6.5x284, and take FiremanJG's class...
Then go burn some powder.

6.5, 7-08, or 308 would get my vote.

My cheap Savage 308 shoots .5 MOA @ 100 yards and I can ring the steel plates at 300 yards all day long at the local range. All done with factory ammo, a $250 SWFA demo scope, and $30 SWFA rings.

I did put the tactical bolt handle on it though, so maybe that's pushing it to shoot better.

CM,

Yes, the 7 STW is a huge round that's fast and flat, and hits hard. BUT, because it's so long of a round, and with the heavy, long bullets, you will run into mag length issues. Plus, the STW kicks like a mule. It would be one of the LAST rounds I would choose to learn to shoot long range with. The 26 Nosler, same thing. They are a fairly large over bore round, and will heat up a barrel very fast. You will not be able to shoot it consistently for more than 3-4 shots at a time, and then let the barrel cool. Like stated, a 6.5 CM or 6.5x47 Lapua would be great choices. You can have long shooting sessions without the barrel heating up too bad.

Honestly, I highly recommend learning on a 308 Win. There is nothing wrong with one, and I shoot one A LOT! It will teach you elevation and how to dope the wind. I love my 308's. And I wouldn't hesitate hunting with one out to however far I could get on target.

Most new shooters want the fastest and flattest round possible at first. Then they shoot it, and realize it's not the best option. Get something that you will shoot enough to get proficient with, and won't break the bank on ammo cost.

Great post Chad.

I completely agree with Jason about the 6.5 Creedmoor! As for the glass I would pick the bushnell or the SS over the Viper. The glass on the viper is pretty poor compared to the other two in my opinion and the mechanics are just as good in the other two as the Vipers.

Why go metric? I love MOA it's what I was trained to use. I've made some shots beyond 1000 yards and do it regularly utilizing MOA. I'm not saying milliradians are useless because I never used that eng. unit on a turret. Another reason I use MOA is America utilizes the imperial system.

There is nothing metric about milliradians.

Mils make a US standard thinking MOA guy think like metric....there are 10-.1 in a mil but quarters in a MOA. Technically they are right but the way Mils work is more similar to metric that US standard.

I have both and you do have to think a little differently but I have the opinion when in Rome you do as the Romans do and for any sort of tactical match everyone will talk mils but at a benchrest match everyone will talk MOA. There are advantages for Mils and they are mainly around not having to crank on the turret as much because the measurement is greater between clicks. The wind values are a little easier to remember too.

There is nothing metric or imperial about a mrad or moa scope. Both are angular measurements just a different types, and 1 MOA is not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards its 1.047 inches at 100 yards, most people just dont factor in the .047 and ignore it, which can become a issue at extended ranges.

SPG sent me a very polite PM last night asking why I dislike MOA so much. Here is how I answer that.


The only thing metric is that it is divided into tenths. It is not dependant on meters. 

MOA works fine for elevation. Windage is where Mil works better. Here's the 5 mph 3 or 9 o'clock wind hold for my 6.5 Creedmoor.

200 yards .1
300----------.2
400----------.3
500----------.4
600---------.5
700---------.6
800---------.7
900---------.8
1000------.9

Now if I estimate a 7-8 mph wind all I do is add 50% to those numbers. If I estimate a 10 mph wind I double those numbers, and so on. 

5 mph wind on the same rifle, and load in MOA looks like this.

200 yards 1/4
300----------1/2
400-----------1
500-----------1 1/4
600-----------1 1/2
700-----------1 3/4
800-----------2 1/4
900-----------2 1/2
1000---------2 3/4

Now add 50% to those values, or double those values, or double plus 50% for a 12 mph wind. Which is easier? 

I am more than comfortable with fractions, I use them every day and can mutiply, divide, add and asubtract them. 20 years of being a steel fabricator has made me good at it. But when we're talking shooting and a wind hold has to be made quickly for any distance, Mils are much easier

You guys say "ditch the scope" The burris 3, Why? I have been hard pressed to find a negative review? Many good reviews from LRS in hunting situations. Is it just a purist thing, you had one and 1st hand experience, cost vs performance, or something else?

So y'all always say dial elevation but hold for wind, why would the hate for moa be because you have to dial for wind then?

Look at the numbers. Which one is easier to remember? I can make a drill similar to hunting right on the range. Give you a distance, and give you seconds to make the shot. Would you rather have to look at a chart first or KNOW your wind hold based on distance. Pass fail would be making the shot in less than 10 seconds. It's more likely to get it done with Mils.

Dialing wind is usually another time killer. You make a wind judgement, dial in the correction, and then the wind gusts, lulls, or completely changes direction (head or tail).. You will either be changing what you dialed, or holding more, or holding less. Might as well just make a hold in the first place. Gravity is constant, wind is not. Dialing wind has nothing to do with Mil or MOA.

I think the reason JG is talking about is the math you have to do in your head.

Shooting discipline has a lot to do with it. Jason is a mil/mil zealot because he's a tactical shooter. In tactical shooting sports like the PRS, mil/mil reigns. In other areas, not so much. In sports like F-Class where you've got a spotter/coach you don't see the busy reticles and folks doing as much hold-over, MOA is more common.

Correct.

Which one benefits the solo hunter more?

Correct. As well as remembering your wind hold values. Those numbers are based on a 5 mph 3 or 9 o'clock wind. You build from that.

I say both because either way you are spending time behind your rifle getting much more proficient with it

Reticle could be better. It looks Mil based though.
Designed for pure holds given that it has capped knobs. Eventually you will run out of reticle. And when you are at the bottom of the reticle you are also on the edge of the glass. You typically lose clarity and you defintately lose field of view.
The knobs are 1/8 MOA so they don't even track in the Mils the reticle is in.
As is the case with many mulit-tools it isn't great at any one job.

The price of the Burris could be better spent on a seperate range finder and a more user friendly scope. Only my opinion, of course.

Thanks Jason, honest answer. That scope is expensive, but does have both and they are tied together, so definitely a one use tool.

Was just curious as many of the LRS that originally doubted it, have since seemed to endorse it (for hunting). I don't think it could hold a candle to a good traditional on a target shoot, don't believe it is that refined, but just my lay opinion.

Western I agree with Jason. At that price point you are giving up glass quality for technology. Which may cost you on a late/early shot at the animal you've been waiting on. For the same price you can get much better glass with low light performance and clarity. Adding a cheap range finder and practice will put you ahead for the long haul.

Thanks, I already have a great RF and pretty fair scopes, just find the Burris intriguing. at near $1500, I have seen a few NF with pretty good glass.

how would a 243 ai with 1-7 twist shooting 115 gr compare to a creedmor

Dang fine combo. Not as much energy delivery way out, though. If that even matters to you.

Run them in jbmballistics.com and compare.

6.5mm 140 gr, G-1 .585 (A-max), at 2800 fps MV. Course that BC could be bumped up going to the 140 Berger Hybrid.

Run those numbers up against the 6mm with your BC, MV, and bullet weight.