Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 133 of 133

Thread: Your longest shot

  1. #121
    Super Moderator crashdive123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    44,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Yeah. 'Zactly how I'd do it.



    That's actually highly classified Navy jargon.
    Funny thing is - when I first typed it in I put in the actual speed that it rotates. When I proof read the post - I smacked myself and changed it.
    Can't Means Won't

    My Youtube Channel


  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockcop View Post
    That .264 win mag is one of the most great long range game getters a man could ask for. Can't figure out why it isn't more popular. It simply performs w/o alot of fuss. Good choice. I can't justify to myself to buy another rifle any time soon cause my 30-30 and 30-06 do everything I need them to do. In fact I have a brand new scoped 7mm mag that I have never fired in the 8 plus years I've owned it. I sold my other 7 mag. I am interested in that .264 mag for some unknown reason. Maybe one day I'll talk myself into it.
    There are three reasons.

    They are known for excessive barrel wear. The limited bore capacity of the 6.5 is the reason. Even with the case capacity of a belted magnum it only slightly exceeds 3000 fts.

    Thier are only two factory outlets for ammo according to my books. Remington and Winchester both in 140 grain. Even if you are to reload there are not many bullet options in 6.5.

    They don't do anything that more popular calibers in that range don't do better. The most popular cartridge that was not a military cartridge first is the 270. Compare its loadings in 140 grain to make it fair and you will see it is slightly better in every category. The reason is something not discussed so far and that is deliviring power down range. The two components of this are sectional density and balistic coeffiency. Sectional density peaks with the 6.5 and balistic coeffiency peaks with 7mm bullets. The 270 being between them falls just short in either category but when combined has more than either. The 270 out performs it without using a belted magnum or the excessive barrel wear.

    That said the 264 is a fine caliber as all 6.5's are. They perform best with round nose bullets that help to stabilize them in flight and increase sectional density. When comparing sectional density with ballistic coeffiency you will find at distances beyond 600 yards BC becomes increasingly better at delivering power downrange. I have not met his uncle but the cartridge is capable of kills he claimed I was just explaining why the cartridge is not more popular.
    Last edited by Alaskan Survivalist; 03-09-2010 at 08:09 PM.

  3. #123
    Senior Member 2dumb2kwit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northeastern NC
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crashdive123 View Post
    Send the latitude, longitude, velocities and accelerations in all axises from the Electrostatically Supported Gyro Navigator which has two - two degree of freedom gyros that contain a beryllium ball rotating real fast directly to the Fire Control System, which in turn feeds that data and the targeting coordinates to the on board guidance system of the D5 missile and then launch it. Six thousand miles later - one shot - a whole lot of kills.

    I thought everybody took their long shots this way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Yeah. 'Zactly how I'd do it.



    That's actually highly classified Navy jargon.

    Ahhhh....like this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4s5CfPD4Y
    Writer of wrongs.
    Honey, just cuz I talk slow doesn't mean I'm stupid. (Jake- Sweet Home Alabama)
    "Stop Global Whining"

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    There are three reasons.

    They are known for excessive barrel wear. The limited bore capacity of the 6.5 is the reason. Even with the case capacity of a belted magnum it only slightly exceeds 3000 fts.
    My .264 Win Mag is over 40 years old, has the original factory barrel, and routinely shoots (when I do my part) at 1/2 MOA. I don't exactly see that as excessive barrel wear. So, that they are "known" for excessive barrel wear is true. That myth has been around for a long time. However, they do not actually demonstrate such excessive wear in actual use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    Thier are only two factory outlets for ammo according to my books. Remington and Winchester both in 140 grain. Even if you are to reload there are not many bullet options in 6.5.
    It is true that the .264 WM has limited factory offerings, but everyone I've ever known who shoots a .264 is an inveterate handloader so; it's not really an issue. Bullet selection is (for me at least) better for my 6.5 than it is for my 7mm. (I tend to like light, premium bullets at high velocities and shun heavy bullets altogether. If you like heavy bullets, then the 6.5 is truly limited whereas the 7mm has ample options.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    They don't do anything that more popular calibers in that range don't do better. The most popular cartridge that was not a military cartridge first is the 270. Compare its loadings in 140 grain to make it fair and you will see it is slightly better in every category. The reason is something not discussed so far and that is deliviring power down range. The two components of this are sectional density and balistic coeffiency. Sectional density peaks with the 6.5 and balistic coeffiency peaks with 7mm bullets. The 270 being between them falls just short in either category but when combined has more than either. The 270 out performs it without using a belted magnum or the excessive barrel wear.
    This is mostly a statement of opinion so; I won't argue it as we all are entitled to our favorites. I will just say that I don't now own nor will I ever buy a .270.
    I like 6.5s and I like 7mms, but the .270 just leaves me cold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    That said the 264 is a fine caliber as all 6.5's are. They perform best with round nose bullets that help to stabilize them in flight and increase sectional density.
    We have not had any good experience with the RN 160 gr. bullets in 6.5mm. I have a bunch in my reloading gear somewhere that I would never use unless I had no other choice. For years we found the 140 gr. loads (Nosler Partitions mostly plus some limited use of Hornady SSTs) to be our favorites.

    Currently we have been toying with some of the newer and slightly lighter premium bullets including the 130 gr. Accubonds, Scirroccos, and Bergers as well as the older but still very nice 125 gr. Nosler Partitions. Final judgment has yet to be cast but, early testing suggests we probably won't be going back to the 140s any time soon.

  5. #125
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,832

    Default

    No.....not like that. Here's Crash and his buddies quail hunting.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8288256218328#
    Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.

  6. #126

    Default

    Luksnic, Nothing I stated was opinion. Ballistic tables will bear out all I said. I have a stack of books and reload myself. Reference Ammo & Ballistcs II by Bob Forker. I would also refer you to P.O. Ackley before we discuss sectional density that is what the 6.5's can attribute it success to. It's nothing personal to me, I can be unbiased because I don't care. It came out in 1958 and I expect any day now for the world to find out how great the 264 is and sales to take off.

  7. #127
    Super Moderator crashdive123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    44,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    No.....not like that. Here's Crash and his buddies quail hunting.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8288256218328#

    Ahhhh. Fond memories.
    Can't Means Won't

    My Youtube Channel

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Survivalist View Post
    Luksnic, Nothing I stated was opinion. Ballistic tables will bear out all I said. I have a stack of books and reload myself. Reference Ammo & Ballistcs II by Bob Forker. I would also refer you to P.O. Ackley before we discuss sectional density that is what the 6.5's can attribute it success to. It's nothing personal to me, I can be unbiased because I don't care. It came out in 1958 and I expect any day now for the world to find out how great the 264 is and sales to take off.
    Of course you are expressing an opinion. Just about everything you wrote is an expression of opinion - as was just about everything I wrote. That's O.K though as we are all allowed to have and even cherish our own opinions.

    Anytime a person states that one thing is "better" than another they are expressing an opinion. If ballistics were objectively simple to quantify and allowed for an easy designation of good, better, and best, then we would all be shooting identical (or at least very similar) setups as they would be obviously "better" than any other option. But we don't. We all have our own idiosyncracies that make us like some things that others either ignore or even despise. Some people like the big calibers while others love the small, some people like heavy bullets while others swear by light, some people obsess over velocity while others think energy is the cat's meow, still others place their focus on a caliber's ballistic coefficient or sectional density, and a few make their claim to "best" based on nothing more than how closely they are able to achieve "traditional/historical accuracy" for reenactment purposes.

    I like both Bob Forker and P. O. Ackley - or I should say I like their work as I've never personally met either one. However, their writings betray the individual biases and opinions held by each of them and I don't always agree with the assertions of either one of them - even though I readily accept that both of them have individually forgotten more about ballistics then I will ever know.

    BTW don't hold your breath while waiting for the 264 to have a resurgence of popularity. It just ain't gonna happen..
    Last edited by lucznik; 03-09-2010 at 11:38 PM.

  9. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucznik View Post
    .

    BTW don't hold your breath while waiting for the 264 to have a resurgence of popularity. It just ain't gonna happen.

    This was what I was addressing when it was asked why it was not more popular. I like the cartridge just fine. Why do you think it is not more popular and never took off?

  10. #130

    Default

    There were a number of issues but, in general I accept the opinion held by most of today's gun-rag writers that the biggest problem with the .264 was the reality that bullet design had not caught up with the abilities of the gun at the time it was introduced. At long range, the gun was "magic" helped greatly by the (by the standards of the time) super-fast velocities offered by the cartridge but, when short range shots were taken that same high velocity had the opposite effect and the traditional "cup and core" bullets would often explode on the surface offering no terminal penetration and resulting in lost and very much wounded game.

    My dad's early experiences when he bought his .264 when they very first came out models what these writers have described. As soon as the Nosler Partition became available in 6.5mm he grabbed on to them and very successfully shot nothing else for decades. He has used that gun and bullet to take almost every game animal in North America, including moose and brown bears in Alaska. I haven't had the opportunity to hunt either of those animals (or in that State) but I've taken a bunch of deer, antelope, and elk with my .264 and none has ever managed to go more than 50 yards from the spot they were shot. You can't ask for much better than that.

    Only recently has he been willing to look at some of the newer "bonded core" bullets on today's market as a possible replacement for the Partition and so far, we've been pretty impressed. With modern bullets and resonable loads the .264 WM (in my opinion, of course) has few equals. However, once the early damage was done, there was no real recovery possible for this great cartridge. There are too many other good cartridges available today (including the ubiquitous 7mm Rem Mag) to allow for such a chance.
    Last edited by lucznik; 03-10-2010 at 12:25 AM.

  11. #131

    Default

    The killing capability of the 6.5 was well documented throughout Africa long ago back in the days of the great white hunters. I read a long time ago that the 6.5 killed more African game than any other cartridge. At the time there were bigger calibers but they were black powder and the hunters were opting for the reliability of the smokeless powders and most were small calibers. C.W. Bell killed over a thousand elephants with the 7x57 mauser. The idea that more gun is needed is a fairly new concept but the hunters back in those days that did much more hunting than anybody today did not have them (thats not to say they would not have used them if available). You are preaching to the choir.

    When it comes to the best I know there is a trade off to achieve an advantage in any area. Hydrostatic shock achieved through high velocity is a viable method but I like to achieve a balance so as not to trade off too much for it. Bullet failure is not the only side effect. There will always be those that will strike a different balance which is what keeps Weatherby in business.
    Last edited by Alaskan Survivalist; 03-10-2010 at 02:08 AM.

  12. #132
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    46

    Default

    My longest hunting shot was a coyote that I killed at 450 yards, missed the first shot and hit him with the second with my 22/250 The longest shot that I ever made was 1850 yards with a 50 cal. on a APC

  13. #133
    Displaced Alaskan AKS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Never had the chance to shoot any of the big guns (.50 cal, missles...) so my range capabilities are a bit limited. My longest game taking shots, I took two caribou at 400 and 420 yrds on different occasions. Was shooting 165grn Remington core-Locts from my 30.06 Savage with a Sheperd P2 scope. After practicing at 600 yrds in varying conditions and consistantly hitting paper plates at that distance, I am very confident in my little set up out to 600 yards.
    I like ballistic compensating, range finding recticals that tell me if there is something wrong with my scope. If the distance is known, just circle the spot you want to hit and squeeze the trigger. If you don't know the distance, find the circle that fits the animal and squeeze the trigger. If the recticals don't line up, save yourself the headache and don't shoot.
    You don't have to join PETA to survive in the woods, it just helps.
    (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •