theHunter Classic Forums

Eraser_SK wrote:I have .340 and .45-70. I must say .340 with scope is perfect for long range shoot (of course for short but this is not problem from .300 above). When i buy this rifle without scope i see no big advantage for this rifle compare with .45-70 or .340. But i see one big disadvantage - long range shoot is near impossible.

I have the .340 and the .45-70 too. I agree it's a little challenging to kill an animal with the .405 in long range shots.
But It is doable to kill an animal in long range shots!
Just look at this 3 harvests with the .405. All fired in more than 140m.
https://www.thehunter.com/#profile/hd_a ... /587939294
https://www.thehunter.com/#profile/hd_a ... /587929584
https://www.thehunter.com/#profile/hd_a ... /587930356 (The first shot was only a body shot at 199 meter but the stag didn't run more than 100 meters and he was sitting on the ground and waiting for the second kill shot!)

IMO, this rifle is a good one but I don't like the sound of it! It doesn't feel you shoot a canon! It looks it made for medium games!
But the power is way too much and if it has scope, we shouldn't see any fleeing animal after a shot! I like the challenging to aim at animals!

Did you change something about the AA, with the last update ?
I am trying since 2 days to fix the Problem, unfortunately without success. I also tried to overwrite the ingame Setting with Nvidia Settings, does not help either.
No matter what I do, the Graphics looks like on the Playstation 2, with MAX Settings and that at 1440P. The ground textures look particularly bad.
I had no problems with my GTX 1060 before. I am very sensitive when it comes to graphics and especially to AA.

Thanks for the Status Update TK! I really LIKE the new .405 Rifle, but think I will stick with the .340. I would buy it if it had a Scope, but understand WHY it shouldn't have one.

Wetland

Fletchette wrote:

BuiuRei wrote:

Fletchette wrote: Oh, Ivan, you know I'm a dog person, so I'm not going to talk to cat people....

That said, think about this...Assuming a rifle is zeroed at 100-200 meters or yards (which is typical), how fast would the bullet have to be traveling, (average velocity is fine), to only drop 50mm-200mm (2-8 inches) at 500 meters or yards?

Here is a hint...A released object will fall 50mm (2 inches) the first 1/10th of a second, and 200mm (about 8 inches) after 2/10ths of a second. So how fast would the bullet have to be traveling to travel 300-400 meters in 0.1 - 0.2 seconds.

Well, yes, it does seem too little.
But what sort of unity of measurement are they using, then? It's so small!

Inches of course.....

Yes, zeroed at 100 yards, the drop of a 250gr .340 Weatherby round is 54 inches ( about 4 1/2 feet, or 1.4 METERS) at 500 yards/meters.
https://fusiontables.googleusercontent. ... lt=1&cpr=1

And for the .300 gr .405 it's over 12 feet (nearly 4 meter), because the bullet is like a rock with a terrible ballistic coefficient.

Yeah... I wasn't certain simply because units are not marked on charts. But simply looking at the charts, and taking into account that they come from english site on with imperial units are used otherwise, inches and yards were most probable.

My point was, however, that even if present, RL differences within 200 meters are rather small - both, when it comes to external ballistics, and to some point also in case of penetration capabilities. Ok, due to it's shape, construction, sectional density etc., .340 would have probably still better penetrating capabilities than .405 (assuming same impact velocity). But I guess (as theorethician only) that for most of the medium game, given a full broadside shot opportunity, both projectiles would pirce through animal to other side along most of the render range (and .340 would keep doing this far beyond render range).

While in-game .405 can be succesfully shot at longer distances, I think it was simply designed as short-range weapon (and in game term, by "short" I understand within 100 meters or better even shorter) for people who likes this playstyle - of getting quite close to your prey, but not as close as with bows Hence, it don't need a scope that much, I guess.

If I owned one of these IRL and the ring was an obstruction I would have it removed. Can we have that done somewhere here? Who should I send the PO to? Bethany? Pim?

JimboCrow wrote:If I owned one of these IRL and the ring was an obstruction I would have it removed. Can we have that done somewhere here? Who should I send the PO to? Bethany? Pim?

As can be seen from this image the ring can be lowered

fantamichele wrote:

JimboCrow wrote:If I owned one of these IRL and the ring was an obstruction I would have it removed. Can we have that done somewhere here? Who should I send the PO to? Bethany? Pim?

As can be seen from this image the ring can be lowered

Not on this one!!!!

Welcome Silvia! I'm loving the new .405! I agree that it should remain without a scope or any type of optics, it would take away from the lore and history of this beautiful weapon. Thanks for giving us a new big game weapon for the new reserve, time to go down some Banteng Water Buffalo and Moose!

JimboCrow wrote:

fantamichele wrote:

JimboCrow wrote:If I owned one of these IRL and the ring was an obstruction I would have it removed. Can we have that done somewhere here? Who should I send the PO to? Bethany? Pim?

As can be seen from this image the ring can be lowered

Not on this one!!!!

and which one?

fantamichele wrote:

JimboCrow wrote:

fantamichele wrote:
As can be seen from this image the ring can be lowered

Not on this one!!!!

and which one?

The one in the game of course!