Hunters of /k/, let's say you had the option to travel back to the late-1800s/early 1900s to go hunting along the western coastal regions of North America, from Oregon all the way up to Alaska.
While you cannot use any obvious technology that would reveal your future origins (no modern fabrics, no optics, no rangefinders, etc.) you are allowed to take any bolt action rifle from modern day that would not look too out of place, along with a reasonable quantity of ammo for it.
What rifle would you pick, and what caliber? What choice of current time period sights would you opt for? What ranges would you hunt at?
Most importantly, why did you choose that particular load out?
Nugget, glorious 7.62
Glorious rifle is not of need pathetic optic
7.62 is hunt at all range
Glorious russian design is never of the aging
>>30228316
I'd take a Gewehr 98 and I'd go find conflicts to fight in.
Hunting humans is a thing, right?
Well let's go kill of some short ass little napoleonic fucktards.
Gotta wonder how France would respond to ANY of the napoleons having been assassinated.
Oh, and I'd use irons.
>>30228337
> Not necking up to the 9×53mmR
Do you even hunt 200kg+ game, comrade?
>>30228386
If man is more than the 200kg, he is of kill self because shame. I am of hunting 90kg capitalist scum with glorious rifle.
>>30228382
To clarify I'd fight in the wars resulting from the death of one of the Napoleons (preferably Napoleon the fourth, right after he gave up on the Franco-Prussian war so as to ensure my Gewehr 98 still probably exists...either way France'll need to innovate its weaponry, so smokeless powder and the Lebel rifle will exist and be captured to set them on their way. Who knows what it'll start)
Bonus
I'd also carry two MAS Modele 1873 chamelot-delvigne revolvers as backups that would be acquired when I got there.
I'm not saying it wasn't an atrocity, because it certainly was, but using a lever action 45-70 and taking down buffalo all day long from a train would've been one hell of a lot of fun.
>>30228382
Do you want to cause a temporal loop?
CAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU CAUSE A TEMPORAL LOOP.
In the future: Traveling back in time to take place in wars of yesteryear is the hottest vacation trend among aspiring aspies.
Come to find out all the wars ever were caused by some dumbass humans from the future who just wanted to have a good time.
*1000 yard stare*
I'd take a remington 700 in 375 H&H dressed in a well beaten mannlicher stock with the sort of overbuilt iron sights you might find on a WW1 rifle. Since I'm following your criteria, lol.
I then find the best hunters from whichever time period I am thrust into, and organize skinwalker hunts for shits and gigs. Really though, It would be wicked to go on a purposeful cryptoid hunt with a somewhat sizeable group of Tough, Intelligent individuals who were masters of the woods. Or something.
>>30228591
> 375 H&H
I noticed Savage makes a 20" guide gun in .375 Ruger, which would be comparable. Not like you're going to need a 26" barrel for shooting out to 600yards with iron sights.
Only thing that worries me is that most of these guns are 7.5 pounds, which is about as light as you can comfortably go with even .30-06, let alone a magnum cartridge.
I agree about the Mannlicher stock though. Works great as a substitute walking stick.
>>30228591
>>30228634
Why a .375 Magnum though? For NA, wouldn't a .300 Win Mag with 200+ grain bullets do the job just as well without kicking the hell out of your shoulder?
.375 is a well established safari cartridge. If lots of guides/big game hunters trust it, there must be something to it, and that's good enough for me.
I've read that a good many even consider it to be the minimal acceptable cartridge for hunting Africa's more dangerous game, although I think a 30-06 would suffice just as well.. when you're not exactly sure what you might run into, I'd rather have too much horsepower, than not enough.
But I'm time traveling to hunt skinwalkers over here so that should explain away any concerns over the cartridge. 416 Rigby would be cool, too..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpzi-LdQj7o
I'm not really "for" big game hunting though..
I just like the concept of it all, But I think conservation is what's really needed as far as that's all concerned.
>>30228546
>mfw Gavrilo Princip, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, Joab, and others were all time traveling /k/ommandos who "wanted to see what'd happen"
>mfw we're responsible for every war ever
Winchester Model 70 in either 300 Weatherby or 6.5x55 Swedish. I hate shitty push-feed designs and all modern safeties that don't lock the fucking bolt closed when on safe, so I Model 70 is really my only choice other than a milsurp rifle which I would prefer not to hunt with. I would prefer a 300 weatherby because I've always wanted to hunt a brown bear, but I'm not fond of the recoil and a 6.5x55 Swedish will be a lot more pleasurable to shoot and will take out every other game I would like to hunt (even elk).
>>30228752
ghenghis khan confirmed /k/ommando
napoleon
Pattons crazy ass
>>30228715
While I would choose something quite powerful just to be safe, a lot of people have really fucking stupid ideas on what you "need" to kill X animals. .45-70 was a common and successful elephant round, and hunters like Karamojo Bell reliably killed elephants with a 7mm Mauser.
In a few years I'm sure I'm going to be seeing /k/ claim that you can't kill a whitetail with anything short of a .300 Remington Ultra Mag.
>>30228738
Yeah, what happened with the North American Bison was sad, but hopefully we can get their numbers back up in our lifetime.
As for hunting moose or brown bears, reasonable levels of hunting shouldn't impact their numbers considerably. Loss of habitat is the big factor in their recent decline.
>>30228758
I can appreciate the controlled feed design under stress. Regarding the recoil of the 300 Weaterby, how much do you think you could mitigate the recoil by going to heavier barrel? It would suck more when hiking with it, but an 8.5 to 10lbs rifle might not punish your shoulder so badly.
>>30228815
My grandfather's brother supposedly killed more deer with a .22 magnum rifle than the plague. Shot them in the spine or the head. From what I've heard, the man was pretty much a living god, though. Stuff like he could throw and shoot aspirin with a .22 and that he was a world class pool player who only held the cue and shot with one hand and was a master of english. Billiards english, I mean. I dunno. Only heard stories here and there about the man so I can't really confirm any of it.
>>30228822
I'm pretty sure I read something the other day about grizzly bear populations being stable enough to resume hunting on them, which whatever the source was, I can't remember, was claiming that would be a terrible idea as we would just hunt them right back to endangerment.
>>30228815
What you're describing isn't new. Elmer Keith wrote that he considered the .30-06 was marginal for deer, and that .270 Winchester was only good for coyotes.
Granted, I don't know how much of that was just trying to piss all over Jack O'Conner's books.
>>30228316
I want to shoot dinosaurs with an rt-20
>>30228822
>Regarding the recoil of the 300 Weaterby, how much do you think you could mitigate the recoil by going to heavier barrel?
Quite a bit, but like you said it becomes a bitch to haul a heavy rifle around with you. They're great for sniping deer out of your car, but I hate heavy guns for anything else. The alternative is a regular weight rifle but that goes right back to unpleasant recoil.
That's why I like the 6.5 Swedish as it fits in short actions (albeit tightly), has little recoil, has amazingly flat trajectory, retains over 1000 foot pounds of force out past 500 yards (depending on load), and has a very high sectional density that gives it good penetration through meat and bones even at extended ranges.
>>30228944
Never hunted with it, but I have hipster love for the 6.5's. How far do you think a moose would run after a lung shot from a heavy 160gr bullet?
>>30228885
>My grandfather's brother supposedly killed more deer with a .22 magnum rifle than the plague.
My great grandfather used as his primary hunting rifle (which he NEEDED to have work good as he was turbo-poor and had to poach constantly to feed his children) a .30-40 Krag rifle for hunting elk, and he dropped them with one shot 95% of the time.
Shot placement is 99% of the job, "weak" rounds kill game just fine.
>>30228977
>Never hunted with it, but I have hipster love for the 6.5's. How far do you think a moose would run after a lung shot from a heavy 160gr bullet?
No idea, I've never hunted moose. But I know in Sweden and Norway they use 6.5x55 for hunting them and they do so successfully. Probably the high sectional density has to do with it's success with big game hunting as it cuts through their meat like butter.
>>30228316
By and large you can do this anyways. Time travel isn't even necessary. Once you're north of Vancouver the population thins right out; once you're past the Sunshine Coast, everything gets pretty woolly.
I already hunt all the big animals of this province (minus brown bear) with my .30-06 so, I guess I'll take that or a .300 WSM.
>>30228658
.300 H&H
You would be able to resupply, and it wouldn't be out of place and have people asking questions. You could even bring a few boxes of Nosler partitions to reload the brass with for modern performance on game.
>>30228977
Quite a ways. Go for the heart shot.
>>30229069
Yep. I handload 160-grain Hornadys for mine, and there are stories about that round and that bullet shooting lengthwise through black bear.
>>30228316
>No optics
You realize scopes existed during this time, right?
>>30229714
My understanding is that the optics of WW1 and prior, like those made by Warner & Swasey, tended to lose their zero so ridiculously easily that they were nearly useless for any outdoor use aside from target shooting competition.
I'd be happy to read some literature that shows the contrary though.
>>30229714
>>30230124
One other addition I venture is that I assume nitrogen sealing was not available back then, so I'm guessing cold weather shooting is going to be foggy at best. Although I suppose a modern day recreation would have neither of these issues.
>>30228775
Patton would NOT surprise me in terms of him being a /k/ommando.
Genghis Khan wouldn't be a huge surprise.
Hell, most conquerors heroes and generals and even "villains" (I use this term loosely because they weren't villains in their own opinion) could easily fit into the /k/ommando mold.
>>30229697
Would anyone know how a 160gr 6.5 compares to a 180gr .308 or 200gr .30-06, both in bleed out time and recoil?
