As the title says, what would you guys recommend as the maximum range for an ethical kill? And yes, I fully appreciate shot placement. So, a ball-park figure would be nice.
Printable View
As the title says, what would you guys recommend as the maximum range for an ethical kill? And yes, I fully appreciate shot placement. So, a ball-park figure would be nice.
The distance from which you can reliably & repeatedly hit an a4 page, using the same hold/position you would when hunting...
We could tell you nnn meters, but it means squat if you can't hit a barn door from half that distance.
I personally would say to kill a medium sized deer you would need to be able to repeatedly hit a 6 inch diameter target from chosen rest at Max determined distance. Bullet energy to also be above 1000 ft pounds.. A ballistic calculator can tell ya this and the distance when energy will be at this point. I would then cut that distance by 100 yards. But if you are after advice on trying to ethically kill an animal you would have to first determine what your ethics are...
Sent from my RNE-L22 using Tapatalk
200M is about it , not sure what your 7.62x39 shoots like but generally there not the most accurate round I get around a 3" group at 100m with my Zastava never bothered playing with different ammo so could probably improve on it but the last one I had a norinco I could get near an inch at 100 , either way personally I wouldn't shoot at anything over 150M
And the award for the second most asked question on the forum goes too........
I would have more confidence using a .223 with a good projectile than I would with the AK round. 200m is a stretch of ethics for that round on any reasonable size animal. (depending on all sorts of variables that might play at the time)
Assuming decent hunting projectiles & accuracy easily as far or further than a 223
270's are good because not everyone can shoot 30cal's ethically. He he he. Just wanted an excuse, sorry #270 gang.
Doesn't really need much explaining ... the 270 is a mere 7mm and the 308 a whopping 7.62 mm. The 270 has virtually no recoil and suites those with less physically presence. I once shot a Reedbuck behind the head at all of 50 metres once. Dropped right there, no second or third shots required.
Virtually no recoil you say ????? what 270 are you shooting ???
mine is not what I would call un managable but certainly gives much more solid boot than my old 308 and I would say is on par with my old 7mm rem mag
I certainly woould not call it a light recoil option :ORLY:
From my small personnel experience, I would limit my self to deer with in 100 kg and with in 150 m.
And the issue is not with all the well place shots that are going to kill fast, it is when your shots will be in a marginal zone and you have to track your wounded animal a fair distance. It definitely hasn't got the knock down power of a 308.
Years ago when I had a Ruger mini30 using 123gr soft points 150-175m was long range shot back then. I called it the eyeball gun I every time I aimed at the head I got them in the eyes and the old man taught me to head and neck shoot only and to measure the bullet drop in deers eye balls. Zeroed for 100m, aim one eyeball high for 125m , three eyeballs for 150m , five eyeballs for 175m easy as that, but guessing the range was harder. Smacked over plenty of veni with that gun and most were shot under 60m-80m.
I'm not getting into a pissing comp with this, the 7.62 cal generally uses 123 - not 150 & the frontal area/energy makes the 223 with normal weight projectiles look pathetic.
Not many people will use a 223 or 7.62 x 39 effectively at 300, its not its purpose, more like inside 200, way inside..
The 123 in 7.62 x 39 has more energy, frontal area & SD than the 55 in a 223
You need to compare them side by side, in the field, theory, ballistic charts are one thing real life is another
Don't take my word for it ask anyone who has recently-ish hunted two legs as well as four.
ask @Boaraxa he hunts them all haha
Greg just a quick question -ive done a little research and have found published ballistics seem to be very similar to a.303.as i own both a 7.62x39 and the grandaddy .303 whats your thoughts on this. regarding range -well if i cant get within 100m or it looks dubious then its not on!
There is little difference between the 303 & 308 if you use decent projectiles, brass, powders, action & barrel.
Most of the published data is for old rifles, like the 6.5 x 55 etc
Its a shame in a way that there aren't modern rifles made for the 303, that's what lets it down.
or modern projectiles. That's the main reason I traded from .303 to 7mm.
Ahem ! the 7.62x39 actually uses .312 projectiles doesn't it.
I used 125gr "303" projectiles and my max effective range was 200m with the Brit.
When you look at those ballistics tables, take into account that most projectiles aren't designed to expand under 1800 fps.
I'd test it out on goats gradually increasing the range till you start to get good shots going through with an exit wound less than an inch diameter (2-3 cm ). Then back off by 50m. Practice and experience is the thing. You don't want too much bad experience of course but if you have to track more than 30m after the shot practical lethality is marginal.
There, numbers pulled out of the air !
@Feral has shot most of his deer with a Mini 30...
Hmmm - the 7.62x39 (and its ballistic twin, 300 Blk) has more energy at any range than a 223. However to "use" that energy for hunting you need to be able to both "place the shot" - which is up to the shooter, and also have the projectile perform correctly and "deliver" that energy to the target.
My comments are in regards to "supersonic" loads . . .
The selection of hunting projectiles available to users of 7.62x39 are somewhat limited, and most may not expand at the lower velocities a 7.62x39 retains at extended ranges.
I suspect that in the USA the number of hunters reloading 7.62x39 is relatively low - driving the limited selection of projectiles. I chose to go the 300 Blk path for that reason.
Manufacturers are just starting to produce projectiles specifically designed for 300 BLK that will expand at the retained velocity you'll see at 200 meters plus (MV of around 2200 or so). The Hornady 125 gn SST is one such projectile, the Speer Gold Dot 150 gn is another (not yet available here, I have some on order).
To the OP's question, I haven't shot any deer with my 300 Blk yet, however my self imposed limit from what I have learnt from shooting it so far is that Deer and larger game need to be within 180 Meters unless carefully ranged and dialed to give exact shot placement, and I'd shoot lighter game at 200M or maybe just a bit further in ideal conditions. I've shot Fallow at around 250M with a 223 in the past, however I don't think (hope really) I'd have tried the same shots on (bigger) Redskins, and if I had the result may have been disappointing, not to mention unethical.
Reds up to 100-120m depending on size and if rutting or not, anything smaller 150m tops for myself.
Personally only carry the x39 for bush hunting so more than 50-60m is mostly moot.
Primo and underrated bush cartridge but won't push out 200-250m if you find a shot on a slip at that range. Im sure the round will still be effective at that range (within limitations) but it in my opinion would definitely not be a humane shot.
However it is a cartridge I am still learning/experimenting with so my opinions are only my own.
Edit: I only run a short barrel and a red dot or iron sights so take that into consideration.
#bush-hobbit gang.
Or maybe #39 gang?
Maybe all you guys need to take your rifles out and shoot some animals instead of just shooting your mouths all the time?
+1
I have shot goats and deer with both the 223 and the 7.62x39 out to 200m in recent times, and I would take the 7.62x39 any day over the 223. I just wish my AR-7.62 had enough hammer strike to detonate the Hornady factory 123 SST steel cased ammo. Would be interesting to see how the SST's perform.
I guess I'll just have to make do with the 3,000 rounds of Highland 123 PSP's I have in the shed.