bring enough gun !!

^^^ I find it ironic that most people that say someone is hardheaded and argumentative is also being hardheaded and argumentative. caliber wars are waged in a ocean of gray and both sides are arguing black and white.

when a person is asking "is my caliber able to kill ****?" is asking because he/she really does not know. an elk is bigger than a grizzly bear and yet it's easier to kill so some people really don't know better. that does not necessarily mean that they are unskilled. I had almost no handgun experience before shooting my M9 quals and I scored expert first time up so some people are just naturally good or someone may have been shooting for years and is just now considering hunting for the first time.

you cant say it cant be done if it can and you never know what is a good or bad idea based on the fat that you dont know where a posters skill level lies.

EDIT: so far just about everything on this thread has been the argument of marginal versus overkill and you are arguing, quite literally, the absolute opposite ends of the spectrum.
 
Maybe a guy buys a rifle for a particular activity....scrapes and saves for months, now this rifle cans also be acceptable for a different animal, suddenly he has no right to hunt that animal because it doesn't fit some richer guys skill set.....even though the shooter and the rifle are capable.
 
^^^ I'm far from wealthy. I will say that, if it comes to survival of self and family then yes, I do understand hunting with less than adequate calibers had I no other. But... this is not the premise of the OP.;)

ETA: Toned down my wording.
 
Last edited:
If one checks the Colorado Big Game Laws, they will find that a .24 caliber rifle using a minimum of an 85 grain bullet and developing a minimum of 1000 foot pounds at 100 yards is legal for elk.

Colorado has an excellent game department and they based their minimum on what they knew for certain, was plenty of power to kill an elk.

Common sense says you don't take 500 yard shots at elk with a .243, but people do it anyway. Common sense also says one should practice and be proficient with their hunting weapon. Although, as I noted in my first post, not everyone does.

Blaming rifle cartridges that are known to be effective, instead of blaming poor marksmanship and poor decision making is the wrong way of looking at it. Larger calibers than the legal minimum, don't make up for poor marksmanship.
 
the OP was by me . I will try to clarify a little. I do not know the hunter in question, I was having a conversation with someone who did, and we both were
disturbed about this. The fellow was shooting a 25-06 and practiced at known ranges of 100, 200, & 300 yards and was confident in his shooting ability, having
killed several deer( Blacktail, Whitetail, & Muley). He did however misjudge the distance ( elk are big animals). Shooting from a bench and sandbags (rifle rest)
at known distances is not shooting in the field ( uphill, downhill, wind etc...).
I took two Pronghorn Antelope in Wyoming last fall and all my shots were moved by wind 5" to 8". My buck was approximately 160-170 yards slightly downhill broadside(10-20mph winds). I fired, under his belly (miss), fired again (miss, over his back, overcompensated) fired again, drilled him 8" behind the shoulder (aiming at the shoulder). He died after running 30 yards. I was shooting a .280 Rem with 130 grn handloads @ 2850 fps. My point is hunting (shooting) in the field is different. Just Sayin !
 
Last edited:
There are multiple factors in a quick kill with a firearm - shot placement, shot angle(s), knowing your skill limitations and staying within those limitations. bullet type, bullet weight, and cartridge. I believe a majority of lost animals are more due to poor shot placement, poor shot angles and improper bullet design or weight for the game being hunted than the cartridge chosen. Ballistics and bullet performance really is a science. IMO, I would not use a 150 gr or 165 gr deer hunting bullet for a 30-06 and go hunting for a grizzly; but I would not use 200 gr or 220 gr hunting bullet in a 30-06 for hunting deer or antelope either.
 
IMO there is way more wounded animals due to hunter fault than cailber fault.Seen a father & son last weekend hog hunting dad with his 30-06 gut shot and lost his hog untill today,the boy shot his with a 223 in the neck & it went to good use stocking the freezer.So all in all I dont buy into the BIG GUN way of thinking.Most average folks can shoot a small bore much better than a big mag.But thats just Me
 
Last year, American Rifleman had a write up on the Savage .250; and the article mentioned how this cartridge is the choice of many Eskimos for dealing with a polar bear. Any animal smaller, they usually use a .223.

This hunter has people helping to give her advice. It is not a real calm day as you can hear the wind and also see the breath vapors from the elk are blowing to the left. Looks like a quick kill to me. The shot placement is good, and the bullet is also a good match for what is being ask of the cartridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0w1c-gf18
 
I've shot two elk with a .30-06. once with a 150gr Hornady SP and the other with a 180gr Corlokt.
Imho any bullet that traveled the same path through the animals as those two bullets did, would have killed them just as dead.

In other words a .243 or a .25-06 would have done just as well.
 
I don't necessarily think bigger is better. If it's too big for you to shoot well, you're just as unethical as someone taking potshots at a deer with a .22. Can you kill a deer with a .22? Absolutely, poachers love them around here. But you can also maim a deer much easier with a .22 than, say, a .243. My thought it that if my .375 Win will kill a deer or hog immediately, why would I use a .22 Hornet? I could kill a deer with a .22 Hornet surely, but I'd rather have a round with that extra ass. For me it isn't capability, it's about respecting the animal enough to kill it as quickly and painlessly as I can.
 
I'm sure this has been said before, but so sick and tired of people trying to kill large animals with minimal cartridges.(can I shoot an Elk with a .243? or a Grizzly with a 30-30? ). C'mon people!, Aren't we as hunters obligated to dispatch animals as effectively as possible ??
Sorry; just venting against those with egos bigger than their rifle or pistol craft. Too many animals run off to die or don't die, only to suffer for the rest of their lives. ( I am not an animal rights guy ). Just heard a story about the one that got away, because some tool who is a "great shot" took a pop at an elk @ 500 yards away and hit him but didn't recover his animal.
Click to expand...

So, because someone shot at an elk at 500 yards, didn't hit it right, and lost it, you start a thread against minimum cartridges for game?

You didn't even list the cartridge used, and with good reason. That's not the problem. The problem is someone shooting beyond their capabilities, and a bigger cartridge won't make them a better shot. More likely, it'll make them a worse shot, and even less able to make that 500 yard attempt.

I'd much rather see someone using a .243 for elk, and limiting their shots to 150 yards or so than someone using a 30/378 Wby and shooting at 500 yards.

I've make the occasional long shot, but I've also spent my life hunting open country where I get a lot of practice doing it. Even with that, I won't take the shot unless conditions are nearly perfect.

So while I agree with you (use enough gun), I'd stress even more to know how to use it at the range you're going to shoot at. The includes the limitations of the cartridge and firearm, as well as the shooter's.

Daryl
 
The opposite problem is far more prevalent in todays world. People who don't know any better see threads like this and think, "See!? I DO need a 300WinMag to hunt 120 pound whitetail deer!"

Then they go out and buy a 300Mag and go to the range all excited about their new gun. Next memory they have is having their shoulder put back in it's socket in the ER because, obviously, they don't know how to shoot a big rifle like that or they'd already know they didn't need that big rifle....

So, they never practice cuz that thing HURTS! They might have eventually put 8 or 10 rounds through it, flinching like mad, to get it "sighted in" for their hunt. Now they're out in the woods and Mr Bambi steps out at the usual 45 yards or less at which that most kills take place.... you know, 223 range, on a soft-skinned, light-boned, small animal....

They do what they've learned to do with this gun, which is aim very, very carefully... and then SLAP that trigger and JUMP like they've been struck by lightning!

Yeah, even at 40 yards they've managed to shoot Bambi in the wrong end. Now, Mr Bambi has a big hole in his butt, that WILL eventually kill him... in a couple days maybe...

but the shooter is left wondering, cuz he has no idea he shot this thing in the butt.... his eyes were closed and he looked like he just got hit by Mike Tyson, he didn't see the impact.... "My Lord" he thinks "I DO need more gun for these critters! Even a 300WinMag ain't enough gun!"

And the cycle continues... next thread he sees like this he posts his experience, you know, "sterilized" to avoid any implication that it might have been his ineptness with the rifle that caused the problem... and his story convinces some other poor sucker that if that guy couldn't get a deer with a 300WinMag, by God, I better get a 338WinMag for my elk hunt this fall!



So, no, I'm sorry. I buy the "use enough gun" mantra only in the most basic, common sense way. Ability and shot placement are far, far more important than power. I'd much sooner have my 5-2, 120lb wife hunting deer with a 223 or properly loaded 22-250 than my 270WSM. I'd much rather she hunted elk with a 243 and we hunted up close to the animal than have her try to take a shot with a 300WinMag at 300 yards.
 
A wise man knows his limitations. I like to use enough gun, period. At the bench I'm a pretty fair shot (allthough my rifles will generally outshoot me). But when the adrenelin starts flowing I get pretty shaky, no neck shots for this boy. I love hunting and do my utmost to take game humanely. That is why I like enough gun and take the most reliable shot, right behind the shoulder @ center mass. This leaves me a little room for error.
I know guys that use .223 for deer and always go for neck shots. They feel it kills them quicker and is therefore more humane. If you can do that consistently, great. I don't feel that confident in the heat of the moment.
I can't control others, I can only do what I feel is right for me.
 
Yeah, arch, I know what you mean. Heck, I've had a couple of clean misses from having "buck fever". :D Only a couple, though, thank the Lord...

We've had a fair number of threads here on this subject. That's had me thinking back to my own active hunting days. I've mostly alternated between a .243 and an '06. A couple of dozen deer with each. I'd guess that maybe 2/3 of the kills were neck shots. Almost all of the .243 kills were. (Shrug.)

But I started running the brush and hunting when I was a little-bitty, long before I got into centerfire and reloading and all that stuff. I just figure that I'm generally supposed to be able to control adrenalin and hit targets in the field and all that. I guess call it a lucky lifestyle, although I did work at it a lot and it's not all luck. :)
 
Daryl as I posted in #26 the caliber was 25-06 and you don't need a "Magnum" to have "enough gun" ! I use a .280 Rem for deer & antelope and an 8mm Mauser for elk & black bear. Recoil is definitely manageable for the average shooter, IMO. I do reload for my firearms so I am constantly seeking the most accurate combination, and practicing my skill, so that I can make a clean kill. Hunting to me, means shooting all year long, (not 2 weeks before the season begins & put it away for 11 months after), getting within range to make that high percentage shot (body, behind shoulder for me). Not lobbing lead across a canyon & hoping, I'll get a quick kill. Too much distance to really know what's going on, (wind wise) over there. I know all the "long range" shooters are callin me a dipstick right now, but I know my ability(or lack thereof) requires me to get closer. All of my guns are capable, it's a matter of being responsible to yourself, to the animal you pursue, and your fellow hunters.

Guess I should have said "bring enough gun and PRACTICE"
 
I'm still looking for the perfect elk round myself. I have a safe full of magnums that I know I'm going to worry about the kick on a hunt. So for my last 2 elks I used a 7x65R and a 308W respectively. Both well over 2000 ft-lb, and nevertheless both animals had no exit wound. The 7x65R shot was at 220 yards, the 308 lengthwise from a full frontal shot. One recovered after 300 yards, one dead on the spot, so both fulfilled their purpose. But I still have that nagging feeling that maybe a little bit more gun would have been appropriate to leave a trail if I'd needed one. Luckily my wife has declared a moratorium on elk hunting until the freezer is empty, so I have some more time to ponder.
 
Could just be bullet selection too.

Although I wouldn't expect any bullet to exit in a frontal shot.

You might try Barnes TTSX. They penetrate like crazy and do NOT come apart.
 
Daryl as I posted in #26 the caliber was 25-06 and you don't need a "Magnum" to have "enough gun" ! I use a .280 Rem for deer & antelope and an 8mm Mauser for elk & black bear. Recoil is definitely manageable for the average shooter, IMO. I do reload for my firearms so I am constantly seeking the most accurate combination, and practicing my skill, so that I can make a clean kill. Hunting to me, means shooting all year long, (not 2 weeks before the season begins & put it away for 11 months after), getting within range to make that high percentage shot (body, behind shoulder for me). Not lobbing lead across a canyon & hoping, I'll get a quick kill. Too much distance to really know what's going on, (wind wise) over there. I know all the "long range" shooters are callin me a dipstick right now, but I know my ability(or lack thereof) requires me to get closer. All of my guns are capable, it's a matter of being responsible to yourself, to the animal you pursue, and your fellow hunters.

Guess I should have said "bring enough gun and PRACTICE"
Click to expand...

Can't really argue with your choices; they're solid, proven performers.

Personally, I'll choose either a .243 or 7mm mag for deer. Mostly depends on my mood, and where I'm hunting. I've shot critters from coyotes to elk and bison with the 7mm mag, and have yet to have anything take more than a few steps after being hit with it.

All that said, someone here once asked what the minimum was that I'd use for elk. My reply was the .243. It's not a cartridge I'd recommend to others, mostly because if you have to ask, you shouldn't use it. Since I was 10 years old, I've never been without a .243 in my collection, and I know what I can do with it, and well as it's limitations.

I'm not a long range shooter for the most part. I've taken a few (successful) long shots at big game, but I've taken a lot more of them at targets, jackrabbits, and coyotes. When required, I can make them, but I'd much rather get closer. Stalking is fun, and I enjoy it. I also enjoy the taste of venison, so I'll do what I'm capable of doing to put it on the table.

As I said before, a person should know their capabilities and limitations, as well as the capabilities and limitations of the cartridge they use. 500 yards is too far to shoot at elk with a 25-06 IMO, no matter the conditions. I limit myself to about 400 or so with my 7mm mag, even though I can hit them quite a bit farther than that. Elk are tough, so you have to hit them right, and hit them hard.

Daryl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top