bring enough gun !!

Gut check

I have no issue with people using whatever they want to take an animal so long as the animal is dropped quickly.

First, for those who think they can make a 500 meter shot, I't probably been 10-20 yeas since you've seen the Marine Corps, so you need to actually do some target practice at the range to see if you can still make a clean shot at that distance. And holding a 1 inch group with a scoped rifle at 100 meters does not count.

Second, any animal will drop with a .22 lr to the brain, but will it penetrate deep enough into the chest? Will it cause enough damage? Or, will that bullet just break the animals shoulder blade because you tried to take it with a 500 meter shot with a 30-30?

I'm not advocating any specific caliber here, because I tend to stick with what has worked in the past. I'm not saying I wouldn't get my sights on an elk at 500 meters with a Remington 700 / .308, but by the time I felt it was ready to start the squeeze (probably 10 minutes later) the darn thing would probably be gone. What I am saying is to actually check your skills on a regular basis and that there is rarely suck a thing as overkill.
 
I read the first couple pages of the thread and saw nothing I disagree with. Except this by bigfatts:

" It doesn't matter if it's a game animal or a pest or nuisance animal. Taking the chance of wounding something and leaving it to die a slow painful death either from the shot or starving because it's crippled is simply inhumane. "

Game animals I agree. Pest and nuisance in my world are coyotes. Except they aren't just pests or nuisances. They like to kill my calves. Cattle are at an all time high in price because they are at a record low in numbers. I have land payments, cattle payments, and equipment payments to make from my cattle sales. Every calf that I took to market in January of this year (born February through march last year) has 20 months of my time and work invested in it. More than that if you want to go back to sorting through and picking which bulls will go with which cows based on genetic combinations. 20 months to get a return on my investments of time, work, and money. If you don't raise livestock, you don't know the feeling of finding a newborn half-eaten by a coyote. If you don't know that feeling, don't preach to me about what is and is not ethical to use on a coyote. I'd gouge their eyes with a plastic spoon and let them starve to death if I could get close enough to one.
 
It goes both ways, some will feed the ego by using too little gun and some feed the ego by using too much gun. I remember reading an old hunting guide and it said that you want to shoot a cartridge that'll give you 250 ft lbs at the animal.

I don't call people out on it but imo, these guys who shoot game at extreme distances aren't really hunting. I know a lot goes into the shot at that range and I think it would be an accomplishment to make that shot...but it's not hunting, it's more about the shot.
 
I'm a bit fond of cannons and essentially lazy. Tracking game through 300 yds of dense brush isnt exactly my cup of tea. I prefer that the game drop within 50 yards or so. Since I quit hunting with the smaller cartridges all my game has remained within 50 yds of impact. Yes, I get as close as I can and yes, I put the bullet through the vitals. Ive had to track deer shot in the heart with 150 gr corelokt 06 for about a quarter of a mile (its amazing what they can do) but with the 300, 50 yds has been the limit.

Interior damage is much different too. With the 06, damage was kept close to the bullet channel. With the 300, internal organs were all damaged.

To each their own.
 
mdd... in your situation I can certainly understand taking every shot you possibly can even if you can't guarantee a clean kill. However, I'm sure you would never intentionally only wound a coyote knowing that the beast will suffer. I'm sure you'd agree that is indeed cruel.
 
My problem with using big and powerful guns on animals is it destroys a lot of meat. In my opinion, a .243 does a lot of damage. Some guys use .300 mags and its way excessive.

And about the .243 shorts, I've never heard of a gun that uses them. But I seen a box of ammo at gander mountain. Weird store, carries a bunch of oddball stuff but can't even order 10 gauge shells.
 
My problem with using big and powerful guns on animals is it destroys a lot of meat. In my opinion, a .243 does a lot of damage. Some guys use .300 mags and its way excessive.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

When i hunt in WV i take the deer to a processor who is a long time friend. By noon the first day of hunting season there are rows of deer awaiting processing. i always walk down the rows; amazed at how badly some are shot up. It's not unusual to see a deer thats been shot through both hams and both shoulders. When you look at the tags; the vast majority of shot up deer were killed by out of state hunters.

Most WV hunters pick their shots carefully and lose very little meat. The owner tells me hunters often get incensed when they get their shot up deer back in one grocery bag.
 
Last edited:
^^^ The title of the thread is "Bring Enough Gun", not "Bring Too Much Gun".;)

What's so difficult to understand about not using a .22LR on deer? The OP isn't suggesting using a .50BMG. He's just suggesting to use common sense.:)
 
Shooting deer through all their meaty parts isn't a caliber specific problem either.

I've seen deer shot with every power level imaginable, short of 50BMG. In every instance, from archery to 12ga to muzzleloaders and rifles, meaty parts that got shot get ruined. Meaty parts that didn't, aren't ruined.
 
I don't think anyone is advocating using less than enough gun. The debate comes in where is that line. Once you reach that mystical level of having enough gun for the situation, animal, range, and shooter all else is under the control of the one pulling the trigger. A miss or gut shot from a .30-06 is no better than a miss or gut shot by a .30-30. If no one wanted to use "marginal" weapons or methods there would be no archery or black powder season. In those cases the hunter must even better understand their and their equipments limitations.
 
^^^ IMHO, the OP expressed common sense boundaries regarding "bringing ENOUGH gun". That's my opinion too and, I'm NOT a hunter, but I do care about dispatching an animal as humanely as is practicable while still retaining the most meat.

Too many folks don't seem to care as much about humane kills as they do about saving 2 cents or bragging rights.
 
My interpretation of the op's post was an acceptable group of calibers for each type of animal. Not 22lr for a moose. It is all about common sense, and even more about using the right judgement when deciding to take the shot.

I think buck fever accounts for most of the injured animals. A hunter must pass on the shot if all is not within a predefined set of rules. If you have a mental checklist of firing rules then you have time, or may bypass buck fever all together. Each can have thier own set of parameters but....everyone should include mental and physical state of the hunter.


I use .223 on wild pigs, and I have caught crap for it. But because I am very disciplined about my shots, none have run away. This has been proved on many pigs too numerous to even count anymore.
 
Stopped reading page 2, but still wanted to throw my experience in.

My first Mulie, 30-06 180 grain SP, 150 yds through the lungs, 160ish pound doe ran about 100 yards.

Brothers first Mulie, 243 110 grain SP (if i remember correctly), 200 yds through the lungs, 200+ pound buck took about 10 steps and dropped.

Had a friends dad who I hunted with a few times, day trips elk mostly, 25-06, took an elk just about every year. Watched him make a 300 yd shot on a nice sized 5x5, dropped where it stood.

Know your limits (yes I know for a fact I can make a Sub MOA shot to 800yds over flat land if i have my kestrel) know your rifle and ammuntions limits (I know how much est. energy all my rifles have, 223 all the way through 7mm remmag, has out to 800 yds, though I'd never make an 800 yd shot in the field).

The deer/elk/moose/bears haven't got bigger- while ammo performance and lethality has got better. Hunters have always made bad calls and lost alot of game, but this new fangled internet has probably made you more aware of those who do.
 
I do most of my deer hunting with a .44-40 or .30-30. Never have lost one yet. With the .44-40, I have shot deer from 25 yards out to about 110 yards and none of them went more than ten yards after being hit. Like many have said on here, it's about knowing the limitations of you and your gun. Not what size cartridge you use. I have read about buffalo being killed in the 1800s with the old .44 rimfire Henry round, albeit from close range. Luther "Yellowstone" Kelly is said to have killed 42 of them with a Henry rifle. For those that don't know, it's kinda like a pistol round. The only deer I had to track (that I shot) was the first deer I ever shot. I was twelve and I shot a doe at about 20 yards with a .30-06. I was nervous and "jerked" the trigger. The bullet just grazed the deer's neck, but cut deep enough to cut her jugular. She went about 100 yards before she bled out. At least she was easy to follow.
 
mike1234

thanks for the support! It's true I said "bring enough"--"not too much" , I don't even own a magnum rifle. 7mmx57, 8mmx57, .280 Rem, .300 Savage, .375 winchester; all of these have different limitations, but I know their limitations and use them accordingly for the task at hand. There seems to be a lot of emotion tied up in this topic. I agree with all those voices about having the skill to accomplish that goal(1 shot-1 kill), as I stated earlier in this thread, it is all of our responsibility to maintain proficiency of our craft to insure a quick & clean kill. I'm not the guy that missed the shot !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top