Magnum rifle Stereotypes

oooh and aaah

That's what I usually get when the 26" barrel pre 64 300 H&H comes out. I have been questioned regarding the sanity of using my Mod. 700 in 300 RUM.
As a matter of fact, right now I'm looking for a South Gate Weatherby Mauser actioned 300 weatherby mag. I don't need it, don't have much use for it, but I want it.
 
I just looked up the prices for .300 Weatherby Magnum ammo and I'm not sure what would hurt more, my shoulder or my wallet.
Have whitetail deer become so bullet proof that a .30-30 won't kill them anymore?
 
The Mag

For the most part I shoot either my .223 or .308 they work well enough for me. I did however buy myself a reward for quiting smoking for over 1 year and that was a .338 Win. Mag. and I really love it. It isn't cheap to shoot $1.75 for reloads so isn't to bad. Recoil isn't bad cause it has a muzzle brake which really cuts it down. So I vote to each his own and my next target will be a mile and do it accurately.
 
While I'm not a fan of magnums, the 300 win mag is very flat shooting. A 150gr bullet can be sighted 3" high at 150-ish and be just 3" low at 325-ish. Step up to a 180, and you only lose about 20 yards from both numbers.

The 30-30, at +/- 3" is only at 225-ish.

I'll stay with my 140gr 7-08, 3" high at 140, 3" low around 280-290. The extra 40 yards isn't worth the recoil to me. If I needed the energy, maybe, but I don't and probably never will.
Click to expand...

319 yards according to JBM ballistics, that is with a boat tail spire point bullet with standard temp and pressure and muzzle velocity of 3250 fps. A 30-06 pushing the same bullet at 2900 fps has an mpbr of 287 yards. It works out to ROUGHLY every 100 fps velocity gives you about 10 yards further max point blank range.

However, you can get to 260 yards with the 30-30. http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/guns/rifles/2007/09/perfect-zero

There are those who are convinced that an extra 25~30 yards gained on max pbr zero is well worth it to own and shoot a magnum. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you only shoot a few rounds a year, and you get that once in a lifetime hunt, I can definitely see where that opinion holds some weight. However, no ballistic argument can replace the skill to put bullets on target, which is sometimes what it seems like "magnum shooters" are trying to do.

Jimro
 
The problem with all this talk about 300+ yard shots is that for most hunters, the flatness of the trajectory is not what determines the maximum yardage at which a sure kill is likely. To keep a bullet within a six inch clean kill zone at these ranges takes a lot of practice, even with a flat shooting rifle. A lot more practice than the typical deer hunter gets, especially when you consider the fact that when you see a deer that's 300+ yards away, it's almost a sure bet that there will not be a solid benchrest with sandbags handy from which to take that shot from.
How often do you see shooters practicing standing or kneeling offhand rifle shooting at 100+ yards at a public shooting range?
 
Personally, I think they're just jelous you have a Weatherby. After all, that's not just a hunter's rife, it's a sportsman's rifle!

Me, I still saving up for my first 9.3x62 but that's not a magnum, of course. I had a .45-70 that would make my shoulder black and blue and it wasn't a magnum either. It was probably the steel buttplate to blame and anyway, I probably wasn't holding it properly.
 
I have never seen the down side of shooting the fastest, flatest shooting bullet you can in the weight range you judge best for the animal you are trying to kill, as long as the recoil is manageable.
 
Me, I still saving up for my first 9.3x62 but that's not a magnum, of course. I had a .45-70 that would make my shoulder black and blue and it wasn't a magnum either. It was probably the steel buttplate to blame and anyway, I probably wasn't holding it properly.
Click to expand...

The 9.3x62 is a sweet round. I love mine, probably should shoot it more...

Jimro
 
ZeroJunk said:
I have never seen the down side of shooting the fastest, flatest shooting bullet you can in the weight range you judge best for the animal you are trying to kill, as long as the recoil is manageable.
Click to expand...

Nor have I, but "manageable recoil" is the kicker, pun intended. ;)

In the best of worlds, it varies from person to person.

Throw in the large % of people who *think* they shoot these things fine, but don't, and then all the people who maybe DO shoot them fine and so think everybody does/should, so they recommend them to everybody...

It gets messy.

I think a lot of us aren't intellectually honest when we say how well we handle magnum rounds. As I mentioned earlier, the 12ga "click test" is a real eye opener. The same phenomenon occurs with hard kicking magnum rifles too.

Ultimately, I have no issue if people choose to shoot or hunt with these power house cartridges. You can hunt deer with a 50BMG for all I care. The issue I have is when people argue that a 308, 7mm-08, 30-06, 25-06, 270.... (the list goes on and on).... are not enough gun for elk, EVEN DEER.

THAT is insanity. If you recommend or shoot these guns because you think you NEED one, and you're in North America, you're insane.

I was watching a hunting show awhile ago... guy shoots an elk with a 375HH mag. Elk runs a few yards, stops and stands there doing the "oh, I don't feel so good" dance. Guy blasts it again. Elk runs up a hill a ways, stops and is just about to tip over, like, as it's tipping, the guy blasts it again. Elk falls down. This guy looks at the camera and say something like, "See, that's why you've got to have a lot of gun for these animals, even this 375 is just enough."

That guy, is an Idiot. The thing would have dropped 40 yards from the first shot if he hadn't shot it again. :rolleyes:
 
I have yet to see a good hunting rifleman that couldn't handle at least up to the 300 Magnums just fine, although he may not want to.

And , I have yet to see a bad hunting rifleman shoot anything great.

I suppose if one shoots an elk in the foot he can blame it on the cartridge if it comforts him.
 
Elk are tough critters, but genetically they are the same as the British Red Deer (they can cross breed and produce fertile offspring). Plenty of elk and red deer taken with sedate cartridges over the years, including such "diminutive" rounds as the 222 Remington and 30-30 Winchester. There is a guide in Colorado who uses nothing but a 25-06 for elk....

It isn't like elk are going to charge you like a Cape Buff...now there is a beast that would make me reach for a magnum, although it is legal in Zimbabwe to hunt Cape Buff with my 9.3x62.

Jimro
 
There is something to be said for using a powerful cartridge if you want something that will penetrate all the way to the heart if you hit him in the tail. All talk about sportsmanship and waiting for a good shot is meaningless if you haven't seen your first deer by the last day of the season. But I'm sure most here are luckier than that, even when the deer seem to know where to go so they won't be shot at.

But there are other things at work here and not just with magnum calibers. Ever notice how rifles have lost weight over the years, just as we have gained weight. Lighter rifles are easier to pack but you lose the one thing that helps tame the recoil more than anything and will also usually have something whish isn't as steady in the hand (and off the shoulder) as old fashioned rifles. A very old Winchester single shot in, I think, .32-40, that lived at a place in the country where I also lived for a while was just about was the most muzzle-heavy rifle I ever handled and it was just plain heavy, too. But it had an old-fashioned curved butt plate that I doubt many would like these days. It had an octagonal barrel that was easy to keep steady, even if the .32-40 was a long way from being a powerful cartridge. Can't have everything, you know.
 
One of my hunting partners bought an HS Precision and put a ridiculously expensive Swarovski up to 20 power or something like that on it. It's in 7 RUM and feels like it weighs about 15 pounds. But, he has killed two nice bulls with two shots, and he probably hasn't shot a rifle a hundred times in his life. Certainly things to be said for heavy rifles.

I wouldn't tote it around for it.
 
15lbs is a bit more then i want to haul around but it brings up another point. I hear guys all the time complain about the recoil of a 300 mag out of a 8lb rifle but ask them what they use and they say something like a 7lb 06. Other then a bit more muzzle blast a light o6 hits the shoulder just as hard as a 8lb 300 win mag. If there is any differnce its to small to even mention and if a shooter is capable of handling a light 06 he sure should have no problem stepping up to a 300 mag.
 
True enough, on the weight. My old neighbor had a 10ga single shot that looked like it should kick like a mule, but it was ridiculously heavy. It wasn't even unpleasant. My dad has a single 12, that looks like a miniature of that 10. The 12 kicks MUCH worse. In fact, that 12 is THE WORST recoiling gun I have ever fired. That thing must weigh like 3 pounds.
 
Agreed. The lighter person gets moved farther and easier, thus soaking up less of the recoil energy over a longer period of time.

Just think how much recoil you would feel if you fired a magnum with your shooting shoulder pressed up solid against an immoveable wall!
 
Makes sense to me! My uncle who is barely 5'6" and not much over 100 pounds, shoots a 7mm mag for deer hunting. Seems to kill a lot of deer with it! But I'll happily stick with my .30-06.
 
Dare I say

that i dont feel comfortable shooting higher that a 30-06? I mean Im a small guy (5'6" 135pounds) and I CAN shoot a .50BMG and have but don't care for it because I have tighter groups at even 200yards with my good ole -06. (My fault not gun's)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top