here's a can of worms... Or is it????

nuttyspaniel

Well-Known Member
Before I go any futher this thread does not mean for whatever reason you may think I believe in this, but from time to time it may be necessary....


Ok most of us have permission in forestry leases. As norm for any forestry lease cull targets have to be met and tree damage to an absolute minimum. If not the lease may be in jepordy or worse some forestry companies may send a contracter or similar.

Now your lease has lets say for arguments sake an area which has been clear felled and the re-plant is 3 years old. Now if your like me you will have high seats in places to cover the area. Then 1 day a beast presents itself around 300yds away give or take. Now youve a decision to make shoot if safe or attempt to climb down and attempt to stalk in and risk alerting the beast due to lack of cover and wind.

Only 1 option.. The shot has to be taken, ok calibre choice is good, youve made a good choice from your cabinet.

Now scope 6x42, 7x50 etc etc Normally you wouldnt think twice at normal stalking distances up to say 150 yds in forestry etc.

But the question which choice of mag would you prefer in that situation? E.g. a 14x or larger??


Have fun discusing this

nutty
 
LOL, that's a long round-about way of asking what mag is good for 300 yd shots on deer ;)

whilst I never shoot at 300, if I 'did' and I have had crosshairs on many a deer at that range, I would feel perfectly comfortable with my normal 6x42. mind you, if I had the option of going up to 8-12, I'd probably have a wee twist to judge what the mag vs shake compromise would be, but in honesty, every time I've used a varable mag, I've found anything above 8x too shaky unless the most solid of rests were available.
 
LOL, that's a long round-about way of asking what mag is good for 300 yd shots on deer ;)

whilst I never shoot at 300, if I 'did' and I have had crosshairs on many a deer at that range, I would feel perfectly comfortable with my normal 6x42. mind you, if I had the option of going up to 8-12, I'd probably have a wee twist to judge what the mag vs shake compromise would be, but in honesty, every time I've used a varable mag, I've found anything above 8x too shaky unless the most solid of rests were available.


Ive never shot over 150. But the shake is what I was wondering about. No doubt 1 day the scenario will arise at some point. I stalk for pleasure like many on the forum. But especially with forestry leases we pay to do a job..


Nutty
 
totally agree PKL
I have vari scopes on most of my rifles but very rare I alter them most are set between 6/8.
zeroing I wind may up to see hole in target or if using bench type rest and can illiminate shake.
 
The scope doesn't kill the deer, you do. If you have shot your rifle at 300yds and you feel confident in your abilities and the limitations of your equipment then there's no reason you couldn't take the shot if you had to. Just sticking a higher mag scope on and taking potshots at deer is not the way to go.
 
never shot deer at 330yds but I have shot targets out to 600yds with a 4x32.

used to think magnification was the be all for longer ranges. depends on reticule IMO
 
never shot deer at 330yds but I have shot targets out to 600yds with a 4x32.

used to think magnification was the be all for longer ranges. depends on reticule IMO

I'll second that. I shoot prairiedogs at 450 with a 6X. Really? a deer at 14X? Irresponsible (to use a word you guys like) if you ask me. How are you going to see anything moving into the impact area at 14X??~Muir
 
6 x 42 is plenty for stalking even at ranges of 300 yards plus just pick a recticule that isnt too thick
 
Last edited:
For me my 4-16 Schmidt would be just dandy and I would not hesitate to use the full 16 power. Like others have said I would weigh up how steady my rest is before considering a shot of this length....but I do practice regularly out to 300
 
The scope doesn't kill the deer, you do. If you have shot your rifle at 300yds and you feel confident in your abilities and the limitations of your equipment then there's no reason you couldn't take the shot if you had to. Just sticking a higher mag scope on and taking potshots at deer is not the way to go.


Couldnt agree more regarding abilities. But potshots Mmm how did you work that out.

Nutty
 
I'll second that. I shoot prairiedogs at 450 with a 6X. Really? a deer at 14X? Irresponsible (to use a word you guys like) if you ask me. How are you going to see anything moving into the impact area at 14X??~Muir

Muir and Bewsher fair points and defo got to be considered.


Nutty
 
Its interesting that reticle has been mentioned more than power. I can relate to that indeed. I got shot of a swaro cause I hated the thickness of the cross hairs. I found they would blank out a 2" bull at 100yds when trying to zero. I think it was a 4 or 4a.


Nutty
 
i have an S&B with a 4a which is perfect for the hill.
try to shoot targets and it blocks out the bull

using a target with a wide cross instead of a bull changes that and allows you to hold a good POA.

deer dont have bulls-eyes marked on them though!
 
i have an S&B with a 4a which is perfect for the hill.
try to shoot targets and it blocks out the bull

using a target with a wide cross instead of a bull changes that and allows you to hold a good POA.

deer dont have bulls-eyes marked on them though!


My deer do...:stir:

Regards the target with a wide cross, that is something Ive done since but thats different topic.

Nutty
 
Couldnt agree more regarding abilities. But potshots Mmm how did you work that out.

Nutty

Not meant as an attack on you, just phrased incorrectly. What I mean is that unless shots are practiced at the intended distance, then there is no prior knowledge about realistically achievable accuracy at that range with current equipment. Thereby in essence it is shooting and hoping for a positive result without any real world data to back it up.
 
Not meant as an attack on you, just phrased incorrectly. What I mean is that unless shots are practiced at the intended distance, then there is no prior knowledge about realistically achievable accuracy at that range with current equipment. Thereby in essence it is shooting and hoping for a positive result without any real world data to back it up.

Ok cheers again couldnt agree more.


Nutty
 
I have a 6-24x50 Swarovski on a rifle just now and think that for taking shots to 300yds it is about perfect. As for the field of view causing issues if on 14x, well on 18x at 300yds ( I have just checked across the fields from the kitchen at what I know to be about that distance) I am guessing there is about 18' to either side of the 'target' I was looking at so IMO that is more than enough 'safe space' to see something walk into the shot area.

If shooting prairies dogs (something I know absolutely nothing about) I am guessing a strike anywhere on their torso or head with a varmint bullet will kill it so the area ensuring a kill is pretty big is it not or may result in a clean miss if a touch off? In other words hit it at all and it's dead, but I may stand to be corrected on that...

As for a deer, well at that distance I want to be able to pick a better impact area that say 6 or 7 inches across because and margin for error is greatly reduced over distance. IMO a 6x scope looking across the fields here at something like a roe size target can be bettered. I want to be concentrating on a tiny area on the beasts body, not a patch that appears to be 'about on' at 300yds with a 6x scope. If I set a tin can up (about the size of a deer's heart) at 300yds, the crosshairs on my scope at that distance about obscure it. On 18x I can pick out the design on the can and concentrate on putting the bullet in that area. I agree therefore that the reticle is important.

If I was taking a shot at 300yds it would have to be from a very stable lean obviously, hence when that is a possibility the bi-pod is always fitted. Winding the scope up to 18x or 20x is not an issue for shake lying prone off a bi-pod.
 
I have a 6-24x50 Swarovski on a rifle just now and think that for taking shots to 300yds it is about perfect. As for the field of view causing issues if on 14x, well on 18x at 300yds ( I have just checked across the fields from the kitchen at what I know to be about that distance) I am guessing there is about 18' to either side of the 'target' I was looking at so IMO that is more than enough 'safe space' to see something walk into the shot area.

If shooting prairies dogs (something I know absolutely nothing about) I am guessing a strike anywhere on their torso or head with a varmint bullet will kill it so the area ensuring a kill is pretty big is it not or may result in a clean miss if a touch off? In other words hit it at all and it's dead, but I may stand to be corrected on that...

As for a deer, well at that distance I want to be able to pick a better impact area that say 6 or 7 inches across because and margin for error is greatly reduced over distance. IMO a 6x scope looking across the fields here at something like a roe size target can be bettered. I want to be concentrating on a tiny area on the beasts body, not a patch that appears to be 'about on' at 300yds with a 6x scope. If I set a tin can up (about the size of a deer's heart) at 300yds, the crosshairs on my scope at that distance about obscure it. On 18x I can pick out the design on the can and concentrate on putting the bullet in that area. I agree therefore that the reticle is important.

If I was taking a shot at 300yds it would have to be from a very stable lean obviously, hence when that is a possibility the bi-pod is always fitted. Winding the scope up to 18x or 20x is not an issue for shake lying prone off a bi-pod.


cheers for that input.

Nutty
 
In some places that is called a close knecking distance.. the guys we were with in New Zealand thought of that as a normal shot a boy could do with his .22 :lol:

I shot a 240 yards with my Zeiss 3 to 9 variable it dropped on the spot, I had set it up the weekend before at Catton so was happy where it was going.

If you can put the bullet into a 4 inch hole at 300 yards on the range it's gonna drop dead at some point, only issue is if it runs they have a 300 yard head start.. I have trouble running for a bus these days never mind a blinkin great stag goin hell for leather across the moors.. horses for courses if you are competent it will be just as dead at 300 yards as 100.. & the .308 was designed to kill men and horses at 1000 yards + so if you can place the bullet it will do the job.
 
I

If shooting prairies dogs (something I know absolutely nothing about) I am guessing a strike anywhere on their torso or head with a varmint bullet will kill it so the area ensuring a kill is pretty big is it not or may result in a clean miss if a touch off? In other words hit it at all and it's dead, but I may stand to be corrected on that...

Yes. A torso hit will kill them. Before I guess at it, I'll ask: What is your point?~Muir
 
Back
Top