minimum VS maximum cartridge idealogy

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I think it was Mike Irwin on here who used to have in his signature line years ago something like "the internet has given unprecedented voice to the un-informed"."

Not sure that was me. It might have been Tamara. I could have had something of a variation on that, though.

But, unimportant, as the sentiment is true.

Regarding hunting cartridges, I've not hunted in years, and I doubt that I ever will again.

I've always been an advocate of .30 caliber, primarily because, as a handloader, the bullet selection is monumental.

I started out hunting with a .30-06, and later switched to my dream rifle, a Savage Model 99 in .300 Savage.

I also had a 6.5x50 Japanese Arisaka, and always thought I'd love to put the cartridge into a decent rifle so that I could really test its capabilities. I think it would be an incredible East coast hunting cartridge.
 
Mike, I thought that a 6.5 caliber cartridge in the 2500 fps range in a short action would be a great idea. I fiddled with several bolt actions and autos for about 10 years before I found the 6.5PCC. It is a niche cartridge and the developer has not pushed it much, which has resulted in copies, but it is one of my favorites. The ballistics are close to the 6.5x50, but in an AR15 package with just a barrel swap. You might enjoy looking into it if you have not already.
 
Meaning no disrespect to the OP but a 9mm Carbine is preferable to a 243 with 80gr soft point's? Maybe from a meat destruction view but other than that?
Jack O Conner,
I find those old Glenfeilds to be very attractive old "Budget" priced deer rifles. Much more so than the offerings today. Nice old lever.
 
Last edited:
The avoidance of destroyed meat is easy: Don't shoot Bambi in the eating part.

A deer's neck is not a Bobble Head.

Who eats lungs? And, really, of all hunters, how many eat the heart?

Through the years here and at THR, I've read posts and seen photos which seem to show that the hunter's aim at Bambi was "somewhere in the brown".
 
I almost always take heart/lung shots but I'm perfectly capable of making behind the ear head shots even with a smoke pole. However I do not advocate it and I won't do it except in certain circumstances. It's too much room for error.
 
I strongly suspect that the "Tried for a headshot and hit the jaw" stories you hear are usually as Art said, "Somewhere in the brown". My Buddy got a doe once that had a hoof shot off (Fresh). That was a hell of a shot if the guy was aiming there. An old guy we used to hunt with got a doe that had a hole shot in the one ear. I found a really nice 8 point dead with a hole through the main beam and various other holes in the body. The beam hole looked about like .270 or 7MM, so apparently the cartridge was way too light and fast for the job. I occasionally use a 30-30, but a lung hit deer will take off like it was never even hit. I would venture to guess that some of the dead deer I have found were good hits and the shooter never knew it. I spend a LOT of time looking things over after what seems to be a complete miss. I have been surprised more than once.
 
I have only shot one deer in the head. About the time I pulled the trigger, he flopped his head back toward his shoulder. I hit him right in the head and shot the rack clean off of a nice 10 point. I cussed a while and then laughed my rear end off after the humor of it set in.
 
reynolds357 said:
Some days I want to use a tack hammer and some days I prefer a sledge hammer.
Click to expand...
+1

However, I'd say I've almost always been in the minimalist category. My first big game rifle was a .243 Win which in 1988 was pretty much considered a coyote rifle according to most gun magazines. I shot 105 grain Speer bullets out of it and pronghorn and deer just dropped.

When it came to my first elk hunt I borrowed a .30-06 with 180 grain Winchester PP bullets. However, when I bought my first "Elk Rifle" I purchased a .270 Win. Elk fell to 130 & 150 grain bullets just a easily as my first.

So I have a daughter who wanted to hunt at age 9, but she didn't handle recoil very well. So I took her hunting in Oklahoma and let her use her .223 Rem Stevens 200 nicknamed "Bruiser". She was successful with that rifle at the ages of 9 and 10, at 11 I moved her up to a .300 Savage shooting 125 Nosler BT but she wasn't anymore successful. The only reason I moved her up was that she can't use the .223 in Colorado to hunt deer.

I have been using a 6X47 (6mm-222 Rem Mag) to kill pronghorn and white tails for almost eight years now. I have also been using a varmint bullet to accomplish this. Over my limited years of hunting I've learned that shot presentation and bullet placement matter more than cartridge chosen. Bullet construction is important as well, but it is greatly dependent on the speed at which they leave the barrel at. This is why I can get away using a 70 grain varmint bullet and still be successful on deer and pronghorn.
 
I'm catching this thread a little late, but I think that something has been left out.

Aside from the fact that deer vary greatly in size as one moves about the country, I think people in a cartridge debate frame of mind seem to forget how vastly the STYLE of hunting changes by location.

Here is the meat of this post:
Thus the reason Mike Irwin's 6.5x50 would be a GREAT cartridge in New England or other sub-200 yard tree stand hunting, while a '06, .270 or even 7mm Mag might be desirable in Montana and Wyoming as a one gun battery for everything from Pronghorn to Elk. Precise placement is awesome...but where I'm from we stalk more than we stand, and while a meat freezer doe might be passed over due to a suboptimal angle, a trophy buck might receive one of Elmer Keith's "raking shots" if the penetration is available. I've cussed the .233 here in Montana, but would likely gravitate to it in the south if it's legal.

None of these choices are wrong, but wrong cartridges for a given application certainly exist. Animal weight, size & bone and tissue structure, as well as hunting style and potential target angle need to be taken into consideration. Thus the reason a .338 250gr might be a better woods rifle for a steeply quartering away bull elk, but kill 'em "no deader" than a .270/130 does for the guy who shoots them broadside in a meadow. Who is right here? Both of them! Would I uncage a .270 130gr at a quartering bull that requires 4' of penetration? Heck no.

Style of hunting makes as much difference as game size and cartridge capabilities.

And a couple anecdotes:
I knew an 82 year old woman who hunts with a .300 mag...but she used a .222 mag while it was being worked on. She hunts with my Dad, who at 97 still uses a 7mm mag, not because he needs it for white tails in the brush, or pronghorn on the prairie, but because it carries the mail to 500 yards (and previously more!) that he is more than capable of shooting on Mulies and Elk...which could happen on any given whitetail hunt.
My daughter is at the other end of the spectrum. Her .257 is easier for her to carry and shoot, so she hunts Elk with it (120gr partition @2900), relying on good placement and living with the 300 yard practical limit (for Elk, she has killed antelope much farther).
I also met a fellow with a detached retina who takes Elk with a .223, basically "bow hunting" with a rifle until he can get a sub 100 yard head shot.
 
Excellent points made in this thread.

There are many truly great calibers for all kinds of hunting and we are blessed to have so many great options to choose from.

I personally find 7mm08 to be the "best" for Deer hunting in my area of the state of Minnesota. If I was hunting over corn fields, I would favor my 7mmRM instead. I also use a 308 Win, and a 300WSM.

Use what your are good with, and make good kill shots so our food doesn't suffer.

:)
 
Great thread and a current topic of discussion with several folks I hunt with. Growing up in Indiana we have only ever hunted with shotgun and muzzle loaders. A few years ago PCR's came to be legal and a lot of guys jumped on the 44 magnum rifle as the new deer gun. Next came the 450, 458, and 50 calibers that can be shot from an AR. Hence guys have gone to AR's or bolt guns in these calibers. Last year a new rule made it legal to use several new to us calibers including 243, 300, 308, 30-06 and several others that are similar. This has stirred up some debate and thought around caliber choice. Growing up here a lot of guys think real men only shoot big bullets/slugs for deer. If it doesn't blow a giant hole in them it ain't good enough or ethical. Now, we all know that this is incorrect and that a 243 is a great round for deer. However, when shotgun is all you have known most of your life it can be odd to think of killing deer with a 243 if you don't understand the ballistics and shot placement. I came across a 300 blackout upper at a show and grabbed it for a good price. Now I will likely use this as my go to gun for my property in southern Indiana. It is really like bow hunting with a rifle as long shots are out of the questions in this particular terrain. Being a newb to these types rounds the idea I can kill deer with such a light and recoil free rifle is almost alien to me. I have carried a 10+ pound single shot slug gun for over 10 years. Even though I know the round is sufficient I admit to some uneasy feelings about using it. Just one of those things. Come fall I will hopefully get used to the idea and enjoy a new option for the deer woods.
 
Talking about deer moving their head; I shot the rack off a nice trophy whitetail. I had me a nice bead drawn just behing the shoulder. Just as my finger had reached the point in the trigger pull that there was no turning back, I witnesses the deer start to throw his head back. Well,ling story short, I shot his rack off and then hit him in the lung. He was dead from the top of his head being peeled off, but definitely not what I intended to happen. There is no way I would intentionally shoot a deer in the head.
 
I remember when the shotgun areas were started in SE PA. Wounded deer running all over the place. I used to check fox traps from my truck with binoculars and saw a LOT of wounded deer during the shotgun season. Most hunters just grabbed their favorite shotgun and went hunting. Not too bad anymore since guys started buying shotguns dedicated to slugs. Slug size has nothing to do with killing deer.
 
Slug size has nothing to do with killing deer.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. Virtually all shotgun slugs will kill a deer but some are more accurate than others, i.e., a sabot slug is more accurate and, therefore, enables a hunter to humanely shoot a deer at longer ranges. Accuracy is also improved with a rifled barrel. And, of course, a sabot slug has a smaller diameter than a Foster slug.
 
Why is your statement accurate? Certainly a hit with any slug at sufficient velocity in a vital location, i.e., heart, lungs or liver (or brain or far enough forward in the spine) will be kill a deer. A sabot slug is more accurate than a Foster lead slug at any range, and is probably at higher velocity at the same range than any Foster slug. Is a .410 Foster slug as lethal as a 12 gauge slug at 100 to 150 yards?

Edit: Simply repeating a statement doesn't explain the reasoning in support of the statement. Maybe I should have simply asked what do you mean by this statement:

Slug size has nothing to do with killing deer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top