Zeiss V6 or Nightforce NXS on Kimber Montana 270

[Beastmode]

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.

130 VLD

1. I’m curious what the difference between a 30-06 or 308 and a 300 WM is both shooting the same bullet if the impact velocity is the same? Impact velocity is impact velocity. Once the same bullet is in the air it doesn’t matter what shot it.

2. Terminal performance speaks for itself. When a bullet consistently produces more term it performance it is likely going to kill quicker.

3. With 95% of long range rigs using a muzzle break I would really question someone who can’t shoot a 300 WM with a break. The 300s I have shot have all had recoil somewhere near a 270 or lower. My 16 year old daughter has been shooting my 300 for 2 seasons now. Yes a smaller caliber with a break kicks about like a 223 at the most.

I will agree with the smaller calibers for learning. Not because of the recoil mainly. The main reason I recommend it is your wind calls need to be more spot on. If you call your wind wrong with a small caliber you will know it. The bigger calibers with heavy high BC bullets will generally be a little more forgiving. If you can make good wind calls with a small you are really setting yourself up for success later with a big caliber.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan Smith]

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

It's funny, my experience over the years has been the opposite. On paper is where the biggest differences are seen and argued. In the field, when an expanding bullet goes through the vitals, critters die. Sometimes they die slow and sometimes they die fast, but caliber hasn't seemed to make as big of a difference as many proponents claim. I've seen animals hit with big bullets stay on their feet a lot longer than I thought they should have, and I've seen animals hit with small bullets drop like lightning. At the end of the day, I agree with Form- animals are individuals, individual reaction and bullet placement seem to have a lot more to do with the immediate results of a gun shot than bullet diameter does. Unless you damage the CNS, you just never know how they'll react, short of blowing them to little pieces with a 20mm cannon.

The Swedish moose study showing distance traveled after being shot with different calibers, seems to bear this out.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I will agree with the smaller calibers for learning. Not because of the recoil mainly. The main reason I recommend it is your wind calls need to be more spot on. If you call your wind wrong with a small caliber you will know it. The bigger calibers with heavy high BC bullets will generally be a little more forgiving. If you can make good wind calls with a small you are really setting yourself up for success later with a big caliber.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 6.5 Creed with 147 ELD at 2850 fps actually drifts a little less than a .300WM firing a 215 at 2850, though they're so close that they're nearly identical.

 

[Beastmode]

It's funny, my experience over the years has been the opposite. On paper is where the biggest differences are seen and argued. In the field, when an expanding bullet goes through the vitals, critters die. Sometimes they die slow and sometimes they die fast, but caliber hasn't seemed to make as big of a difference as many proponents claim. I've seen animals hit with big bullets stay on their feet a lot longer than I thought they should have, and I've seen animals hit with small bullets drop like lightning. At the end of the day, I agree with Form- animals are individuals, individual reaction and bullet placement seem to have a lot more to do with the immediate results of a gun shot than bullet diameter does. Unless you damage the CNS, you just never know how they'll react, short of blowing them to little pieces with a 20mm cannon.

The Swedish moose study showing distance traveled after being shot with different calibers, seems to bear this out.

I would still have to disagree due to bullet selection within the calibers. Your won’t know how a ulcer preforms until it goes through an animal. Muzzle velocity and energy don’t kill animals. Terminal performance kills animals. When shooting elk at long range IMO a well placed shot with a 300 WM is going to have more terminal damage to the animal than a 6.5.

Many people argue that a well placed shot with a smaller caliber is better than a poorly placed shot with a larger one. I can’t argue that. That’s not really giving a fair comparison though. With advancements in muzzle breaks the bigger magnum calibers are getting easier for smaller people to shoot. I would take a well placed shot on a 300 WM over a well placed shot with a small caliber. Again this is my opinion take it for what is worth. Hopefully Broz chips in he has seen more elk killed than most people on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beastmode]

The 6.5 Creed with 147 ELD at 2850 fps actually drifts a little less than a .300WM firing a 215 at 2850, though they're so close that they're nearly identical.

If you are getting a CM to push the 147 at 2850 I think we should make it fair and push the 215 closer to 3000. Here is wind calls for my 300 WM vs my 6.5 CM.

I get what you are saying though. The 6.5 does have a great BC. The smaller caliber make great learners because generally they do have more wind drift especially at longer ranges and they are cheaper to shoot which means more rounds down range for most of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan Smith]

I would still have to disagree due to bullet selection within the calibers. Your won’t know how a ulcer preforms until it goes through an animal. Muzzle velocity and energy don’t kill animals. Terminal performance kills animals. When shooting elk at long range IMO a well placed shot with a 300 WM is going to have more terminal damage to the animal than a 6.5.

Many people argue that a well placed shot with a smaller caliber is better than a poorly placed shot with a larger one. I can’t argue that. That’s not really giving a fair comparison though. With advancements in muzzle breaks the bigger magnum calibers are getting easier for smaller people to shoot. I would take a well placed shot on a 300 WM over a well placed shot with a small caliber. Again this is my opinion take it for what is worth. Hopefully Broz chips in he has seen more elk killed than most people on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with you about MV and energy not killing animals. Impact velocity determines bullet expansion, and the size of the hole in the vitals (up to a point) is what determines, on average, how quickly an animal dies.

While I respect Broz' experience and observations, this forum isn't exclusive to elk hunting, and there is a vast bank of experience we can draw on regarding killing all sorts of big game animals at distance, with a wide range of bullets and calibers. This topic has been cussed and discussed for many decades, and I doubt we'll resolve it today

 

[Jordan Smith]

If you are getting a CM to push the 147 at 2850 I think we should make it fair and push the 215 closer to 3000. Here is wind calls for my 300 WM vs my 6.5 CM.

While keeping barrel length at 24" for both, restricting peak pressure to 60k psi, and seating bullets so the base of the bearing surface is level with the bottom of the neck, QL predicts 2913 fps for the .300 and 2887 for the 6.5. I rounded down for both. The higher BC of the 147 offsets the 26 fps advantage of the .300, making them perform from an external ballistics point of view, basically identically.

 

[Beastmode]

Agree with you about MV and energy not killing animals. Impact velocity determines bullet expansion, and the size of the hole in the vitals (up to a point) is what determines, on average, how quickly an animal dies.

While I respect Broz' experience and observations, this forum isn't exclusive to elk hunting, and there is a vast bank of experience we can draw on regarding killing all sorts of big game animals at distance, with a wide range of bullets and calibers. This topic has been cussed and discussed for many decades, and I doubt we'll resolve it today

The only reason I am arguing this is the OP is wanting to shoot 800 yards and he talked about passing up a bull which I assumed was an elk at 650 this year which is beyond his limits. He was discussing maybe getting a different caliber. For deer sized game a 6.5 is an incredible caliber. Being he wants to take elk at possibly yardage’s out to 800 I personally feel a larger caliber would be an advantage for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[calico pig]

While keeping barrel length at 24" for both, restricting peak pressure to 60k psi, and seating bullets so the base of the bearing surface is level with the bottom of the neck, QL predicts 2913 fps for the .300 and 2887 for the 6.5. I rounded down for both. The higher BC of the 147 offsets the 26 fps advantage of the .300, making them perform from an external ballistics point of view, basically identically.

Curious to see what those numbers would look like if you jumped both barrels up to 26 inch. My guess is the 300 is going to pull ahead. Albeit it's splitting hairs but a 300 win mag is somewhat handicapped at 24 inches whereas a 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't really get a benefit going past 24 inches.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Curious to see what those numbers would look like if you jumped both barrels up to 26 inch. My guess is the 300 is going to pull ahead. Albeit it's splitting hairs but a 300 win mag is somewhat handicapped at 24 inches whereas a 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't really get a benefit going past 24 inches.

2976 for the .300 and 2937 for the 6.5.

 

[Formidilosus]

130 VLD

1. I’m curious what the difference between a 30-06 or 308 and a 300 WM is both shooting the same bullet if the impact velocity is the same? Impact velocity is impact velocity. Once the same bullet is in the air it doesn’t matter what shot it.

2. Terminal performance speaks for itself. When a bullet consistently produces more term it performance it is likely going to kill quicker.

3. With 95% of long range rigs using a muzzle break I would really question someone who can’t shoot a 300 WM with a break. The 300s I have shot have all had recoil somewhere near a 270 or lower. My 16 year old daughter has been shooting my 300 for 2 seasons now. Yes a smaller caliber with a break kicks about like a 223 at the most.

I will agree with the smaller calibers for learning. Not because of the recoil mainly. The main reason I recommend it is your wind calls need to be more spot on. If you call your wind wrong with a small caliber you will know it. The bigger calibers with heavy high BC bullets will generally be a little more forgiving. If you can make good wind calls with a small you are really setting yourself up for success later with a big caliber.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep in mind OP said he's using a Montana. If he's wanting to use a normal weight rifle that's quite a bit different than a dedicated 12lb rifle. If we're talking heavy rifles than things change.


1). Well that's a straw man. For any given distance they won't have the same impact velocity because they didn't start out with the same. If I have a 600 yard shot then we have to look at what each will bring.

2). Only if it hits. It doesn't matter who you are, given the same rifle setup, no one shoots a 300 better than a 6.5 (or 6mm, 7mm, etc) until you get past the point where ballistics are hurting you. The 6.5 Creed with that 147gr is ballistically equal in real guns and therefore will always result in more hits given they are fired in like platforms. There is a point where terminally the smaller calibers aren't creating enough damage and going to a bigger caliber works out, but between 6.5 creed and 300 mags it isn't at 600 when you factor in hit rates in lighter rifles.

3). For any given rifle setup- if you're going to brake the 300, brake the 6.5 Creed- and given same or superior external ballistics, hit rates will always be higher with the one that recoils less. There's no doubt that a 30 cal 215gr Berger creates more tissue damage at the same range compared to a Hornady 147gr given same impact velocity but they have to hit. Despite what everyone wants to think there is NO 100% hit rate. Sometimes we miss. And when we miss, seeing the trace and splash is absolutely paramount. Again what I'm saying isn't theoretical. I see A LOT of rounds fired. Almost all are measured. Match 5.56, 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Rem, 7.62, 300 WM, 300NM, 338NM, 338L, etc. As well enough of other cartridges to see clear parallels.


Given good bullets, like precision, and around 8lb rifle weights with no dedicated spotter it works out like this on 8"-10" targets-

5.56/223- Highest hit rates out to 400-450 yards in light to moderate wind.

6.5/260- Highest hit rates out to 800 or so in all winds.

300 mags- Highest hit rates past transonic in bad conditions or target conditions where smaller bullets create little splash when they miss.

338 mags- no range that they equal out to the smaller calibers in light rifles.




Now can the 300's and 338's create bigger wounds, sure. But you have to hit first, and I am completely comfortable with the wounds created by 6.5's and 7mm's at 600-800'yards. Truthfully I have zero issues at 600 with a 223 and the right bullet on deer.

 

[Beastmode]

Keep in mind OP said he's using a Montana. If he's wanting to use a normal weight rifle that's quite a bit different than a dedicated 12lb rifle.

I won’t disagree with this one bit.

With all the shooting you have witnessed over the years what percentage of people would you say can shoot 1/2 MOA groups at 800 yards with rifles like this even in the smaller calibers? I haven’t seen hundreds of thousands of rounds sent down range personally, but from my small amount of experience I have found any small amount of error really multiplies in light rifles and multiplies even more past 500 yards.

Personally I’m not sure I would be able to shoot 1/2 MOA groups consistently with a Montana at 800 yards prone off a bipod.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I won’t disagree with this one bit.

With all the shooting you have witnessed over the years what percentage of people would you say can shoot 1/2 MOA groups at 800 yards with rifles like this even in the smaller calibers? I haven’t seen hundreds of thousands of rounds sent down range personally, but from my small amount of experience I have found any small amount of error really multiplies in light rifles and multiplies even more past 500 yards.

Personally I’m not sure I would be able to shoot 1/2 MOA groups consistently with a Montana at 800 yards prone off a bipod.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't seen very many true 1/2 MOA guns no matter the weight. I define a rifle systems true accuaracy as being the size target that a rifle consistently hits. At 100 yards getting any rifle to hit 10 out of 10 half inch dots consistently is rare.


I know you know this but as rifle weight goes down, precision goes down unless you reduce cartridge size. We've seen fantastic hit rates with faster .22 centerfires and high BC bullets such as 22-250's and 75gr ELD's out 600-650 yards on 10" targets from sub 7lb rifles. Get above the 12 ft-lbs of recoil range and hits start going down. Now I'm not saying to use a .22 for elk (granted I'm not saying to not use one), it's just that we have to see and analyze the whole picture. From what I've seen, I will always choose the least recoil combination that will give me acceptable terminal performance.


Back to your question I have seen no one with any sub 7lb rifle setup firing an elk cartridge that can hold half MOA 100% of shots. I have seen maybe, and that's a big maybe, one or two that can do it with an 8lb rifle. Even doing it with 13+ pound dedicated guns is exceptional shooting with an exceptional gun system and ammo. Move that to 1 MOA and exceptionally trained and practiced shooters with a great rifle system and great ammo can do it with an 8lb gun.

Open that up to a more realistic 1.5 MOA target and most shooters with a solid 7-8lb rifle system and good ammo can learn to do it from field positions within a few weeks and 1k rounds. As a data point we can get most shooters to above an 80% hit rate on 2 MOA targets out to 600 yards in 3-5 days.



The reality is that all all of us really haven't looked at hit percentages with an objective eye, and determined what helps or hurts and at what range. The reality is that until our wind reading is better than our groups vertical we will always miss more due to that than group size. The difference in hit rates between a true 1 MOA gun and a true .5 MOA gun is nothing on big game vitals if we can't call the wind within 2mph.

 

[Jordan Smith]

From what I've seen, I will always choose the least recoil combination that will give me acceptable terminal performance.

This is the part that seems to be subjective, and personal opinions of what constitutes acceptable terminal performance vary widely.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is the part that seems to be subjective, and personal opinions of what constitutes acceptable terminal performance vary widely.

That is true. The problem is that because of myths, culture, ignorance, and misinformation how bullets kill and why is so misunderstood it is almost impossible to have a discussion on what constitutes "acceptable" without a full up education about terminal ballistics and wound testing first.

 

[Beastmode]

That is true. The problem is that because of myths, culture, ignorance, and misinformation how bullets kill and why is so misunderstood it is almost impossible to have a discussion on what constitutes "acceptable" without a full up education about terminal ballistics and wound testing first.

Acceptable is going to vary from person to person. Is dead dead? Yes. Some calibers kill quicker than others. Many people I shoot with believe it or not shoot their “big” 30s just as good as a 7 or smaller caliber rifle. Yes these are 9-11 lb guns finished. If somebody isn’t shooting a “big” 300 as good as a small caliber I would recommend they take a good hard look at their form. This is a long range forum and a Montana is probably not going to be the best rifle to fit this need.

I think we have beat this horse enough to know we don’t agree on some of these aspects of shooting. It doesn’t mean either of us are right or wrong we just have a different opinion. If I’m shooting deer size game the 6.5 is going. If I’m shooting elk sized animals the 300 is going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Journeyman]

Solid discussion there fellas!

Maybe I could get a little more detail out of you guys on your preferences for scopes.

First questions is what the actual benefit could be with using mils? I spoke recently with my brother in law who is an EOD tech in the Marine Corps. It seems as though they are taught in mils but they convert everything from inches/feet. I don't want to start a metric vs standard, fight. I'm more interested in the ease of math in my head. For example, if I miss a target and see the splash a foot to the right, why convert that to mils? My mind already thinks in feet/inches.

Second question is FFP vs SFP. For hunting scenarios, and I plan on dialing, what benefit is FFP if I don't plan on using the reticle for hold over and I will always use my range finder for ranging?

Thanks again for all the solid info/opinions, differing as some of them may be. And I do appreciate that you're addressing my specific scenario because I will continue to carry rifles in the lighter end of the spectrum. I feel my shooting fundamentals are pretty solid, I've just never had the opportunity to practice beyond 500 yards.

 

[Beastmode]

Solid discussion there fellas!

Maybe I could get a little more detail out of you guys on your preferences for scopes.

First questions is what the actual benefit could be with using mils? I spoke recently with my brother in law who is an EOD tech in the Marine Corps. It seems as though they are taught in mils but they convert everything from inches/feet. I don't want to start a metric vs standard, fight. I'm more interested in the ease of math in my head. For example, if I miss a target and see the splash a foot to the right, why convert that to mils? My mind already thinks in feet/inches.

Second question is FFP vs SFP. For hunting scenarios, and I plan on dialing, what benefit is FFP if I don't plan on using the reticle for hold over and I will always use my range finder for ranging?

Thanks again for all the solid info/opinions, differing as some of them may be. And I do appreciate that you're addressing my specific scenario because I will continue to carry rifles in the lighter end of the spectrum. I feel my shooting fundamentals are pretty solid, I've just never had the opportunity to practice beyond 500 yards.

1. Pick one and stick with it. MOA was easier for me to pick up on due to it seemed there was way more hunters shooting MOA and it seemed to me there was more information on it at the time. Whichever one you choose make sure the dial and the subtension lines are the same. Believe it or not there is scopes out there that have mil subtension lines and MOA turrets and the other way around. Easy way to remember MOA is an inch for every 100 yards. 1 MOA at 600 yards is 6”, 5 MOA at 600 yards is 30”.

2. I personally don’t see a need for a FFP scope in hunting. In match shooting where you may be engaging multiple targets and various distances and not dialing it works great. You can’t hardly see the subtension lines when power is cranked all the way down on a FFP. I dial for my first shot every time unless it’s under 300 yards and need to make it happen quick. SFP has worked better for me. I owned one FFP and sold it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Journeyman]

Here's a couple of pics from earlier this year with my Montana. Shots were all prone from a bipod. There was a fairly strong cross wind from left to right that I'd estimate was 10-15 mph with some stronger gust. I was trying to verify my drops. I had already zero'd 3.5" high at 100.

400 yards

500 yards

All the blue stickers are from my brothers shots that had hit in the dirt in front of the target and sent shrapnel all over it.

Bottom line is, like a lot of other guys I can shoot sub moa groups all day but I don't have the faintest clue how to put the bullet right where you want it, first time in field conditions.

 

[Jordan Smith]

How to use that new SWFA scope- reticle, turrets and proper usage. - 24hourcampfire