I think practice with any rifle will make you a better marksman, I don't think most guys can shoot more than a box of any .300+ mags at a time without pushing the discomfort barrier.

It's really not hard to figure out how a rifle works, and how to shoot one well. Once you have that figured out, it doesn't take much work to get on target and stay on target. Competition shooting is another story.

Am I missing something? sight in your rifle for a 300yd shot, put the crosshairs on the target, pull the trigger, gun goes boom, bullet hits crosshairs.How many rounds do you need to send down range? If I want to shoot downrange all day long, I'll shoot my .270 or something lighter/easier to shoot all day long. and cheaper ammo to boot!

I've just yet to find ammo costs a deterrance in figuring out which rifle to buy next, with few exceptions....

I like the Leupold VX-III with the B&C reticle.

It does make you right on on those long shots.....if youre dead on at 200yds, you know 300, 400, 450, 500.

Maybe that's my secret to those long shots, though I think that secret has been let out of the bag for a while now. With how tough you guys are making it sound to shoot downrange.....maybe I should join the olympic team, is there any money in this sport?

I have the VX-IIIs 4.5-14x40 LR scopes on a few of my rifles. I prefer the fine crosshairs, and dialing in when shooting long range. I also can do the math real quick in my head and do the holdover method very effectively.

Yep...I'd definitely say you are missing something. Getting on the net and talking about it doesnt count as practice either.

Then, respectfully, I will have to disagree with you here.

The bottom line we've all heard before: "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".If recoil keeps you from shooting yourrifle, then you're never going to realize its full potential - or yours, for that matter. I can shoot a .223, .22-250,.243, or .308all day long at the range or at prairie dogs. I suspect that's why I'm much more comfortable (and effective) with them at 500 yards than I am my .30-06, .300 Wby, or .375 H&H at that same range - NOT because I sighted any of them in at 300yards.

And actually, every one of them is sighted in at 100 yards. I know the trajectories of each in 100 yard incrementsout to 600 yards with the rounds I shoot. Those calculations have been "proofed" by hours at the range, and are imprinted in my head. Much more effective in my opinion than simply sighting a rifle in at300 yards and opening up an entirely new setof variables with few controls applied.I'm assuming that you're first sighting in at a shorter distance like 100 yards to determine whether the particular ammo you're using is worthy of attempting long range work, vice something that prints 2" or larger groups like I've seen some rifles do at that range? That takes ammo. Then you're stepping it off to 300 yards and attempting to put rounds on paper there? That takes ammo, too.

Unfortunately, a lot of guys I'm listening to at the gun counter WANT some sexy magnum cartridge, but don't appear to have the senseGod gave grapes when it comes to understanding what it's going to take forthem to shoot it well- which is, purely and simply,PRACTICE. They focus on terms like "knockdown", then wonder why the thing's tearing off their shoulder and they can't apply it to their targets.

If you can't afford the practice, whetherdue to the price of ammo or the resultant physical therapy bills,it's inconsequential that you can afford to buy (or "need")the rifle in the first place.

Really didn't see what age had to do with much here, to say a 50+ yr old has more knowledge than someone in their 20 or 30's doesn't make sense to me, myself, being in my upper 20's, and having hunted since I was 10, gives me almost 20 years of real world experience. My point is I don't presume someone younger than me has less knowledge of hunting or firearms.

I'm sure I've been on more big game hunts thanmany men older than mehave. I can shoot a rifle very well.

I've pointed out that I really don't find ammo costs to be so drastically different that it would make me decide which I chose.

Iguess from now on I'll just cite endless specific examples from past experience to support my claims.....

such as my vx-ii 4.5-14 with the B&C reticle......it was sighted dead on at 200yds, the antelope was out at about 330yds or so. I put the 300yd crosshair on him, the wind was blowing hard, more than the 10mph windage showed, using the 10mph I set it into the wind another foot or two, pulled the trigger and watched the antelope drop, from that point on, I'm a big fan of ballistic style reticles.

Any by using ballistic tables from manufacturers you can determine which loads follow yoru specific scope's reticles.....not closely, or loads that will "work" but loads that are dead on the money. IMO a ballstic scope probably takes away alot of the wasted time at the range trying to determine exactly where to aim /hold out to 500yds, in that case sure you may need boxes and boxes of ammo.

Ridge dont make the mistake of equating that experience= knowledge. Knowledge is the result of what you have learned from your experiences and how you apply that knowledge to further your learning. I will provide a real life example.
Approx 8 years ago I was running the field service department for an industrial engine distributor. We had 9 full time technicians 2 of which had 27 and 30 years of experience respectively. They had far more factory training and years of experience, than any of the other service technicians. Yet they were without question the weakest technicians with regard to overall skills and troubleshooting in general.
In factI hired a 22 year old technicianwith near zero experience and training prior to being hired. At the end of an 18 month employment I and other management agreed that the new hire was already better than the two senior techs at trouble shooting and repairs. Despite the obvious skills of the new hire the senior technicians constantly berated the new hire.(Kind of like you always seem to do)
The idea that I did it longer and therefore are correct does not hold water. Present you opinon and back it up with facts, instead of constantly demeaning others that post on this site.

Just to set the record straight. The first 3 posts we shared started with you calling my opinion "BS". That is exactly how you responded to my post. I actually let the first two pass without a direct response and on the 3rd post "New Bullet Design" I decided that you were following me around the net and I decided to pummel you once to get you off my back. I dont need to remind you how that post ended do I.

Yes he was, exactly, it is called aptitude or the ability to learn!!! He used his aptitude to learn more in 18 months than the others learned in 27 and 30 years.
I will readily acknowledge that you have a very good grasp onmost of the topics you post on. The point is not thatthat you lack knowledge, the point is having knowledge does not mean you should be repeatedly startingposts with BS.If needbeI can post 5 times you have done itto posters in the last 3-4 weeks if needed to make my point.
Just make a point in a civil manner, put forward your position with a little more tack in the future and I am sure "we can just all get along."

I think a big part of ballistic tables is that *test barrels, certainly if a test barrel is 24 or 26" and your rifle is 20 or 22, or less than tested, the bullet is going to be flying slower.....

I feel no need to invole the mods you are free act as you see fit. Knock yourself out.