OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Firearms, Bows, and Ammunition > Firearms
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ultra Light Arms
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Topic ClosedUltra Light Arms

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Message
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 11:53
Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

I have and shot a .204 with 40 grain bullets on a regular basis. Also about 7 or 8 years ago when my father and I used to hunt quite a bit more, the rifles we took out on a regular basis were the .240 Wby mag and the .257 wby mag. The .257 is no where in the ballpark of kicking like a mule. Back to the .204, could you shoot a deer with it? Probably if it was a small white tail and you shot it in the neck inside of 100 yards. If I am not mistaken I think the .204 at 250 yards only has like 700 Foot lbs of energy. I shoot my .204 out to 600 yards on paper and am extrememely comfortable with my gun and its abilities with me behind it and I would not attempt a 250 yard shot on a Mule Deer out west that is probably upwards of 200 lbs. My last 2 mulies both field dressed at over 200. Even if you did make a clean lucky shot, after taking into account the wind and the drop of that round, and happen to drop him in his tracks it is still inhumane. The risks of wounding it and it running off are far greater than you dropping him where he stands with that round at that range.
With that being said, what the weather conditions like that day?
Do you have any idea how much a .204 moves in ONLY a 10 mph hour wind at 250 yards?


The average western south dakota fall day. As you can see from the pic a two year old 180-190 pounds center mass shot ran 40-50 yards and fell over. A 3oo yrd drag give or take to the pickup I did all the drag'n.
What does the "average western south dakota fall day" consist of? How windy was it?


I do not or did not have a wind meter if that is what your asking? I don't recall the exact conditions it being over 2 years ago I would say gusty not consistent later in the day so the wind was most likely subsiding a bit. So, I would say moments of calm mixed with I guess 5-10 mph with the occasional gust throw'n in. An average November day in north western South Dakota.
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 11:56
Originally posted by supertool73 supertool73 wrote:

You could go .223 and shoot the 70 grain barns triple shock.  Still very little recoil and a whole lot more penetration and a proper bullet.  


No doubt that would be a bit more suitable for northern plains mule deer. 
Back to Top
3 Tuns View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 11:59
  A super light rifle is not really needed if someone is shooting over the hood of a truck.  Perhaps a heavy barrel would make a larger cartridge possible.  The gentleman that is in poor health is in a tough position if he wants to continue his hunting days afield.  Surely a good compromise of recoil (reduced by rifle weight) and cartridge could be had.  Best of luck to him.
Back to Top
dillon_h View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
Woody

Joined: July/28/2011
Location: SWFA
Status: Offline
Points: 306
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:00
Like I said, I am not doubting your dads abilities with a rifle.
 
I am also not saying a .204 won't kill a mule deer either.
Shot placement and what that bullet is going to do upon impact are the two things we are stressing here.
 
He placed those three shots where they needed to be, nice shooting. The rounds penetrated enough to cause enough damage to effectively harvest the animals, luck. That round's effect on any target take a steep dive after 200 yards. Not to mention the stated weather conditions. Wind that is not very consistent, gusts and unknown wind speed would definitely be more than one red flag to add. Even with short breaks of calm, 40 grains isn't going to handle any kind of wind very well at 250 yds.
 
The .204 worked, but there are definitely more effective and ethical choices out there. Thats all we are saying.
 
We are glad to hear your dad is in the field after his operation and all wish him the best of times doing what he loves.


Edited by dillon_h - January/31/2012 at 12:09
Dillon@SWFA.com
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:04
Originally posted by billyburl2 billyburl2 wrote:

Ballistics aren't much different...Terminal effects of the bullets referred to are! I don't think there are any penetrating bullets even offered for a 20 cal...Because it is a groundhog rifle!
 


I never said it would be the perfect rifle deer. But, that is what he bought and that is what we used. It worked out just fine. It was just on two does and a tiny buck and being a rock solid rest(hood of a pick-up) and being close(only 250-ish). Up there it hard to get any closer than 300-ish from any mule deer let alone with a pick-up.
The "risk" was very small.
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:07
Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

The .204 doesn't come in a 70 grain bullet and I doubt anyone using a .223 to hunt deer use a 40 grain or smaller bullet. That pretty much makes this arguement worthless. Our entire point is that a .204 will explode upon impact and more than likely not make it to the vitals.
 
Edited to remove long list of cluttered quotes.

With no exit hole the internals were mush.
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:17
Originally posted by billyburl2 billyburl2 wrote:

Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Anyone have these?

Model 20 Rifle (The Ultimate Mountain Rifle) - built upon an intermediate length action. It is designed for exceptional accuracy with .308 class cartridges, yet maintains an extremely light weight. The action weighs a modest 20 ounces, and the finished rifle is only 5 pounds. Featuring a 3- inch magazine, the Ultimate Mountain rifle is available in all .308 length calibers, including .243 Winchester, 6mm Remington, .257 Roberts, 7mm-08, and .284. A 3 inch magazine is featured to allow extra versatility during load development.

Model 20 Short (The Ultimate Mountain Rifle) - a short action rifle that is designed for the absolute utmost in portablility and accuracy. The action itself weighs a mere twenty ounces in finished form, with completed rifle scaling 4.75 pounds before the scope is added. The Ultimate Mountain Rifle is available in short action calibers from .17 Remington through .223 Remington.

Love
Ummm this isn't your original post? Every other thread that you have posted in isn't about how much things weigh? Really? 

If you look later on in the thread I was saying .223 would work just fine for deer then I brought up the .204 and so on. I can see now it was a mistake to bring up the .204(sensitive subject) my bad... sorry. Originally I said
"Not legal for elk.
I was thinking deer(whitetail/blacktail/mule) coyote mountain lion.
They look like good rifles."
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:25
Originally posted by 3 Tuns 3 Tuns wrote:

  I bought one of Melvin's rifles years ago and would recommend any variant to a real hunter that could handle holding a very light weight rifle steady, and could afford the steep (but reasonable) price tag.  Very few hunters need to have a rifle this light, but if ounces are all that matter then Forbes is the guy.
 
  As for the the rest of this topic - unethical stunts like shooting deer "center mass" at 250 yards with a varmit rifle may be possible, but is offensive at the best.  It would be a shame for a Forbes rifle to be associated with this type of activity.


What mean by center mass is "diner plate" at the front should. He is in his late 60's and has been hunting for a better part of sixty years.
"Unethical"? Not too worried about that he has always followed and can read the hunting handbook as old as he is. Of course there was a time back in the stone age where thay had not yet printed "hunting hand books"Wink
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:30
Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by 3 Tuns 3 Tuns wrote:

  I bought one of Melvin's rifles years ago and would recommend any variant to a real hunter that could handle holding a very light weight rifle steady, and could afford the steep (but reasonable) price tag.  Very few hunters need to have a rifle this light, but if ounces are all that matter then Forbes is the guy.
 
  As for the the rest of this topic - unethical stunts like shooting deer "center mass" at 250 yards with a varmit rifle may be possible, but is offensive at the best.  It would be a shame for a Forbes rifle to be associated with this type of activity.


What mean by center mass is "diner plate" at the front should. He is in his late 60's and has been hunting for a better part of sixty years.
"Unethical"? Not too worried about that he has always followed and can read the hunting handbook as old as he is. Of course there was a time back in the stone age where thay had not yet printed "hunting hand books"Wink


Again, I would have no problem using a very light rifle chambered in .223 for north-western plains/mountain mule deer.
Sorry for bringing up the .204.
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:32
Originally posted by 3 Tuns 3 Tuns wrote:

  A super light rifle is not really needed if someone is shooting over the hood of a truck.  Perhaps a heavy barrel would make a larger cartridge possible.  The gentleman that is in poor health is in a tough position if he wants to continue his hunting days afield.  Surely a good compromise of recoil (reduced by rifle weight) and cartridge could be had.  Best of luck to him.


If you read the whole thread? He was using a savage 110... not an light rifle.
Back to Top
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 9042
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:42

I am still having a problem with this.

I am glad that your father is up and hunting after such major surgery. But, almost all of your recent threads around here have centered on lighter is best. Now you propose a .204 as a viable deer caliber. Your statement on the 22-250 popularity for deer I find amazing. You are doing a huge disservice to any new or inexperienced hunters that visit this site. You have pushed your agenda beyond reasonable discourse. And, as in other threads of yours, I fully expect you to ramble on.

Doug
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:42
Originally posted by dillon_h dillon_h wrote:

Like I said, I am not doubting your dads abilities with a rifle.
 
I am also not saying a .204 won't kill a mule deer either.
Shot placement and what that bullet is going to do upon impact are the two things we are stressing here.
 
He placed those three shots where they needed to be, nice shooting. The rounds penetrated enough to cause enough damage to effectively harvest the animals, luck. That round's effect on any target take a steep dive after 200 yards. Not to mention the stated weather conditions. Wind that is not very consistent, gusts and unknown wind speed would definitely be more than one red flag to add. Even with short breaks of calm, 40 grains isn't going to handle any kind of wind very well at 250 yds.
 
The .204 worked, but there are definitely more effective and ethical choices out there. Thats all we are saying.
 
We are glad to hear your dad is in the field after his operation and all wish him the best of times doing what he loves.



There is no doubt there are better bullets and cartridges for that type of hunting. As far as the yardage it was around 250ish give or take hard to tell with no rangefinders and if you know what I mean by hunting around broken prairie among buttes.
He is an old school type of guy... hates cell phones let alone rangefinders. Have heard him say " never needed one before why would I need one now" Of rangefinders and cell phones. I can just hear him now writing this.
Back to Top
dillon_h View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
Woody

Joined: July/28/2011
Location: SWFA
Status: Offline
Points: 306
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 12:56
Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by dillon_h dillon_h wrote:

Like I said, I am not doubting your dads abilities with a rifle.
 
I am also not saying a .204 won't kill a mule deer either.
Shot placement and what that bullet is going to do upon impact are the two things we are stressing here.
 
He placed those three shots where they needed to be, nice shooting. The rounds penetrated enough to cause enough damage to effectively harvest the animals, luck. That round's effect on any target take a steep dive after 200 yards. Not to mention the stated weather conditions. Wind that is not very consistent, gusts and unknown wind speed would definitely be more than one red flag to add. Even with short breaks of calm, 40 grains isn't going to handle any kind of wind very well at 250 yds.
 
The .204 worked, but there are definitely more effective and ethical choices out there. Thats all we are saying.
 
We are glad to hear your dad is in the field after his operation and all wish him the best of times doing what he loves.



There is no doubt there are better bullets and cartridges for that type of hunting. As far as the yardage it was around 250ish give or take hard to tell with no rangefinders and if you know what I mean by hunting around broken prairie among buttes.
He is an old school type of guy... hates cell phones let alone rangefinders. Have heard him say " never needed one before why would I need one now" Of rangefinders and cell phones. I can just hear him now writing this.
 
I do not use rangefinders. But when it comes down to taking this specific shot, I would want to know whether it 200 yds or 250 yds. The 50 yards is going to make all the difference in the world unlike other cartridges that fly flatter, longer.
Dillon@SWFA.com
Back to Top
3 Tuns View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 13:01
Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by 3 Tuns 3 Tuns wrote:

  A super light rifle is not really needed if someone is shooting over the hood of a truck.  Perhaps a heavy barrel would make a larger cartridge possible.  The gentleman that is in poor health is in a tough position if he wants to continue his hunting days afield.  Surely a good compromise of recoil (reduced by rifle weight) and cartridge could be had.  Best of luck to him.


If you read the whole thread? He was using a savage 110... not an light rifle.
 
"If you read the thread it was not for me."
 
  By your use of this phrase, I jumped to the conclusion that this was for your father, as he is in poor health and can not deal with any recoil.  Best wishes to him.  Surely no healthy hunter would be attracted to a varmit rifle such as the .204 for 250 yard shots on large bodied mule deer.
  Now I understand.  Don't buy a ULA rifle, please.  Unbelievable (literally).
 
  Out.
Back to Top
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22034
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 13:10
Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

.204 on deer............bah humbug! You are pushing light weight to an extreme there!

South Dakota-
Shoulder-held firearms using ammunition factory rated
to produce at least 1,000 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle may be used to hunt deer and antelope.

The proof is in the freezer... it is all about shot placement. Years ago I heard the exact same thing about the 22-250. Now it is one the more common cartridges I see out west for deer.



now i have heard it all, next your gonna tell me that 7x61 sharpe&hart is more popular than the 7 mag. dude the 22-250 is a about as good a coyote round as any, thats about where it should stop. i myself have shot deer with the 22-250, never again. i had shots inside of 60yds with a 55gr bullet not a 40gr and when shot in the neck with said 55gr bullet i wasnt real impressed with the quickness of the kill. i was born and raised in the west, deer rifle and 22-250 do not and will not ever be used in the same sentence period. now .270 and deer rifle on the other hand sound more like a common choice, even more so would be a magnum of some sort. i realize that tons of people in the is country use the .223 on deer, and i whole heartedly agree that with the proper twist and a heavy bullet MADE to kill deer sized game it works. i dont necessarily think its the best choice regardless of the situation. to me a .243 is bare minimum for big game. for years and years the standards i remember were that your rifle had to be at least .23 caliber to be considered legal for big game and hand guns had to be .41 caliber or bigger. there was a reason for that back then. times have changed in the last 25yrs, bullets have gotten better and better, but the fact still remains that small bullets leave small room for error. you can say placement matters all you want, and i will continue to argue that placement only covers you butt so much. im fairly certain that the window i have to shoot an animal and successfully harvest it with my .300wby or .375H&H is a lot bigger than if i used my .22-250. if i hit a deer anywhere between the front and rear legs with either of those magnums, im fairly certain its death to the deer right away. i cant honestly say that for my .22-250. and now you wanna go smaller yet?? i will pass on that.
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"
Back to Top
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3416
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 13:22
I don't know rustic,
 
I wouldn't say the 22-250 is a common deer cartridge, at least with hunters I know.  I know guys have used it for deer.  I still think it is wise to use a heavier caliber for a number of reasons inluding the ballistic coefficients of the projectiles available.
 
Your dad seems to have some special circumstances you are both taking into account.  I like the idea of a caliber like the .260 Rem in a heavy gun for him, it shouldn't have much recoil at all.
 
For you, I like the 7-08 in a nice lightweight package.  It will fight those high country winds a lot better.
 
Good hunting.
-Matt
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 14:00
I will be little clearer. The 22-250 while not the most popular(.270, 30.06, .308) it is one of the more common cartridges I see out in the field and on convenience/hardware stores shelves come November... deer hunting season. It is a lot more popular now than it was just 5 -10 years ago and getting more so every year can tell that by the low ammo prices.(Wal-mart has it priced about the same as .270, 30.06, .308 up here.)
Ballistics wise it is very flat shooting and good energy for what most consider a 300-ish max cartridge. From what I can tell most hunters do not feel comfortable going much past 300 with any cartridge.
A mule deer is a thin skinned animal by all accounts therefore not very challenging for new bullet technology.
I go back to what some Alaskan outfitters are saying 30-06 not "enough gun" for Alaskan big game(bear, moose, etc.)...  utterly ridiculous(the 30-06 is still the most used cartridge up there to this day). The 30-06 has most likely killed more Alaskan"big game" than any other cartridge. Even the the lowly ballistically challenged 30-30 is probably second on that list.
I guess someone forgot to tell those old-timers they were not using "enough gun" with inferior bullet technology. I am glad for their sake they did not hear the "news".
Like with anything it takes time to prove something out and little confidence goes along way.

Again, sorry for bringing up the .204 my bad. 

                                      --------------------- * disclaimer * -------------------
I in no way encourage NOR discourage anyone from using a properly functioning Ultra-light rifle for Mule deer hunting also... I in no way encourage NOR discourage anyone from using any type of LEGAL ammunition for Mule
deer hunting.
Fine print: For I know nothing of the skill-set(fundamentals of shooting) nor of the competence(ethical hunting) nor of the confidence(being sure of the proper use of the tools of the trade) of the average hunter here. Therefore this is not my place to judge in ones quest to hunt Mule deer.





 

Edited by rustic - January/31/2012 at 15:37
Back to Top
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Location: SD
Status: Offline
Points: 4569
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 15:51
Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

[QUOTE=rustic]You are the one that said "Are bullets that fragment considered soft point or expanding bullets?"
It is basically the same type of bullet --- releasing all energy into the animal.
 
What does releasing all energy into the animal amount to if the bullet blows up and doesn't penetrate to the vitals?


There seems to be two schools of thought on this from what I can see. Berger/hornady  is advertizing if the bullet fragments before going all the way through the animal therefore releasing all energy in the animal. Other manufactures like nosler/barnes bullets advertize weight retention all the way through the animal.
I personally use barnes tipped TSX's and the work fine for me.

I guess... six to half dozen to the other??

/QUOTE]

So you do know you are using bullets that do NOT meet SD law and you do it anyway!! And so your Dad is not capable of shooting something with more recoil, that makes it OKAY to disregard the ethics as well as the law? What makes you so special that you give the rest of us a bad name?

See under legal firearms section.

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/docs/BigGameRegs.pdf
Back to Top
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Location: SD
Status: Offline
Points: 4569
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 15:52
Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

One if you are using Berger VLD bullets then why did you list the Hornady website???

Two I looked on the Berger website and they do not list a VLD bullet for the .204 cal.



You are the one that said "Are bullets that fragment considered soft point or expanding bullets?"
It is basically the same type of bullet --- releasing all energy into the animal.


Really??? I do not think so!

What about why did you list the Hornady website when you are using Berger VLD bullets that are not even listed for a .204???


Are you ever going to answer this question??
Back to Top
rustic View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: September/30/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1461
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2012 at 16:01
Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by rustic rustic wrote:

Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

[QUOTE=rustic]You are the one that said "Are bullets that fragment considered soft point or expanding bullets?"
It is basically the same type of bullet --- releasing all energy into the animal.
 
What does releasing all energy into the animal amount to if the bullet blows up and doesn't penetrate to the vitals?


There seems to be two schools of thought on this from what I can see. Berger/hornady  is advertizing if the bullet fragments before going all the way through the animal therefore releasing all energy in the animal. Other manufactures like nosler/barnes bullets advertize weight retention all the way through the animal.
I personally use barnes tipped TSX's and the work fine for me.

I guess... six to half dozen to the other??

/QUOTE]

So you do know you are using bullets that do NOT meet SD law and you do it anyway!! And so your Dad is not capable of shooting something with more recoil, that makes it OKAY to disregard the ethics as well as the law? What makes you so special that you give the rest of us a bad name?

See under legal firearms section.

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/docs/BigGameRegs.pdf


"Only soft-point or expanding bullets are permitted." the last I heard a polymer tipped bullet is a "soft point" The same tip type of tip that is on the barnes tipped triple shock I use. They are legal I HAVE CHECKED.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 7.625 seconds.