the fallacy of long range

[Pathfinder45]

Well, I honestly don't think I would attempt a 200 yard shot at a deer with my current 30-30 that only has open sights. In good light it has been pretty impressive at 165 yards on milk jugs from sitting. I'm thinking I will put a tang aperture sight on it as a new years resolution. I've been running more rounds through it than any other centerfire rifle for the last two years or so; 40 to 60 rounds per session, usually. Mostly 170 grainers, both cast and jacketed. It's an older one from about 1942, so it's not drilled and tapped for a receiver sight. Winchester, of course. I see it as potentially a 200 yard gun at most. Haven't quite arrived at it yet but feel that a sight upgrade will get there.

 

[taylorce1]

Well, I honestly don't think I would attempt a 200 yard shot at a deer with my current 30-30 that only has open sights.

I wouldn't either unless it's a good set of aperture sights. With my current .30-30 I might attempt a 300+ yard shot with 165 grain Hornady LEVERevolution ammunition. Especially now that I switched the old M8 4X Leupold to a 2-7X32 Nikon Monarch UCC. The Remington 788 is a game changer I tell you.

 

[jaysouth]

tayforce

A clean bench is the sign of a really sick mind.LOL

I used to be challenged by 200 yard shots with my 30-30. I finally moved the blind closer to the game trails and am now killing deer at 30 yards.

Not every hunting challenge has to have a ballistic solution.

 

[Scorch]

For every shot fired at a given range, how many more shots must have been fired at a lesser range just as effectively?

Firing long range is a very simple matter: knowing how to make an arc coincide with a straight line. If you know the curve of the arc (trajectory of your round), and you know the distance to your target (line of sight), you can make the two coincide. 45-70s were fired in 1,000 yds matches. Do you remember Adobe Wells? And Tom Horn claimed he could hit a man at over 300 yds any time he wanted to with a 30-30. It's just a matter of knowing the distance and knowing your trajectory.

Will the age humbled .30-30 ever not be in the top ten best sellers?

I was not aware that the 30-30 had ever been humbled, but it will eventually fall out of the top 10 simply because there are not that many rifles chambered for it any more.

The 7X57 was the 1st modern smokeless powder cartridge

Weeeellllll, no. That spot belongs to the 8mm Lebel, or if you want a rimless bottleneck cartridge 7.65X53 Belgian (often called Argentine because of the very high quality rifles used by that nation and later imported to the USA). And the 7X57, while it is a great cartridge (I hunt with one, and have on and off for almost 40 years), is itself derived from the 8X57. Winchester knew it was a great cartridge and acknowledged it with factory loads back in the early 1900s, as well as chambering their first centerfire sporting bolt action rifle (Model 54) for the 7mm Mauser. But yes, you are right, most of the attention attracted by European military cartridges in 1898 had to do with the fact that "that little Spanish rifle" had showed us a few things.

You'd better be spot on with your range estimation and have zero shooter error and a 1 MOA gun

Not at all. Kill zone on a deer is roughly 9" in diameter, that is 4.5 MOA at 200 yds, not exactly benchreat shooting. People were killing deer with frontstuffers at that range years before the 30-30 came around.

 

[Jimro]

All this talk of 200 yards being long range is confusing.

The max point blank range of a 30-30 pushing a 150gr Sierra flat nose bullet at 2,400 fps is 226 yards. That means if you can hold inside a 10" circle (a 5 inch radius) at 226 yards (about 5 MOA) then 226 yards is only where a hunter needs to begin thinking about range. Anything closer than 226 is "point and shoot" as the bullet will hit within 5 inches of point of aim.

High Power shooters shoot standing, unsupported, offhand at 200 yards and the good ones clean the 2 MOA ten ring. The skill doesn't come naturally though, you have to practice, practice, practice to do that. If someone doesn't practice, practice, practice, they probably have no business making their first 200 yard shot of the year on a hunt.

Are there shots that ethical hunters shouldn't take? Yes, but it has to do with the skill level of the hunter and not what the hunter happens to be carrying. You can't buy skill. Can't buy ethics either, but you can get better at both with practice, practice, practice.

Jimro

 

[Kosh75287]

...and must "good enough" be the death of "better"?

Okay, so 99% of the shooting chores one is likely to encounter can be handily seen to by somewhat less than half the cartridges available today...

Does that mean we quit innovating? If yes, why?

A middling shot with a .44-40 carbine can usually anchor edible venison at 100yards. A better shot can probably do so out to 125 yards. A truly fine shot can do it at 150 yards, where the cartridge begins to run out of steam.

A man with a .38-55 (a ballistic improvement over the .44-40, though not a logistical one) stands a better chance of anchoring game at all ranges mentioned, and some distance beyond. It does so at the cost of lower magazine capacity, heavier recoil (twice that of the .44-40 carbine), and (often) a heavier rifle. SORT OF an improvement, depending on if one is hunting near "Indian territory" or any other place where one might find game OR adversaries in the woods, and if one's shoulder is up to twice the recoil each time the trigger is pulled.

Comes then, the .30-30 WCF, which does everything the .38-55 does, though with only slightly more recoil than the .44-40. Improvement in range, trajectory, shootability, plus other attributes that are more prone to interpretation.

Inevitably, demand creates a market for things more often than marketing creates a demand (I'm excluding drugs of abuse from this discussion, so let us not use THOSE as a counter example). There probably was a clear demand for a rifle/cartridge combination that reached further than the .44WCF, hence the .38-55 and many other cartridges. The demand for a cartridge that would do all those things, and not use the shooter's shoulder as a heavy work-out bag probably was out there, also, hence the .30-30.

Should we stop there? I guess we could. But flatter trajectories improve range and the ability to hit. Smaller cartridges afford smaller actions, which can translate to smaller, lighter, more portable arms, not necessarily at the cost of heavier recoil.

Improvement for its own sake may seem unnecessary or too costly in terms of other considerations. But not all shooting situations are the same, so some considerations are greater than others. Additionally, an improvement not exploitable at its invention (due to technological limits or others) may come to the fore later. One need only wait.

Take-home lesson: If you can get more powerful, get more powerful. If you can get lighter, get lighter! If you can extend striking distance, do so! Time may pass before the value of any particular improvement is evident, but usually, it's not a great deal of time.

 

[P-990]

The 30-30 had been obsolete for 3 years before it was introduced in 1895. It was a huge step backwards in cartridge development. The 7X57 was introduced in 1892 and is a much better cartridge in every way. There is almost nothing in use today based on the 30-30 and it owes almost all of its popularity to the cowboy movies of the 1920's-1970's rather than real world performance.

Almost every modern cartridge has borrowed design features from the 7X57. The 30-06 and all of its's offspring are based on the 7X57. And with modern loadings it is still capable of taking any game animal on earth. And most of them at ranges farther than 90% of shooters have any business shooting.

I still don't understand the question. The 7X57 was the 1st modern smokeless powder cartridge and it can still hold it's own with anything made since. The real advances have been in powders and bullets. It is not muzzle velocity that matters. But impact velocity. With todays better bullets and powders a 7X57 will impact at greater speeds down range than a 7mm magnum of 50 years ago. Same if you compare 308 to 300 WM.

Having grown up and lived in New England hill and forest country my whole life, I don't think the popularity of the little Marlin and Winchester lever carbines can be only attributed to cowboy movies. Around here there is little opportunity or need to shoot anything bigger than whitetails or the odd black bear. Ranges are close and most of the sidehills and thickets are steep. A lightweight, compact rifle that handles fast, hits hard enough and is cheap while shooting a cartridge that doesn't cause a lot of bloodshot meat is hardly obsolete.

That said, my grandfather talks of having taken a couple of deer with his old 1903 by shooting through small trees to hit the vitals. There is definitely something to having a little more power than you strictly "need" at times.

As for range estimation and long range shooting, while it causes folks at the range to stop and stare, I don't find it all difficult to keep shots on a 10" plate at 200 yards with my little Marlin 336. And that rifle is zeroed just an inch or 2 high at 100 yards. So no, 200 yards isn't long range and even 300 really isn't long with just about any modern, high intensity bottlenecked rifle round.

(Of course, I long ago learned that the way to win a Highpower match is by shooting well at the 200 yard offhand stage.)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There is no fallacy of long range. There, I said it.

There is fallacy of technology, application, comprehension, and old age, maybe.

 

[Hunter Customs]

Not every hunting challenge has to have a ballistic solution.

Very true; I agree.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

 

[stagpanther]

I too think the OP is a philosophic one.

I don't give it much thought--I also shoot a 45 lb draw wooden primitive bow and high power compound--sorta keeps all the firearms stuff in perspective. It's all the same "connect the target Zen" which keeps us infatuated with shooting : )

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I wish 30-30 was legal for deer in Ohio. I have been considering staring to push to add it to the list of acceptible "carbine" cartridges, but I know some at ODNR are staunchly against both bottle neck cartridges and diameter less than .38.

The 45/70 I have is clearly extreme overkill for Ohio Deer hunting. To the extent I would be very surprised if I use it more than one or two seasons. I will hang on to it though. It could be a lot of fun to shoot out to 400 or so at paper.

There are varying environments across the US and there are forum members from around the world here, but, in Ohio, I think taking more than 200 yard shots is pretty lazy on the hunters part. There simply aren't places in Ohio where one needs to set-up for such a long shot. The deer will almost certainly pass through a location where a shot under 50 yards is possible. I've heard some people say we eat cows because they are so stupid, not because the meat tastes better. I somewhat agree, but I often find myself wondering if deer can possibly be any smarter.

The more time I spend in the field the more I realize being a solid shooter is only a very small part of being a solid hunter. As posted above, at 200 yards you need to make a 5 MOA group off an improvised rest. If you can't shoot that standing offhand you will be a very low outlier in my in the local rifle shoots around me. Unless you are just beginner, best to find a different hobby.

Of course, I acknowledge there are posters here with ten times+ the time I have in the field and one hundred times the number of rounds down range as I. So, what do I know.

 

[cw308]

I'm a benchrest shooter 308 cal. Iong range for Long Island New York is 200 yards, I would go with a 6.5 Creedmoor has the best of two worlds, low recoil and is able to reach out and touch something at long distance.

 

[Regular Joe]

At this point, we've just about exhausted everything that can be made in a metallic

cartridge.
If I were still interested in deer hunting, and wanted a do-all rifle/cartridge, I'd be looking at

something like a Sako action with a 20" barrel in a laminated stock with a 4~12 scope in

7/'08.
Back when I was interested, I put together a Ruger #1 International with a Burris 2~7 scope

in 7x57. Beautiful rifle. I gave it to a little sister, and it was never fired again. Shucks.

 

[JJ45]

Long range..I am mildly irritated, when listening to post season gun shop BS, I here a hunter talk about his "600 yard shot" at a whitetail.

We all know this fact; shooting from the bench and shooting at game at any range is a different ball game.

Jack O'Connor was a hunter of world wide experience, hunting every type of big game in N America as well as game in Africa and Asia. He was also an astute observer of cartridge development. He referred to some gun writers and hunters who "differed so widely from my own experience" as the "hot stove set"

In his own words; "I consider a 300 yard shot a fur piece"...a fur piece means a long way off.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Long range..I am mildly irritated, when listening to post season gun shop BS, I here a hunter talk about his "600 yard shot" at a whitetail.

We all know this fact; shooting from the bench and shooting at game at any range is a different ball game.

Jack O'Connor was a hunter of world wide experience, hunting every type of big game in N America as well as game in Africa and Asia. He was also an astute observer of cartridge development. He referred to some gun writers and hunters who "differed so widely from my own experience" as the "hot stove set"

In his own words; "I consider a 300 yard shot a fur piece"...a fur piece means a long way off.

Okay, because Jack O'Connor says so, some other gun writers don't know what they are talking about and apparently 300 yards is far away, even if Jack can't spell "far."

Part of the reason Jack didn't shoot much over 300 yards is because he wasn't zero'd for distances beyond that. He zero'd for maximum point blank range which and then did not use or like to use ranging or bracketing reticles, just simple reticles. He pretty much felt that a shot should not be taken if the hunter could physically move closer. These aspects are definitely going to taint one's perspective of what is long distance.

LOL, "far" is truly relevant to many factors. Just because some hunter thinks 300 is far (regardless of his own experience) does not mean it is considered far or far enough by others.

 

[tobnpr]

Faster. Flatter. Heavier. More accurate. More this, more that. It's a natural force easy to succomb to. Taken to it's natural progression we lovingly lay our .50 Barrett into our Hummer, fill up a few times to arrive at our destination to take aim at a target silhouetted against the farthest horizon.

Not sure I get the "gist" of the original post.
"Fallacy"? In what way?

Once one has mastered the accuracy of the rifle at shorter distance (say, the common 1oo yard mark), going "longer" really helps to improve one's skill set- and this is applicable to shorter distances as well.

Ever look at a target at 600-1000 yards? See every beat of your heart in the crosshairs moving the point of impact a foot or two? You can't see that at 100 yards. Every point of form- trigger press, respiratory pause, etc.- all become far more magnified and significant at longer ranges. While some might disagree, I'm convinced that shooting long-range, improves my shooting at shorter ranges.

It's also about learning an entirely new skill set- exterior ballistics, wind calls- that are nearly irrelevant at 100 yards unless there's a hurricane blowing.

"Fallacy", I don't think so.

 

[JJ45]

Double Naught, a lot of truth to what you say...I have read a lot of the old gun writers but I generally quit reading gun mags because I felt many gun/outdoor writers were beholden to sponsors and were less than objective...thats not to say they were all like that...

I thought O'Conner was the most honest and if you ever read some of his stories he often did take shots longer than 300 yards even though he considered 300 a long shot.

I got the impression that his writings were objective unlike Elmer Keith. I don't question Elmer's knowledge and experience but kinda got the impression that he was an egoist and braggart...I still find his 600 yard shot on a wounded mule buck with a 4" 44 mag hard to swallow although luck could have played the big factor for that shot.

 

[stagpanther]

Just because I can't--or wouldn't--doesn't mean someone else can't or shouldn't. Bottom line--we only have ourselves to be the ultimate judge of what's appropriate or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJbBA445VVw

 

[JJ45]

stagpanther,

Jeff Cooper's Challenge;

20SHOTS, AT A 20 INCH CIRCLE, IN 20 SECONDS AT 1000 METERS. By an individual with no help from spotters, etc.

Cooper asked the range masters at Camp Pendleton if they thought it could be done and they didn't think it could. Cooper states that the 4 minute mile and walking on the moon was also considered unlikely.

Cooper undertook to propose a perpetual prize in the form of a gold cup or bowl to anyone who could pull it off. Under supervised conditions, of course.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

That 3800 yard shot was in 15+ shots.

Craig Harrison's shots are much more impressive in my mind.

20SHOTS, AT A 20 INCH CIRCLE, IN 20 SECONDS AT 1000 METERS. By an individual with no help from spotters, etc.

You'd have to use a fixed tripod with a mechanical reset and effectively bump fire it. Maybe ten shots in 20 seconds. Has anyone hit that size target 5 times in 5 seconds? Maybe using an electronic firing scope.