theHunter Classic Forums

TreeKiwi wrote:Interesting take on it! In stream today I did some long shots to prove it was good. Dropped a Sambar on the spot at ~170m . Then a WT, just to prove a point vs smaller targets than it's intended for at ~140m. This caliber in real life was not up to long range shots. Comparing it to the .340 is a bit rough, that's like comparing a ford prefect with a Ferrari

Part of the problem for me is the black sights against the black hide of a water buffalo or banteng. It makes it very difficult to see what I'm aiming for. The orange banteng stands out way more, and even the Sambar is easier than the WB. But then there is this: does the small, thick, rear ring look the same size during aiming on screen as it would IRL? Is it really that small when in reality it would be so close to your eye? I am asking out of curious ignorance and ignorant skepticism.

older people who's eye sight it not perfect, like myself, really need a scope for weapons.... and i am sure that throughout the years from 1895 ,there has been many scopes put on this type of rifle.. it's like the "wheel", you put one or more on something, some people are going to race it ....it's the nature of the beast.....

i would really like to have a scope for the rifle i bought the other day,...please.....thank you...

Yeah sorry its worth pointing out that I understand some people want/need a scope for this rifle. People are free to play how they like, as per usual we will take all the feedback and then consider options.

Here is the link to today's stream, see how I use it and then let me know how it compares to your use/experience with it https://www.twitch.tv/videos/222196752, Fast forward the first 10mins. Its recorded live.

Be good all!

TK

Welcome Sylvia !

@a few thoughts from me to the new rifle.

The animation is nicely done and it is also a historical weapon, no doubt about that, but it's also a bit OP, like almost all other new weapons. I like what Whocaires did, because you never know exactly what you get, when you buy a new weapon from Store. The Video of Whocaires is good and shows very clearly the weaknesses of this weapon and all other weapons. There should be a big difference between this 2 rifles, which is not the case. They all resemble each other too much. I mean, 200m double lung shot and no bullet drop, does not necessarily speak for this weapon. Some may find that cool, but I expect a bit more realism. I ask myself also, how big must be the hitbox for this weapon, if you can easily get this hits, without scope.

I feel some automatic zooming may help with the new rifle, even if it doesn't get a scope, just to clear up some pixellation. It didn't have a scope in the old days but in the old days animals weren't pixellated either I might still pick one up because I love it in videos, though... looks very nice!

The weapon looks fine.
It's very strong, fires pretty quick, the iron sight are pretty good no need for a scope.
Please let this gun be unique. All other guns already carry a scope.

However I don't believe anyone wants skittish bears. Again there is no lure for Grizzlys and Polars and a lot of vegetation on TGT. So you have to be able to get pretty close.
Alternativly make some money by allowing us Grizzly baitng .
But track, spook, track, spook... is no fun.

thanks for the update and the soon to be fix for the sound issue on WRR.

and thanks again for considering my blacktail as trophy of the week:)

Gaffi wrote:Welcome Sylvia !

@a few thoughts from me to the new rifle.

The animation is nicely done and it is also a historical weapon, no doubt about that, but it's also a bit OP, like almost all other new weapons. I like what Whocaires did, because you never know exactly what you get, when you buy a new weapon from Store. The Video of Whocaires is good and shows very clearly the weaknesses of this weapon and all other weapons. There should be a big difference between this 2 rifles, which is not the case. They all resemble each other too much. I mean, 200m double lung shot and no bullet drop, does not necessarily speak for this weapon.

.405 bullet drop:


and .340 bullet drop:


To be honest, I'm not fullt certain of units, but I assume drop is in inches, and distance in yards. Yard is relatively close to meter for comparison.

While there is difference no doubt, I would risk to say, that at 200 meters it is about 9 (.405) vs. 3 (.340) inches. This is about 16 cm of difference. So noticable, but not extreme. Using this calculator, I assume that at ~200 meters, .405 projectile should still have about 1557 fps. Assuming deforming projectile (expanding one), and if we believe those article, this is quite close to usual best penetrating performance.

So maybe this is not that entirely unreallistic.

I'd say that graph is in millimiters of drop by distance in meters. If so, the difference should be from 150mm (6 inches) to 50mm (2 inches) @500m. At 220m, there shouldn't be much difference, though.
But yes, while I love and use ironsights a lot, it does need a scope to improve its versatility.

BuiuRei wrote:I'd say that graph is in millimiters of drop by distance in meters.

You're being silly....