Dream rifle for sheep and goats

[AK-49]

HS precision pro hunter light weight in 270 WSM... teflon coated stainless steel inside and out. 1/2 MOA guarantee... Kevlar stock...

http://www.hsprecision.com/new_phl.htm

[Herne]

I'm not so sure.

At that sort of weight in that kind of chambering I'd have thought it would be a most unpleasant thing to fire, difficult to control, and probably not so easy to zero.

[AK-49]

I think the recoil will be noticable on the bench but you can always make accomodations for recoil when shooting off the bench. In a hunting situation I don't think recoil would be an issue. It is a very soild, dependable, lightweight, weatherproof rifle, very accurate, and easy to carry.

[Herne]

I'm sure you are right, but I have a concern with thin lightweight barrels. If made to a quality, which I am sure this one is, they can be very accurate, but rigidity and wandering problems with temperature changes are almost inevitable, and they can be very difficult to zero properly. Ie you get good tight groups, but its a tad difficult to predict exactly where they are going to land. Or you have to wait an age before firing another group, or rounds within a group.

For my money, I'd rather eat a few less hamburgers and lose a couple of pounds, and put those pounds on a gun, to control recoil and muzzle flip, and to gain reliability of zero. Nor of course am I so unfit that I can't hike up a mountain, or walk long distances at high altitude, with an ordinary weight gun. And I am CERTAINLY not going to carry a stainless gun to shine and flash all over the place, especially when chasing animals like antelope (and sheep) which can see well.

Others of course may have a different philosophy, and good luck to them

[AK-49]

The barrel is fluted so I don't think it looses any stiffness, the rifle is stainless through out and is teflon coated so it has a matte finish. You will lose about 100 fps with the 22 inch bbl as compared to a 24 inch bbl.

[Herne]

Of course you lose stiffness in a fluted barrel. Whatever gave you that idea?
You also lose metal which is the heat sink that provides stability with temperature change. You also gain surface area, so with a thin barrel, you are more vulnerable, in a breeze, to lose zero because of barrel bend, or to get climb with a hot barrel because of differential heating caused by the fore-end.

Yes its matt, but its matt silver and its going to glint and be more noticeable than a dull black finish, and IMO these things matter.

Such guns are all very well, but I think it's as well before looking at actually parting money for one, to sum up the plusses and minuses. There are very real minuses.

(All fluting does is provide a stiffer barrel for a given weight, ie you can go lighter for the same stiffness. But diameter for diameter the solid will be stiffer - naturally. Stiffness is important, not just for accuracy, but also to control Fn, and a softer barrel is very often more critical of variations in load. In practical terms, if one is not reloading, that can mean that the barrel will only shoot with a few factory loadings. Not guaranted of course, but possibly. That can be a real pain. I had a 270 BSA - lovely gun. Shot 130s to perfection (as long as it wasn't too hot). I never found a single 150 factory load it would cope with - and by cope with I mean less than a 6" group. )

[AK-49]

http://www.varmintal.com/aflut.htm

The rifle that I am referring to is matte black not matte silver

[Herne]

Far enough, but I still wouldn't go anywhere near it for the reasons given.

Regrettably for gun makers who want to sell us all new, the standard medium weight sporter evolved into its present form of design compromises for a number of reasons, most of them good. Of course, one can deviate from that form to gain a particular advantage, but inevitably you will pay a price elsewhere.

Whether one is prepared to live with those problems is up to the individual.

I'm not. I have had one of these guns with long whippy lightweight barrels, and been closely involved with trying to get a 240Wby Mag to zero (the longer you get the more whippy you get, which is the same effect. ) And a fluted thin barreled stainless 243 Wby Vanguard I think. Absolute nighmares, because however accurate, and we got all three to shoot very well in the end, the process of getting there was just such a PITA. (And this one is going to kick the cr&p out of you on the bench while getting there, and with a tolerably powerful round its going to be slow work!Take lots of coffee and leave the bolt open between rounds.)

So, dream rifle, yes, but a bad one probably, in the long term.

[AK-49]

this rifle has a 22 inch fluted bbl. I know a guy who has one and he is consistently able to shoot 1/2 inch groups at 100 yds. Its an incredible rifle. I havent bought one yet but am intending to. The company guarantees 1/2 MOA 3 shot groups 30 cal and under.

[SeniorCoot]

30-06 in Browning medallion grade wood stock gun-- Arctic coat finish- Leupold 3.5 X 10 40 MM variX111`--I used 150 gr Rem core lokt's for first three Dall's and hand loads for last 3----same rifle/ bullets for my two goats.

[Herne]

I have a dream rifle- its not very exciting. Its a Tikka M695 in 270. Very very accurate, (about 1/2" MOA when I'm up to it - I have done 10mm outside edge to outer edge of the print of 5). Nice reliable straight line feed,drop out 3 round mag, clean ejection, and fits like a glove. Hold zero like a limpet - never moves.

Shot an awful lot of deer with it, of 5 different species - no sheep or goats, but antelope up to the better part of 750 odd lbs. I am happy enough with it out to 400 yards given a sensible position, and I'm rock solid confident out to 350 as long as the xwind is less than 30 odd mph. (All the African stuff was beyond 300, and sometimes well beyond it, and that could be pretty breezy during the day. One shot apiece in the ribs was all they got, or needed).

If I were going hunting goats or sheep, or Ibex, or chamois up in the Alps thats the gun I'd take, because absolutely it will do the job, and I'm so used to it.

As I said, not exciting, but it really really works.

[Bushman]

I would think that the weather and the rocky terrain would be more of a factor when sheep or goat hunting. I do like the looks of nice wood and blued steel, but slide that rifle along some shale rock when you lose your footing or subject it to days of salt air, humidity or perspiration and you might depreciate it some. My ideal would be stainless and synthetic camo painted in some chambering not over a 7mm RM in a rifle not over 7.5# with a good scope. There is a 7# 7mm RM with a 2.5-10x Swarovski in my safe that would fit the bill nicely.

[Herne]

Take your point, but its been dragged though the prickles and coastal rocks after sika and over the flints on my belly and in and around all our Dorset barbed wire and hedges. I accept the vulnerability, but somehow it has manged to come through OK - in the worst cases it stayed in its sleeve on my back till we got close.(Typical Scottish practice)

As for salt spray and rain. Well it gets cleaned and oiled without fail every night on a trip, fired or not, so it has stayed in pretty good nick, and is like to continue to do so! Once a year I go over the wood with an iron and damp cloth and polish up afterwards.

I have never felt the need for stainless, though some do like it.

[Smokey]

I agree with Herne to an extent. With these light barrels I don't believe you know what you are going to get. I have three light weights with the pencil thin barrels. Calibers are .223, 30-06, and 7x57. They all do well for two shots. The third shot walks out 1.5 to 2 inches and a forth or fifth shot is really on the run.

I can handle this as I feel we should not need more than 2 shots. If you miss the first shot your chances of a second are not very good and a third shot is usually a waste.

Recoil on these are not bad as all have recoil pads.

I must say that to get these three took me seven rifles. By that I mean I had four rifles that I got much worse accuracy with. I don't like having to question my first shot.
I won't keep a rifle like this.

[Herne]

Smokey - that's always the pattern, (2 together and one away) and by the time you have got to your 3rd group its all over the place. The only way forwards is to let all cool between every shot, which is OK, so long as you don't mind making a simple zero a 2 day exercise!

With all due respect to those who like that game, not for me at any price.

[Smokey]

Herne - I can't disagree with you. Twenty years ago I would never have tolerated what I call a two shot rifle. Actually these three are still capable of hitting a deer at 100 yards with that third shot.

But at this time in my life I'm much more careful when I shoot at game. I have to think back a long ways when I have had to use a second shot much less a third when shooting big game.

If I had to shoot as I imagine you have where there would be enough game where three or more shots might be available, I would not use these rifles with the light weight
barrels.

By the way since I believe you have a 7x57, people used to give me a rough time about using it for elk. One gentleman in particular who used a 338 Win. He did a lot of shooting with that gun and did not have a lot to show for it. I always felt it was too big for him. After he missed two in one day ,I caught up with him just before we saw an average bull about 150 yards away. I was able to talk him into using my 7x57. That elk dropped to a quartering away shot about three or four seconds after he hit it. Most people don't understand how good that old caliber really is.

[André]

For mountain hunting, not knowing how the weather might evolve, at what distance one will be shooting, my vote goes to my synthetic stocked Blaser R93 in .300 Win Mag. I submitted my choice to the acid test and it came out with flying colours.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/Othello041990/Tyrol2007024.jpg

[Herne]

Nice shot Andre. I don't know enough about chamois to know if its a good one, but whatever, its a fine shot.

Smokey, no I never had a 7x57. 6.5 x 55. But I agree about these big calibres - sorry Andre. If you can handle them fine - but in the main, a much less violent calibre will do the job on much bigger game than expected, if you hit it properly.

As for the wandering groupings - all of these thin barreled jobs seem to play this walkabout game. At shorter ranges I suppose they are good for 3 on a deer sized target. But my issue is how certain you are of the zero, and the time it takes to get a good zero.

You choose the mean point of impact of the 3 to sight on, and damned if you aren't out next shot on a cold barrel. You can argue that it only matters at extreme ranges. Not so - even in the thicks where you can only see a few square inches of your deer and you are shooting through obstructions, at short range, you need to be certain where that shot is going to go, and that you are not going to clip an obstruction and lose a chance.

so for me, if a rifle won't give a good clean zero in fairly short order, it isn't worth owning. Thin barreled guns tend not to , so I am very suspicious of them.

[André]

Thanks Herne. Actually, it's a class I big buck, aged 14 (missed the medal by 1 point). As to calibers, the lightest I presently shoot is a .30-06 -eventually a 7x64 (Roedeer), then the .300 Win (stalking - high seat for Red deer and Wild Boar), up to the 9,3x74R - 9,3x62 for all my drive hunting. I'm a firm believer in putting a big enough hole in the right place to drop them in their steps. One of my worst hunting memories came from a Sweedish moose I drilled through both lungs with a .300 Win. He pretended to ignore it as if I had missed, what I started to believe, seeing him trot about for more than 200 m before dropping dead !?! Next time I go after moose, it will be with a 9,3 or a .338, trust me :o

BTW, have you noticed the (relatively) small exit wound my .300 Win Mag (Sierra 165 GK) made in the Chamois. They're tough critters, the hide feeling as tout as a drum !

[Herne]

Yes, a lot of you gents across the channel like the bigger calibres - but mostly slower ones.

Mostly I believe its about a rifle you have confidence in, and can hit things accurately. I have shot some quite large things with my 270 and they didn't go very far ( but they were hit properly - of that you may be very sure. ;)

This is why I'm against these very thin barreled jobs - I would have extreme difficulty in really believing in the zero. My dear old Tikka, apart form once when the baggage handlers at Dubai did who knows what with the gun case, the rifle has held zero for about 10 years. That I have confidence in - well blind faith actually. Where I aim is where its going to go !

[Sabre]

Yes, a lot of you gents across the channel like the bigger calibres - but mostly slower ones.

Mostly I believe its about a rifle you have confidence in, and can hit things accurately. I have shot some quite large things with my 270 and they didn't go very far ( but they were hit properly - of that you may be very sure. ;)

This is why I'm against these very thin barreled jobs - I would have extreme difficulty in really believing in the zero. My dear old Tikka, apart form once when the baggage handlers at Dubai did who knows what with the gun case, the rifle has held zero for about 10 years. That I have confidence in - well blind faith actually. Where I aim is where its going to go !
My Tikka 595 {.243} is the same. I check it on a target every once in awhile but it never moves. Haven't adjusted the scope one click in the last 9 years. Good rifle.

[SeniorCoot]

Swedish Moose must be tough--I have killed well over 20 AK Moose with 06 and 300 WM-- from 2 yr olds to B&C-- never had one go more than 10 yds and don't remember many going more than 1 step. They are actually easier to drop then say a Bull Elk, IMHO.

[Herne]

The 6.5 was the same. I think with that 595/695 series they really had their act together, because I have never heard of a bad one, and several friends also have them.

Whether the T3 is as good in that respect, I don't know, but it would certainly be a hard act to follow.

[Bushman]

Herne, try as I might I can't find a Sako 595/695 model in my Gun Traders Guide. In fact I can't find any Sako listed with a 6.5x55 chambering. My book is a couple years old and does not show the T3 either and I think that is chambered in the 6.5x55. They were imported into this country by Stoeger Industries and Garcia Corp. until 2000 and Beretta USA 2001 to date. Do you think that the models 595 & 695 were only for Europe? The numbering system in my book starts with the Model 72 from 1972 and after the Model 73, 74, 75 and 78 they start listing the Classic, Deluxe, Finnbear, Finnfire, Finnsport, Forester, Sporter Deluxe, Safari, TRG-S... Is there another model designation for the Model 595 or 695 that you know of? I'd like to see what they look like. When do you think that they were manufactured?

[Sabre]

The Tikka model 595/695 {short and long action versions of the same rifle} were imported into the USA by stoeger. I bought my blued/walnut 595 brand new in 2000. Beretta immediately stopped importation of the 595/695 and replaced it in the U.S. market with the inferior, cheaper to produce T-3. In the US the 595/695 were marketed under the name "whitetail hunter".

[Bushman]

Thanks Sabre, there is my problem. I thought that it was a Sako and it is a Tikka. According to my book Tikka rifles are being made my Sako, but they are listed separately. I do see that Tikka Whitetail Hunter model manufactured 1991 to date which was 2004, the last copyright of my Gun Traders Guide. It does not list the 6.5x55 as a chambering though.

[Herne]

Tikka and Sako were made in the same factory by different companies- or maybe same company with 2 different design teams. anyway, they were very closely related, and some Tikka spares like purpose built scope rings come with Sako written all over them! Then they both got taken over by Beretta, as Sabre rightly says.

I know the Sako is made in 6.5x55.

My Tikka book of words lists the following calibres, part nos for the following calibres.

It lists hte ollowing models Master/Whitetail hunter. Master Battue, Master continental 24" and 262, Master Deluxe and Master Trapper. However the 270s book of words list all those under the forename Popular. But seemingly the same models, because the part nos are the same as is the calibre list.

595/short action 17rem, 222, 223 22-250 243 win 308.

695 long action 25-06 6.5x55, 270w, 7x64, 30-06 9.3x62.

685 mag 7rem 300win 338win

[Bushman]

Herne, we would never see the 7x64 or the 9.3x62 in our chamberings in this country and even the 6.5x55, good as it is, would be rare. I guess the current line of thinking is that the .260 will do everything that the 6.5x55 will do and in a shorter length action.

[Herne]

7x64 is very popular in Europe. They call it the Continental 270, but its very close to a 280Rem.

6.55x55 of course is the old nordic Military round, so its like you and the 06. All the Scandinavians and Danes use it bit time, and its getting very popular in the UK. Belgium France etc have rules about war calibres which excludes it.

Will the 260 do all the Swede will do - its a yes and no thing.

Yes if you are in the US and are limited to one lug Mauser SAAMI loads. No if you are using European full patch loads like Norma Vulkan and Norma Oryx, or if you are handloading from Vihtavouris book . Loaded up like that its a bit of a pocket rocket, and also you have the 160g loads.

So the 260 has, for my money gained its position under false pretences, and that is why it is unlikely to get anywhere outsde the US. Both are good rounds, and I have never been impressed by the short action arguemnt, nor the idea of getting "more" out of a cartridge. I'd rather buy a bigger calibre like a 270.

Still if I were to tackle say elk sized game with a 264 bullet, then I would rather do it from a x55, simply because it is a baby 270. Whereas WGR, the 2600 isn't - it set out to be in a class below. Good as it is, thats where it stands (not that it wouldn't kill bigger game cleanly, but one still has all the problems of pass though and blood trails to consider - perhaps the TSX will lift it).

[Bushman]

Interesting about there actually being restrictions on military cartridges in Belgium and France. I didn't have any feelings one way or another when dad showed up with a 98 Mauser in 8x57 but being Viet Nam era, my hackles go up at the mention of the 7.62x39 and I would not ever own one even as a gift.

The 6.5x55 is way underloaded in this country just because there are so many of those weaker bolt action military rifles chambered for that cartridge. Is there a warning and a disclaimer on the hotter 6.5x55 loads available in the UK? I've got no dog in the 260 verses the 6.5x55 fight. The 6.5 has never been a popular bore size in this country with the 6.5 Remington Mag., the .264 WM and the 6.5x55 all less than popular. I wonder if guys realize that the .260 is actually a 6.5mm? If they would have named it the 6.5-08, I think that would have doomed it? The 7mm is what stole the 6.5's market share over here.

[Herne]

Warning on the hotter loads - I don't believe so. I think you are expected to take such steps as are reasonable to ensure you don't do something stupid.

The do note the maximum (proof) pressure, and I imagine you are expected to read whats on the box.

I fired some 140 Vulcans -and in a reasonably light rifle with no bipod etc, yes they bump a bit. :D

[StringJumper]

Sorry, arrived late to this party.

Dream rifle for sheep? Is there any question? A pre-64 M70 in 270 Winchester.

[Smokey]

I must say the pre-64 and the .270 does go well together. Maybe I was just brain washed by a Mr. Jack O'Connor.

[Twanger]

Are sheep this hard to kill? Are calibers of .270 and above necessary for all shot angles?
Why not a 25-06 or a 257 WBY?

[Herne]

I think I'd prefer to shoot a standard 270 rather than a 257Wby? More user friendly?

[Smokey]

I would think the 25-06 would be fine for goats and sheep with the right bullets.

I also believe the .270 has killed as many sheep and goats as any other cartridge if not more.

[Chuck S]

I'd opt for my Mannlicher in 30-06 or my BLR in 308. Both are short, handy, and light as they tip the scales at about 8.5 lbs when ready for the field with cartridges, sling and scope. Add to that a 180 gn well made bullet for the 06 or the same in 165 gn for the 308 and that's my choice. Likely choose Barnes Triple X for the pills. Both also have iron sights for the weather that often nixes scope use at altitude.

Reasons: goats have heavy coats and when wet make quite a slab of fur to penetrate. Add to that the max weight of 300 lbs of heavy, working muscle, tendons and bone or more for any of this group and the fact that you prefer them to drop and not run or chance a fall/roll/tumble into a thousand foot alpine ravine and it's best to anchor them right where they stand.

With the tricky and strong winds, 300 yds is the max with a rock solid rest and good wind data and with scopes these rifles are fine. Better shots will be in that 200-250 yd category or even less so super flat shooting isn't as important as horsepower.

[SeniorCoot]

Don't need 180's in 06-- don't know about 308--don't use them- I have shot all my ,sheep(60 and two goats with my 06 using 150's-sheep and 165's goats- as for weather and scope- that's why I have scope covers- I don't feel confident shooting iron at Usual sheep or goat distances.

[Wismon]

6.55x55 of course is the old nordic Military round, so its like you and the 06. All the Scandinavians and Danes use it bit time, and its getting very popular in the UK. Belgium France etc have rules about war calibres which excludes it.

Will the 260 do all the Swede will do - its a yes and no thing.

Yes if you are in the US and are limited to one lug Mauser SAAMI loads. No if you are using European full patch loads like Norma Vulkan and Norma Oryx, or if you are handloading from Vihtavouris book . Loaded up like that its a bit of a pocket rocket, and also you have the 160g loads.

So the 260 has, for my money gained its position under false pretences, and that is why it is unlikely to get anywhere outsde the US. Both are good rounds, and I have never been impressed by the short action arguemnt, nor the idea of getting "more" out of a cartridge. I'd rather buy a bigger calibre like a 270.

Still if I were to tackle say elk sized game with a 264 bullet, then I would rather do it from a x55, simply because it is a baby 270. Whereas WGR, the 2600 isn't - it set out to be in a class below. Good as it is, thats where it stands (not that it wouldn't kill bigger game cleanly, but one still has all the problems of pass though and blood trails to consider - perhaps the TSX will lift it).

Absolutely spot on, in my opinion.

[Wismon]

Don't need 180's in 06-- don't know about 308--don't use them- I have shot all my ,sheep(60 and two goats with my 06 using 150's-sheep and 165's goats- as for weather and scope- that's why I have scope covers- I don't feel confident shooting iron at Usual sheep or goat distances.

SeniorCoot, did I read that right? You've shot 60 sheep and two goats?!

If so I can't say I'm not envious.

[Hi Ball]

Dream Rifle for sheep? How about a custom built 6.5 on a .300 Win mag case gents! This certainly would have the velocity and the sectional density to shoot far down range and penetrate very deep. It would be a no-brainer with those 160 grain bullets going out the barrel.:) :cool:

[GF.]

My complaint with that selection is that I think I would be a bit of a ‘no-brainer’ by the time the recoil of it got through with me ;)

Also, one could object to the fact that the belted mags get you into a different class of rifle, with accompanying weight penalties, no?

I’d guess that a wildcatter could neck the .270 down to 6.5mm and fill the case with either a 140 or 160 grain bullet over a modern rifles & modern steel ratio of a suitable powder and come up with a pretty practical load, but then again, I’d bet there are already several cartridges out there that do the exact same thing, give or take a little in the recoil department.

The 6.5 Creedmore comes to mind, with listed MVs of 3010 (120 gr), 2950 (129 gr) or 2710 with a 140-grain. I don't know how that stacks up to a .264 WM or if there is a shortfatmag in 6.5

But as DaveT pointed out, you’re probably splitting hairs between the Creedmore, the .260 and the Swede in the first place, with the Swede probably less impacted by the higher bullet weights…

[LeeInSC]

I am already asking about this over in the Hunting Rifles forum.
I am trying to decide on a caliber for a Tikka T3 Lite for a sheep and goat rifle.

The 7mm-08 looks good on paper, and I have 2 of them in 20-inch carbines, but when you talk to people who have chronographed their Tikkas, Remingtons and other 22-inch rifles, they are often getting just over 2,650 fps with factory 140-gr ammunition, not the advertised 2,860. That is starting to push me back to the .270 Winchester.

As an aside, I ran across a nice used Steyr Pro Hunter in .260 Rem, camo stock, and a really nice scope on it, for $500.00. Not my cup of tea, but a deal, if anyone is interested.

[Bushman]

Lee, I can't question your logic one bit. Going into 44 replies I'm sure that Jack O'Connor has been brought up a time or two as being quite a sheep hunter back in his day. Jack was a gun guy and even back then he could have been using a big belted magnum or even wildcatted a .308 necked down to 7mm or a P.O. Ackley improved cartridge. But no, he used a box stock standard .270 as his primary sheep rifle cartridge. It recoils less than something bigger, there are lots of loads for it having been around since 1925, it shoots very flat for a non-magnum cartridge and the velocity and ballistics aren't being exaggerated to sell some new offering.

[Wild_Bill_Hiccup]

Are sheep this hard to kill? Are calibers of .270 and above necessary for all shot angles?
Why not a 25-06 or a 257 WBY?

Sheep are indeed tough animals. I'd say that a big Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (ram) is one of the toughest NA animals - pound for pound. I've seen them hit with guns as large a 30-378 Weatherby and still manage to run - but just a little! ;) What many who have never hunted sheep or goats fail to take into consideration, I think, is that if a sheep or even worse, a mountain goat runs just a little... they often will fall off cliffs and break their horns or at times fall down sheer drop-offs with no 'easy' way to retrieve them without hiking miles around and down to the bottom. All that said, I'd hunt them with a .257 WBY with TSX bullets or the like... and shoulder shoot 'em so that they drop on the spot... hopefully!

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh65/wild_bill_hiccup/sheep_email2.jpg

I'd say that any light but accurate rifle from .257 WBY, .270 Win... on up to the .300 or .338 magnums can be an excellent sheep rifle. The romantic side of me likes the M70 in .270 Winchester....

Of course, it all depends on where you'll be hunting your sheep...

[swamp]

I'd get a borden rifle chambered in 300 WSM or perhaps 270 WSM... and use berger bullets

www.bordenrifles.com

[Wild_Bill_Hiccup]

... and use berger bullets.

Just curious... have you hunted with Berger bullets? I've never used them and was just wondering how they actually perform. Hell... I'm so old fashioned that I'm just now starting to warm up -just barely- to those new fangled X-bullets! ;)

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh65/wild_bill_hiccup/DSC00538.jpg

[swamp]

http://reviews.cabelas.com/8815/212372/reviews.htm

no first hand experience....

[Wild_Bill_Hiccup]

Yep, they do get good reviews. I recall talking to one of the outdoor writers about them as well... he was quite fond them too, but at the time had only used them on one or two animals. I'll probably give them a try after I burn up all my old-fashioned stuff. ;)

[LeeInSC]

That is a whopping big ram, Wild Bill.
I would be a lot more comfortable hitting him with a 180-gr out of my .30-06 than with a 7mm-08.
The only goat I killed, with a .30-06 at 100 yards, I was happy the way it made him dead on his feet.
I am talking myself out of the smaller stuff, aren't I? LOL!
I do wish I could get a .280 Remington or 7x64mm in the T3 Lite - a lot more juice with the 160-gr bullets.

[Chuck S]

Senior Coot wrote, “Don't need 180's in 06-- don't know about 308--don't use them- I have shot all my ,sheep(60 and two goats with my 06 using 150's-sheep and 165's goats- as for weather and scope- that's why I have scope covers- I don't feel confident shooting iron at Usual sheep or goat distances. “

I agree that the lighter bullets are adequate and the distance I use iron sights are most generally under 100 yds. From a very solid rest I'm good out to 200 yds. I pick the shot in other words. Other than that I lost the trophy elk of a lifetime due to a scope/covers and a blinding snow storm. Had that rifle, that day, had iron sights I would have got him as the distance was under 50 yds. On the other hand using a BLR which does have iron sights, they saved the day years back in Northern Maine. That bruiser weighed in at close to 300 lbs four days after being shot, field dressed, and qualified me for the Biggest Bucks in Maine club. Shot him at 15 yds in a blinding, very heavy and wet snow. The weather had made the scope useless so I had luckily pulled it off and stuck it in the rear pocket of my jacket. All that said, if I lived in an area such as you must with such game availability, I would likely be a bit more ambivilent about the rifle and caliber. Out here with Pronghorns everywhere, I've used everything from a Crossbow to a 300 Weatherby and most everything in between.

I do note that Wild Bill somewhat agrees with my weapon and load choice and wanted to congratulate him on showing a couple pics of really nice rams.

Wild Bill Hiccup wrote: “Why not a 25-06 or a 257 WBY?Sheep are indeed tough animals. I'd say that a big Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (ram) is one of the toughest NA animals - pound for pound. I've seen them hit with guns as large a 30-378 Weatherby and still manage to run a little - but just a little!

many who have never hunted sheep or goats fail to take into consideration, I think, is that if a sheep or even worse, a mountain goat runs just a little... they often will fall off cliffs and break their horns or at times fall down sheer drop-offs with no 'easy' way to retrieve them without hiking miles around and down to the bottom. All that said, I'd hunt them with a .257 WBY with TSX bullets or the like... and shoulder shoot 'em so that they drop on the spot... hopefully!


As far as stainless, and plastic, I would use them but really do not care for their looks at all. Furthermore for the most part the high dry air one encounters at high altitudes drys things out quickly most generally in all but the worst storms. I've never had call for anything more than wood and blued steel. Were I hunting in the NW, say coastal BC for bear, I might consider going to a more indestructible weapon.

[Hi Ball]

Now in my earlier post I put up a wildcat called the 6.5/300 Win mag! Yep, it is not for the faint of heart but sure will send that bullet quick and far down range. LOL
Now on the realistic side of things, the .270 Winchester has been taking sheep & goats for years in those Rocky Mountains with no side effects to the hunter, not one iota.
I do have a 6.5/06 that would do a great job but so will half dozen other calibers out there today. Now if recoil is a problem at the bench or while hunting even, just spend the $35 dollars for a PAST RECOIL PAD and get over that recoil problem. A recoil pad will make a .338 Win mag feel ilke a .270 Winchester or less........FACT!!!

[LeeInSC]

It seems to me the three big factors are how large a sheep or goat do you plan to shoot, rifle size, and how far is it likely to be?
If a big billy goat is the quarry, then I think more power and heavier bullets might be called for.
If you think the shots are going to be 200 to 300 yards, you want something fairly flat shooting with some wind resistance.

The quick answer is speed and bullet weight, like a .300 magnum, but then the rifle becomes long and heavy.

Jack O'Connor shot for the heart, and his reasoning was that a goat was more narrow side to side, so he liked a fast-opening bullet like the 130-grain .270 Winchester. He, Eleanor, and several of their hunting partners also had great success with the 7x57mm. Both these were in 22-inch rifles weighing 7.5 lbs or less, using lighter fixed-power scopes.

As much sheep and goat talk as there is on the Internet, and articles written, the facts most often omitted are the range, angle of shot, and the specific load (unless it is a gun writer on sponsored hunt). One thing that surprises me are all the expensive, custom or customized built-up rifles on common cartridges, instead of the .284 Win, .280 Remington, 7x64mm, 6.5x57mm - which offer a lot of energy with flat trajectory from 22-inch barrels.

Another factor you never see discussed is ruggedness of the rifle. Some of the really super light rifles have had short lives, like the Kifaru.
The Tikka T3 Lite and Sako A7 are 6 lbs naked, but how does the stock hold up to being dropped?
Since I have heard first-hand reports of some really light McMillan and other high-dollar status stocks cracking, this is a legitimate concern. How stable are the cheaper synthetic stocks in wide swings of temperature?

That's why I keep coming back to buying an old Steyr M Professional with rugged iron sights and QD rings, or building something similar off a cheap platform like a Model 70 Featherweight or Model 700 ADL. The BLR is offered now in a lot of calibers, and comes in a takedown model with iron sights. Save that rifle money and put it into binoculars, spotting scope and the guide. It might weigh 7.5 lbs or 8 lbs instead of 6.5 or 7, but reliability and confidence the ballistics are first with me.

[SeniorCoot]

Dis is getting ridiculous-- most posts from yahoos who have never and never will hunt one or other- not folks who have hunted both several times different places different conditions-

[LeeInSC]

SeniorCoot, I have to disagree. Several people here with lots of experience have answered.
I have only shot one auodad and one mt billy, long ago, with 2 different .30-06s using 150-gr factory ammo. DRT.
But there are more choices today for me, so I am shopping for a light, powerful rifle. I also hunt deer, bear and hogs in the mountains of SC, NC, and sometimes TN. Pretty rugged.

[SeniorCoot]

Six Dall's-2 Mtn goats and several Texas exoctic whatever's- Used my 06 on all- 270 better for sheep(mtn varietirs IMHO and 06 for goats--I took 06 on all as it was my go to weapon and also was hunting in grizz country-so wanted something i could load a 200 or 220 grainer in for them.

[LeeInSC]

SeniorCoot, when I shot my mt goat, the only hunting rifle I had was a well-used Mannlicher carbine in .30-06 with a 4x scope.
I shot the goat offhand at 100 yards, after spotting him at 900 and stalking behind cover from 400.

The auodad I used a Remington 700 ADL with its open sights at about 225 yards from a sitting position. The breaks in the terrain, shrubs, etc provided lots of cover for a stalk. If there had been more other animals around, closing the distance would have been a lot more difficult.

In the open habitat of Marco Polo sheep or Ibex, it might be harder to get closer than 300 yards. I don't know. I do know that at 12,000 to 14,000 feet altitude, I would be wanting a lighter weight rifle than I would in West Texas. All the terrain is different.

Without hunting each species several times, there is no way for me to tell how far to expect to have to shoot. When you read about a hunt, you can't tell if someone is taking long shots because they were as close as anyone could get, or they lacked the ability to stalk inside 200 yards. How good a shape were they in? How determined were they?

The .270 can be set up to shoot very flat to almost 300 yards. Almost any rifle be set to shoot really flat to 200 yards, and there is a lot more power delivered at 200 yards, taking the doubts away from the 7x57 and 7mm-08 that I have beyond 300. Beyond 300 yards, holdover or sight adjustments come into play, so shooting skill and rifle accuracy becomes more important than energy or bullet construction, but energy is important, and the .30-06 and 7x64/.280 with heavier bullets have that in a 22-inch barrel package.

One thing for sure is that you cannot compare published factory ballistics. You have to compare cartridges in actual rifles.

If I thought no shots would be more than 250 yards, a 20-inch carbine in .308 Win or 7mm-08 would suit me fine. I already own 6 of those and use a beaten up .308 in the mountains now because it is so handy, and the barrel doesn't catch on overhanging rocks or tree limbs.

[LeeInSC]

Well, I still haven't bought another "mountain rifle".
I am thinking of these right now:

If I think I might use it on something tough like an Auodad or Mountain Goat at 300 yards, then I have to go .270 Win, .308 with 165-gr, or .30-06. If I think I will mostly carry it in my hands and use it inside 200 yards, I think 7mm-08.

Tikka T3 Light in 7mm-08 or .308 Win --- $475.00, 6 lbs.... Llight, well balanced, tough stock, very accurate out of the box. 22.5-inch barrel

Marlin XL7 or XS7 camo --- $320 with mount. cheap, looks good, feels good, camo, don't worry about scratching it up, same length as the Tikka, 1/2 pound heavier, many seem to shoot sub MOA with the right load. 7mm-08, .308, .270 or .30-06

Remington 700 SPS camo - $475.00 in .270 or .30-06. I already have M-700s. Can swap around stocks and scopes, and have loads that work. Longer, with 24-inch barrel, and heavier, at 7.25 pounds. Easy to add iron sights.

Steyr SBS Prohunter - $700.00. 7x64, .270 or .30-06... I know they will shoot 1/2 to 3/34 MOA all day. Have several older Steyrs. Super strong action. Super safe. Rugged. Weatherproof finish. Longer, with 23.6 inch barrel, and heavier, at 7.5 lbs. Can order them with iron sights for $200 more. Although I could get the 20-inch SBS Mountain with open sights in 7mm-08 at 6.5 lbs.

---- question -----------------------
For those of you who get into climbing over rocks and through trees, and hiking above 8,000 feet, are the longer barresl and more power of the 7x64 and .30-06 a handling nuisance? Or is the 1.5 pound lighter Tikka the ticket?

I may just have to buy one and get started.

[Bushman]

The only time that a longer barrel ever got in my way was climbing trees, not out west where it is more open. My M700 7mm RM still has a 24" barrel despite the fact that the Brown Precision guys who re-contoured it for me wanted to cut it back to at least 22". Even with a 2.5-10x42 30mm Swarovski on it, the rifle still only weighs 7#. There was a lot of weight in that barrel and just the re-contour back to a #1 taper took off 16 ounces. By restocking and doing some metal work on one of your existing rifles, you could probably build a better one than you could buy off the shelf. Carrying my rifle up those mountains, I appreciated the light weight AND the longer barrel and enough cartridge when the time came to shoot.

[LeeInSC]

You definitely need a 24 inch barrel on a 7mm Rem Mag. Yours must be pretty thin, if your rifle only weighs 7 lbs with that scope.
But barrel heating should not be much of a problem, as it is the first shot out of a cold barrel that really counts. I like having a little weight out front on the rifle, to settle it down.

What is that Brown stock made out of? The T3 stock is hollow, with cross-bracing inside, and is injection molded from a high impact plastic, so I think it is going to be more rugged and stiffer than the typical factory plastic stock.

Another thing I learned is that the matte finish on the Steyr Prohunter is not just matte bluing like most rifles. The original ones were manganese phosphate finished, then coated with Tennifer, like a Glock Pistol. The current ones have a proprietary molecular deposition coating like the Remington XCR, only it is black. So the exterior is impervious to the weather. I also found you can order the Steyrs with iron sights. You can order the Tikkas with iron sights, but most dealers just want to sell you what they have, and many don't want to even carry a Tikka or Howa because they take away sales of Remington, Winchester and Browning.

[Bushman]

Lee, hand laid up Kevlar with foam injected to deaden the hollow sound. It is lighter and stiffer than glass would be. I figured that I carried my rifle about 99.9% of the time and when the time did come to shoot it, I was most often on stand or braced off something so I liked the lighter weight. That rifle, which is similar to my 7mm-08, is bead blasted stainless and then overall camo painted.

Injection molded stocks are easier to mass produce, but they are heavier than hand laid up glass or Kevlar. The 7 mag or the 7mm-08 stock both weigh under a pound. Better that I've forgotten what they cost. The 7 mag is free floated so heating and grouping has never been a problem. That 7 mag is probably even a little more accurate than the 7mm-08 which is full length bedded. I climb more trees with the 7mm-08 and I do like the tight bedding to prevent dirt from getting under the barrel.

[LeeInSC]

Bushman,
Not all injection-molded stocks are created equal.
With the research I am doing on the Tikka, Sako A7, and Steyr Prohunters, I think their stocks are tougher than most of the hand laid fiberglass, Kevlar and resin stocks. It would be interesting to drop test all of them. The Tikka and A7 stocks are very light weight, too.

But I wanted to ask about your rifle in relation to your hunt.
What did you shoot, how far, what angle, with what bullet and muzzle velocity?
Did you really need a 7mm Rem Mag, or would a 7mm-08 have done the job?
Would a .280 Remington or 7x64 have done the job?
Would a wood stock have been compromised by the weather, or beaten up by rocks and trees?

[Bushman]

Lee, back in my early days of WI. deer hunting, we had an all day rain and since opening day only comes once a year, I was going to be out there all day long. That year I had a blued steel, wooden stocked .308 that couldn't have been more wet if I had dropped it in the lake. I wiped it down and dried it out as best I could that night, but a week later it was shooting 10" high at 100 yards because the stock warped. I like wood as much as the next guy and have paid a bunch extra to get nicer wood in my shotguns and varmint rifles, but synthetic goes into my serious bolt actions. It is more stable in all kinds of weather, I don't need to coddle it, Kevlar is stronger than wood, it is easier to touch up paint and it is much lighter than wood.

Have I needed a 7mm RM for my shooting? No not really, but when I was building up that first 7mm mag, it was going to be my primary deer and western hunting rifle. The farthest that I have ever shot big game was a bull elk and a deer both out at ~225 yards. I have nothing but 100 yard ranges around here so my thinking was using a cartridge that shot flatter might help make up for my inability to accurately judge distances and even to practice at longer ranges. I know that you are looking at sheep and goats, but I've only hunted elk out west but at altitude up to 12,000 feet which must be about where sheep live too as it is above the tree line. I'm fully functional at the 600 feet where I live, but at 10-12,000, not so much. I'd start out at about three in the morning climbing up a mountain to be up on top at sun up. That rifle was slung and hands and feet were all used to get up some of those steep sections. I could have lugged a 10 pound rifle up there I suppose, but I was really appreciative that it only weighed seven. Every day I would look in my pack and wonder what I could take out to save more weight. I shot two elk with the 160 grain Nosler Partitions and dozens of deer. Then I switched to a 175 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw and that rifle got another elk and another buck with that combination which I liked better than the Nosler Partitions. I built up that 7mm-08 along the same lines only with a 20" match grade barrel and a smaller 1.5-6x42 30mm scope for local deer hunting. I guess that I'd always err on the high side for a cartridge selection for a serious hunt. You can shoot a close animal with a cartridge that can shoot far, but you can't shoot a far animal with a cartridge that shoots close.

A buddy of mine has a .280 and we shot it into some tied together phone books to see how it compared to my 7mm RM. Very similar results and if I had made that 7mm RM into a 280 instead, there probably wouldn't have been the need to build the 7mm-08. That said I tracked an elk a long way down into a canyon that he wounded with that .280 that we never got, so you need to hit them right with anything.

We don't hunt much around rocks, but trees have put some serious scratches in the paint of my rifles when I'm climbing trees with them over my shoulder. I'd be pretty wild if those same kind of scratches happened on my O/U shotgun with the nice wood, but on the painted synthetic they are just battle scars that add a little character.

[LeeInSC]

Bushman, it sounds like your 7mm RM is your do-all rifle, sort of like my Remington BDL SS .30-06 was.
I sold it, thinking I would get an XCR and add sights to it, then bought a vintage Mauser instead. I should have kept the BDL SS.
Now maybe I should just buy something I know shoots, like a Steyr Pro Hunter in .30-06 for my do-all rifle, and a lighter .270 or .308 Win for a clambering around rifle, probably a Tikka T3. At 300 yards and beyond, accuracy matters more than flat trajectory, anyway.

I have two 7mm-08 carbines and love them for woods hunting deer, bear, and hogs.
Advertised velocities in the 7mm-08 are from full-sized rifles. In the real world, I find most are 20 and 22 inch barrels, and don't get those velocities, so forget the claims that they match the .270. It ain't so.

I am wanting another 7x64, but having it in a synthetic stocked rifle would be like doing that to a .35 Whelen.
It needs to be in a classic, richly blued Mauser with nice walnut and iron sights. The 7x64 or .280 Rem are probably about the ideal mix of power and flat trajectory for sheep, goats, mule deer and elk. They come in smaller packages than the 7mm RM, work with 22-inch barrels, and have some really good bullets that they can hurl from a 22 or 24-inch tube, like the 154-gr Hornadys and the Scirocco. Have you tried the 160-gr Sierra Gameking HPBT? It is a very tough bullet and accurate - too tough for deer. Shoots to the same place as the 160-gr SPBT Gameking, which is a softer bullet that will fully expand on a deer at 300 yards.

[Bushman]

Lee, the big 7 WAS my do all rifle until it near kicked me out of the tree stand shooting at an 8 point buck. Good that I cracked him with the first shot, because the scope cracked me in the forehead and there wasn't going to be a second shot. I was wearing a lot of puffy cloths and wasn't holding "Vesuvius" tight enough to my shoulder. That was the day that I decided that a 7mm-08 would be just fine for most of my deer hunting. I know that you like crf Mauser actions and I like them too, but they are heavier than push feed actions if you were thinking of building up a lighter weight mountain rifle.

I gave up handloading years back so I'm saddled with what ever the ammo companies load for me which is a pretty broad selection for that 7mm RM. The 7mm-08 selection was lacking early, but now there are getting to be some better bullets being loaded for it. For my close in deer I don't really need the light magnum peppy loads for that cartridge. If I wanted more zip from a 7mm, I would have just stayed with the 7 mag.

Given the choice between a .280 and a .270 for sheep, I would probably take the .270 because it is factory loaded to a little higher pressure than the .280. You have mentioned iron sights in a couple of posts. Why the fixation with iron sights? For a dangerous game rifle then sure, but I personally have never seen the need and I hunt some pretty tight cover. Some things get better with age, but eyes aren't one of them. Then too if you mount a scope low enough where it should be, those iron sights are sticking up and always in the fov.

That 7x64 looks like a handload only round right from the start and as such, you would really limit the resale value for it in North America when a .280 would do the exact same thing, but have better resale value.

[LeeInSC]

The 7x64mm actually has a wider variety of factory ammunition than the .280 Remington - RWS, Norma, PMC, Sellier & Bellot.
I just have one because I liked the rife it came in. Now I am into handloading for it.

A light carbine in 7mm-08 is unbeatable for a deer rifle, especially in the woods or a tree stand.
A mild load with a 140-gr bullet or a 120-gr ballistic tip is accurate, deadly, and recoil negligible.
A 140-gr at 2500 fps is like a 6.5x55 Swede.
A 120-gr BT at 2,650 FPS is like a .257 Roberts.
What's not to like about that?
I kick myself for not buying one of the limited run Remington Model 7 CDL rifles with iron sights.
A M700 CDL or a Model 70 Featherweight in 7mm-08 with a 4x Leupold is probably in my near future.

I like iron sights because I have used them all my life. I get more fun out of shooting something with iron sights, I guess because I used to be so good at it, and with age, it becomes a challenge sometimes. Also, scopes break, and a sturdy set of iron sights will do the job. I am not into shooting in bad light, so I don't yearn for honking big scopes to shoot at the last minute of sunset. I like the look of iron sights on a rifle, too. Got to have them on any older Mauser, Winchester or 1903 sporter. But I can abide a slick barrel on a modern synthetic piece of machinery like a Tikka T3, Steyr Pro Hunter, or Remington 700 XCR. Putting the scope in QD rings and a red dot in QD rings works as the modern replacement for iron sights.

Anyway, back to this rifle - I am leaning towards a .270 Steyr Pro Hunter I found pretty cheap, because my other .270s are good about shooting different bullet weights to the same center, just higher or lower at long range. That is a good thing for a long range hunting rifle - makes it very versatile.

[LeeInSC]

As usually happens, after all this armchair analysis, a like-new Steyr .30-06 with synthetic stock dropped into my lap for under $700, so I could not pass it up. Now, I am still considering the Tikka T3, but the Sako A7 for some reason is selling for less than the T3. So one of those in .270 Win or .308 Win is now what I am going after. Have to get the Steyr scoped and see how it shoots with my 150, 165 and 180-gr loads, then back to the lighter rifle.

[swamp]

Lee, you might conside a cooper rifle... they are extremely accurate rifles.... and they now make a repeater.... http://www.cooperfirearms.com/

[LeeInSC]

swamp,
The Cooper rifles are very nice looking, and reports from owners are that they shoot well.
But I already have nice, walnut-stocked rifles that shoot well, and only weigh 8 ounces more than a Cooper. I need lightweight, weatherproof rifles that I can carry on foot for 12 hours straight, or haul in a canoe, through freezing rain, and snow for 7 to 10 days, and not have to worry about the point of aim changing when I have to make a 250 or 300 yard shot on 5 seconds notice.

[Twanger]

Just thinking out loud... seems that sheep and goats are not all that big, are shot at longer distances, and things like the 7mm-08 and .270 are perhaps a bit larger (and slower) than necessary. Instead of 120-150 grain bullets going 2500 fps with little fuss, or >3000 fps with lots of fuss, how about a smaller caliber with a good sectional density that get a bullet going around 3200 fps, like the 6mm Remington. Hornady loads this in a 95gr bullet.

[LeeInSC]

Would you choose a .243 or 6mm Remington to hunt big mule deer, knowing the likely shot would be between 200 and 350 yards? Not me. I used to own a 6mm Rem (6x57mm) B78 - great rifle for coyotes, ground hogs, smaller deer (less than 150 lbs).

A bighorn sheep, Auodad, or Mt Goat might weigh 300 lbs. The goat is a lot tougher than the bighorn. So is the Auodad. I have only shot 1 Mt Goat and 1 Auodad, both with a .30-06. It killed them in their tracks, which is what you want, but I did not feel over gunned. You might as well count on wind, too.

A .270 with 130-gr bullet will run as fast and as flat as a .243 with a 95-gr bullet. I think the reason Jack O'Connor and others were so keen on the .270 is that, in the day before laser range finders, bullet drop reticles, and 4-12X scopes, they had to judge the range and make the shot, often in a matter of seconds. The .270 can be set up with the 130, 140 or even the 150-gr bullets, to only have about 2.5 inches rise above line of sight, and 5 inches below, out to 300 yards. That makes up for a lot of range estimation error, as long as you can hold it tight.

A 7x64 or .280 Rem will shoot almost as flat as the .270, with more energy at 300 yards, using a heavier bullet. To me, they are the ideal compromise of flat trajectory, downrange energy, low wind drift, tough bullets, reasonable recoil, and in a lighter, smaller package than the magnums.

Give up a little flatness in trajectory, and the .308 will do the job.
Get back most of the flatness at the cost of more recoil, and the .30-06 will do the job.

Another factor is that, at really high altitudes, the thin air lets your rifle shoot a lot flatter.
A .308 or a 7mm-08 shoots like one of their bit brothers at 10,000 feet.

[dave-t.]

I read a lot of O'Connor, and he sighted his .270/130grn in 'x on' at 250-275yds, and was about 4" high around 150yrds. He tried for a true point blank sight in and hold for 350yrds.

[LeeInSC]

Jack O'Connor was a very good rifle shot. He hunted a lot with the .270 and knew its trajectory. He was a good judge of distance, and he hunted sheep enough to know, for a given species and location, at what range he was likely to have his first good shot at an undisturbed big ram.

What worked for Jack O'Connor on his hunts would not work for someone with less skill.

My philosophy is that, if you are most likely to have a 250 or 300 yard shot, then sight your rifle in for that range. It is easier to judge and adjust 4 inches down at 150 yards, than it is to judge and adjust 12 inches up at 300 yards, especially under hunting conditions where you may not have a range finder, or the time, or air not full of rain or snow.

If you sight in your rifle at 200 yards, the .308 with the right 150-gr and the .30-06 with 165-gr bullets only drop 1 inch more than a .270 with a 130-gr bullet at 300 yards, and 2 inches more at 400 yards. What the .270 can do is you can find a sweet spot for it with a longer zero that gives you practically a dead-on hold out to 325 yards, so you don't have to quickly judge if that goat is 250 or 350 yards away. And it does it without the recoil of a hot .30-06 load with a 165-gr at over 2,900 fps or a 180-gr at over 2,800 fps.

But if you are not a good shot at 400 yards, you shouldn't be taking 300 yard shots under less-than-very-good conditions. Sight in for 200 yards and don't take shots beyond 225. The closer you get, the less muzzle energy you need on any game, anyway.

[stephan]

Jack was a gun guy and even back then he could have been using a big belted magnum or even wildcatted a .308 necked down to 7mm or a P.O. Ackley improved cartridge. But no, he used a box stock standard .270 as his primary sheep rifle cartridge...

[8mmrem]

Here is my answer to an Alaskan Sheep Hunting Rifle. Its a Browning A Bolt in 8mm Remington Mag. Took a 39 in Dall at 450 yards on the move 180 grain nosler B tip. Its been lightened and tuned. The reason for the 8mm is i felt a bit uncomfortable running across griz at 20 yards with my 270.