Need to have a range day so he can try all the recommendations made so far, that'll sort the wheat from the chalf.
Printable View
Need to have a range day so he can try all the recommendations made so far, that'll sort the wheat from the chalf.
The only sensible answer to this question is buy a AR-15 with all the bells and whistles. Then buy extra uppers in 7.62x39 and 300 blackout and you should be set for any occasion. Anything else is old school.
Just about the most sensible suggestion yet!Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveAttack
.223 all day for the goats. If you only occasionally want a deer hunt. Borrow something off ya mate until you decide you want to, or can afford to buy a second rifle.
Sent from the swamp
Well clearly the ammo was shit or the shots weren't placed where you thought they actually hit as with the 243 ive shot nearly all my animals with one. 100gr powershoks and havnt lost one animal yet with the 243. Missed a couple here and there, but never hit one and had any issue with it not dropping, that includes darn good size stags (shoulder /chest shots, biggest over 126kg totally dressed out, no head, ) plus a couple of good size boars. Right ammo and around that shoulder area it works amazing out to a pratical range (0-250m).:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauser308
PS some of that top ammo isn't always the answer either and doesn't perform, I started out using norma 100gr 243 ammo and it was crap. Struggled at times to knock over goats, often requiring a second shot. Soon as I changed never had anything not go down, includes dozens of goats, too many deer to remember, stags, pigs.
Lets face it, theres lost animals with most Cals, always hearing some story of the one that got hit that got away. Its all about shot placement and the right projectile for the range and game. Ive lost one deer this year, hit with the 308, thought shot was good but the fact is it cant of been as good as I thought or it would have not escaped . Too many have a bad experience with something, then rubbish it, its nonsence
I'm in the same boat as you deer 243. I'm even more careful as my rifle of choice on most occasions is the 223 so shot placement is everything. I've shot a stag out to 180m and dropped him. I've also shot another stag across a river late last year with a well placed neck shot and it went belly up. All other deer have been shot in the bush and gone no further then 20-30m. It's not what you shoot with its how you shoot that matters!
this thread has been running a bit now,
I wonder what sort of country mighty Boosh is hunting, open or tight bush, and if there are deer and pigs, in his goat hunting area's.
My pick would be a .222 or .223 for goats, and if its open country with longer shots, and deer around a 22-250 or .243, bit more expensive but both much more capable.
In thick bush country, 3030 or a 7.62x39 bolt action, be both cheap to run, work fine on intended game.
the problem with the lighter calibers is there is a HUGE difference in killing power depending on what bullet you use . . . the bigger .308s etc have bullet weight which balances out things in there favour . . sadly most shooters are cheap when it comes to ammo . . then recoil to worry about . .. and if it all turns to custard the gun / caliber gets blamed . .. i wish people would learn good marksmanship skills ( real ones not shooting off the bench or cans n bottles ) and work their way up the caliber chain as skills developed, but everyone is in a hurry.
Nah mate the 260 is the ducks nuts on goats and deer. 120 gr corelocts are $99 for 200 so cheaper than most projectiles and work a treat on all the game discussed including bull tahrQuote:
Originally Posted by Tararua Phil
Yep. 260 is a great cartridge for goats.
May have to go back to start of post....guy is just after a rifle to knock some goats over and still capable of a good deer rifle, in assuming a beginners hands?
Doesn't mention any desire to also start out buying reloading gear, learning that art, developing precision loads for precision shots out of experienced hands with lighter weight calibers.
Maybe him in a few years time....��?
All posts above are quite correct but maybe not for this guys situation, example 260 Rem is awesome calibre(had a 260 tikka and foolishly sold)but almost identical to 7mm08 or even its parent cartridge 308. You can get around 3 different types of factory in NZ, when you can get hold of it at magnum ammo prices so probably not a starting out round in NZ and be easier with something more common.
This man needs a common cartridge with some knockdown power 7mm08, 308 to cover his bases and allow for a few cock ups like we all have had.
See, this is a problem with new shooters. Starting of with bigger Cals because you think you need more knockdown power to help with a few cock ups etc etc. What happens is a couple of things in my opinion. Firstly, recoil can cause flinches, and secondly because the new shooter thinks they have some fire power shot placement isnt the end all. Results in missed and wounded game.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson21
Like i already stated, a 223 or 243 is the best start you going to get. Little to no recoil, can hold it light like a 22 and they accruate.. Put those crosshairs on the exact spot, get in range to do the job and you going to have no fuck ups and dead anaimals.
Then after you become a marks man, and rack up game move up to longer range shooting and bigger Cals. Mastering the basics with the lighter CALs will have you suss for the Bigger Cals. We all started with .22, just seems natural way to go is go to a 223, 243 and learn shot placement then move up as shot placement is everything, including with the big boys
You are all mad. None of these are a bigger caliber and with a suppressor none are unpleasant to shoot. Anything from 223 to 416 rigby will do for that he has described so just pick a cailber based on ammo cost so choose 223 or 308.
If 223 then go get a AR15 cos they are no more expensive than a bolt action and they look a lot cooler.
Twice the price of a bolt action of reasonable quality, noisier and more complex to operate, terrible triggers, things sticking out everywhere. Awesome.. at least they look 'cool' then.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveAttack
Yes there are two trains of thought on this I guess, and not saying you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by deer243
A bad shot with any calibre is still going to be a bad shot regardless, I have .223's, 243, rifles etc but if I was only going to have one rifle it would be the 308 out of these. Hands down they do kill much more emphatically and they are not a heavy recoiling rifle using 150gr to the average sized kiwi bloke, the more people say this people will start believing it.
Answer to any flinching is more rounds down range, chuck 50-60 rounds of FMJ at range, cost you same as going to pub for a few hours in variety of shooting positions and there will be no flinch by the end and you will naturally start getting in behind it, other one is dry firing.
Ideally you would have a couple of cals, but sounds like he just after an all rounder.
Put this scenario, new shooter, spies a solid looking red deer at approx 250 meters in a clearing surrounded by solid scrub I know which cal I would want to bring the bacon.
I agree to most of what you say. The ideal all rounder esp if you looking at the cheap ammo option as well would be a 308. I have one as a back up to my 243. There are ways to over come flinching as you state, and thats all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson21
But is he really after a all rounder? He states he wants it mainly for goat shooting, with the odd once in a while maybe deer hunt. Certainly Cals are more suitable for certain situations.
I would have thought for goat shooting a 223 would be the first choice, far nicer to shoot mutli shots and cheap ammo. Still capable of knocking over a deer. second , and even better is a 243. great cal, will not only be great for goats but can be used no problems as a big game rifle . Its a all rounder only draw back is the range. So you have a rifle that covers all your hunting out to say 250m.
Seems to fit what he wants. If he was doing more deer hunting, or a good mix of the two then the 308 is the way to go, because it gives you some more range and knockdown power .
But mainly for goats would you be blasting away with a 308 all day rather than a 223 or 243??
i know what i be using, horses for courses, and for a new shooter a 243 wins, then 223, then a 308 if you going to shoot more than just goats more often..buts thats just my opinion. I use a 243 as my main rifle for deer, a 308 for a back up and for longer range, never used a 223 thou
If these 2 cals you've settled on are your only option then I'd go for the 243.Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyBoosh
My simple question has generated lots of answers, thanks! I didn't consider metric calibres out of sheer ignorance, so some more to think about.
Just out of interest, .270 doesn't seem very popular at all. Is it just about cost and availability of ammo, or is there something else?
It is overgunned for goats.Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyBoosh
Its waning popularity is due mostly to poor selection of high bc bullets in that bore size.
It has noticeably more noise and recoil than some other options, without a real advantage to justify it. Nothing wrong with the way it kills animals, its just that more efficient options will kill just as well with a smaller case and less powder burnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyBoosh
More recoil is fine for shooters with decent technique to handle it, but there are plenty of inexperienced shooters who get a bit of a fright from a harder kicking rifle and develop a flinch - which throws their accuracy and shot placement to bits and ends up with missed or wounded animals instead of clean kills. Better to learn with something friendlier IMO.
My first two rifles where 270 which I sold due too not being able to handle the recoil.
Bad shooting technique, which then turned into a flinch.
Was much happier going too a 243.
243 would be my recommendation.
It was my 1st rifle and I wish I never sold it, a Browning BLR 81. Was light and accurate as out to 250+ metres.
243 is very versatile round! it shares the same parent case as 308 & 7mm08 and as you develop your shooting you could later also develop lighter loads to suit goats and a heavier load for deer with something like a Hornady Sst projectile.
My 2 cents, good luck
I haven't read through this thread. Not sure if the OP will hand load or not? For all of the bang, recoil and ammo expense I wouldn't touch anything bigger than a 243 for what is contemplated.
Barnes and bonded bullets combined with modern powders have revolutionised the .223. For goats and the odd deer out to 250-300 yards the .223 would fill the bill reasonably cheaply and efficiently I reckon. The kill zone of animal doesn't shrink because you are using a .223. You just need to actually hit.
A 55 grain Barnes TTSX doing 3.2k at the muzzle will go right through a Red at 250 yards, and flatten it.
You can use cheaper bullets than the Barnes on goats, like the Hornady. You just need to fiddle a bit to get the 2 loads in sync.
Tahr.
Where is your point of aim with the .223 at those distances on a red?
On the shoulder or behind?
The amount of deer I see you with in your threads I have no doubt you know what your talking about.
Im biased as I own a .270 and love it to bits...that said I bought a .223 to shoot wallabies as it was easier on shoulder,ears and wallet where 40 rounds for a day is normalQuote:
Originally Posted by MightyBoosh
I now also own a 7.62x39mm which ticks same boxes for shorter range with heavier projectile giving better energy than the .223
if you are into reloading your .270 will do everything you can ask of a rifle,so will a .308
you can down load to 100grn pills for bugger all recoil or up to 160grn for big and angry up close or a reasonably sleak and fast number for longish range
the .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,the suppressor has tamed the cartridge recoil down to where it is fine to use.
yip factory fodder is hard on wallet if you are into bomb ups but if you fire 3 shots and kill two animals it is cheap. on par with 7mm/08 .243 30/06 pricewise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micky Duck
Have you had too many Beers:thumbsup:. Quote .270 made its name BEFORE rangefinders were common as Joe average could put crosshairs on shoulder of bambi out to 400ish yards and it would fall over as calibre was flat shooting by comparison to others at the time,Un quote. This is nonsence is it not .
Its a bit of a fairy tale that that Cal and others are classed as flat shooting when in the real world they still going to drop a reasonable amount when you get out to 300 plus. You can sight any CAL to hit a animal at 400 yards but you not going to point and shoot at that range if its sighted at 100, or even 200m zero.
A 130 silvertip sighted at 100 yds is going to have a drop of 26 plus inches at 400 yards in a 270, and the list goes on. Even sighting a 150gr win at 275 yards zero(above a normal zero for most people) its still a 12 inch drop at 400.
Like i said, you can zero any Cal to hit 400 yards but even with a 270 you cant point and shoot without its zero being way over normal , they drop a good distance and if you actually compare different Cals theres not heaps in it to class something very flat shooting, esp with normal hunting rounds without hot reloads with light pills.
Plus lets be honest, the average Joe isnt shooting 400 yards, prob not even 300 yards, more like 0-250m tops.
Micky duck is mostly correct, but should have worded his shoulder at 400m better,Quote:
Originally Posted by deer243
270 is in the top 5 of deer rifle sales, mostly one or two position, for every rifle manufacture in USA.
270 is 90 plus years old, and the 375H&H is a 100 years, really what have 100 years, of ballistic, advancements gained us, 5 %, 10 at most.
Tradition, is simply the same mistake repeated over and over again......
The 270 is up there in rifle sales but the number one selling is the 3006 in the Usa. The 308 is normally in the top 5 as well as the 223 plus a lever action as americans are in love with them.. You say he is mostly correct, but the fact is comparing a 270 to a 3006 and a 308 theres next to no difference in drop between the 3 out to 300 yards that matter, and out to 400 yards theres nothing to it with a 3006 and you only talking 2-4 inches on average between a 270 and a 308(all depends on whats being used). Normal hunting ranges "flat shooting Cals"" the difference is so minor to the non flat shooting cals that in the real world its a myth . My mate uses Rems 140 in his 270(assume a few do) and compared to my 150sst in my 308 theres no difference in drop at 400 yards. What matters most is the BC and energy that tell a round apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by southernman
A 270 has the edge with the same weights but when you move up 165gr etc and larger in 3006 and 308 the 30 cals have it over a 270
I have 2 loads. With the Barnes so long as its in the kill zone (hilar I think its called), they work. The max range I've used them is about 250 yards. But as the range increases the more I tend to move back from the bony shoulder to the lungs with my point of aim. The Barnes bullets are so effective I don't tend to fiddle so much with head and neck shots now.Quote:
Originally Posted by bully
I also use 69 grn Targex and the new 69 grn Sierra plastic tip. Have used them out to 300 yards and am more careful about making lung shots in the crease behind the shoulder.
The only reason I don't use my .223 a lot more is that you do need to limit your range to under 300, and where I tend to hunt that's not always possible. Plus I like the variation of using different calibers and rifles.
This is the exit from the ribs into the back of the off shoulder with a 69 grn Sierra plastic tip at 288 yards. Red spiker. It a bit yucky I'm sorry.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4...psnmyspv1p.jpg
MD is correct. Back before range finders (sort of prior to the 1980's) the .270 was probably the most respected longer range calibre. It was also before the internet, so long winded comparisons of calibers were not often made and we stuck to what we new.
Kills around about 400 yards were common enough, and this was because we sighted in our rifles to be 3" high at 100 yards. We didn't crawl all over ballistic tables, but we did know that at 400 yards if we held on the top of the shoulder the bullet would strike into the kill zone about 12" lower. It wasn't difficult to do with an accurate .270.
While I agree with all you've said there, how did you know it was 400 yds and not 350 or 450 without a range finder [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
I've listened to my father recite stories for many years about shooting deer at 400 yds with his 'flat shooting' 270, well before the days of Lazer range finders.
Friday just gone I took him to the range to shoot the classic model 7 243 I got for him. After he put a few thru at 100 we went out to 300 yds to shoot my gong.
We got back to the 300 yd bench and he says 'bloody hell that's a long way, I've never shot a deer that far before'.
I had him on and reminded him of all his stories, he ended up admitting that in hindsight all the 400 yd deer he'd shot years ago were very likey much closer [emoji1]
The old boy didn't disgrace himself at 300 tho I must say.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
I watched my dad shoot a fallow from a big rock to a clearing many years ago with his 223. It went about ten steps and rolled down the hill.
Many years later I have a range finder and we ranged it at over 500y.
Not recommended and there was probably a large amout of luck involved but shows what can be done with a 223 and a 4x scope.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
We didn't. So that will explain the odd high shoulder hit, and the odd puff of dust at their feet. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GWH
the lack of knowing the actual range is where a accurate rifle sighted in (as said ) 3" high at a hundred comes into the equation it didn't matter if it was 350 or 400 you projectile was still going to connect and if you under estimated range it fell underneath .Ive shot a chammy with std 130 grn load 1st shot trimmed her toenails and 2nd dropped her like sack of spuds nearly 24" of drop in that case and sighted in 3" high at hundy. I recently shot a fallow 1st shot anchored it at over 400 and I finished it at 350ish both measured later on google earth.I don't normally take long shots and those two wee unusual for me. having confidence in your rifle helps,knowing where it shoots helps even more."how many footy fields away" was often used.
Those Barnes 55gr look awesome but are kinda pricey @ around $1.40 just for projectile? Are the 69gr Seirras you refer to TMKs? Look a better option for pushing range with 223 with better bc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Have you tried 75gr Hornady BTHP on game by chance?
Yes, TMK. I haven't tried anything heavier than 69 grns. Only a 20" barrel. Yes. the Barnes are pricey but if you are using them on deer you don't use many. The TMK shoot to the same point as the Barnes from my rifle so I use the cheaper TMK on rabbits and for mucking around. I would be happy enough only using the TMK on deer if cost is an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson21
For shooting goats I would choose a .223 any day. Also .223 is a good calibre for deer as well. I have shot many deer using a .223
Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyBoosh
your splitting hairs mate.
God Tier:
6.5x55
.260
7remmag
.308
Top Tier
.270
30.06
.223
Mid tier
7.62x39
Why would you even bother Tier
7mm08
You are a closet gay Tier
25.06
Everything else is not worth mentioning.
Only good for shooting Rats in the ear Tier
.243
I agree. Nothing wrong with a 243. Many hunters use the 243 primarily for red deer with continuous great success. For what he wants, it would be the ideal calibre.Quote:
Originally Posted by deer243