Id say a Savage in 6.5 Creedmoor. You can take a wide variety of game with that round and it is very accurate. Ammo usually runs 25 a box of 20 for Hornady match grade, hunting loads start at about 27, online of course. You can convert a 308 to 6.5 and vise versa with only a barrel change too. Although i do not own a bolt action in 6.5CM a guy i shoot with frequently has the 11/111 long range hunter and its a tack driver. If you are not set on a bolt action mine is a DPMS LR6.5, and its every bit as accurate but it can be hard to come by and is a beast of a rifle at 14.5 lbs with scope and 19 round mag full.
1000 Yard Rifle
- Thread starter DTHEWOLF1492
- Start date
We really need a sticky for this subject, as it seems to pop up regularly.
Shooting to a 1000 yards is easy. Hitting what you are aiming at is a bit trickier. Lately I've been recommending 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Rem to shooters getting into the long range game, simply because of the plethora of 139 to 142 gr match bullets that do so well from so many different manufacturers (Lapua, Sierra, Hornady, Nosler, Berger, etc).
Jimro
Shooting to a 1000 yards is easy. Hitting what you are aiming at is a bit trickier. Lately I've been recommending 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Rem to shooters getting into the long range game, simply because of the plethora of 139 to 142 gr match bullets that do so well from so many different manufacturers (Lapua, Sierra, Hornady, Nosler, Berger, etc).
Jimro
Tempest 455
New member
Black Hills 175 SMK works great at 1,000 yards as well. If you can find it!
OK, Jimro, your suggestion about this thread's subject be made a sticky gets you awarded the "Best Thread Post" trophy. As soon as someone can find a box (crate?) big enough to pack it in, I'll ask the forum thread judges to send it to you.
Your reference to the 26 caliber rounds use in long range is worthwhile. When really good, accurate US made 26 caliber heavy bullets were finally made by Sierra in the late 1990's, the 6.5x.284 started taking all the marbles; thanks to Mid Tompkins and his family's immediate success with it. It also was pretty much the death knell for the belted magnums for long range prone matches. Too bad it's only got about 700 to 800 rounds of super accurate barrel life. But then winning and record setting race car engines don't last very long either.
Your reference to the 26 caliber rounds use in long range is worthwhile. When really good, accurate US made 26 caliber heavy bullets were finally made by Sierra in the late 1990's, the 6.5x.284 started taking all the marbles; thanks to Mid Tompkins and his family's immediate success with it. It also was pretty much the death knell for the belted magnums for long range prone matches. Too bad it's only got about 700 to 800 rounds of super accurate barrel life. But then winning and record setting race car engines don't last very long either.
Bart B.
I didn't mention the 6.5x284, which I would not recommend to someone looking to get into the long range game. If you were going to deal with the issues of going overbore I'd stick with the 7 WSM or stock 284 Win and use 162 or heavier match bullets, but once again, I wouldn't recommend either to someone getting started.
I specifically mentioned the 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Remington, both of which offer plenty of barrel life for somoeone serious about getting into 1000 yard shooting, both offered in rifles that are good to go from commercial sources (Savage, Rem, etc). Commercial match ammo is available (Hornady for the Creedmoor, Black Hills for the 260 Rem) for those who haven't started handloading (at prices very competitive to 308 GMM).
It seems like every month or so a new member has the same post, "Hi, I'm interested in shooting a thousand yards, what rifle should I get?" One of these days we should just pull all the best answers and make a sticky.
Jimro
I didn't mention the 6.5x284, which I would not recommend to someone looking to get into the long range game. If you were going to deal with the issues of going overbore I'd stick with the 7 WSM or stock 284 Win and use 162 or heavier match bullets, but once again, I wouldn't recommend either to someone getting started.
I specifically mentioned the 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Remington, both of which offer plenty of barrel life for somoeone serious about getting into 1000 yard shooting, both offered in rifles that are good to go from commercial sources (Savage, Rem, etc). Commercial match ammo is available (Hornady for the Creedmoor, Black Hills for the 260 Rem) for those who haven't started handloading (at prices very competitive to 308 GMM).
It seems like every month or so a new member has the same post, "Hi, I'm interested in shooting a thousand yards, what rifle should I get?" One of these days we should just pull all the best answers and make a sticky.
Jimro
DTHEWOLF1492
Inactive
Thanks Jimro and Bart B
I have had a few people mention the 6.5 as an alternative to some of the seemingly more popular calibers. As I will not be hand loading in the near future, should I stick with something less exotic, like the .308 or 300 win mag? Also, I believe that I may have narrowed my manufacturer field down to Tikka, Savage, and Ruger. Tikka is a bit on the high side of my budget, but per your recommendations here, I have found Savage and Ruger rifles that seem extremely cost effective. My only caveat with this is balancing cost and quality. Is the extra 300 dollars for the more expensive rifle money well spent, or better spent for glass? Thanks again!
I have had a few people mention the 6.5 as an alternative to some of the seemingly more popular calibers. As I will not be hand loading in the near future, should I stick with something less exotic, like the .308 or 300 win mag? Also, I believe that I may have narrowed my manufacturer field down to Tikka, Savage, and Ruger. Tikka is a bit on the high side of my budget, but per your recommendations here, I have found Savage and Ruger rifles that seem extremely cost effective. My only caveat with this is balancing cost and quality. Is the extra 300 dollars for the more expensive rifle money well spent, or better spent for glass? Thanks again!
Jimro, the .260 is a good choice and it'll produce 1500 to 2000 rounds of good accuracy. The .308 Win. shoots just as accurate and has about 3000 rounds of accurate barrel life. I'd pick a .308 for a starter that round can be used in the greatest numbers of long range matches and excellent ammo available.
WOLF, get a Savage rifle in a target stock configuration; it'll shoot better than the Tika and a whole big bunch better than any Ruger. Best over the counter rifle made these days if accuracy is important for at least 20 shots which you'll need in long range matches.
WOLF, get a Savage rifle in a target stock configuration; it'll shoot better than the Tika and a whole big bunch better than any Ruger. Best over the counter rifle made these days if accuracy is important for at least 20 shots which you'll need in long range matches.
Bart B.
I'm not sure someone new to the game would notice accuracy degredation from a modest 6.5 like the CM or Rem at 2,000 rounds. Initial reports from the guys shooting the Creedmoors seems to indicate that it isn't unexpected to get 2,500 plus rounds before the barrel starts to open up groups. Based on the operating pressure of the round not being greater than the parent cartridge, I acknowledge that the smaller bore should wear quicker, but how significantly is the question. Not all barrels are created equal, but the modest 6.5s are definitely not barrel burners.
And I agree there is nothing wrong with the 308 as a first rifle getting in to long range. However, for the same price you can get a 6.5 and if you don't handload, the cost of ammo becomes immaterial (the cost of premium long range commercial loads being similar). Estimating 500 more shots for a 308 before a rebarrel on a Savage means you would spend about twice the amount of a barrel on ammo before another barrel change.
Doing the math on the rebarreling costs over the lifetime between a 308 and a 6.5 is an interesting thought experiment. If you bought 15,000 rounds of ammo for your rifle, at 3,000rds/barrel for 308 you need 5 barrels to shoot it all in 308. At 2,500rds/barrel you need 6 barrels to shoot it all in a modest 6.5. When you average out the cost of a premium barrel over that lifespan, say 400 dollars, the "cost" per shot increase for the 6.5 is only 2.6 cents per shot. There is a difference, but the cost is easily absorbed over time.
The other factors that the modest 6.5 have going for them is the lack of milsurp or "crap" ammo that tempts people to plink, reduced recoil over the 308 pushing either a 175 or 155 HPBT. The downside is that if you compete in F class you have to compete in the "open" category. The 308 or 223 are the only two allowed in F/TR.
And while my experience with a Tikka was very positive, I too recommend a Savage as a first long range precision rifle. Get a model with a 26" barrel or longer, a 24" or shorter barrels can quickly become "marginal" at 1k depending on atmospherics near sea level. The Savage Palma rifle is an amazing platform if you have the coin to buy one right away.
Jimro
I'm not sure someone new to the game would notice accuracy degredation from a modest 6.5 like the CM or Rem at 2,000 rounds. Initial reports from the guys shooting the Creedmoors seems to indicate that it isn't unexpected to get 2,500 plus rounds before the barrel starts to open up groups. Based on the operating pressure of the round not being greater than the parent cartridge, I acknowledge that the smaller bore should wear quicker, but how significantly is the question. Not all barrels are created equal, but the modest 6.5s are definitely not barrel burners.
And I agree there is nothing wrong with the 308 as a first rifle getting in to long range. However, for the same price you can get a 6.5 and if you don't handload, the cost of ammo becomes immaterial (the cost of premium long range commercial loads being similar). Estimating 500 more shots for a 308 before a rebarrel on a Savage means you would spend about twice the amount of a barrel on ammo before another barrel change.
Doing the math on the rebarreling costs over the lifetime between a 308 and a 6.5 is an interesting thought experiment. If you bought 15,000 rounds of ammo for your rifle, at 3,000rds/barrel for 308 you need 5 barrels to shoot it all in 308. At 2,500rds/barrel you need 6 barrels to shoot it all in a modest 6.5. When you average out the cost of a premium barrel over that lifespan, say 400 dollars, the "cost" per shot increase for the 6.5 is only 2.6 cents per shot. There is a difference, but the cost is easily absorbed over time.
The other factors that the modest 6.5 have going for them is the lack of milsurp or "crap" ammo that tempts people to plink, reduced recoil over the 308 pushing either a 175 or 155 HPBT. The downside is that if you compete in F class you have to compete in the "open" category. The 308 or 223 are the only two allowed in F/TR.
And while my experience with a Tikka was very positive, I too recommend a Savage as a first long range precision rifle. Get a model with a 26" barrel or longer, a 24" or shorter barrels can quickly become "marginal" at 1k depending on atmospherics near sea level. The Savage Palma rifle is an amazing platform if you have the coin to buy one right away.
Jimro
JMO, but it's really tough to beat a Savage for out-of-the-box accuracy.
Do a search here, you know what they say about opinions...
The .308 is capable, but not optimal, for 1000 yards. The advantage here is the plethora of factory ammunition available- unmatched by any other chambering.
The .300 WM is optimal, but will put a hurting on your wallet, and your shoulder. Most guys at the range I see shooting this, on a rifle not equipped with a brake, are done after 30 or 40 rounds... And, as a beginner, I wouldn't go with anything that heavy on recoil. It will be tough for you to shoot accurately.
Hornady's match ammo for the 6.5 Creed has gotten excellent reviews, FWIW, and is affordable.
There are other options....
My personal LR stick is 7mm.-08. Capable, moderate recoil, and good barrel life.
USA F-Class is shooting 7mm...and there are a number of chamberings in this including the venerable 7mm mag that qualify (but again, the magnum thing...).
Were I you, I might lean towards the .308 due to it's versatiliy, cost to shoot, and availability of factory ammo.
If you go with Savage, it's inexpensive to do a DIY barrel-swap for a different chambering down the road if you get bit by the bug and start to handload- as handloading is pretty much part of the long-range game.
Tempest 455
New member
Would agree there are better choices for 1,000. But to stay on a budget, .308 w/ the right ammo will get it done. My son shoots a box stock Savage in F/TR at 1,000 and we have what I would call a "budget" platform compared to what I see at the matches.
This savage FCP-K in 308 comes in right around $1300 as it sits today
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517846&highlight=savage+fcp+review
Water-Man, my opinion's based on three things;
One's the performance of the Savage company team in competition as well as facts others have reported. Not seen such accolades for the Tikka folks nor company.
The other's this quote from their web site?
Fluting offers added lightness, same rigidity, larger cooling surface
It's physically impossible to make a barrel have more rigidity by fluting it. Some of the metal that resists its bending has been removed. And the larger fluting surface does little to cool the barrel. If the barrel's made and fit properly, cooling it's not needed for shot to shot accuracy as it heats up.
I think Tikka's flunked mechanican enginering and has no knowledge of why barrel cooling's only needed for poorly built firearms. Of course, they may really know all this stuff but are making claims that rifle shooters believing such marlarkey will accept as truth and therefore buy their rifles.
And finally, no really knowledgeable great rifle shot will use a detachable magazine if best accuracy is the goal. Unless he as a few dozen magazines to test and find two or three that enable the rifle to shoot to the same point of aim with each one.
One's the performance of the Savage company team in competition as well as facts others have reported. Not seen such accolades for the Tikka folks nor company.
The other's this quote from their web site?
Fluting offers added lightness, same rigidity, larger cooling surface
It's physically impossible to make a barrel have more rigidity by fluting it. Some of the metal that resists its bending has been removed. And the larger fluting surface does little to cool the barrel. If the barrel's made and fit properly, cooling it's not needed for shot to shot accuracy as it heats up.
I think Tikka's flunked mechanican enginering and has no knowledge of why barrel cooling's only needed for poorly built firearms. Of course, they may really know all this stuff but are making claims that rifle shooters believing such marlarkey will accept as truth and therefore buy their rifles.
And finally, no really knowledgeable great rifle shot will use a detachable magazine if best accuracy is the goal. Unless he as a few dozen magazines to test and find two or three that enable the rifle to shoot to the same point of aim with each one.
Last edited:
Bart B,
It seems obvious to me, based on what the OP has said, that he can't afford and/or does not want to spend the kind of money that a rifle like the Savage Co. Team is shooting. So let's compare a base Savage with a base Tikka for comparison purposes.
I contend that, under those conditions, not only is a Tikka of a better quality but more accurate as well. My belief is based on having had both rifles. Actually, I still have a Tikka T3.
I also seriously doubt that SAKO has flunked mechanical engineering like you infer.
It seems obvious to me, based on what the OP has said, that he can't afford and/or does not want to spend the kind of money that a rifle like the Savage Co. Team is shooting. So let's compare a base Savage with a base Tikka for comparison purposes.
I contend that, under those conditions, not only is a Tikka of a better quality but more accurate as well. My belief is based on having had both rifles. Actually, I still have a Tikka T3.
I also seriously doubt that SAKO has flunked mechanical engineering like you infer.
They really don't say more rigidity they say SAME rigidity . I would agree that removing material should make it less rigid but I would think not by much . I think of it like a I-beam . Is a solid steel beam more rigid , sure but the I beam is still pretty darn rigid for the amount of material there is .
I have never shot a Tikka and would love to shoot one . I here a lot of people say they are the most accurate rifle out of the box . I have 2 Savages and they are very VERY accurate so to say a Tikka is better is to say a lot .
My FCP-K shoots every brand and wight ammo I've put through it pretty good and a few incredibly well . My Ruger American so far only shoots GMM really well not so much with the cheaper non match stuff . When you guys say Tikka is the best out of the box rifle . Are we talking with any factory load or only when you find something it likes . My FCP-K seems to like it all .
God, right you are; less, not same as.
Check out
http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/realbenefitsbarrelfluting.asp
Check out
http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/realbenefitsbarrelfluting.asp
Very cool read there Bart thanks . I'm a little bummed that a fluted barrel of the same diameter as a non-fluted barrel is really just over half as rigid . I would have thought 75% to 85% or to put it another way a fluted barrel would be 15% to 25% less rigid not 40% less rigid wow 
.
.