long range rifle/scope advice

[Chickenman]

Guys I am wanting to put together a long range rifle. Leaning towards remington 700 in 7 stw or 7 ultra mag. I am having a difficult time deciding on caliber. I have also considered the 300 ultra.I reload so ammo availibility isn't a problem. And for scopes can someone recommend a great scope that is able to reach super long range without breaking the bank. I would love a nightforce but its just not an option with my budget.

 

[megalomaniac]

hunting or paper punching?

how far is 'long range' to you?

have you shot 'long range' before?

 

[Chickenman]

hunting or paper punching? Mostly paper but would get some hunting use

how far is 'long range' to you? I am wanting to shoot out to 1000 yards.

have you shot 'long range' before? I have lots of experience with 400 yards and under, but I am new to super long range.

 

[chip]

Remington 700 sendero sf II 7MM STW ZEISS Conquest 4.5x14x50 Target Knobs # 20 reticle

 

[Deer Assassin]

Remington 700 sendero sf II 7MM STW ZEISS Conquest 4.5x14x50 Target Knobs # 20 reticle

not bad choice


rem 700 7 saum 7 stw 7 rum

zeiss 6.5-20x50 tactical knobs


leuppy m4 aint bad just prefer zeiss

 

[vonb]

Why a magnum for 1K? If wanting something flat shooting and decent barrel life, check out a .260. It has the similar ballistics to a .300 Win Mag out to 1K without the recoil and extra powder being burnt.

When thinking of calibers, also factor in cost of re-barreling, powder cost, etc.

 

[Hogbear]

I stopped to stretch my legs in Philadelphia on my way to Alabama a few weeks ago and the big pawn/gun shop there had Remington 5R 700's in .308 and .300 mag for about $950. Best price I've seen in a store.

 

[meat hunter]

If you are talking 1000 yds you will have to hold over considerably with the Zeiss Conquests or any other scope with a 1" tube. Going long you really need a 30mm or larger tube so you can just dial up the shot.

Go to Sniper's Hide and read. Then read some more. Literally thousands of guys on there who regularly shoot 1k yds and further. 95% of them shoot 30 caliber rifles.

 

[JimFromTN]

What's your definition of breaking the bank? If you got $1000, which seems to be the assumption, check out the Sightron SIII 6-24x50. They now come with tactical knobs.

 

[jetwrnch]

Get a scope with a first focal plane mil dot reticle.

 

[megalomaniac]

Since you plan on hunting to 1000 yards, I'd opt for the sendero in 300 RUM as the cheapest option. Realistically, it's hard to beat it's terminal performance on game beyond 750 yards with the 200 AB's, 210 Bergers, or even 208 Amax's. Sure it's a little overbore with only a 26"bbl, but certainly more efficient in that length tube than the 7 RUM. My buddy has taken a doe at 755 and another at 930 this year on my farm with his. Of course the 300 RUM will really shine with a 30" bbl, but then you're getting into a custom rig and min of $1500 for the rifle alone.

Again, being realistic, if you really don't think you will ever hunt deer at 1000 yards, and say, 600-700 will be your max, I'd then lean more toward the 7STW in sendero configuration with the 168 Bergers. Not sure the factory twist will stabalize the 180's.

The .260 is a GREAT round for punching paper at long range, I just don't prefer it for live animals as you WILL have to dial in more MOA's for windage and elevation than the big magnums. And retained energy on target is no comparison. I don't worry about bbl life... once I'm done with load workup, drop chart, and windage charts, I usually only shoot a few rounds a year long range with the big guns. Most of my practice for form/technique is done with standard calibers at long range.

Now 500 yard max is a whole new ballgame... at that distance, any good 260, 7-08, or 308 will be hard to beat on deer.

As far as optics go, your best value for the money is the Leupold VXIII 4.5-14x50 LR with standard duplex reticle. Send it back to Leupold to install M1 knobs (at least on elevation- $90). You should be able to find one around $500 used, and I've got a couple I've even found in the $450 range. Heck, the last one I bought even already had a target turret (not quite as nice as the M1, but still quite functional) for elevation and the illuminated reticle and I paid only $560 for it.

You will need a spotting scope if you are really going to hunt at that range (unless you go with a high quality 20 power or greater riflescope). It's difficult, if not impossible to tell the difference between a doe and a 3" spike at 1000 without some serious magnification.

As you alluded to in your initial post, the Nightforce IS a far superior scope for long range hunting. I've got a couple and I can't say anything bad about them except for the weight and the price. With the 8-32x scope on my long range rig, I've no need for a spotting scope. You can usually see buttons on fawns at 600 easy.

Don't forget to get really good rings and bases, especially if you go the mag route. They'll make a world of difference in keeping you from having little issues with zero along the way. Personally, I don't think Badgers can be beat, but you're looking at around $100 for the base and another $140 for the rings.

And of course, knowing the distance exactly is critical. Your basic bushnell rangefinder will be inadequate at that distance. At a minimum, figure around $500 for a leica 1200.

So if you're looking to do it on the cheap...
Figure around $750 for a good used sendero
Another $600 for a VXIII with the knobs (identical to the $1200 Mark IV scope)
Another $150min for rings/bases

So somewhere in the neighborhood of $1500 for a rig to realistically be able to ethically hunt at 1000.

Add another 1000 rounds downrange to ethically be able to shoot (and more importantly realize your limitations and know when NOT to shoot).

So, total you're looking at around $2500 for the bare bones to ethically get in the game.... it's not cheap to do it right. And that doesn't count the seemingly endless hours of your time handloading/ shooting. But it's a TON of fun when you do it right.

Personally, I limit myself to around 750 yards hunting, although I shoot out to 1000. With the right equipment and practice, it's made the 500 yard shots slam-dunk chip shots.

 

[fastbs]

well said megalomaniac

 

[meat hunter]

quote from megalomaniac "Another $600 for a VXIII with the knobs (identical to the $1200 Mark IV scope)"

Not quite. Mark IV's are 30mm tubes and most VX3's are 1"
MarkIV's have considerably better glass than the VX3.

 

[JimFromTN]

I believe the newer VX3's (not VX III) have the same glass as the Mark IV's but I could be wrong and they do have the option of a 30 mm tube.

 

[megalomaniac]

quote from megalomaniac "Another $600 for a VXIII with the knobs (identical to the $1200 Mark IV scope)"

Not quite. Mark IV's are 30mm tubes and most VX3's are 1"
MarkIV's have considerably better glass than the VX3.

Not according to Leupold themselves (the ones that actually manufacture the scope, I would assume they know :) )

The VXIII LR (the scope I mentioned earlier, not the standard 1" tube leupolds which are obviously impractical for long range applications) and the Mark IV are manufactured on the exact same assembly line with the exact same components (housing, tube, lens, lens coatings, etc)... The only difference between the two are purely cosmetic- the gold ring vs the black ring and the M1, M2, or M3 knobs versus the standard short click knobs on the VXIII.

So you can take a VXIII LR, have Leupold customer service install M1 knobs, then take a black sharpie and color the gold ring black if you like... and you've got the exact same scope (but for many hundreds less).

This was true a couple years ago when I discussed this matter with Leupold directly. Perhaps just recently they have upgraded the new Mark IV's over the VX3 LR line, but I doubt it.

 

[mr.big]

I have a Leupold Long Range 4.5-14 with a 30mm tube and 40mm lens on a CZ 527 223 Rem,it has the M1 knobs and the B&C reticle,,it tracks like a video game or something,,with a 20 MOA taper base I can zero way past the effective range of the 223 caliber.

I have a 3.5-10x40 1 inch tube on the 300 RUM that I can get to 1150 with a flat base,,but from a 100 yard zero it only takes 19 Minutes to get to a thousand with that load,,

 

[meat hunter]

quote from megalomaniac "Another $600 for a VXIII with the knobs (identical to the $1200 Mark IV scope)"

Not quite. Mark IV's are 30mm tubes and most VX3's are 1"
MarkIV's have considerably better glass than the VX3.

Not according to Leupold themselves (the ones that actually manufacture the scope, I would assume they know :) )

The VXIII LR (the scope I mentioned earlier, not the standard 1" tube leupolds which are obviously impractical for long range applications) and the Mark IV are manufactured on the exact same assembly line with the exact same components (housing, tube, lens, lens coatings, etc)... The only difference between the two are purely cosmetic- the gold ring vs the black ring and the M1, M2, or M3 knobs versus the standard short click knobs on the VXIII.

So you can take a VXIII LR, have Leupold customer service install M1 knobs, then take a black sharpie and color the gold ring black if you like... and you've got the exact same scope (but for many hundreds less).

This was true a couple years ago when I discussed this matter with Leupold directly. Perhaps just recently they have upgraded the new Mark IV's over the VX3 LR line, but I doubt it.

So what you are essentially saying is that Leupold is involved in deceptive marketing. I mean for you to say that the VXIII and the Mark 4 are exactly the same except one costs $500 plus dollars more is absolutely ludicrous. Sorry but I'm not buying that whatsoever. If Leupold were doing that they would be out of business overnight.

 

[megalomaniac]

Nope, I'm saying that Leupold makes a great product. Nothing deceptive about it. Call production, they will flat out tell you that their lenses and coatings are so good there's no need for improvement on their Mark IV line over the VXIII LR line. Same with the housing/tube. Great stuff, no need for improvement. Same with the erectors between the two... great stuff no need for improvement. Whether you aren't 'buying that whatsoever' is irrelevent because it does not change the fact that the two scopes are completely interchangeable save the gold ring and the knobs (Again, this was according to a senior in production at Leupold a couple years ago... can't say if they've changed the lens coatings between the two in the past couple years). I don't think they are worried about going out of business overnight either- Leupold seemed extremely proud that their quality was so high that even hunters were getting essentially the same product as law enforcement/ tactical.]

I suppose it is possible the production manager I spoke with hasn't a flipping clue about how his riflescopes are produced, nor hasn't an iota regarding the components needed to build said scopes... but that would be highly unlikely considering his job position.

Actually, on the new market the price differential between the two isn't that great... $1100 for a Mark IV 4.5-14x50 LR/duplex and $759 for a VX3 4.5-14 LR/duplex (plus $160 to change out all 3 knobs to M1's and $30 shipping... for a total of $950). But the difference on the used market between the two makes the VXIII LR an incredible value.

Heck, just give them a call tomorrow... ask to speak to someone in production. They're incredibly nice people and will bend over backwards to help. I would be interested to find out if they've made any changes to production/specs between the two lines in the past couple years. Just don't get all huffy with them if you overpaid for a Mark IV.

 

[mr.big]

I could see paying extra for the new.ones with the FFP and M5 milmil setup,but then you would be in Nightforce type money

 

[meat hunter]

Nope, I'm saying that Leupold makes a great product. Nothing deceptive about it. Call production, they will flat out tell you that their lenses and coatings are so good there's no need for improvement on their Mark IV line over the VXIII LR line. Same with the housing/tube. Great stuff, no need for improvement. Same with the erectors between the two... great stuff no need for improvement. Whether you aren't 'buying that whatsoever' is irrelevent because it does not change the fact that the two scopes are completely interchangeable save the gold ring and the knobs (Again, this was according to a senior in production at Leupold a couple years ago... can't say if they've changed the lens coatings between the two in the past couple years). I don't think they are worried about going out of business overnight either- Leupold seemed extremely proud that their quality was so high that even hunters were getting essentially the same product as law enforcement/ tactical.]

I suppose it is possible the production manager I spoke with hasn't a flipping clue about how his riflescopes are produced, nor hasn't an iota regarding the components needed to build said scopes... but that would be highly unlikely considering his job position.

Actually, on the new market the price differential between the two isn't that great... $1100 for a Mark IV 4.5-14x50 LR/duplex and $759 for a VX3 4.5-14 LR/duplex (plus $160 to change out all 3 knobs to M1's and $30 shipping... for a total of $950). But the difference on the used market between the two makes the VXIII LR an incredible value.

Heck, just give them a call tomorrow... ask to speak to someone in production. They're incredibly nice people and will bend over backwards to help. I would be interested to find out if they've made any changes to production/specs between the two lines in the past couple years. Just don't get all huffy with them if you overpaid for a Mark IV.

No need for me to call. I went to their website. Mark 4 is 5.5 ounces heavier even with the same turrets. Mark 4's have dual erector springs where VX 3's have single erector springs. Mark 4 has etched reticles and VX 3's have wire reticles. Main tube is heavier and stronger on the Mark 4 and coatings are better as well.

I think you are right sir. The guy you spoke with obviously has no clue about his products. Either that or whomever publishes their info is wrong. I think the written published specifications are most likely correct. Just a guess though.

 

[megalomaniac]

Touche, sir!

That more than peaked my interest in seeing if they've changed anything the past couple years, so I called the tactical department and we discussed the Mark IV 4.5-14x50 LR/T and the VX3 4.5-14x50 LR (only those 2 specific scopes). We also had to field a couple questions with the engineering department as well.

Both scopes above have the identical glass, there is no difference in coatings between the two as well. Additionally, both have etched glass reticles, no wire in that particular vx3. The housings/main tubes are identical as well, no increased thickness in the Mark IV 4.5-14. The Mark IV DOES have dual erector springs vs single springs, which in combination with the M1 knobs vs finger click knobs makes up the 5 oz difference between the two (according to engineering dept).

You do give up 25 MOA of adjustment when going with the Mark IV vs the VX3 LR (100MOA windage and elevation in Mark IV vs 125 MOA windage and elevation in VX3 LR).

Although the VX3 4.5-14x50 LR and the Mark IV 4.5-14x50 LR/T are constructed exactly the same except for the dual erector system, the Mark IV scope is subjected to more rigorous testing at the factory before it ever leaves to ensure maximum functionality/ repeatability/ruggedness/ and waterproofing.

Again, this is from the 'horse's mouth'. After comparing the two and discussing the two with the engineering department, the tactical rep agreed that the vx3 scope was the one he would purchase himself (and he specializes in tactical sales)

 

[TheLBLman]

I really appreciate Megalomaniac's insight and how he goes about his super-long-range hunting. But is looking to shoot deer at 1,000 yards something that most hunters should be trying?

Imo, most wanting to get set up for regularly shooting deer at over 500 yards are much more into shooting than hunting, at least in most hunting situations. And nothing wrong with that, just making a distinction. Even with large expanses of private land, it may be hard to find set-ups where shooting over 500 yards is an option. Even then, consideration may need to be given to other hunters. How would you feel if you were about to take a buck 100 yards in front of you, suddenly he just falls, then you hear a shot fired from a half-mile away to your left, i.e. another hunter 800 yards away just shot a buck right in front of you?

I know the lines get blurred and are often crossing, complimenting each other, but let's keep in mind that shooting and hunting still remain different things.

If you get a rifle that's truly ideal for beyond 500 yards, you're probably looking at a rifle that's very impractical for the more typical deer hunting that most are doing and/or have good opportunity for doing. What I'm saying is that a good rifle that's practical to carry for most deer hunting situations (where most deer are expected to be seen & shot under 200 yards), that rifle may become a poor choice beyond 300 to 500 yards. Conversely, a rifle (and scope combination) that's primarily designed for shooting beyond 500 yards can be totally impractical for hunting under 200 yards.

I know Megalomanic has some ideal set-ups (on private property) for shooting 500 to 1,000 yards. Just want to point out that this may not be so available on most public land, maybe not even on most private land. Beyond that, very few are going to put in the necessary range time to develop their shooting skills to the point of being capable of high-probability shots beyond 500 yards. Those few like Megalomanic, have my respect. But for me personally, somewhere between 200 and 300 yards will remain near the limits of "long range" for most of hunting set-ups. Actually, it may be more like 75 yards for most of my set-ups.

Appreciate on the good info on this thread, especially about the Leupold scopes.

 

[TheLBLman]

By the way, I mainly posted the above out of concern of many novice hunters becoming motivated to start taking much longer range shots than either they or their guns are capable. Without question, with adequate range time, experience, and the right gun/scope set-up, 500-plus yards on a deer can be just fine.

Meg, if you don't mind, share with us the weight of your long-range rifles, tripods, etc., and how these compare to what maybe the "average" hunter might currently be carrying afield?

 

[megalomaniac]

Wes, you always make very valid points. I agree with you that noone has any business shooting at a live animal beyond 250 yards (and in many cases, even much closer than that) without putting in some serious homework and time. I will say that 99% of the people on this board could easily and humanely make the shot and take a deer at 500 yards with the right equipment and time spent at longer distances. It's easy to hold the crosshairs on a 5" circle at 500 yards with a bipod and rear bag. The hard part is knowing exactly what your bullet is going do between the gun and that 5" circle and ensuring your gun and loads are consistent and predictable without any flyers.

And I also agree with you that it really isn't much 'hunting' to me either. It's just shooting. But as I've said before, I don't really feel like I'm 'hunting' with any firearm, even if the deer is only 100 yards away. Pulling the trigger to me whether 75 or 750 yards is just shooting. I don't feel like I accomplished anything with a weapon regarding the kill itself unless it's with a bow (personal feelings only).

Let me also add that I never hunt with the intention of getting as far away from the game or intentionally trying to kill a deer hundreds of yards away. Every spot I hunt longer ranges has a purpose... and that purpose is NEVER just to kill a deer a long way away. Some spots I hunt because it allows me to cover many more acres at one time. Other spots I hunt from a distance so I don't deposit scent on my way in or out... essentially the deer have no idea they've been hunted unless I pull the trigger and go in to retrieve a deer. Other spots I'm doing more long range scouting as the main purpose.

My dedicated long range gun weighs 18 lbs. It wouldn't even matter if it weighed 50lbs, as I usually only carry it 10-15 yards from the parked truck to set up. It's worthless from hunting out of treestands, shooting houses, or even shooting offhand. It's sole purpose is to hunt prone off the ground with a bipod/ rear bag. Heck, it can't even be used when temps are above 65 degrees, as I'll loosen primer pockets and have to pitch the brass. It so specialized, that it's incredibly impractical. I only used it ONE time this season (because it was too windy every day I rifle hunted, and I won't set up in my long range spots with much more than a 5mph wind). But it excells at what it does- put a bullet where I aim everytime, with no flyers and low ES. It's got as much retained energy at 600 yards as a .308 has at the muzzle.

But it hasn't been fired at a single deer in the past two years... because I'm overly cautious and won't pull the trigger unless conditions are perfect. Consequently, all the deer it has taken over 500 yards have been one-shot, bang-flop kills. Knowing when NOT to shoot is so much more important than anything else.

 

[mr.big]

I just loaded some 200 SMK for the 300 RUM with Retumbo powder,,should be going about 3250,,but we will see,,

with a 100 yard zero,,it should only take one turn on the 3.5-10 Leupold,,15MOA to get to 800 yards,,a 5mph wind would push it about 18 inches.

 

[Chaneylake]

with all the above being said, I am just trying to hit at 500 yds using iron sights and black powder, great info here, thanks guys

 

[mr.big]

with all the above being said, I am just trying to hit at 500 yds using iron sights and black powder, great info here, thanks guys

it will be years until I can afford that equipment,,a top end Soule sight and a good globe is nearly as much as the Nightforce scope,,

 

[Chaneylake]

with all the above being said, I am just trying to hit at 500 yds using iron sights and black powder, great info here, thanks guys

it will be years until I can afford that equipment,,a top end Soule sight and a good globe is nearly as much as the Nightforce scope,,

if I had known the cost on the front end I might have picked something different, especially since i have no one to physically talk to or to show me anything, just starting to get some help from the Shiloh Sharps forum, those western guys do not mind helping a rookie out

 

[TheLBLman]

VERY GOOD POST, MEGALOMANIAC!
Just a few key thoughts/statements you made:

. . . . . no one has any business shooting at a live animal beyond 250 yards (and in many cases, even much closer than that) without putting in some serious homework and time. I will say that 99% of the people on this board could easily and humanely make the shot and take a deer at 500 yards with the right equipment and time spent at longer distances.

My dedicated long range gun weighs 18 lbs. . . . . . I usually only carry it 10-15 yards from the parked truck to set up. It's worthless from hunting out of treestands, shooting houses, or even shooting offhand. It's sole purpose is to hunt prone off the ground with a bipod/ rear bag. . . . . It so specialized, that it's incredibly impractical. I only used it ONE time this season (because it was too windy every day I rifle hunted, and I won't set up in my long range spots with much more than a 5mph wind).

But it hasn't been fired at a single deer in the past two years... because I'm overly cautious and won't pull the trigger unless conditions are perfect. . . . . . . . Knowing when NOT to shoot is so much more important than anything else.

Obviously, you've put in your serious homework and time. :)

As a sidenote, one of the factors many novices overlook when attempting a long-range shot is the effect of wind. Some seem to (erroneously) think all they need is a scope or rangefinder telling them how much to hold over at "x" yardage. I've myself had, and seen many others have, some humbling experiences in seeing just how bad we couldn't hit at longer ranges, i.e. like totally missing the target at a known range with the rifles we normally use to deer hunt.