hmbleservant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 156
I'm driving myself crazy contemplating this question! I've heard that short actions are "stiffer" creating a more accurate rifle. How much more accurate are we talking? Also, if I do go short action and practically give up the 180's then do I at least get the full potential of the 168's (VLD's)? In other words can I seat the 168's out as far as I need to to get the full potential of the bullet and still have a gun that feeds reliably? 162 amax?
There are plenty of people going the long action route and I'm not scared that I can make a "bad decision". But what is my best option for a long range hunting rifle (+or- 1000yards)? I figure that the accuracy of my rifle will be the limiting agent here for longest distance that I can ethically take animals (no bigger than texas hillcountry whitetails), so, 168/162's are probably perfect anyway since they are better for wind/elevation/barrel length requirement/recoil/cost than 180's out to 1000-ish, right?
And finally, I have been noticing in all my research that some folks beleive in accuracy nodes for bullets. What are the nodes for these three bullets?
There are plenty of people going the long action route and I'm not scared that I can make a "bad decision". But what is my best option for a long range hunting rifle (+or- 1000yards)? I figure that the accuracy of my rifle will be the limiting agent here for longest distance that I can ethically take animals (no bigger than texas hillcountry whitetails), so, 168/162's are probably perfect anyway since they are better for wind/elevation/barrel length requirement/recoil/cost than 180's out to 1000-ish, right?
And finally, I have been noticing in all my research that some folks beleive in accuracy nodes for bullets. What are the nodes for these three bullets?