OK /k/ I want to rebarrel my Savage 111 in a better caliber than .270. It is a long action so it can be rebarreled to another long action or short action. Is like w caliber that's not super mainstream but also has pre made rounds available so I don't have to constantly reload any time I want to shoot. Also because its cheaper to buy a new Savage in those mainstream calibers.
I was thinking 6.5 something. Grendel would be cool but it's more of a auto cartridge if I remember right so maybe creedmoor or 6.5x47 lapua? What long range caliber do you shoot /k/?
Pic semi related
>>29948320
>not using .50 bmg
it's like you want to be seen as a faggot
6.5 creedmore would be your best option
>>29948320
>implying .270 isn't some of the flattest shooting shit out there.
Not to sound to fuddish, but it's a pretty great catridge. though i concede that since it only comes in hunting loads, it gets rather pricey.
>>29948320
I was in your situation OP, went with 300 Win Mag.
Accuracy with factory ammo is good, power is good, maximum range is good, and availability of factory ammo as well as reloading components is good.
>>29950995
Its not really the price. I still love it but maybe it was just the rounds I was using but it seemed very hard to consistently hit anything past 300 yds without a bench. It used to be my deer gun and I didn't feel comfortable trying to take down an animal with that level of uncertainty, but since I have a fancy new Browning in .308 I use that for deer more and would use it for long range if browning wasn't so scare with aftermarket parts, at least compared to savages or R700s
You hunting anything with it, OP? Or looking for a target rifle? If you go this route, I hope you can reload, as factory offerings in these calibers are sparse and usually limited.
.25-06, 6.5-06 A-Square are both light and flat shooting, but barrel life is reduced, and bleed out can take a while on larger game.
I have a soft spot for 7mm bullets, so my personal recommendation in the .280 Remington. Ballistics nearly equal to the 6.5, but still available in heavy-for-caliber 160gr bullets should you still desire longer range hunting on heavier animals.
>>29951909
That isn't the cartridge
That is either you or the gun itself.
270 can easily reach out to three hundred, though that might be farther than you should be hunting medium sized game anyways? Depends on the game and where you are, I guess.
>>29951909
>>29952859
OP, are you trying to hit deer at 300 yards offhand, you absolute madman?
>>29952975
God no. I just don't always shoot on a bench and I just feel better knowing my rifle can perfom
>>29948320
>better caliber than .270
You need to have a reason first.
270 is pretty much the shit already... Better would be super subjective... maybe 6.5x55 if you just want to waste money...
6.5-06 A Square
6.5x55 Swedish
>>29948320
7mm REM Mag obviously
Alternatly 7mm08
Or any other 7mm wildcat you can imagine
The 162gr bullets have the best ballistic coefficient of any long range large game rifle short of 200+gr 30cal loads... Which would beat the shit out of you
Good luck
>>29950995
It isn't.
Flat shooting is not the grail anyway, something that slips wind is more important. And nothing in 0.277" can compete with the bore sizes on either size of it. Something like a SAAMI 243 Winchester, loaded with the fantastic Hornady 105 BTHP and its 0.530 BC crushes it. On the other side with the 162 Amax things are even uglier.
