For long range shooting I believe your magnum calibers are going to provide the best possible muzzle velocities & shoot flatter than their non magnum counter parts. Bullet weight is also play into the results you see. My personal choice for long range shooting would be either a 270 WSM with a 130 grain, or 7mm WSM with a 150 grain...
Just my $0.02

 

Looking at Noslers new long range Accubonds shows the 308 has the edge due to a better BC:

ABLR 7mm 175gr. Spitzer
G1 Ballistic Coefficient 0.672

ABLR 30cal 210gr. Spitzer
G1 Ballistic Coefficient 0.730

http://www.nosler.com/accubond-long-range/

Simply amazing BC's for a bullet.

-DallanC

 

That is amazing. Can you push a 210 out of a .308 fast enough to get the distance with out haveing the trajectory of a morter? I'd thing you have to have one of the mags to get a flat enought trajectory to make it practical but then I'm not qualified to speak of long distance shootning as I think 300yds it a long shot.
I know that a 7mm shoots flatter just from experiance with my dads 7mm vs my 30-06 but they do pound you. I saw my dad take a deer with his 7mm at what we estimated to be about 500yds and he dropped in his tracks. The bullet didn't pass through and he hit it dead on in the heart which was just a mess.
Where's Springville he's got to have an opinion on this one.

 

post like that DallanC are why I appreciate this forum. Never would have known that otherwise.

 

I've been liking the results I've been getting with my 7mm RM Sendero with the 162 A-Max. I'll post up pics later. In a sendero, it's the cushiest 7mm I've ever shot. A heavy barreled .308 is always a dream to shoot. The .308 does excellent, but I'm not sure about the 210 grain pills for that round. I'd imagine there's not a ton of case capacity left with those ( I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the 210's really shined with the 300 WM or 300 RUM). That being said, my FIL has a Rem 700 SPS tactical .308 and it shoots the 168 A Max into one teeny tiny hole at 100 yards.

 

Basically I'm looking for a rifle for deer and elk, that will be ethically accurate once sited in past 500 yards, and be very effective. Would you go with one of these calibers or another?

 

243 of course:

-DallanC

 

I am not recommending one over the other, but have a look at the Buffalo Bore Sniper .308. The projectile is 175 grains. The Ballistic coefficient is 0.496. The muzzle velocity is about 2670 from a 22 inch barrel.

500 yards is a long shot. You are going to need a rangefinder. Suppose you sight the rifle in at 400 yards. It will shot high by about 12.5" at about 215 yards, right on at 400 yards, and 18.7" low at 500 yards. At 500 yards there's not much margin for error in your range estimation, let alone your steadiness of hold.

 

308 or 7mm for elk past 500 yards

Easy 7mm but I think it comes down to the gun over the caliber. If you don't get a good gun it won't shoot those ranges accurate enough to hit anything.

I'd personally go with a .270 wsm or .300 wsm for those dustances and size of game.

 

I have a 308 and what I like about it is the amount of support for the 30 cal round. The 308 is the used round partly to the military use. So you can get all kinds of bdc scopes and a large variety of bullets.
That said I would never attempt a shot that long on an elk. I have shot plenty of coyote at 800 to 1000 with the 308 and I might even try on deer out to 600 or 800 but not an elk.

Mine is a Remington 700 vtr

 

If by .308 you mean anything in that caliber than I would go with a 300wm and the 190 gr or 210 gr LRAB that Dallan mentioned. If you are talking the .308 win vs the 7mm mag than I would go 7mm mag.

 

Completely different topic, but I LOVE my 17HMR. One of the funnest guns I own.


-DallanC

 

500 and past

If the 308 was built to shoot that far it will shoot that far but I think the velocity of the bullet will be slow enough to affect the bullets performance. Meaning it might not expand and just poke a hole through it leaving a longer blood trail and possobly lost elk.

 

If we are just talking about .308 caliber bullets then take a look at the .300 RUM or .30-378 Weatherby. Both of them will get you out well past 500 yards.

 

Any accurate rifle shooting appropritate ammunition in 7MM or 308 will meet the requirements you have listed. I have a relative who shot small group at a 600 yard match last weekend at just under an inch with 4 X's. I have personally killed deer past 600 yards with a 7MM. I have never hunted with a 308 but have one that I love. I have also used the 300RUM, 338 RUM, and 280AI to take deer and elk at the distances you are talking about. Practice and precision are much more important than caliber. Either way you go, make sure you are up to the commitment required to get good enough to take these types of shots and be honest about your ability.-------SS

 

If you want to kill something at that range you have to go with the more powerful and heavier cartridge.

Bullet speed in relation to its weight is what produces kinetic energy. The more kinetic energy at a given distance the better chance of you dropping that animal will be. In my opinion the 7mm is the choice between these two. It's a flatter, faster and heavier bullet hence, more kinetic energy hence, better killing performance.

Now for the million dollar question.... Why do want to kill something that far out? Believe me when I say this.... hitting a target and killing an animal at 500 yards are two completely different things. If you are not trained in long distance shooting (and I am assuming you are not based on your question) you will struggle at best and end up wounding an animal needlessly. There are many things that go into accurate long distance shooting and the round is only one part of many others.

 

I agree with Mad and would add that the caliber is probably the least important thing. I love the long range game, but warn anyone interested that to do it right takes commitment and money. I practice enough to burn out a barrel in a 2-3 years. The right glass will cost a grand, and you have to be a competent handloader as well. With my current work situation, I am not able to practice nearly enough to justify the longer shots at game, so I have currently limited myself to roughly half the distance I used to shoot. There are a million shortcuts out there.....don't take them.-------SS

 

Rifle hunters brag about how long the shot was when they killed their last deer.

Archery hunters brag about how close the shot was when they killed their last deer.

 

A rifle hunt ends where an archery hunt begins.

 

True statement. I hunted the muzzy this year and I got to do a lot more hunting than I am used to. The game would have been over several times if I had been packing a rifle. I really enjoyed this hunt and plan on doing it again. I must admit that I am not used to bucks getting away from me. There is definately a time and place for all methods of hunting.-----SS

 

I do like the muzzy hunt; you get to do a lot more sneaking. But you nailed it; I can't count how many times I've come back to camp and said; "he'd be dead if I had my 06"

 

IMHO and respectfully....I've been a trained LE/MIL long range guy for many years and wouldn't take a shot at a game animal further than 500 yards with my .308 sniper rifle (Rem 700 PSS in a AICS with all the bells and whistles). Reason being, I can get closer, not because of the caliber of the rifle... maybe thats the traditional archer in me, but why go for it? If you want to shoot at things and test your skill, shoot at steel targets way beyond your comfort zone.

 

IMHO and respectfully....I've been a trained LE/MIL long range guy for many years and wouldn't take a shot at a game animal further than 500 yards with my .308 sniper rifle (Rem 700 PSS in a AICS with all the bells and whistles). Reason being, I can get closer, not because of the caliber of the rifle... maybe thats the traditional archer in me, but why go for it? If you want to shoot at things and test your skill, shoot at steel targets way beyond your comfort zone.

Three thumbs up for this post.

 

Don't want to go back and forth with anyone on here but the 7mm is ballistically superior to the .308. Both will do what you are asking, but the 7mm gains the edge on BC, velocity, energy, etc.. If you want a vast amount of information go to longrangehunting.com and use the search function. Also, go to a bdc calculator and type in potential loads and see what you come up with. You need a bullet that weighs about 80gr more in the 308 to compare to 7mm stats. Lots of guys that want to peg 1k use 7mm. Very accurate especially with hand loads. With all that comes the fact that your optics will run as much or more than most guys want to spend on a whole setup. You need a setup than can comfortably/consistently shoot sub-moa at any range to even think about that. Your question really won't be answered until you go to the range. Which one are you going to practice those distances at?

 

Ballistic coefficient has nothing to do with bullet diameter. It simply describes how much drag the projectile has in relation to a hypothetical standard. Typically a longer, heavier, pointy bullet will have less drag than a short, fat, blunt bullet. It is not about the diameter, it is about the shape.

 

Not trying to argue, but the ballistic coefficient does have a lot to do with bullet diameter. Diameter is in the formula to determine the BC. Another part of the formula that the caliber typically effects is mass. A .308 typically is a larger grain bullet and has more mass.

I almost forgot to mention the sectional density, also in the formula; also affected by caliber.

Shape and weight directly affect how the bullet will fly.

 

Also, a hyper sonic bullet will have more drag than a subsonic bullet. Environmental factors have a greater effect on drag than bullet diameter. Altitude, temperature, and barometric pressure affect BC as well.

 

I can build a bullet to fit the model for any ballistic coefficient in any bullet diameter. It is a matter of changing the mass (length) and shape to fit the model.
Sectional density is a relationship between the bullets mass and diameter. It has nothing to do with a bullet's shape, or how well it flies.

 

Sectional density is a relationship between the bullets mass and diameter. It has nothing to do with a bullet's shape, or how well it flies.

How does mass and diameter have nothing to do with a bullets shape???

I still do not believe that every caliber can achieve a BC that is as high as others. You almost make it sound like BC is something he doesn't need to consider when hunting long range? If he doesn't own his own lathe and make his own bullets designed to achieve a certain BC (you said you could make any caliber have a certain BC) then he does need to know which caliber is going to offer the best factory options to achieve his goal of long range hunting.

As I said before I don't want to go back and forth with anyone. I am just curious if your posts states that there is not a caliber that achieves a higher BC than another? Or if it says one can not be ballistically superior to another?

 

The reason we see certain calibers (such as 6.5 mm, 7 mm, .308, and .338) have bullets with higher BC than other similar calibers (such as .257, .277, .323, and .358) is not that the diameters are less capable of attaining a higher BC, they were not commonly used by target shooters. Target shooters competing in long range competition were the driving factor in the development of the very low drag projectiles.
Ballistic coefficient is not dependent on caliber. The caliber of a projectile is a factor that will determine the weight (mass) and size (length) of a projectile of a given BC. There are formulas available that you can use to calculate the BC of any projectile. By changing the constants in the equation to the BC and whatever random caliber you choose, the result will be bullet that may or may not be practical, but it will exist.

 

By changing the constants in the equation to the BC and whatever random caliber you choose, the result will be bullet that may or may not be practical, but it will exist.

This is what has kept me a little close minded in the discussion. I think I mentioned it once above about a practical bullet. One that is realistic. So which caliber has a realistic BC, but also has the velocity to make that BC mean anything.

I like how you highlighted the "all other variables being equal" part. When you increase the sectional density, you increase the length. This will change the shape of the bullet. Resulting in a more streamlined projectile. Resulting in a higher BC.

This whole conversation I have been picturing creating a bullet to fit a certain BC and I keep picturing a shell/bullet combo that looks something like a pencil Trying to get a bullet to fit a formula, but doing so with a restriction on the diameter. That's the problem we run in to. Diameter and length restrictions.

 

I like how you highlighted the "all other variables being equal" part. When you increase the sectional density, you increase the length. This will change the shape of the bullet. Resulting in a more streamlined projectile. Resulting in a higher BC.