I believe that was tested and completely debunked a few years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by GWH
I believe that was tested and completely debunked a few years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by GWH
Yep.... but how fangible a projectile is will make a difference...
And while the debunking was conclusive if I remember, basic physics would suggest that the deviation caused by projectiles at the same speed, but with different masses should vary... I have always been puzzled by that. Perhaps it is why the idea persists?
What he said,Quote:
Originally Posted by deer243
Run a .243 with 22in barrel and the Sierra 85g HPBT have such good hydrostatic shock nothing has walked away. Have considered chopping it but just can't justify it...
Attachment 60409
It seems like everyone is missing the point... the bush pig thing is only an issue if you want a can, and don't want the extra length and weight on the end of your barrel that a good can creates.
If you don't want a can, good luck to you and your increasing deafness.... or your fumbling for something to stuff in your ears...
If you do want to use a suppressor; personally I don't like putting cans on anything over 20 inches in length, and preferably about 16" so that the extra 4-5" forwards make it a total about back to where we started. People who started doing this soon worked out that a small amount of velocity loss made little difference to the thing you point it at, and in fact if you reloaded, using faster powders still got you back to almost the same velocities as what you are buying in factory boxes with the original length barrel.
Now there are 2 reasons, why you might not want to chop.... you have a nice original rifle or you don't want a suppressor. Don't chop if you don't want a supressor. Its almost all minuses. If you can live with an original length rifle and a suppressor, good luck to you also... some do just because they don't want to chop a nice rifle.
Outside of that, for me at least it's purely pragmatic.... I've already lost as much hearing as I want to and I don't want to cart a telephone pole around in the bush.
I have no problem with standard length barrel and a light can. I mostly use a 23" barreled .243 and 85gr tsx. I have a nice Carbon fiber can which i dont really notice the weight or length. I dont mind using it without the can for the odd shot either.
Hearing is just a part of your overall health and we all sacrifice our health in some way or another, prolonged loud music, smoking, alcohol, sugar, overweight.
I think the main advantage with a larger calibre is that it lends itself to a short barrel where an overbore round struggles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I bloody hope so or I might have a bit of egg on my face!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Egg on the face to go with the bruise on the shoulder?Quote:
Originally Posted by mikee
Modern mono and bonded premium projectiles have changed the playing field.
In the past slow and heavy was considered the way for close quarters due to the fragile nature of projectiles, slower impact velocity meant less likelihood of bullet failure, meat damage and wounding due to poor penetration.
Larger bore also meant that expansion was less of a concern as big bullets make big holes!
I suspect this is largely why the .270 got its reputation as a wounder, poor bullet construction.
probably not too mention a wee wee. I'm gonna try 407gn Cast bullet at 1050fps as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
The hammer of Thor.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikee
No, the hammer of Quickley.
I remember reading a Nick Harvey article in an ancient mag (Sporting Shooter I think) when i was a kid around about 1978-ish. Harvey was testing a number of rounds and bullet types for deflection through scrub and he reckoned the 358 Win with a round nose pill worked the best.... I remember being young and impressionable and dreamed of getting a Miroku lever in 358 Win (what he used).... I saved a ton of money by buying an old 8x57 Mauser as my first centrefire instead.....
yeah it probably has been debunked, but the best result in believing your 'heavier bullet' (or whatever bullet) doesn't get deflected is just getting on with taking the shot at the right time and not worrying about branches and twigs that may make you miss that best opportunityQuote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Yeah.i get your point but heres the thing. Shooting at the range or sighting in etc you use ear protection. If you shooting long range or have plenty of time to set up and shoot you use ear protection. If you goat shooting etc you use ear protection, not a problem. if you bush stalking and see a animal one shot should do the business and one shot here and their doesnt totally stuff your hearing. My hearings fine, and ive use no suppressor for years . I know many old time shooters and alot of their hearing is fine,but those ones that arent told me they used to fire untold shots without hearing protection and often sighted in whereever without hearing protection and still arnt stone deaf. Using a suppressor is clearly a good choice for your hearing no doubt and should be encouraged .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
But not using one isnt the end of your hearing if you use protection when you can and a shot here and there doesnt seem to do alot from what ive seen and heard from long time shooters
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dve7vAY9I
While not the most scientific a good practical demonstration.
Most of my hunting 75% is Bush and I can indeed say large slow moving calibres are very good in this area. I have had 223, and 308 Ballistic tip projectiles be deflected by small branches missing out on animals. On the other hand I have had my 45-70 and 9.3x62 go through rather large branches (wrist size in diameter) and they have reached the animal and poleaxed them.
They of course have their downsides which is low BC.s and lower velocities particularly in the 45-70 which is really at max a 200yd gun. But when most of it is in the bush or small slips and clearings I can live with this.
No one calibre or configuration is perfect for everything and The bog standard 16 inch 308 bush pig will do well. But the larger calibres shine in this area and are great and fun to shoot!
Maybe you should ask an audiologist their opinion rather than rely on the opinions of these 'long time shooters'. I suspect you will find every shot fired without some form of protection does compounding damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by deer243
But hey, they are your ears to wreck I suppose.
An audiologist will tell you that loud noise will damage your hearing but what they cant tell you is to what degree as there are far to many variables. A dentist will tell you to brush twice a day and floss, an optometrist will tell you to wear safety glasses at all times, a dietitian will not like you eating bacon, a dermatologist will have you out of the sun. All of which would make for a pretty depressing hunting trip.
I wonder how many audiologists have bad teeth and eat bacon.
I know exactly what you mean! I took my mutt out last night with a borrowed BSA Majestic 243 wearing a 2-7 vx1 and taped suppressor and man did it feel like the business! And in terms of energy well the humble 223 has well over that magical 1000 ft-lbs and I know numerous people who use the 223 religiously but I just don't shoot enough to place the bullet perfect every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
The trouble with those observations is that casually talking to a person face-to-face doesn't give an accurate indication of what their hearing is like less-than-ideal situations , especially in background noise. I would say well over half of my patients who wear their hearing aids -all- the time can still hear me fact-to-face without their aids . But they are hopeless at distance, with any quieter/female voices and most particularly if there is -any- background noise about. They often avoid social events because they know they will be reduced to guessing what's being said and making embarrassing mistakes from guessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by deer243
If someone is obviously "deaf", their loss would be making their life and all those around them miserable. I can tell you shooting does your hearing no favours and adding age to that is inevitable.
Tikka t3 in 308 or Kimber montana in 308 depending on budget ,shortened and suppressed with a decent can , get a decent half cock fitted - essential for Sika stalking and as for Gunsmiths try Dean Maisey in Tauranga.
What this man said, go & see which one fits you the best, either 308 or 7-08 & reload for it, you have the option with the T3 of putting a carbon stock on it, you wouldn't need to bother with the KimberQuote:
Originally Posted by von tempsky fan
If you are going to carbon stock a tikka you may aswell start with the kimber
+1 on that one.
My Bush Rifle or at least in my mind a Scout Rifle
Attachment 60495Attachment 60496Attachment 60497Attachment 60498
That would be awesome in the dense suplejack :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Just bought another 6.5CM reason being short powder stack so it doesn't mind short barrels. THinking I'll cut it to 17" and DPT can it.
Hey tikka, do you mind if I ask how much that rebarrelling set you back? What was involved? I've got a 223 browning xbolt and I'm trying to decide whether to rebarrel or sell and buy a ruger ranch rifle. The ruger is very cheap in comparison but just doesn't look to be as nice of a rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by tikka
If the browning xbolt is stainless it would be the better gun to rebarrel ( easier to keep clean ). I've shot a few rugers ranch rifles in 308,7mm-08,223 they are ok but don't feel right for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by fetchfire
I think it was $1100 to make a 1:7 300blk, tread both ends of barrel, swap out barrels and fit the ODL suppressor easy as that. I also had the bolt half cock safety done too. Top workmanship from Hardyrifle engineering.
I wanted to flute and paint but ran out of funds.
Parker hale deluxe 303 with a leupold 2-7x33
Dedicated bush gun would be a 94 Winchester with or without a low power scope mind you the good old Enfield was used for long enough
