Zeiss V6 or Nightforce NXS on Kimber Montana 270

[Journeyman]

What's happening fellas, after having to pass on a nice bull at 650 yards this past season I've decided to change up my load and scope to extend my effective range for next season.

I'm currently pushing Barnes 110 TTSX's out of my Kimber Montana with a Leupold VX3. I originally set the gun up to have a pretty long MPBR and it's served me well but guessing holdover beyond 400 yards with a duplex reticle is a little sketchy for me on anything other than targets.

The plan is to see how fast I can get some Barnes 129 LRX's moving which should get me to 800 yards while staying comfortably above that particular bullets minimum impact velocity.

The plan is to go with MOA turrets. I have no preference for FFP or 2nd.

I know that a Nightforce would serve me well but the added weight on top of a Montana doesn't get me to excited.

I'm considering the Zeiss V6 in 3-18x50 but I'm having a hard time digging up any real reviews on it other than the gun writers who got to go down to that ranch in Texas.

Have any of you bought one or at least got to try one out?

I'm open to any other suggestions as well but those are the 2 currently at the top of my list.

Thanks guys

 

[WRO]

Swaroski z5 3.5x18, Huskemaw 4x16, vx6hd leupold.

 

[calico pig]

What's happening fellas, after having to pass on a nice bull at 650 yards this past season I've decided to change up my load and scope to extend my effective range for next season.

I'm currently pushing Barnes 110 TTSX's out of my Kimber Montana with a Leupold VX3. I originally set the gun up to have a pretty long MPBR and it's served me well but guessing holdover beyond 400 yards with a duplex reticle is a little sketchy for me on anything other than targets.

The plan is to see how fast I can get some Barnes 129 LRX's moving which should get me to 800 yards while staying comfortably above that particular bullets minimum impact velocity.

The plan is to go with MOA turrets. I have no preference for FFP or 2nd.

I know that a Nightforce would serve me well but the added weight on top of a Montana doesn't get me to excited.

I'm considering the Zeiss V6 in 3-18x50 but I'm having a hard time digging up any real reviews on it other than the gun writers who got to go down to that ranch in Texas.

Have any of you bought one or at least got to try one out?

I'm open to any other suggestions as well but those are the 2 currently at the top of my list.

Thanks guys

I think you're set up correctly now with that rifle. Your choice of ammo is more limiting than your scope at 650yds. This is my opinion and as such I'm not offended if you completely disagree. A standard .270 win at 800 yds pushing mono metal barnes bullets is going to be in the 600ft pound energy range and below 1800fps that would let it reliably expand. I have a similar set up in my safe. Even at 650 yds you'll be below 1000 ft lb of energy. Barnes claims the LRX opens at 1600fps. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I use the Barnes because they make me on the coast but I limit myself to 500 yds because 2000fps+ is optimal. If you stick with the .270 ditch the mono metal at those distances. Why not leave the Montana as a light weight 500 yd rifle and build up a second rig for extended reach?

 

[Journeyman]

I think you're set up correctly now with that rifle. Your choice of ammo is more limiting than your scope at 650yds. This is my opinion and as such I'm not offended if you completely disagree. A standard .270 win at 800 yds pushing mono metal barnes bullets is going to be in the 600ft pound energy range and below 1800fps that would let it reliably expand. I have a similar set up in my safe. Even at 650 yds you'll be below 1000 ft lb of energy. Barnes claims the LRX opens at 1600fps. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I use the Barnes because they make me on the coast but I limit myself to 500 yds because 2000fps+ is optimal. If you stick with the .270 ditch the mono metal at those distances. Why not leave the Montana as a light weight 500 yd rifle and build up a second rig for extended reach?

I totally agree with you that I’d be pushing the limits of that round. I’m also considering the eld-x’s but I don’t have any first hand experience with them. I like the barnes because I know they’re not going to grenade on the shoulder at close range and not penetrate like I’ve had happen with other bullets.

My Montana will eventually end up back in its current configuration, I just haven’t decided which round/rifle I want to go with for a proper long range setup. For the time being I figured I’d start with the scope and use it on the rifle I’ve got and eventually switch it to the new rifle.

I’m partial to Kimber rifles and I was really hoping they would have anounced their Open Country rifle in some long action calibers. Unfortunately they just added the 308 to the Creedmore. I may still pick one up but I’m not sure that either of those rounds are any more capable than my 270 at those ranges on elk.

Interested in your thoughts on which round to go with. I like 280 AI, 7 Rem Mag, 264 Mag but it’s finding a round I like in the rifle I like that’s been my problem.

 

[Beastmode]

Ultra light rifles generally don’t make good long range rigs for beginners at long range. Every little piece of bad form gets amplified extremely. I’m not saying it can’t be done but I think a finished rifle weight with optics for something in the long range should be 9 lbs or better.

That being said I would not shoot anything with a Barnes bullet out of a 270 past 500 yards. The bullet is meant for penetration not terminal performance. They do good at closer ranges and good shit placement. They leave very little room for error due to their lack of terminal performance. I would try the eldx or a Berger if you are wanting to step up your yardage. Without looking at BC; velocity or energy my guess is this would get you to around 800 yards for deer sized game. If you are wanting to shoot Elk at 600 and above I would get more gun.

I’m very partial to Nightforce. I am hard as hell on gear and they always hold their zero and dial true for me. Hope this helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[calico pig]

I totally agree with you that I’d be pushing the limits of that round. I’m also considering the eld-x’s but I don’t have any first hand experience with them. I like the barnes because I know they’re not going to grenade on the shoulder at close range and not penetrate like I’ve had happen with other bullets.

My Montana will eventually end up back in its current configuration, I just haven’t decided which round/rifle I want to go with for a proper long range setup. For the time being I figured I’d start with the scope and use it on the rifle I’ve got and eventually switch it to the new rifle.

I’m partial to Kimber rifles and I was really hoping they would have anounced their Open Country rifle in some long action calibers. Unfortunately they just added the 308 to the Creedmore. I may still pick one up but I’m not sure that either of those rounds are any more capable than my 270 at those ranges on elk.

Interested in your thoughts on which round to go with. I like 280 AI, 7 Rem Mag, 264 Mag but it’s finding a round I like in the rifle I like that’s been my problem.

In that case if it we me I'd go Nightforce or Swarovski X5. Frankly I'd just go Nightforce. The other Swarovski options have limited turret range. If I didn't have a bunch of scopes I'd get a nightforce 3-15x50 NXS or a Nightforce SHV. Other members, way more experienced and skilled than me, have recommended that scope to me when I posed a similar question. Shooting 800 yds for me I quit worrying about a few oz of weight. Now I have a Nightforce ATACR 4-16x50 and a couple of Swarovski X5's. The Atacr is on my primary rifle if that says anything. the .308 and 6.5 don't buy you enough or really anything over your current set up. I would get a 7mag or 300 win mag. Doesn't Kimber have a 300 wsm option? I personally have a pair of 300 Win mags that I use for hunting. One has an X5 and the other the NF ATACR. One I have dialed in for Barnes TTSX 165's that California requires and the other I'm working on getting dialed with Berger Hybrid 215's when I don't need to comply with the condor BS.
I have a 6.5 Creedmoor with an X5 on it too. I wouldn't even consider elk hunting with it no matter what the paper stats say. Shot a few hogs last week with the Barnes LRX 127.

 

[Jordan Smith]

For an elk rifle to 700 or 800 yards, I'd be perfectly content with a SWFA SS 6x or 3-9x, or a Bushnell LRHS 3-12x or 4.5-18x. The S&B PMII 10x is really nice, too. Either way, for doing a lot of dialing, get a scope that is known for reliable tracking and zero retention. That means NF, Bushnell LRHS/DMR/ERS, SWFA SS, S&B fixed powers, and a few others. I'd get something in FFP, too. I've seen more than one critter lost because the shooter used the SFP reticle for holdover without realizing the mag was not on max setting.

Rifle choice is very subjective, but I'd be pretty happy with a Barrett FC in 7-08 shooting the 180gr ELD at 2500-2550 fps, with a SS 3-9x on top for a nice, light, LR-capable elk rifle. You're going to need to practice a whole bunch to become proficient with the new scope setup anyway, so you'll learn to shoot the 7-7.5 lbs rifle setup while you're at it. The Barrett is quite a bit easier to shoot accurately than some other lightweight rifles I've spent time with.

Also, learn MRAD while you're at it. If you're getting serious about shooting LR and dialing, you'll likely migrate to mils eventually, anyway, so you may as well start now. Long ago I was an MOA guy. Then I made the mistake of buying a MRAD scope. Now all my LR rifles wear MRAD scopes. Try one, I bet you'll like it after spending a few minutes with it.

 

[carter33]

I was looking at exactly the same two scopes as you a few months ago and ultimately decided on the nightforce nxs 3.5-15x50 due to it being a little more proven and the durability of the product. I never was able to find a Zeiss v6 to look through and still have not used one but I can say I do not at all regret my purchase of the Nightforce.

I was also concerned with the weight but it has not bothered me yet though admittedly I have only packed it a limited amount so far in search of caribou. I love the clarity, reticle and proven tracking with zero stop of the scope. Good luck with the choice.

 

[Formidilosus]

What's happening fellas, after having to pass on a nice bull at 650 yards this past season I've decided to change up my load and scope to extend my effective range for next season.

I'm currently pushing Barnes 110 TTSX's out of my Kimber Montana with a Leupold VX3. I originally set the gun up to have a pretty long MPBR and it's served me well but guessing holdover beyond 400 yards with a duplex reticle is a little sketchy for me on anything other than targets.

The plan is to see how fast I can get some Barnes 129 LRX's moving which should get me to 800 yards while staying comfortably above that particular bullets minimum impact velocity.

The plan is to go with MOA turrets. I have no preference for FFP or 2nd.

I know that a Nightforce would serve me well but the added weight on top of a Montana doesn't get me to excited.

I'm considering the Zeiss V6 in 3-18x50 but I'm having a hard time digging up any real reviews on it other than the gun writers who got to go down to that ranch in Texas.

Have any of you bought one or at least got to try one out?

I'm open to any other suggestions as well but those are the 2 currently at the top of my list.

Thanks guys

The Barnes 129gr LRX is not the other to long range bliss. A 6.5 Creedmoor with 147's crushes it in wind drift, retained velocity, precision, and terminal effects at 800 yards all while being lighter, easier to shoot, less recoil, and cheaper. If you stay with the 270 Hornady's ELD-X is where you want to be.


Start from the beginning- you're trying to learn to shoot long range. What follows is from teaching a bunch of people to shoot and hit at medium to long range. I see anywhere from 100,000-300,000 rounds fired in precision shooting each year and some things are very clear-

Skip all the fluff and get a sound rifle chambered in a light recoiling cartridge with great ballistics, with a scope designed to dial and hold zero. If you actually want to consistently be able to hit and kill big game at 600 or 800 yards you will be shooting a lot. There is no shoot 100 or 200 rounds and call it good. You want to consistently hit at those ranges? You're looking at a minimum of 100 rounds a month, every month. 1,000-1,500 rounds of structured practice and training is where we see shooters start to be consistent.

As for terminal ballistics no one can tell the difference in wounds created by a 6.5 Creed, 270, 30/06, etc. with appropriate bullets, but you can bet there's a difference in hit rates between them.



The best favor a person can do for themselves in learning to shoot 0-800 yards is to get two Tikka T3x's lites with Bushnell LRHS 3-12x scopes. One in 223 for practice and training using high BC 75/77gr bullets, and one in 6.5 Creedmoor for hunting using Hornady 147gr ELD-M's. There's a whole lot more to killing at 800 yards than big cartridges, and there isn't an elk alive that will walk away from a 140gr bullet in the chest.

 

[Journeyman]

The Barnes 129gr LRX is not the other to long range bliss. A 6.5 Creedmoor with 147's crushes it in wind drift, retained velocity, precision, and terminal effects at 800 yards all while being lighter, easier to shoot, less recoil, and cheaper. If you stay with the 270 Hornady's ELD-X is where you want to be.


Start from the beginning- you're trying to learn to shoot long range. What follows is from teaching a bunch of people to shoot and hit at medium to long range. I see anywhere from 100,000-300,000 rounds fired in precision shooting each year and some things are very clear-

Skip all the fluff and get a sound rifle chambered in a light recoiling cartridge with great ballistics, with a scope designed to dial and hold zero. If you actually want to consistently be able to hit and kill big game at 600 or 800 yards you will be shooting a lot. There is no shoot 100 or 200 rounds and call it good. You want to consistently hit at those ranges? You're looking at a minimum of 100 rounds a month, every month. 1,000-1,500 rounds of structured practice and training is where we see shooters start to be consistent.

As for terminal ballistics no one can tell the difference in wounds created by a 6.5 Creed, 270, 30/06, etc. with appropriate bullets, but you can bet there's a difference in hit rates between them.



The best favor a person can do for themselves in learning to shoot 0-800 yards is to get two Tikka T3x's lites with Bushnell LRHS 3-12x scopes. One in 223 for practice and training using high BC 75/77gr bullets, and one in 6.5 Creedmoor for hunting using Hornady 147gr ELD-M's. There's a whole lot more to killing at 800 yards than big cartridges, and there isn't an elk alive that will walk away from a 140gr bullet in the chest.

Awesome post man! Any chance you could elaborate on your recommendation for the ELD-M over the X?

There's a strong possibility that I could end up with a Tikka but you're making me think even harder about that Kimber. Even more so that you can get it without the Optifade stock now.

Check this out - Kimber America | Open Country (Granite)

Some of the specs are incorrect like the 16" barrel length but I'd love to carry that gun in the woods.

 

[Beastmode]

there isn't an elk alive that will walk away from a 140gr bullet in the chest.

I would disagree with this after seeing a bear shot at 600 yards double lunged with a 6.5 creedmore this year trot away for 150 yards. It was a good broadside shot and the bullet exited. He was roughly a 450 lb bear and made it pretty far. I have no doubt that distance would have been cut in half at a minimum if not dropped him if he was hit with a 300 WM with a 215 Berger. There comes a point where guys start asking too much out of these smaller calibers. In my mind 600 yards is about max on elk size game. Can it be done? Absolutely but I would expect to see a lot of animals that require a second or third shot or you will be tracking them for a distance. The terminal performance between the heavy 30s and up are not even comparable. Grapefruit sized exit holes vs golf ball sized exit holes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[luke moffat]

I would disagree with this after seeing a bear shot at 600 yards double lunged with a 6.5 creedmore this year trot away for 150 yards. It was a good broadside shot and the bullet exited. He was roughly a 450 lb bear and made it pretty far. I have no doubt that distance would have been cut in half at a minimum if not dropped him if he was hit with a 300 WM with a 215 Berger. There comes a point where guys start asking too much out of these smaller calibers. In my mind 600 yards is about max on elk size game. Can it be done? Absolutely but I would expect to see a lot of animals that require a second or third shot or you will be tracking them for a distance. The terminal performance between the heavy 30s and up are not even comparable. Grapefruit sized exit holes vs golf ball sized exit holes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel dang lucky to never have gotten a grapefruit sized exit hole from any of the animals I have seen shot with magnum 300 and 338s. That would be a messy endeavor especially if it clipped some shoulder.

 

[Beastmode]

I feel dang lucky to never have gotten a grapefruit sized exit hole from any of the animals I have seen shot with magnum 300 and 338s. That would be a messy endeavor especially if it clipped some shoulder.

It all depends what you are looking for in a bullet and shot placement is key. Being this is a long range section I would imagine we are all talking about bullets being used for long range. If you shoot a deer with a Berger in the shoulder up close you are most likely going to lose quite a bit of meat. If you hit them behind the shoulder you will generally see some pretty significant exit holes at higher velocity impacts especially on deer sized game with the larger calibers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[luke moffat]

It all depends what you are looking for in a bullet and shot placement is key. Being this is a long range section I would imagine we are all talking about bullets being used for long range. If you shoot a deer with a Berger in the shoulder up close you are most likely going to lose quite a bit of meat. If you hit them behind the shoulder you will generally see some pretty significant exit holes at higher velocity impacts especially on deer sized game with the larger calibers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha...you made it sound like grapefruit size exit holes are desired even at 600 yards on a bear where impact velocity is gonna be in the 2200-2300 fps range. I agree no replacement for displacement and you likely will end up with more DRTs with a magnum 300 class so long as you hit them where it hurts.

That said I do always find it funny that folks feel a 300 WM has no problem killing at 1000 yard plus with a 210-215 class bullet. But a 308 shooting that same bullet won't kill at 600 yards.

 

[Beastmode]

Gotcha...you made it sound like grapefruit size exit holes are desired even at 600 yards on a bear where impact velocity is gonna be in the 2200-2300 fps range. I agree no replacement for displacement and you likely will end up with more DRTs with a magnum 300 class so long as you hit them where it hurts.

That said I do always find it funny that folks feel a 300 WM has no problem killing at 1000 yard plus with a 210-215 class bullet. But a 308 shooting that same bullet won't kill at 600 yards.

Yeah that cracks me up too. I do not desire grapefruit holes at longer ranges. Unfortunately I have not found a bullet that performs exactly how I want it to at all ranges. You just need to know what the bullet you are shooting is designed to do , caliber limitations and what your personal limitations are.

This was my first year using a 6.5 creedmore and we went 5 for 5 with this gun this year so far with 3 deer and 2 bear. Distances were from 150 yards to 600 yards. I am very impressed to say the least with this cartridge. It is not my 300 WM though. You can’t ask it to do the same thing. They are 2 calibers intended for different purposes. On paper certain calibers might look like they are the same, but what a bullet does once it goes through an animal is the tell tail sign. No replacement for displacement is very true providing you hit in the right spot.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I would disagree with this after seeing a bear shot at 600 yards double lunged with a 6.5 creedmore this year trot away for 150 yards. It was a good broadside shot and the bullet exited. He was roughly a 450 lb bear and made it pretty far. I have no doubt that distance would have been cut in half at a minimum if not dropped him if he was hit with a 300 WM with a 215 Berger. There comes a point where guys start asking too much out of these smaller calibers. In my mind 600 yards is about max on elk size game. Can it be done? Absolutely but I would expect to see a lot of animals that require a second or third shot or you will be tracking them for a distance. The terminal performance between the heavy 30s and up are not even comparable. Grapefruit sized exit holes vs golf ball sized exit holes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What bullet?



A couple of points-

1) I said 6.5/270/30-06/etc. Not 300's with 215gr Bergers.

2) A sample of one doesn't really tell us anything. I've killed a couple of hundred deer with 300 mags using SMKs, Bergers, A-Max's, etc. and while generally big exits and instant drops are the norm, I've also seen deer with massive exit wounds cover a couple hundred yards, require multiple follow up shots, etc. Animals are individuals and can react multiple ways to trauma under stress.

3) You have to hit them first, and while people kill animals all the time at LR with magnums and light rifles, it isn't the best choice especially so for someone learning.

 

[calico pig]

I would disagree with this after seeing a bear shot at 600 yards double lunged with a 6.5 creedmore this year trot away for 150 yards. It was a good broadside shot and the bullet exited. He was roughly a 450 lb bear and made it pretty far. I have no doubt that distance would have been cut in half at a minimum if not dropped him if he was hit with a 300 WM with a 215 Berger. There comes a point where guys start asking too much out of these smaller calibers. In my mind 600 yards is about max on elk size game. Can it be done? Absolutely but I would expect to see a lot of animals that require a second or third shot or you will be tracking them for a distance. The terminal performance between the heavy 30s and up are not even comparable. Grapefruit sized exit holes vs golf ball sized exit holes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a 6.5 creedmoor and a 300 Win mag. I agree with you regarding a 600 yard shot on bear. I so badly want my 6.5 to be the do all but I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting a bear at distance with it after seeing performance on hogs and deer. It kills, don't get me wrong. It would not even get consideration for an elk hunt. The 308, 30-06, or 300 win would all get picked first even though my 6.5 is the sweetest little rifle I've ever had. I don't feel recoil in the field and where I hunt in the Yolla Bollys it's damn easy to loose a bear if it runs 150yds. Tracking it ain't fun either so a 300 or 30-06 provides ME extra assurance and peace of mind. For those that can hit game in the ear at 600 yards every time it's probably a different story.

 

[Fireguy]

Awesome post man! Any chance you could elaborate on your recommendation for the ELD-M over the X?

Form,

I too am interested in your reasoning about the ELD-M. This hunting season I saw several elk and deer killed with either a 6.5 Creed shooting 143 ELD-x's or a 308 shooting 178 ELD-X's. To say I have become a big believer in these bullets would be an understatement. I was a typical Nosler Accubond/Partition guy and while those bullets kill well, I've never seen such fast, drop dead like hit by lightning kills as I have with the ELD-X. I've been reading where more and more guys are really starting to recommend the ELD-M's over the ELD-X's. Both have shot extremely well for me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form,

I too am interested in your reasoning about the ELD-M. This hunting season I saw several elk and deer killed with either a 6.5 Creed shooting 143 ELD-x's or a 308 shooting 178 ELD-X's. To say I have become a big believer in these bullets would be an understatement. I was a typical Nosler Accubond/Partition guy and while those bullets kill well, I've never seen such fast, drop dead like hit by lightning kills as I have with the ELD-X. I've been reading where more and more guys are really starting to recommend the ELD-M's over the ELD-X's. Both have shot extremely well for me.

Responded in your other thread. Shot answer is they woth work, so I generally choose the one that has the higher BC for reduced wind drift.

 

[Journeyman]

I’m curious about the experiences of you guys who shoot Hornady bullets and load with their data.

It seems that they are far more conservative on what they list as maximum loads as compared to Barnes or Nosler. Have you guys found that to be the case and been able to work up beyond what they list as maximum?

The ELD’s definitely have my attention. I’ve always been so focused on high muzzle velocity because I wanted a long MPBR so it’s taking me a while to get my head wrapped around a high BC and relying on calculations and dialing.