BigDog1955
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 172
I posted a question a few months back asking for recommendations on a rifle for a 12-year-old. He's skilled with a rifle in .22LR, and I was looking to upgrade to centerfire for two reasons: increased range on targets, and to get away from lead styphnate priming compound in filthy rimfire ammo. Some of the challenges have been to fit his short length of pull, and not to have a sudden big increase in recoil. My first thought was to cut down the stock of a Tikka T3X or CZ 527 in .223, but I was also considering precision-style rifles with adjustable furniture like the Ruger Precision Rifle, also in .223. I got a few recommendations here for .243.
I hadn't made a decision yet, but then he got into a hunting class with 4H. In addition to that, he's studying the hunter safety training and wants to get a license. He'd be able to put in for a deer tag next season. So now I'm considering a chambering that would be well-suited to mule deer.
I have some doubts that .223 is well-suited to deer. Surely, it depends on the range, the presentation, the shot placement, and the bullet, but I'm concerned .223 would be demanding of those things whereas a different cartridge would be more forgiving.
.243 Winchester is well-proven for deer and would seem the obvious choice, but it has higher recoil and uses toxic large rifle primers. The 6mm Creedmore is very similar within hunting range and Starline makes cases that use small rifle primers I have that are lead-free. But those .243/6mm cartridges probably have excess energy for deer within 200 yards. The .30-30 is a lower-recoil cartridge that's well-proven on deer out to at least 150 yards. The way I see it, in the case of the .243 Winchester particularly, we're suffering excess recoil in order to deliver high-drag bullets with sufficient energy by brute-force out to four or five-hundred yards where we're not going to hunt.
I started to look at more efficient intermediate cartridges like .224 Valkyrie. The problem I see there is the low-drag bullets in that caliber aren't well-suited for medium game. But one person in my earlier thread recommended a Howa Mini-Action in 6.5 Grendel. I hadn't really thought much of it because I just saw it as another chambering intended to chase improved AR-15 performance like so many others. But the Grendel's .264 bullets come in a wide variety, many of which are suitable for medium game, and it carries them out to three or four-hundred yards with sufficient energy despite having significantly less recoil than .243 Winchester.
The 123 grain Hornady SST seems to be the most popular for the Grendel, but I would go with the Barnes TSX or Hornady GMX all-copper bullets to keep lead out of the meat. We may even hunt in California where we'd have to (and no, despite my strong convictions against lead I don't think a ban should be imposed on people who think otherwise).
So I was considering the Howa Mini-Action in 6.5 Grendel with a lightweight, wide field-of-view scope (VX3i 1.5-5x20 or 2.5-8x36 Leupold), Harris bipod and sling. He should be able to get real comfortable with it by next fall. What do you think?
The alternative to the Grendel would be a .223 target rifle and working up to a higher-recoiling cartridge in a heavier deer rifle. A Ruger American Predator in 6mm Creedmore would weigh at least a pound more and still recoil significantly more than the lighter Howa. I realize there are some more obscure options like 6BR, but most of the mainstream alternatives with factory rifles chambered in them use Large Rifle primers. I did consider handgun cartridges. It would be .357 or .454. .357 would be limited to close range and while .454 has a little longer legs, it drops a lot and requires accurate range estimation. I think the kid will do better with something flatter-shooting.
I can tell you when I went through this, I was 18-19 and I just started with 8mm Mauser cause the rifles and Yugoslavian ammo were cheap, and then like .300 Magnum and 12 gauge 3.5" magnum because they were cool and ruled the charts. I didn't have anybody thinking smarter for me.
I have a little experience sizing for kids.
View attachment 809311
Lol, not arguing in favor of the valkyrie per se, but .22-250 class performance with a standard fast twist (without a custom on the 250) in an ar15 platform certainly has its own appeal, my brother got one recently and loves it, with 70 abs or 75 sciroccos it's still plenty lethal out past 600 yds, recoil is negligible, and it's fun enough. If the .22 nosler or the val gain a following in bolt actions, the .22-250 slow twist will face real problems. I'm a bolt guy, but now am faced with the decision of getting my first AR in a fast 22 or get a custom barrel .22-250 for the bolt platform. Long high bc bullets at the velocity and recoil levels of such cartridges shall certainly have their place and where I am, long range varmints are a year round game and during certain seasons, they even pay for components. I firmly believe that the Grendel has a place, as does the spc, but the allure of the valkyrie is really not so obscure.Mpd61,
I agree with you, I don't think one "outgrows" the Grendel I am 37 years old and I still like to shoot mine.
Also the creedmore isn't what is pushing the Grendel off of the shelves, it's the .224 valk, which I think is inferior to the 6.5 Grendel but for some reason every one seems to think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread...
I hear people talking about how the valk is supposed to be amazing at long range but the Grendel is at least a 1,000 yard capable cartridge and will be more resistant to cross winds because of the heavier bullet.
I appreciate all the comments because they either confirm my thinking or get me to consider an alternative. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids? Did you shoot from a truck? Did your bipod have wheels? Or did you have porters to carry your stuff? I know you didn't have the side-by-sides everybody is driving around in today, but even if you had an old Honda three-wheeler, I know you weren't sneaking up on bucks on one of those things.
I've carried an 8-pound infantry rifle all day and I think my twenties was the only decade in my life that I could have convinced myself it was fun. Even if a twelve-year-old is eager for that kind of punishment, he will hunt better with less weight. While ultralight rifles can be had in the big chamberings, the felt recoil is even higher and more disturbing. I know that I will hunt better at any age with a lighter rifle and without excessive recoil. I don't hunt from a blind or a tower with big artillery. I'm in the west with muleies, antelope, and boar. It's spot-and-stalk. I have an old-school 4x4, but the boys can hike too. Because I know they can hike better than most men, I don't want to lose that advantage by crushing them with a beastly rifle. If I was only hunting by myself, I would take the minimum needed to get the job done because I know myself also will hunt better with less. In the past, downsizing the rifle meant closing the effective range. With newer, lower drag bullets and the cartridges that give them the length to fit short actions, we've got short, light rifles that can deliver plenty of energy out to ranges that took a lot more muzzle energy in the past.
I think the lead free projectiles are also an important innovation in the last several decades and that because of their lower density of mass, some of the action length that's been dropped with newer cartridges and bullets is either gained back or even greater demand is put on terminal velocity to drive expansion of monolithic bullets. So I can see the value of 6.5x55 or 6.5 Creedmoor if someone wanted to hunt medium game with LFP' at 400 yards and beyond. But there is still a significant trade-off of weight and handiness from the increase in action and barrel length and if it's just for those last hundred or two-hundred yards, I think a person is better off having the energy and will to close that range or even better to find the many more opportunities that more hunting gives than just those rare long-shots.
Rem 700 at 8-9lbs wasn't bad to carry.. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids?
I'll add in that I ran the m99(don't remember which letter but it was a later model) in .300 sav, a 24 or 26" octagon crescent butt winchester in .30-30, a mk2 .303 brit, and a .30-40 Krag for all of my youth, and even after I was old enough to buy my own rifles, grandpa's "too big guns" are still harvesting......the ones that weren't stolen anyway. I could take any one of them and stalk within 200 yds of the antelope and less for deer. First time I used the m700 in .243 i felt off balance!Rem 700 at 8-9lbs wasn't bad to carry.
I almost always still hunted. I actually spent 99% of my time afield alone, and hunted once or twice a week normally.
For big hunts with friends and family we used post and push. Those times I usually was a pusher.
I appreciate all the comments because they either confirm my thinking or get me to consider an alternative. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids? Did you shoot from a truck? Did your bipod have wheels? Or did you have porters to carry your stuff? I know you didn't have the side-by-sides everybody is driving around in today, but even if you had an old Honda three-wheeler, I know you weren't sneaking up on bucks on one of those things.
Leads-free bullets are a result of the idiots in California.
How are ya’ll intending to hunt? From the 50 yard speculation I figured it would be from a blind.
I don't agree. Randy Brooks conceived of the X bullet while hunting bear in Alaska in 1979. His company Barnes introduced the X bullet in 1985. California did not ban lead bullets in the Condor habitat until 2008. Take some time to consider your previous assumptions carefully because it should be obvious from these facts that liberal politics (for which I have no fondness whatsoever) have nothing to do with the origin or virtue of lead-free bullets.