308....Is this a good cartridge for long range use?

[winsor 236]

Quote

I was wondering what kind of a set up, people use now days, to win the Windledom Cup. I think SGT. Hathcock won that once using a 300 Winchester Magnum, if I remember right. I'm not sure what kind of scope.

I've never shot at ranges like that, but it does sound like fun practice....It would be a real challenge.

I have shot targets out to 500 yards with a little wind. Groups really start to open up at that range....

Thanks for the info. all. This is interesting stuff....

As I recall, Gunny Hathcock was given to the use of the Unertl 10X scope.

I am reminded of an anecdote whereby someone marveling at a Yoshimura Honda 750 asked Pops Yoshimura "Is this the same bike I could buy at any Honda dealership?"

Pops replied "Is same. Not same-same."

Thus, the rifles you might see in competition might look deceptively similar to off-the-shelf models. Do not be fooled.

While the Remington 700BDL is an extremely nice rifle, the 40X from the Custom Shop is a different animal altogether, above and beyond being a short-action version.

When I first took my brother to the range with mine, he touched off one round which took out the center of the X at 100 meters, looked up at me and said "Whoah, this thing is brilliant!"

In some events, the equipment bears only a passing resemblance to commercial equipment. In Benchrest competition, for example, competitors will routinely incorporate any change that provides an advantage within the rules, since group size has nothing to do with appearances. With the 40X this is limited to a superbly bedded synthetic stock, but some rifles are configured so they are basically useless for anything but Benchrest.

One thing to remember is that the effects of range are nonlinear. One cannot simply dope the rifle and cartridge in at 100 yards and multiply the effect by 10 at 1,000 yards. The effect of crosswind, for example, is very limited at 100 yards, since the bullet has not had opportunity to be accelerated by the crosswind. By 1,000 yards, however, the bullet is traveling at equilibrium with windage. This is to say that, with a 20 fps crosswind from the right, in the first 100 yards the bullet is beginning to accelerate to the left but is still headed pretty much in line with the bore, but by 1,000 yards the bullet is traveling to the left at 20 fps and no longer sees a crosswind.

Another factor that comes into play with crosswinds has to do with spin. Given the same 20 fps crosswind from the right, a rifle with a right hand twist will hit lower than it would without a crosswind, while a rifle with a left hand twist will hit higher. It works the same as with a curveball.

While you can take a car, up its horsepower greatly and tinker with the suspension, you are kidding yourself if you think you have a Winston Cup machine on your hands. You are also kidding yourself if you think that driving like a maniac on the highways makes you a contender if you wind up in the Daytona 500.

Similarly, the people who set the bar for long-range marksmanship start with a great deal of natural ability, understand the complexity and subtlety of the dynamics involved at both a theoretical and practical level, have truly outstanding equipment available, and have spent a great deal of time at the reloading bench and the range. You are not likely to duplicate their results by buying a rifle, scope and ammo and sort of figuring it out on your own (though it is possible - if only in novels or Hollywood).

Long range marksmanship is both gratifying and humbling. Enjoy the shots that work out, and spend the rest of your time figuring out why the others did not go exactly where you would have expected.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Kennedy 0]

Like the man said, keep a log, learn your dope, and take a good SWAG.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I've often wondered why the military and police like this round so much for long range shooting. I know it is a very accurate cartridge, the recoil is mild, a thirty caliber bullet would buck the wind well and retain energy better than a smaller bullet. A short action may be a plus...

But the 308 just doesn't seem very flat shooting to me. Wouldn't a 300 magnum, 7mm magnum, 30/06, or even a 270 be a better choice for long range shooting?


Having a flatter trajectory would spell the difference between a hit and a miss if you over or under estimate the range at long distant targets.

Maybe someone can educate me on this.....

The main reason they like it is because its cheap and not to big. Like most things in the military the kit you get issued isn't usually the best but the best compromise on cost. Which is another factor in NATO moving to a 5.56 round for anyone not a sniper.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[steve1 5]

I appreciate the input on this. I guess I disagree on a thing or two, but that's what these forums are for.

I think it is very possible to do your own work on a factory rifle and get outstanding results. Five shots in a half inch (at a hundred) is extreme accuracy in about anybody's book. Some of my rifles shoot that well.

No they aren't probably up to Wimbledon Cup standards, but I don't think they are too far behind.

I usually float the barrels, glass bed the actions, have the triggers adjusted, mount a quality Leupold scope. My handloads are matched to each rifle.

Group size will often go from three inches at a hundred yards down to 1/2 inch. That is five shot groups. I have a 22/250 that will even shoot better than that.

And these aren't tricked out target rifles. I use them for hunting, and occaisional target shooting.

I imagine a gun with a huge scope, heavy barrel, target turrets, and a few other bells and whistles might only be good for target use though. None of my rifles are like that.

I also think it is possible to shoot better than the rifle itself. I've seen a lot of factory rifles, with factory ammo, that just don't shoot well at all. They would be almost useless for even a 300 yard shot.

So, maybe I better get off my soap box, before I put my foot in my mouth, if I haven't done that already....

[millertime24 8]

Quote

If you want long-range entertainment, a .50 BMG is the hot tip. The LAR Grizzly Big Boar is good for 1/4 MOA, and the muzzle brake, coupled with its 35 pound weight, makes it much less nasty to shoot than a 7mm or .300 magnum.

Actually, the Barret .416 is supposed to be the largest, highest speed, most accurate round. Appearantly, this round is least affected by environmental factors, but at $4k for the cheapest gun alone, it isnt what i would call affordable or even practical. Still, badass rifle and round if you ask me.

Future Weapons about the gun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZFqUiSRC18

CHEAPEST Price I can get this gun at at my local gun shop:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/BAR-M99416-K1.html

Muff #5048

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The plain fact is that any firearm from a respectable manufacturer is acapable of more accuracy that the shooter. In other words, we're not good enough to worry about how good the rifle is. If you get a top notch evil black rifle, you are the limiting factor to accurate bullet placement, not the gun.

very true. I have found that most civilian shooters can't hit fuck all past 150yds. (me included) I have noticed that those with a military background are good with iron sights up to 400yds or so. Must be that great military training.

Since hunting was always my game, I did not bother with shots over 100yds mostly because I did not want to spend the next 24 hours tromping through the woods trying to find some wounded animal. If I can't knock it down, I was not interested in pulling the trigger.

So for most people, any .30 calibre is a good rifle - like you say - the limitation is certainly NOT the weapon or the ammo.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

The plain fact is that any firearm from a respectable manufacturer is acapable of more accuracy that the shooter. In other words, we're not good enough to worry about how good the rifle is. If you get a top notch evil black rifle, you are the limiting factor to accurate bullet placement, not the gun.

very true. I have found that most civilian shooters can't hit fuck all past 150yds. (me included) I have noticed that those with a military background are good with iron sights up to 400yds or so. Must be that great military training.

Since hunting was always my game, I did not bother with shots over 100yds mostly because I did not want to spend the next 24 hours tromping through the woods trying to find some wounded animal. If I can't knock it down, I was not interested in pulling the trigger.

So for most people, any .30 calibre is a good rifle - like you say - the limitation is certainly NOT the weapon or the ammo.

I've only practiced out to 100yd, but expect I also couldn't hit much out too much further. I was happy with 3" groups at 100yd with my PSL and my surplus ammo. I'm contemplating upgrading the scope soon, but will more likely spend the money on some training.

As you say, people with military training seem to hit targets at 400-ish yards on iron sights. Which means I should be able to use my Russian 4x scope to do the same if I get some decent training and plenty of practice. So why drop a few hundred on a scope when I can drop a few hundred on training and ammo and get the same results. (and the new scope would likely just let me see what I'm missing)
I'm planning on attending an appleseed shoot sometime in the near future for some of that training (appleseedinfo.org).

I shoot 7.62x54r. It has a trajectory not quite as flat as .308, but makes a good hunting round. I got this rifle because it's cheap to shoot. With shipping I'm getting ammo for about $0.23/rd. The rifle wasn't any cheaper than a nice factory .308 (well, a little, but not much) but I'd be spending a buck a shot on that ammo.

--
Rob

[steve1 5]

I'm not a huge fan of long range shooting for hunting. It is too easy to wound something.
There are times when a long shot is needed though.

I wrote earlier about a time when someone else wounded an antelope by shooting off a leg. Actually it was dangling. It was a good 500 yds. away when it stopped hopping on three legs. It was getting away and would have died a miserable death.

I layed down, quickly estimated the range. I aimed the appropriate distance above it's back and killed it with one shot. Normally I won't shoot beyond 400 yards, but that time a 500 yard shot was needed. I doubt if most hunters could have hit that antelope, even with an entire box of shells. With the right rifle and practice you can extend your effective range way out there.

I think hunting is something that should require stalking closer. Hunting to me isn't much fun without that. There is nothing wrong with using a rifle that has a poor trajectory or may not even be that accurate, as long as you know the limits of your weapon and your own limits as a shooter.

I know one guy who shoots a big bull elk with nothing more than a 30/30 saddle gun, with iron sights. He kills a big bull almost every year. He does that by stalking closer. "Bully for him." He seldom wounds anything. He's just a good hunter.

Same with bow hunting. I don't think bowhunting was supposed to be easy. Many condemn anyone who hunts with traditional gear. As long as they only take shots that are within their limits, I think this is fine. You don't have to have a bow that shoots as flat as a rifle, to bow hunt.

But then again, you may be handicapping yourself a lot, by using an inaccurate rifle, with iron sights. If you hunt flat open country, you may need to shoot well over a hundred yards, most of the time. But like I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with making up for that with hunting skill and getting closer....Just my two cents worth!

[steve1 5]

I talk to a lot of people who claim that Old Betsy is a good shooter. When I ask them what kind of groups they can shoot, most say within an inch at a hundred yards. When I ask them what kind of ammo, they usually say Factory ammo.

When we go out to shoot, I often bring along a benchrest and sandbags. Most of my friends quickly find that their groups are a lot bigger than they thought. In other words "Old Betsy" doesn't shoot even close to an inch....

I've had some rifles, that even with a lot of work, won't shoot much better than three inches at a hundred yards. I usually trade them off and get another rifle to tinker with.

I wonder about military snipers. I assume they shoot match ammo. This would probably shoot better than factory ammo. That ammo isn't matched to their individual rifle though.

They could probably shoot tighter groups if the right load was found for their individual rifle. But all that is probably impossible in combat situations. I doubt if combat snipers, can hand load a pet load....

When a sniper is resupplied with ammo, they probably just shoot the match ammo they are given. Many snipers can still hit a target out to 1,000 meters....That kind of accuracy is fascinating to me....

I'd like to go to sniper school just to learn what I could about shooting. Their are a ton of variables to consider with that type of shooting....

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I talk to a lot of people who claim that Old Betsy is a good shooter. When I ask them what kind of groups they can shoot, most say within an inch at a hundred yards. When I ask them what kind of ammo, they usually say Factory ammo.

When we go out to shoot, I often bring along a benchrest and sandbags. Most of my friends quickly find that their groups are a lot bigger than they thought. In other words "Old Betsy" doesn't shoot even close to an inch....

The trouble with that is when most people say factory ammo, they mean low cost low quality ammo. That kind of ammo is to accuracy like Coors light is to getting drunk. It technically qualifies, but really it isn't gonna happen. Having said that, match grade ammo is produced in a factory, too, you know.

And again you're blaming the gun. Did you ever have them establish that THEY can shoot five rounds under an inch?

Quote

I've had some rifles, that even with a lot of work, won't shoot much better than three inches at a hundred yards. I usually trade them off and get another rifle to tinker with.

That is simply unacceptable for a long gun. We shoot slugs and poly-shok rounds out of a smooth bore gun with only a bead sight (not even any decent iron sights) and we print clover leafs. That's with Remington 870s using 19 inch barrel and no custom gunsmithing.

Any gun that shoots like that should go back to the manufacturer with a "WTF" tag on it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[steve1 5]

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The trouble with that is when most people say factory ammo, they mean low cost low quality ammo. That kind of ammo is to accuracy like Coors light is to getting drunk. It technically qualifies, but really it isn't gonna happen. Having said that, match grade ammo is produced in a factory, too, you know.

Just because they were both produced in a factory, doesn't mean that the tolerances are the same. Match grade ammo is produced to more exacting standards, and you pay more for that. In my .22 plinking rifle I used to buy the cheapo bricks, and accuracy was not that good. One day I bought some expensive high-quality Ely match ammo, and the difference was like night and day. The Ely ammo turns that rifle into a tack driver, and it's no longer an fun shooting the cheap stuff, knowing what I'm missing. Same rifle, different ammo, different accuracy.

Quote

Quote

I've had some rifles, that even with a lot of work, won't shoot much better than three inches at a hundred yards. I usually trade them off and get another rifle to tinker with.

That is simply unacceptable for a long gun.

Depends on the rifle, and depends on the ammo (see above). Military rifles through WWII were made with a 4 moa accuracy standard. That was considered good enough for troops in combat.

Even modern rifles can have trouble besting that standard. Factory ammo is made to work reasonably well in all types of firearms, with different barrel lengths, different headspace, different actions, and so on. It can't perform well in all of them. When it doesn't, you have to try other things to find some magic combination that does.

[steve1 5]

I'll have to try that Ely 22 ammo. A buddy of mine tries different factory ammo till he finds the most accurate stuff.

I enjoy shooting 22's about as much as any other gun. I have a couple long barrelled, bolt action, 22's, that are a joy to shoot. With the right ammo they would be even more fun.

When we were kids, we made the progression from BB gun, to pellet gun, to 22's. I can't tell you all the fun we had shooting gophers back in the day with our trusty 22's. That was about the funnest thing that we could think of, was a day spent plinking at gophers. Prairie dogs are even more fun....

Now that I'm an old fart, I have a hard time killing anything. I figure if I can't eat it, I won't shoot it. I'm just no fun any more! Maybe I'll have to settle for shooting targets.

I did kill an elk, and a deer last fall, so I guess I'm not all washed up as a hunter....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'll have to try that Ely 22 ammo.

Also good, and more likely to be available in a gun store: .22 Federal Gold Medal UltraMatch UM1. Costs more, well worth it.