Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Effective Range of 257 Weatherby mag.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rooster721" data-source="post: 726678" data-attributes="member: 40654"><p>I've got some range pics that some of you's might be interested in seeing for curiosity sake** The steel is only mild-steel, not hardened or anything fancy (hence the denting severity)</p><p> </p><p>[ATTACH]15329[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]15330[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]15331[/ATTACH]</p><p> </p><p>The one with the un-marked, painted-over impacts are also 264 vs 257.. 264 140g vld, 257 115 vld. Those impacts were on a 1/2" plate right about 600 yards if I recall...</p><p> </p><p>The picture with the white paint-marker 264/257 comparison was shot at 410 yards.. same 140 & 115 vld's only that plate is a 3/4" thickness.</p><p> </p><p>Finally that pic showing the "Dolly Partons" on the reverse side of the plate was set at 565 or there-abouts.. the impacts/groups were made with that same 264 from the other two pics, and actually (the group on the far-right/center.. most purtruded) was made with a lazz-7mm.. The 257 did not indent what-so-ever that-time, merely burnt paint in-front**</p><p> </p><p>...I wanna be clear, I'm not knocking 257. Just showing comparison. I'm sure many will find it interesting** The light 115's (257 heaviest) simply don't pack the punch alot of guys seem to believe, even with their rocket-speed. The comparison shows exactly the 257 vs 264 argument that alot (also) seem to think are such comparable calibres, in which they really are obviously-not.</p><p> </p><p>Rooster</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rooster721, post: 726678, member: 40654"] I've got some range pics that some of you's might be interested in seeing for curiosity sake** The steel is only mild-steel, not hardened or anything fancy (hence the denting severity) [ATTACH]15329.vB[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]15330.vB[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]15331.vB[/ATTACH] The one with the un-marked, painted-over impacts are also 264 vs 257.. 264 140g vld, 257 115 vld. Those impacts were on a 1/2" plate right about 600 yards if I recall... The picture with the white paint-marker 264/257 comparison was shot at 410 yards.. same 140 & 115 vld's only that plate is a 3/4" thickness. Finally that pic showing the "Dolly Partons" on the reverse side of the plate was set at 565 or there-abouts.. the impacts/groups were made with that same 264 from the other two pics, and actually (the group on the far-right/center.. most purtruded) was made with a lazz-7mm.. The 257 did not indent what-so-ever that-time, merely burnt paint in-front** ...I wanna be clear, I'm not knocking 257. Just showing comparison. I'm sure many will find it interesting** The light 115's (257 heaviest) simply don't pack the punch alot of guys seem to believe, even with their rocket-speed. The comparison shows exactly the 257 vs 264 argument that alot (also) seem to think are such comparable calibres, in which they really are obviously-not. Rooster [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Effective Range of 257 Weatherby mag.
Top