walther_gsp

Buy once cry once

I'm with Parks

The point is, it's not a requirement.

Not even close.

How could you(not you, but others) fail by failing something that's not a requirement.

You better hope the state doesn't find out, you're liable to lose your license and have to redo the whole course.

You, sir, are wrong. Instructors set the requirements for passing their course.

I know its not a defensive distance but 75 feet is not that hard to hit center mass on a man sized target.

You are absolutely correct. Outside of trying to use a pocket gun, 75 ft with say a glock 26 is easily doable.

Pocket guns are great to carry, but terrible to learn on. I always recommend getting proficient with something bigger first, then moving to the smaller platforms. Then, know what is the limits of that smaller platform.

Instructor said shooting anybody beyond 20 feet in Ohio for defending yourself "no stand your ground" you are more than likely in deep shit if they can prove it. So his philosophy was to be competent within the legal shooting distances, take advanced courses if you really want to improve your skills and really get to know your weapon. Any instructor that fails a student beyond 20 feet in my opinion, needs to seriously re-think what they are doing. Now if the class/instructor states the minimum requirements to pass beforehand and you still go, then you have no one to blame but yourself for taking that class.

Let me start with I'm an NRA instructor and have been teaching CCW since 2005.

While your average Self Defense shooting is in close, I've never heard this 20 ft nonsense. Hell, the old Tueller drill teaches anyone within 21ft with a knife is a lethal threat.

There is no legal shooting distance in the state of Ohio.

If you think that its unreasonable to be failed if you can't hit an IDPA/silhouette target at 50-75 ft in a classroom setting with an instructor to coach you, then do us all a favor, sell your guns and for the love of all that is holy, quit posting on gun threads.

Screw Tom! I have a decently setup .243 I might consider letting go. I know it's def. good for 330+ yards.

With the right bullet, .243 is good for 1000+ yards. You'll pretty much have to handload though.

Look at the 115gr DTAC, and the 105-107 gr bullets from Sierra (SMK) Berger (VLD) and Hornady (AMAX)

Come december I am just gonna take Walthers with me to fin and have him help me pick a bolt gun off the shelf? You in Tom?

Sure thing. Next time, just call me and we'll save ourselves a silly thread

Hey. I contunue to run the 168gn. Partially becase I have alot of dope with it and mostly becase its Department -FBI task force ammo for the job. I have alot of round out with the 175 but not so much out of this rifle compared to the old M24. 168 is an awesome load. The 175 does do some things better depending on your rifle. I've been doing this long enough to be forced to us M118SB, prior to the M118LR (175SMK's). You wanna talk about a sub par ammo? Look at the old 118SB( Special Ball) It was only "special" in a short school bus kind of way. Getting away from Ball ammo to SMK's was a big plus, 168 or the 175's. If you do have a .308 stick, Test ammo! GI or "Gold Metal" ammo might be the ticket. Weight, who makes it, if you load your own ( I can't; liability issue) or try other comercial loads, find what it likes so shoot. Same way we all change tires on our bikes. What works for one bike/rider may not work for the next. Same goes for shooter and his rifle.

Yea, but correct me if I'm wrong, you're an LE sniper now. Most of your stuff is 150-200y and under right?

http://demigodllc.com/articles/practical-long-range-rifle-shooting-equipment/?p=4

Here is an article from Zak at Thunderbeast. Please note, the sections on rifles and ammo refute your claims on bullet selection and accuracy of factory Remington rifles.

Here you go...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/jim-barrett/reloading-a-costbenefit-analysis-part-two-2/

"168 grain Sierra Match King bullet – the gold standard of match grade ammo."

His words, not mine. I'll keep arguing as long as you two keep being wrong.

Do a search on snipershide, for every one post saying 168smk is the way to go, you'll find 13 posts saying 175 smk or 178 amex.

FGMM is considered the standard for commercial match ammo, but the 168 is far from the standard for 308

you do realize the military uses 175 right?

Its not the gold standard.. Maybe its simple confusion on your part but lets forget the "gold standard" comment for the moment.

Can you get a good load with the 168, sure depending on which manufacture's 168 it is and design. Do most people who shoot lr use the 168. Nope. They use 1 of the rounds that walther already mentioned.

The 175smk is the primary load for the majority of shooters that shoot past 700-800 yards.

Im done arguing with you but youve had 2 separate people tell you youre wrong and youre still arguing.

Remember, its not just about weight, 155, 168, 175, 180, 208, etc.

Its about the shape of the bullet and do they transition from supersonic to subsonic while maintaining stability.. Some shapes do, some dont, thats physics..

Those that i have personal experience with that do.

155 lapua scenar

168 hornady amax

175 smk

those that dont.

The older 168 hornadys (not amax)

the reason your getting shit about it is because up until about a 1-2 years ago, one of the only 168 grain 308 bullets that would transition was the hornady amax, there are some new 168 weight versions by some manufactures that work well but it has never been the goto bullet and anyone that knows anything about them, has used them, experience, etc knows they had a problem.

If you stand behind your statement so much, go ahead and start a thread on snipershide asking for an answer. If you prove me wrong ill give a formal apology, if youre proved wrong, you do the same.

qft

I didn't qualify my statement regarding 168 SMKs with "1000 yrd shooting", alone. In fact, the OP said 500 yrds max.

I said it was the gold standard for all .308s. I stand behind that statement.

Keep mincing words, getting ridiculous.

You went wrong with yout statement with the word ALL. WAS is appropriate.

I've hit lots of times with my .308 as well. I'm not saying its impossible. But if you are like me, and most other people that shoot there, we are content through 50 rounds at it and calling it a good day if we hit it 10 times. But to be first shot accurate and precise you gotta do better than that, and it ain't going to happen with most factory guns, Rem700 included. But for the OP, it probably doesn't matter.

My argument is that a factory Rem700 or any Barrett .50 is considered a precision weapon. Barrett .50s were never meant to be precision, and a most factory Rem700s don't even carry an accuracy guarantee. 1-2 MOA is about as good as you can expect.

10/50 @1000? Damn, I don't have standards that low.

Most rem700 heavy barreled rifles ( sps tact, sps varmint ,5r, senders,etc..) are capable of sub moa with match ammo. You are just flat out wrong.

A stock Remington 700 and a Barrett can land a bullet at 1000 yrds, but with either of those they are going to land in an area about the size of a car

This is a giant load of crap. If you've spent any time a TVP (which you have), then you should know it.

I've lost count how many times I've hit the 12x12 steel at 1000yards (and further) with my stock rem 700. Hell, I've busted my fair share of clays at 1000y and those are 4".

And for that matter, I've helped with several of the Newbie Shoots at TVP and watched very new shooters make hits at 1000 with stock remingtons and savages.

lol, stop it. Of course an Enfield can be put down. But it's still an example of a low cost bolt 30-06 to learn with. And lots of rifles won't match it. Too darn hard to find a decent one any more.

Then say it's an example of a low cost gun (I've only ever seen them in .303 british) that's decent to learn on (despite there being far better platforms to learn on), and not make silly claims that can easily be disproved on the range.

Seriously, google 'gold standard match 308 ammo' and tell me if you find anyone that refers to the 175gr. The 175gr is great for rifle with a high twist rate shooting at targets at the outer range of what a 308 is capable of. But for pure versatility and its ability to perform well in damn near anything out there, the 168 its great, not to mention cheaper than 175.

I tend to stay away from remanufactured ammo in my bolt gun. If it didn't come from a factory or my press i don't trust the consistency of it.

It's the gold standard for 600y service rifle. It is not the gold standard for 1000y. Also, your google point is moot since the flipping ammo has gold in the name. 168 amax, 175 smk, 178 amax, 178 bthp hornady, 155 scenar and 155 palma are all better bullets for 1000 yard shooting in a 308. Plug the numbers into JBM and see for yourself.

Yes sir.

That's one of the better rifles that DPMS makes. Pretty much universally good reviews. It certainly is capable for 1000 yard shooting.

Might take you up on the offer Tom for the vortex scope. It will be used very little and mostly under 500 yards.

It's the 6-24 crossfire with the 30mm tube, mildot reticle and moa turrents. I bought it as a temp scope until my pst came in, but never ended up really needing it.

Let me know and we can meet up and I'll help you get the rifle squared away.

FYI, this is my 400yard target that I can poke from the deck. Ill be setting the rest up this weekend out to 1,000 but I have to shoot them from a different angle from out in the field in order to get the distance and be safe.

Also need to put my wind flags on the top so I know whats going on out there.

I'm free Sunday ya know.....

i know the ar-10 is not a long range gun like a remington .700 or a barrett. When i bought it i wanted a long range rifle to learn long range shooting with. (500+ yards). The rifle can be capable of 1000+ but with a awesome shooter. That's not me. Although i do want to learn to get as close to that as i can and 500+ is my current goal then step it up once i reach that.

Since i've moved out west i can hunt with it so i will probably use it for that too. The only restriction on the .308 out her is magazine capacity. But they allow it to be used on coyote, white tail, mule deer, mountain lion, bear, elk and sheep. So i'm eventually going to use it on hunting too.

The rifle has a 24in bull barrel and i'm not too concerned about the weight of the scope. I'll want something rugged though so i can hike it up through the mountains out side of its case. I was thinking starting around $600-$750 dollar range.

dpms lr308?

I suppose so. But I'll say an old Enfield 30-06 will out shoot just about anything.

Care to place wager on that?

edit: and back on subject: I like 308 over 30-06, and like 300 win mag for anything greater.

Guess that makes Flounder and myself the 1% and you part of the 99%. Feel free to demonize us like the Occupy folks.

Yeah what I am thinking, savage with a "cheap" scope would do me fine.

I have a cheap vortex that I'll lend you to see if you like it, they retail for $200.

Well I don't know about optics, so I'm glad I never bought one from them. Although I do have an AR-10 that needs a scope eventually. Never bought one so I'll have to do some more research when I get the cash together. Thanks for saving me guys.

Give us a budget and your expected use, and we'll help you find something.

edit: and there is an article there about mil-dot and why we don't need it.

edit edit: Try finding a mil-dot made for something other than 223 or 308. Won't happen.

MIL's have nothing to do with the caliber of the gun.

Mil dot is for mil targets. Enemy soldiers (or simulated) at generally 400 to 600 yards.

If you got some, get a mil-dot reticule scope.

Otherwise, get a decent hunting scope/reticule, or a target scope/reticule.

I like http://www.opticsplanet.com/

edit: and there is an article there about mil-dot and why we don't need it.

Wrong. Your premise for mildots is mistaken, also, most "target" reticles used in LR are based upon a MIL or MOA hashed reticle (upgrade to mil dots).