Quote:
Originally Posted by aigel
How far was your farthest shot? I can't see too well past 300 yards if I keep it below 9x. I took a few antelopez (that's Oddjob's spelling LOL) that far out.
G
|
One of my personal pet peeves - if you are shooting at 300 yards, you are no longer "hunting". Not a position I've held my entire life, but one I grew into as I matured as a hunter. I would be ashamed to admit just how far away I've shot big game animals - well in excess of that. Mostly with my first hunting rifle, a Model 70 in .30-'06, fitted with an old Weaver K4.
Since those early years, I've gone on to hunt many species of big game successfully, even in open country, with everything from muzzle loaders to 19th century single shots and lever guns, all fitted with open or peep sights. I've even taken open country mulies, and pronghorn, with fixed sight Peacemakers shooting black powder loads. Nowadays, I only have one big game rifle left that wears a scope, and that's my Model 70 in .375 H&H. Even my first Model 70, the old '06, now wears a Weaver peep. And yes, I still hunt open country mulies with it, if I'm not using my much smaller and lighter Ruger #1 in 6.5 Swede, with open sights.
Ah, but I digress. Like I said, seeing better doesn't necessarily help us shoot better. It's an illusion. A quite possibly dangerous and unethical one at that. Lots of guys will mistakenly assume that if they can see it well, they can hit it. High magnification scopes encourage this. They will never make up for a lack of shooting skill, ability to dope wind, or ability to judge range. Yet they draw hunters into thinking they can make the shot, just because they can see the animal clearly. It looks closer, so it looks easier.
One of the things I like to do with guys who claim all manner of long range shooting accomplishment in the field on open country mulies, antelope, or whatever is to question them regarding the conditions under which they took their animal. How hard was the wind blowing? At what angle to the line of sight was it blowing? How far did you have to hold off? How did you determine the range? How high over the animal did you hold? How did you determine how high to hold? Most simply go blank at these questions. The reality is that if they cannot answer these questions, they simply did not make the shot they claim. Their "500 yards" turns out to be maybe 120 or so, where these factors are not as influential as they would be at a true 500. A barely noticeable full effect (90 degrees to line of sight) 10 mph wind will blow the bullet off an antelope at 500 yards. In the open country, high elevation regions in which they are hunted, the wind simply never even settles down to that; 20 mph and gusting into the 30's and 40's is a more "normal" day. That, and intervening terrain will cause it to change directions a couple of times between the hunter and the quarry. Get into this level of detail with most "long range" hunters, and it very quickly becomes obvious they are not.
Oh well, another digression. Back to the scope. For these and many other reasons, I believe 4x is as high as any hunter will ever truly need under any conditions, at any range we should ehtically be shooting at big game. Er on the smaller side, if anything, for a big game scope.
Oh, and Kaliv, about caliber selection. If it were me, and this were likely to be my only rifle, I would go with the .30-'06 in preference to the .308. It has a far greater selection of ammo available, in a broader variety of bullet weights. On the larger end of the spectrum of North American big game, it carries enough extra punch to be a worthwhile step up from the .308. It handles the heaviest .30 caliber bullets far better, the 200 to 220 grain weights. Yet, with the 150's, the difference in recoil between it and the .308 is hardly noticeable.
Oh, and one more thing - like the other guys said, forget the vamint rifle. You would soon regret its extra weight, and the heavy barrel is of no help until you are putting a lot of rounds through it in short order, like when you are varmint hunting.