Caliber less important than hunting skills(I think magnums are overrated)

PCness

Yeah...there's too much 'PCness'. I don't usually mind someone choosing whatever caliber they use...just so long they aren't so PC about it as to tell me that the 300 Mag. is the mandatory minimum requirement for elk ...or that it's somehow okay to use a 22 on deer... There are often exceptions ie. some folks can use a 204 Ruger or 17 Rem. mag. and take moose with headshots and never have a problem making clean kills. Some people can't make a clean kill on a deer with a 30-06... Sometimes hunting seems to be getting too sanitized and PC... :barf:
 
Then let us conclude, after all of this discussion, that the only caliber needed in North America for big game(excluding) the big bears, is a 30-06 handloaded with the 180 grain Accubond over a charge of IMR 4350...
 
Different tools for different jobs. Magnums have their places. However, if someone wants to use a magnum why shouldn't they be able to? Sure, they're overkill for 100 yard white tail, but why shouldn't someone be able to use a 458 Win. Mag. on squirrels if they so desire? After all, it is an option people are free to choose. Now having said that, yes, I agree that too many people are hung up on the "I need the biggest, most powerful, shoulder bruising rifle I can get" philosophy that many gun magazines seem to be pushing.
 
I suppose that I can hunt with my '92 Winchester 44-40 and go along with the notion that we don't need a Magnum for hunting. So what am I supposed to do with my .44 Mag Trapper? I suppose if I was only allowed one rifle to hunt everything with, I would have to go with a..... I want to say a .356 '94 Win BB, but in all practicality, I guess the .444 will have to do! It can take any big game animal in North America and I would not be afraid of shooting out to a couple of hundred yards or so. Problem is, I can not bring myself to pull the trigger unless I KNOW that is as CLOSE as I CAN GET! By the way, I love bow hunting, but I am getting a little old to pull and hold the old recurve anymore, so I only do it a couple of times a year. Still think if you need a scope for hunting, you must be really in bad shape to need that much advantage. Don't care much for spitzer type bullets either, can't stand getting poked in the leg from the bullets in pants while I wait out a critter.
 
A matter of 'comfort'

While some folks talk about adversely developing a flinch...and certainly a 'magnum' will make a flinch an easy thing to develop...it's also true a person develop a flinch shooting a measly 22. Flinch is not just the result of recoil, but a result of overanticipation to a host of things ie. the sound, the reaction of the game... Personally, I like a rifle that is pleasant to shoot. I don't like muzzle brakes...because of the sound... A caliber such as the 308 seems to offer a nice balance...and in some situations a 243 or a 30/30 is a welcomed component and offers a very rapid follow-up potential. 2 hits from a 30/30 at 150 yards is packing about 2000 lbs of energy
 
I will agree to a certain point that magnums are somewhat overrated.

The first and most important factor is shot placement. Having said that, no matter what you are hunting, you need to have a cartridge that is capable of killing the animal with 1-2 shots. A .243 is definitely enough gun for whitetailed deer. Yes, it is on the lower end of the cartridges one might use for deer, but it is capable of a clean kill none the less. Why use 3-4 times the amount of gun that you need? It seems like overkill to me (key words TO and ME). It absolutely kills me when I get on here and read "I am looking for a gun to hunt deer with. I am looking at getting a nice .300 Win Mag.":confused: I don't understand that at all. Unless you handload, the ammo can get expensive. The excessive amount of recoil will make follow up shots harder. Depending on what bullets you use, you are potentially destroying meat. Oh well. To each his own I guess. I am happy with my .308! Despite not having "magnum" following it's name, it can kill quite a few things!:D
 
300 WM cartriges cost around 1$ a piece.

Despite the cost of them I love it. It may be overpowered for white tail at short ranges, it can be usefull across large corn fields. Cant move across an open 3000 acre field in winter. The recoil is overrated!! It does kick, and does make a second shot harder, but doesnt that mean you should be a better shot to use one? I plan on getting a 308 in the future, but it will be an AR 10.. Most of the deer taken in Iowa are with a bow, not a rifle.. My rifles are not for hunting animals. Magnums do come in handy in the old SHTF senario. As far as wasting meat: Alot of guys hunt for trophy only! Not me.... The loss of a roast, vs just keeping the head. The only down side ive found in the 300 WM is the cost of ammo, and barrel life.
 
I carry a .300 WSM for elk season for one reason:

When I was in search of an elk rifle, I found a barely used Model 70 .300 WSM at a great price. Original owner bought it, put 2 boxes through it and traded it in. Kicked too much for him. If this had been a .30-06 or a 7mm RemMag at a similar discount, then I'd carry a .30-06 or 7mm RemMag for elk. But it's a great rifle and I'm not planning to get rid of it. Since I can't shoot reliably past 300 yards (I'm sure the rifle can, but I'm the weak link), 300 yards is my maximum distance. So the .300 WSM might be a little more than necessary, but it's not absolutely overkill. Unless the elk walks up only 55 yards away, which they've been known to do... :D

A month ago, I was in a gun shop looking at .270 (not WSM, just .270). I told the guy behind the counter that I was thinking my .300 WSM was a little much for mule deer, and wanted something a little lighter. He thought I was nuts. I still want a .270 for muleys, but the bank account says I'd better hold off a while.
 
Fitness for purpose, right?

As I'm approaching my first hunting season ever I talked to everybody that I could before buying a rifle. There is definitely a camp out there that thinks that technology can compensate for a shooters shortcomings. And there seems to be the another camp that scoffs at anything other than the tried and true "oldschool."

But this is prevalent everywhere, whether we're talking a supercharged engine, which will not make you a better driver, or an incredibly advanced, expensive, and fast computer so you can pull up your E-mail a 1/1000 of a second faster. For the racer it makes a difference, for the data programmer, or whatever, i'm sure it makes a big difference. I got the 30-06 for the price of ammunition so I can afford to learn how to shoot. As I get better perhaps a magnum will be the logical progression as I take shots further out, or hunt bigger game.

I have to ask the more experienced hunters out there: At what point does shots become ethically/morally questionable? Can you really shoot game at 500 yards while minimizing the risk of only injuring the animal?

Magnus
 
At what point does shots become ethically/morally questionable?
Click to expand...

An excellent question. My answer is this: Know your weapon's capabilities. Know your personal capabilities. Stay within those capabilities.

As I said above, I wouldn't attempt any shot longer than 300 yards due to my personal limitations. The ammo I've been using is still carrying just under 1800 pounds of energy at 400 yards, so a well-placed shot would be lethal at that range. But since I don't trust myself to be accurate beyond 300, I wouldn't take the 400-yard shot. 500 yards is ridiculously out of the question for me.
 
I have to ask the more experienced hunters out there: At what point does shots become ethically/morally questionable? Can you really shoot game at 500 yards while minimizing the risk of only injuring the animal?
Click to expand...

Actually the problem lays in shooters thinking that if they can hit that target on the range they can also do it in the field. The problem with range shooting is you know how far the target is. Even if its placed at random on a range you often use your estimate will be far more accurate than it would be in the field. The great teacher of field shooting in my experience is the lowly woodchuck. For some it might be the prairie dog. Nothing teaches field shooting like actual trigger time in the field. Put it this way, if you can consistently hit a chuck at unknown ranges, a shot at an elk or deer at those ranges, provided he gives you a decent presentation, is a chip shot. Proficiency with all your firearms and related gear, including a laser, can be acquired by varmint hunting with it.
 
I have been checking distances with a Leupold Lazer range finder...

Upward and downward and level...

In the light breeze...

In perfect lighting...

Anyone... and I mean the BEST of riflemen... who will take a 500 yard shot on a deer or elk has doubtful judgment and questionable honor... unless it is under the most perfect of conditions... with a very good rest... and especially if he could stalk closer and cut the distance to a couple of hundred yards instead...

Yet I am always hearing of some jackass who shoots at running deer at 400 yards with grand pappy's trusty-thutty-thutty and dumps him with one shot...

I doubt most shooters even know what 400 yards looks like in the woods, much less be able to put a rifle bullet through a car's passenger window at such a distance... and that's an area twice the size of the broadside kill zone on a elk. :mad:

I also doubt there are a dozen hunters on the TFL who can read cross winds at 400 yards and then place the round in a zone 8" high and 10" wide...

The great majority of hunters would have trouble seeing the damned animal at 400 yards and, more than likely, wouldn't be able to judge the distance with any degree of consistancy... and then wouldn't have any damned idea of where the bullet is... on it's trajectory to 400 plus yards!! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Pointer, overall you're absolutely correct. Just realize that there are folks out there who are surprisingly competent.

"I also doubt there are a dozen hunters on the TFL who can read cross winds at 400 yards and then place the round in a zone 8" high and 10" wide..."

I've done it. I haven't tried it anywhere near what you'd call "often", but it's not that hard to do if you've been doing a fair amount of shooting away from a range and its benchrests.

But I'm lucky (well, I planned it that way, really) to live where I can drive out in the back country and shoot at way-over-yonder rocks and then (nowadays) check with a range-finder and all that. In my work-at-it hunting days, I'd go out and run through a box of shells every couple of weeks, just to see if I could hit what I was aiming at.

In other words, long-distance shooting when hunting is like any thing else: You have to go out and practice under similar conditions to a hunt. You can't read the Sierra book, or read Ol' Art's advice on TFL and then happily go out and Bust Bambi at 500 yards. :)

It's an old, old deal: Nobody was born an expert anything. Me, or anybody else.

Art
 
I've done it. I haven't tried it anywhere near what you'd call "often", but it's not that hard to do if you've been doing a fair amount of shooting away from a range and its benchrests.
Click to expand...


Me too, but only twice in all the years I've hunted have I shot at 400 plus yards at a deer. I keep turrets on my scope so I can adjust to the range. And If the critter isn't hanging around long enough to set up the shot to my liking I won't take the shot. If the wind is such that I have to hold out of the kill zone I won't take the shot. Put it this way, if a deer has a 9" zone I still want to hold in that zone, maybe to the back or front of it, but the cross hairs are in the zone. Let the wind carry it in. So we are talking a pretty much flat wind. That?s why I would pass on 85% of the shots at that range. "I might get lucky" just isn?t good enough!
 
ART and garryc

YOU DON"T COUNT!

YOU have the discipline to hold off and wait for the conditions to be right...and pass on the shot if they aren't...

I also can do it... But I WON"T because there are just too many variables involved and I can't live with myself if I make a crappy kill...

BTDT once and that was once too often...

I know several shooters who can do that kind of shooting and they have too much respect for the quarry to take unecessary chances. Even if there are 12 shooters on the TFL and those 12 get clean kills 9 out of 10 times at 400+ yards...

It ain't good enough to justify the risk...

Someone on another thread said "WE" aren't responsible for educating the newbies and trash shooters... :rolleyes:

I submit we are responsible for "educating" them incorrectly... :mad:
 
Last edited:
Yeah...

Responsiiblity for teaching is tied in to the threads we get into, here, about clean kill and hunting ethics.

The full package sure ain't somethin' that can be learned in a few weeks. :)

Art
 
Back on the subject of magnum versus reasonable rifles, I agree with folks who don't see the point of magnums. Why shoot a bullet which travels through the deer plus another quarter mile of random air at any angle up to 30 degrees from its original trajectory?
 
Why shoot a bullet which travels through the deer plus another quarter mile of random air at any angle up to 30 degrees from its original trajectory?
Click to expand...

I don't see why it makes a differance what a bullet does after exiting a deer as long as it did its job inside.
 
"I don't see why it makes a differance what a bullet does after exiting a deer as long as it did its job inside."

-Provided you're sure of the target and what is in front of it and beyond it.
 
Magnus, once in a very great while you get a "twofer", but a bullet exiting a deer isn't going far enough to matter to other people, at least not from any historical standpoint. That's a "can happen" in a world of "never happened".

Worry a lot more about a miss--but with all cartridges, not just magnums. That's why you don't shoot a trophy buck on a skyline...

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