45.70 for Sambhur

General chat about The Hunter. For suggestions, please use the "Suggestions"-room below.
User avatar
D3AKUs
Hunter
Posts: 852
Joined: March 8th, 2017, 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by D3AKUs »

Fletchette wrote:
D3AKUs wrote:A wise man named shia labeouf once said : "Just do it"
LOL...We must have very different definitions of "a wise man". I'll assume you were joking, because there's somethin' wrong with that boy. :?

BTW, I'm think he probably borrowed that phrase from Nike, since it was their slogan for years when Shia was in diapers.
U need to dig further into the knowledge about our prophet Shia. One can only appreciate him when he fully understands that Shia is indeed our one and only true savior. :lol:
Nah, jokes aside i love that guy - hes an insanely entertaining person.
U should really give this one a watch :

https://youtu.be/o0u4M6vppCI

But enough offtopic hehe :)
Villkatta wrote:Just hunted sambar with the 7mm. All but one animal winded up as bodyshot. We REALLY need something bigger for these guys!
Its crazy isnt it ? Seeing how powerful the 7mm is on every other species up to moose and bear its actually mind blowing :D i havent seen anything better then a single lung so far on Kevlar Deer.
Ill try the .30R, .300 and 30-06 Stutzen today to see how they go up against the Godzilla Deer.

Still really hope we can use bigger caliber soon. Right now it feels imbalanced. Water Buffs should have been the ones feeling tanky but they are just giant easy to get bullet magnets compared to the Hussein Bolt Speed Man of Steel Tank Deer.
Thing is , they are still fun tho. They are truely a challenge which isnt even bad. It just feels a lil ridiculous compared to other species.
User avatar
Knut
Outfitter
Posts: 4847
Joined: May 25th, 2012, 12:08 pm
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by Knut »

Villkatta wrote:Just hunted sambar with the 7mm. All but one animal winded up as bodyshot. We REALLY need something bigger for these guys!
I got a leg shot from a broadside shot behind the shoulder.
I am pretty certain there's some buggy calculation of the terminal ballistics going on.

Besides that I fully agree with BnB and DtmB on the permitted ammo list.
Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general
Me neither. Isn't that what harvest value is for? Too big a gun and you ruin too much meat - I.e. harvest value? (Besides that it's not that simple a correlation IRL - shooting whitetail in the engine room with a .500NE solid would probably not only not cause any meat damage, but also lead to some blood tracking being necessary).
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ― Isaac Asimov
User avatar
caledonianblues
Master Hunter
Posts: 9725
Joined: September 27th, 2012, 11:01 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by caledonianblues »

Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general (aside of commercial factor).
There is no other factor. I'm sure nobody at Expansive Worlds would really care what you shoot the animals with. Like Knut said, harvest value could be used as the determining factor as to whether you went over the top with your choice of ammo. The objective of the company when they release a new weapon is to sell as many of them as possible. If a weapon has a unique purpose, that will promote sales. If you could take 90% of the animals in the game with one rifle, that would seriously impact sales. I know it wouldn't stop everyone from buying other weapons, but it's a generalisation. A lot of players only buy weapons because they have no other choice. If the choice had been there from the start, I'm confident the company would have generated significantly less revenue from weapons, and ultimately that would have resulted in a reduced selection/choice for everyone.

I don't always agree with the restrictions, and I haven't shot enough sambar yet to have an opinion about the permitted ammo list. But I understand the underlying reasons behind the system, and accept it because I know this is a game produced by a company that must make money. It's not real life, and none of the rules need apply.
User avatar
D3AKUs
Hunter
Posts: 852
Joined: March 8th, 2017, 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by D3AKUs »

Just used the .300 for the first time on Sambar. And for the first time i have seen a Buck drop in his tracks. No clue how the caliber compares to 7mm in real life. Ill test that one some more before i switch to 30R and see how that goes.
User avatar
Fletchette
Trophy Hunter
Posts: 7317
Joined: September 10th, 2013, 8:30 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by Fletchette »

caledonianblues wrote:
Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general (aside of commercial factor).
There is no other factor. I'm sure nobody at Expansive Worlds would really care what you shoot the animals with. Like Knut said, harvest value could be used as the determining factor as to whether you went over the top with your choice of ammo. The objective of the company when they release a new weapon is to sell as many of them as possible. If a weapon has a unique purpose, that will promote sales. If you could take 90% of the animals in the game with one rifle, that would seriously impact sales. I know it wouldn't stop everyone from buying other weapons, but it's a generalisation. A lot of players only buy weapons because they have no other choice. If the choice had been there from the start, I'm confident the company would have generated significantly less revenue from weapons, and ultimately that would have resulted in a reduced selection/choice for everyone.

I don't always agree with the restrictions, and I haven't shot enough sambar yet to have an opinion about the permitted ammo list. But I understand the underlying reasons behind the system, and accept it because I know this is a game produced by a company that must make money. It's not real life, and none of the rules need apply.
I think one thing that people sometime miss, is that not all of the weapons have always existed, they've been released over time. This results in a timing issue, where the animals and weapons are assigned a permitted list based on the game at that time.. This sometimes results in decisions that in hindsight they might have done differently. Said another way, they get caught in box or no-win situation based on what's been done before, and the fact that people go ballistic if they change permitted species after the fact (especially removing a species from an existing weapon).

So take for example, the bison release. It was introduced with WRR, and the 45-70 was released at the same time as the result of this new large and tough species. But, they didn't want to make it look like you HAD to buy a new weapon to hunt the new species, and it was the ONLY rifle for that species other that the in-line muzzleloader, so they permitted the next tier down of rifles (based on power). Subsequently the 45-70 Buffalo rifle, and the .340 Weatherby were released, which is the new most powerful rifle in the game. These three created a new "monster" class of rifles. If all three had already existed before the Bison was released, they may well only allowed that class for the Bison.

Now along comes the Water Buffalo, and the three monster class rifles are already in the game, so they set that class for the new buffalo because it's a large tough animal. To be consistent they would probably prefer to change the Bison to the same list, but as I said earlier, a bunch of people would go bananas of they removed the lower class (.300, .7mm, 9.3 X 62, etc.) front the Bison list. This creates an inconsistency, but it's understandable if you think about the order of release.

I think if people thought about it fairly, this would explain a number of the apparent inconsistencies in the permitted lists, dating back many years.
Personal Bests...
Image
Image
User avatar
Knut
Outfitter
Posts: 4847
Joined: May 25th, 2012, 12:08 pm
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by Knut »

Fletchette wrote:I think if people thought about it fairly, this would explain a number of the apparent inconsistencies in the permitted lists, dating back many years.
I see where you are coming from and understand it to a degree.

But on the other hand I cannot really overcome myself and accept it as an argument. These inconsistencies could've easily been avoided if a) coming up with a long-term plan that accounts for eventual species to come on the first hand when the weapon system was having the last major overhaul or b) simply sticking to RL.
Inconsistencies in the game aren't entirely avoidable, I agree. But the developers should put maximum effort into minimising them.
And imo a good compromise would be to merge the two conflict zones water buffalo and bison halfway. Not many complain about the .300 or 7mm win mag not being permitted on water buffalo (and no one about the 8x57, btw), but a lot would like to see the 9.3 being permitted. That'd be a good crossover point to minimise the inconsistency in my eyes rather than allowing only the two huge game cartridges on water buffalo, but four additional big game calibres (of which one, the 8x57, is certainly rather too light) on bison.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ― Isaac Asimov
User avatar
DanthemanBoone
Outfitter
Posts: 3871
Joined: October 30th, 2009, 5:32 pm
Location: Rotorua New Zealand
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by DanthemanBoone »

caledonianblues wrote:
Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general (aside of commercial factor).
There is no other factor. I'm sure nobody at Expansive Worlds would really care what you shoot the animals with. Like Knut said, harvest value could be used as the determining factor as to whether you went over the top with your choice of ammo. The objective of the company when they release a new weapon is to sell as many of them as possible. If a weapon has a unique purpose, that will promote sales. If you could take 90% of the animals in the game with one rifle, that would seriously impact sales. I know it wouldn't stop everyone from buying other weapons, but it's a generalisation. A lot of players only buy weapons because they have no other choice. If the choice had been there from the start, I'm confident the company would have generated significantly less revenue from weapons, and ultimately that would have resulted in a reduced selection/choice for everyone.

I don't always agree with the restrictions, and I haven't shot enough sambar yet to have an opinion about the permitted ammo list. But I understand the underlying reasons behind the system, and accept it because I know this is a game produced by a company that must make money. It's not real life, and none of the rules need apply.
While the argument you present has merit in the general sense , allowing the 45.70 for Sambhur is not going to make one iota of diference to the weapon sales. It might increase them.
There are already several rifles in the 7mm class that could be used for Sambhur .... but hunters would still have to buy the .340 or the 45.70 in order to shoot buffalo with a rifle ... if they didnt already have either. Further more, theres probably no reason the 340 shouldnt be permitted for Sambhur either. the Argument is the same.

I just completed a hunt during which I took several Sambur stags with the 7mm. Every one I shot Ran about 100 yards. The 201 was shot at 78 yrds in the shoulder, Knocked him to the ground then he got up and ran, and ran , and ran.
When I finally finished him after more than an hour of tracking the first shot recorded was shoulder blade. ( body )
I havnt seen such nonsense since I stopped trying to shoot Mules and Whitetails with a 243. For exactly the same reason.
If we cant kill em clean with the permitted weapons we obviously need a bigger gun.
Last edited by DanthemanBoone on December 19th, 2017, 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Old hunters never die.They just sit around the campfires and tell the biggest lies.
User avatar
D3AKUs
Hunter
Posts: 852
Joined: March 8th, 2017, 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by D3AKUs »

DanthemanBoone wrote:
caledonianblues wrote:
Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general (aside of commercial factor).
There is no other factor. I'm sure nobody at Expansive Worlds would really care what you shoot the animals with. Like Knut said, harvest value could be used as the determining factor as to whether you went over the top with your choice of ammo. The objective of the company when they release a new weapon is to sell as many of them as possible. If a weapon has a unique purpose, that will promote sales. If you could take 90% of the animals in the game with one rifle, that would seriously impact sales. I know it wouldn't stop everyone from buying other weapons, but it's a generalisation. A lot of players only buy weapons because they have no other choice. If the choice had been there from the start, I'm confident the company would have generated significantly less revenue from weapons, and ultimately that would have resulted in a reduced selection/choice for everyone.

I don't always agree with the restrictions, and I haven't shot enough sambar yet to have an opinion about the permitted ammo list. But I understand the underlying reasons behind the system, and accept it because I know this is a game produced by a company that must make money. It's not real life, and none of the rules need apply.
While the argument you present has merit in the general sense , allowing the 45.70 for Sambhur is not going to make one iota of diference to the weapon sales. It might increase them.
There are already several rifles in the 7mm class that could be used for Sambhur .... but hunters would still have to buy the .340 or the 45.70 in order to shoot buffalo with a rifle ... if they didnt already have either. Further more, theres probably no reason the 340 shouldnt be permitted for Sambhur either. the Argument is the same.

I just completed a hunt during which I took several Sambur stags with the 7mm. Every one I shot Ran about 100 yards. The 291 was shot at 78 yrds in the shoulder, Knocked him to the ground then he got up and ran, and ran , and ran.
When I finally finished him after more than an hour of tracking the first shot recorded was shoulder blade. ( body )
I havnt seen such nonsense since I stopped trying to shoot Mules and Whitetails with a 243. For exactly the same reason.
If we cant kill em clean with the permitted weapons we obviously need a bigger gun.
Try the .300 seems to pack a better punch for them. Just hunted them with it , got a few and all except one died in their tracks - one was a body shot and i sadly couldnt find him anymore but i badly messed up that shot so its my fault on that part. I also havent noticed abnormal hits on them that occured while using the 7mm.

Also had this amazing view on a hill on a nice herd of Sambar Females :)

Image

had 2 more directly to my left side coming up to me, like 10 meters away. Also 2 males that called a lil bit more on the right. Awesome sight.
User avatar
DanthemanBoone
Outfitter
Posts: 3871
Joined: October 30th, 2009, 5:32 pm
Location: Rotorua New Zealand
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by DanthemanBoone »

I have corrected my score on the runner I descibed in my post. It was actually a 201 not a 291 as originally posted.
Unfortunately i cant corect it in D3AKUs quote.

Cool pic. Have seen several herds of Rusa does of up to seven as well. Killed all seven of one herd by tracking them down, calling them back and shooting them one by one.
Old hunters never die.They just sit around the campfires and tell the biggest lies.
User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: 45.70 for Sambhur

Post by Sherab86 »

caledonianblues wrote:
Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general (aside of commercial factor).
There is no other factor. I'm sure nobody at Expansive Worlds would really care what you shoot the animals with. Like Knut said, harvest value could be used as the determining factor as to whether you went over the top with your choice of ammo. The objective of the company when they release a new weapon is to sell as many of them as possible. If a weapon has a unique purpose, that will promote sales. If you could take 90% of the animals in the game with one rifle, that would seriously impact sales. I know it wouldn't stop everyone from buying other weapons, but it's a generalisation. A lot of players only buy weapons because they have no other choice. If the choice had been there from the start, I'm confident the company would have generated significantly less revenue from weapons, and ultimately that would have resulted in a reduced selection/choice for everyone.

I don't always agree with the restrictions, and I haven't shot enough sambar yet to have an opinion about the permitted ammo list. But I understand the underlying reasons behind the system, and accept it because I know this is a game produced by a company that must make money. It's not real life, and none of the rules need apply.
Ok... But I've only wrote that I don't see anything against 45-70 personally, because I don't see any reasons for "upper limit" for the ammo (aside od mentioned commercial factor). :P
caledonianblues wrote: If you could take 90% of the animals in the game with one rifle, that would seriously impact sales.
Well, aren't .300 or 7 mm RM such a cartridges? ;P
Knut wrote:
Sherab86 wrote:I do not understand "upper limit" of ammo in general
Me neither. Isn't that what harvest value is for? Too big a gun and you ruin too much meat - I.e. harvest value? (Besides that it's not that simple a correlation IRL - shooting whitetail in the engine room with a .500NE solid would probably not only not cause any meat damage, but also lead to some blood tracking being necessary).
I even think, that harvest value should somehow influance the score - at least for those species for with, it would be somehow important IRL - like fur bearers, so for example bobcats, or foxes.
DanthemanBoone wrote:I just completed a hunt during which I took several Sambur stags with the 7mm. Every one I shot Ran about 100 yards. The 201 was shot at 78 yrds in the shoulder, Knocked him to the ground then he got up and ran, and ran , and ran.
When I finally finished him after more than an hour of tracking the first shot recorded was shoulder blade. ( body )
I havnt seen such nonsense since I stopped trying to shoot Mules and Whitetails with a 243. For exactly the same reason.
If we cant kill em clean with the permitted weapons we obviously need a bigger gun.
Or they should be a little bit less tanky. Or looking at this from other perspective, Elks, Mooses, and maybe even Red Deer should be more tanky (but rather in terms of ammount of "life bar capacity" than being bullettproof) - because personally I think that the fact that we can everytime drop them down on place with doble lungs shots is not immersive and not reallistic, and I'm a fan of both (immersion and realism) - but this is just me. ;)
D3AKUs wrote:Just used the .300 for the first time on Sambar. And for the first time i have seen a Buck drop in his tracks. No clue how the caliber compares to 7mm in real life.
Here it is nice article on the subject (but only for factory loaded ammo):
https://ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/fact ... 0-win-mag/

However author is a little biased towards 7mm RM, and currently factory loads for this cartridge are lower too. It is worth to read the discussion bellow the article too.


EDIT: I've forgot. I would have nothing against some changes to the bison's ammo permitted list. Even if this would force me to buy new gun. I'll probably will for water buffalo anyway. And they both should be much more tough in my opinion. Bisons AI could be changed too, to make it harder target.
Post Reply

Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest