The .275 Weatherby for LRH?

Big Sky

Feb 26, 2002
Northeast Montana
If a guy only planned on shooting game the size of mule deer on down is there any reason why the .257 Weatherby wouldn't make an ideal long range hunting caliber? I'm thinking with it's milder recoil, extremely flat shooting, and good choice of quality bullets it would be a winner. If one limited his shots to 800 yards or less, how can one go wrong? Is there something I'm missing? Granted there are cheaper cartridges to shoot out there like the .308 and 300 Winny, but really we aren't talking about a major savings especially in comparison to the 300 Winchester. Those of you that have used the .257 Weatherby in a quality built rifle, what are your thoughts?
Big Sky

Not enough "real good" bullets available with a high BC to reach out at a "far" distance.

Your good to 700 to 800 yards on deer with the 100 gr. My 25 Gibbs has the same ballistics as the 257 Weatherby and Has killed woodchucks in excess of 1000 yards.
It also has a 34" barrel.

I'm aware of the BC and that's why I don't think I'd try to stretch it past 800 yards. In all likely hood I doubt I'll be shooting past 600 yards. Seems the older I get the less enthusiastic I get about getting smacked by recoil. The only thing I hate more than recoil is muzzle brakes so it seems to me anyway for what I need the .257 should be fairly ideal. If I can get that new Barnes Triple Shock to shoot it just might be the ticket. Appreciate your imput Darryl.
.257 108gr JLK B.C. .500
.257 115gr Berger B.C. .522
.257 115gr Nosler B.C. ?
.257 117gr Hornaday SST B.C. ?

This past hunting season we shot 3 bucks at 700yds-950yds-1050yds all with 108 jlk out of a 25-300 win imp.
Each deer only needed one bullet....It was all over.....

Were they all "quick" clean kills or did they live for awhile and suffer?

I prefer something with more energy and quick kill ability especially at the 1000 yard mark.


[ 05-15-2003: Message edited by: Darryl Cassel ]
heavy bullet with hight BC are not available but a 6.5/270 WEA is a fine cartridge with better bullet choice , a 6.5/270 WEA is use in USA under another name is some 1000 yards with not to bad sucess but a 264 WIN with a good throat can make the same

good shooting


I agree with the 264 or 6.5 diameter bullet.

It is a fine killer and would be the smallest diameter I would go after deer sized animals with-- especially the 140gr to 155 gr weights.
I like the 6.5/300 Weatherby for shots in excess of 1000 yards. I started with a 264 Mag and liked it too.

Big Sky
As for the 25 cal, the bullet selection is really not ideal but, for shots in the 600 to 700 yard range would be fine. I wouldn't push it to 1000 yards though.

Big Sky

I've just ran the Ballistics for the Game Kings in the 117 and 120 Gr plus the Match king and the prohunter.

The Matchking had a high BC of .485 and would give a 1000 yd energy of 715 FPs at 3400 FPS

The rest I mentioned all gave substantial less foot pounds of energy and were from 424 to 599 fps left at 1000 yards. Really not to good.

Maybe some would use the smaller bullet diameters but, I will hold to what I said before.
For yardages that I think "you" mentioned that you want to make (700 to 800 yds), the 257 Weatherby would be fine especially if you run the bullets mentioned at 3400 FPS.

For shots of 1000 yds and beyond, I would prefer the 6.5 as the lightest or smallest diameter and the 7mm or 30 cals with heavy bullets would certainly be a bit better then the even the 6.5 as per remaining energy and velocity.
It's hard to beat the larger higher BC bullets in the 7mm and the 30 cal.

For what you want, the 257 will work fine if you keep it at 700 or 800 yds for most of your deer killing. Maybe further with excellent bullet placement which is the deciding factor on ANY bullet.


[ 05-16-2003: Message edited by: Darryl Cassel ]
Big Sky

I do think S1 is the one on the wackey weed "if" my BC is correct from Sierra.

The 120 Gr 257 HPBT from Sierra has a listed BC of only .370.

At 5000 feet elevation and with a speed of 3400 FPS it has a remaining energy at 1000 yards of only 597 FP and a remaining speed of 1515 FPS.

Check the BC in the Sierra manual. The 117 gr shows a bit higher BC then the 120gr has?

Could there be a misprint in the manual?
Even the Oehler program shows the Sierra 120 gr at the low BC.

Warning! This thread is more than 22 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts