No answer...

[hdwhit]

Model12Win wrote:
Surprised this thread doesn't have tons of pictures of your beautiful rifles!

I don't have any beautiful rifles.

If you've seen an AR, you know what mine look like. Seen an M-1 Carbine? Well, then you know what my 5.7mm Johnson carbine looks like, too. You get the idea. It's all utilitarian stuff that everyone has seen a million times before. Even the gun that fires a wildcat cartridge (the 5.7mm Johnson) is an example of banality.

 

[Picher]

I was at the range last week and, after posting some 200 yard, 1" groups, using Bonded BT, 140 grain, moose handloads in my .270 Win, customized Rem 700 CDL stainless fluted, I stood up and hit the 12" 200 meter gong, 4 out of 5 times offhand, no sling.

It was quite pleasing, since I'm 73 years old and haven't shot offhand much this year.

 

[ARqueen15]

It is hard to say but there are some videos online of people shooting various calibers at very long distance and the rounds in question are shown easily going through a large plywood board. Does that mean they'd kill you or game? Well we do have minimum energy calculators for hunting that aren't new. And of course there are cases of stray rounds at outdoor ranges with no topside barriers having actually killed people at quite a long distance.

So maybe it is more apt to say that we know a given round *can* make a hit to at least a given range.

 

[Husqvarna]

Yes, flatter shooting rounds and sufficient velocity for expansion are more efficient, but that doesn't mean less efficient rounds won't work, it means the shooter has to work harder..

or they can work harder and get closer to the animal...

and why should we work harder and give the animals less margin?
especially when it comes to a kill? don't we have an obligation to give them a quick clean death?

anything could kill with perfect shotplacement

but it is much much better to have a expanding bullet when it is not perfect
especially if you only wound the game, more blood to track

 

[Scorch]

I see posts on gun forums asking what is the maximum range for this rifle...or this caliber...or this scope.

Rifles have no range, bullets have maximum ranges. Typically in multiples of miles or kilometers. But that's not what the person meant when they asked the question, I suppose.

The effective range of equipment is simple to determine. Can a rifle place rounds in 1-1.5 MOA at the maximum expected range that it will be used at,

This is close to correct, only backwards. The maximum effective range is where the rifle/cartridge combination can consistently hit a specified-sized target, and does not include the shooter in any way (too many variables there). I remember the training film in boot camp, "the M-16A1 can consistently hit a man-sized target at 500 meters", which is about 4 MOA (22" shoulder tip to shoulder tip). If your specification is 1.5 MOA, there are a lot of rifles out there that have a maximum effective range of about 100 yds (in spite of the internet claims of sub-moa performance for individual rifles). Typically, a looser specification of 2-3 MOA will give you a good idea of a hunting rifle's maximum effective range. Funny how that number hasn't changed much in the past 50 years . . .but I digress. We used to laugh at the trite old " as far as you can hit a paper plate, then you're ready", but an 8" plate at 200 yds is about 4 MOA. But since most deer are shot at under 100 yds, it matters little.

If your rifle/ammunition combination can keep all your shots within say 2 MOA, you could hit a deer-sized target out to 500 yds (whether you are capable of shooting that well or not). But beyond 300 yds, trajectory starts to become an issue, and people miss even though the rifle put the bullet where it was aimed. The shooter can be trained, the rifle shoots how it shoots (which is typically better than many shooters). I have seen shooters with sub-MOA rifles flub 100 yds shots on standing animals, but that's not the rifle's fault.

Scopes do not alter the maximum effective range of the rifle, they are a device to aid the shooter. I shot thousands of rounds of ammo across-the-course with iron sights. Did fairly well, if I say so myself. Nowadays, my vision is nowhere near what it was 40 years ago, so I use a scope. The rifle doesn't need a scope, I need a scope.

So, a long-winded way to agree with SP, there is no answer to the question of "what's my rifle's/cartridge's/scope's maximum range?" If it is a modern cartridge with a fair quality barrel and a good scope on it, most shooters could expect to be able to hit a game animal sized target at 200 yds. Beyond that, it gets complicated.

 

[TXAZ]

Scorch noted:

Rifles have no range, bullets have maximum ranges.

Actually rifles do have a maximum range. There's a maximum 'incipient explosion' pressure a rifle can handle. Take that pressure times the area of the projectile = the force applied to the projectile.... That and the barrel length determine the muzzle velocity, with a little physics, determines the max range of that rifle.

 

[briandg]

The ability to hit a 22"wide target means nothing unless that shooter is capable of laser like accuracy. Kind of ridiculous even for procurement thinking.

Yes, that was the idea. With a rifle capable of 1 MOA, the right shooter can drop a 300 ultramag round into a goat's gizzards at 500 yards or farther, and imo, you've pushed that beyond the mechanical limits already. With a twelve X scope, even the best, visibility is limited.

So out at that range on a critter with a kill zone of eight to twelve inches, your one MOA rifle can only get you within five inches, and that leaves the shooter with the responsibility to calculate and fire that round to within maybe two inches either way. Who can fire a hunting round to a four inch tolerance at 500 yards? Anyone who makes a good eight inch kill zone shot like that under hunting conditions did it through luck.

The way I see it is that most modern rifles of good manufacturers are already mechanically ready to make 300-400 yard kill shots. It's unfortunate that any shot past 2-300 yards is pretty much a "hail Mary" and we are not all the equal of Bret Favre.

 

[Scorch]

Rifles have no range, bullets have maximum ranges.
Actually rifles do have a maximum range. There's a maximum 'incipient explosion' pressure a rifle can handle. Take that pressure times the area of the projectile = the force applied to the projectile.... That and the barrel length determine the muzzle velocity, with a little physics, determines the max range of that rifle.

No. As per your statement, the rifle does not have range, the projectile has range.

That and the barrel length determine the muzzle velocity,

Yes! The muzzle velocity of the projectile! The rifle moves very little during this whole event.

Do not confuse what is moving downrange.

 

[briandg]

Picky.

 

[Picher]

I'd have to say that the only way to determine the answer is for that shooter to test himself in various positions, at various distances on paper plates. Then, throw in an excitement factor, a fatigue factor, a temperature factor, and distance error judgement factor. In short, I'd say "about 150 yards" is a decent high-probability shot, but only after proving ability to hit a paper plate about every shot from that position, out to 200 yards at the range.

Beyond 200 yards the 180 grain '06 round drops pretty fast, so errors in range estimating become critical.

Size of the animal's kill zone is a huge factor, I'm thinking deer-sized game.

 

[kraigwy]

I like to figure my own Maximum range for a given rifle/caliber.

I use a ballistic calulater and after putting the correct data, such as velocity, bullet BC, weather, etc. etc. I end up with a table. At a point the bullet becomes sub-sonic. I use that range for the maximum for that given rifle and bullet.

Of course thats for poking holes in paper or hitting gongs. For hunting the maximum range would be shorter. Each hunting bullet needs a minimum velocity to work as intended.

When I select a bullet, I call the manufacturer and ask them. For example Berger recommends 1800 fps for their VLD Hunting bullets. So if I'm using their bullet, I set my max. range at the 1800 fps point.

Having said that, that doesnt mean I hunt at that range. For example with my 6.5 CM load, that would be about 800 yards. I've never saw the need to shoot at an animal at that range, but I'm the limiting factor there, not the bullet or rifle.

You can do the same with other bullets but the remaining velocity may be different. Personally I like the Hornaday Bullets for hunting. Doesnt mean they are the only bullets but they are just my favorite


I do know, from this years antelope hunting, my load worked quite well at 641 yards. Judging buy the exit hole, that same bullet would work effectively on elk at 600 or so yards.

One just needs to understand that there is a difference between maximum range and maximum effective range.