Flattest Shooting?

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned those Lazzaroni missles yet. The Weatherby's mentioned are flat shooting, burn a ton of powder and are just grossly overbored for most applications. I had a.300 Wby at one time and that cured me of wanting another one or anything similar. I'm not recoil sensative in the least, it was the damn muzzle blast that I hated, just rediculous.

As suggested earlier, buy something that you can manage and shoot comfortably. 98% of all shooters or hunters don't take game at extreme ranges and its just not practical or advisable. It can be done yes but its not very easy nor do I feel its very sporting to do so. Unless you are highly trained and disciplined, your chances of wounding and not recovering an animal are much greater than a clean kill.

Watching shows like Long Range Pursuits you see these shots made and more power to the guys that can do it, I'm not one of them. I'm not knocking them in any way but they're using custom rifles, high end optics, spotters, ranging equipment, PDA and wind devices and have a full understanding of the ballistics and characteristics of their guns. Add in ammo loaded to exacting tolerances and huge amounts of range time and it doesn't become a feasable exercise for the average person.
 
Of your two choices I would go with .270 WIN. I think the flattest shooting round making a blanket statement is the .260.
 
I like a bit of long range shooting (mostly Varminting or paper punching F-Class 1000yards, Bench Rest 600yards) but if i am hunting IMHO theres nothing like getting up close and personal to my quarry (I also like a bit of Bow Hunting). Anyone can shot from afar but not everyone can really Hunt.
 
El Matadurr,

I agree with the 270 supporters, but you can get just about as much performance from a 260 and have a good bit less recoil. Personally, I'm a 270 guy. And just about any small store in the middle of nowhere that carries ammo will carry 270 ammo. Not so with the 260. And you'll have many more choices in rifles (new or used and cheap to superexpensive) that are chambered in 270. And if you want to get another real flurry of replies going, now ask which rifle you should buy. And then...the scope question...
 
Look at the 257 weatherby mag.
Click to expand...

One of the flattest shooting guns I can think of off the top of my head would be the 257 Weatherby, not including wildcat cartridges.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale
i think at one time the 257 wby would have held the title but now with the .30-378 and the 7mm stw, rem 7mm and 30 ultra mags and the warbirds the title would have to go to one of them.

The 257wby shoots much flatter than the 7mm rem.
Click to expand...

Yep, the .257 Weatherby Magnum is plenty "flat" shooting. I have one but because you posed the caveat "...if whatever caliber you all recommend is wwwwaaaaayyyy too expensive, then I probably won't be able to afford to shoot it much...", I will have to concede that all Weatherby ammunition is plenty pricey and will never be featured as a "Blue Light Special" at your local K-Mart.
The "flattest" affordable and readily available cartridge might well be the 7mm Remington Magnum.
And welcome to The Firing Line!
 
The 264 Win Mag. is very flat shooting, but after about 1,000 rounds you will have throat erosion. The 280 Ackely Improved is flat shooting, but hard to find in a production gun, unless you want to pay for a Nosler.

The 270 as mentioned is an excellant choice, as is the 25:06, and the 6mm Rem.

I am near the end of the trail, but if I were starting over I'd pick an accurate, quality rifle that I could shoot comfortably. Do your homework so that you won't be sorry, and think carefully what your goals for that gun will be and go for it. It should last you a lifetime.
 
I have both a .270 Win and .243 Win and using "point-blank" computer software, set at no more than 3" (higher or lower) than point of aim, the .270 handloads allow me to be within that 6" window out to 320 yards without holdover/under.

The .243 set up allows the 6" window out to about 300 yards. Both are handloads with special bullets, but you can see that they have very similar trajectories using certain bullet configurations and mass.

The big difference is that the .270 loads are for 130 grain bullets and the .243 loads are for 85 grain bullets.

The .243 isn't considered to have adequate energy for elk. The .270 is okay, but 150 grain bullets may be best for elk in that cartridge. Premium bullets may help on elk, as well.

I hope this isn't confusing to you.
 
You want flat shooting? How about a .220 swift? I'm sure with that much velocity you would want to use a solid bullet but you would do massive amounts of hydrostatic shock to a deer.
 
I'd like to suggest the .270WIN. Widely considered to be a "flat shooting" cartridge. Factory ammo is available pretty much anywhere you can buy ammo, in a wide variety from 100gr Remington Express to 150gr premium loads.
You're covered from varmints to elk with this cartridge. :)
If you reload, you have everything from 90gr to 160gr available to you.
Recoil is reasonably light in the right gun. A good recoil pad such as the Decelerator can help if need be. I put one on my Tikka T3 Lite and it made the gun much more pleasant to spend a day at the range with.

This is what I chose when I got back into firearms after about a 18 year hiatus.
 
Okay cool

Seems like the .270 is turning out to be the best all around caliber, I had suspected as much, was just wanting to get some other opinions on the matter. Neato!
 
Now StrongSideArmsInc, the 6.5mm bullets, what calibers are they in, how expensive do they run, how much better is the ballistic coefficient than other rounds, and would they be a good idea for a guy like me? because 408 sounds like a big and expensive caliber! haha
Click to expand...

260 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5x.284, 6.5 PPC

Did you know that a 6.5 Grendel has less velocity and enegy at the barrel then a .308 win. After 300 yards though, the 6.5 Grendel will out penetrate and bust ballistic glass over the 308 win.

See, when using high B.C. bullets, they don't bleed off energy, they retain it. Most 6.5 rounds will not go subsonic untill 1200 yards. Also with the high B.C.s, they will not move in the wind as easy as others.

More long range shooters use 6.5 & 7mm bullets because the dopes are easier to calculate and shooting at unknown distances tend to work better because of less drop.

Remember that ballistics can be decieving when looking at power at the muzzle. Be sure to check FT LBS on cailbers and compare them after 500 yards. I think you will be surprised to find that alot 6.5s and 7mm rounds tend to be more powerful at longer ranges.
 
StrongSideArms

ahh good point. by the way, how do you quote somebody in the forums? dumb question I know, but I can't figure it out.
 
Things like the .260 are enticing, but be prepared to consider handloading/reloading.
Click to expand...

^^^ What he said.

Berger 6.5 mm BC = .58
Sierra .277 (.270) BC = .48

I digress, the 6.5 does have about the best BC. 6.8 (.270) isn't anything to sneeze at, though. 6.5 is awesome if you're doing some serious long range shooting (translation, you compete at bench matches or need to hit a coyote at 800 yards), either at the range or for hunting. The only 6.5 caliber that would be cost effective (that is, cost effective to me. You may be different) is the 6.5 grendel. Wolf gold can be had for a tad under a buck a round, but I wouldn't swear on the accuracy of wolf gold.
 
To quote someone in the forums just click on the little icon that looks like a dialogue box from a newspaper cartoon. Put the text between the two blocks and there you go.
 
Try these bullets in 6.5mm
139 grain Lapua Scenar B/C 0.615 S/D 0.285
140 grain Berger VLD B/C 0.595 S/D 0.287
142grain Sierra Match King B/C 0.595 S/D 0.291

The 260rem (using any of the above bullets) will shoot flatter and have less wind drift then a 300wm using high B/C bullets like the 190 grain Sierra Match King. B/C doesn't really come into it until around 300 yards as most modern centerfire calibers shoot pretty flat to that distance. I would only get a 260rem if you are going to handload as theres not much choice of factory ammo. If you want the performance of the 260 rem but with a large choice of factory ammo you may want to look at the 6.5x55, this comes in a long action (so the rifle will be longer, heavier and slower then the short action 260rem) and alot of the ammo is loaded light to suit all the Swedish Mausers. The 260rem really is great for hunting and long range shooting.
 
My hunting buddy got hold of a bunch of 140 Berger VLD's. He found the tolerances for weight to be great. However, when measured he found that they don't care crap about keeping length the same. You could line the bullets up all in a row and see the difference in lengths. The best he could do is measure all of them and group them so as to load all the similar length bullets together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top