What Has Changed?
- Thread starter lizziedog1
- Start date
Technology may have put new types and calibers out there but it hasn't proven that the venerable 100 plus year old calibers and cartridges are substandard... If I was going to buy a long range (200+ yards) deer rifle, it would be a .30-06 or .308. Otherwise, my .30-30 is all I could ever need for whitetails.
Brent
Brent
wyobohunter
New member
Just a thought... I wonder if the black powder and muzzle loader generations thought the same thing about the newfangled smokless powder and cartridge ad campaign? Was it just heavy advertising that sucked us in? Seriously, a .50 cal muzzle loader kills a deer just as dead as anything else.
Or... are most cartridges that were concieved after about 1906 just beyond the point of diminishing returns?
I dunno, I don't feel too strongly and wouldn't kick up dust with anybody on this one, I likes em all - old and new.
Or... are most cartridges that were concieved after about 1906 just beyond the point of diminishing returns?
I dunno, I don't feel too strongly and wouldn't kick up dust with anybody on this one, I likes em all - old and new.
Swampghost
New member
I think that it's just trying to get REALLY specific as to which round is best given a certain circumstance. Where I hunt this can change around the next tree or hammock most of the time.
I'll take 3-4 rifles into camp with overlapping capabilities JIC something should happen. If everything goes wrong, I just have to change tactics to suit the weapon.
I'll take 3-4 rifles into camp with overlapping capabilities JIC something should happen. If everything goes wrong, I just have to change tactics to suit the weapon.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Post-WW II, we've created the wealthiest society in the history of the world. No matter what the artifact, there are more choices, now, than ever in history.
For that matter, when I was a kid, there were--basically--three hunting magazines at the news stands.
The Model 70 came in standard, featherweight or Super Grade. Period. Same for the other few brands available.
No .223, no .243, no .308, no 7mmRemMag or .264 WinMag, etc., etc.
And no Internet for folks to spend hours picking fly-poop out of pepper.
Wealthy folks--and if you live in the US you're weallthy by world standards--you have choices and the leisure time to discuss them.
For that matter, when I was a kid, there were--basically--three hunting magazines at the news stands.
The Model 70 came in standard, featherweight or Super Grade. Period. Same for the other few brands available.
No .223, no .243, no .308, no 7mmRemMag or .264 WinMag, etc., etc.
And no Internet for folks to spend hours picking fly-poop out of pepper.
Wealthy folks--and if you live in the US you're weallthy by world standards--you have choices and the leisure time to discuss them.freakshow10mm
Moderator
What happened was someone in marketing decided to print the kinetic energy figures and market that as the key to killing power.
Look at all the print ads from the hayday of cartridges. Nothing about energy. Some of the most effective cartridge barely broke 2,000fps (30-30 was the first IIRC). Hell the 8mm Mauser was a rocket in it's day and inspired the .30-40 Krag, .30-03, and the .30-06.
Then the magnum era began in the 50s and it's been downhill from there.
Rifle cartridges worth today that were developed after 1970? 7mm-08, 6.5-08 A Square (aka .260 Rem). That's about it. Nothing else comes to mind as being worth it.
22 Hornet
223
22-250
243
257 Roberts
6mm Rem
6.5x55 Swede
.308
.30-06
8mm Mauser
9.3x62
375 Holland
38-55
416 Rigby
45/70
458 Winchester
Just about all a community could ever want.
Look at all the print ads from the hayday of cartridges. Nothing about energy. Some of the most effective cartridge barely broke 2,000fps (30-30 was the first IIRC). Hell the 8mm Mauser was a rocket in it's day and inspired the .30-40 Krag, .30-03, and the .30-06.
Then the magnum era began in the 50s and it's been downhill from there.
Rifle cartridges worth today that were developed after 1970? 7mm-08, 6.5-08 A Square (aka .260 Rem). That's about it. Nothing else comes to mind as being worth it.
22 Hornet
223
22-250
243
257 Roberts
6mm Rem
6.5x55 Swede
.308
.30-06
8mm Mauser
9.3x62
375 Holland
38-55
416 Rigby
45/70
458 Winchester
Just about all a community could ever want.
Changes
What I don't understand , is why do you need a high powered rifle 30-06 or a
.270 to shoot your quarry 50-75 or even a 100 yds away. Those calibers mentioned would work great at those distances. Even a handgun made today works great at those distances. The hunt has changed as did the weapons used today. Back then we walked to hunt, today you sit in a blind and wait .
Its not so much for the meat nowadays but for the trophy mount I guess. I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong..
What I don't understand , is why do you need a high powered rifle 30-06 or a
.270 to shoot your quarry 50-75 or even a 100 yds away. Those calibers mentioned would work great at those distances. Even a handgun made today works great at those distances. The hunt has changed as did the weapons used today. Back then we walked to hunt, today you sit in a blind and wait .
Its not so much for the meat nowadays but for the trophy mount I guess. I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong..
My granddad used a .243 that was made in 1956. I still have it, and I'm planning to use it this year.
I've shot a lot of deer at less than 100 yards, but I've also shot them at nearly 500 yards a time or two.
My hunt hasn't changed. I didn't use blinds much for deer hunting when I was younger, and I don't use 'em much today. Bowhunting aside, hunting deer here is mostly a spot-'n-stalk proposition.
I hunt for the meat on most hunts. A trophy is all good and fine, but I like the meat first and foremost.
However, I don't think your observations are wrong in a general sense. Magazine articles and such have changed the way most folks think of hunting, and an animal of less-then-trophy proportions is frowned on in many circles.
Which is why I pick my hunting partners carefully.
Daryl
Another Theory
I do think alot of this new-fangled hunting technology is designed to make up for hunters' shortcomings. Espically when it comes to practice. We all can agree practice is one thing that can improve any hunters' success.
I don't mean practice shooting, even though that is important, I mean practice being in the woods. In today's world, we just don't seem to have the time to spend scouting and exploring nature. Mountain lions are so good at hunting because that is what they do 24/7. I believe that any fancy equipment, the camo clothes, the scents, the high-tech glasses, are suppose to somehow make up for lack of "real" practice. I suppose they can help. But nothing, I mean nothing takes the place of actual field time. Tiger Woods skills have more to do with the time he spends practicing then the fancy gear he uses. He could beat most of us with second rate clubs, I doubt many of us could beat him with the most expensive, custom fitted clubs.
Sure, fancy gear can help. Heck, I now use a GPS when I take to the woods. I admit, I have a lousy sense of direction. If our house wasn't so tall, I'd get lost in my own backyard. My GPS, however, will never make me a Daniel Boone of the woods.
I do think alot of this new-fangled hunting technology is designed to make up for hunters' shortcomings. Espically when it comes to practice. We all can agree practice is one thing that can improve any hunters' success.
I don't mean practice shooting, even though that is important, I mean practice being in the woods. In today's world, we just don't seem to have the time to spend scouting and exploring nature. Mountain lions are so good at hunting because that is what they do 24/7. I believe that any fancy equipment, the camo clothes, the scents, the high-tech glasses, are suppose to somehow make up for lack of "real" practice. I suppose they can help. But nothing, I mean nothing takes the place of actual field time. Tiger Woods skills have more to do with the time he spends practicing then the fancy gear he uses. He could beat most of us with second rate clubs, I doubt many of us could beat him with the most expensive, custom fitted clubs.
Sure, fancy gear can help. Heck, I now use a GPS when I take to the woods. I admit, I have a lousy sense of direction. If our house wasn't so tall, I'd get lost in my own backyard. My GPS, however, will never make me a Daniel Boone of the woods.
roy
Nice reply. I think that the average deer hunter that has switched to some super-magnum caliber is trying to make up for the fact he might noy be able to stalk to within reasonable shoooting range. Our ancestors that depended on blackpowder rifles had no choice but to try to close the distance before shooting. Their time in the woods led to the skills needed to sneak up to a whitetail. Like you said roy, today's society doesn't provide many of us the luxury of that time in the woods.
Nice reply. I think that the average deer hunter that has switched to some super-magnum caliber is trying to make up for the fact he might noy be able to stalk to within reasonable shoooting range. Our ancestors that depended on blackpowder rifles had no choice but to try to close the distance before shooting. Their time in the woods led to the skills needed to sneak up to a whitetail. Like you said roy, today's society doesn't provide many of us the luxury of that time in the woods.
Very good points Roy!
The polynesian sector in history could set sail on a simple vessel and land where they intended and return for family later... all with out a compass or formal knowledge of the sextant...
The native americans were able to stalk on wary quarry and easily feed the village with simple bows not cable of over 30 pound draw weight and arrows with brittle untrue points and less than rocket science fletching...
Brent
The polynesian sector in history could set sail on a simple vessel and land where they intended and return for family later... all with out a compass or formal knowledge of the sextant...
The native americans were able to stalk on wary quarry and easily feed the village with simple bows not cable of over 30 pound draw weight and arrows with brittle untrue points and less than rocket science fletching...
Brent
Osageshooter
New member
Lots of good comments. I guess I have been around long enough to see the magnum craze go thru change. What Weatherby started was seen as opportunity by most other companies. Now we have the "same thing only shorter" phenomenon, which as many point out, fills the needs of manufacturers more than hunters.
I am glad to see cartridges like the 260 and 7-08 get the respect they deserve when it comes to deer hunting. While a 30-30 harvests deer well, I would go for one of the former given a choice. No deer within 300 yards could be killed better or deader with a more powerful cartridge. They have low recoil and shoot pretty darn flat.
Bucking the Wyoming wind on 400 yard shots, I go with the 7 mag. For most deer hunting, I am grabbing the 7-08 or 260 most of the time. I do take the magnums that I bought in the 70s and 80s out once in a while to keep them from getting lonely.
I am glad to see cartridges like the 260 and 7-08 get the respect they deserve when it comes to deer hunting. While a 30-30 harvests deer well, I would go for one of the former given a choice. No deer within 300 yards could be killed better or deader with a more powerful cartridge. They have low recoil and shoot pretty darn flat.
Bucking the Wyoming wind on 400 yard shots, I go with the 7 mag. For most deer hunting, I am grabbing the 7-08 or 260 most of the time. I do take the magnums that I bought in the 70s and 80s out once in a while to keep them from getting lonely.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
That was back before the radiation from all the nuclear tests caused the deer (and most every other creature) to grow armor plating. You can't just kill a deer the way you used to be able to kill 'em. They got armor now. Nuthin' short of a 300 Ultra Mag will kill a whitetail deer in todays world.
Seriously?
Two main things that I see:
1) The popularity of "Dead Right There". Somehow, some one got it in peoples heads that if you shoot an animal and it doesn't drop like a bomb hit it then you don't have enough gun. Suddenly, having to follow 3 or 4 foot wide blood trails 50 or 100 yards is just too much trouble. God forbid you've got the type of blood trail that's only a steady path a few inches wide and goes 150 yards.... can't be bothered with.... what's the word again.... "woodsmanship" of trailing a fatally wounded animal 100 yards. Get a real gun. By God, if you shot that deer with a 375H&H magnum, or something BIG if you're man enough, well, it would be laying right there where you shot... and when your shoulder healed up, in a few weeks, you could just drag it right out of the woods.
2)Internet (and gun store/box store) experts..... who have never shot a living thing with ANY firearm. They're convinced that it takes this or that new wonder cartridge to do the job and they spread the nonsense to any other armchair hunters who will listen.
Seriously?
Two main things that I see:
1) The popularity of "Dead Right There". Somehow, some one got it in peoples heads that if you shoot an animal and it doesn't drop like a bomb hit it then you don't have enough gun. Suddenly, having to follow 3 or 4 foot wide blood trails 50 or 100 yards is just too much trouble. God forbid you've got the type of blood trail that's only a steady path a few inches wide and goes 150 yards.... can't be bothered with.... what's the word again.... "woodsmanship" of trailing a fatally wounded animal 100 yards. Get a real gun. By God, if you shot that deer with a 375H&H magnum, or something BIG if you're man enough, well, it would be laying right there where you shot... and when your shoulder healed up, in a few weeks, you could just drag it right out of the woods.
2)Internet (and gun store/box store) experts..... who have never shot a living thing with ANY firearm. They're convinced that it takes this or that new wonder cartridge to do the job and they spread the nonsense to any other armchair hunters who will listen.
freakshow10mm
Moderator
Actually, a .375 H&H does less meat damage on a deer than a .270 Winchester.
Swampghost
New member
freak, you left out the 416 Barrett! Still supersonic @ 2500 yds! The ultimate Elk, Goat or Grizz rifle. Lets call out all of the stops.
Personally, I kill for food. I've been through the trophy thing long enough that the palmetto bugs ransacked them, a bunch of wasted money.
Personally, I kill for food. I've been through the trophy thing long enough that the palmetto bugs ransacked them, a bunch of wasted money.
Lots of Changes
Whitetail deer are more plentiful. Restrictions of choices of firearms. Smaller hunting parcels. Less access to hunting land. More educated and serious hunters. Camo clothing. Treestand hunting. Box blind hunting. More focus on "clean kills". DRT focus because deer don't understand property boundries. Cartridges and optics to take advantage of long range oportunities. My father didn't have fancy camo, used an old open sighted Argentine mauser, always tried to "track down" a buck, and was the least successful hunter I have known! He and his buddies only deer hunted the first week of season and it was an exception if anyone in the group killed a deer. I use all the latest technology and bring home the venison. I hunt deer from October 1 until January 1 with bow, shotgun, and muzzleloader. Call me crazy but give me that camo, scope sighted magnum, treestand, box blind, deer scents, etc and the results will speak for themselves. Using a fast and flat shooting rifle does not diminish your hunting skills or make you a poor shooter. There are guys with no hunting skills that are unsuccessful with 30-30's, just like guys that are unsuccessful with 300UM's. It's not the tool, it's the guy behind the trigger!
Whitetail deer are more plentiful. Restrictions of choices of firearms. Smaller hunting parcels. Less access to hunting land. More educated and serious hunters. Camo clothing. Treestand hunting. Box blind hunting. More focus on "clean kills". DRT focus because deer don't understand property boundries. Cartridges and optics to take advantage of long range oportunities. My father didn't have fancy camo, used an old open sighted Argentine mauser, always tried to "track down" a buck, and was the least successful hunter I have known! He and his buddies only deer hunted the first week of season and it was an exception if anyone in the group killed a deer. I use all the latest technology and bring home the venison. I hunt deer from October 1 until January 1 with bow, shotgun, and muzzleloader. Call me crazy but give me that camo, scope sighted magnum, treestand, box blind, deer scents, etc and the results will speak for themselves. Using a fast and flat shooting rifle does not diminish your hunting skills or make you a poor shooter. There are guys with no hunting skills that are unsuccessful with 30-30's, just like guys that are unsuccessful with 300UM's. It's not the tool, it's the guy behind the trigger!
I've killed more deer with a bow and muzzle loader than anything else. I've also blasted them with a 300 WBY. I never wear camo unless I'm bow hunting.
The guys I hunt with for the most part will kill deer with whatever you give them. All this business about magnums and big scopes to overcome poor hunting skills is just hunting periodical pundit regurgitation. Sometimes guys just like their toys.
If all we used was because that's what our father used this would be a boring world and the economy would go to crap.
The guys I hunt with for the most part will kill deer with whatever you give them. All this business about magnums and big scopes to overcome poor hunting skills is just hunting periodical pundit regurgitation. Sometimes guys just like their toys.
If all we used was because that's what our father used this would be a boring world and the economy would go to crap.
