Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Why not? Because tracking sucks, and losing game sucks worse. Stick to brain shots if doing that with this chambering.
It's hard for me to understand why, when there are just bunches and bunches of good calibers out there to hunt with....people continue to want to use a caliber which is underpowered for the task and try to justify it. Maybe it's just to prove it can be done. I have no doubt a lot of game has probably been wounded and lost to sub caliber hunting but people continue to try.
Firstly, there are people who use the .30 Carbine for deer who do not try to justify it...they just use it. Secondly, there is no scientific method for determining what cartridge is the minimally effective on deer...it is a matter of opinion only. So, who can say that it is under powered. There are those who will say that a .243 is under powered for deer and give some nebulous or ambiguous statement like, "...there are better choices." In my own view, being that I almost have never (a few exceptions), shot at a deer more than fifty yards away and never any aiming point except side-ways, behind the shoulder, if a .30 Carbine was all I had (there are a lot of deer hunters who do not have unlimited resources to spend on guns), I would use it.It's hard for me to understand why, when there are just bunches and bunches of good calibers out there to hunt with....people continue to want to use a caliber which is underpowered for the task and try to justify it. Maybe it's just to prove it can be done. I have no doubt a lot of game has probably been wounded and lost to sub caliber hunting but people continue to try.
Just a personal observation from the deer woods, but I would bet the 30-30 has hit and lost more game than the .30 carbine ever did. Shotguns probably second on the list.
"Just a personal observation from the deer woods, but I would bet the 30-30 has hit and lost more game than the .30 carbine ever did. Shotguns probably second on the list."
I would say its pretty likely, simply because those are historically the most popular for usage, and not because they are marginal.
The problem with selecting marginal calibers is that those selections are usually based on anecdotal success stories, as there is never any evidence or data available to show how many wounded animals were hit, and never recovered, and written off to "musta missed". Nobody likes to post about the ones they shot that ran off. There is no way to know the percentage of recovery for a given caliber.
What are those "marginal calibers" and how have you determined them to be so?The problem with selecting marginal calibers is that those selections are usually based on anecdotal success stories, as there is never any evidence or data available to show how many wounded animals were hit, and never recovered, and written off to "musta missed".
maybe this will finally be put to rest but after reading some of the rebuttals----I seriously doubt it.
What are those "marginal calibers" and how have you determined them to be so?