Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
And for the 3rd or 4th time, the OP is not talking about shooting deer at 1000 yards.
Folks really ought to read more than just the title of the thread.
what is the most accurate 1000 yard deer caliber
- Thread starter rdavidsonjr
- Start date
- Status
And for the 3rd or 4th time, the OP is not talking about shooting deer at 1000 yards.
Folks really ought to read more than just the title of the thread.
There is no 1,000 yard deer cartridge for responsible, humane sportsmen.
If the OP was wanting to know about accurate 1,000 yard target shooting cartridges, that's what the title of the post should convey.
There ARE folks out there that will read the title to this thread and get all excited about 1,000 yard deer hunting. - And entirely too much of that kind of irresponsible stupidity is going around, these days.
It should not be encouraged.
If the OP was wanting to know about accurate 1,000 yard target shooting cartridges, that's what the title of the post should convey.
There ARE folks out there that will read the title to this thread and get all excited about 1,000 yard deer hunting. - And entirely too much of that kind of irresponsible stupidity is going around, these days.
It should not be encouraged.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Right, because there aren't threads here every day, titled "Question?...."
That totally conveys the OP's point, doesn't it?
The title of the thread conveys a deer caliber that can reach 1000 yards accurately, not *necessarily* a caliber that can shoot deer at 1000 yards, that's an ASSUMPTION by the reader. An assumption, by the way, that would be corrected by READING the thread.
Why is it the OP's obligation to make sure his title conveys the entire content of his question so no one has to bother to even read the thread but the responder has no obligation to ACTUALLY READ what he's responding to?
Again,
That totally conveys the OP's point, doesn't it?
The title of the thread conveys a deer caliber that can reach 1000 yards accurately, not *necessarily* a caliber that can shoot deer at 1000 yards, that's an ASSUMPTION by the reader. An assumption, by the way, that would be corrected by READING the thread.
Why is it the OP's obligation to make sure his title conveys the entire content of his question so no one has to bother to even read the thread but the responder has no obligation to ACTUALLY READ what he's responding to?
Again,
A rifle that is MOA at 1000 yards is WAY more than is needed for any game hunting, especially deer inside 400 yards.
Is there is difference between a $1000 rifle and a $4000 rifle? Yes, but there are few who can, or will, or even know how to take advantage of that difference. Most deer hunters pop a $100 scope on and have a combination of parallax and mechanical return (stock issues) inconsistencies that will keep those rigs at 1 MOA or worse even from a mechanical rest. A decent piece of glass and a solid stock added to most factory Remingtons, Weatherby's, Howas, Tikkas, Savages, Rugers will produce a sub MOA gun out to 400 yards. When you pass 400 yards, most factory rifles with the slower twists will start to leave 1 MOA and open up. Sure, there are now options of faster twist factory barrels and those can maintain 1 MOA further out. Long range matches have been won with $2K rigs and factory ammo over $10K rigs with carefully made handloads. There are many people who have a Remington 700 SPS AAC-SD with a $400 stock and $1000 glass getting 1/2 MOA out to at least 600 yards. It is probably the cheapest LR build you can get. If Remington would dump that crappy Hogue and put it in a stock with a mini-chassis, they would sell better to a small segment, but the $400 price increase would reduce their overall sales. So that $60 stock is actually a good deal for those who will dump it for a real stock.
The biggest difference between the $1k and the $4k rifle, besides the fact that they wear better glass, is in specific features. Usually bottom metal at $300 or so, some sort of chassis at $1K or so, scope rails with MOA built in and high grade mounts at $400 or so, and chambers cut with custom reamers to get the most out of heavier bullets, so $600 or so barrels. The most important part is the chassis system. With the ability to adjust the fit for different positions, it allows the shooter to be more consistent, keep the NPA the same, etc. and this results in better accuracy. IF you fired every round from a rack grade hunting rifle the exact same way with the exact same eye position and shooter to rifle interface, you would get a significant increase in accuracy.
Also realize that many of the best long range tactical shooters are running glass in the $3K to $10K range. They have more in their optic than I have in a whole rig. But I don't really want a 3 pound scope on a hunting rig either.
The average deer hunter probably has a 1 MOA capable barreled action. But they probably have 1-2 MOA added due to stock and optics and 3-4 MOA added due to their shooting technique. That leaves us at 5-7 MOA, which is what the average deer hunter prints at 100 yards.
MarkCO, it doesn't take hardware in the high price range your mention to shoot at the same accuracy level as those in that high price level you mention. But most folks think that's what they need thanks to the marketing hype of folks making and selling it.
Best accuracy attained these days is no better than it was decades ago with much cheaper hardware based on what a dollar would by then compared to now.
Best accuracy attained these days is no better than it was decades ago with much cheaper hardware based on what a dollar would by then compared to now.
rdavidsonjr
New member
Again I apologize for the ignorance of expression. The original thread was title to stimulate exactly the kind of debate that has gone on for over 40 posts . The reason it was so titled was to encompass both ideas in the short title. It has been fruitful in education and I will add more later as I have been given a little more education last night by my Marine Corp son. Thanks for all the education so far! Debate is good because from that improved ideas are generated. I will try to keep titles less confusing from now on.
MarkCO said:
Yes the question was rhetorical. My point was and is as Bart eludes to it is much more shooter based than people seem to think. 1/2 MOA is 1/2 MOA regardless of price, it doesn't subsequently change because one group is shot by a superior platform than the other. This is besides the fact though because for distance shooting we are and always will be the weakest link in the chain. There are few on this earth that can truly shoot the difference between a properly trued/barreled 700 and a custom action.
Bart, I agree with you, however...
Old days, we had wood stocks, and most were properly inletted. These plastic stocks just don't have the mechanical RTZ. I've taken inexpensive actions out of cheap plastic stocks and put them back in a decent wood stock, or a quality fiberglass stock and seen groups go from 2 MOA to under 1 MOA. $60 stocks of today are nowhere near as good as the wood stocks of 20+ years ago.
Parallax on these cheap scopes is also awful. I have old $100 Redfields on actions in old wood stocks that print sub-MOA. You can't go buy a $500 rifle in a plastic stock and stick a BSA on it and expect to print sub-MOA. Take the EXACT same action with a decent scope and a decent stock and you can be sub-MOA.
Trust me, I have never owned an optic that sells for more than $900, nor a $1500 action, nor a $1500 stock. No need.
The comment on the $2K rig beating the $10K rig, that was the point, it is more often the shooter, and not the gear. There will always be that guy that loses, and blames his gear, then spends more coin to get better gear, and still gets beat. I subscribe to the adage of a case of ammo is better than better gear. I wore out a .223 barrel, then a .308 barrel learning before I ever went to the .260.
Old days, we had wood stocks, and most were properly inletted. These plastic stocks just don't have the mechanical RTZ. I've taken inexpensive actions out of cheap plastic stocks and put them back in a decent wood stock, or a quality fiberglass stock and seen groups go from 2 MOA to under 1 MOA. $60 stocks of today are nowhere near as good as the wood stocks of 20+ years ago.
Parallax on these cheap scopes is also awful. I have old $100 Redfields on actions in old wood stocks that print sub-MOA. You can't go buy a $500 rifle in a plastic stock and stick a BSA on it and expect to print sub-MOA. Take the EXACT same action with a decent scope and a decent stock and you can be sub-MOA.
Trust me, I have never owned an optic that sells for more than $900, nor a $1500 action, nor a $1500 stock. No need.
The comment on the $2K rig beating the $10K rig, that was the point, it is more often the shooter, and not the gear. There will always be that guy that loses, and blames his gear, then spends more coin to get better gear, and still gets beat. I subscribe to the adage of a case of ammo is better than better gear. I wore out a .223 barrel, then a .308 barrel learning before I ever went to the .260.
Saltydog235
New member
Then why title is with the caveat of being the most accurate 1000yd deer caliber? You raise a whole host of differing opinions of what the best deer caliber is, the best chambering, what is too small, too larger, etc. Why not just say what is the best overall long range caliber to reach a 1000yds? There are a plethora that will reach 1000yds, in fact most all of them. Some however are impractical in hunting avenues either too big or too small. And seriously what's the point a asking about a "deer caliber's" 1000yd attributes if one isn't going to use it at 1000yds.
I don't know the OP, maybe he would take a 1000yd shot on a deer. Hopefully not, but there are all types of people out there that get their jollies trying to be "snipers" these days. Then there are those that watch shows like "Long Range Hunting" and say hey I can do that. While I applaud those fellows shooting skills and equipment, it takes a ton of practice to be that proficient. A 1000yds is a right far poke to make on a hunting situation, therefore, I answer none of them. I'd rather promote responsibility that hypotheticals.
Totally different answer and question if it was asked which makes the best 1000yd caliber to ring steel and punch paper.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
If you READ the thread, the OP is asking about a cartridge that is good to 1,000 yards and ALSO a good deer cartridge. NOTHING says he's shooting deer at 1000 yards. That's an ASSUMPTION from the title, which is clarified in...
The second sentence in the OP:
Then, just 7 posts later:
Then, just 11 posts later, another member once again clarifies the intent (which was already obvious):
Then, just 5 posts later, even though the OP WASN'T really unclear, he reiterates:
There isn't the slightest confusion for anyone who took the time to read as far as the second sentence of the OP, say nothing of at least 3 clarifications in the next 25 posts.
Saltydog235
New member
Well, good to know limitations are realized by the OP. Glad you're on top of the clarification moderation as well.
Baba Louie
New member
Couple years back I sold one of my old long barreled M96 Swedes (1909 CG) to a youngster. He came by last week and bought my 38 and told me he was now hitting steel consistently (8 out of 10) at 960 yds using open sights... so I'd say that type of rifle using that round (6.5x55) might fit the bill, unless of course you don't trust 104 year old rifles... 
rdavidsonjr
New member
Correction : Best 1000 yard rifle
For further clarification-the only reason I used the term DEER in the original post was to make clear that I was talking about any round that was between 243 and 308 at killing deer size game. I didn't won't to include anything below 243 or above 308 due to recoil . I don't posses the skills I suppose to get all that into one line. Again I apologize for my ignorance if that helps. Thanks for the input from all it has been enlightening and I welcome all input because that makes it more interesting.
For further clarification-the only reason I used the term DEER in the original post was to make clear that I was talking about any round that was between 243 and 308 at killing deer size game. I didn't won't to include anything below 243 or above 308 due to recoil . I don't posses the skills I suppose to get all that into one line. Again I apologize for my ignorance if that helps. Thanks for the input from all it has been enlightening and I welcome all input because that makes it more interesting.
Time of flight is an important consideration as is retained energy. Low BC plays heck on some of the faster MV calibers once you get past 300 yards. So BC and MV considered = a 264 win mag. So now after thinking about it I have no idea why this is not the ideal 1000 yard rifle, that could also be a deer rifle. Note: I sold one because I just didn't like it.
tahunua001
New member
lots of things come into play but one of the biggest factors is the ballistic coefficient of the bullets used. right now the two best ballistic coefficient calibers are 6.5mm(.264) and 7mm(.284). so in that regard I would be willing to guess that a 260rem using a 120gr bullet or 7mm-08 would offer the tightest groups.
HOWEVER!!!
I am willing to wager that 99% of all hunters couldn't even hit a deer at 1000 yards, no less hit the kill zone and if if could the bullet would be travelling too slow to do anything. many of the higher BC bullets require 1600 FPS velocity to open reliably there are very few calibers that still have that speed at 1000 yards. there is also the "energy equation" it is commonly accepted that you need at least 1000 FTLBs of energy to cleanly take an animal, now I have killed deer with a 3rd of that energy so I know that's not really an accurate requirement but I do think that to be on the safe side for deer you should probably try to have at least 500FTLBs which again, many calibers can not muster at 1000 yards...
HOWEVER!!!
I am willing to wager that 99% of all hunters couldn't even hit a deer at 1000 yards, no less hit the kill zone and if if could the bullet would be travelling too slow to do anything. many of the higher BC bullets require 1600 FPS velocity to open reliably there are very few calibers that still have that speed at 1000 yards. there is also the "energy equation" it is commonly accepted that you need at least 1000 FTLBs of energy to cleanly take an animal, now I have killed deer with a 3rd of that energy so I know that's not really an accurate requirement but I do think that to be on the safe side for deer you should probably try to have at least 500FTLBs which again, many calibers can not muster at 1000 yards...
Saltydog235
New member
Should have gotten you to write my response to the thread. Pretty much what I was getting at all along.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Holy crap. It's freaking epidemic.
tahunua001
New member
I take a shot everytime someone asks a question about a good black bear gun and someone says the word "grizzly". I get schnockered every time.
EDIT:
now that I have glanced over the last few and first few posts of this thread...
1. ok I understand what you are getting at now, you wanted to keep within the realm of standard deer hunting calibers but not really for the use of deer hunting per say.
2. there is an edit post function here, a simple edit could have instantly steered this boat back on path.
3. there are several terms that many of us use that define the use of a rifle. a sniper rifle normally isn't used on deer nor is a deer rifle used by the military to remove enemy targets from long range. "deer caliber" implies a round that is going to be used for DEER, not paper, not steel, but a herbivorous, quadroped. I now understand what you are after but your terminology is the reason this thread keeps rounding the same corner.
EDIT:
now that I have glanced over the last few and first few posts of this thread...
1. ok I understand what you are getting at now, you wanted to keep within the realm of standard deer hunting calibers but not really for the use of deer hunting per say.
2. there is an edit post function here, a simple edit could have instantly steered this boat back on path.
3. there are several terms that many of us use that define the use of a rifle. a sniper rifle normally isn't used on deer nor is a deer rifle used by the military to remove enemy targets from long range. "deer caliber" implies a round that is going to be used for DEER, not paper, not steel, but a herbivorous, quadroped. I now understand what you are after but your terminology is the reason this thread keeps rounding the same corner.
Last edited:
- Status