Posted: 6/14/2012 6:31:57 AM EDT
Coworker of mine picked up 7 boxes at an estate sale thinking they were 7MM Mag. He asked if I had any way to sell them for him. You guys have any advice on what I should do with them, either on the EE or Gunbroker? This is a very odd round so I don't think many people use it. Thanks in advance!
|
| The 7mm STW was the shit in the 80s and 90s for western hunters to really stretch out the distance on pronghorns and mule deer. I really wanted one back in the day, chambered in the Sendero model. Then the 7mm RUM came to market, along with the 7mm WSM, and now it seems that all of the magnum cartridges are on the way out with, perhaps the .300 WMag. |
|
Quoted:
That is about the lifespan of a 7mm STW barrel  Exactly! I picked up a Remington Sendero in 7STW (Shooting Times Westerner, named after a magazine) cheap when the guy who ordered it never picked it up. Got it all tuned up for a Wyoming antelope hunt, and even popped a whitetail doe in Kansas at 450 yards just because I could. Wound up shooting an antelope at 75 yards, I could have used a 30-30. By now I had a couple hundred rounds through the Sendero and accuracy was already falling off so I unloaded it. I wish I'd kept it and rebarrelled it. But I have to admit the 7STW has a lot of "reach out and touch someone". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. A more incorrect statement has never been made. Practice is the righteous way to proficient long-range shooting, not a rifle with a 200 round barrel life. |
|
Quoted: How so? Everyone I know who wanted to shoot at long distances bought into the magnum 7mm/.30 craze 10-15 years ago and relied totally on Kentucky windage. No outside of the "tactical" community had rifles with BDCs, mil-dots and target knobs. Quoted: I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. A more incorrect statement has never been made. I'm sure quite a few folks in the western areas of the country still opt for a flat 7, but I stand by my premise. Based on my anecdotal observations, folks who bought magnum 7s did it so they could shoot 400-500 yards with minimal holdover and did so without having an optic that would better aid in long range shooting. I bet if you look into what rifles are selling now, versus back then you would see a spike in the sales of fast 7s/.30cals versus now folks are buying .308s.
|
|
The STW is an interesting round. As has been mentioned, it eats barrels. Another odd thing it does is that it sometimes appears to be more accurate at longer range and less accurate at shorter ranges. That's not exactly true, of course. Most projectiles besides spinning, leave the barrel with a slight 'corkscrew' motion, which continues until the bullet 'goes to sleep'. For most rounds, this occurs pretty quickly so very few people are actually aware of it. The 7mm STW is one of the few where the going to sleep process can take considerably longer. This is why an STW might, for example, shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards but then shoot a 1.5 inch group at 200 yards. At first glance, it looks like it's more accurate at longer range, but what you're seeing is that the bullet hasn't quite gone to sleep at 100 yards, but has at 200 yards. In the 100 yard group, some variability is introduce based on where the bullet is in its corkscrewing motion that isn't present at 200 yards because at 200 yards, the bullet has gone to sleep. Technically, that means it's NOT more accurate at longer range, but it sure as hell does look that way by cursory examination. There's something about the STW that causes this behavior and it's apparently common enough that my reloading manual makes reference to it. |
|
Quoted: The STW is an interesting round. As has been mentioned, it eats barrels. Another odd thing it does is that it sometimes appears to be more accurate at longer range and less accurate at shorter ranges. That's not exactly true, of course. Most projectiles besides spinning, leave the barrel with a slight 'corkscrew' motion, which continues until the bullet 'goes to sleep'. For most rounds, this occurs pretty quickly so very few people are actually aware of it. The 7mm STW is one of the few where the going to sleep process can take considerably longer. This is why an STW might, for example, shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards but then shoot a 1.5 inch group at 200 yards. At first glance, it looks like it's more accurate at longer range, but what you're seeing is that the bullet hasn't quite gone to sleep at 100 yards, but has at 200 yards. In the 100 yard group, some variability is introduce based on where the bullet is in its corkscrewing motion that isn't present at 200 yards because at 200 yards, the bullet has gone to sleep. Technically, that means it's NOT more accurate at longer range, but it sure as hell does look that way by cursory examination. There's something about the STW that causes this behavior and it's apparently common enough that my reloading manual makes reference to it. I've heard about this, phenomenon, but I've never seen it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The STW is an interesting round. As has been mentioned, it eats barrels. Another odd thing it does is that it sometimes appears to be more accurate at longer range and less accurate at shorter ranges. That's not exactly true, of course. Most projectiles besides spinning, leave the barrel with a slight 'corkscrew' motion, which continues until the bullet 'goes to sleep'. For most rounds, this occurs pretty quickly so very few people are actually aware of it. The 7mm STW is one of the few where the going to sleep process can take considerably longer. This is why an STW might, for example, shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards but then shoot a 1.5 inch group at 200 yards. At first glance, it looks like it's more accurate at longer range, but what you're seeing is that the bullet hasn't quite gone to sleep at 100 yards, but has at 200 yards. In the 100 yard group, some variability is introduce based on where the bullet is in its corkscrewing motion that isn't present at 200 yards because at 200 yards, the bullet has gone to sleep. Technically, that means it's NOT more accurate at longer range, but it sure as hell does look that way by cursory examination. There's something about the STW that causes this behavior and it's apparently common enough that my reloading manual makes reference to it. I've heard about this, phenomenon, but I've never seen it. I have a 24" pencil-barreled Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in .30-06 that shoots tighter groups at 300 yards than it does at 100, especially with the heavier and high-BC bullets. I asked a world-champion Palma shooter if he had ever seen such a thing, and he said that he had owned at least a couple rifles in his shooting career that did just that. His theory was pretty much exactly as JamesP31 noted. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The STW is an interesting round. As has been mentioned, it eats barrels. Another odd thing it does is that it sometimes appears to be more accurate at longer range and less accurate at shorter ranges. That's not exactly true, of course. Most projectiles besides spinning, leave the barrel with a slight 'corkscrew' motion, which continues until the bullet 'goes to sleep'. For most rounds, this occurs pretty quickly so very few people are actually aware of it. The 7mm STW is one of the few where the going to sleep process can take considerably longer. This is why an STW might, for example, shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards but then shoot a 1.5 inch group at 200 yards. At first glance, it looks like it's more accurate at longer range, but what you're seeing is that the bullet hasn't quite gone to sleep at 100 yards, but has at 200 yards. In the 100 yard group, some variability is introduce based on where the bullet is in its corkscrewing motion that isn't present at 200 yards because at 200 yards, the bullet has gone to sleep. Technically, that means it's NOT more accurate at longer range, but it sure as hell does look that way by cursory examination. There's something about the STW that causes this behavior and it's apparently common enough that my reloading manual makes reference to it. I've heard about this, phenomenon, but I've never seen it. I have a 24" pencil-barreled Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in .30-06 that shoots tighter groups at 300 yards than it does at 100, especially with the heavier and high-BC bullets. I asked a world-champion Palma shooter if he had ever seen such a thing, and he said that he had owned at least a couple rifles in his shooting career that did just that. His theory was pretty much exactly as JamesP31 noted. Interesting. I've got the same model in .270 that I've struggled to shoot better than 1.5" at 100. I've never grouped it any further. I might take the old gal out here at see how she shoots at longer distances. |
|
Quoted: http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f33/dthbox/Guns/284417_10150227343750910_3718747_n.jpg The group in the top right is 3 rounds of 7mm STW at 100 yards. I love that gun. Very accurate and I only have to shoot it 6-7 times before I decide I'm done for the day.  It has some kick to it.Thats why mine has a brake |
|
The greatest thing about the STW and RUM craze was that it allowed me to buy a few Mark V Weatherby's for 33% of the 1980's pricing in the 2000's...
A member at my gun club sold me 3 boxes of 7mm Weatherby for $60 3 years ago... I shoot 1-2 rounds a year (check zero, kill deer), so I'm good for 30 years at a minimum. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How so? Everyone I know who wanted to shoot at long distances bought into the magnum 7mm/.30 craze 10-15 years ago and relied totally on Kentucky windage. No outside of the "tactical" community had rifles with BDCs, mil-dots and target knobs. Quoted:
I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. A more incorrect statement has never been made. I'm sure quite a few folks in the western areas of the country still opt for a flat 7, but I stand by my premise. Based on my anecdotal observations, folks who bought magnum 7s did it so they could shoot 400-500 yards with minimal holdover and did so without having an optic that would better aid in long range shooting. I bet if you look into what rifles are selling now, versus back then you would see a spike in the sales of fast 7s/.30cals versus now folks are buying .308s.
Lots of people make themselves precision fast 7mm/.30 due to the fact that it will increase hit probability over a .308. Compared to something like a 7mm STW or .300 RUM, the .308 has the ballistics of a mortar. So when your math is a little off, the difference between a fast 7mm and .308 could well be a hit and a miss. Ex. At 1000 yds, a 7mm STW will drop about 18 feet. At 1000 yds, a .308 will drop about 32 feet. The 7mm's increased resistance to wind drift is even more critical. |
| I too am a fan of the 7STW. After being a huge fan of the 300wby, I ordered a Sako in 7STW in stainless. I was hoping to find something flatter shooting than the 300wby without putting up with the recoil of the 30-378/RUM cases, or in need of a different twist for VLD bullets. Because of the lighter game the rifle was intended for, the goal was to do this with bullet weights that were likely to perform well on smaller game.. The goal was for the ultimate long-range mule deer/antelope rifle. I spent a summer reloading for it and found something I've rarely seen. With a half dozen different bullets, I could never find a load juggling powder charges that stood out from the rest. They all would shoot 3 shot groups into an inch, but none would stand out. While adequate, I was disappointed I couldn't find a more accurate load. Ended up choosing 160g Accubonds at 3400fps (performance that was equal to Layne Simpson's original load data). Killed some deer and elk with it and performance was as one would expect––comparable to the 300wby. Sadly, the Weatherby factory 300 ammo shot 165s slightly faster and routinely into one hole groups. I ultimately concluded the project accomplished little other than to confirm the quality of some Weatherby load/rifle combinations. This thread has got me thinking about the wisdom of punching holes at 300yds to see how the accuracy holds up-perhaps a surprise is waiting for me. As for barrel life, I've got lots of shooting to do before that will likely become an issue. |
|
Quoted:
I too am a fan of the 7STW. After being a huge fan of the 300wby, I ordered a Sako in 7STW in stainless. I was hoping to find something flatter shooting than the 300wby without putting up with the recoil of the 30-378/RUM cases, or in need of a different twist for VLD bullets. Because of the lighter game the rifle was intended for, the goal was to do this with bullet weights that were likely to perform well on smaller game.. The goal was for the ultimate long-range mule deer/antelope rifle. I spent a summer reloading for it and found something I've rarely seen. With a half dozen different bullets, I could never find a load juggling powder charges that stood out from the rest. They all would shoot 3 shot groups into an inch but none would stand out. While adequate, I was disappointed I couldn't find a more accurate load. Ended up choosing 160g Accubonds at 3400fps (performance that was equal to Layne Simpson's original load data). Killed some deer and elk with it and performance was as one would expect––comparable to the 300wby. Sadly, the Weatherby factory 300 ammo shot 165s slightly faster and routinely into one hole groups. I ultimately concluded the project accomplished little other than to confirm the quality of some Weatherby load/rifle combinations. This thread has got me thinking about the wisdom of punching holes at 300yds to see how the accuracy holds up-perhaps a surprise is waiting for me. As for barrel life, I've got lots of shooting to do before that will likely become an issue. A barrel that puts EVERYTHING into an inch or less @ 100 yards is an exceptional one, IMHO... And I'll bet that it will do marvelous things at longer distances, especially ewith the heavier bullets. Also, comparing your 'slightly faster' muzzle velocity of the .300 WM with the 165gr. bullet, to the 7mm /160, the 160 probably has a significantly higher BC, and will overtake the .30/165 over the longer distances. (Depending on the true actual muzzle velocities and specific bullet profiles, etc.) Take it out on the prairie and let it stretch it's legs over the half-mile! |
|
The higher BC was why I started in on the project. Because the end game was lighter game, I'd hoped to stay focused on the medium to heavier bullets so the 160s seemed the right way to go. While 175 would have a hgiher BC, the velocity trade off and slower expansion was the trade off. I played around with a number of 140s but they didn't shoot any better than the accubond 160s. I agree I lucked out with a good barrel––I was just hoping to find a load that shot groups half that size given how well it shot everything else. I've probably loaded for 25 different rifles over the years, and I've never found a barrel that I couldn't find a load for, but that shot everything so well. Sako is doing something right.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too am a fan of the 7STW. After being a huge fan of the 300wby, I ordered a Sako in 7STW in stainless. I was hoping to find something flatter shooting than the 300wby without putting up with the recoil of the 30-378/RUM cases, or in need of a different twist for VLD bullets. Because of the lighter game the rifle was intended for, the goal was to do this with bullet weights that were likely to perform well on smaller game.. The goal was for the ultimate long-range mule deer/antelope rifle. I spent a summer reloading for it and found something I've rarely seen. With a half dozen different bullets, I could never find a load juggling powder charges that stood out from the rest. They all would shoot 3 shot groups into an inch but none would stand out. While adequate, I was disappointed I couldn't find a more accurate load. Ended up choosing 160g Accubonds at 3400fps (performance that was equal to Layne Simpson's original load data). Killed some deer and elk with it and performance was as one would expect––comparable to the 300wby. Sadly, the Weatherby factory 300 ammo shot 165s slightly faster and routinely into one hole groups. I ultimately concluded the project accomplished little other than to confirm the quality of some Weatherby load/rifle combinations. This thread has got me thinking about the wisdom of punching holes at 300yds to see how the accuracy holds up-perhaps a surprise is waiting for me. As for barrel life, I've got lots of shooting to do before that will likely become an issue. A barrel that puts EVERYTHING into an inch or less @ 100 yards is an exceptional one, IMHO... And I'll bet that it will do marvelous things at longer distances, especially ewith the heavier bullets. Also, comparing your 'slightly faster' muzzle velocity of the .300 WM with the 165gr. bullet, to the 7mm /160, the 160 probably has a significantly higher BC, and will overtake the .30/165 over the longer distances. (Depending on the true actual muzzle velocities and specific bullet profiles, etc.) Take it out on the prairie and let it stretch it's legs over the half-mile! |
|
Quoted:
I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. I'll agree that trajectory is meaningless for eastern whitetail hunting at short to medium ranges from stands - whether with rifle or bow - but not for western hunting. I have a 6.8 SPC that I deer hunt with. It's a moderately flat-shooting cartridge that I have used to kill deer out past 300 yards with, and in its current configuration (Shilen 20" SS barrel) it's scary accurate with factory ammo. It has a scope with a mildot reticle that I'm very used to shooting with and hitting a baseball at 300 yards with it is no feat at all. Killing a deer at 400 yards with it would be no big deal. Last fall my dad and I were together when I got a shot at some does standing in a field, just over a slight rise to where I could see their chests and I could see behind them but I couldn't see their legs or the ground between us. I knew they were between 250 and 350 yards because they were closer to us than the steel plate that was hanging in this same field (the family rifle range in the back yard - but we were in the front yard where we normally don't shoot from, headed back to the house after I had killed a deer elsewhere on the farm). I needed to shoot quickly as they were acting spooky. I had the 6.8 SPC and dad had his .300 weatherby. I used the weatherby.
Point is, for hunting from stands at known ranges, trajectory isn't an issue - and I think that generally applies to eastern whitetail hunting with bow or gun. But if you don't know the range, flat trajectories are awesome. I can estimate range with great accuracy inside of 70-100 yards, because I do it every day - literally - at work. Beyond that, under field conditions, I want a decently flat trajectory. I killed my elk 2 seasons ago with a 30-06, but the first thing I did when I spotted it was to range it. It was 265 yards or so and headed towards me so when it popped out at 206 yards I didn't feel the need to range it - I just shot, dumped him, and ranged his carcass after the shot - but not a half-hour later my dad got his chance only a few hundred yards away, at a bull across a canyon, and he had no clue how far it was - and he's horrible with mechnical/electrical devices - no rangefinders or fancy reticles for him - so it was nice for him to be able to 'point and click' with the weatherby knowing that anything inside of 350 yards was dead. You can't do that with a .308 - and you certainly can't do it when the ranges get out past 400 yards. For stand hunters who like and understand gizmos and can use them quickly, trajectory means little. For mobile hunters in open spaces who are hunters first and shooters second, trajectory means a lot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How so? Everyone I know who wanted to shoot at long distances bought into the magnum 7mm/.30 craze 10-15 years ago and relied totally on Kentucky windage. No outside of the "tactical" community had rifles with BDCs, mil-dots and target knobs. Quoted:
I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. A more incorrect statement has never been made. I'm sure quite a few folks in the western areas of the country still opt for a flat 7, but I stand by my premise. Based on my anecdotal observations, folks who bought magnum 7s did it so they could shoot 400-500 yards with minimal holdover and did so without having an optic that would better aid in long range shooting. I bet if you look into what rifles are selling now, versus back then you would see a spike in the sales of fast 7s/.30cals versus now folks are buying .308s.
Completely unsubstantiated. A "better" scope doesn't negate hold over, and it sure as hell doesn't change the wind deflection of a bullet. People read too many off the rack shooting magazines, and they believe they can make up for their weaknesses by buying equipment, instead of mastering what they have. A some times hunter with delusions will buy a magnum rifle thinking that will fix all his problems, and chances are he doesn't have the slightest notion about point blank range, or some basic information about the trajectory at two or three different distances. Then they find out that rifle is a hard kicking bitch, costs too much to shoot, and if it ever gets into the field, ain't a magic wand causing critters to fall in their tracks because they were never in danger of getting pierced by a bullet. They also learn that in most of the wooded parts of the country, it's a 200 yard world; if you don't believe that, take a walk with a range finder. Some of them mature in their ideas about firearms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The STW is an interesting round. As has been mentioned, it eats barrels. Another odd thing it does is that it sometimes appears to be more accurate at longer range and less accurate at shorter ranges. That's not exactly true, of course. Most projectiles besides spinning, leave the barrel with a slight 'corkscrew' motion, which continues until the bullet 'goes to sleep'. For most rounds, this occurs pretty quickly so very few people are actually aware of it. The 7mm STW is one of the few where the going to sleep process can take considerably longer. This is why an STW might, for example, shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards but then shoot a 1.5 inch group at 200 yards. At first glance, it looks like it's more accurate at longer range, but what you're seeing is that the bullet hasn't quite gone to sleep at 100 yards, but has at 200 yards. In the 100 yard group, some variability is introduce based on where the bullet is in its corkscrewing motion that isn't present at 200 yards because at 200 yards, the bullet has gone to sleep. Technically, that means it's NOT more accurate at longer range, but it sure as hell does look that way by cursory examination. There's something about the STW that causes this behavior and it's apparently common enough that my reloading manual makes reference to it. I've heard about this, phenomenon, but I've never seen it. I have a 24" pencil-barreled Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in .30-06 that shoots tighter groups at 300 yards than it does at 100, especially with the heavier and high-BC bullets. I asked a world-champion Palma shooter if he had ever seen such a thing, and he said that he had owned at least a couple rifles in his shooting career that did just that. His theory was pretty much exactly as JamesP31 noted. Interesting. I've got the same model in .270 that I've struggled to shoot better than 1.5" at 100. I've never grouped it any further. I might take the old gal out here at see how she shoots at longer distances. It's called bullet stabilization , or in the case above , the bullet 'stabilizes' . Again , the same references to a thrown football , just like when you were taught about rifled barrels .The QB throws the football long , and on slo-mo replays you can sometimes see it wobbling a bit , then settling down , or stabilizing , in mid-flight . All three of my 300 RUM's were tighter at beyond 150-200 , than they were at 100yds with 180+gr pills. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The STW is an interesting round. As has been mentioned, it eats barrels. Another odd thing it does is that it sometimes appears to be more accurate at longer range and less accurate at shorter ranges. That's not exactly true, of course. Most projectiles besides spinning, leave the barrel with a slight 'corkscrew' motion, which continues until the bullet 'goes to sleep'. For most rounds, this occurs pretty quickly so very few people are actually aware of it. The 7mm STW is one of the few where the going to sleep process can take considerably longer. This is why an STW might, for example, shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards but then shoot a 1.5 inch group at 200 yards. At first glance, it looks like it's more accurate at longer range, but what you're seeing is that the bullet hasn't quite gone to sleep at 100 yards, but has at 200 yards. In the 100 yard group, some variability is introduce based on where the bullet is in its corkscrewing motion that isn't present at 200 yards because at 200 yards, the bullet has gone to sleep. Technically, that means it's NOT more accurate at longer range, but it sure as hell does look that way by cursory examination. There's something about the STW that causes this behavior and it's apparently common enough that my reloading manual makes reference to it. I've heard about this, phenomenon, but I've never seen it. I have a 24" pencil-barreled Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in .30-06 that shoots tighter groups at 300 yards than it does at 100, especially with the heavier and high-BC bullets. I asked a world-champion Palma shooter if he had ever seen such a thing, and he said that he had owned at least a couple rifles in his shooting career that did just that. His theory was pretty much exactly as JamesP31 noted. Interesting. I've got the same model in .270 that I've struggled to shoot better than 1.5" at 100. I've never grouped it any further. I might take the old gal out here at see how she shoots at longer distances. It's called bullet stabilization , or in the case above , the bullet 'stabilizes' . Again , the same references to a thrown football , just like when you were taught about rifled barrels .The QB throws the football long , and on slo-mo replays you can sometimes see it wobbling a bit , then settling down , or stabilizing , in mid-flight . All three of my 300 RUM's were tighter at beyond 150-200 , than they were at 100yds with 180+gr pills. To hijack this hijack even further, what sort of barrel (type, length, twist) were your 300 RUMs and what sort of velocity can one reasonably expect with 180-grain bullets (Accubond, BT, Scirocco, Interbond, etc) with handloads and stay within sane pressure limits? What powder do you use for such handloads? I REALLY want a .300 RUM but it's just not the top project on the list now because I have no range now and when we get moved back to TN I'll still only have 500 yards, so there's no real point in such a beast just yet. |
|
Quoted: It does when that better scope now has target knobs and mil-dots and you have a laser range finderQuoted: Quoted: How so? Everyone I know who wanted to shoot at long distances bought into the magnum 7mm/.30 craze 10-15 years ago and relied totally on Kentucky windage. No outside of the "tactical" community had rifles with BDCs, mil-dots and target knobs. Quoted: I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. A more incorrect statement has never been made. I'm sure quite a few folks in the western areas of the country still opt for a flat 7, but I stand by my premise. Based on my anecdotal observations, folks who bought magnum 7s did it so they could shoot 400-500 yards with minimal holdover and did so without having an optic that would better aid in long range shooting. I bet if you look into what rifles are selling now, versus back then you would see a spike in the sales of fast 7s/.30cals versus now folks are buying .308s. Completely unsubstantiated. A "better" scope doesn't negate hold over, and it sure as hell doesn't change the wind deflection of a bullet. People read too many off the rack shooting magazines, and they believe they can make up for their weaknesses by buying equipment, instead of mastering what they have. A some times hunter with delusions will buy a magnum rifle thinking that will fix all his problems, and chances are he doesn't have the slightest notion about point blank range, or some basic information about the trajectory at two or three different distances. Then they find out that rifle is a hard kicking bitch, costs too much to shoot, and if it ever gets into the field, ain't a magic wand causing critters to fall in their tracks because they were never in danger of getting pierced by a bullet. They also learn that in most of the wooded parts of the country, it's a 200 yard world; if you don't believe that, take a walk with a range finder. Some of them mature in their ideas about firearms. |
|
Quoted:
[/div]It does when that better scope now has target knobs and mil-dots and you have a laser range finder No, a flat shooting rifle with little or no holdover adjustments required out to 300 yards still beats screwing around with scope knobs and a range finder when you may have mere seconds to make a shot. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: [/div]It does when that better scope now has target knobs and mil-dots and you have a laser range finder No, a flat shooting rifle with little or no holdover adjustments required out to 300 yards still beats screwing around with scope knobs and a range finder when you may have mere seconds to make a shot. 300 yards? Really? I can EASILY make hits with both my .308 and my two '06s without worrying about holdover. |
|
Quoted: I think newer, and better scopes at reasonable prices have pretty much negated the need for a flat shooting gun. Not really. Where I started out hunting you need the long flat shooting cartridges to get out there. You spend all day hiking up and down canyons just to find your shot across another canyon with a good wind blowing. |