338 lapua, 308 winchester, 6.8?

[44 AMP]

I think a 22 then a 6.5cm are an excellent place to start gun wise,

I think going from .22 cal to 6.5cm is too big a jump...

6.5mm is a good bore size, good BC bullets, with quite a few good choices commonly available. 6.8mm (.27 cal) has a lot fewer bullet choices available. Some very good, and well proven bullets, just not as large a selection as 6.5mm or .30 cal. Likewise, the .338 also doesn't have a very wide range of bullet selections compared to .30, either.

I put my vote on the .308, simply because it is more than adequate, and the range of loads offered makes it the most versatile of those under discussion.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by deadcoyote

So color me old as well. I was at a local charity function two weeks ago for cattle ranchers and there was a week long summer camp for teens where they said it was $850 for the weeks training but after the summer camp your teen could shoot deer at 1000 yards. I’m not trying to kick off some internet argument but this whole trend is pretty far out to me.

Shooting 1000 yds is different from hunting game at 1000 yds. I see nothing wrong with learning how to make hits on a steel target at 1000 yds, it'll only make you better at shooting shorter ranges as well.

I won't get into ethics of shooting game at long range, that's something that is hunter dependent. I will say that hunting in timber vs. a mountain meadow or open plains is different. These differences of terrain make what is perceived as longer than normal hunting ranges a different perspective by different hunters.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I think going from .22 cal to 6.5cm is too big a jump...

6.5mm is a good bore size, good BC bullets, with quite a few good choices commonly available. 6.8mm (.27 cal) has a lot fewer bullet choices available. Some very good, and well proven bullets, just not as large a selection as 6.5mm or .30 cal. Likewise, the .338 also doesn't have a very wide range of bullet selections compared to .30, either.

I put my vote on the .308, simply because it is more than adequate, and the range of loads offered makes it the most versatile of those under discussion.

In my limited experience 6.5cm is a softer shooter thsn 308 buy a reasonable bit.

And every gun store i have been in within the last year or 2 has had a a good selection of 6 5cm ammo available, in some cases more than 308.

[44 AMP]

In my limited experience 6.5cm is a softer shooter thsn 308 buy a reasonable bit.

And every gun store i have been in within the last year or 2 has had a a good selection of 6 5cm ammo available, in some cases more than 308.

Sorry, you missed my point, which was to poke a little fun at what I thought was a typo, the use of cm (centimeters) when you should have said mm (milimeters)

Repeating it, using cm instead of mm makes me wonder if it is something put in by an autocorrect, or if you didn't actually realize the mistake.

6.5cm = 65mm = 2.559 inches.

[Pumpkin]

Ten or so years ago I would have said to start with a 243 after a good hunting class of course. I was fortunate to have my father teach me about shooting and hunting.
Seems times are changing faster than I am keeping up, the excellent .257” bullet diameter is almost completely ignored today so the 6.5 CM makes a lot of sense.
The 7mm-08 might be okay if you hand loaded and started with some lighter loads, recoil wise, it’s hard for me to tell the difference between the 7-08 and 308.
I have two 308’s, one is a Winchester M70 Lightweight (my favorite hunting rifle) and the other a Savage 10 heavy barrel.
One is a evil little bugger to shoot and the other is a lamb, like a 223.
If I were going with a 308 for my one deer rifle, I would suggest traditional sporter wt. rifle similar to a 700 BDL.

[44 AMP]

My apologies if I confused CM (meaning Creedmore) with cm (meaning centimeter) Since I am not a Creedmore shooter, it didn't occur to me that CM could stand for something other than the metric system.

[Shadow9mm]

No worries a 6.5cm would be a VERY big jump, lol. I have seen Creedmoor abbreviated as "CM" so many times I guess I just picked it up. Every time I use metric its in MM for 3d printing, didn't even think of of "cm" as centimeters.

My apologies for the confusion.

[44 AMP]

One of my other hobbies is military history, particularly WWII equipment and arms. One of the things you run across and learn is the general designations different nations use for calibers of arms. And one also learns to recognize when different authors use the origin nations designations, or convert them to something in more common use in the target reader's society.

During WWII, arms were named by approximate bore size, in either the English or metric system, generally some nations used only metric sizes, some used both (the US) and then, there's the British system which used both inches then went to pounds for cannons (based on projectile weight) until you got into naval guns of about 6" or larger, where they went back to inches.

Germany used cm (centimeters) for everything 20mm and up, and also wrote in their style, which uses a comma, where we use a period. For example, the famous German 88mm gun is listed in German texts as 8,8cm not 88mm.

Also, the term "caliber" has a couple of different meanings, when you go above the size of small arms. When looking at artillery, caliber can be both the bore size, and the length of the gun barrel, in bore diameters.

The US Navy uses both defintions, our famous 16" battleship guns are referred to by the Navy as 16" 50 caliber rifles.

So with decades of seeing both mm and cm used describing bore sizes, and not being overly familiar with every single "internet" abbreviation created in recent years, particularly when there isn't clear context, I assumed CM was referring to centimeters, and for that error, I apologize.

Machts nichts, my bad, all good bro....

[Pumpkin]

44 AMP,
I have always been very interested in WWII aircraft.
What has always bugged me is how our 50BMG is disparaged as being so inferior to the various 20 and 30mm cannons.
What almost always gets ignored is the MV and trajectory advantage the 50 had over the lower velocity cannons.
I feel this was a big deal as far as distance for engagement.
Please feel free to move this post to a different category if needed.

[JasoninSD]

Matthew,

Lot's of good advice and an interesting tangent in this thread.

If you don't have a lot of experience, starting with a .22 is a good idea. You can also put a good scope on the .22 that can later be used on the center-fire rifle. This will allow you to develop good trigger control, sight picture, etc. The .22 allows for cheap and plentiful practice.

Moving on to a big game rifle, the 6.5 CM, 308 Winchester, 7mm/08 will all be fine for deer and elk with the right bullets. If you can find a good mentor to teach you some of the ins and outs of deer hunting it will certainly be most helpful. You can probably find YouTube videos of how to field dress a deer or bone an elk, but if you have someone there with you for the first time, it will save a lot of aggravation.

Best of luck on your journey.

Jason

[stagpanther]

If you don't have a lot of experience, starting with a .22 is a good idea. You can also put a good scope on the .22 that can later be used on the center-fire rifle. This will allow you to develop good trigger control, sight picture, etc. The .22 allows for cheap and plentiful practice.

I second that--and will even add that, speaking for myself anyway, you can never outgrow the usefulness of 22lr practice.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I second that--and will even add that, speaking for myself anyway, you can never outgrow the usefulness of 22lr practice.

I third that. It is a good tool for training reading the wind. I do that by shooting soda can at 150yd in moderate wind. It is equivalent to hitting torso size target out 500yd with center fired.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Jim Watson]

Anecdote alert:
Friend 1 armed his wife with a 7mm 08. He said later she would have been more comfortable with a .260, this before the 6.5 Creedmoor came out and overtook so many existing cartridges.

Friend 2 took several successful deer hunters to his acreage with surveyed but not marked target stands. They were all pretty well out of gas by 300 meters. I know people who report longer shots on game. I wonder how many misses they don't mention.

[Pumpkin]

Or ,very unfortunately, possible wounded game.

[Paul B.]

I took my first deer at age 11 with my Great grandfather's M94 Winchester 30-30 made in 1911. The year was 1948. Since then being a sort of rifle loony, I've taken deer with the 30-30, .308, .270 Win, 30-06 and God only knows what else.

I mentioned that because personally I think either the .308 or 30-06 would be a very good choice for a serious big game rifle. I'm a believe that one should get as close as possible before taking the shot. I' not a fan of long range shots so only have three way out yonder shots to claim. One on an elk at 350 yard, a deer at 426 paces and anther elk at 530 yards. I wasn't worried at the 359 yard elk but the deer had been hit by my shooting partner and was running away. I took the shot with my .308 and dropped the deer. The 530 yard elk was taken with a .300 Win. Mag. and I won't go into the three months practice to be able to make that shot but I was at the range at least twice and sometimes three time a week shooting at targets from 100 yards to 500 meters on the club's silhouette rang from various position and not off the bench. The area I'd drawn for elk was known for having to take longer range shots, thus all that practice. The 350 yard elk was shot with a .35 Whelen.
When I think about it, most of my shots on game have been less than 200 yards nd that includes elk.
Paul B.