There are 2 types of Hunters:
Those that see their rifles as status symbols, and their egos can not handle the notion that their caliber might not be the best for any particular application.
And those that like to eat venison.
Printable View
There are 2 types of Hunters:
Those that see their rifles as status symbols, and their egos can not handle the notion that their caliber might not be the best for any particular application.
And those that like to eat venison.
yeah - but its all good fun - the 6.5 boys bite like proverbial sharks - I dont care really what caliber all have good and bad points - I have shot a lot of deer with a .222 would I recommend it no - my .270 absolutely my .308 absolutely - but the rifle- well character- soul even and some semblance of craftsmanship - rather than a computer milled blah - look at an early Sako and one thinks of a room full of craftsmen well people since women did it to all hand checkering Sako stocks - the fit and finish achieved by skilled people rather than a computerized milling machine - steel floor plates not plastic (well some kind of synthetic ) I simply cant stand it when on the forum a new hunter asks for advice and one puts up rifles like the early Tikkas LA 55s and later 695 early Rem 700.s 788 Rem even BRNO,s Winchesters early Rugers all good and then some bugger just cant help himself and yup a Tikka T3 in 6.5 crudmore is the only rifle for NZ wrong and right but not me
Read through this post and thought that I'd add something in favour of the Tikka 6.5 x 55.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuczRU-P_Hw
:thumbsup:
Funny how some people will recommend a 6.5x55 but hate the modernized and by now much more abundant version of it...
Each to his own. I don't hate any caliber, just stirring the pot a little. The swede is very underrated generally IMO. It is still a very effective round even after all these decades.
Agreed. But it is not very common anymore. An essentially identical modern version of it is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andygr