|
Post by Furhvstr on Dec 7, 2007 9:14:27 GMT -6
Bassman I am a sub- caliber guy and I find your comments on the .17 a little strong. I have taken hundreds of coyote and cats with mine and they have their limits. If you want to kill every coyote that comes in they are not the answer. A little discipline is required. I am with you on the CZ's. They are great guns. I think in time your thoughts on the 17 may change a little.
|
|
|
Post by kevthebassman on Dec 7, 2007 11:55:24 GMT -6
Discipline is the key word there, thank you for bringing that up.
Like I said, I don't have a problem letting a coyote walk. I treat them like a game animal, not a pest, because that's what they are to me. I limit myself to shots that I would take on a deer. Some guys, especially the weekend warrior types that think they're on par with the ADC professionals, simply cannot pass on a shot. For those types, a 22-250 is probably a good idea.
Another circumstance that would call for one would be somebody hunting wide open country like Kansas or out west where long shots are the norm. Such is not the case in Eastern Missouri. I have good open fields, but all calling is done within 50-100 yards of cover, because the coyotes use the cover to circle downwind and get close to their prey.
The coyote hunters that I know, respect, and trust have all been at it for more years than I've been alive, and with a few exceptions for .204, .222, and .17 MachIV, most of them shoot a .17 Rem. These people are from all over, and of like mind when it comes to respect for the game we hunt. All due respect, their opinion flat-out carries more weight with me than the opinion of someone I don't know and haven't met.
|
|
|
Post by lb on Dec 7, 2007 12:07:06 GMT -6
Good post Mercer. The problem with most "true believers" is they won't give an inch. There are many solutions out there, but the 17 Remington is just another choice, not the King of all coyote chamberings. Pushing the envelope, that's the problem. It occurs with multiples. Running, raking shots, coyotes that check up way out there. If a man has supreme discipline, never takes anything but the highest percentage shots, I guess the runners would be held to a minimum? But, them suckers can move on ya, between tapping the trigger and terminal impact. Yeah, yeah. It can happen with any cartridge, but it gets pretty messy with tiny and frangible high velocity bullets.
Use what you want, but let's be realistic. I never met a contest hunter that used a seventeen caliber rifle. So, far as I'm concerned, that's an admission that it's not a "sure thing".
I have always advocated the set of golf club approach. Shotgun, chip shot, average presentations, and then you have another gun dialed in for those Hail Mary's. So, the question becomes: but what if you only had one club? That's where I believe an accurate 22-250 or a Swift will get the job done, once you settle on a decent bullet.
I don't hunt coyotes with one gun. And, if I did, it wouldn't be a 17 Remington.
But, hey. It's fun to talk about such things, huh? LB
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Dec 7, 2007 13:19:03 GMT -6
Well Mercer has probably taken more cats with a rifle than any of those you mention.
I shoot a .17 Remington on cats and do so for one purpose, no pelt damage and as Mercer points out they are limited. Maximum effective range under real hunting conditions is 225 yards.
The reason an ADC guy would choose a .17 is because of low noise and no richochets in populated areas but for just killing coyotes with no pelt value there are much better choices.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Clifton on Dec 7, 2007 13:21:43 GMT -6
225 yards with a necked down 22 mag rimfire?
|
|
|
Post by ohiyotee on Dec 7, 2007 13:36:42 GMT -6
ain't that the truth
|
|
|
Post by lb on Dec 7, 2007 14:01:26 GMT -6
"225 yards with a necked down 22 mag rimfire? "
Need to read a little slower? A 17 Remington is essentially a necked down 223 Remington.
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Dec 7, 2007 14:34:22 GMT -6
Yeah I was gonna say LB. ;D We're discussing real .17's here, centerfires, not their bastard rimfire stepchildren
|
|
Rod17
Demoman...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Rod17 on Dec 7, 2007 15:55:15 GMT -6
Been gone for a few days and I see theres a little stir on here.
I was the guy who posted that my SAVAGE 12FVSS in .22-250 shot a 0.5" (yep, 0.5"), 3-shot group at 300 yards. Can I do it evertime?..No, of course not, wind etc are all factors. It does, however, demonstrate the inherent accuracy of this particular gun and a specifc load.
As usual, someone jumped on this chit like I just insulted his mother. Don't read too much into these post and don't put words in my mouth. I have shot many, many 0.75 inch group at 300 yards with this this rifle. Its really not much of a feat with good ammo, good scope, a good rest and PRACTICE.
At 100 yards I have put several shots throught the same hole...yep...PRACTICE...good ammo, good scope, good rest..did I mention Practice??
I will agree that it is rare to find an out-of-the box rifle that shoots this well..but they exist.
Some like to "call BS" on these kind of acheivements 'cause they can't or havent done it. It just comes down to practice. I am sure that the guys, like me, who shoot regularly dont find anything special about this.
Randy
|
|
|
Post by MadDog on Dec 7, 2007 16:22:48 GMT -6
Them Salvages shoot better than than should. They have for about 20 years now. The old model 110's that have the fore end on them thats about 4 inches wide shoot like a house of fire and to look through them with a bore scope their the roughest thing you ever saw.
Bassman
I think you will revolve just like the rest of us have.
You will change your mind on the .17. I would bet money. It might take a few years. Especially if all your after is coyotes.
I started out with 222 then 22-250 then went to .17 then 223,22 hornet, then came the swift and now mainly 243 with maximum charge of IMR 4350 with nosler 90gr ballistic tip.
Perfect, no but a lot better than the maximum charge of H-380 in the swift with 50 grain v-maxes. Thats messy. I've still got the swift though love it to much to let her go.
|
|
|
Post by Furhvstr on Dec 7, 2007 22:15:43 GMT -6
Shocklung thanks for clearing up the .5 inch group. If you look at your original post it appeared that you did it all the time. Consistent .75's at 300 is also quite good. A close friend of mine is a two time state bench rest champ with a safe full of customs and he can't do it. Bass something you said earlier about "bench rest accuracy means nothing in the field" I feel is a little off. All the practice in the world would be a waste if your gun shot 2-3 inch groups at 100. For me my .17 rem, Mach 4 and .19's must shoot .5 or better as my target (a bobcat head) is only about 3.5 eyeball to eyeball and I am shooting them at night at ranges to 200 yds or so max. lying prone on the ground or in the boulders of a bipod while holding a light adds about an inch to the group at 100. If hunting fur- coyotes, cats and fox a sub is the way to go but if your into coyote hunting and not fur harvesting then why handicap yourself with a .17. My contest gun is a .22-.243 middlestead with a 50 g running 4240 fps. I want them on the ground under any circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by kevthebassman on Dec 8, 2007 15:28:23 GMT -6
I hunt primarily for the act of hunting and the fur, not the kill. I don't get my rocks off turning things into red mist. I don't look at a .17 centerfire as a handicap at all. Can it shoot out to 400 and 500 yards? No, but neither can I! The conditions would have to be perfect for me to even attempt a shot past 300 yards, that means perfect rest, no wind, known distance, stationary target. A coyote gets mighty small through a 9 power scope at 300 yards. As far as changing my mind about the .17, I'd say possible but not likely. If I did, it wouldn't be for a .22-250. When I run into the occasional cat, I don't want to be blowing a valuable hide to smithereens. Nor do I want to blow up the unexpected coyote who pops out of the ass end of nowhere at 15 yards and stands staring at me as I scramble to put the crosshairs on him. Bass something you said earlier about "bench rest accuracy means nothing in the field" I feel is a little off. All the practice in the world would be a waste if your gun shot 2-3 inch groups at 100. Well, let me say first that I disagree that a 2 MOA gun is a waste. A 2 inch group at 100 yards translates to an 8 inch group at 400 yards. Under field conditions, this is better than most people can shoot, period. While a 2 MOA group in a benchrest rifle is downright ugly, a lot of people call in places where a 100 yard shot is a long one, and 400 yards unthinkable. For such circumstances, sometimes it really is alright to leave well enough alone. I will say that I demand more accuracy out of my rifles, and just about any modern bolt action rifle should deliver more. I will back off from saying that it means nothing in the field. It is a good indication of what your rifle is capable of. I'll turn your statement around on you a bit if you don't mind: All the benchrest accuracy in the world is worthless if you can't shoot from field positions. You can take that one to the bank. What I was (mostly) referring to was the "benchrest hero" folks who can shoot a much tighter group with their keyboard than they ever could with their rifle. (Not saying anyone here is like that, just that I believe what I see with my own eyes.) If you look at a benchrest rifle, it's going to be around 10 pounds, full bull barrel of probably 26 inches, maybe have a bipod if in varmint configuration, and wear some monster 6X20 glass. Now, if you took that thing out on a calling expedition with somebody who knows his nuts, you'd get laughed out of the field and by the end of the day you'd be ready to sell that rifle for a dime. The practical calling rifle needs to be lightweight, because your going to be covering some ground with the thing. A long bull barrel is completely unnecessary and actually a detriment, as is a scope with more than about 4X12 magnification. Anyone who says otherwise is either a writer for a gunrag who's paycheck comes from the advertising of the companies who's products they are giving cushy reviews to, or some misinformed sap who's bought into the gunrag's bullcrap. For the calling that I do, a bipod is the last thing I'd want on my rifle, but your circumstances may be different. For my money shooting sticks are better. Point is, a benchrest rifle that will shoot out the eye of a bullseye at 500 yards all day long and a practical calling rifle that will put fur on the ground every time you ask it to are two entirely different creatures. Anyway, I'm rambling now, so I figure I'll crawl back in my hole and keep punching coyotes with my little underpowered .17 calling rifle that can't shoot .5 inch groups at 300 yards.
|
|
richc
Demoman...
Posts: 243
|
Post by richc on Dec 8, 2007 15:59:14 GMT -6
My grandson "Beau" is in second grade now. He would like a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. Being a .17 caliber, I reckon it would be considered a good coyote rifle in the circle of friends he runs with.
|
|
|
Post by swdawg on Dec 8, 2007 21:36:22 GMT -6
wow, I just quit the fair and balanced and will stay off of it for a while because it was getting too crazy.LOL.
Anyway, you did qualify your statement when you said it may be different for other circumstances so I will not berate you at all....but in my circumstances.....out in the wide open,windy west.....when calling coyotes......a bipod is a MUST.I rarely use my shooting sticks.Prone on the shortgrass prairie and wheat stubble is the only possible way to go....and a bipod rules.
Rem 700 in .22-250 vssf(26 inch stainless fluted barrel and synthetic stock)in my country with 3-9x mildot(will grade up when can afford it)and bipod is sweet enough to sleep with.LOL.
Cheers,Mark
|
|
|
Post by kevthebassman on Dec 9, 2007 2:22:26 GMT -6
My grandson "Beau" is in second grade now. He would like a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. Being a .17 caliber, I reckon it would be considered a good coyote rifle in the circle of friends he runs with. I imagine that this is just about the dumbest quote I've seen in a while. That's like saying that the .22-250 is underpowered because it starts with the same numbers as .22 short. Factory loads in the .17 Rem break 4000 fps at the muzzle. Your expensive airguns break 1000 at the muzzle. Do the math buddy, a 9 grain pellet going 1000 fps versus a 25 grain hollowpoint doing 4000+ fps. All this is for naught I suppose, there's no cure for deliberate ignorance. You just can't fix stupid.
|
|
richc
Demoman...
Posts: 243
|
Post by richc on Dec 9, 2007 8:06:57 GMT -6
"All this is for naught I suppose, there's no cure for deliberate ignorance. You just can't fix stupid." ---------------------------------------------------- Very good Bassman, you are smart as a whip ain't ya?
|
|
|
Post by lb on Dec 9, 2007 13:09:39 GMT -6
Appears to be a young man from a small section of Missouri, (where the seventeen is King), and who is not acquainted with Rich Cronk's well known, and well earned reputation? You could ask all the old coots in the neighborhood, they probably know who he is, and can even offer a bit of advice about respect for one's elders?
Good hunting, LB
|
|
|
Post by kevthebassman on Dec 10, 2007 4:45:43 GMT -6
Respect is usually given to those who show it. Rich should not expect to spout off with a dumb $*#^ comment and have people fawn over him and beg to be in his presence. I am familiar with Rich, and the fact that he is a regular contributor on this and other boards. That's all good and well, but when somebody decides to get ignorant with me, they can just stuff it.
Just because somebody who is loved and respected is pissing on my boots doesn't mean that I'll believe him when he tries to tell me it's raining.
|
|
richc
Demoman...
Posts: 243
|
Post by richc on Dec 10, 2007 7:39:40 GMT -6
Well BassBoy, it is clear that you are not yet mature enough to share my camp fire. You can learn by your own mistakes however, which I know you will. I baited you a little, and therefore your childish comments are partially my own fault. I wish you good luck with that little .17 on coyotes, but you would be wise to trade it in for something with a bit more muscle.
|
|
|
Post by kevthebassman on Dec 10, 2007 8:32:34 GMT -6
Beating a dead horse is right. I'll leave it at that.
|
|