for hunters - 30-06 VS 308

[MoBoost]

+ or - 2" @ 650yards on a pop can base is about 6" group. Not that hard to believe. And if you look on snipers hide I took 25th of 72 @ the battle of the canyons.

I don't know where you get your soda, but mine measure 5x2.5" - no matter how you turn it (pun intended) you have to shoot 2.5" group to hit it.

Parker Ackley is where the 1000 ft. pounds of muzzle energy came from and he is kinda like the Tesla of the shooting world. I'm am not looking to have an argument just stating facts.

Tesla is single-handed responsible for modern world - ac electricity, radio, radar, spark plug, etc etc ...
Ackley had some interesting ideas, but none very practical or original for that matter - burn more powder to get more speed is not exactly revolutionary; now if he did indeed come-up with a "better" cartridge - please enlighten me. Ackley was a good writer - not a genius inventor.
Tesla and Browning in the same sentence - I can see that ... Ackley goes with likes of Jack O'Conner.

And if you want to hit 1/4 min or better at 500 yards you will have a program and dial that range in or you will be lucky to hit a paper plate @ 500 yards. To be good enough to deer hunt @ that range you should have a scope that is repeatable and has turrets that you can use to dial in with. or you will not be consistent.

Au contraire my friend, if you are using a program at 500 instead of field notes - you are indeed very lucky to hit the paper. As far as target knobs go - you should come out to a silhouette match and watch old farts knock over rams at 500m with 1800s smoke poles and iron sights.

P.S. Did you just brag about taking 25th at a local match two and a half months ago ... LOL

 

[MoBoost]

There is only one way to be good with it, And thats to have the right equipment and learning how to use it.

I strongly disagree. We are not talking about video game here. Put in your 10,000 hours behind a trigger - then figure out what equipment you need or don't.

 

[ez bake]

Yeah, Maybe. I have been shooting long range for long enough that I know my set up is worthless without a good range finder.And my nice Beanland built rifle is worthless without great optics. I have also milled enough targets with my reticle to know its a good way to check your range finder but it doesn't replace it. I was just trying to help this guy if he really wants to shoot long range. not take the old 06 toped with a Simmons out and cripple a dear @ 300 yards. You guys can Blow smoke and act like you understand what I am talking about. But anyone who has been around knows better. Im just trying to help this guy. and telling him that 50 years ago they didn't use range finders is not helping him. I don't care if he shoots a .223 .308 or a 50 BMG. There is only one way to be good with it, And thats to have the right equipment and learning how to use it.

Go to the basic marksmanship section of the hide and tell them that required equipment for shooting at 500yds is a wind meter, ballistics program, and a range-finder - I'd love to see that. Better yet, do that in Maggie's Drawers and save yourself the trouble.

 

[HMFIC]

Most anyone who shoots long range will shoot better at 600 yards than they do at 100 yards.

Why is this?

 

[Kingmarine]

Why did this thread get taken over by a debate??

Back on topic:

Considering the bullets are the same weight, (I'm using 150gr in my 30-06 ) so that is what I'll use here (Winchester factory ammo)..

30-06 Slightly faster fps (2900 fps muzzle velocity), bullet will arc roughly 18.7" and at 500 yrds will be traveling at 1926 fps.

308, 2810 fps at muzzle, bullet will arc roughly 20" and at 500 yrds will be traveling at 1856 fps.

Both rounds, at 500 yrd are still powerfull enough to kill a deer.

 

[coug]

Okay Sorry.

 

[HMFIC]

Why did this thread get taken over by a debate??

Because the OPs question is quite simple to answer, was done so in the first reply, and the topic is generally one that always stimulates heavy debate over whether or not one should pursue "hunting out to 500 yards".

Okay Sorry.

There is another thread here where you can debate freely if you choose:

http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?129789


I'm still curious about an answer to this...

Most anyone who shoots long range will shoot better at 600 yards than they do at 100 yards.

Why is this?

 

[tsmithwick]

I strongly disagree. We are not talking about video game here. Put in your 10,000 hours behind a trigger - then figure out what equipment you need or don't.

LEARN HOW TO USE IT, that is what he is talking about. And i have a nagant and ive only put five hours on it and about a hundred rounds and i would take most shots up to three hundred with irons and past that with a good scope.

You test your skills on practice target - treating big game animal as a practice target is unethical. Shooting a single sniper match will be better test/practice/education than a years of hunting.


I am not closed minded at all - I clearly stated that I do it myself. BTW, in combat at these ranges shooting is done by little laser pointer - artillery and airstrikes get the job done.

Then your a hypacrit if you all it uneathical and do it yourself. You dont wast a million dollar missile on five guys when you can just find a good spot and shoot them.Missiles are used aginst armor and fortified postitions not against a couple of soldiers at long range. As you said this isnt a video game. The US soldiers during world war II on average were better shots than those of other countrys because they had hunted for so long, most since they could carry a gun and could lead targets and identify range better. They could kill guys at a 1000 yards with 03s and M1 grands with scopes and irons.

By the way im not preaching to get ready for the end of the world but its always good to be ready.

 

[MoBoost]

LEARN HOW TO USE IT, that is what he is talking about. And i have a nagant and ive only put five hours on it and about a hundred rounds and i would take most shots up to three hundred with irons and past that with a good scope.

I am not sure what you mean here?
Learn how to use rangefinder? - it's one button operation, not exactly a learning curve.
As far as your MN example - take it to a match - see how well 5 hours stack up.

Then your a hypacrit if you all it uneathical and do it yourself.

I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended that my unethical behavior wasn't such - I call it as it is;
Shooting prairie dogs at 500 yards is not ethical hunting, but it's fun and challenging, they need to be gone one way or another, wounded is just as good as dead. Unethical hunting - yes, hypocritical ... don't think so.

You dont wast a million dollar missile on five guys when you can just find a good spot and shoot them.Missiles are used aginst armor and fortified postitions not against a couple of soldiers at long range. As you said this isnt a video game.

With operational costs at over $50,000,000 per kill, taking out multiple targets without risking troops sounds very logical to me. I am not military, and if you are and know better - my hat off to you, I retract my previous statement, and all ears.

The US soldiers during world war II on average were better shots than those of other countrys because they had hunted for so long, most since they could carry a gun and could lead targets and identify range better. They could kill guys at a 1000 yards with 03s and M1 grands with scopes and irons.

I understand your national pride, but I don't think it holds any water.
Landing on the D-day US soldiers were on the wrong side of the curve - hunters just don't compare to 4-5 years of war hardened veterans. I'm sure there were some excellent marksmen in US forces, but (and it's huge "but") US sniper training was in it's infancy (unlike USSR, Germany, Japan, Finland, etc etc) and, let's be honest, 03A4 was the sorriest excuse for sniper rifle.

 

[338Shooter]

Yeah the 03A4 sucked.... I'd much rather use a Mosin 91/30 sniper. You're wacked out dude.