What calibre for 1st stalking rifle?

slippy wicket

I am looking to purchase a starter level rifle. I had a .22 CZ about ten years ago, but traded it for a shotgun (worst mistake ever).
I have looked at Howa and CZ in .243, .30-06, 6.5 55 and .308 .
I have heard that .270 and .308 are a lot louder and have a much greater recoil.
I have used a friends 6.5 and found it very easy to shoot even for a lefty like me.
I know where there is a Ruger 6.5 with a redfield 3-9* 50 for 750 cash up front, does this sound like value?

deeksofdoom

Buy yourself a scope first the more expensive the better and if you have anything left out of that buy yourself a rifle to attach to it.

It wasn't me!

If you're used to a shotgun you won't have trouble with the recoil from any of the calibres mentioned. Things like the .270 are very loud, which gives a false impression of how hard they actually kick. Personally I'd take the .270, .308 or .30-06 over a 6.5x55, as I like faster rounds, but it's a personal choice. They'll all recoil more, but you shouldn't have trouble with any of them. The .30-06 is the hardest of the lot, but it's still easily tolerable. A consideration would be whether you want to use it for foxing, or would like to use it abroad for boar or African game of any variety. If you want a dual purpose rifle for here, and foxing, I'd get a .243. If you want a gun to do foreign shooting as well, I'd have the .30-06. For just Irish shooting, and just deer, it'd be extremely difficult to argue with a .308 as a superb all-rounder, and it'd do a tidy job on boar as well if the interest ever took you to do that in the UK or on the continent. You also mention you're a lefty. It's hard, but personally I prefer to get a left-handed rifle. There's a decent selection available from Sako, Tikka, Remington, Savage, Browning and Ruger at least. Good luck with your choice. My own setup is a lefty Sako 75 Hunter in .25-06 topped with a Schmidt and Bender Varmint 4-16x50. There's excellent value to be had in left-handed rifles if you're prepared to put the time into looking abroad, particularly in the UK. I sourced my gun through Steve Beaty of Ivythorn Sporting and found it via guntrader.co.uk. If you search for rifle > action > calibre, you can then select orientation and narrow it down to left-handed rifles. Some very good deals available.

kakashka

slippy wicket wrote: »

I am looking to purchase a starter level rifle. I had a .22 CZ about ten years ago, but traded it for a shotgun (worst mistake ever).
I have looked at Howa and CZ in .243, .30-06, 6.5 55 and .308 .
I have heard that .270 and .308 are a lot louder and have a much greater recoil.
I have used a friends 6.5 and found it very easy to shoot even for a lefty like me.
I know where there is a Ruger 6.5 with a redfield 3-9* 50 for 750 cash up front, does this sound like value?

243 or possibly 308 would be my advice,dont bother with long actions IMHO,you say its for deer stalking,well a nice light 243 would be ideal and far more capable than a lot of ppl seem to think,i'd agree with deek re scope,dont waste money on a cheap scope,a good one will last a lifetime and can be used on future guns,hard to buy it first but worth saving/waiting for,S&B Varmint is an excellent scope if you could stretch to it but a fixed 6 ,7, 8 or 10 would also be spot on and always usefull and valuable should you need to sell in future

Jonty

I'd consider binoculars to be the first thing you should consider. You're gonna spend more time scanning for deer than actually shooting at them. Then consider the scope because if you see them with the binos you have to be able to see them with the scope to get a shot off.

See if its possible to go for a stalk with somebody and see what rifle they're using. Consider the weight of the rifle, moreso than the calibre. Irish deer aren't that tough that require Ultra Magnum rounds! if a rifle is too light it can be kicky even in a lighter calibre, whereas a heavier rifle will absorb more recoil energy.

At the end of the day its very hard to beat one of the -06 family, either .270 .25 or .30 in any modern rifle

berettadt10

Hi
My choice is a .270, i have used .22/250, .243, 25-06, and .308, have fired a 30.06 but never shot a deer with it, so i couldnt comment. They are all good rounds, but the reason i went with the .270, its a flatter shootin round. As regards recoil, its noticeable but well managable, noise levels, in my opinion are around the same a 22/250 and .243, even compared to the .308 its in or around the same. Any big centre fire is going to be loud regardless.
Best of luck with it.

It wasn't me!

kakashka wrote: »

243 or possibly 308 would be my advice,dont bother with long actions IMHO,you say its for deer stalking,well a nice light 243 would be ideal and far more capable than a lot of ppl seem to think,i'd agree with deek re scope,dont waste money on a cheap scope,a good one will last a lifetime and can be used on future guns,hard to buy it first but worth saving/waiting for,S&B Varmint is an excellent scope if you could stretch to it but a fixed 6 ,7, 8 or 10 would also be spot on and always usefull and valuable should you need to sell in future

The only comment I'd make about the S&B Varmint is the varmint reticle in it is very fine indeed. It's astonishing how well it holds up in low light and how visible it still remains, but it is very fine and might be a little too fine for some. They're also a bitch to find. I got mine from airgunbbs second hand in mint condition for £750, which was quite a steal, so it's well worth keeping an eye on that place.

foxhunter

.243 plenty of ammo choice and plenty big for anything in ireland.

deerhunter1

slippy wicket wrote: »

I am looking to purchase a starter level rifle. I had a .22 CZ about ten years ago, but traded it for a shotgun (worst mistake ever).
I have looked at Howa and CZ in .243, .30-06, 6.5 55 and .308 .
I have heard that .270 and .308 are a lot louder and have a much greater recoil.
I have used a friends 6.5 and found it very easy to shoot even for a lefty like me.
I know where there is a Ruger 6.5 with a redfield 3-9* 50 for 750 cash up front, does this sound like value?

Go 308 youll never look back

kakashka

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The only comment I'd make about the S&B Varmint is the varmint reticle in it is very fine indeed. It's astonishing how well it holds up in low light and how visible it still remains, but it is very fine and might be a little too fine for some. They're also a bitch to find. I got mine from airgunbbs second hand in mint condition for £750, which was quite a steal, so it's well worth keeping an eye on that place.

Good value indeed
choice of reticle if buying new, low mag should help in low light?presuming its FFP
Will be my next scope purchase

HUBERTUS

After being lumbered with .22cfs from 1972 to 1993 for shooting Deer I cannot understand why anyone would buy a .243 for your Deer.

Red, Sika, Fallow and Sika /Red hybrids deserve something more powerful than that. In my lifetime I have used a few of the .22cfs on many of your Deer but changed my faithful .30-06 for a .270 when your laws changed around 1993 and the ceiling was raised to .270 .

Currently I have two .243 rifles, one HB Varminter Sako and a standard weight Tikka T3, however when I go out to shoot a Roe or Red I pick up the .270 .
Your Sika are hard enough to kill where they stand without handicapping yourself.
Why send a boy to do a mans job when plenty of suitable man-power is available.

HWH.

ivanthehunter

HUBERTUS wrote: »

After being lumbered with .22cfs from 1972 to 1993 for shooting Deer I cannot understand why anyone would buy a .243 for your Deer.

Red, Sika, Fallow and Sika /Red hybrids deserve something more powerful than that. In my lifetime I have used a few of the .22cfs on many of your Deer but changed my faithful .30-06 for a .270 when your laws changed around 1993 and the ceiling was raised to .270 .

Currently I have two .243 rifles, one HB Varminter Sako and a standard weight Tikka T3, however when I go out to shoot a Roe or Red I pick up the .270 .
Your Sika are hard enough to kill where they stand without handicapping yourself.
Why send a boy to do a mans job when plenty of suitable man-power is available.

HWH.

Might be wrong here but even some Army ammo would not meet the legal requirements!

And They are still only set at .22 cal!!


AN another note! don't go looking for your first deer stalking rifle! look for your last!

kakashka

HUBERTUS wrote: »

After being lumbered with .22cfs from 1972 to 1993 for shooting Deer I cannot understand why anyone would buy a .243 for your Deer.

Red, Sika, Fallow and Sika /Red hybrids deserve something more powerful than that. In my lifetime I have used a few of the .22cfs on many of your Deer but changed my faithful .30-06 for a .270 when your laws changed around 1993 and the ceiling was raised to .270 .

Currently I have two .243 rifles, one HB Varminter Sako and a standard weight Tikka T3, however when I go out to shoot a Roe or Red I pick up the .270 .
Your Sika are hard enough to kill where they stand without handicapping yourself.
Why send a boy to do a mans job when plenty of suitable man-power is available.

HWH.

sounds like the boy is doing the mans job!!

kakashka

ivanthehunter wrote: »

AN another note! don't go looking for your first deer stalking rifle! look for your last!

Looking is fun too:):):)

HUBERTUS

slippy wicket.
I put a post on here to assist you, this was in good faith and after nearly 50 years experience wth many, many hundreds of Deer shot of seven species total with calibres ranging from .22 Hornet to .375 H&H.
I cannot stand ignorant piss-takers so I shall withdraw from this formum.

HWH.

ivanthehunter

deleted!

deerhunter1

HUBERTUS wrote: »

After being lumbered with .22cfs from 1972 to 1993 for shooting Deer I cannot understand why anyone would buy a .243 for your Deer.

Red, Sika, Fallow and Sika /Red hybrids deserve something more powerful than that. In my lifetime I have used a few of the .22cfs on many of your Deer but changed my faithful .30-06 for a .270 when your laws changed around 1993 and the ceiling was raised to .270 .

Currently I have two .243 rifles, one HB Varminter Sako and a standard weight Tikka T3, however when I go out to shoot a Roe or Red I pick up the .270 .
Your Sika are hard enough to kill where they stand without handicapping yourself.
Why send a boy to do a mans job when plenty of suitable man-power is available.

HWH.

Well said could not agree more, better to have and not need, than to need and not have

dwighet

deerhunter1 wrote: »

Well said could not agree more, better to have and not need, than to need and not have

+1 for both Herbies comment and yourself deerhunter 1....

Those sika are hardy feckers......The six million dollar man has nothing on a sika...they just keep going till they cant go any more..

One can never be under gunned!!!!!

slippy wicket

Thanks for all the advice, I have found a sweet Sako A2 .308 with a Kahles 4x32 scope for 630 euros in South Wales. Its done very little shooting but the scope is a little under powered i have been told.
Also know where there is a Ruger 6.5 with a Redfield 3-9x50 for 750

.243

ive been using a .243 since ive started shooting deer,ive changed rifles but never cailbre,i never needed to,a .243 is in terms of cailbre is the entry power level for deer shooting for anyone starting out,
it will do the job to a point but what you will have to consider is the area you are going to be shooting in eg,short distances in forestry fire tracks a .243 will do it here or out across larger barren areas on the hill where there will be more distance put between you and your intended target a heavier calibre will be needed as not to lose the neccessary punch to put the animal down cleanly,
scope wise id suggest starting at a 1000 euro regardless of the gun,you will get others saying some cheaper scopes work too,maybe but you WILL have a scope for life paying this much out,
as for scope mounts,pay for the ones that are the best
if you get a good scope and good mounts it really won't matter what gun you put them on

berettadt10

Have to agree with .243, if you are shooting close enough targets, .243 is perfect. Where i shoot i need .270 and its fairly open terrain, also if you went to Scothland to shoot, the min calibre there is .270. I think if you are going to do it right and no dis-respect to anybody i would go for the larger calibre, because it might be the case, once you have used the .243, you might say why didnt i get a .270 or upwards. Just a thought!!!!
People ofter forget this but pay good money for a scope, and mounts and you never look back. I use a Swarvoski 4x16x50. I seen people spending mad money on rifles and putting a **** scope on it.
I bought my CZ .270 for €280 second hand. I paid 100 pound for apel rings on ebay, which were excellent value, and the scope cost me €1300euro.
Over and out

ronboy

HUBERTUS wrote: »

slippy wicket.
I put a post on here to assist you, this was in good faith and after nearly 50 years experience wth many, many hundreds of Deer shot of seven species total with calibres ranging from .22 Hornet to .375 H&H.
I cannot stand ignorant piss-takers so I shall withdraw from this formum.

HWH.

Don't mind any of those pisstakers hubertus. It goes on on this forum the whole time. You are a man or women with a lot of experience and I think you have a lot to offer this forum and the people on it...
Ron

BUACHAILL

kakashka wrote: »

sounds like the boy is doing the mans job!!

Kakashka why the hell would you thank someone for withdrawing from this forum because you are a smart arse. This guy has offered his time and past experience to help others who need the assistance ! If you dont need it fine but dont be a d..k and insult him !! then thank him as he finds it insulting.

unreal

slippy wicket

Thanks for all the advice, I have put a deposit on a .243 Ruger Stainless Synthetic from Crescent Sports in Monkstown. I am also looking at a Nikon Monarch 3 scope. Any thoughts as to the quality and durability of the optics.

It wasn't me!

slippy wicket wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice, I have put a deposit on a .243 Ruger Stainless Synthetic from Crescent Sports in Monkstown. I am also looking at a Nikon Monarch 3 scope. Any thoughts as to the quality and durability of the optics.

Enjoy it. Ruger make a nice rifle. You get yourself a left-handed model? No experience with the scope I'm afraid.

tiny-nioclas

slippy wicket wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice, I have put a deposit on a .243 Ruger Stainless Synthetic from Crescent Sports in Monkstown. I am also looking at a Nikon Monarch 3 scope. Any thoughts as to the quality and durability of the optics.

I think i have that exact rifle, is it a hawkeye mark II? You'l love it. Accurate, strong and comfortable. I have a zeiss Conquest 3-9x50 on mine and its a real dinger, i got my scope from the states on e bay, thats your best bet for epic quality and great prices, Enjoy!

Remmy

kakashka wrote: »

243 or possibly 308 would be my advice,dont bother with long actions IMHO,you say its for deer stalking,well a nice light 243 would be ideal and far more capable than a lot of ppl seem to think,i'd agree with deek re scope,dont waste money on a cheap scope,a good one will last a lifetime and can be used on future guns,hard to buy it first but worth saving/waiting for,S&B Varmint is an excellent scope if you could stretch to it but a fixed 6 ,7, 8 or 10 would also be spot on and always usefull and valuable should you need to sell in future

+1

Quality advice this.

Tricky1127

I wasn`t living in Ireland was in UK (working) it was an "Lee Enfield MK4 .303" i payed £250. and sold it for £250 years later and i wish i never sold it! the gun smith had fixed a dove tail rail for mounts and scope (EX British service Rifle/Scope) Now i use .260Rem and .308Win

kakashka

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Kakashka why the hell would you thank someone for withdrawing from this forum because you are a smart arse. This guy has offered his time and past experience to help others who need the assistance ! If you dont need it fine but dont be a d..k and insult him !! then thank him as he finds it insulting.

unreal

As i have said,i do not tackle anyone i do not know BUACHAILL.i thanked him for leaving(which was more bs)

kakashka

slippy wicket wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice, I have put a deposit on a .243 Ruger Stainless Synthetic from Crescent Sports in Monkstown. I am also looking at a Nikon Monarch 3 scope. Any thoughts as to the quality and durability of the optics.

All the best with that,sorry no experience of newer nikon either ,some of the older ones were top quality though

stephentri

hi i have used my mates sauar 202 in 6.5x55 it is a nice cal to shoot not much kick of it but a good killing round

jwshooter

NO

thedragon

If ya cant knock a deer with a 6.5x55, take up tiddly winks.

It wasn't me!

The point jw has made time and again on the subject is that it doesn't kill deer as fast as he likes. He's given good illustrations of a number of occasions where he's seen it not perform the way he wants a gun to on animals well shot to back this up. He shoots plenty of deer and he's a capable shot, so snide comments just have no place. You're just looking to start a fight and acting like a child. He doesn't like the calibre, you do. That's all there is to it.

Cass

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The point jw has made time and again on the subject is that it doesn't kill deer as fast as he likes. ...... He doesn't like the calibre, you do. That's all there is to it.

Fair enough iwm, but nobody should dismiss a calibre because of not liking it. I've used my 6.5 for the last 5 years and every deer shot has gone done nice, clean and quick. No suffering on the animals part. I really don't want this to devolve into a "which is better" as those arguments are tired, long, drawn out and never resolve anything as each person sticks to their guns. (literally)

I've read some of Jw's posts on which is the better calibre as well as everyone else that reckons the calibre they use is better. Its a personal choice and each to their own i say, but nobody should dismiss a calibre/round another person uses as if they have made the wrong choice.

Sparks

It would, however, be nice if people explained strong opinions in more than a single shouted word, since the first rule in the charter is to be civil to one another in here...

It wasn't me!

ezridax wrote: »

Fair enough iwm, but nobody should dismiss a calibre because of not liking it. I've used my 6.5 for the last 5 years and every deer shot has gone done nice, clean and quick. No suffering on the animals part. I really don't want this to devolve into a "which is better" as those arguments are tired, long, drawn out and never resolve anything as each person sticks to their guns. (literally)

I've read some of Jw's posts on which is the better calibre as well as everyone else that reckons the calibre they use is better. Its a personal choice and each to their own i say, but nobody should dismiss a calibre/round another person uses as if they have made the wrong choice.

Well, no, that's exactly why people should dismiss it. If I had bad experiences with a calibre, I'd be advising people against it, and wouldn't really be too keen to have someone come on here telling me I might as well take up tiddlywinks if I can't kill deer with that calibre, because I know I'm a fairly competent shot, and if I'm having consistently bad results, chances are there's something suspect, and if another round will do a better job, and I find it to do so, then of course I'll badmouth the other one and advise people not to use it, consistently. It would be remiss not to do so. jw's killed more deer than most will ever even see, so I'm happy to take his advice on what does the best job.

Cass

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Well, no, that's exactly why people should dismiss it. If I had bad experiences with a calibre, I'd be advising people against it

Exactly, ADVISING, not dismissing. Because he doesn't like 6.5 doesn't mean others don't and doesn't mean others (myself) are not getting the desired effect with it.

...., and wouldn't really be too keen to have someone come on here telling me I might as well take up tiddlywinks if I can't kill deer with that calibre

Fair enough. That is childish, but i thought it was said in jest. Obviously not taken up that way.

......., then of course I'll badmouth the other one and advise people not to use it, consistently

So because you cannot use a particular calibre no-one can and all those using that calibre successfully for years are actually in error?

jw's killed more deer than most will ever even see, so I'm happy to take his advice on what does the best job.

More power to him. And if he advises you on a particular calibre and you want to follow that advice then thats your prerogative.

All i can say is i've gotten as much deer as i've wanted or needed and a good amount of those with the 6.5x55. All head or heart shots and clean kills. The only problem i ever had was finding the right bullet (the rifle was fussy). A few hours at the range sorted that.

It wasn't me!

ezridax wrote: »

Exactly, ADVISING, not dismissing. Because he doesn't like 6.5 doesn't mean others don't and doesn't mean others (myself) are not getting the desired effect with it.

And that's fair enough, but it would be wrong to sit quietly with a wealth of experience to the contrary. You also have to consider the number of deer shot in a given timeframe. If he has a much larger sample, then the data is statistically more relevant. So someone who shoots a hundred deer over a decade and has say ten bad experiences with the round won't put it down to the poor performance of the round, more than likely, because it's been a rare occurrence as far as they're concerned. If someone else shoots a hundred deer in a season, and has ten wonky things happen, they'll question the round. If another person has a hundred deer shot a season, with five different calibres, and has ten problems, and eight of them are the same calibre, then again, that will bring the round even more into question, won't it? You just have to look at the amount of information and its context to understand its true relevance and value. That's why I take what jwshooter says seriously where deer calibres are concerned.

Fair enough. That is childish, but i thought it was said in jest. Obviously not taken up that way.

The two of them are constantly at one another's throats. It's spoiling for a fight.

So because you cannot use a particular calibre no-one can and all those using that calibre successfully for years are actually in error?

No, they're free to do so, but again, depending on the context and relevance of the information and the experience, as I've detailed above, some opinions are worth more than others. And the phrasing should be "would not", to properly reflect the situation. I'm sure as a recreational stalker, the problems wouldn't show up for me as they might for someone culling on a much larger scale, but that doesn't mean the flaws aren't real.

More power to him. And if he advises you on a particular calibre and you want to follow that advice then thats your prerogative.

I did, and I'm sure I'll be very happy with it for a long time to come.

All i can say is i've gotten as much deer as i've wanted or needed and a good amount of those with the 6.5x55. All head or heart shots and clean kills. The only problem i ever had was finding the right bullet (the rifle was fussy). A few hours at the range sorted that.

Out of curiosity, what bullet are you using? Even jw has said the Nosler ballistic tip from Norma is a good round in 6.5x55, but if that doesn't shoot, you might be stuck.

Sparks

I've zero issues with someone giving advice.
Thing is, "NO", posted on it's own, is not advice. It's barely above a grunt. If you don't want to give advice, that's no worries either - but as with boxer shorts lads, pick a side and commit.

And thedragon, quit acting the maggot. Your post wasn't exactly the Mrs.Beeton's of hunting either.

Cass

My whole point here is that no one persons opinions are sacrosanct. Some will carry more weight than others, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and in a forum of discussion and idea sharing to tell anyone to avoid a particular calibre becauese of personal opinion is not fair to the calibre as others will or may not have the same experience. Hence the reason why i say to give your opinion to someone, giving them the pros and cons (or just one) and letting them make up their mind.

I've shot with .308, 6.5, .243 and recently 30-06. Each gun has its good points and each gunhas its faults or little gaffs that i'm not keen on. I give my opinion on each and let the other lads make up their own mind.

Originally Posted by It wasn't me
Out of curiosity, what bullet are you using? Even jw has said the Nosler ballistic tip from Norma is a good round in 6.5x55, but if that doesn't shoot, you might be stuck.

I tried every round made (or so it seems). The fault with the Sig is it can be fussy with its bullet choice. I tried Hornady, Remington, Federal, Fusion, Norma, Lapua. The Hornady, Remington did not go well through it. The Federal was not bad holding a 3" group but the Fusion were the better of these four. I then got 140gr Norma. Better. Tighter groups and more consistancy. But i paid a little over the odds and the difference was not significant enough to warrant the price. I also tried Lapua "Natraulis". Again a good round and on a par with Norma both ballistic and price wise.

Thats all gone now though. I use a Sauer 202 in 30-06 with Sako 123gr bullets. Excellent rifle, great bullet, great range, fast and flat and excellent dropping power.

jwshooter

at the risk of repeating my self (again) .i have never owned a 6.5x55 .but i have shot deer with the cal.

most of my experience with the cal is from clients.

generally they use 140gr 2600fps up in the cal .
once you go above 150gr your lobing a bullet 2500fps . even the nosler ballistic `120gr is only doing 2800fps thats with a 24" barrel.(norma charts)

look at a comparison the 25,05

A typical round for deer stalking in ireland
100gr ballistic tip 3200 fps 117gr soft point 3000fps

.270
110gr v max 3400 fps 130gr ballistic tip 3000fps.

this really means noting to most reading this .

if your neck/head shooing with the 6.5 you dont get the expansion,even hitting bone with the exception of the 120gr ballistic tip.
hit skin and your in trouble.
at €45 a box for the 120grs and thats if they group in your 6.5 makes it a none runner in my book .

do the same with a 270/25,06 110gv v max /100gr ballistic tip and the head comes off.

chest a animal with the 6.5 your not hitting it hard enough to wind it /take all the air out of its lungs .thats why the animal will generally run further.

the 270 hits harder taking the air out of the lungs and they fill with blood quicker.
studies have been done if a animal has a lung full of air when its hit it will generally run further than when it has exhaled .
so taking the air out of the lungs should drop a animal quicker.

hubert ,tried to give some of his vast knowledge on muntjac on hear ,again the know alls reticulated him ,he has not posted scene.
john griffen also stated that the 6.5 is a poor choice for the irish hunter.for the same reasons .
to kill deer quickly you have to take the air out of there lungs and cause blood loss.

the biggest stalking agent in ireland will tell you the same most of the fuxx ups over his 30 years in the business were with 6.5.

so my answer is ( NO ) there is a lot better cals out there .

jwshooter

ezridax wrote: »

My whole point here is that no one persons opinions are sacrosanct. Some will carry more weight than others, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and in a forum of discussion and idea sharing to tell anyone to avoid a particular calibre becauese of personal opinion is not fair to the calibre as others will or may not have the same experience. Hence the reason why i say to give your opinion to someone, giving them the pros and cons (or just one) and letting them make up their mind.

I've shot with .308, 6.5, .243 and recently 30-06. Each gun has its good points and each gunhas its faults or little gaffs that i'm not keen on. I give my opinion on each and let the other lads make up their own mind.



I tried every round made (or so it seems). The fault with the Sig is it can be fussy with its bullet choice. I tried Hornady, Remington, Federal, Fusion, Norma, Lapua. The Hornady, Remington did not go well through it. The Federal was not bad holding a 3" group but the Fusion were the better of these four. I then got 140gr Norma. Better. Tighter groups and more consistancy. But i paid a little over the odds and the difference was not significant enough to warrant the price. I also tried Lapua "Natraulis". Again a good round and on a par with Norma both ballistic and price wise.

Thats all gone now though. I use a Sauer 202 in 30-06 with Sako 123gr bullets. Excellent rifle, great bullet, great range, fast and flat and excellent dropping power.

(federal was not bad holding a 3" group) at what range ? on a range?
what would that be in the field.
i rebarreled my 25,06 as it started shooting 1.5" groups ,where is was shooting half inch groups.

lucy333springer

Yep,
some people know it all, my way or the high-way.
slan 333.

arrowloopboy

jwshooter wrote: »

at the risk of repeating my self (again) .i have never owned a 6.5x55 .but i have shot deer with the cal.

most of my experience with the cal is from clients.

generally they use 140gr 2600fps up in the cal .
once you go above 150gr your lobing a bullet 2500fps . even the nosler ballistic `120gr is only doing 2800fps thats with a 24" barrel.(norma charts)

look at a comparison the 25,05

A typical round for deer stalking in ireland
100gr ballistic tip 3200 fps 117gr soft point 3000fps

.270
110gr v max 3400 fps 130gr ballistic tip 3000fps.

this really means noting to most reading this .

if your neck/head shooing with the 6.5 you dont get the expansion,even hitting bone with the exception of the 120gr ballistic tip.
hit skin and your in trouble.
at €45 a box for the 120grs and thats if they group in your 6.5 makes it a none runner in my book .

do the same with a 270/25,06 110gv v max /100gr ballistic tip and the head comes off.

chest a animal with the 6.5 your not hitting it hard enough to wind it /take all the air out of its lungs .thats why the animal will generally run further.

the 270 hits harder taking the air out of the lungs and they fill with blood quicker.
studies have been done if a animal has a lung full of air when its hit it will generally run further than when it has exhaled .
so taking the air out of the lungs should drop a animal quicker.

hubert ,tried to give some of his vast knowledge on muntjac on hear ,again the know alls reticulated him ,he has not posted scene.
john griffen also stated that the 6.5 is a poor choice for the irish hunter.for the same reasons .
to kill deer quickly you have to take the air out of there lungs and cause blood loss.

the biggest stalking agent in ireland will tell you the same most of the fuxx ups over his 30 years in the business were with 6.5.

so my answer is ( NO ) there is a lot better cals out there .

What would Griffin know about shooting deer ?

BoarHunter

for a first rifle i would favour a good old 7x64 which with you can drop anything. there is a vast choice out there with that caliber. In addition if you want it to be an exclusive stalking rifle, there are plenty of 7x64 equiped with a stetcher which is really comfortable to use and helps when you are a beginner.

Definitly better than the 6.5 IMO that could be used on roe deer, young boar ( under 40 kg ) with good success.

the 7x64 is the definite all rounder and you can even use it in driven hunts with good stopping power ( all depends on the bullet you use at the end )

jwshooter

arrowloopboy wrote: »

What would Griffin know about shooting deer ?

a lot more than some one that bought a rifle two years ago

there was 10 people that returned a 100 or more deer on there licence last year ,i would think john was one of them

lucy333springer

Gosh, 100 deer, that's some session of eating, that's two full
deer a week, no-one need's that amount, (over kill), we only take
what we need, mmm. slan 333.

It wasn't me!

lucy333springer wrote: »

Gosh, 100 deer, that's some session of eating, that's two full
deer a week, no-one need's that amount, (over kill), we only take
what we need, mmm. slan 333.

He's a wildlife ranger. And some people have enough ground that they need to shoot that much for a proper cull. The sport and eating is always, always secondary to the conservation element in that situation.

fish slapped

arrowloopboy wrote: »

What would Griffin know about shooting deer ?

Sorry but to post something like this, about another person, who I know for a fact has an extensive knowledge on the matter is just pure arrogance.

Sparks

fish slapped wrote: »

Sorry but to post something like this, about another person, who I know for a fact has an extensive knowledge on the matter is just pure arrogance.

...unless he didn't actually know who Griffin was and thought he was just a (very good) wildlife photographer...