Hypothetical but kinda not.

[Tremain4414]

Torn, I like the partitions but like the velocity in #2

 

[robtattoo]

For shits & giggles, I'm going to offer up a third option. HOWEVER: this option would limit my range to 400yds.

Very well renowned Cup & Core bullet.

I'd be more specific, but it wouldn't take much sleuthing to figure out the cartridge & I want that to be irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[eric1115]

What do you consider your limiting factor on your 500 yard cutoff? I would suggest that the wind numbers should either extend Rifle #2 or further limit Rifle #1. Only situation I see where it doesn't is if you're a 2.5-3 moa shooter who is an absolute master wind caller.

 

[robtattoo]

What do you consider your limiting factor on your 500 yard cutoff? I would suggest that the wind numbers should either extend Rifle #2 or further limit Rifle #1. Only situation I see where it doesn't is if you're a 2moa shooter who is an absolute master wind caller.

Practical experience with both. I have no mathematical explanation why it is the way it is. Could be down to rifle fit, recoil difference, possibly just down to the circumstances I've experienced with both guns. I think I've shot both under similar situations, but i honestly can't recall & didn't take detailed enough notes, which is a failing on my part. I just know that beyond 500, my first shot hit rate drops significantly. Shit, it could just be my eyes!

 

[eric1115]

Practical experience with both. I have no mathematical explanation why it is the way it is. Could be down to rifle fit, recoil difference, possibly just down to the circumstances I've experienced with both guns. I think I've shot both under similar situations, but i honestly can't recall & didn't take detailed enough notes, which is a failing on my part. I just know that beyond 500, my first shot hit rate drops significantly. Shit, it could just be my eyes!

Interesting, that to me says you shoot rifle #1 substantially better, if your hit rates are similar to with it to #2 which has less drop and much less drift. Does that jive with your experience?

If so, a rifle you shoot better, loaded with partitions is a good combo if you expect to be more on the close side. The better wind performance might be enough to edge that out as you get out toward your max range in unfamiliar terrain where wind can do unexpected things.

Important question #2, are you shooting from field positions in varied terrain? Or are you counting first round hits each time you shoot at the same 500 yard target at your range? What size targets are you shooting?

IMO, a 90% first round hit rates on a full size IPSC plate off the bench at 500 yards on a range you frequently shoot at does not mean you can responsibly take shots at game animals at 500 in the field. 90% first round impacts at an 8" plate from field positions in varying terrain is a much different animal, and I would say does qualify you to shoot an elk at that range. I'm not saying either one is you, just think that's a point worth clarifying.

 

[robtattoo]

Interesting, that to me says you shoot rifle #1 substantially better, if your hit rates are similar to with it to #2 which has less drop and much less drift. Does that jive with your experience?

If so, a rifle you shoot better, loaded with partitions is a good combo if you expect to be more on the close side. The better wind performance might be enough to edge that out as you get out toward your max range in unfamiliar terrain where wind can do unexpected things.

Important question #2, are you shooting from field positions in varied terrain? Or are you counting first round hits each time you shoot at the same 500 yard target at your range? What size targets are you shooting?

IMO, a 90% first round hit rates on a full size IPSC plate off the bench at 500 yards on a range you frequently shoot at does not mean you can responsibly take shots at game animals at 500 in the field. 90% first round impacts at an 8" plate from field positions in varying terrain is a much different animal, and I would say does qualify you to shoot an elk at that range. I'm not saying either one is you, just think that's a point worth clarifying.

No, it's a very, very good point & it bears comment.
The rifles & range I'm proposing here are pure hunting guns. The 500yd limit is after a lot of experimentation over the last few years.
That's my field position maximum, with a good, stable res. Prone over a rest, bipod or bags, or sitting & rested with a tripod & rear rest.
Kneeling or standing with a solid rest is closer to 300yds, with no rush, maybe 200 if i only have a few seconds.
Offhand, i won't trust myself beyond 100yds.

All this testing was done at a flat, marked & verified range in all field positions. Once I'm zeroed & have a load worked up, i try to avoid bench shooting. I have other guns for that.

My target at 500yds is a 10" gong & it's always my first practice shot. I'm at roughly an 85% first hit rate over about 3 years of shooting it.
Unfortunately my next berm (rules won't allow us to split distances) is at 750 & from the same position, I'm less than 50% on the same 10" gong. I have no way to verify the 250yds between so my cutoff, ethically, HAS to be 500.