Can we please stop talking about "flat shooting" cartridges

[steve white]

Everything is good in theory, it can drop 1" at 500 yards. The problem is a good number of "hunters" can't shoot 3" at 100 yards much less 300. So no matter what the bullet actually drops, if you or your gear can't make it happen numbers no longer matter.

Personally have made hits at over a mile on 1/2 moa size targets. People that know me ask how far can you shoot (insert animal here). My response, what are the conditions? Just because I have hit targets at long range doesn't mean I'm willing to shoot an animal at that range. Wind is a bitch and she will humble the best of shooters.

My opinion is if you and the rifle are not capable of holding 1 moa or less this conversation holds no water. Sure the window you are quoting works on paper. Now double that window for a 2moa shooter/rifle. Hell some of the things I have seen at public ranges I would not want some people shooting past 50 yards.

Yes it sounds like a good many here are capable, the new guy (old guys too) getting into this that have never taken a shot at 300 yards might not fully grasp everything that goes into making that shot. They just read on the box of ammo or some chart online that his comb can do it. Not realizing himself/herself may not have the ability to even make the shot.

For myself, I'm not worried how flat something shoots. I want to know how much energy it's showing up with. All my rifles, with exception to the .4 and up and ARs with RDS. Everything is sighted in with a 100 yard zero. My range finder and Kestral are with me. I'll dial elevation and hold wind as to not guess at anything. In Africa my guide was not sure about that. Once he seen how proficient it was, he no longer said anything about it.

YMMV

Under field conditions, like sitting, it is scary how easy it is for those crosshairs to move at 400 yards--takes some concentration to say the least

 

[Doug3006]

I agree that the subject of “flat shooting” rifle/cartridge combinations is much ado about nothing. At least in regards to hunting applications.

The honest answer to the question of “Can we please stop….” is: no chance. It has become settled science in the sporting community. If we were ancient Greeks, we’d compose poems in iambic pentameter extolling the virtues of hyper-velocity cartridges.

I stole the iambic pentameter reference from a favorite line in Patton:

“You know, if I had my way, I'd send that genius son of a bitch an engraved invitation in iambic pentameter - a challenge in two stanzas to meet me out there alone in the desert.”​

 

[CoElkHunter]

Under field conditions, like sitting, it is scary how easy it is for those crosshairs to move at 400 yards--takes some concentration to say the least

Even at 300 yards off sticks when "squeezing" on a 5lb. + factory trigger, those crosshairs move quite a bit. Not having ever shot anything over 250 yards before, I found this out the hard way with my RSA hunt this past June. I wasn't prepared for the longer shots, but prevailed without wounding or losing any animals. Sometimes better lucky than good! LOL

 

[Hogpatrol]

When they're this far away, I prefer a flat shooting cartridge.

 

[MS 9x56]

View attachment 484492 When they're this far away, I prefer a flat shooting cartridge. View attachment 484494

View attachment 484495

Last time I saw that much flat land there was sand covering it.

 

[marksman]

View attachment 484492 When they're this far away, I prefer a flat shooting cartridge. View attachment 484494

View attachment 484495

following this thread with caution as l agree with you about sometimes you have to have a flat shooting rifle to be able to do the job, if you are bumping animals sure but not out to 300y
l also prescribe to the theory that you should be able to keep your bullets in under moa at whatever distance you are shooting but anyway each to their own
the proof is in the freezer and how many property owners ring you to come back because they like how you do it and that you are eating what you hunt

 

[Hogpatrol]

Last time I saw that much flat land there was sand covering it.

That's in the Eastern Cape, RSA. The karoo in the Northern Cape that I've hunted, was flat for even longer distances.

 

[Jfet]

The newer calibers are designed to operate in ugly, soulless guns that will be in a trash heap in a decade.

A young boy can learn many things by sitting off to the side, “seen but not heard,” watching the men in his life cleaning a gun with a proper soul. This scene would also require a good gun dog sleeping by the fireplace after a day in the field. Also, a bottle of nice scotch or whiskey is out of view and to be used latter when the children are in bed. However, everyone knows where it is located in the top shelf of the cupboard.

 

[rookhawk]

A young boy can learn many things by sitting off to the side, “seen but not heard,” watching the men in his life cleaning a gun with a proper soul. This scene would also require a good gun dog sleeping by the fireplace after a day in the field. Also, a bottle of nice scotch or whiskey is out of view and to be used latter when the children are in bed. However, everyone knows where it is located in the top shelf of the cupboard.

Seems you’re paraphrasing our friend Robert Rourke?

I agree with your sentiment.

 

[Jfet]

Seems you’re paraphrasing our friend Robert Rourke?

I agree with your sentiment.

Rourke and Gene Hill

 

[Rocco490]

Very interesting point. Makes a lot of sense. But If I was planning to need to be able to take a shot out to around 300 yards across a field or something I would take a 270 over the 308. I'm sure the 308 would handle that with ease but I would still grab the 270. Guess I think it will give me an edge or something haha

 

[sgt_zim]

nobody uses calculated bullet drop and adjusts their scope for a dead on hold?

For the scopes I have mounted on my hunting rifles, I prefer "simple scopes," which is well more than enough inside 300 yards, even if zero is 100 yards and not MPBR.

I mounted a 3.5-10x40 VXIII on my 280 AI, but I do have a 3-15x50 with external turrets and mil dots on the reticles sitting up on the shelf in case I change my mind. That's the only rifle I own where I'd even entertain the idea of shooting at 300+, at least on a game animal.

I have a 6-24x50, with all the bells and whistles, mounted on my 308. But it's kind of a long, clunky rifle for most of the hunting i do, so I only use it for punching holes in paper.

 

[Hogpatrol]

My eastern whitetail SML deer rifle sports a 3-9x40 Leupold ultimate slam scope with the BDC reticle. Have taken African game and deer out to 300 meters. For $300 it's more than adequate for the mission.

 

[Art Lambart II]

The wisdom of our grandfathers is confirmed once again, a 30-06 is the only hunting rifle you need. I'm not surprised by this as most of the rounds on @sgt_zim list use the 30-06 as their parent case.

 

[Hogpatrol]

The wisdom of our grandfathers is confirmed once again, a 30-06 is the only hunting rifle you need. I'm not surprised by this as most of the rounds on @sgt_zim list use the 30-06 as their parent case.

It's still in the top ten.

Top 15 Most Popular Rifle Cartridges (2024 Edition) – Backfire

backfire.tv

 

[rookhawk]

Very interesting point. Makes a lot of sense. But If I was planning to need to be able to take a shot out to around 300 yards across a field or something I would take a 270 over the 308. I'm sure the 308 would handle that with ease but I would still grab the 270. Guess I think it will give me an edge or something haha

As a point of order, I'm a horrible shot. Usually because I'm so fatigued from the stalk that I'm panting and no more accurate than "minute of buffalo" by that point. Nonetheless, my longest shot with my 375HH dangerous game rifle with the scope maxed at 6x was a bushbuck at 345 yards. If a 375HH with a 300gr bullet moving 2450fps is good enough for a 345 yard shot off sticks with its B.C. of about zero, any of the small bore calibers made 100 years ago in the OP are much, much more than sufficient.

The entire world spins on theoretical scenarios that never come up in a practical world as proven by @sgt_zim drop charts in the OP. On the other hand, too much gun has had a number of consequences. I shoot a 7x57 and have never had problems with dead-right-there shots and proper bullet expansion. My son shoots a 7x64 and the extra 250-300fps has made for some very challenging recoveries on deer shot through the vitals at <60 yards. (Barnes 140gr TTSX going way too fast for such a close shot on a 200lb animal)

 

[1dirthawker]

Bob your Whelen is loaded so fast; I could probably do the same with 232gr bullets but then I would also have to put on a different scope.
Right now I'm setup to shoot 286gr bullets at ranges between 70-120m , a 100m zero has this drop at 250m. The scope is a basic 2-7x32 that works really well in the bushveld.
Taking a 30-06 and setting it up right would work, scope and load must suit the scenario.
I get the point of the post, you can setup most calibers that shoot over 2600fps to do well at ranges up to 300m.
Calibers that leave the barrel at say 2300fps are really pushing that assumption.

@shark_za

a thought, have your rifle zero at 200 yards (not 100) and you will have a handier scope. the drops would then get you out to as far as you would want to shoot and you will only be a couple inches high at 100 yards.

 

[1dirthawker]

It really comes down to aesthetic, not performance, as they're all close enough in trajectory and energy at any given distance out to 300 yards as to not really make any difference at all. The animal you're shooting certainly won't be able to tell the difference between 1800 ft lbs and 2100 ft lbs.

perfectly stated!

 

[Art Lambart II]

I shoot a 7x57 and have never had problems with dead-right-there shots and proper bullet expansion. My son shoots a 7x64 and the extra 250-300fps has made for some very challenging recoveries on deer shot through the vitals at <60 yards. (Barnes 140gr TTSX going way too fast for such a close shot on a 200lb animal)

Its not the 7x64 thats the problem, it's your choice of bullet. I'm shocked that a traditionalist like yourself would even concider using a new school bullet in an old school cartridge. Load that 7x64 with a heavy for caliber NP or a Woodie PP and stop tracking deer.

 

[rookhawk]

Its not the 7x64 thats the problem, it's your choice of bullet. I'm shocked that a traditionalist like yourself would even concider using a new school bullet in an old school cartridge. Load that 7x64 with a heavy for caliber NP or a Woodie PP and stop tracking deer.

You're correct. But they are accurate factory loads so that's what he was using. Worked fine on his Oryx hunt and on safari, just doesn't work well for deer too close. Too much of a good thing.