On a new note

[chunter_ksu]

Talking guns has me thinking.
Does anyone have a bore sight? I am getting a new scope for the 264 this year and cheap loads are about $1.75 a shell for the 264.

I am not as skilled as my dad and would like have a variable power. Before his eye sight went down hill he was deadly with this gun. Routinely made head shots at 350 and 400 yds with a K4 Weaver fixed scope. When my grandpa got the gun that was the best scope available that was still able to withstand the kick. Now I am really wanting to upgrade. If anyone has one for getting this thing on paper after the first of the year it would really be appreciated. Save some serious dough for me as well.

[Jiggernaut]

I have always just used my Dad's but don't own one myself. The best thing you can do with a Wildcat caliber like that is to start handloading. Loads are cheaper and the accuracy can be really dialed in.

[chunter_ksu]

Hand loading is great but we have a heck of a time keeping brass. After about 2 loads it starts to split really bad. Nothing worse than getting one of these hotdog loads swollen up in the chamber.

I wouldn't be at all oposed to it if I could find some really high quality brass to make it worthwhile. I used to reload my 30-06 and 243 but the wife doesn't really want the press in our 1br apartment

[chunter_ksu]

I guess though i only really need to do a box every 3 or 4 years and it would be okay...

[Jiggernaut]

Well that's true. It's all relative to how many rounds you shoot. Just buck up and buy some ammo for that cannon and go hunting! The novelty and effectiveness of a .264 makes it worthwhile to pay a little extra.

[DEdwards]

I can't wait....shot a little this weekend and Bob is going to put some tacks on my tree while I am away for T-giving so I won't get lost this year!

[Duff]

Sounds like a story we need to hear?

[chunter_ksu]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jiggernaut &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well that's true. It's all relative to how many rounds you shoot. Just buck up and buy some ammo for that cannon and go hunting! The novelty and effectiveness of a .264 makes it worthwhile to pay a little extra. </TD></TR></TABLE>

That is a very good point. More than likely will do that very thing.

[R.D.]

I still have all the stuff my G-pa used for loading .270/.243....not sure if I have a Bore site in there or not but I'll check.

[Jiggernaut]

A good gun shop will bore sight that critter for ya for next to nothing Chris. That's what I would do.

[Hydrilla Gorilla]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Duff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You prefer the short mag over the reglular Bob? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Both are equally great cartridges. I like a lot of punch (the energy expended at impact) and a decent velocity and the .300 fits the bill. There are faster cartridges out there like your standard .270 which boasts a Muzzle Velocity (speed) of 3,050 fps but in my opinion lacks what I call "Punch" the Muzzle Energy in foot pounds which for a 130 grain .270 bullet is 2,685 foot pounds. Now a .300 WSM 180 grain bullet travels at 2,970 fps when it leaves the barrel (still pretty quick) and at impact within 300 yards should pack a wallop of 3,526 foot pounds. Winchester makes a decent bullet for thin skinned game such as the white tail and it expands well and in my experience has put everything I have ever shot with it on the ground in it's tracks. They also make a bullet for thick skinned game such as Elk in the same caliber. The .300 Win Mag in 180 grain travels at 2,960 fps and carries 3,503 foot pounds of energy at impact. According to Winchester's ballistics table the WSM will drop 2 tenths of an inch less than the Win Mag will at 300 yards. I doubt one is that much better than the other. Whats a few feet per second and 20 pounds of energy between friends? Both are great distance guns. Speed shooters will argue the benefits of the short action on the WSM, but in reality the fraction of an inch difference probably isn't noticeable to sportsmen such as us. The benefit I think that we enjoy is that "Punch"

[Duff]

Very insightful Bob. I've looked at the WSM's but never really shot one, but seemed to hear a lot of people talking about them. Hope you get the chance to reach out and punch one this season. If I get the chance I'll put ours on the speedo this weekend and see what our reloads are shooting.

[R.D.]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hydrilla Gorilla &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Both are equally great cartridges. I like a lot of punch (the energy expended at impact) and a decent velocity and the .300 fits the bill. There are faster cartridges out there like your standard .270 which boasts a Muzzle Velocity (speed) of 3,050 fps but in my opinion lacks what I call "Punch" the Muzzle Energy in foot pounds which for a 130 grain .270 bullet is 2,685 foot pounds. Now a .300 WSM 180 grain bullet travels at 2,970 fps when it leaves the barrel (still pretty quick) and at impact within 300 yards should pack a wallop of 3,526 foot pounds. Winchester makes a decent bullet for thin skinned game such as the white tail and it expands well and in my experience has put everything I have ever shot with it on the ground in it's tracks. They also make a bullet for thick skinned game such as Elk in the same caliber. The .300 Win Mag in 180 grain travels at 2,960 fps and carries 3,503 foot pounds of energy at impact. According to Winchester's ballistics table the WSM will drop 2 tenths of an inch less than the Win Mag will at 300 yards. I doubt one is that much better than the other. Whats a few feet per second and 20 pounds of energy between friends? Both are great distance guns. Speed shooters will argue the benefits of the short action on the WSM, but in reality the fraction of an inch difference probably isn't noticeable to sportsmen such as us. The benefit I think that we enjoy is that "Punch" </TD></TR></TABLE>


I see we have a fellow powder horn among us.........I LIKEY .....I have followed Hornady reload specs for years....it is cool how you can look at muzzle V and think it will travel x-yards and stil carry a decent ft'lb...........I have Charts on this stuff and is prett neat stuff.


BOB....have you seen what a .308 Winn mag will do using a match 175 BTSP loaded for 2950 FPS carried at 200 yards?......If I was a deer I would NOT want to have that hit me........the shock alone would stop your heart let alone anything else

I love talking gun loads

[Jiggernaut]

Ballistics is always an interesting subject. I still shoot one of the oldest cartridges out there in my Weatherby --- 30-06. I've dropped elk, antelope, coyotes, fox, and deer with it. Very versatile cartridge and still competes decently with all the fancy new ones out there. Not that the WSM loads don't interest me, I just tend to blow a lot more coin on fishing stuff.

[R.D.]

True....30-06 is very versitile and you can pretty much buy ammo anywhere BUT......no where would you ever think that another gun in a .30 cal could shoot as acurate or powerful as a .308.........even loading a 150g SP with a lighter power pushing 2820 MV....it still carries 2280 MV at 200 yards thats still 80%................plus it will still have over 2600 ftlb at 200y


Why do you think they Snipe with it

[Hydrilla Gorilla]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tritonryan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

BOB....have you seen what a .308 Winn mag will do using a match 175 BTSP loaded for 2950 FPS carried at 200 yards?......If I was a deer I would NOT want to have that hit me........the shock alone would stop your heart let alone anything else

I love talking gun loads </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'll regret saying this I'm sure "Back in the day" I trained on the The original M40 which was a direct adaptation of the Remington 700/40XB match-grade target rifle fitted with a Redfield 3-9x accu-range variable power scope, and chambered to fire the NATO 7.62mm cartridge (.308 Winchester) I have seen a similar demonstration.

[Hydrilla Gorilla]

Ahh to be young again... The M40A1 underwent an upgrade in the late 1990's, and was re-designated the M40A3. The M40A3 is still based on the Remington 700 action, though many of its components are after market (non-Remington), and custom built. The M40A3 retains the same optical sight as was built for and used on the A1, and the new fiberglass stock is adjustable for length of pull and is equipped with an adjustable cheek pad.

[Jiggernaut]

I always thought the .308 military was no better than an ought six. My Pops built himself a custom made .308 Norma Magnum which most of you will have no idea what that is and it will easily outdo a 30-06, but I've always heard the .308 military was decent, but no better than a 30-06.

[R.D.]

I have not know very many who have actually "shot" and 40XB..........while the standard NATA was 7.62mm......wasnt the soviet union or Germany (or someone) still using some of the 5.45mm in some of there stuff.......even though the 7.62 was pretty standard of the time.........I've had some "old timers" tell me the original M40 was "THe" gun to have.....even after the A3 was released......I heard of a few that didnt seem to like the A3.......Your opinion?

I've read some stuff in forums B4 but I've read a lot of B.S. to go with the territory too......just never knew what beleive sometimes......all I know is if you could plant a Marine on a hill and he can hit a target at 600y with NO (or little) adjustments......that has got to be a good feeling.


Has the 7.62mm been replaced with anything else?

[R.D.]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jiggernaut &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I always thought the .308 military was no better than an ought six. My Pops built himself a custom made .308 Norma Magnum which most of you will have no idea what that is and it will easily outdo a 30-06, but I've always heard the .308 military was decent, but no better than a 30-06.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Old stanby.....a lot of people thought that but in reality you could shoot -06 different type of loads and gain nothing.......JMO but I always thought the -06 was a POS but they sold a lot of them.......300 Win would have been better than any -06 but you go to .308 and you have a whoel differnt ball game.

Maybe .338 or something simliar?????