I'm not an expert, in fact I rarely shoot anymore, but, I think a Nosler Partition in 60G must be a marketing ploy. The partition bullet was disigned for heavy skinned and boned game. The cross member of copper forming the H in the partition bullet is to keep the rear of the bullet together in tact for maintianing weight and while allowing the tip to expand causing the damage. If I was hunting bear or buffalo or other large game I might want one. I don't think that is quite nessessary for most varmints. Remember, the more the bullet costs the more profit is seen by that cost. My .02
Sigarms, Skypup, Eddie or other Gun Guru...
- Thread starter scott_vt
- Start date
- Views: 3095
I'm not an expert, in fact I rarely shoot anymore, but, I think a Nosler Partition in 60G must be a marketing ploy. The partition bullet was disigned for heavy skinned and boned game. The cross member of copper forming the H in the partition bullet is to keep the rear of the bullet together in tact for maintianing weight and while allowing the tip to expand causing the damage. If I was hunting bear or buffalo or other large game I might want one. I don't think that is quite nessessary for most varmints. Remember, the more the bullet costs the more profit is seen by that cost. My .02
sonofczechgun
Silver Member
Agreed. I work with a lot of former shooters - photographers from the news industry and to pick up a camera their basic rule is to stick with lense maker. B/c even in digital cameras lenses are still the most important part.
sonofczechgun
Silver Member
Agreed. I work with a lot of former shooters - photographers from the news industry and to pick up a camera their basic rule is to stick with lense maker. B/c even in digital cameras lenses are still the most important part.
RobertN
Super Member
For an SLR camera, both Nikon and Canon have this feature. Nikon calls it AFS, Canon calls it USM. The lens has a small motor on it. It works faster, smoother, and quieter than the older style drive where the drive motor is on the camera body.
My Non-AFS lens has a little screw driver like piece on the back of the lens housing; when the lense is installed it couples to a slot on the camera body. A motor drives that mechanism to focus. Works, but is slower, louder, and uses more power.
Of course, my 80-200/2.8-ED was $800, the 70-200/2.8-EDIF-AFS is like $1700... Optics are comparable, but the drive and IF mechanism is way nicer.
My Non-AFS lens has a little screw driver like piece on the back of the lens housing; when the lense is installed it couples to a slot on the camera body. A motor drives that mechanism to focus. Works, but is slower, louder, and uses more power.
Of course, my 80-200/2.8-ED was $800, the 70-200/2.8-EDIF-AFS is like $1700... Optics are comparable, but the drive and IF mechanism is way nicer.
RobertN
Super Member
For an SLR camera, both Nikon and Canon have this feature. Nikon calls it AFS, Canon calls it USM. The lens has a small motor on it. It works faster, smoother, and quieter than the older style drive where the drive motor is on the camera body.
My Non-AFS lens has a little screw driver like piece on the back of the lens housing; when the lense is installed it couples to a slot on the camera body. A motor drives that mechanism to focus. Works, but is slower, louder, and uses more power.
Of course, my 80-200/2.8-ED was $800, the 70-200/2.8-EDIF-AFS is like $1700... Optics are comparable, but the drive and IF mechanism is way nicer.
My Non-AFS lens has a little screw driver like piece on the back of the lens housing; when the lense is installed it couples to a slot on the camera body. A motor drives that mechanism to focus. Works, but is slower, louder, and uses more power.
Of course, my 80-200/2.8-ED was $800, the 70-200/2.8-EDIF-AFS is like $1700... Optics are comparable, but the drive and IF mechanism is way nicer.
gsganzer
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,163
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Tractor
- L3800 w/FEL and BH77, BX 2200 w/FEL and MMM
All my shooting is with handloads. Shotgun, pistol, rifle. To me, it's the equivalent of a fly fisherman tying his own flies, I just want to experience every part of the hunt.
I've settled in on the new Barnes TSX almost exclusively. The only other bullet I currently use is Swift A-Frames, comparable to the partitions. The a-frames have always performed flawlessly, but they cost an arm and a leg ($30.00 for a box of 50). As Eddie mentioned, the Sierra's are mainly a benchrest/target bullet (IMO).
When it comes to scopes, I'm pretty well hooked on the Zeiss Conquest's. I think they have better glass then the Leupold and cost about the same as the Leupold VX-III. I usually buy the 3.5-10 x 44mm objective. I stay away from the 50mm objective, just too big and bulky. If I was a rich man, I'd be outfitting everything with either a Swarovski PH 2.5-10 x 44 with 30mm tube or the Zeiss Diavari w/30 mm tube. Just my .02
I've settled in on the new Barnes TSX almost exclusively. The only other bullet I currently use is Swift A-Frames, comparable to the partitions. The a-frames have always performed flawlessly, but they cost an arm and a leg ($30.00 for a box of 50). As Eddie mentioned, the Sierra's are mainly a benchrest/target bullet (IMO).
When it comes to scopes, I'm pretty well hooked on the Zeiss Conquest's. I think they have better glass then the Leupold and cost about the same as the Leupold VX-III. I usually buy the 3.5-10 x 44mm objective. I stay away from the 50mm objective, just too big and bulky. If I was a rich man, I'd be outfitting everything with either a Swarovski PH 2.5-10 x 44 with 30mm tube or the Zeiss Diavari w/30 mm tube. Just my .02
gsganzer
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,163
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Tractor
- L3800 w/FEL and BH77, BX 2200 w/FEL and MMM
All my shooting is with handloads. Shotgun, pistol, rifle. To me, it's the equivalent of a fly fisherman tying his own flies, I just want to experience every part of the hunt.
I've settled in on the new Barnes TSX almost exclusively. The only other bullet I currently use is Swift A-Frames, comparable to the partitions. The a-frames have always performed flawlessly, but they cost an arm and a leg ($30.00 for a box of 50). As Eddie mentioned, the Sierra's are mainly a benchrest/target bullet (IMO).
When it comes to scopes, I'm pretty well hooked on the Zeiss Conquest's. I think they have better glass then the Leupold and cost about the same as the Leupold VX-III. I usually buy the 3.5-10 x 44mm objective. I stay away from the 50mm objective, just too big and bulky. If I was a rich man, I'd be outfitting everything with either a Swarovski PH 2.5-10 x 44 with 30mm tube or the Zeiss Diavari w/30 mm tube. Just my .02
I've settled in on the new Barnes TSX almost exclusively. The only other bullet I currently use is Swift A-Frames, comparable to the partitions. The a-frames have always performed flawlessly, but they cost an arm and a leg ($30.00 for a box of 50). As Eddie mentioned, the Sierra's are mainly a benchrest/target bullet (IMO).
When it comes to scopes, I'm pretty well hooked on the Zeiss Conquest's. I think they have better glass then the Leupold and cost about the same as the Leupold VX-III. I usually buy the 3.5-10 x 44mm objective. I stay away from the 50mm objective, just too big and bulky. If I was a rich man, I'd be outfitting everything with either a Swarovski PH 2.5-10 x 44 with 30mm tube or the Zeiss Diavari w/30 mm tube. Just my .02
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
gsganzer,
I've heard that the new coatings really help the Barnes bullets with the fouling issues, but I've recovered too many of their bullets that didn't open up to it's own diameter to give them another try. I never lost an animal with them, but lost confidence and worry that it could happen one day.
The A-Frames have a very solid reputation and I've been curious about them, but haven't made that move yet. Your right about their priceing, but availablity was a real problem for awhile there too. Even Cabelas wasn't able to get them for awhile.
For scopes and binoculars, there's only a few names for quality. Zeiss, Swarvoski, Schmidt & Bender, Leica and Ertle. These are all thousand to two thousand dollar scopes. Mine is a 1.5 to 6 power Swarvoski with the 30mm tube. It's what I use when going to Alaska, Africa and the Rockie Mtns.
Any place that has the ability to change tempature 50 degrees or more in a few hours, requires multiple planes and you end up landing on water or dirt, and miles of horse back riding all dictate to me to use the good scope.
I also agree with you about those 50mm lenses. They are way too big for mountain hunting. If you sit on a blind, then they are fine, but if your on a horse or climbing through blowdown on the side of a rock slide, than you want the lowest profile you can get.
Better glass will out perform large diameter glass ten to one every time!!!
One night as I was coming off a ridge in the dark, I couldn't figure out where my camp was. I was hunting alone in the wilderness and camp was totaly dark. My flashlight was just a small penlight and useless at any distance. There was a little moonlight out, but otherwise, it was all shapes and shadows. With my Swarvoski binoculars, I was able to see my tent in the dark.
Good glass will bring in more light than the naked eye!!!
Your mid range optics that cost around $300 to $600 are good for starting out, but if you decide to go on a hunt, thousands of miles from home, it can really make a difference on how well you enjoy it, if your optics are up to the task.
Eddie
I've heard that the new coatings really help the Barnes bullets with the fouling issues, but I've recovered too many of their bullets that didn't open up to it's own diameter to give them another try. I never lost an animal with them, but lost confidence and worry that it could happen one day.
The A-Frames have a very solid reputation and I've been curious about them, but haven't made that move yet. Your right about their priceing, but availablity was a real problem for awhile there too. Even Cabelas wasn't able to get them for awhile.
For scopes and binoculars, there's only a few names for quality. Zeiss, Swarvoski, Schmidt & Bender, Leica and Ertle. These are all thousand to two thousand dollar scopes. Mine is a 1.5 to 6 power Swarvoski with the 30mm tube. It's what I use when going to Alaska, Africa and the Rockie Mtns.
Any place that has the ability to change tempature 50 degrees or more in a few hours, requires multiple planes and you end up landing on water or dirt, and miles of horse back riding all dictate to me to use the good scope.
I also agree with you about those 50mm lenses. They are way too big for mountain hunting. If you sit on a blind, then they are fine, but if your on a horse or climbing through blowdown on the side of a rock slide, than you want the lowest profile you can get.
Better glass will out perform large diameter glass ten to one every time!!!
One night as I was coming off a ridge in the dark, I couldn't figure out where my camp was. I was hunting alone in the wilderness and camp was totaly dark. My flashlight was just a small penlight and useless at any distance. There was a little moonlight out, but otherwise, it was all shapes and shadows. With my Swarvoski binoculars, I was able to see my tent in the dark.
Good glass will bring in more light than the naked eye!!!
Your mid range optics that cost around $300 to $600 are good for starting out, but if you decide to go on a hunt, thousands of miles from home, it can really make a difference on how well you enjoy it, if your optics are up to the task.
Eddie
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
gsganzer,
I've heard that the new coatings really help the Barnes bullets with the fouling issues, but I've recovered too many of their bullets that didn't open up to it's own diameter to give them another try. I never lost an animal with them, but lost confidence and worry that it could happen one day.
The A-Frames have a very solid reputation and I've been curious about them, but haven't made that move yet. Your right about their priceing, but availablity was a real problem for awhile there too. Even Cabelas wasn't able to get them for awhile.
For scopes and binoculars, there's only a few names for quality. Zeiss, Swarvoski, Schmidt & Bender, Leica and Ertle. These are all thousand to two thousand dollar scopes. Mine is a 1.5 to 6 power Swarvoski with the 30mm tube. It's what I use when going to Alaska, Africa and the Rockie Mtns.
Any place that has the ability to change tempature 50 degrees or more in a few hours, requires multiple planes and you end up landing on water or dirt, and miles of horse back riding all dictate to me to use the good scope.
I also agree with you about those 50mm lenses. They are way too big for mountain hunting. If you sit on a blind, then they are fine, but if your on a horse or climbing through blowdown on the side of a rock slide, than you want the lowest profile you can get.
Better glass will out perform large diameter glass ten to one every time!!!
One night as I was coming off a ridge in the dark, I couldn't figure out where my camp was. I was hunting alone in the wilderness and camp was totaly dark. My flashlight was just a small penlight and useless at any distance. There was a little moonlight out, but otherwise, it was all shapes and shadows. With my Swarvoski binoculars, I was able to see my tent in the dark.
Good glass will bring in more light than the naked eye!!!
Your mid range optics that cost around $300 to $600 are good for starting out, but if you decide to go on a hunt, thousands of miles from home, it can really make a difference on how well you enjoy it, if your optics are up to the task.
Eddie
I've heard that the new coatings really help the Barnes bullets with the fouling issues, but I've recovered too many of their bullets that didn't open up to it's own diameter to give them another try. I never lost an animal with them, but lost confidence and worry that it could happen one day.
The A-Frames have a very solid reputation and I've been curious about them, but haven't made that move yet. Your right about their priceing, but availablity was a real problem for awhile there too. Even Cabelas wasn't able to get them for awhile.
For scopes and binoculars, there's only a few names for quality. Zeiss, Swarvoski, Schmidt & Bender, Leica and Ertle. These are all thousand to two thousand dollar scopes. Mine is a 1.5 to 6 power Swarvoski with the 30mm tube. It's what I use when going to Alaska, Africa and the Rockie Mtns.
Any place that has the ability to change tempature 50 degrees or more in a few hours, requires multiple planes and you end up landing on water or dirt, and miles of horse back riding all dictate to me to use the good scope.
I also agree with you about those 50mm lenses. They are way too big for mountain hunting. If you sit on a blind, then they are fine, but if your on a horse or climbing through blowdown on the side of a rock slide, than you want the lowest profile you can get.
Better glass will out perform large diameter glass ten to one every time!!!
One night as I was coming off a ridge in the dark, I couldn't figure out where my camp was. I was hunting alone in the wilderness and camp was totaly dark. My flashlight was just a small penlight and useless at any distance. There was a little moonlight out, but otherwise, it was all shapes and shadows. With my Swarvoski binoculars, I was able to see my tent in the dark.
Good glass will bring in more light than the naked eye!!!
Your mid range optics that cost around $300 to $600 are good for starting out, but if you decide to go on a hunt, thousands of miles from home, it can really make a difference on how well you enjoy it, if your optics are up to the task.
Eddie
