Funny you say that about being hard to hold steady with the digital scope.
I have the same issue with my zulus 3-12 on my 7.62x39 bush hunting. Bloody hard to be steady on freehand shots!
I think the issue is actually input lag of the digital scope. We are trying to correct the reticle to the target but the reticle isnt actually in the position we are seeing due to the lag/delay of the device.
@Tahr
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and right-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.
- Rumi
390 yards. 74 grn Targex.
Bella was so tired you can see that she fell asleep.
![]()
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and right-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.
- Rumi
What sort of damage are they doing at that distance?
@charliehorse I took a pic of the entry through the ribs with the shoulder peeled back. You can see a bit of lung through the rib entry by my finger. That shoulder was broken and ruined. It didn't show any particular sign of impact but I heard the whop. It staggered maybe 10 yards at the most and tipped over.
![]()
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and right-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.
- Rumi
A good endorsement of the 74g Targex and placement of course
What sort of bullet is the Targex 74g?
390 yard with a .223 is pretty impressive regardless of the projectile. the image shows plenty of tissue damage. this sort of performance certainly cast doubt over the old theory that a clean kill on Deer size targets requires a minimum of 1000 foot pounds of terminal energy. In this case there would have been around 700 foot pounds.
ZeroPak Vacuum Sealers, Zero air Zero waste
Lucky that deer can't count, I suppose.
Those numbers always seemed reeeeeeealy arbitrary to me. Why 1000 foot pounds and not 1050, or 970? What weighting was given to bullet construction, impact velocity...... yet for decades people have repeated it, and experience here and elsewhere has blown great big holes through the story. Sounds like the science might not be completely settled.
Bookmarks