ability by using a larger caliber is in my eyes, the unethical action.
Post by: jasnt on December 26, 2015, 01:41:36 PM
:yeah:The right caliber and bullet choice along with good bullet placement it could be done.
Of course it "could be done" if by that you mean could you kill an elk at north of 400 yards with it. What I am asking is: is it ethical to attempt to do so?
Ethics is something I won't apply to others.
If you feel comfortable doing it and have the skills...Go for it!
I can't tell you what your ethics should be.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 01:42:34 PM
Personally I would only ask WHY? Why would someone choose an AR for shooting elk at extreme long range when a standard bolt action rifle chambered in 30/06 with a basic 3-9x scope is superior.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 01:45:48 PM
How much past 400 I guess is the question. If you have the right optics and knowledge to shoot that far a 30/30 would kill an elk at 400 yards. But still not the best cartridge for the job.Your saying a 30-06 with a basic 3-9 scope (taken as no tactical or long range type dials) is superior than a 6.5 ar built for long range and having a scope built to be dialed and specifically set up for that?
Personally I would only ask WHY? Why would someone choose an AR for shooting elk at extreme long range when a standard bolt action rifle chambered in 30/06 with a basic 3-9x scope is superior.
Is personally take a 6.5 with confirmed dope for a 400-500 yard shot than a 30-06 with Kentucky wind age for a shot at an elk at 450 yards. As I feel it's more ethical to use a gun proven at that range than holding what looks like 14 inches above the target and hoping it's correct. :twocents:
My 06 shooting 180 interlocks is dropping drastically at that range. 22 inches drop at 400 and 47 inches at 500 yards.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 01:51:08 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :tup:How much past 400 I guess is the question. If you have the right optics and knowledge to shoot that far a 30/30 would kill an elk at 400 yards. But still not the best cartridge for the job.Your saying a 30-06 with a basic 3-9 scope (taken as no tactical or long range type dials) is superior than a 6.5 ar built for long range and having a scope built to be dialed and specifically set up for that?
Personally I would only ask WHY? Why would someone choose an AR for shooting elk at extreme long range when a standard bolt action rifle chambered in 30/06 with a basic 3-9x scope is superior.
Is personally take a 6.5 with confirmed dope for a 400-500 yard shot than a 30-06 with Kentucky wind age for a shot at an elk at 450 yards. As I feel it's more ethical to use a gun proven at that range than holding what looks like 14 inches above the target and hoping it's correct. :twocents:
My 06 shooting 180 interlocks is dropping drastically at that range. 22 inches drop at 400 and 47 inches at 500 yards.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 01:56:06 PM
Post by: HUNTaHOLIC5 on December 26, 2015, 02:01:07 PM
So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.With that logic why stop at the 30/06? There are tons of calibers bigger and faster. As said earlier some people just enjoy and are more familiar with ar platforms.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 02:02:44 PM
So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.Hell a 50 launches a bigger bullet than a 06. Why not pick a 50?
Different strokes for different folks.
I agree a 06 has more power. But a 6.5 at has plenty of killing force which has been proven in this thread.
A bad shot with a 06 isn't much better than a bad shot with a 6.5. Still a bad shot
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 02:05:11 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Post by: jasnt on December 26, 2015, 02:15:17 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=asBjqOx1txY
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 02:16:14 PM
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Yeah, that's why I said "most people." The 30/06 with a 150 grain bullet at 3,000 fps really doesn't kick that much.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 26, 2015, 02:16:28 PM
So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.Maybe it was picked as primarily a med range rifle that could still have a longer range capability. On the wetside, a 12 gauge would probably suffice for most anything but clear cuts. But you see 7mm mags all over for the occasions when an animal is out there in the cuts. Why have a 7 mag when shooting at deer 40 yds away?
Post by: zike on December 26, 2015, 03:07:20 PM
Quote from:
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.
[/quote
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.
[/quote
I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.Anything 6.5? A lightweight 264 mag is a handful not as bad as the 340 Weatherby, but not for a small shooter. My Bar 300mag is easier to shoot.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 03:10:49 PM
:rolleyes: sorry, ALMOST every 6.5Quote from:
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.
[/quoteI disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.Anything 6.5? A lightweight 264 mag is a handful not as bad as the 340 Weatherby, but not for a small shooter. My Bar 300mag is easier to shoot.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 03:36:02 PM
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Yeah, that's why I said "most people." The 30/06 with a 150 grain bullet at 3,000 fps really doesn't kick that much.
The clique arguing this have made it their life's work to validate the AR15 platform as something that excels at a job it is marginally capable of in the hands of an expert marksman/experienced hunter and seek to expand its acceptance and use for that task by the general public.
I will never see it as being as good a choice as anything in the 270, 30-06 class on up for the very reasons I have stated. In fact when compared to many of the 308 based cartridges anything that an AR15 will handle comes in second and by a wide margin simply because the former launch heavier bullets, with higher balistic coefficients and higher sectional densities at higher velocities. That means higher retained velocity and energy on impact, all else being equal higher sectional densities ensure greater penetration and the law of conservation of momentum is as unimpeachable as the law of gravity. A bullet with higher mass AND velocity on impact benefits from both and to their chagrin I don't and never will believe their claims of super human abilities to dope wind and am rather skeptical that any of them can actually shoot half minute groups under field conditions at 400+ yards. I don't doubt that some of them MAY have done so once or twice, but I have my doubt that any of them could shoot a five shot, half minute, four hundred yard group on demand in the field, in the wind.
To accept that this is plausible would also demand that i believe that they posses wind doping abilities that simply and demonstrably not credible. Bench rest shoots are held, across the nation, at half or a quarter of the ranges they claim to be able to shoot half inch groups at and if you have ever attended a bench rest match there are wind flags all the way out to the target and still the best precision shooters in the world have more problem doping the wind than they do any other aspect of the game they play. To suggest that acquiring an AR upper in 6.5G automatically makes you some kind of wind doping oracle just doesn't pass the straight face test.
Post by: grundy53 on December 26, 2015, 03:46:50 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on December 26, 2015, 03:48:59 PM
So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.Hell a 50 launches a bigger bullet than a 06. Why not pick a 50?
Different strokes for different folks.
I agree a 06 has more power. But a 6.5 at has plenty of killing force which has been proven in this thread.
A bad shot with a 06 isn't much better than a bad shot with a 6.5. Still a bad shot
I don't know diddly about AR rifles but it seems as though I can buy a .50BMG upper to fit an AR15 lower.
http://www.tactilite.com/Spartan-50-BMG-Upper-Receiver-p/s1.htm
That would probably kill an elk or 5 with one shot at 496 yards.
:dunno:
Post by: jackelope on December 26, 2015, 03:49:44 PM
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Is that why you shoot a .243?
:yike:
Post by: jackelope on December 26, 2015, 03:54:09 PM
I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Yeah, that's why I said "most people." The 30/06 with a 150 grain bullet at 3,000 fps really doesn't kick that much.
The clique arguing this have made it their life's work to validate the AR15 platform as something that excels at a job it is marginally capable of in the hands of an expert marksman/experienced hunter and seek to expand its acceptance and use for that task by the general public.
I will never see it as being as good a choice as anything in the 270, 30-06 class on up for the very reasons I have stated. In fact when compared to many of the 308 based cartridges anything that an AR15 will handle comes in second and by a wide margin simply because the former launch heavier bullets, with higher balistic coefficients and higher sectional densities at higher velocities. That means higher retained velocity and energy on impact, all else being equal higher sectional densities ensure greater penetration and the law of conservation of momentum is as unimpeachable as the law of gravity. A bullet with higher mass AND velocity on impact benefits from both and to their chagrin I don't and never will believe their claims of super human abilities to dope wind and am rather skeptical that any of them can actually shoot half minute groups under field conditions at 400+ yards. I don't doubt that some of them MAY have done so once or twice, but I have my doubt that any of them could shoot a five shot, half minute, four hundred yard group on demand in the field, in the wind.
To accept that this is plausible would also demand that i believe that they posses wind doping abilities that simply and demonstrably not credible. Bench rest shoots are held, across the nation, at half or a quarter of the ranges they claim to be able to shoot half inch groups at and if you have ever attended a bench rest match there are wind flags all the way out to the target and still the best precision shooters in the world have more problem doping the wind than they do any other aspect of the game they play. To suggest that acquiring an AR upper in 6.5G automatically makes you some kind of wind doping oracle just doesn't pass the straight face test.
I can't speak for wind doping and all that other mumbo jumbo. My longest confirmed kill is 299 yards with a .30-06 with a 3-9x scope(I know, crazy talk) but what I do know is the shooting that I've seen displayed on this forum by the "clique" you're referring to leads me to never, ever question their shooting abilities or their product knowledge. Just sayin...
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 26, 2015, 03:55:16 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 03:55:55 PM
Well played sir! :chuckle:I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Is that why you shoot a .243?
:yike:
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 03:56:17 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2FIMG_4209_zps59759ce2.jpg&hash=474b8983b7956497d68e79cfbefbc7b811aae2c0) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/IMG_4209_zps59759ce2.jpg.html)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2Fphoto2-12_zpsc2786e47.jpg&hash=fccde8d4d60e864cdd8824723c582430c458ccb8) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/photo2-12_zpsc2786e47.jpg.html)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2Fphoto-9_zps2f66bbee.jpg&hash=77aefa26039594332208dc6391b0946cf35ffc0a) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/photo-9_zps2f66bbee.jpg.html)
Post by: jackelope on December 26, 2015, 03:56:58 PM
I understand I'm not a pro hunter, but I wouldn't attempt that. I agree though that just cause I know I cant do that it doesn't mean someone else could. Although I kinda question why you would want to, why not just use an ar-10 and be sure you can kill the target humanely? I'm not here to judge though, to each there own.
I think they are sure they can make humane kills with the gear in hand. I'd wager there's not a lot of guess work going into this.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 04:06:01 PM
:chuckle: :yeah: I literally laughed out loud.I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Is that why you shoot a .243?
:yike:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 04:13:15 PM
There is not a single comment or person commenting on this thread that said the 6.5 G is better suited to long range work than a stanndard long action caliber. The quotes you attempted to use were in reference to recoil. I've had a lot of fun with this thread but you continue to discredit the abilities of others that you do not know. I don't know about anyone else but I do not consider 400 yards "long range". Is it towards the outer limits of the 6.5G? Possibly, but it is not long range in my opinion.I agree- bigger than 30/06 is even better. But the 30/06 is a nice standard cartridge that most people can shoot well.I disagree. Lots of small frame shooters out there that absolutely can't shoot a "standard" chambering like the 06'. For a small framed shooter, calibers like .243, 7mm-08, anything 6.5, .257 Bob are all better suited FOR THE SHOOTER. A comfortable shooter is an accurate shooter.
Yeah, that's why I said "most people." The 30/06 with a 150 grain bullet at 3,000 fps really doesn't kick that much.
The clique arguing this have made it their life's work to validate the AR15 platform as something that excels at a job it is marginally capable of in the hands of an expert marksman/experienced hunter and seek to expand its acceptance and use for that task by the general public.
I will never see it as being as good a choice as anything in the 270, 30-06 class on up for the very reasons I have stated. In fact when compared to many of the 308 based cartridges anything that an AR15 will handle comes in second and by a wide margin simply because the former launch heavier bullets, with higher balistic coefficients and higher sectional densities at higher velocities. That means higher retained velocity and energy on impact, all else being equal higher sectional densities ensure greater penetration and the law of conservation of momentum is as unimpeachable as the law of gravity. A bullet with higher mass AND velocity on impact benefits from both and to their chagrin I don't and never will believe their claims of super human abilities to dope wind and am rather skeptical that any of them can actually shoot half minute groups under field conditions at 400+ yards. I don't doubt that some of them MAY have done so once or twice, but I have my doubt that any of them could shoot a five shot, half minute, four hundred yard group on demand in the field, in the wind.
To accept that this is plausible would also demand that i believe that they posses wind doping abilities that simply and demonstrably not credible. Bench rest shoots are held, across the nation, at half or a quarter of the ranges they claim to be able to shoot half inch groups at and if you have ever attended a bench rest match there are wind flags all the way out to the target and still the best precision shooters in the world have more problem doping the wind than they do any other aspect of the game they play. To suggest that acquiring an AR upper in 6.5G automatically makes you some kind of wind doping oracle just doesn't pass the straight face test.
Post by: runamuk on December 26, 2015, 04:20:50 PM
So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.Hell a 50 launches a bigger bullet than a 06. Why not pick a 50?
Different strokes for different folks.
I agree a 06 has more power. But a 6.5 at has plenty of killing force which has been proven in this thread.
A bad shot with a 06 isn't much better than a bad shot with a 6.5. Still a bad shot
I don't know diddly about AR rifles but it seems as though I can buy a .50BMG upper to fit an AR15 lower.
http://www.tactilite.com/Spartan-50-BMG-Upper-Receiver-p/s1.htm
That would probably kill an elk or 5 with one shot at 496 yards.
:dunno:
Hey that's pretty cool, why would do you bring and argument that nulls the original argument which is exactly what you just did. :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that's almost as awesome as that one exchange.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 04:25:09 PM
Yes but my question is, can you accurately dope for wind, while shooting from a fence post, at a rock chuck, in a field situation, at 1500 yards? 186% of the time? I submit that you cannot :hello:So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.Hell a 50 launches a bigger bullet than a 06. Why not pick a 50?
Different strokes for different folks.
I agree a 06 has more power. But a 6.5 at has plenty of killing force which has been proven in this thread.
A bad shot with a 06 isn't much better than a bad shot with a 6.5. Still a bad shot
I don't know diddly about AR rifles but it seems as though I can buy a .50BMG upper to fit an AR15 lower.
http://www.tactilite.com/Spartan-50-BMG-Upper-Receiver-p/s1.htm
That would probably kill an elk or 5 with one shot at 496 yards.
:dunno:
Hey that's pretty cool, why would do you bring and argument that nulls the original argument which is exactly what you just did. :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that's almost as awesome as that one exchange.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 26, 2015, 04:28:59 PM
Post by: runamuk on December 26, 2015, 04:34:58 PM
nope and I couldn't shoot that caliber of an ar at all. But that doesn't change the fact that there in that link are 2 not 1 but 2 ar possibilities above and beyond the size requirements set forth by the bigger is better crowd arguing size as the reason ars cannot be used for long distance elk hunting.Yes but my question is, can you accurately dope for wind, while shooting from a fence post, at a rock chuck, in a field situation, at 1500 yards? 186% of the time? I submit that you cannot :hello:So put a different scope on the 30/06. My point is it launches heavier bullets at higher speed than any AR cartridge. Why choose an AR for a long range elk rifle? Makes no sense to me.Hell a 50 launches a bigger bullet than a 06. Why not pick a 50?
Different strokes for different folks.
I agree a 06 has more power. But a 6.5 at has plenty of killing force which has been proven in this thread.
A bad shot with a 06 isn't much better than a bad shot with a 6.5. Still a bad shot
I don't know diddly about AR rifles but it seems as though I can buy a .50BMG upper to fit an AR15 lower.
http://www.tactilite.com/Spartan-50-BMG-Upper-Receiver-p/s1.htm
That would probably kill an elk or 5 with one shot at 496 yards.
:dunno:
Hey that's pretty cool, why would do you bring and argument that nulls the original argument which is exactly what you just did. :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that's almost as awesome as that one exchange.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 04:35:45 PM
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 26, 2015, 04:43:24 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.
I'm not an experienced hunter but I agree for what it's worth...
Just curious, on a side note, would my sig m716 with 185 grain .308 ammo be ok to hunt elk? I recently reconnected with my God father and he hunts elk and we talked about going together, just making sure what I have is adequate. I got my gun for personal defense, not hunting, but I would like to get into it eventually, especially after reading many of the posts on this forum.
Post by: Curly on December 26, 2015, 04:44:42 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.It's not necessarily inadequate as shown by some kill pics that prove it can be done.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 04:48:54 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.
It is not for me.
Some people here feel comfortable with it on elk at north of 400 yards. I just don't see shooting at an elk a quarter mile away with a rifle of that terminal ballistics class as being anything that I would feel comfortable doing.
I use my old 300 Wby almost exclusively, not because I don't have other very accurate big game rifles. It is because if I have a 400 yard shot or a 500 yard shot, I know that things can happen that make a less than perfect shot placement happen and I want the additional tissue and bone destruction that that rifle/round offers me.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 04:50:58 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.It's not necessarily inadequate as shown by some kill pics that prove it can be done.
A picture of a dead elk proves nothing.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 04:56:30 PM
:yeah:This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.It's not necessarily inadequate as shown by some kill pics that prove it can be done.
A picture of a dead elk proves nothing.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 04:58:57 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.It's not necessarily inadequate as shown by some kill pics that prove it can be done.
A picture of a dead elk proves nothing.
Neither does a bunch of rambling from people who have just read about and discussed distance shooting on the Internet.
Most of these clowns are too busy fantasizing about Jack O'Conner in a buck skin thong packing his .270. Heck, even his wife out classed him with her 7x57 chambering she was so fond of. :tup:
Hahaha! Keep reading. I'll keep burning powder.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 05:13:20 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.Not trying to be a wise crack but you stated yourself your farthest kill was 320, so your claim of inadequacy is purely speculation as you have no experience with this round, especially at mid range distances.
Post by: actionshooter on December 26, 2015, 05:19:27 PM
I have used an AR15 a time or for hunting big game and was going to offer up my opinion, because these are nothing but opinions. Then I read through the entire thread and decided that I don't want to play the original posters games....... have fun guys. :hello:
Just read this thread and am still happy I decided to stay out of this one......hahaha
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 05:19:54 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.It's not necessarily inadequate as shown by some kill pics that prove it can be done.
A picture of a dead elk proves nothing.
Lucrative careers in bullcrappery have been launched based on pictures of dead deer and elk. Kirt Darner is one example that comes to mind, but Don Lewis really took using photos he "killed with his bow" and raised it to an art form. Not only were the animals shot with a... 7 mag I believe, many of them were shot inside Yellowstone National Park.
Once the Paul Harvy version of events came out a lot of people felt pretty foolish in who they chose as role models.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 05:21:22 PM
This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.Not trying to be a wise crack but you stated yourself your farthest kill was 320, so your claim of inadequacy is purely speculation as you have no experience with this round, especially at mid range distances.
True, but I know enough that I'd never attempt such a long shot with a marginal caliber.
I've also never missed a shot because it was too far, or wounded and not recovered an elk because I took a long shot and didn't hit it perfectly.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 05:21:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 05:22:41 PM
I have used an AR15 a time or for hunting big game and was going to offer up my opinion, because these are nothing but opinions. Then I read through the entire thread and decided that I don't want to play the original posters games....... have fun guys. :hello:
Just read this thread and am still happy I decided to stay out of this one......hahaha
Oh come on, no need to be scared. :chuckle:
Post by: Landowner on December 26, 2015, 05:27:57 PM
Quote
The Club finds that long-range shooting takes unfair advantage of the game animal, effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter/prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal and the hunt. The Club urges all hunters to think carefully of the consequences of long-range shooting, whether hunting with a rifle, bow, muzzleloader, crossbow, or handgun, and not confuse the purposes and intent of long-range shooting with fair chase hunting.
https://www.boone-crockett.org/about/LRS.asp?area=about&ID=6B455080&se=1&te=1
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 05:45:04 PM
How can you know enough if you have never shot the gun or shot an animal at mid to long diatance?This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.Not trying to be a wise crack but you stated yourself your farthest kill was 320, so your claim of inadequacy is purely speculation as you have no experience with this round, especially at mid range distances.
True, but I know enough that I'd never attempt such a long shot with a marginal caliber.
I've also never missed a shot because it was too far, or wounded and not recovered an elk because I took a long shot and didn't hit it perfectly.
Post by: Bob33 on December 26, 2015, 05:48:12 PM
I assume that Bobcat has knowledge of quite a few things he hasn't personally experienced.How can you know enough if you have never shot the gun or shot an animal at mid to long diatance?This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.Not trying to be a wise crack but you stated yourself your farthest kill was 320, so your claim of inadequacy is purely speculation as you have no experience with this round, especially at mid range distances.
True, but I know enough that I'd never attempt such a long shot with a marginal caliber.
I've also never missed a shot because it was too far, or wounded and not recovered an elk because I took a long shot and didn't hit it perfectly.
Do you not?
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 05:53:03 PM
How can you know enough if you have never shot the gun or shot an animal at mid to long diatance?This topic is about shooting elk, right? At 500 to 600 yards? If so, no matter how good the shooter is, a 122 grain bullet at 2,400 fps muzzle velocity is inadequate for shooting elk at that range. I'm pretty sure most experienced hunters would agree.Not trying to be a wise crack but you stated yourself your farthest kill was 320, so your claim of inadequacy is purely speculation as you have no experience with this round, especially at mid range distances.
True, but I know enough that I'd never attempt such a long shot with a marginal caliber.
I've also never missed a shot because it was too far, or wounded and not recovered an elk because I took a long shot and didn't hit it perfectly.
There are these things called "books." ;) And of course now we have the Internet. Also there is another thing called "math." With these two things most intelligent people can learn a lot about ballistics and what distances certain cartridges are capable of killing elk, 100% of the time.
By the way mid range to me is 200 yards, long range is 400. I would like to eventually get a different scope and become proficient to about 550 yards. But when I do, I'll be sure to choose a cartridge that has more than enough power for the job.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 06:01:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 06:06:14 PM
I don't doubt that you've killed elk at ultra long range with cartridges that I might consider to be inadequate.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 06:10:00 PM
Books are cool but I prefer to gather my knowledge from killing animals and breaking said animals down. Different projectiles kill in different ways so adding a generic number to one projectile doesn't necessarily apply to another. Prime example, VLD vs. any bonded bullet. I will guarantee you a VLD will very efficiency kill a deer or elk past the "800 ft pound minimum" your book tells you is required to kill an elk. He/she would hunch, look around, and tip over. I've seen it.
Is this 800 foot pound number something that the OP and Bobcat can agree on?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 06:12:44 PM
I don't get that many opportunities to hunt elk so I'd rather use more than just the bare minimum that MIGHT kill an elk, and only if I hit it perfectly.Actually I've never killed an elk with a rifle, I've just helped on many hunts.
I don't doubt that you've killed elk at ultra long range with cartridges that I might consider to be inadequate.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 06:23:17 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 06:37:40 PM
Another time I arrowed a big Roosevelt cow and hit her high in the chest, through both lungs and tracked the herd about two miles when I came on my buddy who saw a nail-head size spot of fresh blood crossing a road and tracked her out and finished her a half mile further. Best tracker I have ever known. He found her with her head hanging down and put an arrow through her neck. This elk was not losing blood through the wound, she was coughing up blood every once in a while, like every hundred yards tere was a clot of blood, and had Joe not stumbled on that spot of blood I doubt I would have seen that elk bagged. It was Joe's elk, I had given up for the evening and when I got to the road it started to rain cats and dogs.
It was after dark when I met up with him just getting back to the road. I was shooting over brush from about thirty yards away and the arrow cracked as it broke ribs going through and knocked her over and I was waiting for her to die when she uprighted herself and took off with the rest of the herd following her.
So much for: punch a hole through both lungs and they curl up and die. Yes, after they bleed out and in the case of this cow that took a while and she covered a lot of territory before "curling up and dying."
When we opened that elk a lake of blood rushed out and it was obvious that until her lungs were filled, and she couldn't breathe, she kept going and at a good pace.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on December 26, 2015, 06:43:56 PM
I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer.
So now you're saying a 270 isn't enough gun either?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 06:49:40 PM
and since he made a poor shot with a bow, a 6.5 G is inadequate for large game.I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer.
So now you're saying a 270 isn't enough gun either?
Post by: zike on December 26, 2015, 06:53:48 PM
Boone & Crockett on long range "hunting":QuoteThe Club finds that long-range shooting takes unfair advantage of the game animal, effectively eliminates the natural capacity of an animal to use its senses and instincts to detect danger, and demeans the hunter/prey relationship in a way that diminishes the importance and relevance of the animal and the hunt. The Club urges all hunters to think carefully of the consequences of long-range shooting, whether hunting with a rifle, bow, muzzleloader, crossbow, or handgun, and not confuse the purposes and intent of long-range shooting with fair chase hunting.
https://www.boone-crockett.org/about/LRS.asp?area=about&ID=6B455080&se=1&te=1
B&C have a problem with long range shooting but they have no problems with baiting. LOL
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
His liver and one lung were gone to pulp. An elk is one tough hombre' is what I am saying. If an elk is not broken down with both shoulders broken and the bullet has not done serious lung damage I would not bet on bringing it to bag.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 06:59:22 PM
NO, I am saying that an elk that is hit doesn't always act the way you expect them to. That elk was dead on it's feet but making for a getaway. In the snow, in Montana, he wasn't going to get away either.I have never shot a single elk in the shoulder and I don't ever plan to. It's a huge waste of meat and I eat what I kill. I've literally been part of 200+ big game kills over the last decade and I would say 80% of those did not involve shoulder shots or heavy bone being broken.
His liver and one lung were gone to pulp. An elk is one tough hombre' is what I am saying. If an elk is not broken down with both shoulders broken and the bullet has not done serious lung damage I would not bet on bringing it to bag.
Post by: yorketransport on December 26, 2015, 07:01:35 PM
It seems like there is some concern about shooting minimalist calibers at elk at extended ranges because of the possibility of an errant shot thrown off by wind. Doesn't it seem likely that the individual who essentially prompted this whole discussion (cough, cough, Biggerhammer, cough, cough ;)) is probably smart enough to hold off on a shot when there's a 20mph cross wind?
Is this 800 foot pound number something that the OP and Bobcat can agree on?
I know that that's my minimum energy requirement for shooting porcupines so it seems a little low for deer or elk. ;) The added kinetic energy (which is a relatively meaningless number when applied to killing power) helps make up for when the wind drifts the bullet and I hit them a little far forward or to the rear. You see, I like to compensate for poor shooting by stepping up in caliber. :rolleyes: Likewise the only rifle cartridge I'll shoot elk with beyond 100 yards is one based off of either the 416 barrett case or possibly the Cheytac case. I find that the excessive amounts of recoil and muzzle blast from larger cartridges makes me a better shot and therefor a more ethical hunter. :chuckle:
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 26, 2015, 07:02:04 PM
I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer
If I'm picturing this shot right it doesn't sound ideal
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 07:02:40 PM
and since he made a poor shot with a bow, a 6.5 G is inadequate for large game.I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer.
So now you're saying a 270 isn't enough gun either?
That elk was hit about 2/3 0f the way up and that is considered good shot placement and in most cases it would/should have been lights out for that elk, but like I said elk don't always do what you expect them to. I was standing there, like a big dummy, just waiting for it to die instead of running up and putting another arrow in it. When it got to it's feet and took off I was unprepared to shoot and stood there with my mouth agape. I saw the arrow go in and a spot of blood right where I was aiming before it tumbled over. I figure the hit in the rib tweeked the spine when it hit that rib and that is what tumbled it.
Since that day an elk is not down for keeps until it is dead!
Post by: yorketransport on December 26, 2015, 07:05:25 PM
You know, with an AR you could have made a quick follow up shot and finished the job instead of letting the animal run off. :peep: :chuckle:and since he made a poor shot with a bow, a 6.5 G is inadequate for large game.I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer.
So now you're saying a 270 isn't enough gun either?
That elk was hit about 2/3 0f the way up and that is considered good shot placement and in most cases it would/should have been lights out for that elk, but like I said elk don't always do what you expect them to. I was standing there, like a big dummy, just waiting for it to die instead of running up and putting another arrow in it. When it got to it's feet and took off I was unprepared to shoot and stood there with my mouth agape. I saw the arrow go in and a spot of blood right where I was aiming before it tumbled over. I figure the hit in the rib tweeked the spine when it hit that rib and that is what tumbled it.
Since that day an elk is not down for keeps until it is dead!
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:09:45 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 07:10:23 PM
I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer
If I'm picturing this shot right it doesn't sound ideal
Behind the ribs, quartering forward, into the off shoulder, after passing through the liver and a lung? It was maybe a tad bit far back, but not bad shot placement. I'll take it any day. It was a killing shot, the elk just did not know it. My second shot he was down hill from me on a flat and headed straight away and I had a lot of elk to shoot at and that shot took him dead center and that crashed him.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 07:14:01 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:14:07 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 07:14:30 PM
So why do you want to shoot a elk in the shoulder? It just makes a mess and loses meat. I never shoot elk there . I have shot elk with 8mm mag. 338 mags , 270, 270 wby, 30-378. .243 and 6.5 284. The only one that didn't take a step was with a 140 vld out of a 6.5 . I want a bullet that leaves all its energy in the animal . I will pick a very accurate gun over a powerful one every time . Again I'm sure there is plenty of AR rifles that shoot well enough to kill out past 800 yards . I have kill just a few elk with a bow ( 25 to 30 ) and will say any elk punched threw both lungs is done , you can get on the trail with zero wait and walk to your animal ... I have found that to be true 100 % of the time . One lung and or the liver not so much . Oh yeah wasn't this thread about AR s?
I don't want to shoot an elk in the shoulder, but if I happen to hit an elk in the shoulder I would like to think that I am shooting enough gun to break it down.
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:26:09 PM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 26, 2015, 07:27:54 PM
I was vacationing and shot a spike elk around Redlodge, thirty plus years ago, using my father's loaned 270 Model 70. I hit him in the chest at an angle from behind and the bullet wrecked his offside shoulder and he went down. But that quick he was on his feet and going away at a good pace when my second shot at about two hundred yards spined him. This first shot was at < 70 yards and that made me come to respect elk as a tough customer
If I'm picturing this shot right it doesn't sound ideal
Behind the ribs, quartering forward, into the off shoulder, after passing through the liver and a lung? It was maybe a tad bit far back, but not bad shot placement. I'll take it any day. It was a killing shot, the elk just did not know it. My second shot he was down hill from me on a flat and headed straight away and I had a lot of elk to shoot at and that shot took him dead center and that crashed him.
I wouldn't consider a shot intentionally put into a shoulder a good shot.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:31:54 PM
I would think, I may be going out on a limb here. :tup: that a .30 Cal 230gr OTM/VLD @ 2850 would totally juice a Elk shoulder at ranges waaaaaaaaaay out there.that could be considered wasting game ! Lol
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:32:47 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 07:34:25 PM
I did not always shoot for the shoulder, but one day I came up on a black bear at twenty yards and shot it straight through the heart with that 45/70 and the bear took off, ran thirty yards down a trail, made a hard right hand turn and went fifty yards down another trail losing blood by the bucket. Then I lost the trail and stood there wondering WTHeck. I was standing by a five-foot diameter deadfall and when I looked on the other side the blood was there and the bear's butt was standing 40 yards away, in the middle of a trail not moving a muscle. The bear had made a hard right hand turn and gone through a hole under the tree that you would have a hard time getting a basket ball through and died with leaves and crap pushed up in front of it's nose. It was the darnedest thing I had seen and as I came around that bear with a long piece of a tree branch held in my left hand against the fore end of my gun and poked him in the eye it hit me that that bear could have killed me before it died if it had come up the trail I was on. Then I pushed it over and started working on it. After that I started shooting them through a shoulder and into the chest. It worked for me. I had the bear down where I could go get a wheel barrel and didn't have to work my butt off and get cut to ribbons getting him back out of the back berries like my friends frequently had to do.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 07:35:39 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:40:44 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 07:42:56 PM
I would think, I may be going out on a limb here. :tup: that a .30 Cal 230gr OTM/VLD @ 2850 would totally juice a Elk shoulder and both lungs at ranges waaaaaaaaaay out there. I would have to give the arm chair, Internet super hunt Rangers the appropriate time to GOOGLE it thoroughly.
The sectional density of that bullet is pretty high. You won't get an argument from me on that assessment. The momentum would carry it through the shoulder sending secondary projectiles through the lungs at that speed.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 26, 2015, 07:43:10 PM
When I used to hunt black bears from tree stands I did deliberately shoot them in the shoulder. I shot a 45/70 Marlin w/350 Hornaday RN and that did not mess up much meat.
I did not always shoot for the shoulder, but one day I came up on a black bear at twenty yards and shot it straight through the heart with that 45/70 and the bear took off, ran thirty yards down a trail, made a hard right hand turn and went fifty yards down another trail loosing blood by the bucket. Then I lost the trail and stood there wondering WTHeck. I was standing by a five-foot diameter deadfall and when I looked on the other side the blood was there and the bear's butt was standing 40 yards away, in the middle of a trail not moving a muscle. The bear had made a hard right hand turn and gone through a hole under the tree that you would have a hard time getting a basket ball through and died with leaves and crap pushed up in front of it's nose. It was the darndest thing I had seen and as I came around that bear with a long piece of a tree branch held in my left hand against the fore end of my gun and poked him in the eye it hit me that that bear could have killed me before it died if it had come up the trail I was on. Then I pushed it over and started working on it. After that I started shooting them through a shoulder and into the chest. It worked for me. I had the bear down where I could go get a wheel barrel and didn't have to work my butt off and get cut to ribbons getting him back out of the back berries like my friends frequently had to do.
I guess it just comes down to what the shooter is comfortable with.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 07:46:43 PM
We aren't taking about forest rats (Bears).
I was just saying that I have made a conscious decision to shoot an animal in the shoulder and had my reasons for doing so. I liked to be able to walk a half mile to my vehicle and bring my wheel barrel right up next to them and then load them up and walk them back to the vehicle.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 07:49:05 PM
Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:50:34 PM
Post by: mountainman on December 26, 2015, 07:52:31 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 07:55:21 PM
Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
You are clueless! I have persenaly watched a Mulie buck shot at 40 yards with a .338 Win Mag and a Barnes bullet. The buck hopped and trotted off to 100 yards and looked back. I put a 180gr Ballistic Tip from a 300 Weatherby magnum right were the neck meets the head. The hit was spectacular and messy. The .338 Barnes bullet combo went through him like butter. Pin holed him, you could hardly tell the entrance from the exit and very little blood shot. Straight through.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 26, 2015, 07:55:30 PM
We aren't taking about forest rats (Bears).
I was just saying that I have made a conscious decision to shoot an animal in the shoulder and had my reasons for doing so. I liked to be able to walk a half mile to my vehicle and bring my wheel barrel right up next to them and then load them up and walk them back to the vehicle.
Shooting bears through the shoulders I have heard of. I honestly have never heard of shooting an elk through the shoulder on purpose. I would say this is not a good idea. I would like to hear an explanation for why this is ethical. I don't care if it makes it easier to pack out.
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 07:56:06 PM
wrong a Barnes x out of a super magnum 7mm, 300 etc. Inside of 200 will punch right threw I have seen it more than once expecially on deer blows right threw them partition nosler will do the same at close range . Now you shoot that same animal with a 308 and a Barnes x and you will be happy. Speakicng only from real world experiance though bob.Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 07:57:34 PM
Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
You are clueless! I have persenaly watched a Mulie buck shot at 40 yards with a .338 Win Mag and a Barnes bullet. The buck hopped and trotted off to 100 yards and looked back. I put a 180gr Ballistic Tip from a 300 Weatherby magnum right were the neck meets the head. The hit was spectacular and messy. The .338 Barnes bullet combo went through him like butter. Pin holed him, you could hardly tell the entrance from the exit and very little blood shot. Straight through.
No, apparently it's you who's clueless.
So you're saying that 338 Barnes bullet that didn't expand at 40 yards would have expanded just fine at 400 after it had slowed down some? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 07:59:04 PM
wrong a Barnes x out of a super magnum 7mm, 300 etc. Inside of 200 will punch right threw I have seen it more than once expecially on deer blows right threw them portion nosler will do the same at close range . Now you shoot that same animal with a 308 and a Barnes x and you will be happy. Speaking only from real world experiance though bob.Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
I don't doubt your experience but I don't believe the same bullet would have expanded better if it had been moving slower.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 08:00:19 PM
Now this is getting silly..from both sides lol! 11 pages and you guys still don't have it figured out yet?Of course it's redicilous! The whole premise of this thread is redicilous. The only reason I'm still here is its impressively entertaining to see all the angles the OP continues to come up with to try and justify his OPINION. It's great fun :chuckle:
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 08:03:51 PM
Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
You are clueless! I have persenaly watched a Mulie buck shot at 40 yards with a .338 Win Mag and a Barnes bullet. The buck hopped and trotted off to 100 yards and looked back. I put a 180gr Ballistic Tip from a 300 Weatherby magnum right were the neck meets the head. The hit was spectacular and messy. The .338 Barnes bullet combo went through him like butter. Pin holed him, you could hardly tell the entrance from the exit and very little blood shot. Straight through.
No, apparently it's you who's clueless.
So you're saying that 338 Barnes bullet that didn't expand at 40 yards would have expanded just fine at 400 after it had slowed down some? :dunno:
Go read a little more or try it yourself. You did mention math? Think velocity, distance , bullet contruction??? I'm sure you'll figure it out if you ask the question on the Long Range Hunting Forum. :tup:
Post by: dontgetcrabs on December 26, 2015, 08:05:45 PM
When I used to hunt black bears from tree stands I did deliberately shoot them in the shoulder. I shot a 45/70 Marlin w/350 Hornaday RN and that did not mess up much meat.
I did not always shoot for the shoulder, but one day I came up on a black bear at twenty yards and shot it straight through the heart with that 45/70 and the bear took off, ran thirty yards down a trail, made a hard right hand turn and went fifty yards down another trail loosing blood by the bucket. Then I lost the trail and stood there wondering WTHeck. I was standing by a five-foot diameter deadfall and when I looked on the other side the blood was there and the bear's butt was standing 40 yards away, in the middle of a trail not moving a muscle. The bear had made a hard right hand turn and gone through a hole under the tree that you would have a hard time getting a basket ball through and died with leaves and crap pushed up in front of it's nose. It was the darndest thing I had seen and as I came around that bear with a long piece of a tree branch held in my left hand against the fore end of my gun and poked him in the eye it hit me that that bear could have killed me before it died if it had come up the trail I was on. Then I pushed it over and started working on it. After that I started shooting them through a shoulder and into the chest. It worked for me. I had the bear down where I could go get a wheel barrel and didn't have to work my butt off and get cut to ribbons getting him back out of the back berries like my friends frequently had to do.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 08:05:51 PM
Ten inches behind the shoulder mid body with a vld from a .243 , or any 6.5 or 308 will flat destroy that elks lungs ....... same spot with a Barnes x out of my 30/378 just makes a pencil hole due to the extreme hi volocitys. BOBCAT YOUR vld statement is pretty ignorant from a performance start point .
Actually your statement about the pencil hole with the Barnes due to the high velocity is ignorant. So what you're saying is that if you slowed the bullet down it would expand properly. That's wrong. Higher velocity will only cause it to expand more, not less.
You are clueless! I have persenaly watched a Mulie buck shot at 40 yards with a .338 Win Mag and a Barnes bullet. The buck hopped and trotted off to 100 yards and looked back. I put a 180gr Ballistic Tip from a 300 Weatherby magnum right were the neck meets the head. The hit was spectacular and messy. The .338 Barnes bullet combo went through him like butter. Pin holed him, you could hardly tell the entrance from the exit and very little blood shot. Straight through.
No, apparently it's you who's clueless.
So you're saying that 338 Barnes bullet that didn't expand at 40 yards would have expanded just fine at 400 after it had slowed down some? :dunno:
Go read a little more or try it yourself. You did mention math? Think velocity, distance , bullet contruction??? I'm sure you'll figure it out if you ask the question on the Long Range Hunting Forum. :tup:
I don't need to read anything. Why don't you do some research on Barnes bullets. It's pretty basic- the faster they're going the better they expand. That's why I always recommend light for caliber Barnes bullets.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 08:07:19 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 08:07:32 PM
We aren't taking about forest rats (Bears).
I was just saying that I have made a conscious decision to shoot an animal in the shoulder and had my reasons for doing so. I liked to be able to walk a half mile to my vehicle and bring my wheel barrel right up next to them and then load them up and walk them back to the vehicle.
Shooting bears through the shoulders I have heard of. I honestly have never heard of shooting an elk through the shoulder on purpose. I would say this is not a good idea. I would like to hear an explanation for why this is ethical. I don't care if it makes it easier to pack out.
Never advocated it, but it happens frequently. I'm with you in that it is not ideal and if I ever misplace a shot that ends up in the shoulder on an elk I want to have what I consider to be enough gun to close the deal. I shot one, quartering away, and the bullet did wreck the offside shoulder after going through the liver and a lung. But I was shooting for the lungs on that animal and that was the shot I had and it seemed like a pretty darn good decision to take that shot to me.
Post by: coachcw on December 26, 2015, 08:11:00 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 08:23:28 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 08:32:59 PM
I have friends who have recovered the petals on Barnes XBullets on the side the bullet struck and that is what leads me to this conclusion.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 08:39:04 PM
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9484002/1
Post by: Curly on December 26, 2015, 09:01:39 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 09:04:38 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 26, 2015, 09:11:26 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 26, 2015, 09:20:24 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 26, 2015, 09:20:32 PM
AH HAHAHA!
It may be too deep for most. :tup:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 09:41:22 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:03:07 PM
I think it might be time to put a AR together just to watch karl shoot something with it !Oh it's in process! I'm hoping to talk to hammer about options. :IBCOOL: that won't break the bank either. :chuckle:
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 10:08:11 PM
When I used to hunt black bears from tree stands I did deliberately shoot them in the shoulder. I shot a 45/70 Marlin w/350 Hornaday RN and that did not mess up much meat.
I did not always shoot for the shoulder, but one day I came up on a black bear at twenty yards and shot it straight through the heart with that 45/70 and the bear took off, ran thirty yards down a trail, made a hard right hand turn and went fifty yards down another trail loosing blood by the bucket. Then I lost the trail and stood there wondering WTHeck. I was standing by a five-foot diameter deadfall and when I looked on the other side the blood was there and the bear's butt was standing 40 yards away, in the middle of a trail not moving a muscle. The bear had made a hard right hand turn and gone through a hole under the tree that you would have a hard time getting a basket ball through and died with leaves and crap pushed up in front of it's nose. It was the darndest thing I had seen and as I came around that bear with a long piece of a tree branch held in my left hand against the fore end of my gun and poked him in the eye it hit me that that bear could have killed me before it died if it had come up the trail I was on. Then I pushed it over and started working on it. After that I started shooting them through a shoulder and into the chest. It worked for me. I had the bear down where I could go get a wheel barrel and didn't have to work my butt off and get cut to ribbons getting him back out of the back berries like my friends frequently had to do.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I could take a photo of the rug that lies in my basement. Does that count? It's not a particularly large black bear, but the hide was perfect, and that rug made from it fits well into a medium size room. Does that count?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:10:15 PM
When I used to hunt black bears from tree stands I did deliberately shoot them in the shoulder. I shot a 45/70 Marlin w/350 Hornaday RN and that did not mess up much meat.
I did not always shoot for the shoulder, but one day I came up on a black bear at twenty yards and shot it straight through the heart with that 45/70 and the bear took off, ran thirty yards down a trail, made a hard right hand turn and went fifty yards down another trail loosing blood by the bucket. Then I lost the trail and stood there wondering WTHeck. I was standing by a five-foot diameter deadfall and when I looked on the other side the blood was there and the bear's butt was standing 40 yards away, in the middle of a trail not moving a muscle. The bear had made a hard right hand turn and gone through a hole under the tree that you would have a hard time getting a basket ball through and died with leaves and crap pushed up in front of it's nose. It was the darndest thing I had seen and as I came around that bear with a long piece of a tree branch held in my left hand against the fore end of my gun and poked him in the eye it hit me that that bear could have killed me before it died if it had come up the trail I was on. Then I pushed it over and started working on it. After that I started shooting them through a shoulder and into the chest. It worked for me. I had the bear down where I could go get a wheel barrel and didn't have to work my butt off and get cut to ribbons getting him back out of the back berries like my friends frequently had to do.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I could take a photo of the rug that lies in my basement. Does that count? It's not a particularly large black bear, but the hide was perfect, and that rug made from it fits well into a medium size room. Does that count?
I'd say it counts as proof as much as hammers pics count as proof.
Post by: emac on December 26, 2015, 10:12:12 PM
Ok I have been reading this thread and wanted to comment on a few quotes but was going wait til the end but I can't anymore. I hope this comment isn't already posted after this.How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
I didnt read anything about novice Hunter's in your original post. That came in later when the thread didn't lean the way you would have liked it to.
Along with the wind, rest, etc, etc, etc..
Let me just state that I don't think you are doing your cause of advocating for the AR15 as a viable platform by not qualifying what you are advocating. I am not adverse to expert shots/experienced hunters shooting an effective cartridge at deer or elk that they have confidence they can kill AND they also recognize that wind, rest etc play a part in complicating making that perfect shot not only possible, but HIGHLY likely. Giving the impression that an average sportsman is equipped to make long range kills on big game animals with an AR15 based cartridge is not only possible, but likely, is not something I would suggest is responsible to advocate on behalf of.
It seems that your mission in to attack people that hunt big game with a ar-15. It is not about the gun/bullet necessarily. It's about the person behind the gun and how much practice they put into it.
You keep saying that someone gave information to a novice that they shot a muley at 495 yards with a 6.5 grendal. To me that doesn't mean if I go buy a 6.5 I am going to be able to make a 495 yard shot with it with out practice. To me that is him giving the person info on what the 6.5 is capable of doing.
What if he told the person to get a bolt action 338 lapua and said he killed a deer at 495 yards would you still create this thread saying he was giving bad info to a novice.
And when anybody comments back to you on this you keep bringing up rock chucks and prairie dogs. Come on man the target size is greatly different from a deer or elk.
I myself have a few ar's in multiple calibers. I know my max yardage on all of them. So I plan accordingly. I myself was a novice when I started building my first one, but I didn't run out and start shooting animals at 400 yards but once I got familiar with my 6.8 I don't have a problem shooting 400 yards and I killed a yote a 419 with it. But I am not going to go out and shoot at stuff with my 6.8 pistol at 400 yards because I did with my rifle.
So it not the gun, caliber, or bullet it all falls on who pulls the trigger and if they are capable of making the shoot
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 10:12:31 PM
Wow! That's all I got on this thread.did you get parts ordered for your 6.5 yet? :chuckle:
Post by: DaveMonti on December 26, 2015, 10:15:48 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:16:00 PM
I managed to dig up some cash! We're getting there! :chuckle:Wow! That's all I got on this thread.did you get parts ordered for your 6.5 yet? :chuckle:
Post by: actionshooter on December 26, 2015, 10:17:54 PM
I have used an AR15 a time or for hunting big game and was going to offer up my opinion, because these are nothing but opinions. Then I read through the entire thread and decided that I don't want to play the original posters games....... have fun guys. :hello:
Just read this thread and am still happy I decided to stay out of this one......hahaha
Oh come on, no need to be scared. :chuckle:
I didn't see this thread going anywhere, but what do I know....its 12 pages :)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 26, 2015, 10:20:09 PM
Pretty long ranging thread. Some are hitting the mark and some are throwing potshots.I have used an AR15 a time or for hunting big game and was going to offer up my opinion, because these are nothing but opinions. Then I read through the entire thread and decided that I don't want to play the original posters games....... have fun guys. :hello:
Just read this thread and am still happy I decided to stay out of this one......hahaha
Oh come on, no need to be scared. :chuckle:
I didn't see this thread going anywhere, but what do I know....its 12 pages :)
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 10:22:29 PM
:chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:26:18 PM
In the words of JonathanS, "LOUD NOISES!!!!!!"
:chuckle:
Where is he? Usually he's on top of these threads!!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 10:28:53 PM
I don't know man, I'm a bit concernedIn the words of JonathanS, "LOUD NOISES!!!!!!"
:chuckle:
Where is he? Usually he's on top of these threads!!
Post by: DaveMonti on December 26, 2015, 10:38:20 PM
If you can think in terms of probabilities (or "shades of grey"), it's probably always wise to do your best to increase the probabilities of a clean, quick kill. If that is "ethical", I'm all for it.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:39:31 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 10:43:18 PM
Since hammer has only killed a deer once...??? I'm pretty certain that's not true.
All at 600 yards with an AR-15?
Any elk at the same distance and rifle since elk is what this thread is about?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:48:27 PM
how many elk has he killed with a ar according to Google?Since hammer has only killed a deer once...??? I'm pretty certain that's not true.
All at 600 yards with an AR-15?
Any elk at the same distance and rifle since elk is what this thread is about?
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 10:49:25 PM
how many elk has he killed with a ar according to Google?Since hammer has only killed a deer once...??? I'm pretty certain that's not true.
All at 600 yards with an AR-15?
Any elk at the same distance and rifle since elk is what this thread is about?
You tell me. Apparently you know him personally. I don't.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:51:23 PM
:chuckle:how many elk has he killed with a ar according to Google?Since hammer has only killed a deer once...??? I'm pretty certain that's not true.
All at 600 yards with an AR-15?
Any elk at the same distance and rifle since elk is what this thread is about?
You tell me. Apparently you know him personally. I don't.
Never have shaken the dudes hand. But have had a few dealings with him to let me know that he is the real deal. I do hope to meet him tho.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 10:52:34 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:54:22 PM
Wait... Didn't you think Matt Alwine was "the real deal"?There was a time that I hunted with Matt and I did learn a lot from him. I haven't hunted with or really associated with him for numerous years tho. I will say that he is passionate about hunting and the outdoors. And can shoot a bow
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 10:57:09 PM
Wait... Didn't you think Matt Alwine was "the real deal"?I'm sure you try and bring my judgement of character into this.
Since this is brought up I'll tell what I think.
I thin you give lots and lots and lots of advice to questions you have zero experience about and claim to mostly be an expert of... Well... Everything.
Next time I have any questio. Or anything I'll be sure to put it all on pause and ask you if it's ok and ethical...
:tup:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:04:39 PM
Post by: emac on December 26, 2015, 11:05:17 PM
I knew a guy that carried a hole box of ammo in the field ...... heck with a AR you can Cary it in the clip. Plus if you take unethical shots you get to shoot more :chuckle:The more lead you sling the better odds you have:D8)
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:06:52 PM
You don't know me and don't know what I have experience in, so for you to say I have zero experience in the advice that I give- well, you simply don't know, because you don't know me. Just like you don't know biggerhammer.
But I've lived in this state for 48 years and hunted for 36 of those years. So I'd say I do have quite a bit of knowledge to offer. If you don't think my posts are worth reading, then don't read them, and certainly don't waste your time replying to them.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:10:55 PM
There's a place full of village idiots.
You and I can agree on that! Again I have friends who have recovered the "petals" from a Barnes X that were under the skin on the entry side and they said that the bullet went through and exited leaving no more wound than a pencil would have. Me thinks the petals were sheared off after opening and the shank continued on through. Fluid dynamics is what is at play here and fluids are not compressible and with impact velocities that are higher than the fluids can migrate out they act in much the same way that a solid would and the petals will be sheared off. This leaves a solid cylinder with a caliber diameter and a LOT of linear stability with sufficient momentum "behind it" to carry it completely through the animal. Thus a caliber hole through the animal. Four petals flying along the outside if the rib cage are going to cut until they run out of momentum, but are not doing any thing but cutting muscle tissue that has no major arteries in it. The petals cause nothing more than a "cutting flesh wound" in rib tissue that has no major arteries.
In the case of the Nos Partition there is a big contusion outside the ribs when the nose "splashes" and then the shank minus any additional diameter continues on and drills a caliber size hole before exiting.
I don't use Barnes X, but I do use Nos Partitions and all of this is based on my engineering backround and a lot of thought about what is the reality vs what people report about bullets not opening up at high velocity. Caliber size entrance and caliber size exit wound and a hole through the vitals that is also caliber size. The shank of both has the rational velocity to ensure point forward stability at those velocities to continue on and there is no bullet expansion possible and a 30 caliber bullet is not going to disrupt much if any tissue and you do the math from here on out. What they observed was a caliber size entry a caliber size exit wound and a caliber size pass through of a soft organ, which in the case of lung is mostly air. The bullet failed to expand!! No what you failed to appreciate is that in the case of the Barnes X there were four?? lacerations radiating out under the skin that were the petals sheering off and cutting until they ran out of momentum. What you failed to appreciate is the contusion in the tissue between the entry wound and the ribs that resulted from "bullet splash" as the nose of the Nos Partition exploded before the ribs were penetrated and the shank continued on at caliber with a lot of linear stability and exited front first on the off side.
Both of these bullets nose did what lead and copper do. Period. Full stop. They have a structural integrity that was exceeded and in the case of the Barnes they sheared off at the shank and in the case of the Nosler the lead fragmented. And both did that before the onside ribs had been penetrated! Thus what was reported was a caliber size hole and THE BULLET FAILED TO EXPAND!!! As with most anecdotal evidence, what was not reported was what was most important. There was a large contusion between the skin and ribs on the onside of the Nos Partition and there were lacerations radiating out between the skin and the ribs in the case of the Barnes. AND let me make it clear, I am no special pleader for either, especially Barnes. I will have a hatred towards that company until the day I die due to their pushing of "lead free" twenty-five years ago.
The 200 gr or 180 gr 30 cal Nos Partition is the bullet I use but I recognize this dynamic and choose to live with it. It is an "iffy" performer at close range with the caliber I choose to hunt with. 300 Wby. My other option is bullets that may fragment at the ranges I hunt big game with a rifle at at ranges that I expect to get a shot at.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 11:11:01 PM
Another example I will bring up is a post that you sent me a pm about... Regarding bullets and performance for moose hunting. You admitted that you haven't killed a moose. You contradicted my advice that came from actually killing a moose...
You think I am only basing my opinion on bigger hammer by his posts here? That's funny. You don't know how well I may know him... Because I admittedly haven't met him in person, all I know is from his posts! I couldn't have possibly have talked to him on the phone? Or communicated in other ways?
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:15:30 PM
Nothing is absolute. Everything is a probability. One story of knocking down an elk at 600 yards with a .22 Hornet doesn't make it the best choice for going after that quarry at that yardage. There are an awful lot of "single instance" stories here, as though one data point can clearly define a probability. There are so many factors (variables) that there is not an absolute answer.
If you can think in terms of probabilities (or "shades of grey"), it's probably always wise to do your best to increase the probabilities of a clean, quick kill. If that is "ethical", I'm all for it.
You and me brother!
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:18:19 PM
No, not so much your judge of character, just that you can't possibly know someone just from what they post on this forum. You apparently feel biggerhammer has the expertise to kill elk at 600 yards with an AR15. Then to find out you really don't know him, other than from his posts on here.
You don't know me and don't know what I have experience in, so for you to say I have zero experience in the advice that I give- well, you simply don't know, because you don't know me. Just like you don't know biggerhammer.
But I've lived in this state for 48 years and hunted for 36 of those years. So I'd say I do have quite a bit of knowledge to offer. If you don't think my posts are worth reading, then don't read them, and certainly don't waste your time replying to them.
:yeah:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:26:08 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:30:45 PM
And there's plenty of others reading this thread who smell it as well, but they're either afraid to chime in or just smart enough to stay out of it.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:32:55 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:34:50 PM
That's true. I've smelled a lot in this thread. No doubt about that. :tup:What in this thread is b.s.?
And there's plenty of others reading this thread who smell it as well, but they're either afraid to chime in or just smart enough to stay out of it.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:35:08 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:35:27 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:37:46 PM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.Thats assuming all bullets perform the same, which they dont. I know this because I have killed or broken down different animals shot with literally almost every modern, and traditional bullet available.
Post by: JDHasty on December 26, 2015, 11:38:25 PM
I do not accept as ethical any implication that long range shooting of big game is something that any novice should feel comfortable attempting with any AR15 capable cartridge.
I leave this discussion tonight moving slightly in the direction of thinking it ethical for experts in the AR15 being justified in their choice of hunting at long range for big game with the above said rounds. I am more firmly convinced that anyone who does not possess the skill set to make clean kills should not be encouraged to attempt to try to do so unless and until they have done what it takes to develop that skill set.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:41:59 PM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.Thats assuming all bullets perform the same, which they dont. I know this because I have killed or broken down different animals shot with literally almost every modern, and traditional bullet available.
Why is the type of bullet relevant? I can load any kind of bullet in any cartridge I want. You like VLD's- I can shoot them out of my 270. In fact I killed my bighorn with my 270 and 140 grain Berger VLDs. (For those who say I have zero experience in everything I write on here)
So whatever magic bullet you can shoot from an AR I can shoot from my 270 or 30/06.
Maybe I'm missing your point? :dunno:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 11:44:11 PM
Now with the skills and proper equipment and practice I see it as a perfectly doable shot.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:47:39 PM
I have problems with advocating for the use of any AR15 for long range big game animals by people who are not expert in the practice and even more I see it as self proclaimed experts validating that they have the skill set to do it.That goes for every hunter out there regardless of platform or caliber. This is a standard whicch should go without saying. Not a single person on this thread has said it's the ideal round. With the proper bullet and placement it is absolutely adequate to cleanly kill large game. People literally do it. To deny this is to be dishonest. Where everyone is hung up is your continual shift in position. First it's about the round, then it's about the wind, then it's about the shooter, then the rest, etc. I will kill within my ability with whatever weapon I have available that is up for the task. If all I had was a 6.5G, guess what, I'm going elk hunting.
I do not accept as ethical any implication that long range shooting of big game is something that any novice should feel comfortable attempting with any AR15 capable cartridge.
I leave this discussion tonight moving slightly in the direction of thinking it ethical for experts in the AR15 being justified in their choice of hunting at long range for big game with the above said rounds. I am more firmly convinced that anyone who does not possess the skill set to make clean kills should not be encouraged to attempt to try to do so unless and until they have done what it takes to develop that skill set.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 26, 2015, 11:48:46 PM
the difference here is I don't give advice about what bullets will work best for a sheep. Because I have zero experience with shooting them. And for the record I never once said that you have zero experience with anything you post here. I'm sure you have more experience shooting sheep and antelope than I do. I did however give 2 examples where you give info where you (admittedly) have no first hand experience.The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.Thats assuming all bullets perform the same, which they dont. I know this because I have killed or broken down different animals shot with literally almost every modern, and traditional bullet available.
Why is the type of bullet relevant? I can load any kind of bullet in any cartridge I want. You like VLD's- I can shoot them out of my 270. In fact I killed my bighorn with my 270 and 140 grain Berger VLDs. (For those who say I have zero experience in everything I write on here)
So whatever magic bullet you can shoot from an AR I can shoot from my 270 or 30/06.
Maybe I'm missing your point? :dunno:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 26, 2015, 11:54:27 PM
Bullet 101, a 130 gr berger performs very differently at say 1600fps than a 130 gr Nosler Accubond. You hit a bull in the side with an accubond at that velocity you get very little expansion therefore less damage. You hit the same bull in the same spot at the same velocity with the vld, and you get bill Cosby strawberry jello for vitals.The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.Thats assuming all bullets perform the same, which they dont. I know this because I have killed or broken down different animals shot with literally almost every modern, and traditional bullet available.
Why is the type of bullet relevant? I can load any kind of bullet in any cartridge I want. You like VLD's- I can shoot them out of my 270. In fact I killed my bighorn with my 270 and 140 grain Berger VLDs. (For those who say I have zero experience in everything I write on here)
So whatever magic bullet you can shoot from an AR I can shoot from my 270 or 30/06.
Maybe I'm missing your point? :dunno:
I shoot vld's in one chambering by the way. Partitions in others. Accubonds in others. And LRAB in my 300wsm. You match the bullet to the duty. If I'm gonna be hunting with a 6.5G and a mid range shot is going to be a possibility I'd be running a berger. Close work would be an accubond.
Post by: bobcat on December 26, 2015, 11:57:28 PM
Velocity and weight of bullet is still all I need to know in order to judge the effectiveness of a particular cartridge.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:00:06 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:01:39 AM
Okay, again, I can pick the ideal bullet for the job in a more powerful cartridge like a 30/06, just like you can with your AR.Ya but we aren't talking about the 06', we are talking about the lethality of AR platform cartridges. Focus man :chuckle:
Velocity and weight of bullet is still all I need to know in order to judge the effectiveness of a particular cartridge.
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 12:05:00 AM
Okay, again, I can pick the ideal bullet for the job in a more powerful cartridge like a 30/06, just like you can with your AR.Ya but we aren't talking about the 06', we are talking about the lethality of AR platform cartridges. Focus man :chuckle:
Velocity and weight of bullet is still all I need to know in order to judge the effectiveness of a particular cartridge.
What I'm trying to explain here is that I don't need to have experience shooting elk at 600 yards with an AR in order to have an opinion on this topic. Anyone with a knowledge of hunting and ballistics can figure it out.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:09:49 AM
well if you don't have experience then how do you know how the bullet will perform? Because you read it on a website? Do you also think the velocity printed on the box is accurate to your rifle too?Okay, again, I can pick the ideal bullet for the job in a more powerful cartridge like a 30/06, just like you can with your AR.Ya but we aren't talking about the 06', we are talking about the lethality of AR platform cartridges. Focus man :chuckle:
Velocity and weight of bullet is still all I need to know in order to judge the effectiveness of a particular cartridge.
What I'm trying to explain here is that I don't need to have experience shooting elk at 600 yards with an AR in order to have an opinion on this topic. Anyone with a knowledge of hunting and ballistics can figure it out.
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 12:11:15 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:12:15 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 12:15:40 AM
well if you don't have experience then how do you know how the bullet will perform? Because you read it on a website? Do you also think the velocity printed on the box is accurate to your rifle too?Okay, again, I can pick the ideal bullet for the job in a more powerful cartridge like a 30/06, just like you can with your AR.Ya but we aren't talking about the 06', we are talking about the lethality of AR platform cartridges. Focus man :chuckle:
Velocity and weight of bullet is still all I need to know in order to judge the effectiveness of a particular cartridge.
What I'm trying to explain here is that I don't need to have experience shooting elk at 600 yards with an AR in order to have an opinion on this topic. Anyone with a knowledge of hunting and ballistics can figure it out.
I give up. You don't get it and probably never will.
Wait... didn't you say you have never killed am elk with a rifle? Well guess what, I have.
It must be nice being you and knowing everything.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:19:00 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 12:21:44 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:23:39 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:25:37 AM
How many were shot at more than 400 yards with an AR15?Absolutely zero but some were shot from a lot farther than that with a bullet traveling at similar velocities so I very much know how a bullet will perform at similar conditions.
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 12:31:59 AM
How many were shot at more than 400 yards with an AR15?Absolutely zero but some were shot from a lot farther than that with a bullet traveling at similar velocities so I very much know how a bullet will perform at similar conditions.
Okay, there we have it. You actually don't have any experience with this topic. Not any more than I do. But I get my velocities off the box- yeah right. And I get all my information from the Internet. And I haven't hunted for 36 years in this state. I know so much less than you because, I don't know, I guess because I don't hunt with an AR and I don't shoot big game further than 400 yards.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:35:42 AM
riddle me this batman. What is the difference between a berger vld traveling at 1600 fps @ 500 yards and a 130 gr berger vld traveling 1600 fps @ 1000 yards?How many were shot at more than 400 yards with an AR15?Absolutely zero but some were shot from a lot farther than that with a bullet traveling at similar velocities so I very much know how a bullet will perform at similar conditions.
Okay, there we have it. You actually don't have any experience with this topic. Not any more than I do. But I get my velocities off the box- yeah right. And I get all my information from the Internet. And I haven't hunted for 36 years in this state. I know so much less than you because, I don't know, I guess because I don't hunt with an AR and I don't shoot big game further than 400 yards.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:36:46 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 12:40:22 AM
Because once again, head stamps don't kill animals bullets do :chuckle:
That's what I've been saying all along but was told I couldn't have an opinion because I haven't hunted elk with an AR15!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:41:47 AM
You didn't answer my riddle :chuckle:Because once again, head stamps don't kill animals bullets do :chuckle:
That's what I've been saying all along but was told I couldn't have an opinion because I haven't hunted elk with an AR15!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 12:43:37 AM
Post by: mountainman on December 27, 2015, 01:13:45 AM
Post by: grundy53 on December 27, 2015, 05:40:40 AM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.When did this hypothetical elk move to 600 yards?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: yorketransport on December 27, 2015, 06:40:19 AM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.When did this hypothetical elk move to 600 yards?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
About 9 pages ago. :chuckle:
This thread is like a group of kids with ADHD trying to discuss politics. It keeps going off on the weirdest tangents and never really getting completely back on track. The up side is that it's full of plot twists and unexpected alliances like a bad reality show!
Post by: grundy53 on December 27, 2015, 06:45:08 AM
:chuckle: well they should have shot him when he was at 400 yards it would have been easier and less controversial.The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.When did this hypothetical elk move to 600 yards?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
About 9 pages ago. :chuckle:
This thread is like a group of kids with ADHD trying to discuss politics. It keeps going off on the weirdest tangents and never really getting completely back on track. The up side is that it's full of plot twists and unexpected alliances like a bad reality show!
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: kentrek on December 27, 2015, 07:21:15 AM
riddle me this batman. What is the difference between a berger vld traveling at 1600 fps @ 500 yards and a 130 gr berger vld traveling 1600 fps @ 1000 yards?
Depends if it was shot with an AR or not....AR's just don't have same wammy factor as long rifles
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 07:38:29 AM
Post by: kentrek on December 27, 2015, 08:07:12 AM
:chuckle: hunting season is over and I've got a few more weeks till application season begins. I'm not good at book learnin so I need some form of entertainment :chuckle: This thread has made my weekend. So much entertainment! Sadly though, my reloading bench needs some attention :'( Gonna try and learn about ballistics when I'm out there. :hello:
There's still alot of wolves to chase !!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 08:43:02 AM
Post by: coachcw on December 27, 2015, 08:50:34 AM
Post by: Kurt_S on December 27, 2015, 08:57:51 AM
So JD your saying the guys you hunt rock chuck with just arnt that good ? ..... to put into perspective the first five shots behind my 6.5 where at 405 yards with a 10-12mph cross wind the first shot was clean bore and was about two inches of the mark the next four where in the bull and could have been covered with a paper cup . that's a bolt gun I never shot ... blrm shoot it a 545 and believe he shot a one inch stick off a stump .....that's a quality bolt gun with little to no practice other than a couple dry fires . If I had a 6.5 grendal in a good ar platform that was say 1/2 moa with a lrab or a vld bullet id not hesitate to punch a elk through the lungs at 500 . ten iches behind the shoulder is a huge target . a 30/30 at 150 yards with a weaver 4x is far more difficult . by the way have you seen how far a elk can carry a arrow ?A one inch stick at 545 yards. Right :rolleyes:
Post by: kentrek on December 27, 2015, 09:04:13 AM
This is true but I do enjoy being married :chuckle:
She's allowed to shoot wolves too ....i won't even care what gun she uses :tup:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 09:25:12 AM
Actually.... it was a knot with the remnants of a branch still protruding from it. I said, "ok, I'm gonna aim at the knot with the stick at the end of the log." Watching through my 60 spotter, he spotted the shot. I hit that little knot right on the money! So ya, a stick at 545 :tup:So JD your saying the guys you hunt rock chuck with just arnt that good ? ..... to put into perspective the first five shots behind my 6.5 where at 405 yards with a 10-12mph cross wind the first shot was clean bore and was about two inches of the mark the next four where in the bull and could have been covered with a paper cup . that's a bolt gun I never shot ... blrm shoot it a 545 and believe he shot a one inch stick off a stump .....that's a quality bolt gun with little to no practice other than a couple dry fires . If I had a 6.5 grendal in a good ar platform that was say 1/2 moa with a lrab or a vld bullet id not hesitate to punch a elk through the lungs at 500 . ten iches behind the shoulder is a huge target . a 30/30 at 150 yards with a weaver 4x is far more difficult . by the way have you seen how far a elk can carry a arrow ?A one inch stick at 545 yards. Right :rolleyes:
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 09:26:30 AM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.When did this hypothetical elk move to 600 yards?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I chose that number because I wanted to know what we're actually talking about here. The title of the thread says "past 400." Well, how far past? I could see 401 yards being do-able. 450 maybe, 500, well that's really stretching it, but maybe. So, I kept asking about an elk at 600 yards and none of these self proclaimed ballistic experts ever admitted that 600 yards just might be too far for a 120 grain bullet that starts out at a measly 2400 fps.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 27, 2015, 09:27:39 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 09:32:49 AM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.When did this hypothetical elk move to 600 yards?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I chose that number because I wanted to know what we're actually talking about here. The title of the thread says "past 400." Well, how far past? I could see 401 yards being do-able. 450 maybe, 500, well that's really stretching it, but maybe. So, I kept asking about an elk at 600 yards and none of these self proclaimed ballistic experts ever admitted that 600 yards just might be too far for a 120 grain bullet that starts out at a measly 2400 fps.
6.5/264 doesn't start out at 2400 fps. My rifle shoots them well past 2500. you rounded 2490 down to suit your argument.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 09:33:35 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 09:40:05 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 09:41:37 AM
6.5/264 doesn't start out at 2400 fps. My rifle shoots them well past 2500. you rounded 2490 down to suit your argument.
Okay, sorry, so let's round that up to 2500 fps and to me it still isn't a 600 yard elk cartridge. It's just not.
You want to shoot elk at 600 yards? Get something that has more than enough power, not just the bare minimum.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 09:44:27 AM
Looks to be about double the min velocity required to reliably expand the hypothetical berger going a mere 2400fps at the muzzle on the hypothetical elk at 600 yards.
Hey can you run it at 2500? I want to see if your numbers are similar to mine.
I'm 3.8 mils, .71 TOF, 1753 fps and 839 ft-lbs energy at 500.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 09:47:34 AM
What bullet? I used a 130 gr VLD because that would be my choice if it would feed properly.Looks to be about double the min velocity required to reliably expand the hypothetical berger going a mere 2400fps at the muzzle on the hypothetical elk at 600 yards.
Hey can you run it at 2500? I want to see if your numbers are similar to mine.
I'm 3.8 mils, .71 TOF, 1753 fps and 839 ft-lbs energy at 500.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
6.5/264 doesn't start out at 2400 fps. My rifle shoots them well past 2500. you rounded 2490 down to suit your argument.
Okay, sorry, so let's round that up to 2500 fps and to me it still isn't a 600 yard elk cartridge. It's just not.
You want to shoot elk at 600 yards? Get something that has more than enough power, not just the bare minimum.
So now we are back to imposing ethics on others?
I have a couple old dusty rifles in the safe that you would like better, but choose to hunt with the AR. At some point i'll get bored with that and build something fun.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 09:52:16 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 09:54:13 AM
What bullet? I used a 130 gr VLD because that would be my choice if it would feed properly.Looks to be about double the min velocity required to reliably expand the hypothetical berger going a mere 2400fps at the muzzle on the hypothetical elk at 600 yards.
Hey can you run it at 2500? I want to see if your numbers are similar to mine.
I'm 3.8 mils, .71 TOF, 1753 fps and 839 ft-lbs energy at 500.
SST. I found the VLD's too long and took up to much case capacity. It's only 500-600 yd.
Post by: yorketransport on December 27, 2015, 10:00:14 AM
Looks to be about double the min velocity required to reliably expand the hypothetical berger going a mere 2400fps at the muzzle on the hypothetical elk at 600 yards.
Hey can you run it at 2500? I want to see if your numbers are similar to mine.
I'm 3.8 mils, .71 TOF, 1753 fps and 839 ft-lbs energy at 500.
I need to step up my loads! This is the 130 accubond @ 2430 from the little 19" CZ 527.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft260%2Fcollegekidandy%2FD69E3219-C84A-49B7-B133-CECAFF0B5188.png&hash=20d108fa365e50856c3d4fb50d74a260dc3fa97b) (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/collegekidandy/media/D69E3219-C84A-49B7-B133-CECAFF0B5188.png.html)
But mine's alright because it's out of a bolt gun. :tup:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 10:08:13 AM
Looks to be about double the min velocity required to reliably expand the hypothetical berger going a mere 2400fps at the muzzle on the hypothetical elk at 600 yards.
Hey can you run it at 2500? I want to see if your numbers are similar to mine.
I'm 3.8 mils, .71 TOF, 1753 fps and 839 ft-lbs energy at 500.
I need to step up my loads! This is the 130 accubond @ 2430 from the little 19" CZ 527.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft260%2Fcollegekidandy%2FD69E3219-C84A-49B7-B133-CECAFF0B5188.png&hash=20d108fa365e50856c3d4fb50d74a260dc3fa97b) (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/collegekidandy/media/D69E3219-C84A-49B7-B133-CECAFF0B5188.png.html)
But mine's alright because it's out of a bolt gun. :tup:
Need to get your 6.5 AR15 going!
That should end this little drama.
Post by: mountainman on December 27, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2096337520341&id=1002434245&mds=%2Fprivacy%2Fselector%2Fdialog%2Fx%2F%3Fcid%3DS%253A_I1002434245%253A2096337520341%26ct%3D6%26perm%26nodeid%3Dm_story_permalink_view%26auto%3D1%26loc%3Dpermalink&mdf=1
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 10:20:36 AM
The rifle is not really relevant. What matters is the bullet and the velocity. That's all anyone needs to know to judge how effective a particular cartridge might be on an elk standing at 600 yards. I don't think I need to have hunted with an AR15 in order to have an educated opinion on the topic.When did this hypothetical elk move to 600 yards?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I chose that number because I wanted to know what we're actually talking about here. The title of the thread says "past 400." Well, how far past? I could see 401 yards being do-able. 450 maybe, 500, well that's really stretching it, but maybe. So, I kept asking about an elk at 600 yards and none of these self proclaimed ballistic experts ever admitted that 600 yards just might be too far for a 120 grain bullet that starts out at a measly 2400 fps.
You must have "Selective reading recall" you can sure google the heck out of everything but you can't recall the whole post is about a Elk killed with a 6.5 Grendel at 411 yards. That's 4-1-1 yards ( Four Hundred Eleven). That's exactly 11(Eleven) yards past 400(Four Hundred) yards to answer your question. 600 yards has nothing to do with it? Even for those you choose to call self proclaimed. Then again you weren't standing over the Elk taken at 411(Four Hundred Eleven) yards with a measly muzzle velocity were you?
Quack! Quack! Quack!
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
6.5/264 doesn't start out at 2400 fps. My rifle shoots them well past 2500. you rounded 2490 down to suit your argument.
Okay, sorry, so let's round that up to 2500 fps and to me it still isn't a 600 yard elk cartridge. It's just not.
You want to shoot elk at 600 yards? Get something that has more than enough power, not just the bare minimum.
Again 600 yards is your hang up/ detour. It has nothing to do with this thread?
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 10:27:20 AM
Hunt with what you want and shoot as far as you want. I don't care. I don't have time for this anymore. You know my opinion and I know yours.
Life will go on.
Post by: jasnt on December 27, 2015, 10:38:40 AM
Post by: yorketransport on December 27, 2015, 10:44:48 AM
Need to get your 6.5 AR15 going!
That should end this little drama.
I'm the only person who can have a Cheytac based bolt gun built in less time than I can have a bunch of AR parts slapped together! When the AR is done I'll post pics of my new elk rifle. :chuckle: That should put all these 6.5 Grendel lovers in their place. If 2500 fps is good for 400 yards (but not 411) then 2700 fps can get me to at least 750!
It is hard to ignore the irony of a guy who's screen name is Biggerhammer being on the minimalist side of a cartridge debate. :stirthepot:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 27, 2015, 10:52:18 AM
Need to get your 6.5 AR15 going!
That should end this little drama.
I'm the only person who can have a Cheytac based bolt gun built in less time than I can have a bunch of AR parts slapped together! When the AR is done I'll post pics of my new elk rifle. :chuckle: That should put all these 6.5 Grendel lovers in their place. If 2500 fps is good for 400 yards (but not 411) then 2700 fps can get me to at least 750!
It is hard to ignore the irony of a guy who's screen name is Biggerhammer being on the minimalist side of a cartridge debate. :stirthepot:
Maybe he just has a bighammer. :yike:
Post by: jasnt on December 27, 2015, 10:52:33 AM
:chuckle:
Need to get your 6.5 AR15 going!
That should end this little drama.
I'm the only person who can have a Cheytac based bolt gun built in less time than I can have a bunch of AR parts slapped together! When the AR is done I'll post pics of my new elk rifle. :chuckle: That should put all these 6.5 Grendel lovers in their place. If 2500 fps is good for 400 yards (but not 411) then 2700 fps can get me to at least 750!
It is hard to ignore the irony of a guy who's screen name is Biggerhammer being on the minimalist side of a cartridge debate. :stirthepot:
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 10:59:07 AM
Hammer- I didn't read the first several pages of this thread so I easily could have missed the post about an elk at 411 yards.
Hunt with what you want and shoot as far as you want. I don't care. I don't have time for this anymore. You know my opinion and I know yours.
Life will go on.
Thank you. That's exactly where I'm at and have always been. :tup:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 27, 2015, 11:03:36 AM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 11:04:21 AM
Need to get your 6.5 AR15 going!
That should end this little drama.
I'm the only person who can have a Cheytac based bolt gun built in less time than I can have a bunch of AR parts slapped together! When the AR is done I'll post pics of my new elk rifle. :chuckle: That should put all these 6.5 Grendel lovers in their place. If 2500 fps is good for 400 yards (but not 411) then 2700 fps can get me to at least 750!
It is hard to ignore the irony of a guy who's screen name is Biggerhammer being on the minimalist side of a cartridge debate. :stirthepot:
It's never ending! When my .450 Ultra Magnum was introduced. I was a sadist, over gunned, inefficient and down right morbid. All of it being somewhat correct.😈😈😈😈
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 11:05:56 AM
:chuckle:
I read that story on one of the forums she was by herself when she took that bull with a 6.5 Grendel.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 27, 2015, 11:06:20 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 11:07:21 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 11:07:46 AM
:chuckle:
I read that story on one of the forums she was by herself when she took that bull with a 6.5 Grendel.
Thing is going to spring to life at any moment.
Post by: Nice Racks on December 27, 2015, 02:31:46 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 27, 2015, 02:35:12 PM
The ballistics are there, but is it ethical? I don't think so. I'd say more animals are crippled than harvested at those long ranges. Just feeding the yotes.purely speculation . My bet is more elk are wounded and lost under 100 yards in thick cover . Just because guys fail to follow up on there shots.
Post by: Nice Racks on December 27, 2015, 02:41:14 PM
The ballistics are there, but is it ethical? I don't think so. I'd say more animals are crippled than harvested at those long ranges. Just feeding the yotes.purely speculation . My bet is more elk are wounded and lost under 100 yards in thick cover . Just because guys fail to follow up on there shots.
Guess your remark is speculation too. :chuckle:
Post by: JDHasty on December 27, 2015, 02:54:16 PM
How many were shot at more than 400 yards with an AR15?Absolutely zero but some were shot from a lot farther than that with a bullet traveling at similar velocities so I very much know how a bullet will perform at similar conditions.
Okay, there we have it. You actually don't have any experience with this topic. Not any more than I do. But I get my velocities off the box- yeah right. And I get all my information from the Internet. And I haven't hunted for 36 years in this state. I know so much less than you because, I don't know, I guess because I don't hunt with an AR and I don't shoot big game further than 400 yards.
I figured that out about ten pages back.
Post by: Bob33 on December 27, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 27, 2015, 02:56:55 PM
I would guess that in most of those cases, caliber/platform wouldn't have been the major factor. A bad shot from a bolt gun is as bad as that from a gas op (only a few fps difference).The ballistics are there, but is it ethical? I don't think so. I'd say more animals are crippled than harvested at those long ranges. Just feeding the yotes.purely speculation . My bet is more elk are wounded and lost under 100 yards in thick cover . Just because guys fail to follow up on there shots.
Guess your remark is speculation too. :chuckle:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 03:05:08 PM
Funny how neither of you will answer my riddle :dunno: I think it's because you all know the answer :tup:How many were shot at more than 400 yards with an AR15?Absolutely zero but some were shot from a lot farther than that with a bullet traveling at similar velocities so I very much know how a bullet will perform at similar conditions.
Okay, there we have it. You actually don't have any experience with this topic. Not any more than I do. But I get my velocities off the box- yeah right. And I get all my information from the Internet. And I haven't hunted for 36 years in this state. I know so much less than you because, I don't know, I guess because I don't hunt with an AR and I don't shoot big game further than 400 yards.
I figured that out about ten pages back.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 27, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2015, 03:16:50 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
While everyone has been arguing the elk moved into a closed GMU so this is all moot now until next season.
Well then that amature beast of a set up Yorke is running( .338-.408) will be perfect for "Ethical" shots into the next GMU. First we have to get JD and Bobcats blessing. That could be a challenge, due to the fact the side tracking and speculation as displayed is quite time consuming. I don't believe we could get a straight reply by the start of the 2016 modern Elk season. They need to still define "Self proclaimed experts" and with their antics matching that of the current government administration, it may never happen.
Post by: Dan-o on December 27, 2015, 03:44:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 03:48:27 PM
This thread is taking on Big Foot like proportions...... Very serious. >:(
True that.
>:( >:( >:(
>:( >:(
>:(
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
This thread is taking on Big Foot like proportions...... Very serious. >:(
What's the ethical proper rest, measly muzzle velocity and proper wind call, bullet construction Etc. For a 411 yard shot with a 6.5 Grendel on a "Big Foot"? By a amature, novice, semi novice, expert, self proclaimed expert or just plain super human whicked shot type dude???
Someone google it for hecks sakes. I'm busy watching the Seachickens choke on it!
Post by: Curly on December 27, 2015, 03:58:25 PM
It's been answered already on the bigfoot thread; just have to read almost 12,000 posts to see the answer.This thread is taking on Big Foot like proportions...... Very serious. >:(
What's the ethical proper rest, measly muzzle velocity and proper wind call, bullet construction Etc. For a 411 yard shot with a 6.5 Grendel on a "Big Foot"? By a amature, novice, semi novice, expert, self proclaimed expert or just plain super human whicked shot type dude???
Post by: Dan-o on December 27, 2015, 03:58:58 PM
This thread is taking on Big Foot like proportions...... Very serious. >:(
What's the ethical proper rest, measly muzzle velocity and proper wind call, bullet construction Etc. For a 411 yard shot with a 6.5 Grendel on a "Big Foot"? By a amature, novice, semi novice, expert, self proclaimed expert or just plain super human whicked shot type dude???
Someone google it for hecks sakes. I'm busy watching the Seachickens choke on it!
You have set up a red herring.
We already established (on the Big Foot thread) that shots from AR platforms at Big Foots under 500 yards are unethical.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 04:01:02 PM
It's been answered already on the bigfoot thread; just have to read almost 12,00 posts to see the answer.This thread is taking on Big Foot like proportions...... Very serious. >:(
What's the ethical proper rest, measly muzzle velocity and proper wind call, bullet construction Etc. For a 411 yard shot with a 6.5 Grendel on a "Big Foot"? By a amature, novice, semi novice, expert, self proclaimed expert or just plain super human whicked shot type dude???
Can't bring myself to do that, some of the clowns in this thread were more than enough for me.🤕
Post by: Curly on December 27, 2015, 04:01:30 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 04:05:42 PM
It is all speculation though since bigfoot is so blurry it is hard to get a good shot at one. Need special anti blur optics I think.
I wonder if those new "Hawk" optics are Anti-Blur? I've used everything else and haven't seen Big foot one!
Post by: mountainman on December 27, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 04:17:19 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 27, 2015, 04:25:18 PM
Need to get your 6.5 AR15 going!
That should end this little drama.
I'm the only person who can have a Cheytac based bolt gun built in less time than I can have a bunch of AR parts slapped together! When the AR is done I'll post pics of my new elk rifle. :chuckle: That should put all these 6.5 Grendel lovers in their place. If 2500 fps is good for 400 yards (but not 411) then 2700 fps can get me to at least 750!
It is hard to ignore the irony of a guy who's screen name is Biggerhammer being on the minimalist side of a cartridge debate. :stirthepot:
It's never ending! When my .450 Ultra Magnum was introduced. I was a sadist, over gunned, inefficient and down right morbid. All of it being somewhat correct.😈😈😈😈
Oh woe is me, woe is me
Post by: Bob33 on December 27, 2015, 04:27:19 PM
If you kids want to take pot shots at others, do it somewhere else.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on December 27, 2015, 04:36:44 PM
The party's over.
If you kids want to take pot shots at others, do it somewhere else.
How about at mule deer at ranges closing on 500 yards?
Notice I say AR15 based rifle and in this I explicitly want to not include AR10 based rifles that handle 308 Winchester based cartridges in this discussion.
AR15 based rifles handle cartridges that are based on native cartridge brass that ranges in size UP to 7.62X39 or 30 Remington.
What say you?
Absolutely YES!!! And that's not opinion it indeed is FACT!!! Now move along.
The party ended when I posted this. :tup:
Post by: JDHasty on December 27, 2015, 04:48:30 PM
The ballistics are there, but is it ethical? I don't think so. I'd say more animals are crippled than harvested at those long ranges. Just feeding the yotes.
After re-reading this entire thread, my inclination is that under ideal conditions it can be done. Would I recommend it? No Is it ethical? I am closer to your assessment that it is "just feeding the yotes" than I can accept as far as it being considered ethical. I am inclined to believe that under field conditions an unacceptable level of the risk of crippling is likely.
Post by: bobcat on December 27, 2015, 04:52:18 PM
Now go read the Bigfoot thread from beginning to end.
Post by: Dan-o on December 27, 2015, 04:54:06 PM
The ballistics are there, but is it ethical? I don't think so. I'd say more animals are crippled than harvested at those long ranges. Just feeding the yotes.
After re-reading this entire thread, my inclination is that under ideal conditions it can be done. Would I recommend it? No Is it ethical? I am closer to your assessment than I find acceptable. I am inclined to believe that under field conditions an unacceptable risk of crippling is likely.
I'm not sure of your position.
Can you restate it?
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 04:57:54 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2015, 05:01:01 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 27, 2015, 05:08:28 PM
can anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?yes
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 05:08:48 PM
can anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can't be done on a AR15.
It can be done on a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
I'm going to build a AR10 in .300 WSM shortly. I want the custom mags in hand before I commit.
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2015, 05:11:27 PM
seems like its a pretty pointless thing then, if you want a gun to shoot longer range get a bolt gun in one of the growing #s of long range cartridges, seems like a standard Rem 700 in 270 win would be better.....MY OPINION it only matters to me thoughcan anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can be done in a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 05:14:58 PM
seems like its a pretty pointless thing then, if you want a gun to shoot longer range get a bolt gun in one of the growing #s of long range cartridges, seems like a standard Rem 700 in 270 win would be better.....MY OPINION it only matters to me thoughcan anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can be done in a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
It had nothing to do with what is "Better". It had to do with if it could be done and screw the forced ethics issue. To each their own. It has been done and was done.
We have rifles plenty capable of taking Elk beyond a 1000 yards, what do you think the guy backing up the main shooter was driving? People don't stop to think or ask about such things. So I let them roll. :tup:
Post by: Dan-o on December 27, 2015, 05:16:11 PM
can anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can't be done on a AR15.
It can be done on a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
I'm going to build a AR10 in .300 WSM shortly. I want the custom mags in hand before I commit.
Interesting.
I imagine if you could do a .300 WSM you could do a .325 WSM?
That would be a pretty wicked elk/bear platform for he west side.
An AR-10 brush gun in .325 WSM......... hmmmmmm...........
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2015, 05:16:28 PM
I would give up a testicle for a 6.5 Grendel AR with a 20" Barrel and a Nightforce scope....seems like its a pretty pointless thing then, if you want a gun to shoot longer range get a bolt gun in one of the growing #s of long range cartridges, seems like a standard Rem 700 in 270 win would be better.....MY OPINION it only matters to me thoughcan anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can be done in a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
It had nothing to do with what is "Better". It had to do if it can be done and screw the forced ethics issue. To each their own. It has been done and was done.
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2015, 05:17:30 PM
you could use that on your in laws if you run into them again while looking for your cameracan anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can't be done on a AR15.
It can be done on a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
I'm going to build a AR10 in .300 WSM shortly. I want the custom mags in hand before I commit.
Interesting.
I imagine if you could do a .300 WSM you could do a .325 WSM?
That would be a pretty wicked elk/bear platform for he west side.
An AR-10 brush gun in .325 WSM......... hmmmmmm...........
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 05:19:46 PM
can anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can't be done on a AR15.
It can be done on a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
I'm going to build a AR10 in .300 WSM shortly. I want the custom mags in hand before I commit.
Interesting.
I imagine if you could do a .300 WSM you could do a .325 WSM?
That would be a pretty wicked elk/bear platform for he west side.
An AR-10 brush gun in .325 WSM......... hmmmmmm...........
Sure can, rumor has it there's a .375 version in the works :chuckle:. But what do I know. ;)
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 05:31:56 PM
Post by: jaymark6655 on December 27, 2015, 05:33:14 PM
1. Bullets don't always expand it they are going too fast.
2. Next years regs, no shots over 50 yards because 90% of hunters can't even get a clean kill at that distance. 2017: you will have to use a knife since real hunters should have the deer step on them before they stab it in self defense.
:rolleyes:
I saw the original post and stayed out of it. In my opinion, no where did bighammer say the novice could use that weapon to make that shot. He simply said its a great round and that he had made kills with it at that distance. Anyone who assumes because he did, they can or that he suggested that others should;
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 05:36:06 PM
Guess I need to dig all those deer out of the freezer and put them back in the woods, because they shouldn't be dead. I didn't get to use a AR, not legal here; too powerful. I used a .50 muzzle loader with round ball that doesn't expand and only has 461 ft-lbs at the range they were shot, less than half what that 6.5 has. :dunno:
1. Bullets don't always expand it they are going too fast.
2. Next years regs, no shots over 50 yards because 90% of hunters can't even get a clean kill at that distance. 2017: you will have to use a knife since real hunters should have the deer step on them before they stab it in self defense.
:rolleyes:
I saw the original post and stayed out of it. In my opinion, no where did bighammer say the novice could use that weapon to make that shot. He simply said its a great round and that he had made kills with it at that distance. Anyone who assumes because he did, they can or that he suggested that others should;shouldn't be hunting big gameshould just move on instead of starting a separate thread to bash him.
And there's the facts from a third party, I have no association with. Straight up! The whole thread was a twist of the facts by the instigator.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 27, 2015, 05:45:00 PM
can anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can't be done on a AR15.
It can be done on a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
I'm going to build a AR10 in .300 WSM shortly. I want the custom mags in hand before I commit.
Interesting.
I imagine if you could do a .300 WSM you could do a .325 WSM?
That would be a pretty wicked elk/bear platform for he west side.
An AR-10 brush gun in .325 WSM......... hmmmmmm...........
Sure can, rumor has it there's a .375 version in the works :chuckle:. But what do I know. ;)
I'm at some point going to reconvene on that. But after reading this thread I don't think anyone would want a 375/458 SOCOM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 05:50:43 PM
can anyone answer my ? Can you chamber 7 wssm in an AR-15?
It can't be done on a AR15.
It can be done on a AR10. There ar AR10's chambered in .300 SAUM. The magazine is the issue. Complete custom mags.
I'm going to build a AR10 in .300 WSM shortly. I want the custom mags in hand before I commit.
Interesting.
I imagine if you could do a .300 WSM you could do a .325 WSM?
That would be a pretty wicked elk/bear platform for he west side.
An AR-10 brush gun in .325 WSM......... hmmmmmm...........
Sure can, rumor has it there's a .375 version in the works :chuckle:. But what do I know. ;)
I'm at some point going to reconvene on that. But after reading this thread I don't think anyone would want a 375/458 SOCOM
I WOULD! :tup: I would do some stuff that some would call seriously " Unethical " with it. :tup:
Post by: JJB11B on December 27, 2015, 06:47:16 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 27, 2015, 06:51:04 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 07:05:30 PM
Yes but only with vlds or larbs in less your pushing a ttsx at 3000 fps ......lol
Haha! Barnes aren't even a contender with their crap BC.
Post by: yorketransport on December 27, 2015, 07:07:14 PM
Yes but only with vlds or larbs in less your pushing a ttsx at 3000 fps ......lol
You must be shooting one of those inefficient barrel burning super magnums to get that kind of velocity! All I need is a bullet with a decent sectional density at about 2500 fps to cleanly take any animal on this continent. You guys and your super magnums trying to make up for being poor marksmen. Everybody knows that shot placement is all that matters...... :chuckle:
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 27, 2015, 08:16:14 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 28, 2015, 06:15:48 AM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 28, 2015, 07:17:37 AM
Well RTs truck is lifted ?
So's mine, with a super magnum laying in the seat more often than not. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: JJB11B on December 28, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 28, 2015, 01:21:09 PM
I'm gonna make a super ultra magnum, 300 ultra necked down to .204. Should be good for making noise at least
Better to go 378 necked down to 22 :chuckle: Eargesplitten loudenboomer is the cartridge name :chuckle:
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 28, 2015, 02:17:31 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 28, 2015, 02:26:49 PM
Post by: mountainman on December 28, 2015, 02:56:26 PM
I'm gonna make a super ultra magnum, 300 ultra necked down to .204. Should be good for making noise at least
Better to go 378 necked down to 22 :chuckle: Eargesplitten loudenboomer is the cartridge name :chuckle:
Post by: 2labs on December 28, 2015, 02:56:41 PM
24/378 at least make it legal .
:yeah: any thing over 5000 F.P.S is a waste of sound barrier. Keep breaking it, won't be any left :peep:
Post by: kentrek on December 28, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
24/378 at least make it legal .
I've had a buddy miss alot with Weatherby....so it's safe to assume it's an inherently inaccurate case design...let's go with a 338 lupua case to keep things ethical
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 28, 2015, 05:25:28 PM
24/378 at least make it legal .
I've had a buddy miss alot with Weatherby....so it's safe to assume it's an inherently inaccurate case design...let's go with a 338 lupua case to keep things ethical
The .338 Ultra magnum case would be a better choice, out runs the .338 Lapua in every way except the 300gr bullets, then it's so close it doesn't matter. The Ultra will fit on a standard magnum bolt face where as the Lapua requires a slightly larger bolt face.
Yorke and I both have rifles chambered in my 6.5 Badger. The .338 Ultra necked down to 6.5 with a 40 degree shoulder and minimum body taper. Yes, it's fast. Faster than the 26 Nosler.
Left to right. .338 RUM case, my 6.5 Badger with a 160gr Matrix VLD, Yorke's creations .375 BME with a 350gr Sierra MK, Norma 6.5-.284 case.
Some heavy hitters!
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2Fphoto_zps91fdd59f.jpg&hash=541aaa3c9e7ae58c11a75f81d5ac028e17667ab5) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/Mobile%20Uploads/photo_zps91fdd59f.jpg.html)
Then my evil, brain bruising on the bench 450 Ultra magnum.
(Left) .450 Ultra Magnum with a 370gr CEB Non Con with polymer tip.
(Right) .500 Jeffery
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2Fphoto-34_zps1c20d4ca.jpg&hash=1a4e12d5644160f4c082862fda977dc3bf321c7c) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/photo-34_zps1c20d4ca.jpg.html)
Post by: yorketransport on December 28, 2015, 06:16:53 PM
On a side note, I think we need to neck that 500 Jeffery case down to 6.5 or 7mm. It seems like such a waste to have all that case capacity behind such a fat bullet that's going to end up getting down loaded anyways.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 28, 2015, 06:36:13 PM
24/378 at least make it legal .
Fine twist my arm into it :chuckle: Poor barrel :chuckle:
Post by: yorketransport on December 28, 2015, 06:50:57 PM
24/378 at least make it legal .
Fine twist my arm into it :chuckle: Poor barrel :chuckle:
It's 6mm BMG or nothing for me! It's just unethical to use anything less. :tup:
Post by: kentrek on December 28, 2015, 07:03:58 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 28, 2015, 07:09:39 PM
24/378 at least make it legal .
I've had a buddy miss alot with Weatherby....so it's safe to assume it's an inherently inaccurate case design...let's go with a 338 lupua case to keep things ethical
The .338 Ultra magnum case would be a better choice, out runs the .338 Lapua in every way except the 300gr bullets, then it's so close it doesn't matter. The Ultra will fit on a standard magnum bolt face where as the Lapua requires a slightly larger bolt face.
Yorke and I both have rifles chambered in my 6.5 Badger. The .338 Ultra necked down to 6.5 with a 40 degree shoulder and minimum body taper. Yes, it's fast. Faster than the 26 Nosler.
Left to right. .338 RUM case, my 6.5 Badger with a 160gr Matrix VLD, Yorke's creations .375 BME with a 350gr Sierra MK, Norma 6.5-.284 case.
Some heavy hitters!
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2Fphoto_zps91fdd59f.jpg&hash=541aaa3c9e7ae58c11a75f81d5ac028e17667ab5) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/Mobile%20Uploads/photo_zps91fdd59f.jpg.html)
Then my evil, brain bruising on the bench 450 Ultra magnum.
(Left) .450 Ultra Magnum with a 370gr CEB Non Con with polymer tip.
(Right) .500 Jeffery
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi90.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk269%2Flandonmoses%2Fphoto-34_zps1c20d4ca.jpg&hash=1a4e12d5644160f4c082862fda977dc3bf321c7c) (http://s90.photobucket.com/user/landonmoses/media/photo-34_zps1c20d4ca.jpg.html)
:yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike:
What muzzle velocity do you get with that 6.5 Badger????
That just looks wicked.
:yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike:
Post by: coachcw on December 28, 2015, 07:15:30 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 28, 2015, 07:22:37 PM
Post by: yorketransport on December 28, 2015, 07:23:57 PM
:yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike:
What muzzle velocity do you get with that 6.5 Badger????
That just looks wicked.
:yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike:
I get 3430 fps in the summer with the 160 Matrix. In the winter the velocity drops to about 3350 because US 869 is so temperature sensitive. :bash: No other powder will really work in this case with the heavy bullets though so I just deal with it.
What's the barrel life on that badger 100 rounds ? Lol
I'll be happy if I can hit 700 rounds. I'm at about 120 right now and it's not key holing bullets yet! :tup:
Post by: Dan-o on December 28, 2015, 11:45:07 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on December 29, 2015, 07:40:50 AM
Post by: JJB11B on December 30, 2015, 02:13:08 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 30, 2015, 02:37:49 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 30, 2015, 02:42:56 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 30, 2015, 02:47:39 PM
Post by: Curly on December 30, 2015, 02:50:52 PM
When this gets to 20 pages, will it finally be ethical to kill deer?Deer at 500 and elk at 411?
I think so.
8)
Post by: yorketransport on December 30, 2015, 05:14:54 PM
When this gets to 20 pages, will it finally be ethical to kill deer?Deer at 500 and elk at 411?
I think so.
8)
Yes, but not with an AR-15.... :chuckle:
Post by: Dan-o on December 30, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
When this gets to 20 pages, will it finally be ethical to kill deer?Deer at 500 and elk at 411?
I think so.
8)
Yes, but not with an AR-15.... :chuckle:
Fine, then I'll just get an AR-16.
(for reference: )