Need an elk rifle (and deer if DNR approves the new regs)

[throttletony]

A .243 shooting a 58 gr V max is a coyote grenade. I too have killed several with that combo. It is moving at some serious velocity and will leave an exit wound you can put your fist through. Not great for saving pelts to make things out of, but dang it's fun to smoke them with that combo. It is down right hilarious on prairie dogs,...generally vaporizes them when you shoot them right square center mass.

Dirty Steve

I hit a coyote with a .243 Superformance Varmint and it didn't exit. Needless to say, it dumped all that energy into the yote and that thing dropped in its tracks.
It was a quartering front shoulder shot, I hit it right above the clavical and it literally turned its vital to giblets that fell out when I hung him up to skin him.
If I had hit all "soft" stuff, I'm sure there'd be a softball size hole exit

IF you're looking at a 243 as a do all round, also consider the 7mm-08, or the 260 Rem.
Bullet selection makes all of them great at filling multiple roles

 

[Yeah]

after gaining more experience I don't think I'd pay the weight (and $$) penalty for such a large objective again for a hunting rifle.

Weighing in with an opinion gained from first hand experience in the actual application in question, is nearly extinct. Of course anyone who has been there and done that would come to the same conclusion that moon scopes don't fit.

 

[Yeah]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...0-featherweights-five-calibers-available.html

He has either .270 or .30-06. I think you need to slide your budget up another $550. One of these rifles plus Vortex glass from A&A Optics. You'd be happy, happy, happy.

Used Kimber 84 Montana abound in that price range, and they are a better rifle by every objective measure.

 

[cwillour]

Respectfully, I would disagree. I have scopes in the 40, 45, and 50mm configurations. Inside of legal hunting hours, I've found no deficiency in light-gathering abilities for the 40 and 45mm scopes. My long-range gun wears a 50mm objective but after gaining more experience I don't think I'd pay the weight (and $$) penalty for such a large objective again for a hunting rifle. My current 500 yard Indiana deer hunting gun wears a 42mm objective.

What kind of low-end (& high-end magnification) do you have on your 40-45mm scopes vs your 50mm scopes?

 

[indyjohn]

Used Kimber 84 Montana abound in that price range, and they are a better rifle by every objective measure.

Search on gunsamerica netted this: SALE! Kimber 84 M Montana .223 Remington for sale (923062727)

 

[Yeah]

Confiscatory pricing, but even there it has no peer as a hunting rifle.

 

[spaniel]

What kind of low-end (& high-end magnification) do you have on your 40-45mm scopes vs your 50mm scopes?

The 50mm objective is a Nikon Tactical; they have not made them in a number of years. 4-16X. The 42mm is a Bushnell Elite Tactical 6500, from memory, 2.5-16X.

The 50mm was bought for a 300WM intended to shoot to 900 yards. The 42mm for a smokeless ML intended to shoot 500 yards, which is why I opted for a scope with such a broad magnification range (higher likelihood of close/jump shots with the ML). The 42mm currently sits on my 358 1.8" WSM, also intended for shots to 500 yards.

The 50mm scope was a $900 scope used, retail >$1000. IIRC the 42mm was in the $600 range. The glass on the Bushnell is actually a bit sharper. In after-shooting-hours low light, I have not seen a significant difference. Perhaps if you are shooting coyotes at night during hours not legal for big game there is a significant difference, but in legal big game hunting hours the 42mm scope works just fine.

 

[cwillour]

Perhaps if you are shooting coyotes at night during hours not legal for big game there is a significant difference, but in legal big game hunting hours the 42mm scope works just fine.

Makes sense. I am thinking my judgement of the light gathering from my scopes & binos may have been skewed by my habit glassing the fields during the waiting time before and after hunting hours.