Mountain rifle combination - Request for opinions

[AZDAVE]

For mountains get in the best shape possible and it won't matter what your rifle weights. Based on your requirement a nice 6.5x55, 6.5 Creedmore, or 260 REM will give you a nice flat shooting rifle. Accuracy is more important than lite weight in my opinion.

 

[sandman0921]

First and foremost, I am by no means a "mountain" hunting expert, and there are many on here that have done way more than I have, including a few that are posting on this thread so I defer to them for sure. I have done a few backcountry hunts including mule deer and elk in Utah, and Dall sheep in Alaska. Last year I went to the Mackenzie Mountains of the NWT of Canada and hunted the big moose they have there as well as mountain caribou. This year I am headed to northern British Columbia to hunt Stone's sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat. My 2 cents is the following:

1) When I think of a mountain hunting rifle, the first thing I think about is weight. I used to think that it was all BS, and didn't really put much stock in the theory that 1-2 lbs could make much difference. However, after hunting a few times in the backcountry, and having to lug my big behind, a 40-50 lb pack, and a fully loaded and scoped rifle up some extremely steep and rugged terrain, I do think some consideration should be paid to the idea of a lighter than "normal" rifle. How light is enough....only you know the answer. But I can tell you that after a few days of being wet and cold, and absolutely dog tired from climbing for hours only to find that the buck, bull, ram, etc., is not quite what you thought it was, and you are going to have the pleasure of doing it all over again the following day after a long and arduous descent down the mountain back to spike camp, etc.,......weight starts to become a factor to me....at least mentally...and you will find yourself trying to find ways to shed those few ounces to lighten up your load. I've even found myself contemplating a pack strap or buckle and seriously considering tossing it only to save half an ounce. So given the choice between a light rifle and a moderately heavy rifle, with all other things being equal, I'm taking the light rifle each and every time.

2) The second thing regarding a mountain rifle I think about is construction and build components of the rifle. For you, I'm not sure if cold and wet are as much a consideration as say a sheep hunter in Alaska or Canada, but the terrain your going to hunt is rugged and the rifle is going to get banged up. As much as I prefer a beautiful piece of figured walnut and blued steel, I feel that type of rifle is just not as practical as a synthetic stocked rifle with a thinner than average barrel, and a weather resistant coating like Cerakote for instance. Wood, when wet, can swell and thus alter your bullet's POI. A wood stock can crack or break easier than a synthetic one. And on and on and on......

3) Optics is another very important consideration. Both weight and light gathering capability come into play here for sure. So much of mountain hunting is an optics game. From the time the quarry is spotted miles away to the final approach and stalk, optics play a huge role in hunting mountain species. There are plenty of great rifle scopes out there, and for this type of hunting, I think the adage of "you get what you pay for" certainly holds true. Trying to save a buck on a cheaper scope is probably not the best strategy, and so in my opinion, if there ever was a time for premium/alpha glass it is now. Alpine species tend to hide out sometimes in the nooks, crags, and crannies of the mountains, and shadows come into play for sure, so the ability of the glass to gather and transmit a lot of light clearly is really a plus. As far as ballistic reticles and turrets go, I personally feel that they do help when shooting at objects at over 300 yds (meters) but the caveat is that you have to practice with them, and have a method to accurately range the animal in question. I'm with other posters when they say know your limits as to what range you can consistently hit your target at from field conditions. Personally, I rarely take shots at over 400 yds. because I can't routinely practice beyond that range, and I feel that there is so much that can happen between the time the bullet leaves the muzzle, and when it impacts the target past 400 yds. One day, I'd love to get more proficient at shooting at targets past 500 yds., but currently I don't feel comfortable doing that.

4) Finally is caliber, and the reason I left that for last is that personally, I don't think it matters as much. There are many flat shooting calibers out there that are great. Certainly, I think there are some reasonable limits, and so no, I don't think trying to take a poke at a Marco Polo ram at 600 yds with a 45-110 black powder Sharps rifle, is reasonable...at least in my hands, but certainly a 270 Winchester, 308 Winchester, 30-06 Spg, 300 Win. Mag., etc. have all been proven to be great mountain cartridges. You mentioned the 30-06, and I would think at the ranges you have specified (</= 450 yds.), a 30-06 Spg with 150 grain bullets at close to 3000 fps (some of the factory Hornady Superformance ammo supposedly achieves this velocity) would be a great mountain cartridge loading. I was reading an article in Sports Afield the other day where Craig Boddington was debating the age old question of which is a better cartridge between the 270 Winchester and the 30-06 Spg. One thing that interested me was that the legendary Jack O'Connor himself (270 Jack) who has killed way more sheep than I ever will even dream of killing, took most of his rams with a rifle chambered in 30-06 Spg. (earlier days of his sheep hunting career), and even privately admitted that the 30-06 Spg was a more versatile cartridge. I think the great thing about the 30-06 is the versatility of the loadings. You could zero your scope for 150 grain bullets to hunt mountain species, and then turn around and re-zero it with 220 grain bullets to hunt big plains game animals. You also mentioned the 270 WSM, and in my opinion, if there ever was a near perfect "sheep" cartridge to be utilized in a short/compact, and lightweight rifle, the 270 WSM might be it. However, if you're not a handloader, and factory fodder is not readily available where you live, then it probably doesn't make much sense to own a rifle chambered in that cartridge.

If it even matters, my personal "mountain" rig is a custom rifle built off a Remington 700 clone action (Stiller Predator) in 280 Ackley Improved. It has a lightweight contoured, fluted stainless steel barrel at 24 inches. It sports a Manners EH3 Lightweight Stock, Timney trigger, and all the metal is Cerakoted. I topped it with a Swarovski Z5 3.5-18 x 44 with a customized ballistic turret for my handloads. Fully loaded, scoped, and with a sling it comes in a little over 7 lbs if I remember correctly. I'm shooting a 140 grain Nosler Accubond behind Hodgdon H4350 at arround 3200 fps. It is a very accurate load (<0.5 MOA if I do my part) in my rifle. Do you need a custom rifle dedicated to strictly mountain species? Absolutely not. But if you are inclined to have a rifle built specifically for mountain hunting, it gives you an idea what you can have done. In my mind, I know this rifle will shoot better than I can, so if something's amiss in my practice, I know more than likely, it's me. It certainly is a confidence builder.....

Again, my 2 cents......if it's even worth that much....

Good luck in your search, and let us know what you decide on.....

 

[Rick Cox]

My first choice as it has been on my Mtn hunts is a 270, either in standard caliber or wsm. I ve taken dall sheep, mtn goat, big horn sheep, tahr and chamois with my old 270. lightweight. I ve since sold it as I shot the barrel life out of it and have replaced it with a 270 wsm. Your 30-06 with todays modern ammo will be just fine. My advise is to sight in at least 3 inches high at 100.

Good advice. In Canada, I would add that it's time to go with synthetic and stainless. The mountains are often wet, and that leaves one less thing to worry about. On the 270WSM note, with mine sited in at 2" high at 100 yds. it is close to on at 300. Flat shooting gun, but if you have a 30-06 you like, it's a good rifle.

 

[Rick Cox]

First and foremost, I am by no means a "mountain" hunting expert, and there are many on here that have done way more than I have, including a few that are posting on this thread so I defer to them for sure. I have done a few backcountry hunts including mule deer and elk in Utah, and Dall sheep in Alaska. Last year I went to the Mackenzie Mountains of the NWT of Canada and hunted the big moose they have there as well as mountain caribou. This year I am headed to northern British Columbia to hunt Stone's sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat. My 2 cents is the following:

1) When I think of a mountain hunting rifle, the first thing I think about is weight. I used to think that it was all BS, and didn't really put much stock in the theory that 1-2 lbs could make much difference. However, after hunting a few times in the backcountry, and having to lug my big behind, a 40-50 lb pack, and a fully loaded and scoped rifle up some extremely steep and rugged terrain, I do think some consideration should be paid to the idea of a lighter than "normal" rifle. How light is enough....only you know the answer. But I can tell you that after a few days of being wet and cold, and absolutely dog tired from climbing for hours only to find that the buck, bull, ram, etc., is not quite what you thought it was, and you are going to have the pleasure of doing it all over again the following day after a long and arduous descent down the mountain back to spike camp, etc.,......weight starts to become a factor to me....at least mentally...and you will find yourself trying to find ways to shed those few ounces to lighten up your load. I've even found myself contemplating a pack strap or buckle and seriously considering tossing it only to save half an ounce. So given the choice between a light rifle and a moderately heavy rifle, with all other things being equal, I'm taking the light rifle each and every time.

2) The second thing regarding a mountain rifle I think about is construction and build components of the rifle. For you, I'm not sure if cold and wet are as much a consideration as say a sheep hunter in Alaska or Canada, but the terrain your going to hunt is rugged and the rifle is going to get banged up. As much as I prefer a beautiful piece of figured walnut and blued steel, I feel that type of rifle is just not as practical as a synthetic stocked rifle with a thinner than average barrel, and a weather resistant coating like Cerakote for instance. Wood, when wet, can swell and thus alter your bullet's POI. A wood stock can crack or break easier than a synthetic one. And on and on and on......

3) Optics is another very important consideration. Both weight and light gathering capability come into play here for sure. So much of mountain hunting is an optics game. From the time the quarry is spotted miles away to the final approach and stalk, optics play a huge role in hunting mountain species. There are plenty of great rifle scopes out there, and for this type of hunting, I think the adage of "you get what you pay for" certainly holds true. Trying to save a buck on a cheaper scope is probably not the best strategy, and so in my opinion, if there ever was a time for premium/alpha glass it is now. Alpine species tend to hide out sometimes in the nooks, crags, and crannies of the mountains, and shadows come into play for sure, so the ability of the glass to gather and transmit a lot of light clearly is really a plus. As far as ballistic reticles and turrets go, I personally feel that they do help when shooting at objects at over 300 yds (meters) but the caveat is that you have to practice with them, and have a method to accurately range the animal in question. I'm with other posters when they say know your limits as to what range you can consistently hit your target at from field conditions. Personally, I rarely take shots at over 400 yds. because I can't routinely practice beyond that range, and I feel that there is so much that can happen between the time the bullet leaves the muzzle, and when it impacts the target past 400 yds. One day, I'd love to get more proficient at shooting at targets past 500 yds., but currently I don't feel comfortable doing that.

4) Finally is caliber, and the reason I left that for last is that personally, I don't think it matters as much. There are many flat shooting calibers out there that are great. Certainly, I think there are some reasonable limits, and so no, I don't think trying to take a poke at a Marco Polo ram at 600 yds with a 45-110 black powder Sharps rifle, is reasonable...at least in my hands, but certainly a 270 Winchester, 308 Winchester, 30-06 Spg, 300 Win. Mag., etc. have all been proven to be great mountain cartridges. You mentioned the 30-06, and I would think at the ranges you have specified (</= 450 yds.), a 30-06 Spg with 150 grain bullets at close to 3000 fps (some of the factory Hornady Superformance ammo supposedly achieves this velocity) would be a great mountain cartridge loading. I was reading an article in Sports Afield the other day where Craig Boddington was debating the age old question of which is a better cartridge between the 270 Winchester and the 30-06 Spg. One thing that interested me was that the legendary Jack O'Connor himself (270 Jack) who has killed way more sheep than I ever will even dream of killing, took most of his rams with a rifle chambered in 30-06 Spg. (earlier days of his sheep hunting career), and even privately admitted that the 30-06 Spg was a more versatile cartridge. I think the great thing about the 30-06 is the versatility of the loadings. You could zero your scope for 150 grain bullets to hunt mountain species, and then turn around and re-zero it with 220 grain bullets to hunt big plains game animals. You also mentioned the 270 WSM, and in my opinion, if there ever was a near perfect "sheep" cartridge to be utilized in a short/compact, and lightweight rifle, the 270 WSM might be it. However, if you're not a handloader, and factory fodder is not readily available where you live, then it probably doesn't make much sense to own a rifle chambered in that cartridge.

If it even matters, my personal "mountain" rig is a custom rifle built off a Remington 700 clone action (Stiller Predator) in 280 Ackley Improved. It has a lightweight contoured, fluted stainless steel barrel at 24 inches. It sports a Manners EH3 Lightweight Stock, Timney trigger, and all the metal is Cerakoted. I topped it with a Swarovski Z5 3.5-18 x 44 with a customized ballistic turret for my handloads. Fully loaded, scoped, and with a sling it comes in a little over 7 lbs if I remember correctly. I'm shooting a 140 grain Nosler Accubond behind Hodgdon H4350 at arround 3200 fps. It is a very accurate load (<0.5 MOA if I do my part) in my rifle. Do you need a custom rifle dedicated to strictly mountain species? Absolutely not. But if you are inclined to have a rifle built specifically for mountain hunting, it gives you an idea what you can have done. In my mind, I know this rifle will shoot better than I can, so if something's amiss in my practice, I know more than likely, it's me. It certainly is a confidence builder.....

Again, my 2 cents......if it's even worth that much....

Good luck in your search, and let us know what you decide on.....

What he said.

 

[Nosler guy]

My two bits - I wouldn't waste a lot of time or money on a 270WSM or something like that. Take your good ol'- 06, work up some good loads with 150 or 165's - top her up with the best glass you can afford and go huntin' - have some fun, might be an ultra long shot here or there that you will want to pass on, but sometimes trying to get in closer is twice as much fun and adds to the challenge

 

[IvW]

I'm never really sure what someone means when they say too much gun....we shot everything from klipspringer to eland with it. All of them died and none of them exploded into a million pieces.

Well it is quite simple. In South Africa ammo for the 338 Win is not readily available whereas ammo for the 7 x 64 is. (Believe me ammo here costs a lot of money).

The 338 Win has a lot more recoil than the 7 x 64, some can handle it some cannot. Most shots in the mountains will be from a prone position or sometimes sitting with distances up to 400m. The less recoil the better you can shoot from these positions.

Most mountain species here would not justify the use of a caliber such as the 338 Win as it is just too powerful for the application.

Most of us eat what we shoot so meat damage is also a factor. That is also why I recommend the 7 x 64 over the 270 Win.

 

[mark-hunter]

400 meters!?
Ufff, in my view it may limit the options.

My first idea would be 8x68, or 6.5x68, but the availability of ammo may be a problem.

In that case , for availability of ammo, just plain vanilla 300 win mag.
Or other .30 mag if available, like Weatherby.

I see that you tend to prefer .30 cal, but for 400 meters, 308 and 30-06 - I would not say - not sufficient, but having additional energy at 400 meters distance would be very welcome and preferable in some magnum elaboration.

If you are not re loader, check for Hornady superperformance line of ammo for additional kick, in any of the standard calibers.
Bullet choice should be low drag, heavier weight for tackling wind, and fast expanding type for medium sized game. Thats my view.

 

[IvW]

Thanks for the reply@IvW.
How available is the ammo here in SA?

I used a 7x64 for a roebuck and a boar in Austria a few years ago. I liked the caliber and the rifle, an old Mauser with 2 stage trigger.

// Gus

No problem getting ammo for the 7 x 64 in SA, re-loading components are also freely available.

 

[IvW]

If your really looking to save weight, and be able to purchase ammo, why not go with a standard short action like a 308 win, or 7-08? Both are easy to get ammo for are very effective hunting rounds.

Maybe where you come from but 7mm-08 has never been a popular caliber here and you will battle to get ammo for it in SA.

Problem with both of these calibers are they shoot light for caliber bullets which is not what you need.

Heavy for caliber bullets of the right design will out perform light ones at extended range every time, in this case out to 400 meters(440 yards). The lighter bullets may start out faster but will lose velocity, momentum, drop and energy faster than a heavier bullet even though the heavier bullet may start slower.

I would not take a 350m shot at a Kudu bull with a 7mm-08 loaded with 130-150 grn bullets but with a 7 x 64 mm with a 175 grn bullet you will have no problems.(Provided of course the shooter is competent to take a shot at that range).

 

[IvW]

The 6.5 x 55mm Swede with 140-160 grn bullets would be another good choice, you may have to limit your range on the Kudu though.

 

[IvW]

400 meters!?
Ufff, in my view it may limit the options.

My first idea would be 8x68, or 6.5x68, but the availability of ammo may be a problem.

In that case , for availability of ammo, just plain vanilla 300 win mag.
Or other .30 mag if available, like Weatherby.

I see that you tend to prefer .30 cal, but for 400 meters, 308 and 30-06 - I would not say - not sufficient, but having additional energy at 400 meters distance would be very welcome and preferable in some magnum elaboration.

If you are not re loader, check for Hornady superperformance line of ammo for additional kick, in any of the standard calibers.
Bullet choice should be low drag, heavier weight for tackling wind, and fast expanding type for medium sized game. Thats my view.

Wow! Way too much gun and recoil for the intended species.

8 x 68- brilliant caliber but designed for large game at long range(gemsbuck through to eland in the Kalahari. Very difficult and expensive to get ammo in SA. Rifle will have to be a custom built one or a old secondhand one if you can find one).

6.5 x 68-just about obsolete, you will never find ammo for this caliber in SA. Barrel burner, not a option in SA

Any Weatherby is way too expensive to get ammo in SA. They are also way too fast and will blow up most of the species he intends to hunt even at range. Ever shot a Klipspringer with a 300 Weatherby? You will probably have to settle for a european mount as the cape will be destroyed.

Any heavy for caliber bullet with a MV of about 2700 fps is all you need for 400m shots. Yes it is a long way and you need to practice and be competent to shoot at that range but excessive muzzle velocity and recoil is not what you need to achieve that.

I agree however that there are better choices than the 30-06 or 308 Win but my opinion is that they are not the ones you have suggested. Taking into consideration the species and distance involved. If he was planning to shoot Eland at 400 m in the mountains it would be a different story.

 

[bassasdaindia]

my choices with respect to long shooters for the Eastern Cape as well as ammo availability would be the .270 win or 300 win mag

 

[Philip Glass]

How about the Kimberly Mountain ascent? It is really light and a really cool gun. I can not recommend .270 for PG I would go up a bit to say .300 Win because you never know what Africa will throw at you. My .30-06 was not enough on the two Safaris I used it and and it took me a while to admit I needed a bit more gun for long shots and tough tough African game.
Regards,
Philip

 

[Hunting Sailor]

Good afternoon all,

Thanks for all the input and views, I know the AH community wouldn't disappoint me in that regards.

To summarize the above so far and in no particular order.

1, Some (most) believe the light weight rifle option is very beneficial and makes a difference.

2, Some believe the regular rifles are good enough to carry around.

3, Some (including my wife) believe the best saving of weight would be for me to shed some weight.

4, Some believe in the faster medium calibers, 270 Win/WSM/7x64, etc.

5, Some believe in the faster .30 cal and even larger.

6, Some believe in the good 'ol 06 with light bullets.

7, Some believe in smaller and thereby lighter, to save weight, scopes.

8, Some believe in larger scopes as the distances will be longer and are willing to give up some weight for that advantage.

8,5 Some believe in turrets and special designed reticles of different kind, actually most do.

9, If I would have said the max distance would be 300m (330 yards), the discussion may have been different. Plenty animals, including Kudu, are shot within that distance in the EC, even in the mountains.

10, Few have mentioned 7mm RM as an option, which I thought would be more mentioned.

11, Some are discussing the BC and SD for the different loads. I will have to look into that deeper to have a full understanding. Heavy/light for caliber I understand.

12, Looking at the minimum requirements for the animals I am after the Kudu would be the deciding factor. Up until very recently I was of the understanding that Kudu was to be shot by minimum 6.5mm, now I've got information that it may be minimum 150 gr.
Not sure everyone in the EC has heard/read that.

13, I'm less convinced now about the recommended setup than I was when I started the thread, and still very unsure.


End result, so far-
The majority would make the rifle light, Tikka, Remington (Kimber), but on the caliber the jury is still out. 300WM/7x64(7mmRM)/270 seems to be the most likely options with the availability of ammo in SA.



AH is a lovely forum and I appreciate the help and all facts you guys have provided me. Thanks for taking the time. I will post back when the rifle becomes a reality and what I decide upon.

//Gus

 

[sheephunterab]

I think the original point of some of these threads often gets lost. When I first brought up the 338WM it was with the caveat that we were hunting eland as well. I certainly didn't bring it up to imply that it was the best or only chambering to consider but on that particular hunt it was a great option and with the use of 185-grain bullets recoil is greatly reduced. Once the OP specified what animals and distances he would be using it for, then my recommendation changed. I've got four, lightweight, dedicated mountain rifles with each being a bit purpose built. I think the most important factors to consider what and where you are hunting. But for what it's worth:

1) Yes to lighter weight rifles for mountain hunting. I'm personally not a fan of the super lightweights but have found bare rifles that come in aroung 6-6.5 pounds are perfect. Losing a couple pounds around your middle will never off set the savings of a few ounces on a rifle. Lighter weight rifles make the mountain hunting experience more enjoyable.

2) Lightweight rifles can be accurate...extremely so.

3) If you plan on shooting over 300 yards then turrets or ballistic reticles are a must. The Zeiss Rapid Z reticle is the most simple and adjustable ballistic hunting reticle there is...period. I like to keep things simple. But it too has its limitation, primarily that it tops out at either 600 or 800 yards depending on the chambering. Turrets work well for longer ranges but require constant adjustment.

4) Magnification on a scope is your friend for extended ranges or smaller targets.

5) The BC of a bullet plays a big role at very long ranges but is far less critical at ranges under 500 yards.

6) The SD of a bullet is an outdated calculation. The day we wrapped a jacket around a bullet SD became irrelevant.

7) Impact velocity is an important consideration for bullets. Some, like mono metals require higher impact velocities than more frangible bullets but most modern cartridges will provide high enough impact velocities for all bullets out to 450 yards.

8) Chambering is likely the least important consideration other than here where ammo availability is a concern. Basically anything from a moderate 6.5 to the 338 will do what you want it to and trajectory is easily compensated for with proper scopes.

9) Find a rifle that fits you well and you shoot well and put the proper scope on it and enjoy mountain hunting.

 

[Velo Dog]

If I lived in The Eastern Cape, it is likely I'd have one of the following:
.300 H&H.
7 Millimeter Remington Magnum.
7x64 Brenneke.
Probably in that order of preference.
All of these handle long, heavy spitzers very well.
The scope would be of the "fixed power" type (non-variable power) 6x or perhaps more magnification but, not over about 12x maximum, as heat waves tend to distort things for me, when using very much magnification.

I have owned and hunted in Alaska, with the 7mm Magnum plus both in Alaska and Africa as well, with the .300 H&H.
From Prone, sitting and standing with the sticks, I have found these two calibers not lacking in any way, for longish shots on game.
I do not own a baseball glove or a hockey stick, I have rifles and I practice with them, because it is fun.
Nonetheless, I am good from field positions mentioned, only out to approximately 400 M / Yds.
500 is not a happy place for me, except on a rifle range.
And, if I want to shoot some particular animal in wide open conditions, I do all within my power to sneak in as close as humanly possible, only shooting out to around 400, if there is no other option and, everything else is "cooperative" (no high wind, animal is stationary, not looking nervous, etc.)
If very far beyond 400 and I cannot get closer, I will pass up the shot and have done so, more than once or twice.

I've shot many rodents with scoped rifles and have no use for turrets that constantly need twisting this way and that.
Such pests are much smaller targets than the vitals are on even most of the smallest African species, such as klipspringer, jackal, baboon.
The most technological gadget I would want is a very high quality Range Finder.

As for rifle weight, even though I have not owned a 7x64 (yet heh heh), this one seems like it'd be about perfect for use in a very light weight rifle, since the other two calibers I have mentioned have enough recoil, as to make training with them in a light rifle, presumably not much fun.
Of the several rifles I had owned in the two dreaded magnum calibers described, the lightest was possibly a Remington 700 ADL model in 7mm that, weighed perhaps 8.5 pounds ?
(Just guessing, because I never actually weighed it.)
I currently own a CZ in 7mm magnum and it might weigh about that, perhaps even a few ounces less?
I think in a super light rifle, this caliber loaded with 175 grainers would beat me silly, during repeated firings needed to stay as familiar as I'd like.
Presumably, the 7x64 would not be as "snappy" in a light rifle and yet, it will throw 160 and 175 grain bullets plenty fast enough for flat trajectory.
Fortunately, I have not been interested in super light weight rifles or, I'd be even poorer than I already am, from messing around with the rifles that I do have.

 

[Rule 303]

Lots of good information already said. My 2 bobs worth.
I don't know what rifles are available in SA but the ROWA Titan 6 is worth a look at if you get them there. Try shouldering as many rifles as you can and see what comes to the shoulder best. If the best one is a bit heavier, I would still go with it.

Calibre. I use a 270Win a fair bit. I gave the 130 grain projectiles away and shoot 140 or 150 grain projectiles, these bring out the best of the 270 performance. The only difference between this and the 7X62/280Rem is .007 of an inch. As you wont be shooting 1000mts there is no discernible difference between them.

If you want to go the 7X64 roiute check and see if 280 Rem ammo is more available. The 280 is the US version of the 7X64. Cases might not be quite interchangeable in rifles but they are clones of each other in performance.

Scopes. No need for massive amounts of magnification unless you have a poor scope. 10power makes an object at 1000mts look the same as the object does at 100mts to the eye. So unless you want to head shoot small game at 400mts the most you will need would be 10power, 8 would be even better. This is also where quality of glass comes in. A top line Euro model scope will let you see things clearer than most others. I have a couple of the Veiss Victory and they are way better than their Conquests that I have. Same with Khales, their top end scopes are better than their lower end etc. So get the best you can afford. Avoid the Conquests. Better glass than the Leopold VX3 in glass IMHO but not in construction Several people in Oz have had the glue? in the ocular housing melt and run over the lens. The Swarovski Z3 3-9X36 is a very good scope for the price.

Range and reticles. Forget about adjustable turrets. Those rericles with hash marks for hold over is a complex as you need. Then comes the you. Does not matter what the reticle you need to get out and practice shooting at 250mts to 500mts. This is so you know the fall of shot and how much hold over/what hash mark you need.

As said just my 2 bobs worth.
Let us know what you get and then pictures of it and your success.

 

[sheephunterab]

Several people in Oz have had the glue? in the ocular housing melt and run over the lens.

Say what?

 

[Buckdog]

WOW my eastern cape friend you have certainly got an earful of opinions for a EC mountain gun, some in my opinion good and sound some not so much no offense taken I can guess by the posts who has lots of mountain shooting experience who hasn't.
So to make it easier for you I have hunted your EC critters and mtns and many other mtns and critters.
1. your mtns you wont really be shooting many shots past 300. You can usually close the distance in the EC if you want to.
2. get the best rifle you can afford that fits you well with the best optics on it you can afford variable power up to 10-12x.
3. Pick a flat shooting caliber min270 up to a 300win mag. personally I think 300win mag easy to reload easy to get ammo proven long range caliber (military snipers use it for a reason)
4. practice with that rifle and practice some more. that means not just on a bench and flat ground. shooting uphill and downhill aint the same as flat ground. shoot a 6lb 300mag prone up a steep mtn and tell me how much you bleed. 300yds up or down isnt 300yds for you not used to mtns! those of you been there done that know what I mean. practice setting up shots sidehill, the game is diff when the ground isnt level.
5. weight doesnt mean that much gun with good optics that you can shoot the lights out with is what counts.
6. must have a laser range finder!!
7. hash marks, mil dot reticles etc work if gotta shoot fast and you really know the gun but over 350 not that accurate I would love to see you try and hit a uphill Klippy at 400m using dots or hash marks not happening!
8, when its all said and done the deciding factor my friend will be how much you practiced and your shooting ability all the rest just fluff for us all to nit pick at
have fun tell us what you pick and send some pictures.

 

[Rule 303]

Say what?

Yep, the couple I am aware of are in the hotter or more humid areas. Might be a bad batch. I do believe the problem were fixed under warranty. Still not a good thing to happen.